User talk:Ceranthor/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ceranthor. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thank you for your support at my RFA; it has now closed, the end result being I get the buttons! Your confidence in me "I see no reason to do otherwise" did make me blush a bit... I shall do what I can to make sure you never change your mind! Seriously though, your support was greatly appreciated. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my slip with my "cut & paste". Now you know which article I copied my generic infobox from. :-) -- Kheider (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to draft up a set of rules, so that each selected article will have a uniform template and style.

First off, I think each image needs to be 250px. 350px makes the image too large, and forces a four-word per line in the portal, making the text difficult to read.

Another thing I'd like to discuss is the selection of images. The Indian Ocean earthquake had a great image selection, but the rest are all maps. Maps help, yes, but wouldn't it be best to find an image like selected article/1? I know its difficult, since article1 has a tsunami, but one with action would be interesting, or perhaps a uniform map? These are just policies that need to be drawn up, or else the portal looks...different every passing day.

Also, article3 and article6 need longer summaries. I know you're an active editor on both, so you can help; you were the one who nominated article6 at FAC, right? Just above mine, in fact. :P Anyway, I hope you take these into consideration. We need a set of rules to set uniformity, or else each selected article looks different than the rest. --haha169 (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't nominate it? You were one of the people addressing the concerns...whatever. Never mind. Thank you for listening to my ideas! :) Should the uniformity rules be added the the page? --haha169 (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

But seriously; I effectively gave up on Scattered disc ages ago and focused on getting Planets beyond Neptune and Makemake (dwarf planet) up to code instead. so yes. I think I can now give it my full attention too. Serendi^podous 06:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone has fixed my article. It is no longer self published. Just a simple blurb about the accomplishments at Kings Island amusement park. There are verifiable news sources. It was an incredible walk. Please do not delete.

Thanks

Wallendaenterprises (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you -- I certainly hope to work on future ones, any suggestions very welcome :) cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind thought. Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll help the best I can. I also personally have about 6 featured articles on my to do list. One of them is 2003 Bam earthquake, on which User:Blofeld of SPECTRE has already announced that he will collaborate with me. I'll start that PR for 2002 Iran-apologies for not helping you on the FAC, I haven't been on a computer for 13 days. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 23:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hell, I'm just as busy as you. Being an "editor of the wiki" has some pretty broad implications... Could you please take a bit of time to peer review 2002 Bouin Zahra, I really think this can be fleshed out to FA quality. Thanks for your help (and for founding WP:QUAKE in the first place!)--I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 01:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it true you have not received one already?! Time to change that...

		The Original Barnstar
		A long overdue oringinal barnstar is awarded to Meldshal42: founding an ever growing wikiproject, working tirelessly on creating and expanding articles in that subject matter, touching items others wouldn't with a ten foot pole, etc. etc. Long may it continue! --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 02:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

