User talk:Eve Hall

Welcome!

Hello, Eve Hall, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  Prolog 00:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous vandalism

I know it's very frustrating when a page gets nonsense added to it three or four times in an hour, but well done on reverting the changes. The problem with semi protection is that anonymous editors sometimes (often, really) make very good edits, and it's considered a matter of policy to wear the vandalism rather than losing that avenue of contribution. Orpheus 00:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ARGH! I don't know where this should go!

Thanks for editing the suicide entry on my behalf -- I actually coudn't edit it myself because Wik wouldn't let me sign in, as I was on my laptop. I find lots of annoying problems like this on Wikipedia -- for instance, right now, I don't know how to use a talk page -- there's no field for discussion, no "email me here," -- most confusing. So I am putting yet another improper comment under "anonymous vandalism" and I won't reveal my name (which you know anyway) so as to at least be in keeping with the above subject.

Anyway, thanks for making that edit. That's just what I wanted to do, but couldn't. Hopefully I will someday navigate this all a bit better.

David (oops) Blondjamesblond 15:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly bemused by this one, as I haven't edited Suicide for ages... Did you really mean me? Unless you're the anon editor I left the message for about the Islam edit? If so, then no problem, although you could have done it yourself even without being signed in. Eve 19:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

InSAR

I applaud your effort to improve the InSAR article. Thanks for inviting me to look at what you are developing in your sandbox. I myself have very little knowledge of this subject, though I have a technical background and may be able to contribute some copyediting once the article is assembled. I have InSAR under watch, so once you post changes to it I'll see them. -- Brianhe 20:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, your proposed verison of the article is well done. I think it strikes a good balance between technical incomprehensiblity and over simplification. It's a balance beam on which it's hard to stay. Thanks for it, on behalf of our Reader.

And thanks also for policing the recurrent vandalism at Loudspeaker. I also have left a message at the user's talk page. I'm an admin, so I can actually carry out such promises to block, though I've not yet done so. Leave me a message if more of this happens, and I'll take the trouble to learn how.

Welcome to Wikipedia, and sorry you've had to encounter one of the more unfortunate aspects so quickly. I edited for months before having to, though admittedly that was quite a while ago. ww 00:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! The InSAR stuff is very much a work in progress at the moment, as I'm sure is obvious from the sandbox page. But I'm adding bits to it as and when I get round to it. Unfortunately I've seen a reasonable amount of vandalism on some of my watchlisted pages right from the beginning, although I have to admit with the Loudspeaker stuff I was killing time by stalking the recent changes looking for trouble. Eve 09:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its now vaguely assembled together as an article, so I've posted it to the proper InSAR page now. It isn't by any means finished, it needs some additions and a lot of polish. But I think its reached the stage where it makes enough sense as it stands for people who happen upon it not to get completely confused, and where more input from other editors is needed. In particular lots and lots of feedback. I'm also after more holistic comments and edits too, as well as nitpicks and formatting - is it too long? Are any sections confusing? Have I pitched the level of detail right or is it too academic? I would be really grateful to anyone who can spare some time to have a look at it.
Cheers. Eve 18:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Milankovitch cycles

Dear Ms. Hall, Thank you for checking on the article Milankovitch cycles, and for checking the new link that appeared on that page. After repeated testing (yesterday and today), I find that the link really does work (isn't broken) -- but the link does have a problem, and I wondered if you're seeing what I'm seeing. Specifically, the page [1], when viewed in certain browsers, displays the HTML source, not a properly rendered webpage. Is that what you were seeing? I assume it's happening because the URL doesn't end in .html or .htm (dot-anything might work). -- JEBrown87544 21:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thats exactly what I'm getting. I hadn't realised it was a browser related thing, but I'm using the latest version of Firefox so if it doesn't work for me then it won't for lots of other users too. It's perhaps not broken, but certainly defective, so I'm not sure it's a good idea to link to it? Eve 22:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good point. I'll ask User 64.163.110.26 to fix it. -- JEBrown87544 17:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Thanks for the feedback on the cerebral hypoxia article! Egfrank 15:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I'm still fairly new here so it wasn't necessarily very definitive, but hope it helped. Eve 15:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two minds are always better than one Egfrank 17:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessments

Hi Eve, thanks for helping out with assessments. Most of yours look spot-on, especially the importance ratings which are often difficult to judge, but your quality ratings are a bit too high in some cases. Although Volcanic Seven Summits is largely my own work, I think A-class is too generous and B-class is more appropriate. Some of the other articles you've rated as B-class would probably be better off listed as Start-class for the time being, e.g. Volcanic ash, Volcanic bomb, and Volcanic cone. These are still fairly short and lack references, so Start is probably better than B until some more expansion and referencing is done. But as I said earlier, it's no big deal being off a bit on the initial rating, as it can always be adjusted later. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the feedback! Will bear in mind the quality ratings, do keep an eye on my ratings and shout if I'm still missing. I won't be at all offended. Eve 10:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just thought of one more suggestion: you could look through Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WikiProject Volcanoes articles by quality, which lists all articles assessed thus far, sorted in order of quality and importance. It's a good way to get a quick overview of what articles with various ratings look like. --Seattle Skier (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

volcanic margins

Eve,

Just checked in after long absence. busy time of year.

I would be happy to help with the volcanic margins page, but not sure where to start. It would help if i knew what the problems vis a vis copyright. is there a way you could send me former page with copied stuff flagged, so i can get a feel for how much needs to be changed?

this could take some time because i'm facing 1 june deadline at work, can't do much till mid june.

Geodoc 04:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, thanks for getting back to me. The page was deleted due to the copyright problems - basically most of the article consisted of copied and pasted bits from the references. Anything from a sentence up to a whole paragraph. I think I might have a text file of the old page on my other computer, will look for you when I get home. It would be quite a big project to resurrect it, the entire thing would need to be rewritten. But maybe its worth a try. Eve 11:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hello Eve,

First, let me thank you for the tasteful response I received from you concerning the edit. To be honest, I had nearly lost all faith in Wikipedia and was about to avoid it, warning others to do so as well. The only reason I left the edit, and then later defended it, was because of the blatantly factitious information listed on that page. I assumed that leaving references that more than supported my rebuttal would be sufficient. However, I was shocked to see that correcting Wikipedia's errors was considered "vandalism." Moreover, although I realize that you were trying to be constructive in your comments about "assuming good faith" and "not being confrontational," I encourage you to investigate the individual you are defending. His comments addressed to me consisted of a warning not to add "nonsense" and then labeled my work as vandalism. Did Pupster21 demonstrate "good faith" and was he "non-confrontational?" I think not. With a little research, you will see that he prides himself on reverting such edits. On his page he states, "I am mostly active whacking vandals." What concerns me, however, is that he failed to even give a reason for removing the edit, other than his own opinion. These were the things I pointed out to him, and I did so quite respectfully. In my profession there is a very strict code of ethics, and very rigid standards of accuracy and professionalism, especially since the work we do has, in many cases, direct legal implications. I sincerely hope that the issue with persons such as Pupster21 is resolved, if nothing more than to enhance Wikipedia's credibility. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to entangle myself in a full-blown edit of the psychotherapy page. I had hoped my insight would be helpful, but instead it was rejected and I was insulted. Regardless, I am writing this to thank you for a response that was much better received than previous ones. Good luck in your efforts. Shrp2edgeswrd 14:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Greeting and back at you.

I have a log-in, but keep forgetting to use - so I have been lurking the last few months. My log is secisek, but almost all my work has been done off my IP address. My wiki intrests include music, history, religion, and fixing vandalism when it is clearly such.

Still learning the ropes, so thanks for the heads up. 67.186.79.211 20:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Reading University Societies

Hi, Why has "List of Reading University Societies" been deleted while I was away? Thanks Pebkac (talk) 10:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, have answered this on your talk page. Eve 09:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism - thanks

Thanks for your help in reverting vandalism. Could I ask a favour though, please? In addition to reverting the vandalism, can you please post a warning on the user's talk page as well? The more warnings a vandal accumulates, the quicker they get themselves blocked. With some vandals, a warning is sufficient to stop them.

There is a page (Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates) that lists a lot of different templates to use - remember to always assume good faith and go for the lowest level warning, unless they have recently been given a higher warning, in which case you can go up a level. Should you see that someone has vandalised after a recent final warning, you can report it to the administrators (Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism). It is a lovely feeling when you know that someone who has been really annoying you with their vandalism gets themselves indefinitely blocked :-)

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to drop me a line on my talk page. Once again, thanks for the anti-vandalism attitude! StephenBuxton (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I do sometimes, but I've been getting lazy about it... will pull my socks up! Eve (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! StephenBuxton (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply to your comment on my talk page

No prob; I figured as much. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 22:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your advice on the deletion of my articles; I've got it sorted now.

Fwooper (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I help?

