User talk:Circeus/oct-jan2007

Template talk:World Heritage Sites in Germany
As you seem to be interested in templates, I invite you to comment on this page. I'm concerned that this particular template was changed into something very distinct from related templates, such as Template:World Heritage Sites in Poland, Template:World Heritage Sites in Russia, etc. Should there be some sort of consistency? -- Ghirla -трёп-  16:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr Lord
je t'ai écrit sur ta page wiki utilisateur française.

12:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)(alias Mr lord)

Anne Juliana Gonzaga
I've no idea, I'm afraid. I didn't know her from a hole in the ground prior to running across the article on Special:Newpages. It just seemed to be a fairly decent article, so I put forward the nomination. You'd have to talk to the article's creator, Mind Meal for more background information. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 08:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries. I can take a stab at the answers though. Her name change probably took place on joining the Servite Order, and was chosen from Juliana Falconieri. It's quite likely that nothing notable or interesting did happen to her after the death of her husband. The life of someone who joins the Servite Order is not typically very glamorous. These are just guesses though, so I wouldn't add 'em to the article. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 16:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Massachusetts categorizations
Jean-Sebastien: Je suis désolé. J'ai mal interprété vos actions et les conséquences qu'elles auraient sur des sous-catégorisations. HOT L Baltimore 16:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Harpoon reaction
Thank you very much for your edits to the article. It definitly looks better now, and i have learnt how to cite propperly.

Thanks



— Preceding unsigned comment added by Knights who say ni (talk • contribs) 13:21, 4 November 2006

Washington Memorial Chapel
The fact link was place in the article when the text was copied over not because it isn't true, but it was supposed to be a reminder to another user who was going to place the reference into the article. Thanks for your help in inproving the article. --evrik (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Lyman Run State Park
I am going to delete the clean up tag that you placed on the Lyman Run State Park article. This article is part of the Pennsylvania Wikipedia project. Most of the other articles on the State Parks in PA are written in much the same style. I disagree with the assertion that it reads like an advertisement for the park. It gives the facts about the Recreational Opportunites at Lyman Run State Park. Dincher 17:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is copied from the article talk page to here. Please respond, preferably at the article talk page. Thanks for your cleanup tag on the article. Could you please be more specific as to how to edit the section in question? The information is accurate (taken from the official website for the park) so we are not sure how to edit it to meet your criteria. Also would you please cite the relevant policy on length of subsections (as I do not know that policy)? Perhaps something like the Facilities and recreation section of Little Pine State Park would be more acceptable? Thanks, Ruhrfisch 19:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Banksia integrifolia
Would you be interested in giving this your attention? We're ramping up for FA. Hesperian 07:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Last chance; we're heading to FAC any minute now ;) Hesperian 01:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

!Tlx/pt2
Hi, Circeus. In response to the message you left me, I think that this page should have been deleted a long time ago. --Meno25 22:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There are six nonsense templates. I noticed that you deleted four of them. The remaining two are: Template:-locution- and Template:/. I am surprised that these templates weren't deleted a long time ago. The six templates are the first six templates in the Special:Unusedtemplates page. Thank you for your help. --Meno25 01:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Deleting these pages is not an urgent task anyway. --Meno25 01:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-U.S. copyrights
Thanks for getting the list mark-up to work: for some reason it didn't seem to work for me which is ahy I changed to the other format. Looks fine now. If you have any comments on the guidelines/policy please leave them on the talk page! Physchim62 (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Template coding question
Hi,

sorry to bother you, but your name was one of the few in the "adept template coder" listing linked from the help page. Could you have a look at the question I asked here?

Cheers, TeraBlight 19:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I put up some sample code. Thanks for any suggestions :) TeraBlight 23:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

