User talk:Cryptic C62/Archive 1

Westport Country Playhouse / Lawrence Langner
You wrote: I happened upon your comment on Talk:Westport Country Playhouse, and I couldn't help but wonder if you were related to Lawrence Langner. Are you?
 * I'm not sure. There are three or four Langner families, all originating from Germany, and I'm not sure which one Lawrence Langner is from. Karol 11:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was interested in his life some time ago, and the Playhouse. Actually, I started both pages, if you look at the history. On a related note, Karol is a male name ;) Karol 15:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Westport Country Playhouse
Brilliant work! I only did a cursory read through, but it looks pretty darn good. The only thing that jumps out at me is the quality of the pictures: they're too good... are you sure they are licensed under the GFDL? I'll peruse the article later; right now I'm up to my neck in stuff to do for Atomic line filter which is a current FAC.

By the way, can you take a few days off of work to go to Wikimania (this could be one of those "rare exceptions"... show them all of the free publicity you just gave them)? My father and I are going; I thought you might like to join us, (we'll drive). See http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/. Oh, and don't forget to sign you comments. -- Rmrfstar 16:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Halo 2 Skulls
Halo 2 Skulls has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt the subject might not be notable enough for an article. Please review What Wikipedia is not and Notability for the relevant concerns. An example of notability guidelines can be found at Notability (websites). If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may be sent to Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser
Could you have used the AutoWikiBrowser for your recent theatre categorizations? -- Rmrfstar 23:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Westport
It's not that I won't help with it, but my main focus is now Hippocrates. This is, for me at least, a much more interesting subject. -- Rmrfstar 03:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Playhouse peer review
The peer review I was doing at Peer review/Westport Country Playhouse/archive1 started out well, but the more I delved into the sources and images, the more copyright issues I found. I've tagged the images and delisted the article GA (see Talk:Westport Country Playhouse); please respond to the copyright issues on the peer review as soon as possible, or I'm concerned that other items may need to be tagged as copyvio. Regards, Sandy 07:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"Stupid" sentence about 91
I think that what whoever wrote that "stupid" sentence at 91 was getting at is that 91 is a pseudoprime in relation to base 10. The article does mention pseudoprimality in relation to 3 mod n, but perhaps it is not worded in a way that makes sense to the less mathematically proficient among us. Anton Mravcek 15:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Francium
I like what you've done with the place... -- Rmrfstar 02:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ian Thorpe
I removed Featured article review/Ian Thorpe from WP:FAR per the instructions there. ("Please do not add reviews for pages that are Today's Featured Article or listed as one of the three recently featured.") Pls feel free to resubmit when a sufficient number of days from mainpage date have elapsed. Regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Zoobkar
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -- Rmrfstar 01:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

what do you think?
Abridged 15:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an impressive image (of the elements by article quality); Creative, and makes a good userbox, too. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Francium a GA
Congratulations on the GA pass... now finish the job! -- Rmrfstar 02:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Twofer/Grelco
Hi there... spotted your post on the Stagecraft WikiProject about what you've been up to. I'm a UK member of the project and can clarify that the UK name for a Twofer is actually a Grelco. I don't remember where that name is routed though. 'Grelly' would be an abbreviation, which I have heard used. It typically relates to a Twofer for our 15A power connections, and is usually an integral block rather than a plug with two cables leading to two sockets. Where single plug goes to 3 or more sockets it is known as a Trelco. I'm contemplating creating a Grelco page. Haven't decided whether it is better to create a specific page or redirect to your Twofer page and put the info there. Suncloud 08:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Vasily Zavoyko
Hi, my text was based on Russian Wikipedia article that in turn is an exact copy of the public domain Zavoyko article in the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary. I have originally put the Efron at the bottom of the article. But I agree that it does not show what info is from the Brockhaus and which is for another sources, thus I put the references to the online version of the Brockhaus Encyclopedia. There is also a short Addendum to the Brockhaus article showing the deathdate of Zavoyko (Brockhaus was printed in 1890-1908 and probably the Z articles were printed before the 1898 (Russian Z is the only 13th letter of Russian alphabet out of 32) Alex Bakharev 08:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Tuesday
See you Wednesday. And yes, I'd say this is a very reliable medium for me. Also my Gmail is quite often checked (not as often, though). -- Rmrfstar 01:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Divisibility rule rewrite
Some dude is planning a rewrite and splitting of Divisibility rule. See the talk page and give your consent, if indeed you have some to give.

And I shall refrain from commenting on the Francium FAC until there is a satisfactory resolution of the solution issue ;): If you can't solve what's solvent and what's the ion involvement, you won't get good contributions from me, but a poor resolution of the candidacy! -- Rmrfstar 22:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Russian-Circassian War
Thanks for taking a look at the article and its FAC. I have addressed some of your points and would appreciate further comment! Thanks SGGH 07:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ian Thorpe
Hi Cryptic. In regards to my referencing style. Generally, the book formed the backbone, and I left a thing at the bottom of each paragraph, generally pointing to the range of 10 pages in the Hunter bio for events. After Taxman pointed out that having more than one source was desired, I went and supplemented them with individual Swiminfo reports. However, these are often not as detailed as the article text and the biographical book. (Unfortunately Swiminfo isn't that rich, since Swimming is not a rich sport, so they only have 1-2 journos writing these things, so their reports aren't as detailed as perhaps an Australian newspaper, except that most of the newspapers aren't online). What is your opinion on the fact that I only put one book ref per paragraph at the bottom? Do you want me to pair tehm up with all the webrefs? Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Francium
Congratulations! -- Rmrfstar 06:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Atomic line filter
I did Atomic line filter while dating Rachael: you're wrong. -- Rmrfstar 13:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Russian-Circassian War
Thanks for supporting the above articles FAC. It was successful, thanks! :) SGGH speak! 10:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Constant Star
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Constant Star, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Constant Star fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: '''no assertion of notability, A7. Does not seem to have been presented anywhere other than one non-profit theater.''' To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Constant Star, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Constant Star itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 01:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Tazewell Thompson
Tazewell Thompson has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt this person might not be notable enough for an article. Please review Notability (people) for the relevant guidelines. If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" template, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but if an editor is still not satisfied that it meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Jam & Spice
A template has been added to the article Jam & Spice, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with db-author. &mdash;  Music  Maker  5376  03:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Cambrian explosion
Hi,

Some time back you were good enough to leave some feedback on the Cambrian explosion article. I've tried to address all your points, and have finally finished referencing the article; I'd very much appreciate it if you could take another look and see if you feel your points have been addressed: and if you can spot anything else that could use a tweak, before we embark on the FA process!

Thanks a lot,

Verisimilus  T  15:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Periodic Table by Quality.PNG
You seem to be taking care of this picture and I had a suggestion: in case you have the chance to, update it as .svg type. Nergaal (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Periodic Table by Quality.PNG
It seems that you are the one taking care of it. I have recently went through the articles about elements and did a fresh reassesment. If you could, it would be great if you would update the image with the new assesment. Also, it seems to me that GA-articles are better than A ones - plutonium for example did not manage to be GA but is an A one (I might be wrong here, but at least GA has a fairly objective reviewing process, while A can be rated by a single random person). Thanks if you could help with the image. Nergaal 11:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Gatorade flavors
I have nominated List of Gatorade flavors, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/List of Gatorade flavors. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Marlith  T / C 20:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
I appreciate the feedback regarding my article Trucking industry in the United States, however, perhaps putting it on hold might have given me some time to rectify the problems facing the article? Failing it outright was perhaps a little hasty, but that is not for me to question. I will fix the issues that were pointed out and resubmit it for another review. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can help me define what is a statement that "needs" to be referenced, because everybody seems to have their own definition. I could very easily cite every sentence in my articles, which it seems would be necessary to satisfy everybody (not just you), but that would be a waste of time. While I could easily state "paper checks are easily forged" it says nothing about how easy it is to actually cash a forged check. Yet someone always wants a citation about how easy it is to forge a paper check. Where do you draw the line between statements that are common sense and unverifiable and statements that are not well known but easily verifiable? If I say most trees have green leaves in the summer, thats common sense but totally unprovable. But if I said 70% of Iowa is populated with white folks, that can be proven with census reports.


 * I've only been on Wikipedia for a month now, I've read the "five pillars" and "how to cite articles" and all that junk. I've managed to write a few articles, and tragically, I've never heard of this peer review stuff before I submitted my articles for GA status. Other people have told me, "if you can't prove it, don't say it." Which is good I guess... but if I have to add a cite for every statement I'm going to make I'll never finish anything! Maybe I've just been spending too much time in this place and I need to get out and see the real world instead of reading made-up crap about it on Wiki.


 * Perhaps I'm ranting to the wrong person, and perhaps you don't care, but I'm not just saying this because you reviewed my article. I'm saying this because Wiki is totally lacking in any sort of consistency, and one person's idea of a great article is another person's idea of toilet paper. This is way too subjective for me, I need hard and fast rules... I'm a man of logic. Where are the rules? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. In other words, cite everything, no matter how trivial. And if you can't cite it, don't print it. Thanks for your help. :) --ErgoSum88 (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks dude!
Looks like a good project!--Nkrosse (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for No Use For Nickels
An editor has asked for a deletion review of No Use For Nickels. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Juliancaza (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello
I know you don't like to read, or follow links that people give you... still, I'm going to suggest you do both simultaneously. You'll be glad you did.

http://www.herecomeseverybody.org/2008/04/looking-for-the-mouse.html

Also, I'll be seeing Romeo and Juliet next weekend. Expect me. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the heads up on this, which I agree is quite suspicious - I left a note at the author's talk page. I can dig around in the next day or so and see if I can find the source. If not, I will list it at the proper noticeboard, just have to figure out which one. Ruhrfisch ><> &deg; &deg; 01:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It was deleted by another admin - guess I should have been bolder. Ruhrfisch ><> &deg; &deg; 12:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will take another look at Zirconium in the next few days. Ruhrfisch ><> &deg; &deg; 01:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Alaska Steamship Company
OK, it's good to go now. Daniel Case (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Help (Candide)!
Your favourite veteran techie asks for a favour. Would you do a copyedit of Candide? I'd really appreciate it, (especially considering the good work you're doing in peer-reviewing the Everglades articles). P.S. You scratch my back, I'll say "thanks". -- Rmrfstar (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Complexity in action
I knew it was time to give out a barnstar because I was irritated (a few days ago). I got over it, but it's usually a sign that I need to get over myself a bit. You've been very thorough, and you've had exceedingly high standards. I wrote these articles very quickly to "strike while the iron is hot", and in my haste, jumbled some facts and prose. Your reviews have been for me rather a good example of character building in a Catholic sort of way. That is to say, through suffering. Perhaps we have both suffered. At any rate, I know I can't bring all of these to FA without help, and yours has been invaluable. Thank you. I'm almost in mortal fear of trying to tackle Everglades. --Moni3 (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC) (Grace in action.)


 * Hee, my first Barnstar! Thank you! I'm quite the happy clam. I must say though, you've given me a bit more credit than I deserve: I never reviewed Geography/Ecology or Draining/Development, as the PRs were closed before I had a chance to try. As for Everglades, go for it! You've single-handedly churned out more information in the satellite articles than any one person ought to know about the Everglades. If anyone is prepared to take on the main article, it's you. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, well I'm glad I'm the first to give you a barnstar. Good for me. As for PR's, who cares about those? Talk pages make excellent substitutes. Any time you want to review either of those, just post away. --Moni3 (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I will add them to my Current Projects list. Candide and List of elements by stability of isotopes take priority at the moment, but I've got the whole summer ahead of me! I'll personally review the two remaining satellites once my wikischedule frees up a bit so I can truly earn the barnstar. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

After hemming and hawing about what to do, I added information to the Restoration of the Everglades article in the Implementation section. I didn't set out to make this article so political, but I guess I didn't take into consideration it's an election year. And McCain rather made himself part of the article when he toured the Everglades last week and made comments about his previous votes. At any rate, now I'm concerned about NPOV and UNDUE weight, and if you wouldn't mind giving me your thoughts on the additions, I'd appreciate it. --Moni3 (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I must admit that I've never dealt with POV or any kind of politics on Wikipedia. Any view I present would be an extremely inexperienced one. I will, however, take a look at it for clarity. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the words of kindness and comfort on my talk page. They help to give me strength in this terrible period. It is people like you who make me see that we are not only connected by the internet, but by the heart. With much love, Jeffpw (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Re: FL
Thanks for the help with List of elements by stability of isotopes. Right now I am wowrking on several projects.

I have posted on the WP:Elements talkpage a question about list of elements by boiling&melting point, atomic mass&number. I am not sure weather they are ready to become FLs, or if they should be merged. What do you think?

Also, I am working on Timeline of chemical elements discoveries‎. I am in the middle of expanding the article. If you have any suggestions, you are welcome to elave them on the talk page there.

Thanks again! Nergaal (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have posted a sort of poll on its talk-page. Please leave your opinions. Thanks! Nergaal (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Another reply :) Nergaal (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHEM supplementary information
Do you think there's any value in linking to the videos on this website in the articles on elements? -- Rmrfstar (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it wouldn't hurt to add it to the external links sections; no one takes that stuff seriously anyway. Why don't you pay a visit to WP:ELEMENTS and see what those guys think? It'd be a good idea to establish some consensus before adding the link to all the element articles. By the way, cheers to Candide achieving GA! I would have been extremely frustrated if it failed another GAN after all that work. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Good suggestion. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Candide's FAC
I thought you might be interested to know that I just nominated Candide for FA status. Thanks again for all of the help with the article. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Author-name formats
Regarding this edit, is there any consensus that MLA is the way they should be? by default does Last, First (i.e., using the first= and last= fields), which is also how DOIBot appears to be doing things. DMacks (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I changed all instances of first= and last= to author= for two reasons: First, the majority of the citations used <tt>author=</tt>. It was easier and more correct to change the minority to conform to the majority than the other way around. Second, Template:Cite book states the following in regards to <tt>first=</tt> and <tt>last=</tt>:


 * The `last' and `first' fields are poorly named for the case of an author whose surname is usually written first (e.g. as in Chinese). They also have the problem of only communicating which is the surname, not communicating where the surname is usually written. Consider deprecating first,last fields, and reinstating author field, using the notation "Smith, John" or "Hu Ke Jie" as appropriate (i.e. always writing surname first, and using comma or not depending on whether the name is usually written surname last or first).


