uggs uk cheap Thomas Wright Sulcer
Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. Here are pointers for a quick start. Just look at CZ:Getting Started for other helpful “startup” links, and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. Be sure to stay abreast of events via the Citizendium L (broadcast) mailing list (do join!) and the blog. Please also join the workgroup mailing list(s) that concern your particular interests. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you’d like. If you need help to get going, the forums is one option. That’s also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any constable for help, too. Me, for instance! Just put a note on their “talk” page. Again, welcome and have fun! Roger Lohmann 17:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Welcome once more, Thomas! I saw the note you left for Roger and think that CZ:Introduction to CZ for Wikipedians may be a good place to start exploring the differences to Wikipedia. In case of further questions, you can usually ask anyone you see on Recent Changes. Cheers, Daniel Mietchen 01:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I’m not at all familiar with Wikipedia operationally, so I really can’t answer, but Daniel’s suggestion of starting with the Introduction to CZ for Wikipedians is a good one. Roger Lohmann 03:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Roger! Thomas Wright Sulcer 12:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding your question on importing an article. If the article as you write is (almost) entirely written by you, it can be imported without WP credit, but you should leave an explaining note on the talk page. You can also import it first to a Sandbox of your user page, and later move it to its intended place. Peter Schmitt 12:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Peter! Thomas Wright Sulcer 13:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Forgot to say: It is also useful to mention it in the edit summary. Peter Schmitt 13:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello. So within a span of just 8 months you made significant contributions to 50 articles? That’s impressive. (Chunbum Park 18:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC))
Nipple of Knowledge
I don’t think so. I’m glad to know you are an alumnus of U of R. The campus is nice, the professors are very demanding and competent, and food is tolerable at worst and usually quite decent. (Chunbum Park 18:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC))
When I was there, somebody had painted an elaborate, accurate large sized (5’x10′) dollar bill in one of the hallways. Is it still there? My dog used to swim in the Genesee River. My senior year they completed the Wilson Commons and the new building was a joy to be inside; but by now the structure is probably showing its age, right? Thomas Wright Sulcer 18:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Also my friend Terry Gurnett is the head of women’s soccer at U of R. I wrote a Wikipedia article about him. He’s won over 400 games. Thomas Wright Sulcer 18:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I don’t think the dollar bill drawing is stilla round. Wilson Commons is still quite nice. I don’t notice anything about it that’s old. I’m sure there are more students of foreign and minority origin than when you were here. A phenomenon I’ve been noticing is that a lot of Asian students hang around by themselves and don’t even associate much with their hallmates. I’m one of few Asians who mix in well. (Chunbum Park 21:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC))
Too bad that dollar bill was great one of the landmarks but it needed to be maintained and kept free of vandalism, so it probably succumbed. I’m a big believer in mixing as well; I married an Asian. And I’m part Asian myself Cauc Asian. What are you studying at U of R? Thomas Wright Sulcer 21:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow! Lots of good ideas.
Thanks Howard! Thomas Wright Sulcer 14:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
First, I may have confused you regarding quotes in citations. While it’s indeed a preference, not a rule, that substantive quotes should not be in footnotes, don’t lose them completely. Indeed, most of the quotes I have seen in your imports are meaty and belong (at least paraphrased) in the main article. We tend not to have as much use of several cites in sequence, but, in some of the cases, the quote is what distinguishes the sources. You may be able both to add to the main article and to avoid the sequential quotes by moving the quoted material into main text.
My thinking about the quotes was developed from working with Wikipedia. There were so many readers/editors who could come along and change stuff I wrote in a jiffy, undoing my work, in essence rendering my contribution nil. So, how could I prevent this? References. I saw inline reference citations as a great tool where a reader could,
with two mouse clicks, check the source. If other wikipedians were like a giant wind of change, the references were like tent pegs anchoring my stuff. And the quotes within a reference citation made their checking even easier, since they could hunt for the exact text in the article if they wanted; further, I could cut and paste the quote right in the citation itself. This was my purpose. Generally, it worked on non controversial articles. But on highly controversial articles like WP’s “terrorism”, references didn’t matter; there was a hard core of administrators who have a fixed view of what terrorism is and isn’t, and reverted everything I did or even other well meaning contributors did. It wasted my time. It was one of the major reasons I decided to quit Wikipedia.
One other note: WP did a bad job (in my view) of teaching other editors how to create and use reference tools. As a result, new contributors to WP don’t know how to reference, get reverted often, get frustrated, and leave. Thomas Wright Sulcer 14:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
About moving quotes within citations into the body of the article. When I write on a difficult subject like Spinoza, I’m deliberately trying to bring along readers with me, and not lose them. Quotes, particularly if they have difficult unexplained concepts in them, slow down the reader, and risk alienating them, so I don’t want too many quotes in the text regardless of whether they’re relevant or not, particularly in the early stages. On the Spinoza article on WP, I had what I considered to be a great article (which is mostly imported to CZ here) which adhered to the basic concepts, but provided an intelligent introduction to a complex philosophy, suitable for beginners. What happened (if you see the “Philosophy of Spinoza” WP article now) is that a grad student (who CAN’T write well by any stretch) rewrote it with highly technical and difficult language, which even fellow Spinoza grad students might have trouble with. The article doesn’t flow. It is intimidating. So, if this supposed philosophy “grad student” (as he claimed who really knows?) is writing in good faith to hopefully improve the article, he or she will find, in a few years, that NO STUDENTS want to study Spinoza’s philosophy if they come across the intimidating Wikipedia article. If he or she ever becomes a professor, they’ll have few, if any, students. Thomas Wright Sulcer 14:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
For example, note 1 has quote XXX and note 2 has quote yyy. Where you now have statement , you might want statement. “For example, quote 1  and quote 2 .”
Second, redlinks shouldn’t be avoided, but we have different usages informal than Wikipedia. It’s desirable to have a redlink as a suggestion that an article is reasonably needed. We don’t wikilink dates, and we don’t, for example, wikilink every journalist unless that journalist seems likely to merit an article.
Got it. Thanks. Redlinks when we want an article about it. My habit from Wikipedia was to avoid redlinks (there was dispute within the community about them) since it looked like an error (and focused attention on a weak spot in my contributions) and therefore weakened my material. But I can see them as useful prods for developing new content as well. I guess my policy here on CZ will be to continue to avoid them unless I myself plan to write a CZ article about them. Totally agree about not wikilinking dates also. Thomas Wright Sulcer 14:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
In general, I find that your articles are on the long side, but also have many articles that can be extracted and both wikilinked in the main article and also through Related Articles subpages.
Yes, definitely long. I’m still not clear about how to break articles up into subpages. I figured out how to do this on WP; but not sure here how it works. Thomas Wright Sulcer 14:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)While we think about the scope of the article proper, I see immediate opportunities to create articles from biographical information that we really need in articles, such as Alexis de Toqueville and Juergen Habermas. Simply extracting the material there and writing an introductory lede would make a good developing article. Once you’ve created the article (I can help with metadata and links), click “what links here” on the left edge, and you’ll see articles that address the person and perhaps have text that can be merged into the article.
OK, will consider for future projects, good ideas, thanx. Thomas Wright Sulcer 14:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)