cite book
Could you take another look at the edit you made to Cite book today? Yesterday, a citation which included single quotes "'" in the title worked fine adding a new reference to Augusta, Maine diff, but today it is putting way too much in bold when I copy/paste the same reference and change only the page numbers to Cony High School diff. Flipping the single quotes to double quotes solved the issue in this case, but the copyright page uses single quotes so I'm misrepresenting the title. GRBerry 20:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I had a look. The template edits to cite book by Circeus look good to me. I removed some erroneous pipes on the articles:, , --Ligulem 23:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Cupressus pigmaea
Hi Circeus - can I query why you added all that {cite} stuff? I think it makes the page look a lot worse, particularly with all those awful quote marks round titles. Mind if I change it back to how it was? - MPF 00:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can only assume that he's adding those notes because the alternative is to remove the information altogether, per WP:V. Adding a cite-template gives information a "grace period" so people can add a citation rather than just remove stuff. -- Ned Scott 00:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, MPF is referring to Citation templates. Circeus 00:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, and for looking up the extra ref info (which I'll not delete!); I'll work on it soon. For Ned, what I was referring to is the way it renders the references on the page with the "Title" in quotes, which is a style never used in scientific publishing (it seems to be an arts and humanities thing, and looks very odd to scientists); also that it makes editing the page more obscure for newbie editors unfamiliar with the cite templates (including me, I've only been here 3 years . . .). - MPF 01:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Circeus - on this one again, why do refs have to be moved out of the sentence they apply to, to the start of the following sentence?? Strikes me as totally illogical, and also very hard to read. Normally when using citations (Bloggs 2006), they don't (Doe et al. 1999). Also, the taxon isn't actually very variable at all, it is quite consistent in its characters, it is just that it is (at least superficially, and probably also genetically) very similar to C. goveniana. - MPF 01:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The tree size isn't due to genetic variation, it is edaphic (caused by environmental conditions); dig up one of the dwarf ones and plant it in good soil, or grow seed from it, and it will grow large. That isn't counted when describing a taxon as 'variable', only genetic variation. - MPF 01:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Challenge X copyvio?
FYI, a couple of us are not seeing the copyvio in Challenge X. You might want to see for yourself and consider re-adding it to T:DYK. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In doubt, I removed it. The lack of any references at all should have prevented it to make it to DYK in the first place. Besides, I was expecting the template to be refreshed anytime when I noticed it turning into a stub link. Circeus 03:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge of How to break up a page
Hi there. I'm following up on a merge you performed. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Summary_style for details. I'd appreciate any input. Thanks. Carcharoth 14:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Vault (architecture)
(cross post) I see you've put a lot of work into this article, but I think quite some amount of content could use transfer to the subarticles (especially the almost inexistent rib vault), who are that developed, if only to check that the entire this consistent with itself (see also WP:SUMMARY). Circeus 22:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's in it's infancy - the 1911 source all needs checking and I'd rather get the main article up to scratch first - you'll notice on the talk page I originally suggested merging most of the sub articles into the main article but the consensus was to maintain them. Please let me finish the article first before cutting and pasting into other articles - It's my contention that the main vault article will have sufficient depth to be considered for FAC - what others prefer to do with the content later regarding the sub articles is up to them - but it makes sense to have a good main article first - if it get unwieldy (and it's about the right length now IMHO) we'll fork it. Whay are your plans for Category:architecture? I suggest you discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture/Categories where the project usually discusses such matters. --Mcginnly | Natter 23:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

i decided to comment
on the fact that you seem to have removed the resources from the title of the section Sources and resources at the Mayan Revival architecture article. I feel that it's important to reference significant resources [especially books] in articles, that the section need not refer to just those used in the creation of the article. Any more thoughts on the topic? Carptrash 00:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me with your insightful reply. I'll check-out, or better, think about, the further reading idea and see how it sits with me. Carptrash 01:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

details2 template
I've reverted your change to a redirect page. It isn't identical as it desn't add a full stop to the end. This is particularly useful for pages that already end in a full stop. SenorKristobbal 10:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Japanese Maple
I've expanded the Japanese Maple article. I also made a few more Acer species articles. Give 'em a proof read when you are in the mood.  ◄ HouseOfScandal  ► 16:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Jostaberry
Hi. I see you've carefully deleted the links to the German Wikipedia I had carefully and deliberately included in the article on Jostaberry. Why? Is there some policy on this of which I am unaware? RomanSpa 22:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

acer leaves
A. griseum and several others have compound leaves, as well as a large number of hybrids that were developed at the Scott Arboretum. I'm not sure exactly how many, but more than a few that I've seen in my travels :). -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 23:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:Current news
Greetings, could you join the the above talk? Thanks. (→ Netscott ) 00:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm going to rework the template name... I've ed it for now... thanks for the input. (→ Netscott ) 00:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine... cheers again. (→ Netscott ) 00:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Leaf
Hi Circeus - I changed it because when you split the photos apart, the paragraph between them was not long enough to separate them completely, so the following paragraph below the image is forced down to the same level as the top of the image (see screenshot, right). The way I had the pics arranged doesn't do this, and shows correctly without problems. Is it not like this for you? - MPF 16:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, I'm using i.e. (dreadful confession!). "What do you think of removing the autumn leaf image from the article to solve that?" - yep, good idea. I'll see if I can think of a context for adding the autumn color link. - MPF 16:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sainte-Geneviève-des-Bois
In Russian media the cemetery is regularly referenced in connection with the purported plans of the municipal authorities to close it down. Numerous Russian websites (including the ones linked from the article) deplore its fate, as they do that of Turgenev's estate in Bougival. The Rossiyskaya Gazeta mentions that the cemetery enjoys only minimal legal protection, i.e., like every other municipal cemetery it may be destroyed if the grounds are required for public needs. Perhaps they refer to the pre-2001 situation.