 * This is actually quite relevant to Helium, as one of the sources cited was authored by Ming Wah Wong. I actually prefer using <tt>first=</tt> and <tt>last=</tt>, but based on the two pieces of information I just explained, the use of <tt>author=</tt> seemed to make more sense. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agree (well, with your intent and reasoning, and that those are the guidelines). However, some of your changes in that edit look like a switch from "last, first" to "first last" and mixing those styles within a single citation (something I haven't seen advocated). Example, this
 * author=Mullins, P.V.; Goodling, R. M.
 * changed to this
 * author=Mullins, P.V. |coauthors = R. M. Goodling
 * DMacks (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, some of the citations used <tt>author=</tt> and listed all of the authors, while some used <tt>coauthor=</tt>. According to Template:Cite book, MLA style recommends Last, First for the primary author and First Last for the coauthors. This was already the case for some of the references, but not for the others. As SandyGeorgia phrased it in Helium's FARC, "Author format is all over the place". Every aspect is now consistent. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Another barnstar! Congrats!

 * Hey hey! Thanks, man! I didn't think anyone was actually watching me whittle away. You seem to be keeping up with Candide's FAC, which must be difficult given how many people are interested. Not a whole lot of Supports so far, but you're improving the article, and that's the important thing. Les Miz is opening this weekend, want to see it? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 10:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. And you should know I'm always watching. I'd really like to go see Les Mis, but I can't, as I'm still in Paris. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Helium, Lockyer, Vijaydurg and 68.61.181.13
I saw your revert of 68.61.181.13's edit to Helium and although I agree that the revert was correct (the edit was unreferenced), there remains the possibility that it was actually accurate. If you can find the time to review my comments on User talk:68.61.181.13, perhaps you may be willing to reconsider your use of the 'Template:Test (first level warning)' for the IP user in this case, as I hope you can agree this was not a test edit, rather a lack of understanding of sourcing. Thanks --RexxS (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Three more sources for the assertion, the last of which is quite intriguing:, and  . -- Rmrfstar (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

mrrr
you might have erased the thing in more than one article. Nergaal (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoops. I just deleted the entire section before I started writing simply because it had the tag, so I didn't even notice the  note. Sorry about that. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Elements Report
Great idea - but I think that the maximum benefit is to keep this as a list of most viewed element articles (at least until this can be automated in some way). A top 50 list is more than long enough for that. A top 20 seems about right to me given the time needed to update this manually vs the benefit. We can then use that list to help prioritize article improvement and help inform us about high and top importance ratings (as far as popularity is a factor). Good job! --mav (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * With the above said, I see only benefits by having a complete list; the returns on time investment just seem to diminish after 20 and then significantly after 50 to 60. But if you want to complete it, I think it would be a very nice thing to have. Especially if importance ratings are added and each column is sortable akin to List of elements. This could be a 'List of elements by popularity, importance and quality' in the Wikipedia namespace. Trying to figure out ambiguities, however, may be more trouble than it is worth. At the very least, that seems like something for ref notes to qualify popularity ratings. Again, great job! --mav (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that as it is now, the table is really only useful for the first two or three viewing categories. However, there are ways that I plan on expanding upon the report (much larger Conclusions section, new graphs, charts, and Periodic Tables) that won't really make sense without all of the data. The mere fact that you like what I've got so far tells me that I'm going in the right direction. I promise you, you won't be disappointed with the finished result! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Niobium
Hi, niobium climbed two steps! is now B-Class! Would be good if you also have a short look!--Stone (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Periodic Table by Quality.SVG
I created a image Image:Periodic Table by Quality.SVG. Have a look! I like that you can edit the whole thing in an text editor and simply change
 * style="fill:#66ffff to
 * style="fill:#6699ff and you promoted an article from GA to FA. If you also like it we can use it. The colours are a little fluffy, but these are the offical ones, but it is simple to exchange all.--Stone (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's pretty cool! A few people have talked about making a new easy-to-edit periodic table by quality, and this sounds like just the thing! What program do you need to be able to edit an SVG file? My computer doesn't recognize the extension. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I used wordpad to edit it and the eexplorer for looking at it! --Stone (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you have a look? The seperate squares for the groups and the periodes are easy to generate if they are needed.--Stone (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I figured out how to edit it, but I don't know how to preview it. What is eexplorer? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Stupid me! Internet-explorer or mozilla. Simply say load the file and for the internet explorer the adobe svg viewer plugin will do the job.--Stone (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, I still have no idea what's going on. I tried opening the file in Adobe Acrobat, and I tried opening it in Explorer, but it just showed up as the raw text, not an actual image. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Any webbrowser which is capable to show the svg in wikipedia should open a svg with file open ....--Stone (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not normally show SVGs but converts them to PNG. You only see the SVG (if your browser supports it) when you go to the "full size" image (for example http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/Periodic_Table_by_Quality.SVG ). I know that at least Firefox 2 and Chrome support SVG... --Itub (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Isotopes of iridium
Hi, I remember you said you have lots of practice rewriting isotopes sections using Nubase. Would you be interested in expanding the isotopes section of iridium? I've been expanding and referencing the article because it was a shame to have only a "Start" for such a nice element. ;-) Perhaps with your help this can soon be a good article! --Itub (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, major coincidence! I was just at the library earlier today researching iridium. I figured since I'm not doing anything else besides watching Yttrium's FAC, I might as well get started on one of August's critical articles. I'll start compiling the isotopes info tonight, and I'll definitely add it (as well as my other research) by this friday. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Stone is working on the article too, adding references and cleaning up the existing ones. With your research I'm sure the article will be Good™ soon. --Itub (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, if ou ahve some time I would like to ask you something: I have added new isotopes to the infobox of iridium and I couldn't find any decay energies. Do you have a good source for them? Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I just went to the library to check CRC 2008. It agrees with all of the current decay energies except 192m2Ir. The infobox currently lists the energy as 0.155 MeV, CRC lists it as .161 MeV. As for your missing energies, it lists 188Ir ε as 1.64 MeV and 193mIr as .0802 MeV. It didn't have any data for 194m2Ir. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It could be one of the newer published isotopes. Is there any data for Ir-194m though? Nergaal (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, no data for 194mIr, either. However, I must note that this is the only instance I can remember in which the infobox includes isomers. Perhaps we shouldn't include the isomers for consistency's sake, as well as the issue of the missing decay energies. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for helping to write the Quality control page. Your description of watchlisting is great.

I appreciate it.

The Transhumanist 19:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: I've added a little to your paragraph, in case you are interested in looking it over for the sake of quality control. :)


 * Heh, one of my favorite things to do with non-wikipedians is discuss the many means of quality control, so helping out with this page comes quite naturally to me. I'll probably whip together a little RC Patrol paragraph, too. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I love your every edit is recorded paragraph. You are right, that's the perfect way to kick it off.  I look forward to seeing what you write next!  The Transhumanist  21:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Found this...
Related to the work being done on Quality control, I found this article:

Reliability of Wikipedia

I thought you might find it interesting.

The Transhumanist 20:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Man, I rule
Take a look at the history for Pierre-François Chabaneau. You'll notice I've only made one edit - creating the page. I believe I may be the first person to successfully bring an article through both DYK and GA with one edit while maintaining a relationship with a real human, albeit a very small one. Arguably more difficult than my previous challenge. Think you can possibly match my feat? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It certainly is small! ;) Wait a minute... what am I talking about? Anyway, congratulations! See you tomorrow. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've answered your question at...
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Demographics. The Transhumanist 03:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Francium: unwanted additions?
See. -- 01:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've reverted and proposed the articles on francium hydroxide and francium fluoride for deletion. --Itub (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Interviews
That'd be a great idea. I've been meaning to handle a couple myself. What I would suggest you do is come up with a subject, and a list of questions in your userspace. I'll look them over, and invite other writers to look them over, and add or edit the questions you have. Then you can handle the interview, and the write-up.

I would encourage you, after the questions have been looked over by others, to submit the questions to each user on their talk page, rather than trying an interview via another method such as IRC or IM. Results have tended to be much better when we avoid "live" interviews like IRC would be. Ral315 (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, I quickly whipped up a list of questions here. It's a short list, but I plan to add more specific questions after Sandy answers those. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I answered my questions. Ruslik (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I want to read it one more time and copy-edit it if necessary. It will be finished tomorrow (I will notify you). Ruslik (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I finished. It can be published now. Ruslik (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Gamma ray burst
I seem to have run out of steam on my drive to get this important article up to FA standards, mainly due to my limited knowledge of physics. SandyGeorgia suggested that you might be able to provide useful advice. Jehochman Talk 20:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dysprosium
The article Dysprosium you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Dysprosium for things needed to be addressed. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In the news
I put it into paragraph form. There are a lot articles that cover this donation, but I chose the Associated Press because of their reputation. The AP article is kind of bare bones. This wired.com blog article has some interesting speculation. This webpronews.com article gives specific dates concerning the project. Basically, if this was a normal article I would put the first into External links, and use the second as a reference. I looked at some past In the News articles though, and they seem to use just one article. So, if you think I should add those articles and have an idea of how to do so, I can, else the piece is basically finished. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, the AP article isn't very meaty. Here's an idea: for each article that adds some new content, give it a sentence and link to the corresponding article. For example, you could do something like "Wired.com speculated that blah blah blah. According to this webpronews.com article, the entire donation blah blah blah." This way you won't need to showcase any one article and risk leaving out important information. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I added those other links. I think its good now, unless you think it's too long.  It's a bit longer than the other three. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me! Assuming nothing major happens in the next 24 hours, I think we're all done. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:United States by Quality.png
Thanks for uploading Image:United States by Quality.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It says on that image's talk page that you created the work entirely by yourself. Did you really not use someone else's outline and then colour it? -- rmrfstar (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:WikiProject Interview
About six months ago, an interview of a member of the project (Gran2) was done. I'm generally not a big fan of being interviewed/profiled, how about a joint interview, where you also get answers from Theleftorium? That way, you can get answers from a burnt out veteran, and an enthusiastic young gun. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  18:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The ice hockey project has a lot of great users, and I don't think it's ever been done. Resolute would be a good choice, but you could also ask several others, including Djsasso, Kaiser matias, Krm500, Alaney2k or Maxim. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  20:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks (I think) for the nomination, heh. And sure, I'd be willing to do an interview on behalf of WP:HOCKEY.  I am working on moving, but that won't happen the weekend after next. Just let me know what you need... and make sure you make Scorpion as uncomfortable as possible in his interview. Don't let him off the hook!  >;o) Resolute 21:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting questions so far. I will think on the answers for this first set and have them for you either later tonight, or sometime tomorrow. Resolute 22:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I could probably tinker with the answers forever, so instead I will just accept them as is. I appreciate the interview, good luck with the next! Resolute 02:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Flagged Revs
Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template  « l | Ψrometheăn ™ | l »   (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology interview
Um... Sure, why not? Talk me through it :) I won't be editing much for a few days, but we can probably get started tomorrow. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I am so sorry—I completely missed those last two questions! All done now, and I apologize again for the missed deadline... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Gamma ray burst
Hi Cryptic. Could you help me with the expansion of the two sections in gamma-ray burst. We probably need to add just a couple paragraphs to each. I've started an outline of the info that is needed. This should not be too difficult, but I sure would appreciate any help you could provide. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 04:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Scandium
Hi Cryptic you missed the GA status of the Scandium Page! It is always nice to see you reports, they encurage always to recolour more of the PSE before you do your next report. Thanks.--Stone (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Pharmacology interview
Hi there! Just wanted to say thanks for covering wikiproject pharmacology recently, and giving us a bit more exposure. I apologize about my non-responsiveness recently. I was out of town at the end of the year and the beginning of the new one, and it took awhile to get back into the whole swing of things with wikipedia and all. Overall, Fvasconcellos did a reasonably good job talking about the project. He's pretty involved in the project, and is dedicated. The only thing I will disagree with is what he stated about the Anabolic steroid article, which I feel is grossly misinformed and inaccurate -- I was actually quite involved in reviewing that article at several levels, and I don't see the same issues with it as he does.

Overall, I think the past year has been pretty good for WP:PHARM as a whole -- we've seen four articles progress through the review process, attaining FA status (Bupropion, Treatment of multiple sclerosis, Anabolic steroid, and Sertraline). Not to forget several other articles at GA status as well. There's still, of course, a lot of stubs, so a lot of work to be done. Part of the issues I see with the project is not enough good editors with the scientific background to properly review and edit the articles (though, there is plenty of support for articles on drugs of an illicit nature. Go figure?).

