User talk:Circeus/july2007

List of Survivor contestants
You made a comment here but you didn't add any sort of opposition or support and I was just wondering what your position on the article was. Thanks, Scorpion0422 03:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Chicago outdoor sculptures
I was passed | this list by a WP:WPChi member. I would guess the list would be over 95% redlinks if we made it linkable. Do you think such a list should be made? --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 05:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Template: Relevance fallacies or Red Herring Fallacy
Your logic makes sense. My only objection is that the article list is different... So I will add the articles missing from the "Relevance fallacies" that are in the other one... then restore your redirect. Kind regards, David Bergan 14:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Finished. Please double-check.  David Bergan 17:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I recently spotted that the Red Herring Fallacy template has been redirected to the Relevance fallacies template. I originally created the RHF because 1) it only contains fallacies (some of those on the new template are not fallacies) 2) it is better organised and 3) it has a consistent design. Can we have it back? I'm happy for changes to be made to it if you think they are necessary. Thanks Andeggs 15:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Refs in Eurybia divaricata
Could you have a look at the article for the white wood aster for me? I've added some new refs that are all from the same book by the same author, but I'm not sure how they should be presented. It may also make a good DYK at this point. I think something like "Did you know that the white wood aster is abundant and common in the US, but restricted and threatened in Canada?" could be good. I don't know if it's still considered a new article though... Djlayton4 | talk |  contribs 19:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks, I wasn't sure what to do. For my future reference, where did you report her? Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 18:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're an administrator! D'oh. :-) Thanks Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 18:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Why was I blocked
Why was I blocked? I put up articles for AfD and stated the reasons why I thought they should be blocked.. Could you please inform me what I did wrong? Callelinea 19:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought I was following the approiate means to do a AfD.. I have just tried again to nominate Christine Croft.. could you please tell me what I did wrong in nominating that article? Callelinea 19:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:POINT in detail. If Circeus hadn't blocked you, I would have.  Rklawton 21:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read. Callelinea plans to re-nominate all of my articles for deletion again. Corvus cornix 22:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your help on the List of introduced fish in Australia. A bbo tt 7 5 ☺ 04:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Year linking
Hi - is there a policy for linking years in articles? People always tend to add them to articles but you've removed two from St John the Divine, Kennington, and I can't see any reason why, as they give the article more context. Thanks. --Cnbrb 08:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks for info. Seems like a sort of grey area. Personally I think it can work either way, but have always had people edit the links in for me, so I presumed it was a policy to always link years. We'll see how the article progresses. On verra.... --Cnbrb 15:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

inclusion tags for Featured content
I saw your edits on List of New Jersey Devils head coaches and was wondering...what do the "inclusion tags for Featured content" do exactly?  Bsroiaadn Talk 02:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have the same question regarding Grade I listed buildings in Bristol William Avery 07:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I had no idea about the Featured content/Lists page.  Bsroiaadn Talk 16:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. There's something wrong with Grade I listed buildings in Bristol: the and aren't paired and the actual text ' ' comes out on the transcluded page. Could you correct it in line with your intentions? I don't want to tamper with things I understand rather poorly. William Avery 21:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Opinion on list
Is a short list with several supporting lists like All-Star Final Vote something that has WP:FL potential. Do you know of similar FLs?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "fix the fact the tables use headers for all cells ASAP"?