While I'm sure you meant this nice, a barnstar for her userpage might be the last thing she needs at the moment. Cheers, Face 07:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey. Could you review the Silverthrone Caldera article? I expanded it quite a bit. Black Tusk (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Added more references, paragraphs and photos. Black Tusk (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything else needed? Black Tusk (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Just letting you know I expanded more on the article. Black Tusk (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The answer is yes, but I prefer "mentoring" not coaching. Also, I don't "do" coaching to pass RFA, but I am happy to work to honing your skills so that if you did run and pass then you would be effective with the additional tools from day 1. I'll take a deeper review of your contributions and see where we go. One thing I'd like to know; I saw some mention to a bit of a fall out or problems with GA reviewing. Can you tell me about that? Pedro :  Chat  07:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't as familiar with the GA guidelines as I should have been. And, not knowing it was against the guidelines, I asked someone to nominate an article for my review. That's a bit of a weakness, isn't it? :( --Meldshal (§peak to me) 11:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really. I don't think every editor needs to know every guideline. Th ekey thing is how you react after you've been pointed to a guideline, and wether you repeat a mistake. On error learnt from is no bad thing IMHO. Moving on, are there othe rareas of Wikipedia that you feel you may be week in, or that you could do with assistance on? Also, you may want to rethink some of your sub pages..... particularly secret pages and also the big purple humour box linked from "Please, if I tagged your article for deletion, do not leave a bad message, click here.". I've you'd just tagged my article for deletion, I came to your user page and clicked a link with the headline "Humour" I'd be unimpressed ..... just a thought.... the essay behind is fine but I'd recommend a serious tone fo rdealing with a serious action. Pedro :  Chat  11:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, those type of "things" have been removed. Well, I think I'm still pretty new to reporting vandals, I've only reported one to AIV. I've reverted a lot of stuff though. I'm definitely not weak at building articles and/or stubs. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 11:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, but to get stuff out of your user space tag it with {{db-u1}} and it wil flag up at CAT:CSD to be got rid of. The key reason we're here is, of course, writing and improving articles. Of course at RFA people like to see a "well rounded" editor with evidence of contributions in the admin areas as well. Not only does this give other editors confidence that the tools will be of benefit but more importantly that you won't misuse them in a way that can be detrimental to the project. I'll set up a sub page and we can explore this idea more thoroughly without you getting big orange bars! Pedro :  Chat  12:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Meldshal42/Mentoring Pedro :  Chat  12:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Some replies added and a big section at the end on some reading you need. I'm less active at weekends but I will be popping in - however forgive me if you have to wait a little while for responses. I assume you live in the US? Pedro :  Chat  14:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. You have my vote in RFA. Just say when you will become an official candidate ;) Timpul my talk 18:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I'm a huge fan of Wikipedia. I was reading an article on the Jersey Shore when I saw what I thought was an inaccuracy. By no definition is Middlesex County in NJ part of the Jersey Shore. I removed the reference and then was told my changes were not helpful.

I don't understand.  :)

38.99.228.42 (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As the articles created from WP:AfC are not written by you, you must explicitly credit the actual author in the edit summary, otherwise you break the GFDL. There's a specific edit summary suggestion on the AfC instructions.

I've fixed one of your recent AfC article submissions to make it GFDL compliant, by using a tweaked version of the edit summary that AfC suggests. I'll leave the rest to you! :) Seraphim♥Whipp 17:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you go back and fix all of your AfC submissions? If you don't want to, could you at least make a list of articles you've created for AfC so that I can go back and clean up? Seraphim♥Whipp 10:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Greetings! The current Shakespeare Project Collaboration is Romeo and Juliet. This project is currently going a thorough peer review and copyedit before moving on to FAC. The link to the peer review is Wikipedia:Peer review/Romeo and Juliet/archive1. Have a look! « Diligent Terrier Bot (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I'm still active. In fact, you could even make a wikipedia article on me now that I've been in the news: Eric Stoller --Eric Stoller (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Great! Let me know if you need any info.--Eric Stoller (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment "Date is span of life.". Punkmorten (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

H I don't usually update wikipedia pages and appreciate your help. I'm a graduate student in planetary science and on the mpec the actual first discover for 2007 UK126 is M.E. Schwamb. You can check on the list for mpec on the 2007 UK126 page. Mike Brown and David Rabinowitz are co-discovers. The mpec order lists the order of the discovers. I just wanted to fix that to reflect the correct order of the discovers and include all of them. The two well known discovers were listed. I understand you reverting the change and appreciate your work taking care of these pages to keep the information accurate, but I think that all discovers should be listed.

