en User talk:Sophie means wisdom Archive2007b

Plot Length

Rescued from Village pump/Policy, where they don't archive stuff: Is there a guideline or policy on length of plot summaries? I've looked at the relevant bits of WP:NOT and WP:WAF but they're both a bit vague. There's a debate about this here. Totnesmartin 20:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:FICT although you won't find a fixed "no more than X words" suggestion three, either. DES ^(talk) 21:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid "play-by-play" level of details. Focus on what you need to give basic background and to aid the article's real-world information sections. Additional general summary might be appropriate for fiction with large cultural significance/impact like Shakespeare, Superman, NedBoy. -- Ned Scott 22:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into that before, here's one discussion I found. Quadzilla99 22:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never found anything definitive or concrete though. Quadzilla99 22:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but it still helps. thanks. I'll point the WPers at this section. Totnesmartin 14:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new task force that could use your help

Hi Totnesmartin, Given your interests and strong editing history, I wanted to let you know about a new task force that I've set up with various editors. We're basically committed to making sure that the environmental records of major corporations and politicians are accurately and readably represented. If you have any interest in the project, please take a look and consider joining. Best,Benzocane 00:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoa Hakananai'a

hi there totnesmartin. in reply to your message about creating an article on Hoa Hakananai'a, i think it would be a nice idea and a welcome addition. please reply with details on when to begin creating. thanks. dan --Danbrown99 17:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's the go-ahead I need. Please back me up when they AfD it! Totnesmartin 17:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok just give me a shout when you need some help. i have already began to compile information. dan--Danbrown99 18:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just checked out the page- good work. looks nice. needs links to/from though. any ideas? --Danbrown99 18:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I haven't finished yet, stuff to come about its discovery and removal, and its original location in Orongo. I might also put in the politics surrounding its removal. there are also comments on it following its arrival in London. i think (without checking0 that it was also the last moai to be made, the last to be used for ritual purposes, and the first to be removed from Easter Island.

Can you find any sources apart from the British Museum book and website? Totnesmartin 18:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ive found this link: http://www.travelicio.us/f/Easter-Island/73965586/Hoa_Hakananai'a/ but im not sure if it has just be copied from the British Museum site. there also seems to be a book entirely on the moais journey- Remote Possibilities: Hoa Hakananai'a and HMS "Topaze" on Rapa Nui (British Museum Research Publication). it could be interesting --Danbrown99 19:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the british museum on friday and took some pictures of Hoa Hakananai'a. shall i upload/send as they may be worth while. i also brought the book so i can add to the article as and when its needed. dan --Danbrown99 15:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original photos would be great, rather than just borrowing from the British Museum article like I did. Hopefully your edition of the book might be more up-to-date than mine (which I bought in 2005). Totnesmartin 15:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spiral Scratch (EP)

On 3 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Spiral Scratch (EP), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 17:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being Boiled

On 6 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Being Boiled, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 06:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Craig Marsh

On 11 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ian Craig Marsh, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

killer badger

nominate away. - perfectblue 17:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated. On 19 July, 2007, a fact from the article Killer badger, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 19:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come and look

Have you tried:

http://rationalwiki.com/ ? Your exit from Conswervapædia was noted. Susan G (fellow brit)

Ps hope you're out of the flood area, we had it up here (S.Yorks) a while ago.

Conservapedia article

Hi! I saw your comment on the paragraph about the Daily Show's comparison of Wikipedia with Conservapedia. I did a quick search at the linked Conservapedia article and its talk page(s), but the Daily Show isn't mentioned except in passing on Talk. Maybe I missed it; we should link to the exact section where the source is (and, for obvious reasons, use a permanent link to the exact revision of the page!) since it's so long. Having said all that, I'm not sure that Conservapedia is sufficiently independent to act as a source? Granted, we're talking about the Daily Show's discussion rather than Conservapedia's position per se, but I think there's definitely a bit of conflict-of-interest there. Let me know what you think! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ? 14:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you didn't see it because it's a hidden comment. This is it:[1]. Totnesmartin 14:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, that's the same diff I linked above! ;-) But I came to a suddenly different realisation of what you meant; the text of the paragraph provides the source by means of specifying the particular episode of the television show. I had misunderstood you as saying that the Conservapedia link constituted a reference. I suppose I just saw the "external link" icon and immediately thought "external reference"; habitual thinking, I guess! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 14:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! That's what i get for trying to read your link via the edit window! Shall we both try to forget this gaffe-ridden conversation ever happened? Totnesmartin 15:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that level of mutual misunderstanding is about par for the course round these here Internets! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 15:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AR1

