User:Andrewa/sandbox
|
|
Hi. This is my personal sandbox. Please don't modify it without talking to me beforehand... not that there's any great damage likely if you do. Andrewa
Doubtful speedies:
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Shut up ryan, game
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nederland 1
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/200 chickens
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikitine ("obvious joke case")
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The ninjas ("patent nonsense")
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Big Cookie Wendsday (correctly spelled article already speedied, both seemed good faith edits, but on inspection were the work of a known vandal IP).
Relevant policy:
- Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy#What to do with a problem page/image/category
- Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators introduction and Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Deciding whether to delete point #4.
Category:Wikipedia semi-policy:
Difficult cases:
joke maths template (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Maths-stub&oldid=9733980)
Minor characters in the Book of Genesis Abimael
electricity/custGuideToElecSupply.pdf pdf (http://www.actewagl.com.au/publications/)
electricity dir (http://www.actewagl.com.au/publications/)
site (http://www.actewagl.com.au)
m:Peer review Wikipedia:Peer Review
Wikipedia:Non English speakers
Rhetoric has little use anywhere in Wikipedia, and should always be used with extreme caution.
The Greeks distinguished rhetoric, the art of reasoning persuasively, from logic, the art of reasoning correctly. Both were considered admirable accomplishments. Wikipedia is different. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is concerned both with accuracy, so logical thinking and writing is always encouraged, and also with neutral point of view, so in the text of an article rhetoric has no place at all.
In talk pages, the project namespace and other areas outside the article namespace, rhetoric should be used with great caution. State your point don't prove it is considered good Wiki etiquette.
A difficulty arises because nobody wants either the discussion or the articles to be boring either. The line between rhetoric and good interesting writing can be hard to draw.
In articles, one answer to this is to use the wit of others, by including quotes from authorities in the field. However this brings the danger that these quotations, if persuasive, can be used to support a point of view. One answer to this is to be aware of your own point of view, and to use quotations from those who take the opposite stance. This is far safer than quoting those whose views you share. You are unlikely to quote them in such a way that the view you do not hold is promoted.
In namespaces other than the article namespace, humour is widely appreciated, but needs to avoid being personal attack. If a joke is at someone's expense, the question to ask is, will the victim think this is funny? If you are not confident that they will, avoid the joke. Jokes designed to disempower an opponent are good rhetoric, but poor wiki etiquette and contrary to Wikipedia policy.
The difference between a prejudice and a conviction is you can explain a conviction without getting mad - Marginal note in Readers Digest.
whew
In Bagdad my Bagdad bag factory got in bad with the Bagdad bigdads because of a bad sag the bags had - Scrooge McDuck.
Irrelevant to the discussion but I thought anyone who followed the link might find it amusing. Carl Barks was IMO one of the literary geniuses of the 20th century, I suspect that many of the best writers of the later 20th century emulated his style consiously or otherwise.