|
User talk:Philcha/Archive 5
brakes
Mattisse & forums...too many forums! Everything is spread all over Wikipedia. Can we all agree to talk in one and only one place? Ling.Nut (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
OTOHIMHO, it is better to ignore (and thus marginalize) disparaging comments than highlight them. Accentuate the positive, right? :-) Geometry guy 12:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the article again? Most of your concerns have probably been addressed. TheLeftorium 14:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Mediation at WP:FICTI'm suggesting we ask for mediation to help build teh guidance at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). What I propose is that a mediator be the only person to edit the project page itself and be the one to guide discussion and discern consensus. I've proposed it at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Mediation. As a past participant in the lengthy debates, I'd appreciate your input and hopefully your agreement. Hiding T 10:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Hi Philcha, Many thanks for your help in our attempts to come up with a proposal for ArbCon. What you have written so far seems directed at the mentors rather than to me. Could you come up with a list of behaviors that I should or should not engage in? The list on User talk:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom seems mostly directed a preventing specific accusations of bad behavior, some of which I have only been accused of once in my over three years at Wikipedia. I need help in recognizing the more frequently occuring situations that cause trouble before they become a bonfire.
Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Hey. Based on your GA review and the nom's response, it doesn't seem like the work is going to be done. This plus Silktork's comments on the page make e think that it's probably best that you fail this article, though I know you're not a fan of doing that. I don't see the fixes happening soon, since the editor's clearly active. Wizardman 16:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC) On the Origin of Species has been nominated for FAThe nomination is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/On the Origin of Species/archive1. Given all the effort you put into improving the article with your GA review your participation in the FAC process would be much appreciated. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Nergaal (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares/GA1Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares is now on hold. Check the review page to see whats wrong.--Next-Genn-Gamer 23:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Replaceable fair use Image:Civ 3 Tech Tree Era1.png Thanks for uploading Image:Civ 3 Tech Tree Era1.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself. If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
response Bart Sells His SoulPlease allow me some more time to do some (additional) copyediting myself, on top of what has already been done. Perhaps also other copyeditors will come in from the notices I put up recently. I will post a notice to your talk page to reevaluate, soon. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Not to sound rude or anything, but I don't think your most recent comments have been of much help. "Thanks for the update, I'll keep watching. However I think you need to make some effort yourself:", we've been trying to address all of your points, and all you said was that there are still problems (without citing any examples) or telling us if our recent edits are on the right track. I know we shouldn't expect you to do everything, but you can't just put it on hold and keep telling us to copyedit it without any new comments. The point of the review is so that you can help us attain GA status, and if there are so many errors that you can't list them all, it should just be failed. It's frustrating when we respond quickly only to have to wait a week to hear back from you and when you do respond, you don't even tell us if our recent efforts did any good. -- Scorpion0422 23:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I have tried copyediting the page again [1]. Could you please re-review it this time, instead of assuming it's not good enough and just suggesting we find a copyeditor? Thank you, Scorpion0422 15:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC) I can't help but notice that you have ignored my request for re-review again. I want to apologize for my above comments. I started off on the wrong foot, and I have taken an unnecessarily mean-spirited tone, and I can easily see why you haven't been responding. You see, I was already frustrated by how long the nomination was dragging on - after all, we have a GTC that just needs this article - and your comment "We can't let this drag on forever - I posted comments on 19 May, 19 days ago" made it sound like you felt we were not working hard enough to address your concerns. In actuality, we always responded within 24 hours (and in every case, we left a prompt on your talk page) and hoped that you would return. And when you finally did, your comments were of now help and my frustration boiled over. Again, I apologize for my comments. I feel that the article has improved quite a bit since your first review, and I would really appreciate it if you could take another look at it so we can finally move on. Thank you, Scorpion0422 22:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC) What I meant is that I had basically