24.205.64.240 (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(copied over from my talk page:) Go ahead, go ahead. The students are done with it. I'll also certainly chip in. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I replied on my talk. later, Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 13:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(copied over from my talk page:) Yes, of course! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Different people have different ideas about redlinks. I'm one of many people who think they are probably a Good Thing and probably should be left alone. I know they're ugly, but they encourage people to write new articles. When the new articles have been written, they provide ready-made links to the new article. if anyone in GA or FA gives you grief about redlinks, you can politely and patiently explain this to them. If they persist, then you can remove the redlinks... wait three weeks... and put them back in ;-) 'Nuff said. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 02:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• PS another thing I've been meaning to tell you: You can't stick your own conjecture anywhere in an article, but you especially can't stick it immediately prior to a citation, like this one, which I removed. If you stick info before a citation, it means that the author being cited is the one who said this! It is a form of misquote. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 02:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• PPS. I saw jbmurray revert you here The reason why we use present tense when discuss scholars is that their ideas/opinions still stand in the present. It's funny, I know, but it's not strange to see even dead people discussed in the present tense, if their ideas still obtain. It's tricky to figure out when to use present and when to use past, and I get thrown by it from time to time too. If someone changes their mind (one extremely famous linguist is known for walking away from his earlier ideas), then the earlier ideas would be in the past tense... it's tricky. When you discuss the dead scholar, you discuss their life in the past tense, but often discuss their ideas in the present tense. Like I said, it gets confusing to me too. The best thing to do is have other editors who have an academic background double-check your work. OH YEAH and never alter a direct quote! No scholars will let you get away with altering the text (if they notice it). There are some folks in wikipedia who take the whole thing one step further... Wikipedians who won't even let you wikilink from a direct quote, which i think is moronic... but that's the way it is. Those folks currently have the upper hand here at wikipedia; they've worn others down and forced it into WP:MOS (last time I looked). Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 02:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Heh. What Ling said, especially on changing direct quotations. I won't even change what seem to be obvious typos in direct quotations, in case those were in the original: you should only edit the quotation after consulting the source. In any case, typos show that there was some sloppiness in the transcription, so a double-check would come in handy. (There's a little bit of discussion about this here, where in fact it turns out that there are two sources in question, which differ; really, we should go back to the original 1838 publication.) So, in this instance, Franco spells folklore "folk-lore." Keep it that way. (I'm more ambivalent about links within quoted text: I'll do it, but very much in moderation.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your chipper attitude and for being exceptionally nice, I award you the barnstar of good humour! Serendipodous 07:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to help Félix Houphouët-Boigny through FAC. It needs proofreaders however, and I think you can do a decent job at it. Please help. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 23:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not much more is needed (I occasionally a thing or two here and there) but it does need copyeditors. Since you did an excellant job with 2002 Bou'in Zahra (dear me, that hasn't attracted much attention, has it!), I ask that you help with this. While Nishkid did most of it, I contributed a significant amount, and this is by far the accomplishment I am most proud of. It is longer than Nelson Mandela! --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 01:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tnossdosandcentaurs.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Question about the above image. Its licensing is under PD, but it includes a Fair-Use rationale tag. This contradicts itself. Is the image under fair-use, or is it legitimately PD. If it is fair-use, please leave an appropriate license. If it is PD, please explain how. However, I do find it especially funny to confuse BJBot by reverting and reverting. --haha169 (talk) 05:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I was asking about the contradicting licenses. I think it should be fixed, either way, unless you absolutely want deletion? Just go ask an admin then.--haha169 (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

hijo de puta --190.138.168.29 (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You speak spanish? --190.138.168.29 (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words! :) Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Meldshal,

As an FA-Team member, I'm soliciting your assistance with FA-Team Mission 5 on Scattered disc and Solar energy (and possibly others). Your help with copyediting (Solar energy) and expansion (Scattered disc) would be much appreciated. As the nominator of Scattered disc, I've already added your name to the mission page. I'm hoping you'll also be willing to help out with Solar energy. Thanks, Geometry guy 15:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI Peer Review exists if you would like to gain more feedback for the article. Gary King (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in my RFA. As I use the tools, I will do my best to do the right thing. If you see me do something you think was wrong, please tell me.

