User talk:Granite07

Welcome!

Hello, Granite07, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Rigadoun (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrights

Please do not cut and paste texts from other websites without original authors' permission. This is copyright violation and against the law. pseudisodomum and Isodomum are deleted therefore. Sorry. Please read more in wikipedia:Copyrights `'Míkka 01:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @mikka I'm just seeing this 13 years later: the content in those pages is from The Ten Books or Architecture, it so not from a website. The websites copied from the Ten Books. I cited to original source published in 1 BC... Granite07 (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Publius Septimius

A tag has been placed on Publius Septimius, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Short stubs relating to Vitruvius

The best thing to in this case would be to create a user subpage and work on the articles there. You can create a user subpage by typing User:Granite07/_________, filling the blank space with a name for you work. As a rule, wikipedians do not edit in other wikipedians user space except for reasons related to policy. You would be able to create and modify the articles in relative peace until you had a finished product you wish to place in the mainspace. This would allow you to work on you stubs in peace until you were happy with the finished product. That would be my advise. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Various ancient Romans

I am sorry taht your first experience with wikipedia was somewhat unfortunate, as I see from this talk page. But I hope ou will not be discouraged, because your areas of interest are underrepresented in wikipeida (at least in comparison with pokemon and port actresses. :-)

The problems with ancient people is that first, information about them is scarse, second, often therea re two or more persons known by the same name. Therefore if you are not a real expert in ancient history, it is very easy to confuse them. Often the opposite is true. Some people were famous for very nrelated areas, and sometimes one person use to be thought as two (especially when known by some aditioanl nicknames) util some text found from which it is clear that two are one. For this reason your small aditions, such as Publius Septimius and in Melampus are of dubious nature, and I will think how to deal with this later (I am not expert in Romans myelf). `'Míkka 17:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isodomum

In such cases it is very easy to avoid copyright violation. Definitions and desciptions of facts that do not contain opinions, speculations or literary fantasies and other works of writer's creativity - are usually not subject to copyright. Therefore it is sufficient to rewrite a description in your own words. And please don't forget to provide the origin of the definition. In the case of ancient thinks it is good to have both the weblink reference and a reference to original ancient text. Weblinks are convenient, but unfortunately many of them do not live long. `'Míkka 17:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It is more useful to collect such small definitions into larger articles, such as Ancient Roman masonry or Classic European masonry or something else; I am not an expert here. BTW, these definitions may be found in A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, which you may freely use (with proper reference), and even copy illustrations from it, because it is published in 1848 and hence no longer subject of copyright and which can be dowloaded as a pdf file from here. `'Míkka 17:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common arrangement of work sections

A tag has been placed on Common arrangement of work sections, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. The sunder king 20:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please create the page, since the subject seems notable and constructive enough to create, go ahead. I do not know much about it so I can't suggest anything. The sunder king 21:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@The_sunder_king sorry for 13 year delay... I don't read my talk page... Was this deleted and then created again by another user? Granite07 (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense of Le fin de mond

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Le fin de mond, by Agamemnon2 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Le fin de mond provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Le fin de mond, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 19:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:6a00cd972a7baa4cd500d4144ef84b3c7f-500pi.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:6a00cd972a7baa4cd500d4144ef84b3c7f-500pi.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hydraulic hammer/Hoe ram

1) Don't Wikilink to a re-direct. 2) Don't have two different Wikilinks to the same article. 3) Provide some research for which is the most common world-wide term. I have heard: "hammer hoe," "breaker," "hydraulic breaker," all three a lot more than "hoe ram." WikiDon 05:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Laborer. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Also, many of your citations do not conform to WP:V or WP:RS. And please put comments to users on their talk pages -- not their user pages. Gscshoyru 22:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Granite07, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Dear Sir

Please allow the laborer page to remain as is in its current condition. The difficulty in obtaining properly cited sources for a subject such as construction which is historically nonacademic and or undocumented is obvious. In the construction field knowledge is passed down through generations from journeyman to apprentice. It is only today with the advent of Wikipedia that this knowledge can be widely shared across regions without the need to physically work with someone.

Unfortunately Wikipedia has a very good policy to edit uncited information. Please allow an exception in this case and in other construction pages in recognition of the special nature of the field. I assure you the information presented on the laborers page is accurate, precise, relevant and correct.

It is your good judgment to allow this content since you have the authority to decide if information is to be preserved or censored. The link to the Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA) you deemed irrelevant is the organization representing nearly one million laborers internationally, I believe this link is very relevant. The other information on the page though seemingly inconsequential is also very relevant to the field of laboring.

My personal experience, research and education in the construction field is not sufficient to provide cited sources as these are few and often created for inconsistent purposes. I assure you that if possible I will generate some cited sources myself if only for the reason of preserving content on Wikipedia.