As for the second part of your query, I would like to point out that the original author of the article alluded to an unspecified "English benefectress" who purchased the plot for Princess Vera Kirillovna. I filled in the name, based on the following text:


 * "Princess Mestchersky, one of the Russian Red Cross directors, founded the home with very generous support from a former pupil, Dorothy Paget. Ms. Paget had been an English student at the princess's finishing school, and she became immensely concerned with the sufferings of many emigres. She inherited great wealth, bought the properties in St. Genevieve-des-Bois, and for a good many years made sustantial donations to the home. She also saw to it that the residents were supplied with turkey and plum pudding at Christmas time". (James E. Hassell. Russian Refugees in France and the United States Between the World Wars. ISBN 087169817X. Page 68). -- Ghirla -трёп-  17:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

new leaf chart appears at leaf
I was wondering if it was possible to separate the stem placement terms (whorled, alternate, opposite, rosette, possibly perfoliate [maybe add decussate too?]) from leaf shape, because any shape of leave can be alternate, or whorled... "Disposition" would make a good header for that. Circeus 13:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion for a category split in the leaf chart was a good one. It is implemented at leaf now. Luckily, 12 terms could be used to describe disposition, so the row/column organization worked out. Debivort 17:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

why user:debivort prefers PNG
I've left a response to your question at WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review. Debivort 17:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

transwiki stuff
My partial metamorphosis from wikipedian to wikibookian was in large part brought about because of the "how-to" issue... I'm a horticulturist (only a botanist in relation to horticulture), so how-to is kinda my "thing". I've been copying (importing, actually) a lot of WP articles over and making garden book pages out of them lately. -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 15:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you the same user?
b:User:Circeus had only a few edits to the conworld books, but with the transwikis that account has a lot of contribs. Is that you? (It will all be sorted out when SUL is enabled, but I'm just curious). -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 19:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Verbascum thapsus
Hi Circeus - thanks; I'll take a look at it later tonight. I've got some books that cover it. - MPF 20:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And the other way around...
I just transwikied Corn gluten meal from wikibooks (wrote the how-to first, then copied it to here). Mind having a look and perhaps tweaking? -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 13:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

CFR
Hi Circeus. I just noticed that you have tagged several Georgia (country)-related categories for renaming. While I find this to be reasonable in some cases, I think there is no need to disambiguate Georgia in Category:Catholicoses and Patriarchs of Georgia, Category:Monarchs of Georgia, Category:Kings of Georgia and Category:Presidents of Georgia. The US state of Georgia never had either kings or patriarchs, I guess. What do you think about it? Thanks, --Kober 05:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. Thank you, --Kober 05:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

About the Jyllands Posten Cartoons
Can you please answer my one question? If there are total 100 people around and 80 out of them want to see the naked sisters of remaining 20. Will you show them? Where does this voting issue come about showing cartoons of Jyllands Posten? You are doing that same thing for which Jyllands Posten is being convicted by Muslims. Are you really fair? and why are you linking the cartoons to their huge hight resolution size? VirtualEye 18:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Parameter values through nested templates
Hi, i've found you on the Category:User template coder listing, and since i have a question concerning this subject i hope i could clear it with you :)

I'm testing a template A which uses a parameter M to specify a value Z. Inside this template A, I also use a parameter N through which I call repeatedly a template B. Inside this second template, I specify other parameters but also the same parameter M from the parent template. But I don't know how or if it's possible to "pass" the parameter M's value Z, in the parent template (A), to this nested template (B). Basically what i want is:

I'd want the parameter M, defined as Z in template A, to also carry the value Z inside template B. I'll also be calling template B oftenly and i can't have it becoming part of template's A content. Have i made myself clear? I hope I won't be a burden with this. Thanks in advance! Parutakupiu  talk 19:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, it seems i'll have to come up with another solution. Thank you, anyway, for your help!  Parutakupiu  talk 22:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sapindaceae
Bonjour mon ami. I notice that when one looks at "Category:Sapindaceae" we still have some maples under A and some under M (about evenly divided). If it is too much work to change all the maples still listed by common name to scientific name, would it be a good idea to at least list them to "Category:Sapindaceae" category under their scientific name? Best wishes. -  ◄ HouseOfScandal  ► 18:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Template
Hey!

Can you [lease help me to make a template similar to my example below. Your help would be greatly appreciated

This template will categorize tagged articles into Category:Government of Western Australia Departments and Category:Government of Australia Departments.


 * This template is a self-reference.
 * Please do not subst: this template.

Your help would be greatly appreciated. Please help

Thanx

symode09 14:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Note system
Dear Circeus, you did some magic with the note system on Dísablót. I have no clue what I have done wrong on Haakon the Red, so if you have the time to look into it, I would be very grateful. Best,--Berig 09:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Commons
I noticed that you changed a commons link in the article about Pevchesky Bridge to an external link. Is that a new procedure? best, Camptown 00:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Dutch Reformed Church
Hmmm ... I'd have to recreate and edit it again, since I overwrote my own existing image in my "Images for Wikipedia" file.