Cheers! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd defer to your mentor on your readiness, as He'll have worked directly with you more recently. I haven't had a chance to read through your mentoring page, either - though Pedro's more of an Adminship mentor as opposed to an RFA Mentor - an important distinction. Do you mean that, if you don't run immediately, you wouldn't for another 6 months, or that you'd prefer to wait 6 months rather than run now? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's normal to be nervous - it is a daunting process, but it's not the be-all and end-all of wikipedia. There is no harm in waiting for a bit before requesting the tools, and more experience never hurt anyone at RfA. I'm curious to see Pedro's take, as well. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Meldshall, I thought you'd seen the response on my talk at User_talk:Pedro#Possible_RFA. There is some input from others as well. Ultraexactss may also wish to review User:Meldshal42/Mentoring for his take but the bottom line is that I don't feel you're ready and I don't believe an RFA would pass. As I noted on my talk however, I can't speak for the community so if you do wish to run feel free to do so. Pedro :  Chat  12:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Man - we just cross posted! Pedro :  Chat  12:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I saw it Pedro, and if you'll read my comments there, you'll find I don't want to run just yet. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 12:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's all fine. But I was literally finishing the typos in preview, hit save, and my orange bar came up with you commenting on my talk - wierd sense of timing. Any way - as noted I agree with your decision, think it to be very wise, and look forward to helping you further. Pedro :  Chat  12:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. I preferworking on the largest and most accurate wiki there is... Wikipedia! I have worked on several other wikis in the past, but, as User:Good Olfactory says, "the battle was over and the smaller wikis had all lost to WP." --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 19:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A work of art, blimey! Not sure I'd go that far quite yet, to my eyes there's still plenty that could be improved. I'll put it forward for GA or maybe PR sometime soon when I reckon I'll have enough time to respond promptly to suggestions. What will happen on your Volcano wiki? JMiall₰ 20:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to know about this. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 22:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You may also wish to know Houphouet-Boigny is up for Peer Review. Fa by August! Now Nishkid and I are working on Leon M'ba. I can't wait to start on 2003 Bam. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 01:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have replied at the peer review. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 23:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Well, I do have an account on all wikia sites, but my main account is on the hurricanes wikia. If you leave a message on my talkpage at Earthquakes Wikia, which by the way my account is User:2007Astro'sHurricane, will I recieve the message if I'm on another wikia? Also, what do I do on the Earthquakes wikia, do I discuss something or write articles, etc? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 14:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have an account on all wikia sites as well. Its under the name "Misken67". If you see me editing under that username, it'll be me. Thanks for directing me there! :) --haha169 (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I created a template that didn't work out so well. Would you mind deleting it? [1]. Thanks. Btw, {{Art-wikipedia}} and {{FA-wikipedia}} are good and ready to go on the quake wiki. Check them out! --haha169 (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

All right, then. We can move this discussion to Wikia. :) --haha169 (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention on my talk page. I appreciate it.--Old Moonraker (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I would appreciate if you could be more specific, as I'm at a loss as to how the article should be improved. See my comments at Talk:Swan Lake Nature Study Area.--ragesoss (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoo hoo, thanks, my first GA :) And I still have more to add :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Ceranthor. You have new messages at Seraphim Whipp's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Seraphim♥Whipp 23:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message. It sounds like a great idea, but unfortunately I will not be able to contribute there for time problem. Best wishes for the project. I will try to help my best in wikipedia articles on earthquake. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So all's cool. :) Serendi^podous 20:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Great news re the GA! Within six hours of its nomination - a record?. Thank you very much.Brianboulton (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Meldshal42, I wanted to offer some constructive criticism in regards to your recent reviews for WP:GAC. First of all, thanks for your frequent participation! However, I noticed that you are not creating subpages for the reviews; if you notice the link in the GAC template, there's a note that says "Reviewers: To start the review process, follow this link to create a dedicated subpage for the review." Once you click that link, a subpage will be created where you can write your review. You must then link to the review page when you update the GA banner (in the field that says "page= ") as well as with a transclusion, whether the article passes, is placed on hold, or fails. See "How to review an article" at GAC for more info.

Also, I'm concerned about the brevity of the reviews and lack of comments. According to the history, you passed Farthest South two minutes after you said you would review it. I'm not doubting your judgment (I ultimately would have passed the article, as well), but is two minutes enough time to properly review an entire article? If you read it beforehand, that would be understandable, but I don't see a review on the article's talk page. Did you have no suggestions for improvement or overall comments? I know from experience that simple "this passes GA" comments are little help, so keep in mind that most editors would prefer to know your opinion on how they can improve their work. No article is perfect. :) Just a few friendly suggestions for the future, please don't take it personally. María (habla conmigo) 20:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)