 * Now that the page is getting more cleaned up, I was wondering if you might have an example of a page with several tables instead of one main one that became a WP:FL. I want to get a better idea of what I should aspire towards.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 13:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am glad to know to market it as a single segmented table. Do you have anything against side by side layout?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I need two opinions on the table I am working on. Should I add a color for players that are not elected through this process, but who are chosen as substitutes for injured players?  Also, should I add color, embolden, or use ALL CAPS for the winning player in each yearly subtable?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My future WP:FLC is on the main page right now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See Talk:All-Star Final Vote. I have the current format, the old side-by-side format and a new side-by-side format.  Let me know your thoughts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition, your opinion on possible renaming and images would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the most efficient way to center a column in a table?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Civility concerns
Circeus, I'm not impressed by your allegations concerning my "favourite techniques". Please be civil in the future. --Ghirla-трёп- 23:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Suvorov quotations
The quotations I used were taken from a paper on the War of the Second Coalition by Jon Latimer, published in the December 1999 issue of the periodical Military History, pp 62-69. The quotation by Suvorov himself appears on page 65, and that by Moreau on page 68. Clio the Muse 08:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It is, sorry; I overlooked that. You will find it on page 69. The whole episode is more fully covered in Eagles Over the Alps: Suvorov in Italy by Christopher Duffy. Clio the Muse 22:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving Southern red oak
I was trying to move Southern red oak to Quercus falcata, but I think the talk page on the latter space has been edited so I can't do the move. Think you could take care of it? Thanks in advance! Djlayton4 | talk |  contribs 18:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies
I was just trying to keep track of what had been finished for your comments on the governor's list. Didn't mean to step on any toes. Geraldk 21:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Landmarks
There is some discussion at Talk:List_of_Chicago_Landmarks regarding the colors I have tried to add. You are the list expert. Apparently, the color scheme is viewed as both unofficial and garish. I am willing to remove the colors if it is the correct thing to do. However, I am not sure it is, but have no support for keeping them. Please advise. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hadn't we decided during the WP:FLC discussion to not make it sortable unless they make the sort function compatible with all date formats.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone undid your include only tags and I am not sure what the right way to go is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ailanthus altissima - Thanks!
Thanks so much for going through the whole article. I have obligations today, so I might not have a chance to look at it in detail until later. I think one good idea might be to move the "control" section to the Wikibook and just to provide a summary in the article. The reference for the wood is essentially the external link about using it as a wood- I just never got a chance to format it. The ecology excerpt you mentioned was one I didn't write and I sort of wanted to remove as I couldn't find a ref. Anyways, I'll go through your comments later and make corrections. Thanks again. Djlayton4 | talk |  contribs 10:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and started working on your comments. I created an article for Pierre Nicholas d'Incarville, so if you have some time you can translate from the French. I thought about having a go, but my French really is too basic. Cool that he described the kiwi though. Anyways I hope to get through most of you comments by later tonight. I disagreed with a few little things, so have a look when you have a chance. ^_^ Djlayton4 | talk |  contribs 20:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you think its ready for a nomination you're welcome to go ahead and submit it. I'd do it myself, but I'd like to be sure that someone other than I thinks it's worthy for FAC. If there are still issues to be resolved just let me know and I'll work on it. Thanks again Djlayton4 | talk |  contribs 21:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've finished up going through your second round of comments. Have a looks when you have a chance and tell me what you think. Djlayton4 | talk |  contribs 18:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you (I hope the tag on top of the page doesn't refer to me to), but User:Wiki skylace has essentially begun to vandalise the page after I reverted his "neutrality" related edits. I don't know what to do about it and I figured you have a bit more authority. Thanks Djlayton4 | talk |  contribs 21:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh man. This situation has totally worn me out. I have to go to bed now, but it would be helpful if you could have a look at the talk page and see if you can't pacify any of our detractors and commentators. I don't know how you put up with this nonsense as an admin! Djlayton4 | talk |  contribs 23:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for help
Hi Circeus: I was wondering if I could get you to cast your editorial eyeballs over Flight feather. I'm hoping to nominate it as a Good Article candidate, and want to be sure it's up to snuff! Thanks... MeegsC | Talk 18:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! No worries about any delay -- you've given me plenty to work on.  Good luck with the move! :)  MeegsC | Talk 10:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for help 2
Hi Circeus! I added two small paragraphs to the articles, I hope this is in line of what you are saying about. Please let me know if those are sufficient, and any copy editing would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!--Legionarius 03:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the refs help
Just a quick note to thank you for the work you've been doing on cleaning up some of the Anglo-Saxon articles I've been working on -- I'm glad of the help, and you're very thorough. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Another on the run-in
I was going to ask you to give Banksia ericifolia a once-over after I did a bit more in associated plants in habitat (with some refs) and figure out what to do about the cultivars - leave as list or make into a paragraph or two. I've been comparing it to Banksia integrifolia mostly. Hesperian's busy off-keyboard so I think he'll be happy with deferring Banksia telmatiaea for the time being..however if you want to get invovled earlier I'm very happy with all the input (otherwise I can just give a hoy when I am happy with the two problem bits). I'll alert User:Gnangarra as well. All input appreciated. This one is gelling together more nicely than Banksia spinulosa, though I really wanted to get that one up. Both are ones I started the stubs of :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Circeus,