Hi, I saw you deleted the band snmnmnm from this list because it had been A7'ed twice. I just wanted to point out that the number of times a band is A7'ed does not necessarily correspond to a lack of notability; my userpage has a few examples. Sometimes bands are often A7'ed not because they are non-notable, but because the page's authors are incompetent. I wrote this band an entry which should substantiate its notability. Chubbles 20:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well blow me! I see so many so many bands come and go on the AfD pages that I just assumed the same thing had happened here - some chancer trying to get notable. My mistake and thanks for pointing it out. Totnesmartin 21:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Grant

Regarding your recent comment on WP:WHO_[2]: have produced a rough section on character conception for Jo Grant, using real world references. Would appreciate your thoughts before I spring it on the article. 'Tis here. Cheers. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 12:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only quibble is the phrase "denied the luxury" which probably breaks some rule or other (WP:PEACOCK perhaps?), other than that, yes stick it in please. Totnesmartin 15:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll do some more tinkering, straighten the phrasing. Cheers. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 19:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tinkering is good. Like a garden, an article is never "finished". Totnesmartin 20:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed the tag. Although more real-world info could still be added, I thought the recent additions were substantial enough to warrant removing it. I wanted to let you know in case you disagree, since you initially added it. --Brian Olsen 18:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's about half-and-half now, so it should be fine. Totnesmartin 18:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Giant

I made some editions to the Neo-giant article based on your message. Thanks for pointing them out to me. Ryan shell 16:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Bigfoot in popular culture

Bigfoot in popular culture, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Bigfoot in popular culture satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigfoot in popular culture and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Bigfoot in popular culture during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Eyrian 16:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not surprised at all, it's shite! Totnesmartin 16:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opal mining in Australia

How is your idea of writing a page on opal mining in Australia coming along?Zigzig20s 18:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Er, yes. Well... um... oops! (cringes in shame). I was working on a different article altogether, but poor old Little Titch wiil just have to wait. Also I've been distraxcted by [www.rationalwiki.com RationalWiki]. Sorry mate! I will have an article up v v v soon. Totnesmartin 21:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Marvin (song)

Marvin (song), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Marvin (song) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin (song) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Marvin (song) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review- Snake scales

Hi Martin,

Thanks for the review. I have reworded the lead and added two missing explanations - mental groove & gular scales. The article has been written mostly by me under encouragement and guidance, of User:Jwinius. Unfortunately the article has not drawn other editors! So yes, it has a single 'voice' behind it. However, I would like to remove the essayish tone and make it more encyclopaedic. Could you point out specific sections or places where the article does not quite read right? Thanks, AshLin 05:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayne Mansfield

Can you do a very big favor? I'd very much like to have {{fact}} tags slapped on to the critical information that really desperately needs a citation. And, may be then you can post a message to that end to Wikipedia:Peer review/Jayne Mansfield/archive1. That way it will be easier for me to get attention the really knowledgeable people who have worked on the article before. They may be weak in writing encyclopedic articles, but they know their Ms Mansfield. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paignton beaches

I'm not sure that a full list of Paignton's beaches is adding significantly to the article. In its current form the section reads too much like a WP:TRIVIA list instead of properly fleshed out prose. Could you look again at the style of this section or it may be removed. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Giant goby

A tag has been placed on Giant goby, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per speedy deletion criterion A1.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

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. Toddstreat1 12:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon islands frogmouth

when you edited the abouve article i noticed that you quoted one of the discoverers. which i think you left it unscourced. is the quote from Cleere as the first reference would suggest, or some where else? if the latter is the case let me know where the qoute came from and i'll gladly add it the article's list of references.Ryan shell 22:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey, that was months ago, I'd forgotten all about it! All quotes appear to be by Steadman and are found in the two ELs in the article. Cleere appears not so have been quoted, despite being first-named as the author of the paper. Totnesmartin 23:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS It's usually good practice when using article titles as section titles on talk pages, to link the article. then it's easier to refer to. Cheers! Totnesmartin 23:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to leave messages for vandalism.