re-written the article (without referring to your points very much, although I just looked through and the majority of them have directly/indirectly been addressed) and I didn't want to go through and check every one because I'm sure that many of them no longer apply. That's why I wanted a fresh review done, so that I would know what is left to do. -- Scorpion0422 23:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thanks... for picking up that wrong link on my page. Tony (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Bart Sells His Soul - updatePhilcha - I regret to tell you this but it appears that before I have had a chance to go through again for some additional copyediting, the article Bart Sells His Soul has been subject to disruptive edit-warring from other users. At this point in time the article is no longer stable and does not meet point 5 of WP:WIAGA, and so I think the best thing to do would be for everyone to take a breather, unfortunately close the GA Review, and reevaluate at a later point in time. Thank you for your help and advice and input. Yours, Cirt (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. We'll see where we are and reassess at that point in time, but yeah I always think it's best for those sorts of things to get a fresh set of eyes. :) Thanks again, Cirt (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of informationWhilst I appreciate you have every right to revert my amendments to Wikipedia:NOT#PLOT, I would be grateful if you would care to discuss your own views at Wikipedia talk:NOT#Protected_Edit.3F when you do, so all the editors contributing to the discussions can get some constructive feedback. The only way editors can reach consensus on this issue by putting forward a proposal that can be agreed up. Simply labelling the policy as "disputed" without saying what you want is not constructive. If you are unhappy with the current version, why not propose an amendment to the text to reflect what you yourself would like to see? By doing so, your own views are made explicit, as I am sure you have an important contribution to make, you may find that your proposal will get support. Whist I would agree with you that the consensus is yet to emerge, my revisions are supported by existing framework of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so if you are proposing similar or alternative wording, then we would all benefit from you making them known. If you have any reservations or doubts, lets discusss them at Wikipedia talk:NOT#Protected_Edit.3F before reverting. Many thanks. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Re: RfA objectionsThanks for the notice, but I'm not changing my requirements and will vote as I see fit. The reason people should be here is to improve the encyclopedia, and the most evident indicator of quality vs. mountains of DYKs is GA/FA. I expect admins to know what they are getting into; we shouldn't have to make them promise to stay out of areas they have no experience in. If they don't have the experience, they aren't admin quality in my book. The monkey cage of WT:RFA can try and topic ban me like Doug if they want for all I care; I don't participate over there anymore because I'm tired of reading circular discussions. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC) CtenophoresHi Phil, Yes, for all you know ... it turns out that I AM an expert in Ctenophora (but not an expert in Wikipedia, which is why a whole bunch of changes weren't "signed" because I didn't know enough to tell Wiki to remember my login after a few months of being in the real world instead of the Wiki world). Many of the changes that you just edited out may be unsourced, but are modifying statements written by a very well-meaning non-expert who wrote a good part of the article and whose statements you don't seem to challenge at all. I am trying to modify things that aren't quite right and make them right, and for that you seem to need a reference, but what I am changing was often not referenced in the first place. Here is a problem with Wiki, but I'm sure that you know it. I've spent decades working on ctenophores. I would never write the Ctenophore article that you got here by an amateur, because I couldn't verify much of which is happily written here as true. NO ONE knows enough to verify this article, I can assure you. So I've occasionally gone in and tried to clean up easy stuff. And then you take it all out!!! Waaah! I am the person who knows the deep sea species and who has not gotten around to naming them. That sentence, modified earlier tonight, reflected reality, whereas the sentence that you put back is what another person paraphrased somewhat incorrectly from one of my webpages. Agmayeria tortugensis was a provisional name used by the scientists planning to name that species, which was picked up by submersible pilots, who then told other scientists the name, who then used it as a nomen nudum in print, more than once I think (when it was never described, thus I believe putting the name offbounds for future use). I was trying to keep that name out of Wikipedia, as it didn't need to be there, perpetuating the problem. Can I not challenge some pretty "different" ctenophore fossils by calling them putative (which they are - can't be proved) without publishing that first? Those changes that I made were carefully thought out. It is very discouraging to try to fix articles written by non-experts and then have my changes wiped out even before I go to bed. None of my scientist friends will even touch Wikipedia, believing it to be a futile black-hole effort. Yet I sometimes read