Thanks (Merci!) for rewarding me a barn star - I'm hardly active on en.wikipedia (I am an nl.wikipedia native), but apparently the minor things I do here are appreciated ;-)

Cheers, Brinkie 07:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I see you're doing a great job in editing the List of road accidents article, I hope I didn't cause you any editing conflicts :-) I have found and added several sources, as you might have noticed. You shortened the part of the Belgian bus crash in 1954 and suggested a stub; I don't think it is of such historical significance on English speaking Wikipedia, but I'll consider that on the Dutch speaking Wikipedia!
 * Maybe it's a good idea to standardize the date notation, I see both (e.g. 10 July) and  (e.g. July 10). I don't mind which one is chosen.
 * What should really be considered, is splitting up the list with pre-2000 and post-2000 accidents. It is getting long and there are many accidents listed of which I think are not of historical signifance. But that is a different discussion.
 * Cheers, Brinkie 12:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit to WP:EDIANS
What were you doing here? It seemed like a strange edit - was it an accident of some kind? WaltonOne 20:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a glitch in the servers that made every diff automatically redirect to the WP:EDIANS page. No problem. Rock star  ( T/C ) 20:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Bafta List
After writing my last comment, I am not so sure about the BAFTA list itself - there is lot of double linking, some non-linking... your take? Should it be demoted?--Legionarius 20:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really think inconsistencies in Linking are ground for de-featuring. The list would have to present much heavier issues that cannot be dealt with easily to be de-featured. Twiddling the "country" columns in the 1990s and 2000s so it's not so wide, and maybe unlinking red linked directors/producers might be a good idea, but I think the list stands as is. Circeus 18:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool for me :-)--Legionarius 03:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

obscure question
May I may ask your opinion on a rather obscure matter?

I've put a bit of time and effort into Brown's taxonomic arrangement of Dryandra recently. Why, I don't know - there's little prospect of it ever actually being read by anyone ;-|

If you have a look at the 1830 arrangement section, you'll read that Brown transferred Dryandra falcata into a new monospecific genus, Hemiclidia, but this is no longer accepted. So even though I refer to "Brown's arrangement of Dryandra", I'm actually dealing with two genera sensu Brown, not one. Obviously if I scoped the article as dealing only with Dryandra sensu Brown, then I would have to exclude Hemiclidia from the article, but that seems rather silly. It seems to me more sensible to scope the article as dealing with Brown's arrangement of Dryandra sensu right now. i.e. ""The genus Dryandra (as it is currently understood) was divided into two genera by Brown, Dryandra and Hemiclidia.""

If you've understood this rant so far (if you don't, no-one will), then you've probably guessed where I'm going next. Do you think I should merge Brown's taxonomic arrangement of Dryandra into Brown's taxonomic arrangement of Banksia, thereby creating a single article that deals with the situation thus: ""The genus Banksia (as it is currently understood) was divided into three genera by Brown, Banksia, Dryandra and Hemiclidia."" ?