I don't have that original with the cobalt blue sky, but I do have one with only one column. Daniel Case 23:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure then ... I didn't know we kept the old ones. How could I do that? Or is it something only an admin can do?

I'm glad someone has been keeping up with the article enough to make that suggestion. There is a lot more to add and I think it could be an FA someday. Daniel Case 02:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Larry Van Kriedt
Hey, for the past few days this anon: User:82.47.217.44 and a registered user: User:Jazzbacks (who claiim to be the same person) have been adding a few unsourced things into the Larry Van Kriedt article. When challenged on his talk page, User:82.47.217.44 claimed he was actually Larry Van Kriedt and that part of the article on him wasn't true. After this, User:Jazzbacks showed up claiming to be the anon, User:82.47.217.44. I and User:Bretonbanquet asked Jazzbacks, on his talk page, to provide proof that he was Van Kriedt, we decided it would be best if Jazzbacks could upload an image of himself which we could then compare to the pictures on Larry Van Kriedt's MySpace: http://MySpace.com/LarryVanKriedt.

Jazzbacks uploaded this image Image:GrLa0238.JPG which, to me, confirms he is Van Kriedt. So, I was wondering, how do we approach this? On one hand, we have sources which state certain things to be true, and on the other, we have a user claiming to be the subject of the article and claiming certain things are not true. A situation like this is new to me, so any help you can provide to me and Bretonbanquet would be very much appreciated. Thanks very much. ĤĶ51→Łalk 14:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure if the article is poorly sourced or not, the sources appear to be a book and a magazine, neither of which I have, I'll do my best to contact the user who originally added stuff from those sources. The anaon and the user have edited seperately numerous times, I'll warn him if he continues to do this. I'll refer him to WP:BLP on his talk page now. Thanks for your help. Merry Christmas. ĤĶ51→Łalk 15:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Brya Sock
Thanks. I thought sock puppets at least tried to look different, that was really something, adding back her own difficult prose and statements, her italics, everything. KP Botany 16:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Why unblock her? Isn't It's a bit outrageous and pretty much shows she didn't learn a thing, and has no good intentions, by making a sock account, and immediately going back in, ignoring talk pages, reverting to her edits which others removed for reasons, not discussing her reasons, and adding the objectionable italicized higher taxa back in after numerous discussions not to use it at this time, and all the work folks have had to do and are still doing to clean up after her? In fact, she made a sock puppet to do everything that got her banned in the first place! Well, I'm off for Christmas, whatever is going on. I'll watch also, but later. Cheers, KP Botany 17:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Saw his note on other page. KP Botany 17:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Change to Common.css
Per recent discussions, the way in which Persondata is viewed by Wikipedia editors has changed. In order to continue viewing Persondata in Wikipedia articles, please edit your user CSS file to display table.persondata rather than table.metadata. More specific instructions can be found on the Persondata page. -- ShakingSpirit talk  on behalf of Kaldari 00:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Quebeçois profanity
In the article Etiquette in Canada and the United States you added: "Fuck" is not considered a profanity by Quebec French speakers, who use specific profanities. Trying to use these profanities can lead to inappropriateness and risks greatly offending French speakers. Although there are plenty of things in the article that lack citations, I think this statement needs it. The article you link to totally lacks references as well, and that concerns me. Think maybe you can find referenecs to back this up? House of Scandal 08:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