Anyway, thanks for featuring the project! Overall, nice work! Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Interviews

 * 1) Yes, I would, that sounds good to me.  Note that I can't always promise I'll be able to do it, as I have exams coming up, but I will endeavour to get it done anyway :)
 * 2) That would be very helpful :)

Thanks very much for the offers! <font color=#3333cc>Garden. 23:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to slot this here, hope you get it - would this count as a WikiProject? It's iMatthew's suggestion, not mine :P  <font color=#333333>Garden . 22:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks, will look into interviewees with iMatthew now. <font color=#333333>Garden . 23:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, the deadline's a Saturday now? Would it be ok if we keep working on our report for next week? (Sorry, I honestly thought it was a Monday, must have recently changed.) Apologies. <font color=#006600>Garden. 23:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, I'll try not to in the future. Thanks for your patience.  <font color=#000000>Garden . 23:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

in the news
Hey there! Are you working on in the news this week? If not I can start the page. cheers, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 02:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would really appreciate it if you started working on it. I've been out and about all day today, so I haven't had time. I'll try to pitch in tomorrow, though. Thanks! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

GRB
How do you feel about putting this one up at WP:FAC? It is sometimes good to leave a few things unfinished so the critics have something to complain about, and then we can fix them. One the whole, I think the article is very good. Jehochman Talk 17:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article is of good quality and would probably be able to get this article through FAC as is. However, what the reviewers believe to be a complete and comprehensive article may be quite different from what the editor (who has access to good resources) believes to be a complete article, and that is the case here. While I have expanded the article significantly, I still have nearly 30 chapters of undigested information between the two books that I've been using, and I've hardly even scratched the surface of the AIP Conference Proceedings. I could not, in good conscience, take the article to FAC knowing how much further we could be improving it. Also, as a personal preference, I would rather have the article be jam-packed with potentially excessive amounts of information and be forced to cut back during FAC than to try to scramble at the last minute to find new information. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. Perhaps we should create daughter articles.  This may be more useful to the reader. Jehochman Talk 19:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Aye, or at the very least, we'll probably need to reorganize the Discovery/Research missions sections into some kind of History section. For now, I'll just keep doing what I'm doing. Perhaps before (or as part of) the eventual FAC, we can do a quick peer review to see what other users think would be the best way to present the information. I would be hesitant to make any kind of executive decision as to how to divide it up before getting input from more than just two nerdy editors (us). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Signpost design
Hey Cryptic, as you're a major contributor to the Signpost I'd really appreciate your thoughts on this design refresh I've been working on. Thanks in advance. P retzels Talk! 00:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hartford Meetup: We need your help!
The next Connecticut Wikipedia meetup will take place sometime during April 2009 at Real Art Ways cafe and arts center in Hartford, Connecticut. Please list on the meetup page whether or not you can go. Also please contribute ideas for topics and dates! Hope to see you there! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am supposedly on the committee that organizes this meetup. Hope to see you there. Jehochman Talk 05:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Interview?
I think I might need help finding a WikiProject. I was going for Rugby Union (because of the Six Nations) and neither of the two I asked have responded. I might put something on the talk page of the project, but I don't know. If I can't get any of them then I would definitely appreciate it if you could do one quickly - but don't feel obliged or anything. <font style="color:white ;background:#339933;"> GARDEN 18:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, good idea. I'll see who I can get.  <font style="color:white ;background:#660000;"> GARDEN  19:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Triple Crown jewels
Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Pierre-François Chabaneau - a nice new contribution to the topic of chemistry on the project. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yay! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP Islam
Hi Cryptic C62, I'd be happy to! <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH  21:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Signpost
I did manage to get one in on time - User:Garden/Signpost/GAA. Not much, but after two weeks exams, anything is good :) <font style="color:white ;background:#660000;"> GARDEN 23:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Connecticut Meetup: You are invited!
The 2nd Connecticute Meetup will take place on April 18th, 2009 at Real Art Ways cafe and arts center in Hartford, Connecticut. Please state whether or not you can attend on the meetup page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) because your name was on the invite list. 16:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Connecticut Meetup
Hi Cryptic C62. :) I've left you a note at WP:MEETUP/CT. Sam  Blab 13:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Spacing
Never ask a MOS page about something like this; most of the regulars there are more interested in pushing some reform than in observing what English actually does, or what will be most convenient for the reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Your RFA
Hiya Cryptic. I'm concerned about the effect that the last supporting comment is going to have on your RFA; people may feel challenged to respond to it with bigger and better examples and more detailed rationales, and the effect of that might be negative for both you and for the whole RFA community. How do you feel about how your RFA is going, and would you be interested in withdrawing and coming back in 3 months? This is just a suggestion from just one voter, of course; I could be off-base. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This RFA continues to be a very interesting and enjoyable learning experience. I have no intention of withdrawing. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear it. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have been watching your RFA, and I almost came out of wiki-retirement to write a lengthy, well-reasoned argument of why you are more valuable to wikipedia as an admin, than as a regular user. I'm concerned it may be too little, too late. If the RFA swings close into the 65% range, I will come forward and post. If not, I will write it anyway but for a similar candidate that comes along. Good luck and I have been lurking the RFA for a couple years and the arguments behind the oppose !votes are just standard given your personality (which is like my personality ;). Treat RFA like career-day at college. Spend at least one week per !oppose at improving yourself at whatever someone else says is wrong about you.

This whole online encyclopedia is a very ideal collaboration, and you will gain strong intrapersonal skills by meaningfully contributing to this endeavor. Good luck! LeeJaedong (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't sweat it. I'd appreciate your support if you feel strongly about it, but I totally get where you're coming from. Save your big guns for when they'll do the most damage, eh?


 * As for the opposes, aye, those that !oppose on the basis of lack of experience have very valid points, and it is of them that I will be most mindful if I do another RFA. As for those that !oppose on the basis of my perceived arrogance, I have to disagree with your advice of "Spend at least one week per !oppose at improving yourself at whatever someone else says is wrong about you." As the RFA has made abundantly clear, my user page states that "I love myself," and I do. I am happy with who I am as a person and how I conduct myself, both here and off-wiki. To try to "improve myself" based on what the opposers are saying would mean to try to change my personality, something which no person should ever be forced to do. If I am to ever change any of their minds, I won't do it by stooping down to the level of sacrificing my integrity for the sake of a few measly admin tools. I will do it by showing them, just as I have shown supporters like Jehochman, Garden, Rmrfstar, and anyone else I have worked with, that my commitment to excellence far exceeds whatever character flaws they may perceive.


 * So. You seem like you've got a good head on your shoulders. Why'd you retire? :) --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you really want to know why I retired? You might not want a 20 page essay on your user page ;) Well, my advice about spending a week etc... was meant like tongue-in-cheek fashion.  If someone says you need to rescue more kittens from burning houses, then just do a few things you disagree with to help make other people feel important and, importantly, bookmark those diffs for future reference!  I have learned that sometimes it's better to counter a bad argument with placated heed, rather than countering with a good argument.  (Preserve that last sentence--best advice you will ever get!--both on and off wikipedia :^^) LeeJaedong (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Now I'm curious, and I don't mind reading 20-page essays. Why don't you just put it at User:LeeJaedong/retirement? Or you can email me if you'd like to keep it more private. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Good man! That's what I feared (for your sake :^^). That curiousity and desire to learn and better one's self are why I wanted to write a lengthy post for you at your RFA. Well, lets say I retired almost out of fear of going down that road. I am a perfect asset to wikipedia--I wrote 2 GA's, and wanted to make them into FA's and develop a collection of 100's of FA's to my name. Do you know all the rules governing semicolons, commas, dashes, hyphens, essential/nonessential clauses, and grammar etc..?

I didn't before I joined Wikipedia, but my desire to make user-helpful content was the driving force which motivated me to teach myself perfect, grammar rules; I also have become a much better writer and discovered the power of building great sentences. Yes, even this post is full of prose tactics which I have learned to be effective in talk-page communications.:^^

Basically, I'm waiting on the sidelines to see which direction Wikipedia is heading. It is when candidates like you don't stand out for being exceptional article-builders; that is why I preemptively retired. I do not have loyalty to wikipedia--only its readers. I write funny stuff on my userpage (sad, beautiful story though), but I would never maliciously touch an article where someone comes looking for helpful knowledge. LeeJaedong (talk) 06:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Why on Earth would you ever let people's thoughts and actions at RFA dictate whether you stay or not? I spent the vast majority of my editing career completely unaware of what goes on at RFA. My recent experience there doesn't affect my thoughts on the other aspects of Wikipedia in the slightest! And forget about waiting to see where Wikipedia is heading. The answer is forward, even if it veers slightly off of whatever you assumed would be the best course. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Closed RFA
Your RFA was closed as no consensus to promote. Please review the concerns and work on them and try again. Thank you for your interest in adminship. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 21:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, I just wanted to say that I am appreciative of the work that you are doing for Wikipedia. I was happy to support your RfA and I will be glad to back you again if you decide to give it another shot. :) Pastor Theo (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, mate! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for GRB 970508
Shubinator (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Elements Report
Avid reader and fan of the report here. :) For the next report, could you add the group & period articles along with chemical element and periodic table? Those articles are just as important to WP:ELEMENTS as the element articles themselves. --mav (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Aye, Nergaal mentioned this when I first started publishing the report. I didn't really want to at the time, but if you're both interested, then I'll do it. I'll incorporate them into the report within the next couple of days. If you think of any other articles you want included, feel free to list them here or on the WP:ELEMENTS talk page. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 06:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ken Goodwin
Date corrected to 7 April 1933. Source 'Who's Who on Television' ITV books 3rd edition 1985--Sealman (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Signpost next week
I'm on a sort of semi-wikibreak, but I'll attempt to get an interview together with WikiProject China. If I can't get round to it, would you mind doing it this week? Thanks, <font style="color:#993333;"> GARDEN 21:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that'll be fine. I've already contacted IZAK of WikiProject Judaism, so it shouldn't be any problem. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much :) I'll probably be able to get one down for the 22nd.  <font style="color:#339933;"> GARDEN  21:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you got it? <font style="color:#339999;"> GARDEN 22:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Argh, nevermind, I see that you have. Thanks! <font style="color:#000000;"> GARDEN  22:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Cookie!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

download has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

<font face="Papyrus"><font color=#9966CC>- <font color=#7B68EE>down <font color=#9966CC>load <font color=#7B68EE>| <font color=#8A2BE2>sign!  02:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Interview re: WP:JUDAISM, yes
Hi Cryptic: Thank you for contacting me. Sorry I took a little but I have been busy with some Internet projects off Wiki. I would be happy to do an interview for the Signpost regarding WP:JUDAISM issues with which I have been heavily involved for over six years on Wikipedia. Contact me via my talk page as to what you have in mind and you can also send me a reminder via the "E-mail this user" on my talk page. Let me know what you have in mind. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 06:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Cryptic: I was away for a couple of days, but I have now started with the interview @ User:Cryptic C62/Workspace2 and given some extensive views. Tell me what you think. Feel free to ask more. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Cryptic. I just answered question two. I enjoy writing and you may feel free to use or not use whatver you like that I wrote for you in the interview. Just please do not quote me out of context. Feel free to ask whatever you wish. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Have answered question #3. Feel free to follow up and keep going. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok then, answered your final one. Feel free to stay in touch, and if I can help, please ask. Thanks again. IZAK (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In the news
Howdy! Are you planning to do "In the news" for the Signpost for the imminent issue? If not (and if you don't wish do it regularly any longer) that's fine, we just need to indicate that the beat is open for someone else to step up.--ragesoss (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hrm, I think I should probably step down from the beat. I'm just not that interested anymore, plus I'm busier now with article work than I used to be. I'll keep doing WikiProject reports though. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks for all the work on it you did!--ragesoss (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries, mate. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject China interview
Sure, I don't mind being interviewed. Thanks for the consideration. Is there a particular time you want to do this or have responses submitted? I'm going to be rather busy today until about 5:00 pm (EST), so it would be best if we could conduct this afterward.-- Pericles of Athens  <font color="#0000CD">Talk 14:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So are we done with the interview?-- Pericles of Athens  <font color="#0000CD">Talk 02:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a question: when will our interview be featured at the Signpost? I would hate to miss it. Thanks.-- Pericles of Athens  <font color="#0000CD">Talk 20:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool! Thanks.-- Pericles of Athens  <font color="#0000CD">Talk 20:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

RGB FAC
You struck out the issues, by doing that it lets the delegates and directors know that the issues are resolved, so no worries. In addition, I only review for techy stuff like the disambiguation and external links, and the ref formatting, so I can't give a !vote based on that, sorry.--Best,  ₮  RU  C  Ө   23:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Wow. Major embarrassment.
Well, I suppose the number of times I've screwed up still outweighs this :P I suppose we could try and merge the two, might be a little difficult (well, obviously) but should be manageable. <font style="color:#993333;"> GARDEN 21:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Maybe that would be a good idea :D <font style="color:#999933;"> GARDEN  20:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Interview
I'm all for it. Wrad (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

GRB 970508
Its difficult to help out with an article when a person makes instant reversions to ongoing and unfinished edits. While I appreciate you may not agree with some of the changes I made, I think it might have been a good idea just to hold fire and wait to see what the end result was before you dived feet-first. I was going to read through the entire article in the FAC review (I had already began to do so, and comments have been made in the FAC review), but your 'mindlessly' edit comments were a bit off-putting. Good luck with the article, although I don't think I'll be giving any more time to it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