Hesperian 13:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Meissner, Bentham, and George. Hesperian 00:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Calendar of Saints (Lutheran) Featured list Nomination
Since you had previously expressed support for the promotion of this list, I thought you would like to know that I have renominated it in the hopes that this time sufficient a number of individuals will be interested in looking at this article and expressing their opinion. Please stop by Featured list candidates/Calendar of Saints (Lutheran) and express your support for promotion or constructive criticism when you get a chance. Thanks. -- jackturner3 14:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOS
The order of the final sections of an article are not fixed, (see Guide to layout) and in the Antioxidant article I chose to put the huge list of references last since i thought few readers would want to read this in its entirety. All the best Tim Vickers 02:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

FATS, Inc
Hello. I saw that in March of this year you deleted the article written for FATS Inc. In fact, FATS is a very very important company, the only worldwide trainer of our entire military and the entirety of our nation's law enforcement. Also, through recent aquisitions there are many new changes and advancements that the wolrd should be aware of. Our company is featured on TV on The History Channel, Discover Channel, and Military Channel quire often. And in addition there are many articles in your wiki that reference FATS Inc, all of which now have dead links. Please bring us back, and I promise you that I will write pages and pages of very useful and factual information myself. Thank You. Justin Sanderfer JSanderfer@Fatsinc.com

Advice with a list
Tony advised me to come to you about lists. I am going to try and expand List of townships in Ogle County, Illinois to FL I hope, and was wondering if you could at least take a look at the categories on the list. Is this something that would be needed, should I expand more, delete some? Is there any sort of FL about townships in a county that I can compare or model after? Anything you can give would be great. Prolly should talk about this on the list page if that is alright with you.--Kranar drogin 21:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So what you are saying is that instead of going for Ogle County with its own list of townships, I go with one list with 1,445 townships links on it, seperated by counties? That would be A LOT more work, and away from my focus of expanding Ogle County. I would have to think about that one. Not only that, but a lot of those links would have to be fixed on the List also since we go Townships, County, State and that list doesn't have the County on a lot of them.--Kranar drogin 21:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as the pictures, I suppose we could go with something different that is in the township. I was just using that to show where they are.--Kranar drogin 21:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that that list does need to be fixed too. I will have to think about this a bit more before I jump to one conclusion or another. 24 townships is a lot more managable than 1445, but I will think about it.--Kranar drogin 22:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you do create it, haha, I will have to help. I have been on the township bandwagon since day 1 with them. Anyways, what maybe should be done, is instead of breaking the article all up, how about making it one long list in alpha order, then have one of the columns be for "County". That might make for too long of a list if there is a length for FL.--Kranar drogin 22:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, that might not be a bad idea then to arrange it by county. Boy, it didn't take much to make that a Feature List, just fill in the blanks and give an opening. I am liking a list more and more that would be for each county, then we could remove the list that is on the county page, keep the Township Header but put in there See List, and then just put a brief description on the county page. Boy, this simple list just keeps getting to be a bigger and bigger project.--Kranar drogin 22:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, List of townships in Illinois is 161kb and that is before all the editing, imaging, and whatnot. They aren't suppose to bigger than 100kb, right? So it might be better off making seperate lists for larger counties, say 20+ counties or something. What do you think?--Kranar drogin 22:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Boy, that didn't take long at all. We are going to have to change over those three "K" named counties of Kane County, Kankakee County, and Kendall County. When they were created, the person didn't include the county. I guess it will just take a move (example:Batavia Township, Illinois moved to Batavia Township, Kane County, Illinois). I can prolly do that later tonight, unless you have a quick way of doing that too! So, now that you have that done, are we going to create boxes for each county and include info about the townships? There are three other counties that I still need to create townships for, and I will get right on that. Again, it won't be for another two hours or so.--Kranar drogin 23:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, once I get done doing these fixes, we are going to have to copy this list and sort it in alpha order and move it over to the other, phew. I am almost done with this list, easier to do the fixes on this page.--Kranar drogin 03:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to keep the format that is on that other list, there are A LOT of errors on it, and I am fixing it on this one since all the counties are lumped together. I guess, basically I will just have to copy to Excel, removed the County name headers above each grouping, then sort all the cells then paste them over to the other one I guess. Oh, and this is a page you might want to look at WikiProject Illinois/Townships, just gives some stats down at the bottom that I kept track of as we went along.--Kranar drogin 03:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There we go, both pages should be up to date now. I removed the county names on the other listing, since they are on the new List, plus you can click the township to find what county they are in.--Kranar drogin 04:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I was archiving some stuff, and forgot about List of townships in Illinois by county. I was wondering, what all would still have to be done with this. Do I need a better open lead then? I would like to get FL with it, but if we can't, that is fine too. All townships have been stubbed out, but I have to remove one county still since they are precincts now.--Kranar drogin 02:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Notes v Refs
Just wondering, what's the point of changing a notes section to a references section? Pretty sure the MOS states no preference unless there is a need for separate sections, which there may be in this article, Illinois Central Stone Arch Railroad Bridges. IvoShandor 12:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure how that makes it look as if there is no refs at all, unless one was completely unfamiliar with inline citations. Seems like a question of aesthetics and personal preference more than it does any big question about encyclopediality (ha is that word?) of a notes section vs. references section. But I don't think the argument that it makes it look like there are no references at all holds anywater, the inline cites clearly and obviously refer to the notes section and the links and information contained within. Personally I don't care what it's called, separating sections only further serves to make verification easier (regardless of the number of refs), when I separate them I generally include page numbers in the notes. PDF refs make this especially useful. IvoShandor