re Fresheneesz
I'm responding here rather than at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization because I don't want to drag that conversation so far off-topic. Anyway, I was involved in the "non-notability debacle", and that's partly where I learned why I believe what I do about how to react to such things as Fresh's polling suggestion. In fact, I think the way I reacted there was a part of how it was eventually defused. I'm only interested in results, not in what "spirit" we might figure someone's acting in. Telling people to shut up and go away sometimes gets results, but... that's not the wiki I'm trying to create. There's a difference, it turns out, between being right and getting things done with a minimum of friction. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know it gets frustrating, dealing with people who seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm confident we'll get that page's status sorted out - and ultimately its "status" really doesn't matter. There's nobody there who I find impossible to work with; it's just sometimes necessary to respond to the best possible spin on what's said and ignore the rest. You're clearly working for Wikipedia's best interests, and I don't want to seem to harping on you. Hang in there. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That mediation case is an interesting read - I hope most mediators are more patient and discussion-oriented than that. I'm certain Jeff has Wikipedia's best interests at heart, and although I often disagree with him, I think he's sticking to a valid and consistent Wikiphilosophy. He thinks it's more fair and transparent when things are done according to well-defined processes. That's hardly a strange idea - most legal systems that we consider "just" are based on it - it's just not how most of us see a wiki operating. The idea of running a big project without something akin to Robert's Rules of Order is the more radical idea - Jeff is the traditionalist in that matter.
 * This is what I'm talking about - maybe you think his comments at the Overcategorization page are an impotent attempt at filibuster, but I know Jeff a bit by now, and I see him acting in all honesty and good faith according to his belief that Wikipedia should be more legalistic and rule-bound. I can't prove him wrong, although I disagree, but I certainly won't characterize his actions as anything but well-intended and consistent. He tilts at windmills, but there's no reason to hold that against him. I suspect we'd be worse off without him, somehow. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to attempt to agrivate anyone (you), but I do think you're coming off a bit harshly. I mean.. do I know you? Why the hostility? My "wikilawyering" is simple argument - not ... exactly.. just for the sake of argument - but more for the sake of expressing my views. Someone says A, and I think B, so I'll express B. I think that consensus gauging and policy creating has some serious problems right now - as consensus is hard to figure out, and different people have different wikiphilosophies. If I've offended you in some way, please tell me - cause it definately seems that way. Personally, I think that only listening to those from CfD constitutes selection bias, but I hope our difference in opinion isn't what offended you.. Fresheneesz 10:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Lake Chaubunagungamaug
If you have an opportunity, please give Lake Chaubunagungamaug a proof read. Its included in the next DYK bunch and I just expanded it greatly. Thanks. House of Scandal 04:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Jerry Rivera
The best I can do is the following: User_talk:Marine_69-71. TonyTheTiger 16:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"Apocalymon Now" and "Now Apocalymon"
About your comment on my own talk page: This site and this site claim it is "Now Apocalymon". TV.com lists both titles. Would it be a good idea to list both titles on the list of Digimon Adventure episodes? Thanks.Ultraflame 18:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Verbascum thapsus
The article Verbascum thapsus you nominated as a good article has passed, see Talk:Verbascum thapsus for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. Shimeru 19:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

User box
When I was here earlier I noticed that you were a self proclaimed userbox expert. Can you tell me how to make my Chicago neighborhoods template show on Chicago. TonyTheTiger 23:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Can I make it so that it does not collapse. I sort of pirated the format and do not understand how I would do that.


 * Would there be a problem with removing collapsability? TonyTheTiger 23:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How do I remove collapsability? Also, the width change you made causes the template to be offcenter for some screen resolutions. TonyTheTiger 06:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Current version is centered. TonyTheTiger 22:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:User:Fresheneesz
Personally I quite firmly agree with the principles behind Overcategorization. While I thus disagree with Fresheneesz's view on this matter, that does not mean his concerns are invalid. This is quite a major policy, that has just recently been introduced. and it does need scrutiny. I do not see any evidence that Fresheneesz has been disruptive. I would suggest you both step back from this issue for a bit, and hopefully mediation will be helpful. - SimonP 04:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hippocrates FAC
Hi! Editors have worked to address your objection in the FAC ("Too much one-paragraph sections that need either expansion or merging"). As of now, the "Works" section has not been merged as "Hippocratic Oath" and "Hippocratic Corpus" were thought to deserve separate sections. Could you please have a look, and comment? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Your revert
Hello. Can you tell me please why you reverted TOCleft twice in the article in DYK right now? There are guidelines for doing this, for example: "In general, it is probably better to insert TOCleft after the lead section, or at least the first paragraph." Please reply here and not on my talk page unless necessary. Thank you. -Susanlesch 03:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Or you could reply here in on the Talk:T-Square_%28software%29. Thanks! -Susanlesch



Doesn't protecting this defeat the purpose of deleting a category? As it stands, it seems that this category could be added to new articles. Ral315 (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Constitution of Latvia
You've left note about suffix in Etymology section of the article, since I've made few misteakes and I'm not complitely sure what you ment with "collective suffix" (after quick google search, I suspect it might mean suffix that doesn't have meaning - suffix in question doesn't) I left comment on your note on Talk:Constitution of Latvia -- Xil/talk 13:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hippocrates FAC
Hello. Recent edits to Hippocrates have removed the one paragraph sections to which you objected in its FAC. Would you please reconsider your vote now that the circumstances have so changed? Thanks. -- Rmrfstar 17:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Invasive species
Since the category currently only has about 210 entries (thus spanning only 2 pages), I don't know if it's important to split yet. But if we're going to be proactive, anticipating that it'll need to be split in the future anyway, I think the way to do it right is by "invasive flora" and "invasive fauna" first. I would shy away from "by continent" because one species could have five such tags. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 00:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 00:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Frank Black FAC
I believe I've already addressed your concerns about Wikipedia's fair use policy - the samples had already been given criticism in the article's main text. Could you take a look at the article again if you have the time? Thanks! CloudNine 17:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: usage of full journal names
Wondering if you had gotten a chance to look at some of the responses from science editors to your suggestion on the the FAC nomination for proteasome. In particular, it would be helpful to know how and where you are searching for articles or journals that the use of abbreviations is an impediment to successfully locating a reference. If you really think this is something that's worth pursuing as a proposed style standard for scientific articles, I believe a larger venue than an obscure FAC nomination is needed, as this would affect a large number of editors and articles; I'd suggest starting a thread on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources or Wikipedia talk:Scientific citation guidelines for wider visibility. Since the suggestion of using full journal names does not currently have the consensus of editors in the sciences, I'm going to leave it alone for now, and will make the changes later if it's agreed that this is a useful proposal. Opabinia regalis 01:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (Speaking only about journals in the sciences), I think that full journal names are essential for WP users, particularly for older material. The abbreviations are enough for experts. WP articles are not written for experts. WP is written for a range of users, ranging from the beginner to the near expert; judging from user pages and user comments, this may correspond from junior high school students to graduate students in allied fields. Journal references serve several roles: even without looking them up, they give some idea of the nature of the evidence--and this is probably as far as many users get. To serve this function for new or for old, the title must be understood, and all users not graduate students in the field are more likely to make sense of the full title.