FAC zinc
Hi Cryptic, Thanks for the hlep in the FAC, but striking things in the FAC should only be done by the persone who made the comment. Better write a Done below the comment. (there the people do not like the use of the green hook images). FAC has its rules of its own. Thanks for the help and with the reviewers we will have all the problems solved soon. --Stone (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Permission
I've just updated that periodic table, type in File:Periodic Table by Radioactivity.pre.jpg. Pi399 (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Gamma-ray burst
An article is never done, but perhaps this one is ready for a FA candidacy? Jehochman Talk 20:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, talk about perfect timing, I was just about to talk to you about that. After giving it some thought, I've decided to split the History section off into a separate daughter article at History of gamma-ray burst research (I'm currently in preview mode as I write this). It'll take some more work before I'm satisfied with that, but I've come to realize that if I continue to expand it, it'll just be way too huge for the main GRB article. Hell, it's already too large as it is now! So yeah, I'll just finish splitting it off and shaving down the section in the main article, then we'll go for the FAC. Sound good? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, would you mind taking a look at the history section? It's difficult for me to decide what should get the axe since I wrote most of it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I will, tomorrow. Good work! Jehochman Talk 03:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. Please check how it reads.  I did not summarize the current missions section because that one is short and has a nice picture. Jehochman Talk 03:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Woot, that was fast. I read through it and made some minor changes. I think it definitely makes sense to end with the beaming/non-beaming thing, as I haven't come across anything that definitively supports either theory. As for the FAC, should we start it tonight or wait until tomorrow when we're not tired? Also, do you want to make the page and the nom statement or would you like me to? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. I'll ride shotgun. Jehochman Talk 02:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I think I'll just finish converting the references to the new format for consistency (since someone's bound to bring that up at FAC) over the next day or so and then create the nomination page. Also, very cool news! Today I sent an email to my physics professor asking if he knew anything about gamma-ray bursts. His response:

Believe it or not but the following wikipedia entry has quite a good description what we know about GRB: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst

Made my day :) --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject articles
Hi there. If you're ever short of WikiProjects to interview, I would be more than willing to help represent WikiProject Final Fantasy. &mdash; Deckiller 19:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that works for me. &mdash; Deckiller 20:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent&mdash;I'll add the page to my watchlist. &mdash; Deckiller 22:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I just posted the first answer; I'll be online for the next couple hours, so feel free to ask the next one. &mdash; Deckiller 21:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

GRB FA
Congrats on the shiny star! Sorry I didn't get a chance to reply to you sooner. Wronkiew (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations from me too! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 12:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hee, thanks mate. About time I got my second one, eh? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Project merge
We have merged WikiProject Final Fantasy into WikiProject Square Enix; this could change the tone and scope of the interview significantly. &mdash; Deckiller 16:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Molybdenum
Hi Cryptic, you did some work on the molybdenum article (back in 2007), and on my way through the transition metals I will take a stop at molybdenum in the next time. If you have some time you can help to get it to GA, or only to a solid B, which is not the case, when somebody takes a closer look. --Stone (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on Jehochman's talk page
Hi Cryptic,

I have read your recent comment on Jehochman's talk page. It seems that you are interested in issues related to verifiability and determining reliable sources. If you already had a look at the 9/11-related articles and talk-pages, you might already be familiar with the battleground nature of the discussion that is going on there. Sadly, any policy item (or sound bite) that seems to lend some credibility to a claim is used there, no matter how relevant to the actual question.

There were even arguments along the line: We agree that there is a primary source (FBI) that shows that a secondary source (CNN) was wrong on an issue (phone call as proof for the use of box cutters), but, as WP uses only secondary sources, the information should remain in the article. The sentence on the boxcutters is still in the text, and trying to remove it would probably result in an edit war, with administrative measures following.

I don't wan't to drag you into this mess. However, I have tried to decouple the discussion on one of the policy issues that should be addressed by posting a comment on the talk page of WP:Verifiability. There is already some discussion there, maybe this discussion and possibly a specific proposal can be put to the village pump or some other place where it will get more attention later on. Please feel free to join the discussion on this page. --Cs32en (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Cs32en, Cryptic and I have been working together closely on gamma ray burst. If he's willing to look at the issues you bring up, that's fine with me, but he might not be completely neutral due to our past collaboration. Jehochman Talk 19:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Cs32en wrote: "I don't wan't to drag you into this mess." That's all I needed to read. Not interested. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's ok with me. Happy editing! --Cs32en (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

GRB FAC
Hey mate. Most of your concerns at the GRB FAC have been replied to. Would you mind having another look and seeing which ones still remain? I only have about 24 more hours of access to the book sources, so any feedback made in that time would be extremely helpful. Thanks! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay I looked it over. Thank you.&mdash;RJH (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit needs checking
looks like it might need a new reference if it is accurate. Jehochman Talk 19:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm currently discussing it with the author. It seems to check out based on the information and refs in GRB 090423. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Interview
Hey there: I finished the draft of the interview, and I'll be giving it a polish over the next couple days. If you have any suggestions about how to improve/polish my answers, feel free to provide them. &mdash; Deckiller 12:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, it looks very good to me. I'll start the publishing process and post the interview in the newsroom, but you're more than welcome to keep tweaking your answers all day today and tomorrow. Thanks for the good work, mate! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll go ahead and tweak it up tonight. &mdash; Deckiller 20:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just had an idea: you should ask me what my favorite Final Fantasy is :) &mdash; Deckiller 21:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's all set, unless you wanted to add things like a quote box or an image. &mdash; Deckiller 11:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In The News
Hi, Pretzels. I have completed a draft In The News for this week. Since you're listed as a backup, think you could take a look over it and add/fix what is there? <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;color:steelblue;">X clamation point  23:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:MJJ
Hey, I was reading this and I would be open to being interviewed about WP:MJJ if you are ever interested. Best. — R  2  08:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure! I was just about to start looking for the next project to report on. This certainly takes care of that step. So here's how the process works: I'll post questions to this page, usually just one or two at a time. There's nothing there now, obviously, but I'll start asking questions once you confirm that you're good to go. My report is due on May 10, which gives us plenty of time. I'll keep posting questions until we either get close to the deadline or we have a good solid page of content (usually five to seven questions) and I can't think of anything else. If you don't understand a particular question or don't want to answer it for whatever reason, just leave a note here or on the interview talk page. Feel free to tweak your answers after we've already moved on to other questions. That should be all there is to it. Thanks, mate! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem :) — R  2  15:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Interview feedback
Hello. Thanks for the message. I think it's a distinct improvement, especially up to #5. After that, however, most of the information elicited is pretty generic: 6: "I've become a decent copy-editor... I've become effective at writing concise synopses... I've learned that debates on Wikipedia can be very intense". 7: "Users should understand our policies and guidelines, as well as the specific guidelines for the WikiProject.... all editors — not just newcomers — should understand that editing Wikipedia is a team activity...." I think these points are true of many editors and projects. Questions like these last two will elicit similar thoughts week after week. What if, instead of the next couple of interviews, you put all of these interview points gleaned from all the previous interviews, together into an essay that you serialize over a couple of Signposts and then post permanently, somewhere easy to find, about the purpose and benefits of wikiprojects, and how editors can most effectively contribute to Wikipedia and wikiprojects. I think that this paragraph (from answer #7 this week), for example, has a great idea that could be included in such an essay: "I also suggest that users work on articles that have not yet reached good or featured status. Maintaining healthy articles [GAs and FAs] is always necessary, but it should be a low priority when there are other articles on life support. Instead of ten users spending a week debating the length of a plot summary, I'd like to see users spend that very same time sourcing a poor article or merging redundant content." I would also add "researching an article and expanding the content of short articles should have a much higher priorty than debating grammatical points". In any case, I think this is a better interview, but I still wonder how the wikiproject to be featured each week is selected. Is it random, or are they considered to be particularly in need of the publicity? Or, if publicity is not the purpose of these interviews, what is? And how are the particular interview subjects chosen? I would suggest, as a minimum criterion, that the editors chosen must have succeeded at getting at least x number of articles promoted to FA. But, I would really rather see a regular feature on, say, editing tips, than more interviews. Just my 2 cents. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: WikiProject Report feedback
Hmm, good points raised there. I'll keep them in mind for my next interview. Speaking of, maybe I should get a move on :) <font style="color:#000066;"> GARDEN 20:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Outdent template
I think is a great idea. Thanks for taking the initiative. It may well become my new favourite template! user:j   (aka justen)   03:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

had to laugh
First let me say that I did not understand this diff at all, though we appear to be of the same mind. I did however have to laugh at your spelling in your edit summary! Now there's a great wiki user name! :D --Best,  Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow. Analgoy. I'm an idiot. Anywho, allow me to explain what was meant by my 'analgoy': Carpenter A represents a user who is polite and nice and all that crap but has a history of abusing a certain tool. Carpenter B represents a user who is a major cockbag, but who has never abused that certain tool. While instincts may lead one to give the tool to the person who is "nice", the correct course of action is to give it to the person who seems least likely to abuse it. Again, I didn't read through the exasperatingly boring details of this convoluted case, but from what I've gleaned, the user in question is Carpenter B, and should thus retain the use of his tools. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, not an idiot. Your mind is just faster than your fingers!  Thanks for the clarification, Cryptic.  (I won't call you AnalGoy, though the temptation is there ;) Best, Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, now that I've gotten your attention, check this out! I created this nifty little template (stands for outdentarrow) for use in big discussions. When you hover over the arrow, it says "Outdent". You seem to be active on the West Bank Who Even Knows What's Going On page, so maybe if you use it, it'll catch on. I'd like to see some kind of standardized outdenting rather than the superbly horrendous. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You know what, I noticed that a bit further up on your talk page, and was thinking of stealing it without attribution, she said, hanging her head in shame. It is really neat!  How do you do that?  Is it a compiled program or what?  Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)  -- oh and ps:  You sure got the name of that page down pat. :D


 * It's really simple, actually. Take a look at the code:
 * --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

definitely neat. Where does the code tell wiki that it is a template and how does it turn it from the code to the template? I hope I am not taking too much of your time. Best-- Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries, mate. If I weren't willing to waste my time, I certainly wouldn't be editing Wikipedia, would I? Take a gander at Template:outdentarrow. As you can see, there are two chunks to the page: The first is the template being used, and the second is the documentation. The documentation doesn't do much for templates as simple as these; with more complex templates, such as Template:Infobox GRB, it's essential. Anywho, if you hit the edit button, you'll see the following:




 * The first part is the code itself as I showed you earlier. The second part is the documentation, which is stored on a separate page. The  tags make it so that when you use the template, it doesn't show the documentation (or anything else you put between the tags). When you type , the wiki code recognizes the curly braces and trancludes the content of the target page (in this case, Template:outdentarrow) into the page that you're editing. So, to summarize, I wrote the code at Template:outdentarrow, and when you type  , the page displays the result of the code that I wrote.


 * Finally, the reason works is because Template:oda is a redirect to Template:outdentarrow. Make sense? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I just went for a little walk with the dog. I am going to read it a few more times.  I will let  you know if I still have questions, since, as you so astutely noted, if one weren't willing to waste one's time ...  You are a funny one.  I am beginning to think that "Analgoy" was no accident! Meanwhile I will mull the template thing over. Best,  Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't you add this under "See Also" on this page? Template:Outdent Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

By jove I think I've got it! :D Thank you. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, mate. I'm not exactly a technical wizard around here, but if you have any other questions, I'll help you figure it out. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Diffusion damping is a GA!
Hooray! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Very groovy. Wronkiew is like the iron chef of science GA reviews. Ready to resume the peer review thing? Also, what do you know about the Rambot Spike? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am indeed ready to resume the peer review. I have also requested help from another physicist, as Wayne Hu won't respond to me. If you are asking about my knowledge of Wikipedian history, the answer is "yes", I have long known about that. I spend a lot of time procrastinating by surfing WP:STAT and related pages. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Righty-o, I'll have a look. I've been in contact with an particle physicist who works at CERN. Want me to ask him to take a look at the article? Also, what do you know about HyperCard? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know how much a particle physicist would be able to help. Wait a few days on that. And no, I don't know anything about HyperCard that I didn't just read in its article. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...
... for this. It had been a change of bolding that had occurred to me before several times, and I had been intending to change it: nice to see that someone else saw the same issue. Geometry guy 21:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Aye, when I'm looking for any kind of review page (GAN, FAC, FAR, PR, AfD) my instinct is to always click on the boldest link, as that usually works. That the GA templates worked differently was a source of perpetual annoyance, as some of the computers I use are fairly slow. In cases like this, WP:Be Bold > WP:Have long drawn-out discussions before making minor changes that everyone will agree with :P --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

ITN
Hi, I can't get In The News this week, could you get it? <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;color:steelblue;">X clamation point  22:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:MJJ stuff
Hey, one interesting prospect is that WP:MJJ with join with WP:JANET and we will have a super Jackson family project instead. Might be something to discuss in our interview. Sorry it took a while to respond to the last question, I was very busy. — R  2  11:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries, we still have another week. I'm a tad confused by a typo in your statement: "WP:MJJ with join with WP:JANET" did you mean to say it will join or it might join? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a possibility, so it might happen, sorry for any confusion. I will re propose it in the summer. We couldn't attain consensus on the issue last time around. — R  2  15:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Aww, thanks mate! Who says reviewing FACs is a thankless job? ;) --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and congratulations
My warmest congratulations to you and your collaborators in bringing Gamma-ray burst to Featured Article; and my warmest thanks for your keen reviewing of Euclidean algorithm. Proteins (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, we're not quite there yet, but at this point it seems fairly certain that Gamma-ray burst will get the star. I see no harm in accepting your preemptive congratulations ;). As for the Euclidean algorithm, it's my pleasure. Our job is not to stare lovingly at the bronze stars we've amassed, but to create the best possible articles. It makes me happy to see that even after the release of stress that comes with the success of an FAC, you're still willing to work on the little stuff. I see that you've already started working on Fermat's Last Theorem. Let me know if you'd like me to take a look at that article at any point. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Gimmebot is a tad slow, but if you examine this diff, you may be reassured that Gamma-ray burst is a Featured Article at last. But please don't give up improving it after the release of stress that comes with the success of an FAC. ;)