List of islands of Scotland
Thanks for your patience with my meanderings at Featured list candidates/List of islands of Scotland - it was much appreciated. Thanks also for your last long edit on the article - I hadn't grasped what you were suggesting. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

fr:Édifice Price
Salut Circéus. Je viens de déposer une centaine de photos, dont une vingtaine de l'Édifice Price dans un dossier de mon site personnel. J'ai aussi fait les photos de la Gare du Palais, des murales de l'autoroute Dufferin, de l'Église Saint-Roch et de la Place Jacques-Cartier, etc. Tu peux aller les regarder à l'adresse suivante: Les photos. Dis-moi lesquelles tu veux, et je vais les uploader sur Commons en haute résolution (3072 x 2304). C'est plus simple, question de licence etc (j'uploade toujours en double licence). J'espère que tu en trouveras une qui fera ton affaire. PS: Il est préférable de me contacter directement sur le wiki francophone. Je ne me sers de mon compte sur en: que pour faire des interwiki et placer des photos. Bouchecl 01:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * J'ai ajouté une page dans commons:Édifice Price avec les 7 photos que tu m'as demandé. J'ai ajouté dans la page Édifice Price, aux fins de référence. Je te laisse choisir les illustrations les plus pertinentes pour illustrer les différents points de ton article. Au plaisir! Bouchecl 20:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

76.190.65.60
I think he should be blocked for longer than three hours. I've heard of 3RR vio blocks that were longer. I deleted content from that page while me and a few other editors were seething in our computer chairs just trying to buy enough time to report him. Cheers, Je tL ov e r  (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Arundinaria appalachiana - DYK?
I just finished up writing an article on a newly described (2006) species of bamboo native to the eastern US. I think it would make a great DYK. I would recommend "...that Arundinaria appalachiana, is one of only three bamboos native to temperate North America?", but I'd like to somehow fit in that it is newly described. Maybe "...that Arundinaria appalachiana was the first North American bamboo species to be described in over 200 years." (the last two were in 1788) would be better. If you have some time, take a look through and tell me what you think. Djlayton4 | talk |  contribs 20:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Haha I know I should. I actually did make one for Sabatia arkansana, but I think generally I'm insecure about self-noms for some reason. I'm sure I'll get over it someday... :) Djlayton4 | talk |  contribs 02:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Taxonomy of Banksia integrifolia
Hesperian left this in a surprisingly polished state - how do you think it'd go at FAC. I'll leave him a note and maybe we can give this one a go. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Spec. Bot. New Holland
Hi Circeus. Would you know of any other similar articles, to find ideas to expand the above one? Cheers, Fred ☻