Or they serve as a route to further information. For material that is open access, the link (which should always be given in a WP article if there is an OA version) gives the access directly. For online material that is not, the link (which should be given even though not OA) will normally lead to at least the abstract of the article, which can be sufficient information in many cases.

For material that is not available online, all users must go through a library. Experts will recognize the journal, will usually have access to a research library, and will get the aticle if owned or ask for it if not, and any university library ILL department can deal with standard abbreviations. For all other users, they must look for the material in an online catalog. It is unfortunately not the practice in standard cataloging to make added entries for abbreviations as a routine practice, although they are sometimes made if they appear on the cover of a journal. It is not possible in many cases to guess the right title, especially if one is unfamiliar with the sort of titles that exist. The less experienced user will be much more likely to find the material by full title. If the user must go through an ILL service in a school or public library, the librarian there will probably be much more comfortable with the full title as well.

I say this on the basis of my experience. First, as a biology librarian at a major university. I know the mistakes that get made. They depend on subject; in biology--there are many standards, especially with older material, especially ewith UK and other European material. After 20 years of doing this, I know how to figure out anything in a latin or cyrillic alphabet, from 1800 on, and I know the places to check for anything older; as a beginner, with only a MLS and a molecular biology doctorate, I relied on persistence and study of journal lists, especially for anything out of the way to a molecular biologist. Second, as a teacher of librarianship. The ability of present-day incoming librarians, even science specialists, to find printed material is deplorable. For newer material, they can acquire the patience to keep trying things on Google until they find something. For print material, it will soon be a specialty, like manuscrip[t librarianship is now. Third, I have been responsible for organizing lists of print and then online journals; the peak was a computer-assisted but manually input list of 10,000 print titles. I and others always did these lists by full title. Although it startled some of the catalog librarians, we did add some abbreviations to help those who did know them.

There are 3 ways of doing this. One is to always use the full title. WP is not paper, but it does make for longer reference lists. The other is to have an abbreviation matching database and do a link. The third is to use ISSN's, the 8 digit serial code. This isn't as simple as it was last year, because there are now two codes for each journal, one for print and one for online--all the vendors are still rewriting their systems--I've advised some of them about it. The ISSN works in all online catalogs, but only if the user knows enough to enter it, which they don't until you teach them.

The simplest way to start is with full titles. The matching database is also underway, as something call the Missing Journals Wikiproject, aiming at entering all 12 or so titles into a WP article, complete with all codes. I'm in touch with the people doing it. They estimate 10 years, but if everyone listened to my instructions I think it could be done in a shorter time (smile). Using the entrez database would help in biomedicine, but not elsewhere.
 * EdJohnston's experience with entrez is useful, but it doesn't work outside biomedicine. In biomed, a mass conversion could be done, but getting it entered from some of the nonstandard references people have used will require some work. If I had to sustitute full titles throughout the WP database by myself, I'd do them one at a time with a bot, and then look for non-matches. But it could be done more ambitiously, and if we ever want to undertake such a transformation I would help as well. There are some interface problems in the conversion--the length of articles and tables especially would be affected. I think we would want to try a number of careful trials and we would want help from some of the WP programmers.

For a particular article with say 100 or so refs, i would do them by hand. Since in any one article the journal titles will repeat, I'd copy and paste. I suppose if I had to do more than one article I'd copy the lists into BBEdit and use a grep search and replace, and then paste them back, for all the common titles. I am a great believer in patient manual entry.