Once again, please preserve the laborers page. 128.12.170.194 01:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Granite07 01:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. Your own reasearch or knowledge is not a verifiable reference for knowledge. Nor do the refs you provide conform to WP:V or WP:RS. So it is removed for those reasons. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for information, it is an encyclopedia. As such, information must be cited by reliable, verifiable sources. Gscshoyru 01:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Laborer, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gscshoyru 01:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of Dear Sir

You seem to have taken this an entirely different direction. I am sorry if you disagree with the edits made to laborer. What do you suggest we do for a solution that you find acceptable. I have not placed my own research into the laborer page as it is only a way to relax between work. I am a researcher at Stanford University Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering with the Construction Engineering Management program and take my work very seriously. You are obviously much more knowledgeable about wikipedia protocol and etiquette so please provide some beneficial advice as to what you prefer as sources. I assume you are not opposed to the formatting changes only the content. Could you also be more specific as to which sources are not acceptable, most were from very respected institutions and researchers. Granite07 02:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What we prefer as sources? There are nice policy pages on them. WP:V and WP:RS explain what sources are and aren't accepted, I suggest you read those. Oh, and welcome, and happy editing! Gscshoyru 02:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read those and as best anyone could tell the sources used on laborer conformed Granite07 02:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This source -- http://www.laborerslocal185.com/scope_of_work.htm -- is not third party, see WP:SOURCES (part of WP:V). Nor is this: http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?8302072. And you can't link to stuff on jstor, like this: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0515%28198003%2918%3A1%3C1%3ALUEOWG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6, as since it costs money to access, we can't verify it. Gscshoyru 02:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have 6 more papers to grade tonight and with your help it has taken all day. I was only updating the laborers site between every couple papers as a break.

Can I please restore the laborers page and I will correct the deficiencies over the next few weeks. Interesting enough I created the page so it is all my opinions and thoughts. I do want your help understanding what the expectation is for sources, web sourced, trade union sourced, government sourced, and academically sourced, I used all four.

I also make edits to the heavy equipment page, it also does not conform, or any of the other construction pages. It does not seem realistic to delete the entire construction section of wikipedia. I understand my field is not the most academic but we do use a bit of math and CS.

Ok, I do have a proxy connection to jstor and other sites for my day job here. I will find other sources, the laborers union is almost third party. They are not selling anything.

Granite07 02:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ASCE is a recognized Journal, the most prestigious in my field in fact! Where else would I source from? It is what we all aspire to publish in. Granite07 02:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know they aren't. But a source isn't verifiable if it isn't easily verifiable, so you can't use it.

If you want to improve the article properly, you can't leave it in the form it was, and slowly change it. That's just not proper. What you can instead do is make a subpage of your userspace and fix it up there. Put it, say, User:Granite07/PAGENAME, where PAGENAME is whatever you want, and no one will change it there. You can fix it up there till it conforms, and then be bold and replace the current page with it, ok? How does that sound?

And I think I may have been very wrong about ASCE. Oops. Sorry 'bout that, that source is fine. Gscshoyru 02:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you should look up kaizen, continuous improvement, it is a concept they teach here. I guess it is hard to reconform to different rules, but I can create large batches and update if you prefere rather than many small batches. Granite07 02:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but your changes currently don't improve, because of source problems. Therefore, they shouldn't be added until they

do improve. I've shown you how to make your own personal workspace, have fun, and try updating the current article when your fixed-up one fits policy. Gscshoyru 02:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Gscshoyru just reading the talk page posts, thank you for your advice: I have been using sandbox to develop pages as you suggested and possibly the best advice I ever received on wikipedia, thank you--maybe another 13 years and I will check in again Granite07 (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI- use Arg-2

I fixed up your merge proposal links on the pages concerned so they go to here. In the links, just add the talk section as the second argument as detailed in {{merge/doc}}, or define "|discuss=" with wikilink to the section. Happy New Year! // FrankB 23:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of 3D's

I have nominated 3D's, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3D's. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 02:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provide references

If you say that the majority of 3D jobs pay well, "100k per year" as you claim, provide references. The same for anything else you write.Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vitruvius, Mamurra, Julius Caesar

As you say, nowhere does Mamurra appear in Vitruvius; as for Julius Caesar, it's very uncertain: Augustus was definitely his boss, as you put it — but of Julius all that can be said for sure is that Vitruvius says he admired the guy (I praef. 2). Anyhow, my argument was not with what is said in the article, but with the "See also". If it's worth putting in a "See also", it's worth putting text in the article. There is apparently an opinion out there that Vitruvius and Mamurra were somehow related, or the same person: put it in the article. The great Wikipedian democracy will shoot you down if it's not true (and maybe if it is). But a reference to Mamurra can only mystify people if in neither article is anything said about the other! Bill (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not likely Vitruvius and Mamurra are the same person, the Mamurra page notes he died in 45BC and Vitruvius presumably died around 25BC.Granite07 (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs

I noticed you just started a bunch of AfDs but didn't provide any reasons. Could you please add one? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, the AfDs are for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nymphodorus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarnacus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pollis, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theocydes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nexaris. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Nymphodorus

A tag has been placed on Nymphodorus requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Nymphodorus

An editor has nominated Nymphodorus, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nymphodorus and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).