I am not really involved in much, mainly typo correction and making redirects, so I was wondering whether I could help in a WikiProject.--Ainlina (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another question

I would like to know where the color pallete is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ainlina (talk--Ainlina (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bug

I noticed that when I saved my page after putting on some userboxes and then putting them in a no wiki and then turning off the computer, I could not find them. Any ideas? Also, on IE this text renders smaller than other comments, although it renders normally on the preview. Thanks, Ainlina (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My guess on the userboxes is that you previewed the page but didn't save it - your user page doesn't have any edits in the history. The problem with the small text was due to an unmatched <small> tag in the signature bit of the comment above. I've fixed it. Eve (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2Eves

Hi Eve, I've replied to your comment on my talkpage. Dutch Eve (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Point

Hello Eve, I was looking up something on wikipedia when I saw that it said "You have a message." To my amazement, the message was that there was something added to wikipedia from my IP (85.159.49.243), and that it happened in April 2008. I know this is impossible, as I was away from my place until today and no one had access to my computer. Is it possible to find out what was "added" from my IP? The note said that what was added was not saved as being irrelevant, but my concern lies in (a) discovering what was attempted to be added; and (b) investigating if someone (somehow) covered their IP with my IP in the process? Is this possible? If so, what is wikipedia doing about it? My fear is not that someone will add some odd item about depression, but that a more malicious type of "editorial," ostensibly from my IP, could cause me misdirected headache or problems. So what do you suggest? 85.159.49.243 (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.159.49.243 (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes it is possible to see what was added from your IP address, just go to Special:Contributions/85.159.49.243. The material I removed from the depression page added from this IP can be seen in this link. In terms of how the edit could be done from your computer, bear in mind that your IP address may not be fixed permanently to your computer. You may share it with other users from the same ISP, or you may be allotted a different one every time you connect to the internet. It's explained more in the IP address article. If you're sure you have a static IP address but you use an unsecured wireless network it may also be possible for someone to use your internet connection.

If you're at all worried about people confusing your wikipedia edits with other people using the same IP address, the easy solution is to create an account. That means you always have access to your edit history and messages, even if your IP address changes or you use different computers. It also hides your IP, giving you more privacy, and removes a couple of editing restrictions imposed on unregistered IP users. Incidentally I've replied to your message both here and on your talk page, just in case your IP address changes. Any questions, feel free to ask. Eve Hall (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I have had a similar problem. I just got a message ("You have a message.") saying that I made some inappropriate edits to the 1999 İzmit earthquake, however I have never been to that page and certainly never made those horrible edits. I was shocked by what the person wrote and I want to do anything that is possible to clear up this mess and catch that vandal. I use Wikipedia as an easy resource for many things and I rarely make edits. How can I clear this up and should I be concerned that someone is using or sharing my IP address? I am a dial up user and I am worried that it may be easy to use my connection, it has happened before. Thanks for any help!

Hiya, I think the advice I gave to the other user just above your post still applies - if you are on dial-up you will probably be allocated a new IP address every time you connect. So it isn't that someone has used your connection, merely that they had previously been allocated an IP that was later given to you. If you're worried about it, the easiest solution is to create an account! Eve Hall (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New reply

You have a new reply from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Suicide_methods#I_strongly_dislike_this_article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prowikipedians (talk • contribs) 15:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for letting me know. I have the page on my watchlist, so I'll see any comments you leave there. But just a quick piece of advice, you might want to keep the tone just a little calmer over there, eh? I can see you care passionately about the topic, but don't let that inadvertently get you into personal rows with people, even if they're provoking you first. Eve Hall (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1999 Izmit earthquake

Does anyone have any good sources confirming a Pakistani contribution to the aid effort after the 1999 İzmit earthquake? It has been added to the article a couple of times and I've reverted because it was unsourced and I mistook it for a random IP making a random nationality change, but the IP has now made an effort to add a source. Sadly it's a forum post in Turkish, so probably not reliable and I can't read it, and I've reverted for now. But since the IP has made an effort, it would be good if we could confirm whether there was a Pakistani contribution and help find a source to cite. Any ideas? Eve Hall (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'll see what I can do. However, this article reminds me of what Editorofthewiki keeps stating, these articles could be short and comprehensive, and still be FAs. Well, I'll get to work. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, I've added 2 citations, You should really use the first one, its really interesting and reliable. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joining Volcanoes Wikia

Hi Eve Hall. i was wondering if you wanted to join my newly founded Volcanoes Wikia?