Other comments
 * I notice that O.r. has said she recognizes the abbreviations better, and so do I. But we are not the average users.
 * &There's another problem, which is the use of full article titles. This really helps the beginner. In biomed, they could be linked through PubMed IDs, and some WP editors already use them. DGG 06:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Coin image box 2 singles
I have a question. What  clear:  is for? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject France
Hello! We are a group of editors working to improve the quality of France related articles. You look like someone who might be interested in joining us in the France WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you in our project :-) STTW (talk)  15:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Haizum
I don't know Haizum or you, but looking at the cicrumstances and your reaction to it, I'd say with a pretty fair amount of confidence that you're an asshole on a powertrip. To leave nothing to ambiguity, that was a personal attack, asshole. You epitomize the flaws of Wikipedia politics. 69.142.140.177 18:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey, thanks for the note. Sorry to have conflicted you twice. Your assistance is really appreciated -- I was wondering if anyone actually cared. Cheers! :-) /Blaxthos 05:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In either case, I'm just glad to se ethere are admins about who will actually do something when the situation warrants. Much appreciated! /Blaxthos 06:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser
Thanks for your note at. Is this a process I initiate, or something admins will follow-up on based on your input at the AN/I? Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 10:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see the outcome of checkuser at. I'm having trouble understanding how it is possible that WP does not have Ptmccain records if WP intended to ban the user indefinately. Please enlighten me if you can. Thanks! Keesiewonder 10:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Header levels in Agumon
Hey, i noticed you changed the header levels in the Agumon articles.

I've changed them back. The header levels where meant to be that way, it wasn't just a mistake.

To explain - what we need in the article is for Agumon's other forms (Botamon, Koromon...etc) to have headers that are one level lower than the other headers (appearance, description, notes...etc). So i suppose the standard would be to use == and === headers. But it makes the article seem much cleaner if all the different forms where seperated cleanly - so with the dividers.

However, when you add a divider below the "===" header, it creates a very obvious gap (to see what i mean, take a look at this version of Guilmon and scroll down a bit).

I know using "=" headers in the article isn't standard, but there was no other way to have the other forms one header level lower, but also have the divider (none that i know of anyway).

So for now, we're going to stick with the = and == headers. Of course, i'm very open to suggestions should anyone finds an alternative formatting method. --Saintmagician 12:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

List of basil cultivars
Hey. I'm looking at the article right now, and there's one thing I can't figure: What are the tags used for? This tag is activated by transclusion (e.g. typically for templates), but the page is not transcluded anywhere! This results in, I believe, a very confusing source code.
 * Thanks for stopping by! Take a look at Wikipedia talk:Featured lists for an explanation of the tag, if you're interested. It's a different tag than, and used when featured content is included in one of the "featured" templates. Waitak 14:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it's in Wikipedia talk:Featured lists. I don't have any real stake in the tag... I had another featured list a few months ago, and noticed that somebody'd come along and added the "onlyinclude" tag, so I thought I'd be nice and add 'em myself, once this article made WP:FL. I think that it only really applies to featured lists, if I understand it correctly. The idea seems to be to give a hint to how to transclude an abstract of a normal article, derived from the article itself. Waitak 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And as a reward for your efforts, here's a video that you might enjoy... Waitak 15:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC) (qui n'est pas francophone, mais qui fait semblant de temps en temps...)

digimon header idea
It's not really a change to the headers, but since the idea of the line is to help information separation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veemon&diff=101166795&oldid=101090744

It's just something I put together quickly. It needs some tweaking, but the basic idea is there: using light shading to help separate the sections. Tell me what you think. -- Ned Scott 20:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Header again
What i did achieves the same thing as simply adding a '' after a === header. Using a to manually insert a horizontal rule is perfectly acceptable, perfectly within the wikicode, but also shows up on all skins.

All i did was use a code that removes the gap between the and the === that sometimes show up. Othwise, it views the same.

If having + === doesn't cause such a fuss, i don't see why adding the horizontal rule straight into a header is causing you such drama. What's wrong with it showing up on all skins? A normal forcefully shows up on every skin too. -- `/aksha 01:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Noting closure of TfD on talk page
Hi there. I noticed that you didn't note the closure of the TfD at Template talk:CatDiffuse, so I did it for you. Hope that helps! Carcharoth 12:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Type (botany)
I suppose the Type (botany) article is no longer POV in the sense that User:Brya has since been blocked from editing this or any other article, and other editors are now free to edit it. I've been meaning to get back to it, but every time I look at it I am unpleasantly reminded of previous attempts. Ultimately I believe that the whole concept of typification should be addressed in a single article that discusses and compares how zoological and botanical typification are similar and how they differ. Alas, I simply haven't had the time or the energy. MrDarwin 17:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: japanese speaker needed for copyright investigation
That is certainly fishy. I'm 99.9% certain that the copyright holder doesn't allow the image to be used for any purpose--the website the image description links to is that of a commercial vendor. I'm not really sure if it's fair use either; it's practically the equivalent of taking an image off Amazon (I can't remember off the top of my head if that was legal or not). Anyway, I hope this helps. Cheers, Tangotango (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Triceratops
Hi!

