User talk:Derek Harkness

I am all in favor of working on specific articles along with the main ones, or even ahead of the main ones, and I am trying to do just that. I think its a better way to actually start, and the large complex general ones ae going to be problems. But I do consider that some of the things being added are not the right ones to start with. for some of them are in areas we have not been certain we will cover. DavidGoodman 14:12, 29 November 2006 (CST)

Great work! But...

Regarding the Cascading Style Sheets article, I'm glad you found so much to write about! However, check out this article on writing for CZ, most notably: You're probably used to well-developed Wikipedia articles being divided into many short sections, full of bulleted lists, and written in dense prose that shows off erudition more than really introducing a topic.

While I won't change anything about the article for now (unless I get some brilliant ideas), I think the current draft for the introduction is very wordy. Most of what you said can be broken down and used inside the article itself to explain the structure and whatnot. Again, great additions though. --Dustin Meany 13:09, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

My intention was not to write the article introduction but rather to write the body'. At least as a basis for the body that could be expanded into a fuller article and to do so without resorting to disjointed modules. Derek Harkness 05:17, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

You're a knowledgeable chap:

so could you give me a pointer to the CZ self promotion rules? I'd love to see a CZ article on the British Royal Family by an insider/expert such as Prince Charles but I noticed your comment here [1]W. Frank 02:43, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

OK, I've found the rule here CZ:Policy_on_Self-Promotion - strange it didn't show on a search for Self promotion W. Frank 02:50, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

The default search only searches within the article namespace. To search within other namespaces such as CZ:, help: or user: you have to check the relevant boxes at the foot of the search page before submiting the request. Derek Harkness 06:38, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

Subdivisions

One word, thus spelled--please move your new pages appropriately.

I think a less generic term than "subdivision" would suit better--see [2].

--Larry Sanger 13:58, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Corrected the spelling. However, I think the generic term is essential. The idea is that the subdivision pages are listing parts of countries. Each country has different names and meanings of names for each of their parts. Additionally, parts within one country/state often have more than one name. So I wanted to use a term that would cover all the parts of all countries rather than some of the parts of some countries.

That's not to say that someone might not want to do "States of the USA" as a list that discusses state hood and excludes territories that are not states, but for the lists I made yesterday, I want to include all territories, provinces, states, regions, zones and counties under the one generic banner.

I'm not fussy over the word "subdivision", any other generic word would do, but the word must be generic. Derek Harkness 20:42, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

I concur with Derek. Wahib Frank 06:36, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

Bearing capacity

Derek - have I improved the article enough that you can remove the speedy delete tag? Anthony Argyriou 15:48, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Done. Derek Harkness 20:44, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Logical positivism...

...is unlocked. Stephen Ewen 13:57, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Horst Wessel

On what grounds do you want to delete my Horst Wessel article? It is entirely my own work, written originally for Wikipedia and then transferred here when I left Wikipedia. Adam Carr 16:26, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Adam, if I may--the question is whether you simply copied the article here and do not intend to maintain it here. The world needs only one copy of the article in question; if we start another version, we should be committed to making it different, or at least to maintaining it and (hopefully) developing it. See Article Deletion Policy. --Larry Sanger 16:50, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

If it's already good enough, put it up for approval. (Sorry for interfering.) Fredrik Johansson 16:59, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Fredrik, good point. Our approved copy of an article already on Wikipedia adds significant value. Such an article shouldn't be deleted. --Larry Sanger 17:02, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Basically, what Larry said. If your submitting your own work to both sites, a little comment on the talk page stating so would help clarify things. If it's 100% your own work, then we needn't give credit to wikipedia so you can uncheck that box too. Derek Harkness 05:21, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

• The expression "simply copied it here" seems to imply some sort of plagiarism. I state again that the article is entirely my own work. I wrote it for Wikipedia, and when I left Wikipedia I transfered it here. Surely I am not the only person who, on leaving WP, has brought their original articles with them and donated them to CZ? Why is this treated with such suspicion?
• I wrote the article using the best sources available to me. It is therefore complete as far as I can make it so. Others are of course free to edit it or add to it if they have more or better sources. I don't see why I should change it just for the sake of making it different to the WP article. In any case, the WP article will soon change (ie, deteriorate) now that I am no longer monitoring it.
• I am "maintaining" the article in the sense that it is on my watchlist. I don't see what else I can be expected to do.
• I will now remove the deletion notice (and also from Horst-Wessel-Lied, which is in the same catgeory). Adam Carr 04:44, 3 June 2007 (CDT)