I was already planning to ask you for help with Fermat's Last Theorem once it's more polished; thanks for offering! We're still adding raw material and rough-hewing it into shape, but if something occurs to you, I'd appreciate your insights. Proteins (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Will do! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
For breaking my Wikipedia Signpost "cherry" so gently and ably. Lol! I of course made a mistake so added a correction which I hope is OK. Thank you again for including the LGBT Wikiproject in your work! -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   22:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Expand language templates
They already exist! (but by different names.) See Category:Articles needing translation from foreign-language Wikipedias, which includes lots of categories like Category:Articles needing translation from Spanish Wikipedia. For big languages there are also subcategories by topic like Category:Geography articles needing translation from Spanish Wikipedia. I'm trying to overhaul the translation system so it is more useful. Soon I aim to do a recruitment drive for multilingual editors because I don't think people realize how much stuff is out there and how much easier it is to translate than to write articles from scratch! Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Your new category
I've responded to your post at the village pump, and at the discussion of the category itself. Needless to say, I am very excited about this, as it could eventually be one of the best resources we have on wikipedia. <font color=#900>D rew  <font color=#900>S  mith  <font color=#ccc>What I've done  06:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that we have slightly different views on the baseline of this project. I think I was seeing it more as a list than a category. Perhaps I could start such a list, and we could work together? If this wikiproject resources thing is still active, we could work with them as well. <font color=#900>D rew  <font color=#900>S  mith  <font color=#ccc>What I've done  01:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Synthetic diamond
Please look at discussion there. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest continue our work at Talk:Synthetic_diamond/FA1. The FA administrators have a point of keeping FA page out of blowing off (though it is clearly technically solvable) and I don't feel like to fight them now. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

An alternative was suggested there, namely peer review. What do you think of that ? Materialscientist (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

GRB thanks
Hey, thanks for your comment, and also for getting me off my tail and working on this article again. :) I definitely hope to stick around and improve some of the other gamma-ray/transient astronomy articles if I have a chance, though for the next few weeks my schedule is filled with travel so it might be a little while! -- Daniel Perley (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK
You tagged the PokerTracker DYK hook as questionable and I corrected it two days ago. You have not given it the green light.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:File correction
Thanks; feel free to update the file (I don't have the skills to do it), or post what needs to be udpated on file's discussion page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Question
How much time do you have on your hands? Are you conflicted on Cold Fusion or User:Abd? Hipocrite (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To the best of my knowledge, I have never worked on Cold Fusion, nor have I worked with Abd. I have time enough that I would be willing to help out however I can. What did you have in mind? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We need a third party honest broker. It might be helpful if you attempted to mediate a discussion what method we should use to determine what stable version we can come to agreement on on the talk page. I apologize for the very meta-ness of this reuqest, but one "side" doesn't trust the other "side" not to shenanigans the poll, and the other "side" thinks the first "side" is "a fox in the henhouse," which I assume mean that the poll they started is designed to dupe people into complatency so they can be eaten by an experienced wikipedian. This might take substantial time and have possibly little benefit, be forwarned. Hipocrite (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hrm. I must admit that I don't have any experience in dispute resolution, but I suppose it's worth looking into at the very least. Are there two unique versions of the article? Or are there several individual claims/sections which are being disputed by the two sides? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You came highly reccomended - . I'd go with the several individual claims sections option. Hipocrite (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have begun drawing up a resolution process on a separate subpage. Would you mind providing a list of the editors who are actively involved in this content dispute? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Most active:
 * User:Hipocrite
 * User:Abd
 * User:Verbal
 * User:Olorinish
 * User:Kevin Baas
 * User:Kirk shanahan
 * User:Woonpton
 * User:EdChem
 * User:OMCV
 * User:LeadSongDog
 * User:Enric Naval
 * User:Stephan Schulz
 * User:Objectivist

I've probably missed some. Hipocrite (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Woonpton has had practically no involvement with Cold fusion; neither has EdChem (one edit to CF talk) Yet other editors with more edits are left out. Here is what I'm suspecting. We are being snookered. This isn't about a content dispute. There is no content dispute that covers this collection of people. What covers the collection is, on the one hand, some dispute of some kind with me, in the case of Woonpton, it's very recent and very mysterious and may have to do with my POV on cold fusion, but it's an editor who hasn't edited the article. The names are familiar from general conflicts, I've often intervened to assist editors who were being bullied, and that explains a few members of the list. Some are long-term editors of Cold fusion, but not necessarily with any ongoing content dispute that can't be ordinarily resolved with me. With Hipocrite, it's hard to tell. But the editors Hipocrite was edit warring with on the last episode that led to article protection aren't on the list. And there are two editors who are on "my side," so to speak: that would be Baas, and, supposedly, Objectivist (though Objectivist is an SPA, pro-cold fusion, but with whom I disagree quite a bit; as often happens with SPAs, he's pushing for "truth." I'm pushing for WP:RS and WP:NPOV.) The "dispute," Cryptic is me. These are mostly people whom Hipocrite expects will be "against" me, and only two whom he thinks will be on "my side." Heavily stacked. 10:3 against me. He might be mistaken, but that's probably what he thinks. If we look at the !votes at Requests for comment/JzG 3 and comments at Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG, you will see many of these names calling for me to be topic banned. That's not about content, it's about behavior. The RfC and the RfAr were not about content, they were about behavior (administrative behavior, on my side, filing the RfC -- Jehochman filed the RfAr, but he only beat me by a few hours, and about my allegedly disruptive behavior on the other side. ArbComm, you might note, confirmed the issues I had raised. And some editors really haven't accepted that.

I think you should have some idea of what you are getting into. It's quite possible to examine the content issues, if you are very much aware of the problem and factor for it. There are consensus processes that can be used where the number of people making an argument is irrelevant. The point is to collect all the arguments, and lay each one out objectively, so that those who make the argument will say, yes, that's what we assert, fairly stated. And then the foundations are examined, and any evidence. and then agreements are built, usually starting with the simplest things. Good luck. I said I'll help and I'll stick with that. I will, in return, expect you to stick with the rules you set, in the mediation, and not tolerate diversion from clear process. I can be verbose, you may want to restrain that. I don't mind. Ask me to say something more succinctly, and I will, if I can. --Abd (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:AGF. I am willing to believe that Hipocrite did his best to compile an accurate list of who should be involved in the dispute. As I have previously stated: I encourage you to notify me either here or on the mediation page of any names which you feel have been omitted. I removed your recent comment regarding what you perceive to be a flawed list of participants. You are welcome to rewrite it if you feel strongly that the names you've mentioned should not be included, but do not make accusations. State plainly and succinctly why editors should or should not be included. Alternatively, if you have no more proposed additions to the list, you have the option of not saying anything further regarding the list at this point, which I encourage you to consider. We have not even heard back from all of those who have been notified, and already a considerable amount of discussion has occurred. For their sake, I believe it would be prudent to simply wait for more voices to chime in on the matter. As for your advice on how to determine consensus, I agree. That is essentially what I had in mind. Thank you. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Cryptic. Until I know the dispute to be mediated, I can't possibly have a proper opinion about the list of participants. Because there are many people who have behavioral disputes with me or with Hipocrite, some of them may accept mediation believing that this is what the mediation is about. Because there are a host of issues with Cold fusion and process there, likewise. Since you have clearly limited the mediation to content issues, but no content issue has been specified (to my knowledge), I don't even know if there is an issue worth mediating. I could try to invent one, certainly I can think of one, but I'm not going to presume this, ab initio. I wouldn't have taken what I can think of to mediation yet, there are many other steps to be taken before the time for mediation to be ripe, in my opinion. It's important for an issue to be clear before beginning advanced process.


 * Rather, what I'd have seen proper right now would have been for Hipocrite, the one seeking mediation, to ask you to mediate a specific issue or specific set of issues (which means something different than setting up formal process, it simply means, at this point, in WP:DR, an independent third party attempting to resolve a dispute, and for further steps in DR to be made based on lack of success at this point, the dispute must have been clear) and for you to then work with the two users and for anyone else to become involved as seems appropriate as it develops. This kind of mediation is then evidence for RfC and RfAr, it's essential to those steps.
 * Now, I can also take advantage of the situation to ask you to mediate with Hipocrite, but the main issues I have with Hipocrite are behavioral, not content issues per se. I'll think about a specific content issue; his general acceptance of you as mediator could be useful for this, but it's a bit like being concerned about sweeping in a corner when there is an elephant in the living room. Still, if it's not time to deal with the elephant, and "elephant effects," might as well sweep up the corner.... --Abd (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Wikipedians with access to Who's Who in the Theatre (17th ed)
Category:Wikipedians with access to Who's Who in the Theatre (17th ed) ,, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. VegaDark (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:CHEMS, Diamond
Am I allowed to post something that isn't a DYK here :) ? Good, then in line with Physchim62's comments I've nominated Diamond for FAR. Thought I'd let you know, as you're running the interview. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey mate, thanks for the heads-up. I may end up editing the question regarding FAs to note that Diamond is at FAR. You may want to notify the two interviewees as well. They may want to edit their responses.


 * Also, I'm curious as to how you stumbled upon the interview before it was published. Are you contributing/planning on contributing to the Signpost? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been doing an extended bot report recently (the controversial one) for Aude's tech report- hence why I was watching the listing. I'll let those two know, sure. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer that you let us edit the response (not that it's really much to to with WP:CHEM) rather than editing the question. I am considering a suitable comment: we still have a day or so to go before the Signpost deadline. Physchim62 (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Henrykkk explanation
Please explain how this works, I read this username thread and the score counting your alleged opinion of "block" was 4 to 3, hardly anything which can be called a consensus and I for one find this sort of totalitarian behavior to be simply unacceptable, further more the username wasn't active there was no need to block it and klansmen don't own kkk and nazis don't own the swastiks. The guys name could be Henry King Kunnard Kelly what do you know? You simply don't, what you did I feel was very much contrary to the wikipedia spirit and I would appreciate some sort of an explanation.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If I might intrude... I just would like to observe that the account in question made only one edit, last November. The chance of them using that account ever again is virtually zero. So, block or allow, it really doesn't make much difference in this case. It's already taken up too much valuable editing time for what it's worth, even without this request for clarification. -kotra (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing as I'm new to the request for comment/usernames page and sorta intend to stick around an explanation would serve a greater purpose.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't block that user, as I'm not an administrator. He was blocked by User:Chillum. I simply closed the discussion because it seemed that Chillum was either unaware of it or forgot to close it after the block had been completed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Accept my apology.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, mate! In retrospect, I should have made it clear in the closing summary by whom the user had been blocked. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Cold fusion mediation
I'm not sure why I was named in the list of people involved in this dispute, as I have not been actively involved in cold fusion. I have never edited the article and until yesterday had made maybe two comments at the most on the talk page. My only involvement has been to vote in a straw poll yesterday, as an outside observer. I was then treated to a whirlwind of disruptive actions by Abd, including moving my votes to an option I hadn't voted for, removing my comments, editing my comments. I eventually removed my votes altogether and filed a report at AN/I. But there was nothing about that incident that had anything to do with content; that was about editor behavior, and as such I don't believe it would be appropriate for mediation. Thank you.Woonpton (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with your conclusion that it would be neither appropriate nor necessary to involve you in the content mediation. I will remove your name from the list. Thank you. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize until reading the section above (I certainly didn't learn this from reading the mediation page) that the mediation isn't actually about content per se but about working out a process for determining a valid consensus on what stable version to return to, a process that could be accepted by all parties.  In that case, I would say that it was correct to name me as someone who was quite involved with that current dispute, but I still don't see it as a content dispute, but as a behavioral problem.   I wish you luck. Woonpton (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: I've been watching both this mediation and the cold fusion page and talk, and have a couple of questions and comments. First, since the mediation has focused on content rather than conduct issues, and since many of those signed as participants in the mediation haven't edited the cold fusion article any more than I have, I was considering adding myself to the participant's list. But then it occurred to me that I don't understand what happens with the outcome of the mediation.  My confusion arises from the fact that the cold fusion article has improved noticeably in the last week or two, and that work there and discussion on the talk page seem to be proceeding quite productively without any need for mediation, and to be participated in largely by  editors other than those participating actively in the mediation.


