User talk:Spider of Destiny

Welcome

Hello Spider of Destiny and welcome to the Wiki Jawaka,

Many thanks for your contributions.

I learned a lot of things from your edits, you seem to have a wide culture.

As you probably noticed, I made a few changes following yours.

This in order to comply with the general philosophy we are trying to maintain here.

So I will have only a few remarks regarding your forthcoming changes, if you are open to suggestions:

• Could you please try to add links to the Wikipedia everywhere relevant? For many subjects, the Wiki Jawaka do not pretend to become the final reference. As well, I always prefer the idea of any page here to become a starting point, instead of the final page with no more links, if you see what I mean.

• Instead of simply putting the first occurence of the page title in bold (the name of somebody, Ronald Reagan for instance), although the result will be the same, we usually prefer to put it into Wiki brackets, as if it was a link.

• In your articles, could you please try to focus as much as possible on relations to Zappa. Please do not get me wrong, I do appreciate what you did. But for instance, the sentence mentionning there was a Godzilla remake in 1998 may help to avoid confusion with former stuff. However the fact the remake disappointed many fans is likely out of this Wiki scope.

• Please try to fit in the existing templates as much as possible. I recognize that, we sometimes overrode them without always updating the template pages. They were created in order to accelerate edition, as well as to keep a consistent layout in the Wiki.

Okay, I stop bothering you ;-)

Have a nice weekend.

Maroual 01:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Hi Spider of Destiny,

Indeed, I share your opinions about articles such as Bruce Springsteen, Ella Fitzgerald or John & Yoko.

I would say there is no particular policy here regarding articles deletions or merging. You just need to convince the most active members and administrators (Duncan, Emdebe, KillUglyRadio aka Barry, Propellerkuh and myself) that your actions are good and acceptable for the majority.

This is often an informal process. For instance, when I start a 'campaign', I usually start with a few examples. Then I submit a question or a discussion on the other administrators' pages, always leaving the possibility to rollback the changes. And if they like it or don't care, then I continue.

Regarding the articles mentionned above, I think there is no big risk if you delete or merge them, by the time you make sure not to leave any dead links (by clicking on the What links here option in the toolbox on the left side).

Now this could be a different story with the Conceptual Continuity (CC) articles. I have no particular objection myself, however I think you should rather have this discussion with the oldest members and founders of this Wiki (Duncan, Emdebe and KillUglyRadio aka Barry). The structure and essence of the CC articles was initiated by them (Emdebe mainly) before I start contributing. And these guys had their own philosophy of a CC network at the time. So I think you should obtain their approval or understand what they were trying to do before attempting anything.

Maroual 22:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

---

One more thing, could you please respect this syntax :

Title first use in the eponym article

Please prefer:

"[[Freaks]]"

instead of:

'''"Freaks"'''

Links to the Wikipedia

==See Also==

*[[wikipedia:XXXXXXX|Wikipedia article on XXXXXXX]]

Links to the sister Wikipedia are a bit more than just 'External links' ;-)

Thanks :-)

Maroual 23:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Wiki links

Hi Spider,

I just fixed your link to the Wikipedia on the Brian May page.

You do not need to put the full URL otherwise it would be a loss of time.

I changed

[[wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_May|Wikipedia article on Brian May]]

to

[[wikipedia:Brian_May|Wikipedia article on Brian May]]

Cheers

Maroual 22:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality in articles

Hi Spider,

I made a few changes in the article about Muhammar Khadaffi‎.

It is important to respect a neutral point of view.

Tschuss

Maroual 22:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Maroual.

I don't mind the change from "dictator" to "leader", but technically Khadaffi is a dictator, since he took power by force. "Human Rights Watch" lists his regime as a dictatorship.

Tschuss to you (Are you Austrian/German/Swiss ? ;) )

User:Spider of Destiny 23:30 5 December 2010 (UTC).

Well, don't get me wrong, the purpose is to try to maintain a certain quality level, as well as to stay out of controversies.

It is unanimely admitted that Khadaffi governs this country, so in this case the word 'leader' seems appropriate.

However, in order to use a word such as 'dictator' or 'dictatorship', we'd better always cite a source as you just did.

Otherwise it is like writing down our own opinions, and a Wiki just cannot implicitely endorse its contributor's opinions.

The fact that I agree or not with you has nothing to do with it.

Just take a look at the Wikipedia articles, they almost never refer to contemporary heads of state as dictators.

Also, according to journalists, the supposedly financed terrorist activities were not limited to a specific category of fanatics.

There have also been accusations on supporting various european groups (revolutionary military organisations, nationalist and separatist organisations, Marxist-Leninist militant groups, etc.)

Actually these few words above are just ism schism.

This is not the purpose of this Wiki's smallest articles to talk about these matters in a few lines.

And nope ;-) I am a Frenchie who just like to salute using different languages.

Sorry for this long answer, I wish I was capable of doing it shorter.

じゃ、またね。

Maroual 22:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

References

I am troubled by some of the changes you have been introducing which seem to be clouding rather than clarifying what is already a murky pool. Specifically could you refrain from using References to list points where Zappa has referred to a topic/lyric etc. References should be used for citing sources; these oblique mentions could be listed under See also or Mentioned in or somesuch. Duncan 22:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)