Wiki articles hoping to find the truth and think that it's the least that I can do to offer expertise where I have it. Leuckartiara (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, I need to go to sleep, but I will read your article more carefully tomorrow. Is it non-neutral to add to the ctenophore article that Beroe was "seemingly" accidently introduced. We have no idea how it got to the Black Sea, so we also don't know that it was "accidently introduced", as the article said before I changed it. There was plenty of talk at official meetings about introducting Beroe, so it was an idea that was out there. Similarly, you removed my statement that we believe that Mnemiopsis was introduced in ballast water. I was modifying a statement that was more positive, but since nobody saw the introduction, my addition was more cautious, and certainly no less correct. I don't get WHY you edited those more cautious, yet in my mind still neutral, statements out. I can add my comments to the cteno discussion, but I don't think that they are about the animals, so much as what I said, which is why I am writing this to you. I'm trying to understand how this works, since a huge amount of stuff (maybe by known authors?) goes unquestioned, and then what I think is neutral and factual, gets edited out. I thought in most cases that I was correcting flat-out errors or mythology. Leuckartiara (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Ruffthanks, I was hoping you would do this one. I've started on the edits, but it will take a couple of days jimfbleak (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I've checked Snowman's edits, and they seem OK - one tricky one was self-reverted, and a cn tag was for a point also queried by you for the million birds in Senegal, so I've reffed that. The timing was not good, but no harm done. The lead says The head and neck ornaments are erected as part of an elaborate display at a lek in which three differently plumaged types of male utilise a variety of strategies, including female mimicry, to gain access to the reeves. I need to strike a balance between summary and detail in the lead, do I need to say more than that? Other than that, I think all is done. If there are any further points on the sections done, can they be moved to after the existing text? Although the ticks/crosses are very helpful, its becoming tricky to navigate through dense text in edit mode where they are not visible? Thanks jimfbleak (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
inflation, currency conversion, precisionPhilcha, thanks for your valuable input to that discussion. We must keep a permalink to it somewhere. I'm keen for you to stay in the loop when next the issue comes up. Tony (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC) YP ref issuesAaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 02:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC) I sent an email to Robert Groenewegen about the stands capacity and he replied, Hi Aaron, It would be accurate if it read as follows: "The Gunns Stand surrounds approximately half the ground, and has a capacity of 5,700. The Northern, Southern and Eastern Terraces have a capacity of 6,000. The current seating capacity of the venue is 11,825 with the new Northern Stand proposed to be finished in August 2010, an additional 2175 seats will be added. Total ground capacity is 20,000 and seating capacity will be 14000. Cheers
Original Message----- From: Aaron de Wit [2] Sent: Saturday, 13 June 2009 12:07 AM To: Robert Groenewegen Subject: Stand capacity
Hi Robert, Great to see plans for the Northern Stand coming along! Do you know of an internet article/book that notes the combined capacity of the Northern Terrace, Southern Terrace and Eastern Terrace? Otherwise this sentence on wikpedia's York Park page will have to get deleted. "The stands surround approximately half the ground, and collectively have a capacity of between 5,500 and 6,000, bringing the grounds seated capacity to 11,700," because the sentence doesn't have a reference, even though the claim is probably correct. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, Aaron BurgessHi Philcha, afraid I've been very busy recently, and have also somewhat lost interest in WP for the moment. My own fault for getting sucked in to pointless debates about reference formatting, I think. I'm next likely to have a patch of free time in October or so... so my August target isn't looking too hopeful )-: Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC) DisputedRegarding this edit: the reason I had replaced {{disputed}} with {{underdiscussion}} is that, as far as I know, the "disputed" tag is only for articles. And it looks awkward to say that a guideline's "factual accuracy" is disputed—especially for newbies who come along to read that guideline for the first time and wonder what the tag is supposed to be telling them. It's the guideline's value to Wikipedia, not its "factual accuracy", that is disputed. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
York Park GAThanks, don't worry I doubt there will be any conflicts. All the best, Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 05:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
There is a real problem with referencing in the History section because a detailed article on Aurora Stadium had to be removed as an unreliable source, therefore that's the reason why some sentences aren't referenced properly and I'm struggling to find any others, so it's looking like some sentences have to be removed. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 04:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Here is the article