 * So I'm wondering, and can't find an answer in WP:Mediation, whether the outcome of the mediation is binding; does whatever content decision is arrived at in mediation override the improvements that editors on the article have made in the meantime? Is everyone working on the article supposed to be involved in the mediation? I can't see any particular relationship between what's happening at the article and what's going on in mediation. This disconnect may be a side effect of your choice not to read the article or its talk but to proceed with mediation as if it were unconnected with the article.  If the purpose of the mediation is to keep banned editors and a few others busy while other editors are improving the article, and the result of the mediation won't affect the page itself, then I'd say that's probably a good thing, but not something I want to spend time with.  But if the outcome of the mediation is to be forced onto the article without input from those currently working on the article, then I think it doesn't make sense to conduct the mediation  independently of the article itself. For example, the question of whether "life sciences" should be used to qualify the mention of a journal, which has taken so much time and space in the mediation discussion, hasn't been an issue at the article itself or at its talk page; the phrase does not occur in the article and no one is edit warring to put it in or keep it out.   I think the improvement in the article, in the editing atmosphere, and in the discussion on the talk page speak for themselves and suggest that the disruption there before was a behavioral problem, not a content issue per se.Woonpton (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not pick the "life sciences" issue to be the most important, but I supported it because I thought it would be relatively simple. If not for a rather toxic environment in general, it would have been simple. It's true that this isn't a current issue at the article, but apparently it was an issue at one time, and it came up at the mediation because an editor raised my removal of that qualification, in replying to the mediation request, as an example of something like preposterous POV-pushing or whatever. So establishing that the removal was reasonable could be important, and I think we've really finished with that, except that closure has been delayed because ?
 * The mediation is not binding, but it may have an influence. Nothing there can be imposed on editors not participating, but if there is a consensus at the mediation which agrees upon an edit, that edit would be likely to be asserted, and would probably be sustained; what had been happening was that edits were asserted at the article, and even discussed, and accepted, and then baldly reverted out. The purpose of mediation is to lessen this, but it won't necessarily stop it. A later discussion over an edit that is disputed may refer to the mediation instead of repeating all the arguments over and over. --Abd (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, I agree with Woonpton that there was a behavioral issue, but sometimes understanding behavioral issues requires resolving content issues, and it then becomes clear what has been happening, who has been serving consensus or guidelines and policy, and who has been opposing them. The mediation is intended to focus solely on content issues, setting aside the behavioral ones. There are, from my point of view, long-term content issues; the "improvements to the article" that are happening at this point are minor, for the most part, and don't even implement what had consensus before the edit warring, in some cases. One of these, at least, the Be-8 theory, is in the hopper for arbitration, and, it should be realized, the relevant section, removed in the last edit war, not only had consensus, but it was reverted back in by an editor not banned, removed again by a banned editor, then self-reverted back in by that editor, who then made totally unacceptable edits to the rest of the article while awaiting protection that he had requested, and then was quite happy to see himself banned as long as I was. (There were ample grounds for banning him, and grounds for banning me were never stated, it was justified by IAR, literally.) Yes, behavioral issues that Cryptic is not expected to resolve. But without that section, the article actually has an uncontradicted preposterous claim in it, a claim that Woonpton won't notice because, indeed, she has no knowledge of the topic. --Abd (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yipe! I almost overlooked this discussion. Woonpton, you are welcome to add your name to the participants list provided that you read the introductory material in the mediation. As for the outcome of the mediation, there was a great deal of discussion as to how my final decisions would affect the article. This diff may help to explain my position. Essentially, I will publish my final thoughts and recommendations at User:Cryptic C62/Cold fusion, and what the editors decide to do from there will be their choice. As for the specific issue of "life sciences", as I mentioned in the discussion, even if it ends up not really being an issue, the oh-so-close-to-final resolution to avoid the use of "life sciences" sets a precedent for other journal-related issues. I hope this answers your questions. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Cryptic, as you may be aware, William M. Connelly has topic banned both Abd and Hyppocrit from CF and its talk page for a month. How does this effect the proposed mediation? Should we just be trying to move forward at CF talk without the involvement of these protagonists? I think a stable consensus version of the article is an admirable goal and - for the record - I have been quietly watching but not commenting for some time. EdChem (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have contacted William at his talk page. Hopefully we (me and William) will quickly be able to figure out what to do. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Cryptic, it does practically nothing. Rather silly, actually. WMC has stuck his hand in a hornet's nest for no benefit. Involved admin, prior conflict. He was offered an easy way out, he'd have done good. Rejected it. Sad, actually. Maybe you, as a neutral editor, can give him some good advice. No emergency. I'm on an iPhone, putting the girls to bed, I'll be back later. Look on my talk page, for agreement with Hipocrite. Look at response from me to the ban notice on CF talk. What you'd need to know is there. --Abd (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Opting out
Untill such time as you reign in Jed and Abd, I am dropping out of the mediation. Apologies, but I'm not going to be consistantly called names and just sit there and take it. Hipocrite (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jed's edit was reverted by Hipocrite, with an ultimatum, and not restored. If I've called Hipocrite "names," as I wrote, you could remove it without any objection from me, Cryptic, and you did remove one comment., though it didn't call him "names." If I called him names somewhere else, in any inappropriate way -- or even appropriately, if you think it better to keep it out -- please point it out so that I can redact it or you can remove it. Cryptic, I don't want to prejudice your attempt to focus on the content, as distinct from editor behavior. There are issues to be resolved, entirely aside from editor behavior, and Hipocrite is unlikely to be a factor in whether or not there is a consensus of editors allowed to participate in editing the actual article. My view would be that, long-term, if Hipocrite can be satisfied without sacrificing our following of policies and guidelines, it should be done, and so his views should be considered, as should mine or anyone you decide to admit, but demands that the views of others be totally excluded should not be respected. The Rothwell comment was deleted, and not restored, so I must consider the withdrawal above to be not based on that, but on the very fact of consideration of the issue in the presence of his demand, as shown by your request for more information. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

WRT to Jed, the issue is clear: he is banned and may not edit wiki, via his account or anonymously; the ban is of the person. Thus Abd's comment is incorrect, multiply, as well as incivil. You have, I think, muddied the waters by replying to it instead of deleting it. The solution, I believe, is to note that your removal of Abd's PA is an implicit reproof of Abd; to delete all that section from Abd's addition onwards as useless, and to reaffirm the obvious - that JR may not participate because he is banned from wiki, rather than by any choices of yours; and to invite H to return. I also think that unless you make it clear to Abd that "walls of text" in inapproriate sections is unacceptable, this mediation will get derailed William M. Connolley (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I asked for information. I was given it. I WP:AGF'd and assumed that Abd meant to be thorough. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cryptic. I don't think you require any clarification, and any possible disagreement that I might have with details is moot at this point. I do not disagree, at all, with your action. --Abd (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I seem to be a day behind here, but if you are interested the most complete assessment of the Jed Rothwell situation can be found here. I believe that wikipedia user WMCs claims of a site wide WP:BAN are misleading and not supported by the facts as documented at the link provided. Indeed, when explicitly asked to rule on whether Rothwell was banned from just Cold Fusion, ArbCom explicitly refused to endorse such a statement.

Wikipedia user WMC is, however, correct in pointing out that Rothwell is currently WP:BLOCKed, as distinct from WP:BANed, with such action having been performed by MastCell. As noted at the time,, the block effectively expands the scope from not simply Cold Fusion but to all of Wikipedia. There was never, to my knowledge, any community discussion on extending the scope to all of Wikipedia, and, in fact, even the validity of the purported ban on Cold Fusion was in question for lack of significant community discussion on the matter. Rothwell has never challenged the block so it remains in effect. If there were a valid WP:BAN as sanctioned by either the Community or ArbCom you would find an entry for Rothwell at WP:RESTRICT. Note that there is none to be found there for Rothwell. --GoRight (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above is correct. The status quo is this: Rothwell is considered blocked by some and banned by some. The legitimacy of this has not been formally challenged, though the original blocks were found to be improperly done (i.e, by an involved admin). MastCell blocked the JedRothwell account, as was clear at the time, based on the say-so of that admin, but may also have looked at some edits, it's unknown, because evidence wasn't provided, as I recall. Because this has not been challenged, it stands. He's blocked, and if nobody unblocks, it is as if he is banned. Rothwell always signs his edits. Any edit by a blocked or banned editor may be reverted by any editor, generally, WP:BAN is clear on this, but it is also clear that there is no obligation to revert such edits; if they are useful, they may remain. If reverted out, and another editor thinks them useful and is willing to take responsibility for them, the new editor may revert them back, wholly or partially. Rothwell is a serious expert in the field, but is not an active Wikipedia editor; we may wish to admit his testimony, in some cases, as happened recently at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist, but it's up to editor discretion, in this case, your discretion, Cryptic. I agree that, for now, the two edits reverted were properly so. --Abd (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My user page
Please do not edit my user page as you did recently. Especially as I speak British English, not American English. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I was unaware that British English uses commas and dashes improperly. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I laughed. Hipocrite (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Signpost WikiProject Reports
Hey Cryptic. I think I'm going to stop doing these - I simply am too busy in real-life, and you do a much much better job than I at this. I'll still be a back-up but I cannot continue to do this routinely. I hope you understand. <font style="color:#9999CC;">weburiedoursecretsinthe <font style="color:#000099;">garden  10:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, should have said that I'll still work my interview with the British Royalty WikiProject for next week and there is a user who is interested in an interview for Greece's WikiProject. Best wishes, <font style="color:#9999CC;">weburiedoursecretsinthe <font style="color:#000099;">garden  10:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, mate. Hopefully you'll be able to do it again eventually. It's always good to have a partner in crime :). Who is interested in interviewing WP:GREECE? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Magnetosphere of Jupiter
I fixed some of the issues. Ruslik_ Zero 11:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool beans. I'm happy to see that you're still willing to work on the article. I'm a tad busy with various projects at the moment, but I'll do my best to leave some comments whenever I can. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:FOUR
Thanks for the nomination. We are trying to keep our backlog manageable by asking each nominator to review one nominee. If you have a chance please help.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:Food interview - Yes
No problem--Jeremy (blah blah) 20:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Where will you be posting the questions? --Jeremy (blah blah) 02:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

GRB
This article badly needs a rewrite there is a lot of inacurate information, if you do it put the info on my user talk page and I'll verify it, I don't have time to update, it might be better someone with better grammer skills does it as I dislike the language. Anyways at present I'm busy with graphics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabsmith (talk • contribs) 14:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Suburbs Rugby Union Football Club Inc.
Is this not correct to add newspaper articles as references or is there are better way. I tried putting the articles as pictures and they were deleted. user:Florrie asked me to add further references and suggested other sources. (Non Internet) Require some assistance to remove these article reviews. can you point me to a site that has some external references so I know how it is done. Mmunji1 (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The Star Newspaper is now defunct see City of Clarence The Eastern Shore Sun online records do not go back 15 years. Would adding the link to the eastern shore sun on this reference be enough to to remove this banner. Surely not all librarty texts are available everywhere. Or should I remove the references all together to remove this banner. Please provide a way to move forward with this article. Mmunji1 (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ad-Libs Improvisational Comedy Theater
I've proposed Ad-Libs Improvisational Comedy Theater, an article you edited but didn't create, for deletion via WP:PROD. --I dream of horses (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice, mate, though I don't really care all that much about the article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Triplecrownftw.PNG
Thank you for uploading File:Triplecrownftw.PNG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Per request on CF mediation
We were just giantwalloftexted at the CF meditation -. Hipocrite (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I responded by removing the text and its responses and by leaving a note on Abd's talk page. He has, with my consent, reposted the content using collapse boxes. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * While we are on the topic, Cryptic, you have summarized the result of the Naturwissenschaften as source, on User:Cryptic C62/Cold fusion with this comment: It should not be presented as factual because its results and validity have not been accepted by the mainstream scientific community. This recommendation also applies more generally to any other papers which present cold fusion results without being accepted in mainstream science.


 * That does not summarize my position and agreement, unless we properly understand "mainstream scientific community." My point about the Naturwissenschaften article on triple tracks (the 2008 neutron report) is that we don't have peer-reviewed or academic secondary source on it. Basically, it's primary source. When or if we do have such secondary sources, the argument would be stronger for reporting as fact, unless contradicted in source of similar or better quality. Essentially, citation with approval, under peer review, establishes a kind of acceptance. The issue of overall scientific acceptance is a difficult one, and I assume that we would, at this point, still maximize consensus by allowing comments like "not yet accepted by most scientists," though the more we have high quality reliable source accepting, and none rejecting, the less tenable this becomes.


 * This was an agreement specifically about that one paper, as with any new primary source, and might not apply to other, prior publications which have been sufficiently cited or reviewed in secondary source. --Abd (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Aye, I had a bit of difficulty coming up with the best wording for this conclusion. I have reworded it; have another look. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me . Thanks. It's a very important point; there is no Journal of Mainstream Acceptance as far as I can tell; the guidelines suggest looking at the weight of publication in reliable sources, and we rely upon secondary sources to sort the wheat from the chaff. With most fringe science topics, it's pretty clear what the mainstream view is, there will be, at most, scattered papers that support the fringe view, and negative publication may have ceased (as being unnecessary, one does not need to keep beating a dead horse), but cold fusion is clearly different. I'll be laying out the case in the mediation, I assume. --Abd (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I was unable to find your comments
On my talk page, you may have made an error in linking. Please send me an email at jwales@wikia.com to tell me where to look?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

DYKs need updating!
FYI. DYKs need updating. They are two hours overdue! Chris (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry mate, I'm not an admin, so I can't do the updating. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Years Interview
I would certainly be interested in participating, if I can set aside the time. Just tell me where the questions are and when they have to be done by. Regards. :-) --Grimhelm (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Dead Like Me episodes

 * Hi, I just wanted to answer your questions regarding the article that I had peer reviewed since you said you won't put it on your watchlist:
 * What's going on with the numbering system in the tables? The series/season # thing is really confusing. The two terms are synonymous in British English. Series # indicates which episode of the series it is overall, while Season # is used for the number of the episode in that season.
 * The episode summaries are written with an WP:INUNIVERSE style, which is bad. I really don't know how to change this, so I guess I'll have to wait until someone is up to it.
 * The third paragraph of the lead is difficult to read due to the massive number of wikilinks. I suggest cutting out the bit that lists all of the characters/actors. Okay, I can cut that out if it's okay. I though all lists need to have this section featured in the article as well. Dmarex (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

you might want to use this
User:Mr.Z-bot for User:Cryptic C62/Elements. an example of its output is listed at WikiProject Military history/Popular pages. Nergaal (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In the news
Howdy! I hope you're enjoying Content Nation. I added some links to the upcoming In the news; if you get a chance to flesh those out, that'd be awesome. If not, I'll take care of it before publication, but there's a couple other big stories for this issue that I'm trying to make sure get covered adequately first.--ragesoss (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In the news
That article says "An annual subscription to the site comes in at just under £50 and it claims 40 million subscribers worldwide." That's 2 billion pounds, or 3 billion dollars a year. There's no way that's true. It would make them a moneymaker on par with Google.  Anyways, it's an interesting quote, so you might include it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, you're right. That's a tad fishy, to say the least. It could be a typo. Perhaps 4 million subscribers? That would make 200 million pounds per year, which is still pretty ridiculous. Maybe I'll email the author and see what's up. Thanks, mate! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Support
Hello Cryptic,

I just came to express my appreciation for your supporting the quark FAC. Your input on the talk page was incredibly thorough and effected great improvement in the article's prose. I thank you for your time and repeated review of the situation. Best, &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 16:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your words made me smile :). I enjoyed working with you &mdash; "you" referring both to all of the authors who worked on the article and to you in particular, for you have an open mind and gentle words, both of which make the process easier for everyone involved. Keep up the good work, mate! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Tin
Hi Cryptic I think you missed tin it is a B-Class for some time I think. Thanks for the reports!--Stone (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up, mate. I'm not sure how that slipped through the cracks, but I'll be sure to fix that along with the next log update. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

GRBs
You caught me when I was taking a vacation from editing. Looks like it made it to FA anyway.