Deletion of V. thapsus type sepcimen image
Just in case you weren't aware, voting is being done to determine whether or not the type specimen image should be deleted here:. The vote is 3-3 right now and if you believe strongly that it should be kept you should give your vote. Cheers, Djlayton4 | talk |  contribs 17:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: FLC
Hi, I attempted to address your points and had a few questions as well. Hope to hear some more comments. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 09:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of people associated with Jesus College, Oxford
Thanks for your comments - I've done some further work on the list since you left your views and would appreciate your further thoughts/comments. In fact, I think I've addressed all the points you raised before - you've converted me to your way of thinking about splitting alumni and Fellows/Principals, and so the column widths are regular, and so the photos fit at the side without distorting the tables. Regards, BencherliteTalk 09:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Help - List of sister cities in Florida
Hi Circeus! Please, I would like to have your expert opinion on this list, if you could: List of sister cities in Florida. Just a quick look before I bother people on FLC. :-) You will notice that I copycated GrealdK's super list.--Legionarius 11:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * references: what's up with all the all-caps? it's really obnoxious.
 * I liked the city, division format much better.
 * Watch out for inappropriate capitals in section headers and header cells.
 * Check your image captions: some needs periods.
 * Are the quotes (who considerably lengthen the refs) really necessray?
 * Some journal refs are missing dates
 * I think journal names should be abbreviated.
 * Do not italicize "general" and "specific" in refs
 * Place the general ones first. And use bullet points for them, dammit ;-)
 * Circeus 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments!
 * references: what's up with all the all-caps? it's really obnoxious.✅
 * I liked the city, division format much better.
 * Hmm. Not really my preference here. Way too many redlinks. Some cities have the divs on the link.--Legionarius 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just expanding my ideas a bit: the regions are not related to the nomination as a sister city, they are just a helper to differentiate a city from another of the same name, or if the reader is not familiar with the city he may identify it based on the region.So in this case I thought it would be a bit pointless to link all those people.--Legionarius 21:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Watch out for inappropriate capitals in section headers and header cells.✅
 * Check your image captions: some needs periods.✅
 * Are the quotes (who considerably lengthen the refs) really necessray?
 * In this case I would say so, for ease of verification. The articles are in snippets, viewable by subscription only. I extracted the important part of the snippets and placed as a quote.--Legionarius 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I significantly reduced the quotes.--Legionarius 21:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Some journal refs are missing dates✅
 * I think journal names should be abbreviated.
 * hmm. not really sure what you mean...--Legionarius 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Argh. For somereason, I meant "italicized"... Circeus 19:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh. I guess CrzyCheetah did the necessary corrections. I use the WP:Cite method, is there some other way? I try to not put different stuff on templates...--Legionarius 21:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Do not italicize "general" and "specific" in refs✅
 * Place the general ones first. And use bullet points for them, dammit ;-)✅
 * Circeus 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 17:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Opposing at FL
Circeus, you are currently opposing my list on an aspect of style for which there is no consensus on WP and over which two editors (myself and TimVickers) strongly disagree with you. You do not own FLC and IMO you should have the grace to accept that not all lists will meet your own personal taste. By all means make style suggestions but to oppose, you need to cite policy violations, major guideline failures and significantly unprofessional standards of writing and presentation.

You are currently opposing "List of Governors of Maryland" over "nitpicks"; still opposing "List of people associated with Jesus College, Oxford" over style issues; opposing "List of Governors of Alabama" over the number of images; opposing "List of cities in Israel" over layout; opposed "List of National Park System areas in Maryland" over the title; etc. I haven't looked in detail at these. For some, the issues may be so bad that an oppose is required. But, you know, you could start off with a "comment", such as with the title of the Maryland list.