Yeah sorry, I'm currently trying to find a ref for "becoming the Launceston Showgrounds in 1873" It's currently the site of the show but can't find reference for that year. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 10:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Shit! Just when we're nearly done, I'll have to re-write the section about the Northern Stand because of this latest development I didn't read properly a few weeks back! 1 2 What happened to stage one and stage two? The joys of Tasmania! What's next? The whole thing gets canned because of the financial crisis... Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 10:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The only thing I haven't fixed is finding a naming rights ref. The only working one is from Aus Stadiums. The info is too important to delete though. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 05:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Think all issues except naming rights have been resolved. Shame you won't be able to continue as you've done a fantastic job so far. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 10:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Bobby FischerThanks for intervening in Bobby Fischer. As I said, I was about at the end of my rope and in danger of offending WP:CIVIL. I felt as though I'd been marooned in The Twilight Zone. Krakatoa (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
On the OriginThanks for your support and kind words,[3] presumably you'd like to sign it rather than having an unsinged template added ;) Having slogged through that, may I timidly request your thoughts on whether it's worth putting The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs and Fertilisation of Orchids up for the same treatment? Perhaps better late than never.. dave souza, talk 10:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
It isn't completely clear to me whether your concerns have been addressed sufficiently for the article to meet the GA criteria. Can you comment? Thanks, Geometry guy 20:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC) ACS ReviewCan you review my article. I put it up for a review but, it is taking forever to get review and I dont want to improve another article till I get this one perfect. And I looked at one of the articles you reveiwed and I thought you were pretty good at checking aticles for a review so can you please help me and review my article. The article I am working on so far is Another Cinderella Story its in the film theater category in the Wikipedia Article Nomination.Sprite7868 04:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC) You are requested to confirm!Hi Philcha, As you know, I have been developing a mentor/adviser plan (User:Mattisse/Plan) for which you and others have provided input at User talk:Mattisse/Plan, Arbitration Workshop and Proposed decision talk page. Previously, you said you were willing to be one of my mentors/advisers. I think this plan will work. I have learned a great deal from this arbitration and feel comfortable with my panel of mentors/advisers and trust their judgment. Currently the ArbCom is in the process of rendering decision and have requested that my mentors/advisers confirm that they are aware of the plan and agree with their role in it. See Moving towards closure of the case. If you are still willing to serve as one of my mentors/advisers, and I fervently hope you are, I ask you to indicate your willingness by posting on the Proposed decision talk page. Thank you so much. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Talkback You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. --Next-Genn-Gamer 14:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC) re: WP:NOTPLOTGood morning. You recently made a cogent and articulate comment at WT:NOT on the topic of plot summaries. Would you consider joining the effort at Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works? The goal is to more fully explain all the nuance and detail about dealing with plot summaries without bloating WP:NOT any more than it already is. In that regard, this page is intended to parallel WP:WINAD, a drill-down page which very successfully elaborates on and clarifies WP:NOTDICDEF. Thanks in advance for any thoughts you might have. Rossami (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Great Southern GroupThanks for starting the review. I was aware the article was light on financial / company structure info, and your initial comments have underlined that. If you are agreeable, and as per your remark "review paused", can i ask that you leave the review on hold until Monday without doing anything further, and in that time i will try and provide an expanded profile of the company. Please bear in mind that, until the s**t hit the fan with the collapse of these MISs, the company/ies (it has a complex group structure, and itself seems to use different names somewhat interchangeably, as do the media) had a relatively low profile. Thanks for getting me to pay attention to a side of this thing i probably knew needed work. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC) File permission problem with File:Amstrad_PCW_16_01.png Thanks for uploading File:Amstrad_PCW_16_01.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license. If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 19:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I reverted that change of mine. Eubulides (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC) |