Thank you for trying to contact me about it; I definitely would have been interested in the FAC discussion. demonburrito (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Quark BS

 * Thanks mate! Shoot me a message if you guys start working on other particles; I'd be happy to lend a hand. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject TRANSWIKI
You are invited to join WikiProject TRANSWIKI and join the sub language project of your choice. The aim is to draw up a full directory of missing articles from other wikipedias by language and build a team of translators to work at bridging the gaps in knowledge between other wikipedias. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 17:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

FAR chat
Yes, it's fine  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 04:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

FAR interview
Hi Cryptic. I happened to log in tonight and noticed your FAR interview request. I'm not actively editing, but if you email me I will try to reply over the next week or so. Take care, Marskell (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No? I can hurry up a reply, if you like. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I was going to post on the discussion page of your work page but that links to an old Signpost. If you post extra questions for me on the work page, I'll reply to them directly. The only question up there now is logical for YM but not me. You might ask about the origin of the review, how it evolved over a couple years, or about the difficulties on some reviews that YM refers to in his one response so far. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've replied, but may expand at your prompting, else it might turn into a freeform essay  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Eg, see User talk:YellowMonkey/FAR for rumblings and WikiProject_Military_history/Academy/Initiating_a_featured_article_review  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've decided to reword the first question to make it more applicable to both of you. YellowMonkey, this might mean that you have to tweak the first few sentences of your response. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Added some graphs  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 05:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Replied  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 00:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Content Nation
Hey! How's it going with the Content Nation review? Cheers--ragesoss (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, it just hasn't caught my imagination or taught me much; I stalled out about halfway through. I was hoping you or Thespian had more enthusiasm for it, so we could at least do one review.  But an interview would be great!  We could add a light review onto that pretty easily.  I'll try to finish the book in the next week or two.--ragesoss (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

just because
I know you love to get messages! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ylime715 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

FA synthetic diamond
Sorry, I am not a kind of person who awards barnstars. Just wanted to thank you once more for helping with that passed FA. I don't think I could get through without your help. Materialscientist (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

30-second review request
If you have a moment, I'm trying to find someone willing to do a quick peer review of 2009 ACC Championship Game to satisfy a WP:FTRC someone submitted. You're a capable, impartial editor, and if you're willing to do that, it'd be a great help. The article is pretty short, since the 2009 college football season hasn't even started yet, but since someone nominated the parent topic for removal, I need to address this. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've made changes ... what happens now? How do I get the topic off FTRC? JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's biographical pages with several incompatible dates of birth
Phew! All the errors have been resolved now. It's done!! --Popiloll (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Cryptic, time for you to hand out the honours I think! Dsp13 (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Kingpin13/How_to_create_a_barnstar/Template_template
I reverted your edit because this template is a template for creating the barstar template, so leaving it as a "1", means that when susted it will be the "1" parameter in the created barnstar templae, so that when you use the created barnstar template, the message parameter will exist, as "1", which is what is used for the other barstar templates. Hopefully that makes sense, if I'm wrong fix me again :). Thanks - Kingpin13 (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That didn't make any sense, but I found a way to make it work anyway. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, my apologies for my confusing message. Basically, this template isn't the right one to use if you want to award a user a barnstar. It's the template you use to create a template which can then be used to award a barnstar - Kingpin13 (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Biography dates
Hi Cryptic, thanks for barnstar Tom B (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for mine too Dalliance (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination Edward Atienza
A reference is needed to get it accepted. I have no access to ref. 1 in that article or its alternatives. Could you have a look? Materialscientist (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
warrior 4321  21:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
warrior 4321  14:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
warrior 4321  14:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Technetium FAR
I saw the FAR started on my wikibreak. Just back from the plane and returned to normal WP editing. Technetium is below FA level. Given several experienced editors are willing to help, it will hardly get to the delisting edge, but. There are only few elemental FAs, all on the weaker side, needing overhauls. I suggest to team, use that FAR and improve technetium. You already spotted a few problems, and it would be great if you could find more (IMO, no need to polish it to the bones though). Materialscientist (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

HI
I know you must have gotten very excited when you saw that you had a message. Sorry its only from me, but you can still be excited! Have a great day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ylime715 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Many Thanks for your review of the HD article
Those reviewing barnstars are well earned, if you didn't have one already I would've awarded you one, consider this a reinforcement of those awards :) I must admit, it was quite interesting to see how your extra-fine toothcomb from reviews such as quark handled a medical article - I think it worked quite well and would be beneficial to other medical articles in the future ( if you so wished ! ). I'm also quite intrigued to see exactly how far the quality of an article can be pushed (irrespective of FA status ) so it was great that you continued the review after the article achieved FA ( by the way I feel the comments you had already made and had been actioned by the time of the award contributed to its promotion and 4 months is nothing in wikipedia terms - so think you should list it on your completed projects as such). I'll continue pushing the HD article toward perfection, currently I am having a burst at revitalising the Help Project and may end up hanging out there as well as the medicine project. I liked your essay - I feel hints at directing editors should be introduced early on in the process of informing educating new editors - rather than having burnt out ones seeking answers. ( prevention rather than cure) so may be coming back for another look! - I like the 'machine' idea of wikipedia but think your missing the oil ( gnomes ) working away in the background. Many thanks - its been a pleasure collaborating with you :) L&there4;V 15:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure where to post a reply - seem to be in three places at once ;) That's cool - like I said I was just checking if you had spotted anything - keep wielding your comb, others can do bigger pictures and the sum of the parts is greater than ... well you get the picture. Once again many thanks and see you around :) Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs) 20:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Rfa invitation
I was nominated for administrator position and would appreciate your comments here. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Richard Backus
Hello! Your submission of Richard Backus at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Great job
Thanks for the Content Nation interview; I think you did a great job with it, and it ended up probably better than a review would have been. As always, your contributions to the Signpost are really appreciated.


 * Aww, thanks buddy! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award
As a past WP:FOUR awardee you may wish to comment at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sarah Badel
Hello! Your submission of Sarah Badel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! <font face="Georgia,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">[Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 17:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Jean McNaughton
I've responded to your comments. Harrias (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mark Baker (actor)
Hello! Your submission of Mark Baker (actor) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured article drive proposal
What about this one? Do you have time to work on it with me? Best regards, Jehochman Talk 16:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (B-class)


 * Hey buddy, good to hear from you! It's funny that you should suggest working on Black hole, because I had lunch with a physics professor last year to discuss Gamma-ray burst. He was impressed, but he seemed to think that it would really be something special if I worked on Black hole. I would be more than happy to collaborate with you again. Right now I am currently reviewing three FACs. I am also not at school until January 10th, so I won't have access to library books or subscription databases until then. However, knowing us, it will probably take half a year and the advice of at least one expert before we're satisfied with the article anyway, so let's go for it! I think my good friend User:Rmrfstar might be interested as well, I'll drop him a line. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Great! I've started a discussion at Talk:Black hole about applying Summary style.  As with gamma ray burst the article is much too long and has a bloated table of contents.  I'd like to cut it down to size and remove any dubious or confused information.  That will provide a clean canvas for us to apply further improvements. Jehochman Talk 17:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Black hole collaboration
Hey mate. User:Jehochman and I, the team that brought you Gamma-ray burst, are looking to start working on Black hole. I thought you might be interested in working with us. Whaddya say? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds great! I need a reason to get back involved in Wikipedia. Also, I happen to be studying General Relativity right now. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Molybdenum
Hi Cryptic, you missed the GA status of molybdenum in your report! Thanks for the fast way you update the images in the report. I allways like to look at the images where the next work has to be done. Thanks.--Stone (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey mate, I think the problem may be that you need to clear your browser cache. I'm looking at File:Periodic table by article value.PNG and it's showing an older version of the file, but when I click on it for a close-up, it's showing the correct version, so the correct version was definitely uploaded. In any case, thanks for the feedback! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Attachment theory
It got promoted today! Many thanks for your help. I don't know if you'd finished working your way through but I'm happy to work with you on any more prose improvements - prose not being my best point. Cheers. Fainites barley scribs 19:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Congrats! I intend to keep working through the entire article so long as you're willing to work on it. The main reason I work on talk pages rather than on FAC pages is so that the review can continue regardless of the outcome of the FAC. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

FAC review?
Hi Cryptic, I noticed in passing that you mentioned on the Castle FAC that you like to review science articles. I have a fungus article on FAC that hasn't attracted any attention... I'm not sure if it really sucks or if people just don't care :) Anyway, I'm writing to see if perchance you might be interesting in reviewing it? All I can offer is my gratitude and a promise to review one of yours when the time comes. Thanks for considering. Sasata (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly! If you'll recall, I worked with you and Malljaja on Fungus. Was that the type of review that you had in mind? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be very grateful if you were to give the article the line-by-line thoroughness you did with the Fungus article, but any comments at all would be appreciated :) Sasata (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll get started with a line-by-line review sometime today. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for spending your time to improve the blue mushroom article! Put my name in your "owes me a favor" column; I'll definitely keep your skills in mind for my future FAC attempts. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 06:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Castle
Sorry it's taken so long, but I've finally addressed all the points you raised on the talk page (I realise they only related to the lead and probably didn't want to go further until those had been addressed). I'm afraid I got distracted by Awadewit's list of issues with the article's prose. Nev1 (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries, mate. I imagine it would have been both overwhelming and counterproductive to try to address two prose reviewers at once. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Smile! youve got a message on your talk page! :) Have a great day friend —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ylime715 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Just to say I hadn't forgotten about the prose review of attachment. I was just having a little breather. Fainites barley scribs 18:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Operation Crossroads
Are you willing to take another look at Operation Crossroads? Thanks. HowardMorland (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Attachment theory
OK. Thanks for your help. It was a lot of work to get it up to FAC, then I had a rest, and now I haven't really got into a post-Christmas work-mode yet. I will get round to it, but really I need a new project to get me going again.Fainites barley scribs 21:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Aye, I know the feeling. It can get very tiring to have to deal with the same sources for so many months on end. Shoot me a message any time you need another pair of eyes. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Happy New Year. I mean to get back to it soon as I'm aiming for TFA on 23rd January. Not many psych. articles at FA. (Meanwhile I'm planning to treat myself to a scanner and learn to upload pictures but the whole business of copyrights/licences leaves me cold and makes my eyes glaze over.)Fainites barley scribs 22:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually I've pulled myself together and done them all now - so ready for more when you are! Fainites barley scribs 23:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Noodlization
Hi Cryptic, I tried to find a source for it, but all I found was this, the second of which seems promising, but the word is nowhere to be found. O.t.o.h this produces nothing. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Felix Barker
Hello! Your submission of Felix Barker at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mkativerata (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Review
Yes. Sorry. Still not got my Wiki mojo back. Don't really have a gripping project on hand yet. I will address your points though. Sorry! Fainites barley scribs 19:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK Stats
So sorry about the confusion. DYK Stats originally started as a sandbox page of mine. I was trying only to delete my sandbox page which redirects to DYK stats. This was a mistake which I have now fixed. Cbl62 (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi, I don't think we've ever crossed paths before, but I just read your comment on the DYK talk about our galloping girl. Telling it like it is while staying neutral and avoiding personal attacks? It's the triple lutz of Wikipedia. If I could have found an appropriate barnstar I would have given it to you, but I think we need Perspective Barnstar for putting things into perspective.--otherlleft 05:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Happy to hear it! Humorous/sarcastic/cynical writing on Wikipedia is often looked down upon, but it's nice to know that there's someone out there who gets it. Perhaps instead of commemorating me you can simply save a link to this spicy diff. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Attachment theory
Hello Mr Patient. Done them. Fainites barley scribs 18:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

$2M from Google
Signpost reference to this: surprised to see no explicit quoted expression of thanks by someone. It's a huge donation and sign of support that is of immense value to the WMF, I'd have thought. Tony  (talk)  13:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that the article include such a quote or are you surprised that you haven't seen such a quote? In either case, I didn't happen to find such a quote, and I agree it would be a positive addition to the article. If you find one, feel free to add it in or pass it along to me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