I know you monitor the FLs and change to support quickly when satisfied but starting with oppose isn't always the best move. It puts the editor on the defensive when actually, to get the best outcome, you need to work together. Also, starting an FLC with a big fat oppose really puts off other reviews and can kill a list through lack of support. I've been here long enough to see this. Unlike FAC, there just aren't enough reviewers so an apparently weak list will get ignored. If you have doubts about a list, it might sometimes be worth waiting for another review or two before putting in your oppose. Please consider reserving your oppose for the serious stuff. Try starting with a comment. If the list is basically OK but just needs a little tidying, then you can get away with a support along with some comments. You'd be surprised how many editors are happy to make changes, if you start off cooperatively rather than aggressively.

Well. There's my tuppence-worth. Your oppose is sitting like a dark cloud over my nomination and I could really have done without the added complication of your mission to tidy up the other timelines. Your ideas are good, just wrong-place-wrong-time. Do you really think it fails the featured list criteria because you prefer a different tense? . Regards, Colin°Talk 19:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you've done with that nomination, but the hide thingy doesn't work. Anyway, we don't hide or summarise discussions. I found it simpler to revert than to try to keep the text and incorporate your "vote" change. Could you redo your "neutral" change with suitable comment? Thanks.
 * Since you haven't been around, I've done this already. Colin°Talk 14:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not asking you to avoid opposing on the grounds of failure to "exemplify our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation." I've done so myself. But you need to accept that other people have valid opinions on style/presentation. On forums like AfD, FAC, RfA, there are so many contributors that an oppose that doesn't have consensus support is drowned out. On FLC, one oppose is enough to sink a list. At times, I've been that one, and I always make jolly sure I've got a good case.

The only thing that one learns from perusing WP's timelines, is that most contributors are barely literate. FLC is not the place to try to establish and enforce new guidelines. There are procedures for that sort of thing and it is hard work getting consensus for any type of consistency on WP. Mostly, the best you can hope for is if a wikiproject agrees a style among themselves.

I'm strongly opposed to your stance that our featured timelines must be consistent, to the point where one cannot be featured unless all are in sync. Timelines are as potentially diverse as any other list format. WP has remarkably few style guidelines, compared to any print publication. There's anarchy and inconsistency for sure, but it also fosters creativity. Colin°Talk 21:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

DYK Billardiera scandens
There is a request pending regarding your Billardiera scandens DYK nomination. Please respond here. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 02:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nom. If I had known, I would have made the same suggestion as Melbournian. Regards,  Fred ☻  08:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Crikey! Have to make you an honorary australian with these aussie stuff you're nominating! cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style for disambiguation pages
Hello. For edits to disambiguation pages (such as this one) please refer to Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 05:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Ghazala-Gardens.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ghazala-Gardens.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 23:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection of pre-ejaculate
Have you reviewed my comments at Talk:Pre-ejaculate/Archive 1? Reading over Protection policy, pre-ejaculate does not seem to qualify for indefinite semi-protection. I was wondering if you had a time table in mind for unprotecting the article. LyrlTalk C 18:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources
This relates to the text on the placement of footnotes which you helped to work out last month; you may wish to comment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Raveendranath article
Hi I noticed you protected the raveendranath article. There is serious POV war going on sri lanka related article and it has spread to LTTE. To help cool things down, can you please protect this article as well. Sinhala freedom 02:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Also can you look into this incident User:Snowolfd4 reported by User:watchdogb on this page. Thanks Sinhala freedom 02:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The edit warring and protection of this article is unfortunate, all of the concerns raised by warring editors could have been easily fixed without any edit warring. I just did not see it yesterday also we have a life outside of Wikipedia too. About Circueus concern that this is not a biography is only partially correct. He becomes notable by him being forced disappeared, that too he being a vice chancellor of a major university in Sri Lanka  makes it even more notable, unlesss we think Sri Lanka is a non notable country :))  See Reda Helal and Boris Weisfeiler. I would like to get a chance to work on this article section by section. I also disagree taht this is coatrack. If he thinks that this is is coat rack, why not put it up for XFD or put the neutrality tag or something ? ThanksTaprobanus 13:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ailanthus
Good job on the article, and on incorporating useful views of the edits, whether or not you agreed with the editor. I think the article is excellent, although I need to reread it all the way through. Good choice, also, as the tree is well known. Good job not just to you, but to all the editors, but to you for nominating it in a timely fashion. KP Botany 04:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There were some points on the weediness that needed edited, though. I sometimes take similar stuff out, but I'm not aligned with the one-wordliness theory of non-invasiveness, though.  I hope that he can expand his viewpoint because he did make some careful, precise and useful edits.  KP Botany 05:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Field maple/dioecious
Hi, on the article Field Maple, I added that the tree was dioecious, and it was me who removed the comment again, because now I'm not sure the tree is solely dioecious.