If so, please click here to find out more information:

[2]

Thanks, --Meldshal (§peak to me) 12:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

WikiThanks

For helping me with templates

Smile

Ainlina has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Thanks for general helpfulness!--Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 15:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Cheers Ainlina! Eve Hall (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheels188 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits of 65.95.27.147

Hi!

The edits of 65.95.27.147 are not good faith at all, as you say in [3]. They are in fact malicious. He/She also tried to do subtle editing to AES - you really needed some expertise to find if it's a vandal or not... what a pain! Msoos (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't desperately convinced either, but they could have been and I gave the IP the benefit of the doubt since it was a new editor. Thanks for the heads-up though. Eve Hall (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disgusted with Wikipedia's Process

Eve, this is a copy of the reply pasted on my talkback page. This is truly ridiculous. You need a third party to write a detailed article about us before you consider us "notable"? How about simply checking with some of our 85 members in the group yourself? Yes, we are private. But, I am willinng to let you become a member temporarily verify our legitimacy. There is NO OTHER GROUP quite like CFPA in the country. The reason that articles are limited is because we are still a young organization. We are trendsetting. Why can't your administrators THINK OUTSIDE of the box and left me show you who we are instead of sticking to ONLY Wikipedia's policies and rules. It irritates me when people act like they can't think and act for themselves. Policies are not law. They are only meant to be guidelines. Where's the leadership? I'm so pissed off at this process at this point that I am practically ready to call it quits on Wikipedia and instruct 85 producers not to use your site. We might even make a movie about how silly this is process is. Maybe that will make us notable in your eyes? It will surely bring more attention to this inflexible process. I'm completely disgusted at this point.--ATurnerIII (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:ATurnerIII/sandbox/Chicago Film Producers Alliance.

I've done this and I hope it helps. As a newbie he just does not understand. I hope I made him aware that Wiki works by its own set of rules... and that these rules can work for him if he works with them. I have the sense that he just does not realize how many of us are willing to help. Schmidt, ^MICHAEL Q. 04:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that looks a great idea, and I hope ATurner takes up your offer of help. I'll chip in too, when I can. Cheers, Eve Hall (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schmidt, I can hear you. I have an engineering and a law degree and don't appreciate being talked down to or about.--ATurnerIII (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I was interpreting your seeming understanding of Wikipedia policies in the kindest way possible and was trying to be supportive. Since you are not a newcomer, and know all there is to know about Wikipedia, then I can only presumethat assistance is not required. Schmidt, ^MICHAEL Q. 01:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not being talked down to by anyone, that I've seen. MichaelQSchmidt is trying to help you, and was merely letting me know as a courtesy since I was involved in the previous discussions. In fact, I read his comment above as a defence of you, rather than an attack! It is hard working out how wikipedia works as a new editor, the sheer volume of policies and guidelines and procedures can be petty baffling, so it can be helpful for a more experienced editor to help out. Quite a few people (myself included) have offered to help you now, we mean it as a friendly welcome rather than a slur on your capabilities, you might want to take us up on it. We really are trying to help. Eve Hall (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calling me a "newbie" is not a compliment. It is an indirect slight to communicate that I am not aware of the way Wikipedia functions. The truth is that I have used Wikipedia for years and am not new to it at all. So, the comment is inappropriate and based on limited knowledge about me other than that I just created a new account. It was a slight that came at my expense, even in your apparent spirit of good will.--ATurnerIII (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Your actions, reactions, and comments seemed identical in type to how some inexperienced newcomers react when an article they had authored is sent to AfD. Looking HERE I saw an username that had been editing since January 1, 2009. Looking HERE I saw an anonymous IP that had been editing since December 29, 2008. That you have been contributing to Wikipedia for years was not apparent. Again, my apologies. Schmidt, ^MICHAEL Q. 01:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you I did not mean any of what I said as a slight, and I apologise if I caused offence. I was under the impression you were new (or unfamiliar with the policies), and was merely trying to help. If you understand and are familiar with the relevant policies and still disagree with them, then discussing it further with me probably isn't going to be productive (although I'm still willing to offer help if you would like it). In which case, I suggest you try Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution for more ideas. Eve Hall (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP Volcanoes

Hello. If you haven't noticed, I've started a structural reorganization of WikiProject Volcanoes. So far, I've beutified the head page and moved a lot of the stuff to subpages of the project, so as not to bulk the main page. As an active member of the project, this is just a notice about what's going on. Comments go on the talk page. Happy holidays, ResMar 14:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]