CSD A7
Not all professors are notable, not by a long shot and neither all all authors--also not by a long shot. But asserting someone is a professor at a university is enough of an indication of notability to meet the very low bar at WP:CSD A7, and so is asserting someone has written several significant books, as long as they are not self published. CSD A7 is intended to remove articles Like. "X is a great poet, and his works are on Facebook." , or an article with the mere facts of birth and death, and no indication of an accomplishment.  DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If it meets the CSD bar, I shall take it to AFD. This article should not exist. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for your help. Let's keep the good work! Jaespinoza (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, mate! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks!
Hey, thanks for nominating me for autoreviewer privileges! It was approved today. I hadn't been following the whole process at all, but I appreciate that it will make things easier for everyone around here. Good luck with getting the bot going! --Esprqii (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries, mate. Thanks for the support! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Link on muroid molar
The link you added to muroid molar doesn't work for me; it says a cookie has expired. Can you please check? Ucucha 20:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I got it to work. Ucucha 20:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Autoreview programming
Hi Cryptic! I've been away from WP for a few days, and was therefore unable to follow up the WP:BOTREQ discussion. You wrote:
 * In response to decltype: That's all Greek to me. I know how to program my calculator and I have a wee bit of C++ knowledge, but that's it. If you suggest that it's a simple task, what language do you think I should do it in? I've been meaning to learn C# for a while now...
 * When I said it was a simple task, I really meant "a simple task for someone who has experience in programming against the MediaWiki API". For a fairly novice programmer, I suppose it would be a fairly daunting task. To answer your question, I would probably recommend something like C#, as the .NET Framework provides libraries for Http and parsing XML (In C++ you would have to rely on third-party libraries for this). Also, I believe a fair share of C# code for communicating with MediaWiki is already available, such as demonstration code, utility libraries and source code of actual bots. But I guess all this is moot anyway, as the problem may be better solved from the database side. That said, I've been thinking of a few other heuristics for locating promising candidates. I'll let you know when I have thought of anything concrete.  (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey mate, I'm happy to see that you're still interested in the autoreviewer candidate bot. I have largely abandoned the idea of having a bot created. I posted a request at DBR, though no one seems to care. Sad times. It seems that MZMcBride is the head honcho there, maybe we can get something done if you hold him down while I beat him up. :P --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. I too think that a bot is not needed for the task, for the reasons outlined in the discussion. Regards,  (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So wait, are you saying that you support the idea of a bot but don't support the idea of using DBR? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, no, I think a bot is not needed, just a standard application run from a regular user account. Applications that gather and analyze data from WP, but do not make automated edits, generally do not need a bot flag. I don't know much about the labour involved in generating a DBR, so I have no particular opinion about that. (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, sorry, I misread the other message as saying "I too think that a bot is needed for the task" and I got confused. So I guess my order of operations at this point would be to wait for some response at DBR, try to learn C#, and if both of those fail, to just ask around again and see if I can get anyone to make the application. Would you be willing/able to try to make it? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can take a look when time permits. Not sure when that would be, though :)  (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Life is good! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Park Ship DYK
Please see the hook, as I've created an article on the ship mentioned and am going for a double hook. The new article needs checking and verifying though. Mjroots2 (talk) 08:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for ITN help
Just a quick note. Thanks for your help at the Signpost's In the News section the last two weeks while I was out of town. - Draeco (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Moon FAR
I know it's been two weeks, but I might need a little longer. Most of the reorganisation is now done, but there's still a bit of cleanup to go, and referencing to improve. Plus the lede really needs rewriting. Iridia (talk) 03:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Zanja 8
Please explain why there is a reason to delete the page of a hard working band??? Do you have a problem with supporting music! There is no reason for this! This page had many links, including the bands official website! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Promotellc (talk • contribs) 05:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK United States v. Ballin
Hi Cryptic C62, I've had a look at United States v. Ballin and I reckon it's good to go. Given that you wanted to have a look yourself once it's fixed up, I suggest that you could do so now.  Schwede 66  07:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The following messages were copied from an old version of T:TDYK#United States v. Ballin —ShinyG 04:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC) I concur with Schwede, and I'm happy with the prose. Hook, date, and length verified. To all of the involved editors I offer my thanks for keeping a level head and taking my criticism well. Good stuff! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Having read the article, I reckon it's good to go. There's been quite a bit of copyediting going on since the above debate finished. That said, given that Cryptic C62 wanted to have the last word, so it shall be.  Schwede 66  05:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cryptic C62, Thanks for the honest review and feedback regarding the article. It is always good to gain experience from experienced editors! The article is better for it, and so am I. A couple paragraphs in there can still use some minor help, but the article's readability has certainly gone up enormously. Thank you for all your help and constructive criticism! (I would have responded back in the DYK page, but the hook has already been moved into the staging area. Awesome!) —ShinyG 04:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you or Prose072 intend to keep working on the article (particularly if you want to try for GA or FA), I'd be happy to give the article an in-depth prose review. I tend to review science articles, but I think adding a pair of critical eyes can benefit any article. Here's an example of an ongoing review of mine if you're interested. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I suspect Prose072 got spooked by RHaworth. Then again, a quick look at this dKosopedia article is enough to spook me, so I guess all is good.
 * I would certainly welcome an in-depth review. With some good pointers I know I can make the US v. Ballin article just awesome.  Thanks for the help!  —ShinyG 22:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okey doke. Do you want me to get started now or do you want to work on the content some more first? My reviews tend to be very detail-oriented and nitpicky, so if you have any large-scale changes you'd like to make, I'd recommend doing it before I get started. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me simmer it over the weekend. I'll post again here when the time comes to fine tooth comb over the article.  —ShinyG 07:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Have a go at it at your convenience! Thanks! —ShinyG 23:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Lunch with Marlene
I added some info about it to the Coward Legacy section. See what you think. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ref. Just to check one thing:  I implied, in the Noel Coward article, that there was more than one Coward song in the revue portion of Lunch with Marlene.  Is that true?  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Otto Eisler
Please read the article before claiming that something isn't there. Leifern (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Immunize (talk) (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Apropos DYK nomination of Otto Eisler
I have added this to my own page in response to the way you and Materialscientist dealt with the DYK nomination for Otto Eisler:

The biggest threat to Wikipedia

Ever since I started editing Wikipedia, I have noticed a tendency among a certain class of editors - and they are in a minority - to use this as a place to exercise as much authority as the place affords them. They are prone to obstructionist behavior while self-righteously hiding behind guidelines and policy, typically by picking nits in other people's work rather than doing any of their own. And whenever they are called on this, they demand that others assume good faith.

This behavior typically provokes a response in kind, and we get bogged down in endless posturing in various conflict resolution stages, all too often ending up in Arbcom cases that tend to focus on eliminating the conflict rather than improving behavior.

I believe that good Wikipedia editors should be guided by the credo that they first be helpful. If we see something that should be improved (and there is plenty of it), improve it rather than pointing out its limitations the way an armchair football fan would. And if you choose to be the kind of editor who criticizes other people's good efforts, you have to be prepared to be criticized for the way you do this. Leifern (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you don't want your work to be criticized, don't submit it to DYK. It isn't the responsibility of the reviewers to correct every single mistake in every single nomination. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So you disagree with these points? Leifern (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In the context of DYK, yes, I absolutely disagree with your points. It is a responsibility of the author (not the reviewer) to insure that their article and hook are compliant with the DYK rules. There are always hundreds of nominations waiting to be reviewed. If it were the responsibility of the reviewers to make the necessary changes, the backlog would become unmanageably large due to the increased amount of time spent reviewing each nomination. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:PERM/A
I'd like to think that if you can't done something, it's probably not a good idea to notdone it, either. You are more than welcome to make comments on requests, but please leave the use of those templates to admins. Thanks. Tim Song (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A reasonable request, but I disagree with the premise of it. Only an admin can close an AfD as "delete", but anyone can close an AfD as "keep" if the consensus is clear. These are the equivalents of "done" and "not done". I believe that when it's very obvious that the result should be "not done", any non-admin can say "not done", regardless of what the process is (with the exception of RfAs and the like). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for D'Jamin Bartlett
Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Paula Bauersmith
Hi. There is a problem with your DYK nomination of Paula Bauersmith. The problem can be fixed by finding more and better sources for the hook. A full explanation can be found at the nomination discussion. Thank you for your work in creating this article and I hope the problem can be resolved. If you feel you have addressed my concerns, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will revisit the nomination. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Paula Bauersmith
The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for John C. Becher
The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

FAR of Moon
Hi Cryptic! A few weeks ago, you began the FAR for Moon (Featured article review/Moon/archive1). It has since moved to the FARC section, where editors can list further improvements that are needed and/or enter keep/delist votes. If you could revisit the review it would be much appreciated! Dana boomer (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Cryptic - I have addressed your comments at the FARC. Please let me know if you are now happy to remove the Conditional. Iridia (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your detailed comments at the FAR. Glad we got to save the article! Iridia (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for GRB 000131
Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Tellurium ratings on WP:Elements page
Why does tellurium have a high rating on one image while a low rating on the other? Thanks. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The second image is based on the Elements Report which dates back to December (the final edition). So there will be no update now.--Stone (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct: Image:Periodic Table by Quality.PNG is updated frequently, whereas Image:Periodic table by article value.PNG is no longer updated. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Eileen Beldon
Gatoclass (talk) 06:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK Pentecost
Thank you for your help wording the Fritz Werner DYK. Following your advice I trimmed Dorothee Mields in the special occasion section, would you please check? - Adding: only if you a curious, the hook found a reviewer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Heerfordt's syndrome
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Barbara Kingsolver GAR
Hello, you mentioned that if I wanted additional suggestions for improving the article that you could give me a few. I was honestly unaware that using a living person's official website was a no-no for Wikipedia (utterly my bad! I thought that given the stringency of BLP requirements, an official site was better than something unreliable or no citation at all).

I'm wondering what one would do when third party references are unavailable for important things? Your suggestions of looking at the Honore de Balzac and Gabriel Garcia Marquez articles were helpful in a way, but both of those authors were far more prolific than Ms. Kingsolver is, and comprehensive information on her is somewhat more difficult to find. In particular, references discussing her literary themes are quite scarce, and I didn't want to wander into OR territory.

I'll state up front that I've never written a biography before: usually I stick more to science articles. It just seemed to me that the article as it was lacked much (and had a great deal of OR). Any and all advice you could give would be very much appreciated. Thank you, in advance, for your time. Jhfortier (talk · contribs ) 18:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I, too, am primarily a science writer, so I know exactly where you're coming from. If you weren't already aware, the reason (well, one of the reasons) to avoid using first-hand sources for biographies is that they will always carry an inherent bias towards the "good" side of the author. You must always keep in mind that Kingsolver's website was designed with the sole intention of increasing book sales.


 * If you can't find any books that are written about only Kingsolver, you may be able to find materials that cover a variety of authors. The Marquis Who's Who series may be helpful in this regard, especially Who's Who of American Women or Who's Who in 20th Century America. Gale Research Company also produces similar material. I use their Who's Who in the Theatre to write theatrical biographies, and I find that it's a good starting point.


 * Another strategy may be to work outwards rather than inwards: Find specific works by Kingsolver, then find reception/criticism information for those works. If the critic has been consistently reading Kingsolver's work, the review may refer to her other works and to common themes among them.


 * I've never worked on an author biography before, so I can't really offer anything more specific than that. Hope this helps! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's quite helpful, thank you! I've found some real inconsistencies in GA articles, I think primarily because some articles are just less involved than others (e.g. a GA article on a city politician from rural Nebraska is going to be much shorter than a GA article about Richard Dawkins).  I did keep in mind that her website would be biased, and tried to source only neutral items from there (e.g. places she's lived that I know from her written essays but needed citations for).  Do you think referencing her official site for personal information on one or two points would be ok, assuming I'm unable to find it anywhere else (e.g. the year she was married?)?


 * I think I'll just have to crawl through the New York Times and Washington Post book reviews and try to source more things from there. Thank you for your suggestions! Jhfortier (talk · contribs ) 19:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * One last question, then I shan't bother you again. In your opinion, would using the author's official site for important personal things (marriage, births of children) be alright?  Although many of the other citations have been changed or are being changed to reliable 3rd party sources, I feel like sensitive information like that might be best sourced to the official site if no reliable sources (such as the NY Times etc) are to be found.  Thank you again for your patience and help. Jhfortier (talk · contribs ) 02:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I suppose it wouldn't hurt to use her website for that sort of cut-and-dried detail. And you're not bothering me, mate! I enjoy collaborating and giving feedback, that's what Wikipedia's all about. My specialty lies in the art of giving line-by-line prose reviews, so once you've got the bulk content of the article settled, I'd be happy to apply my critical eye to it to help pick out the finer nits. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So glad you aren't bothered; I'm always happy to give people peer reviews (in my area of editing!) but for some reason I find it difficult to ask for help without feeling like I'm tugging at someone's sleeve when they're doing important work! I've got the citations all changed (except for the aforementioned cut-and-dried facts as stated above, until I find better cites, although she's a pretty private woman in interviews...).    I've listed it for a peer review in it's proper WikiProject, but may ask you to go over it again before I re-list on GAN.  Thank you for the offer, and if you ever need anything, please give me a shout! Jhfortier (talk · contribs ) 04:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Cryptic! Any chance you might have some time to give Ms. Kingsolver's article another look? There have been some pretty big improvements (I think) and changes; I even squeaked in a small-but-growing Literary themes section! It's been through a couple of decent peer reviews, and I would so like to get your input on it before I take it back to GAN. Thank you! Jhfortier (talk · contribs ) 06:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to! The other articles that I'm reviewing have stalled out, so I'll be able to devote my full attention to Ms. Kingsolver. I'll get started either today or tomorrow. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for John Hartnup Jr.
Wizardman Operation Big Bear 06:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for GRB 020813
BorgQueen (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Musculoskeletal Injuries
Thank you for providing editorial input for our class projects. My students thank you! Scholarchanter (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for GRB 011211
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for GRB 031203
Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK fail
I see that you are a regular at DYK. This is a courtesy note that I have reverted your fail of Saint Subber on reasons of age. Criterion 1 of the rules states that "articles that have been worked on exclusively in a user or user talk subpage and then moved (or in some cases pasted) to the article mainspace are considered new as of the date they reach the mainspace." The article was moved into mainspace on 31 May and as such, the nomination is fine age-wise. Before rejecting on age, you need to check the edit history carefully. I will also inform the nominator, as moving a page from userspace should be noted as a comment with the nomination. If you wish to reply, please leave a note on my talk page.  Schwede 66  21:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)