Thanks for your comments; they've been very helpful. If you get a chance, could you put a strike-through through those that you think have been addressed? J. Spencer 05:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Banning Bobfuji
Thanks for temp. banning Bobfuji. I've been trying to keep an eye on his Edits and was about to Request a ban myself. WillSWC 18:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments
There is a request for comments on the Robert Latimer page; please see Talk:Robert Latimer. Rosemary Amey 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria
Hi! I've made some improvements in accordance with your last post in the FAC, could you please take a look? Thanks! Todor→Bozhinov 18:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, your suggestions certainly helped develop the article even further! Could you also strike your initial vote, so that the one who closes the nomination would easily see it's been changed :) Todor→Bozhinov 19:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Vijayanagara Empire
Sir, I have replied to your comments on the FAC discussion page of above article. Please take a look.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 02:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see my response to a few issues.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 07:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your extensive cleanup of citation format etc., on the above article. You have shown us a much cleaner, neater and pleasing way to write inline citation notes which I shall follow in my future FAC's. My only concern is that I may have to face a different reviewer who does not like this format and expect something totally different. I guess these things have not been standardized causing these types of issues from FAC to FAC. My only question is regarding some citations, example:citation #37, 39, 48. These citations came from the book written/edited by Fritz/Mitchell. How would a reader know this is where the citation came from as it is not apparent?Dineshkannambadi 00:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Mystery meat navigation
I have added a "" template to the article Mystery meat navigation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Mathmo Talk 01:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Sceptile
Yeah, I feel terrible for letting him have so many chances. It's just that I gave up on him, he was this close from sparking my anger, but I decided to just leave him be (which stopped me from being uncivil). Then again, whenever I report a user to AIV, after many warnings and after bad usernames, the admins just remove that user for no apparent reason. So, after getting used to that as well, I just gave up. Still, I owe you big time for indef blocking him. You did a good deed. Good day, ♥ Tohru Honda13  ♥ 21:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Polar coordinate system: "angle of elevation"
If you look at your version, and the one before you'll see the only actual change is switching from "with m the slope" to "where m is the slope". While it does improve the phrasing some, it does nothing in the way of actually clarifying it. Circeus 13:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...maybe I'm not confused because I wrote it, but isn't this sentence very clear? "Radial lines (those running through the pole) are represented by the equation $$\theta = \varphi \,,$$ where φ is the angle of elevation of the line; that is, φ = arctan m where m is the slope of the line in the Cartesian coordinate system." That's the equation for a radial line, and φ is the angle of elevation of the line, or the arctan of the slope m. — Mets501 (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And by the way, about the image under "Complex number," I meant for a graphic representation of that point in the Polar plane, not the cartesian one (Complex plane makes a good job of explaining that).Circeus 14:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But that image serves two purposes :-). Notice the Cartesian axes, but the polar angle is labeled. — Mets501 (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think what confuses me is the transition from the cartesian equation to the polar one. The Polar equation cannot be directly derived from the first, because the first contains no angular measure. Even though the angle is easily derived if you're the least mathematically inclined, the just then to the third equation is simply too abrupt, not to mention that the parentheses vanishes in that last equation, which makes it look like it's a different form.
 * Yes, I say "form". The first equation plots a point (x,y) via that equation. The second equation has the form of a function ($$r(\theta) vs r(\cos\theta+i\sin\theta)$$) whose conection to the first equation is not clear, and the third switch back from a function to an equation...
 * So, the connection between $$z = x + iy$$ and $$z = r(\cos\theta+i\sin\theta)$$ should be made clearer, and why $$z = re^{i\theta}$$ is not $$z = r(e^{i\theta})$$ should be clearer.
 * I hope that makes sense

. Circeus 15:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK: I see where the problem is now :-) In each equation, z is a value/point on the complex plane that is calculated by plugging in values for x any y, or r and $$\theta$$. In none of the equations is it a function of theta. The second equation is actually r times cos θ + i sin θ. The derivation of the second formula from the first is straightforward (from the equations given above in the article), as $$z = x+iy = r\cos\theta+ ir\sin\theta = r\cdot(\cos\theta+i\sin\theta)$$, and the third is too complex to derive from the second in the space in the article. — Mets501 (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind the note. My last concern about these three equations is that I believe the mention that the rectangular-polar conversion is made using the formula given earlier comes too late to be clearly linked to the proper step. I added a mention of the conversion in the proper location. I'd be even tempted to go as far as putt in in the z = r\cos\theta+ri\sin\theta\ form too, but maybe that's too much.Circeus 16:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, it's all good now. I also proposed a third paragraph for the lead at Featured article candidates/Polar coordinate system; you might want to check it out. — Mets501 (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

New Radicals
i reverted further. Chensiyuan 17:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)