At this site, I saw a section of Charles Darwin's "The Different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the Same Species", which states:

"Of the other or monoicous sub-group of polygamous plants, or those which bear hermaphrodite, male and female flowers on the same individual, the common Maple (Acer campestre) offers a good instance; but Lecoq states that some trees are truly dioecious, and this shows how easily one state passes into another. (Introduction/19. 'Geographie Botanique' tome 5 page 367.)"

That seems to imply it can be monoecious and dioecious. So I'm not sure, I think the sexuality of field maple might be quite complex, thus I removed the dioecious comment.

Cheers. 87.74.2.17 16:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Stale!
Just spotted StaleIP, went to add it to CUI and see you beat me there, too. :p Nicely done. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Unprotect
Can you unprotect Sivasubramaniam Raveendranath, it was poorly written from an NPOV point of view and most of the concerns can be fixed. Thanks Taprobanus 21:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks and please do take a look at hhe article now and tell me whether it satifies Notability requiremenrts. Taprobanus 12:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Main page and giving a black eye to Wikipedia
Regarding your comments regarding articles showing up in the main page and giving a black eye to Wikipedia, see Duraiappa stadium mass grave. The moment it showed up in the main page, editors wanted edit war over it. Thanks Taprobanus 17:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * also on an different note what do you think of this series of personal attack as an admin ?Taprobanus

Smile


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. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Floating ToC on History of poison
Dear Circeus, I see you have placed the ToC on this article back to where it was? Why? It just leaves a large, unfilled (and, I will say, unfillable) space next to the ToC, when we can maximise room if we float it to the right. Please explain. I didnt put it back, by the way, because I know you are a respected editor, and I would rather ask you about it first. Best regards, -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 00:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. So you think that it should be left as it is, and not somehow reworked? Thats ok then, I guess. At least i understand your logic. Now that it has become apparent that you have looked at the article - would you mind giving me an idea about how far off FA it is, and what more I could do to push it over the edge at get it to that level of excellency? Cheers -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 00:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be great. Thanks a lot. I would be grateful if you could improve that template. Cheers, -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 01:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Felix
Don't see why. It's about Felix, wouldn't that be a bit off topic for the massacre, especially considering that both articles could be expanded? (I mean what does Felix's wife have to do with the massacre) I don't care either way but it's going to get split off eventually if you do, probably sooner rather than later. Mostly because the Black Hawk War is something another user and I are collaborating on (see User:IvoShandor/Black Hawk War so these articles are in their earliest developmental stage. But it's whatever, if you'd like it better that way we can do it. I just don't like to stray too far off topic, it becomes extraneous and cluttered with related but off topic info. I don't know, just my opinion, let me know what you think. IvoShandor 23:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)