Hi, I saw the message you left for that grubby miscreant at Talk:Witchcraft. The quickest and best way to leave a warning on their page is with one of the following:

{{subst:uw-vandalism1|Article name}} ~~~~
{{subst:uw-vandalism2|Article name}} ~~~~
{{subst:uw-vandalism3|Article name}} ~~~~
{{subst:uw-vandalism4|Article name}} ~~~~
{{subst:uw-vandalism4im|Article name}} ~~~~

These are the different warning levels, 1 being the first and nicest, and 4 being a final warning. If it's really obvious malicious vandalism you can go straight to level 4 with the "im" (immediate) option: "This is the only warning you will receive"

These templates also include some hidden tags intended to help administrators keep track of vandals. I hope you don't have to spend too much time following vandals round, it's not the most fun part of contributing to wikipedia. But if you do, hopefully these templates should help. More info at WP:VAND. Cheers, Fuzzypeg ☻ 04:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fuzzers, I always forget about the templates in the heat of annoyance. Now I have them on hand so I'll try to use them in future. Totnesmartin 12:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Haag

Don't forget to check this page for possible copyvio when you get home. 86.143.208.50 13:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC) (god knows why I just signed this)[reply]

Oh all right then if you insist! Totnesmartin 17:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC) (god knows why I just replied to this)[reply]

SNAP

Pontins :) Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 20:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He (or she) seems to have spammed loads of articles, I'm just about to chase them all up. Totnesmartin 20:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

conservopedia

but seriously, firstly the thing about his funny small feet and missing hands is true and secondly it is a loathesome organ anyway Michaeldrayson (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Articles

Sorry about undoing your alphabetical sorting; I'll restore it. MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 18:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should have waited until you'd finished stripping the links... oops. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, advise

Since you have helped the Jayne Mansfield article to become what it is today, I'd like to draw your attention to another article split off from the main one - Jayne Mansfield in popular culture. It has been nominated for deletion a second time here, and the supports so far are three way - "Delete", "Keep" and "Merge" - with a few comments thrown in (mostly by the nominator and I). Would you take a look at the debate and the article? Even if you stay away from voicing your view on the debate page, you can advise me on my talk page (may be lend a hand, too). I hope I am not canvassing :P. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dartmouth Station

Not a bad idea but I'm having trouble finding sources. I discovered this station in 1971 when a booking clerk awaited passengers for the ferries Adrian and Humphrey Gilbert. One site in particular thinks that the pontoon pier on the south side of the river is the station. I will persist, however. I'd like to see how they would have got the line past the Boat Float. Britmax 22:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re.:Requests

You'll find more about people, incl. police and military shooting at UFOs, aliens on the Close Encounter article, (on a past version of that article), google Shooting Bigfoot, Killing Bigfoot for people shooting at a bigfoot. LOVE THE HONEY ISLAND SWAMP MONSTER article. Honey Island used to be a small to medium sized island that had a sizable honeybee colony on it long ago, hence the name, and the Bigfoot-like creature was seen there. 65.163.112.205 01:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'd never heard of HISM, strangely. As for the shooting article, I'm busy today so I won't be able to do much, but I'll give it some thought. In the meantime, why don't you register as an editor, then you can start articles yourself? then you can list them all on your userpage as a ~~ego-trip~~ valuable record. Totnesmartin 11:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be able to help me!

Dear Totnesmartin;

Do you live in Totnes? If so, do you know the town library? If yes to both, please get in touch. Cheers, Fergananim —Preceding comment was added at 14:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do, and yes I do. It's open until 7 today. What do you want? Totnesmartin 14:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! Well, I was in Totnes Library several years ago, and came across a marvellous volume on Totnes Priory, including a number of early documents published in the book from the time of its foundation onwards. What I would like to know is if there is any way I could obtain copies of the charters printed in the book, via yourself? I do have some, but its become apparent that I need virtually all from the foundation up to about 1180. However, if it makes things easier, I am looking for any and all references to the following: Martin de Wallis (Martin of Wales), who I understand is listed as a witness in the foundation charter; Judhal of Totnes; Serlo de Burci and his daughter, Geva; her son, Robert fitz Martin; and Geva's second husband, William de Falise. I would very happily reimburse your expences if you could suggest a way convinent to you to pass the relevant data on to me. Sincerely, Fergananim (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could photocopy the relevant pages for you (12p a sheet) and I could ask at the museum and guildhall as well. If you want to repay me, let's start emailing rather than sharing addresses and financial details on Wikipedia. I am [Email deleted]. See you there.

Discussion of animal pictures, articles

I just wanted to write back and thank everyone who's participated in the discussion about what kinds of animal pictures fit the requirement of encyclopaedic value, with specific reference to head shots, notably of birds; and also about whether the inclusion of some graphic information should be compulsory at FAC (distribution maps, various depictions of the animal).

I'm sorry that the discussion became derailed by User:Fir0002. I'll adhere to WP:AGF for the time being.

I thought I would sum up what we discussed:

Head shots can be useful for birds that have distinctive colour markings or other features on the head, but makes less sense for others (Totnesmartin)
Head shots are necessary when species are only distinguishable by their cranial morphology (Dinoguy2)
Head shots are not of interest outside Craniata (Dinoguy2)
MeegsC brought up the term "soaring" as a better description of where flight silhouettes would be useful; Casliber later referred to "raptors and seabirds" (I checked my bird books (n=4), and I see silhouettes or semi-profile views of the flying bird used in a much wider range of taxa, including ducks, pigeons, herons, cranes, storks, swallows, swifts, and probably others that I didn't memorise)
Jimfbleak expressed the opinion that there can be no rule where exceptions exist. (I disagree. Rules could allow for exceptions, which just means we only have to discuss the exceptions, not every other case as well.)
Jimfbleak said it may be better to use sparrows or pigeons for the size comparison. (I disagree: Not everywhere that has internet has sparrows and pigeons, and house sparrows at least are different sizes in different places)
Jimfbleak expressed desire for restricting FPC to animals in the wild, and allow captive shots only for domesticated species.
Casliber supported mandatory distribution maps
Casliber opposed size comparisons for plants (I'm guessing this was pre-emptive, as nobody had proposed size comparisons for plants)
I then suggested that a mechanism could be created for WikiProjects to set up their own definitions for excellent articles, and these could be showcased aside from the traditional Featured Articles and TFA; this proposal was mostly ignored by subsequent comments
Firsfron expressed concern that there wouldn't be enough illustrators to create the required illustrations and raised further exceptions (which I regard as irrelevant because the proposal already allows for special cases to be considered differently)
Firsfron suggested that if anything other than a distribution map was made mandatory, an illustration of a skull might be the best thing
Sabine's Sunbird seemed to oppose distribution maps being mandatory on the basis that they took effort to make (I'm unsure that this is correct, and was left wondering what the HBW size comparisons were)
Calibas was against "rules" (I don't see how we can carry on without some of the policies and guidelines we have)

In conclusion, most concerns were to do with allowing for exceptions, which is already the case in all guidelines I'm aware of, including the proposals discussed here.

To return to the original proposal, nobody has been able to make a strong general case for head shots in birds or any other larger taxon, a finding I interpret as meaning my personal guideline is sound. I hope others may find parts of it useful and adopt them. If you have any further comments on the FPC, FAC, or WikiProject content creation proposals, please leave them on my talk page. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello... here's another peer review

I have submitted Sitakunda Upazila to Wikipedia:Peer review/Sitakunda Upazila/archive1, again not with much success. I clearly remember your enormous help with the peer review for Jayne Mansfield, and couldn't help turning to you again. I know your net connectivity isn't so great right now, but if you're back from the no-net land before the review closes, please take a look. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Sophie means wisdom/Archive2007b