User talk:ErgoSum88/Archive 3

Monstrous adolescent
Hi! I was wondering if you could help with this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malkinann/Monstrous_adolescent

It needs you - check the discussion page. Thanks!

- Peach (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you need my help with. New sources? Copyediting? I checked the discussion page and all I found was an unsigned anonymous message from someone wondering how to link to this page from the Akira article, which I doubt is permitted since this is a userfied version of a deleted article. The problem seems to be the notability of this subject is debatable, and almost every search result for this term in google refers to Napier's book on the subject, which is the current article "monstrous adolescent" redirects to. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read the discussion page and thought you might be able to help them with the link. If you don't think it's necessary then, never mind. Sorry for the very long response time...

- Peach (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Impeach
Please be civil with your comments. Timneu22 (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read WP:CIVIL a little more thoroughly, perhaps you might also read Help:Edit summary to learn the appropriate uses of the edit summary box. My comments were entirely civil and were simply a response to yours. Your edit comment stated "this article should be deleted anyway" and I responded by saying "if you think this article should be deleted then nominate it instead of leaving snide edit comments". Please point out where I crossed the line between civility and barbarity. Edit comments are for summarizing the changes you made to an article, not for voicing your opinions on whether or not the article should be deleted. So please, next time, take it to the talk page instead of leaving snide edit comments (which btw, means your comment was uncivil). --ErgoSum88 (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Calling me "snide" is not civil. I am done with this discussion. Timneu22 (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I called your comments snide (which was not a personal attack) and I was merely pointing out the obvious nature of your edit summary. If you're going to throw policy links at me and get all wikilawyerish then I am going to do the same. I will also point out the obvious hypocrisy behind your chastising my edit summary when yours was the one that was uncalled for. So next time think twice about treating an edit summary like a talk page because there is a difference between the two. You might want to try reading Help:Edit summary and Talk page to learn what the difference is. Thank you and have a nice day. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Circle of Iron.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Circle of Iron.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We requires this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

BP Pedestrian Bridge
I don't know if I should inform you about WP:CHIFTD. Please use Talkback.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, well I'm assuming you want me to update this page when I give the results of the GA review. No problem, I'll take care of it. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure you could do that. I have never done a WP:FTC so I am unsure when you are suppose to seek advice about unifying the theme.  I guess I should wait until I get to that stage and let each article get evaluated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I have resolved most of your concerns and have a query in at WT:BRIDGE about the mysterious handrails.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you know that you are suppose to increase this number by one, add a promoted GA to the WP:GA page, Good articles/recent, and you are suppose to update the talk page templates? I have done the latter, but it would look like I was promoting my own article if I did the rest of it too.  Please complete the promotion at your convenience.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah I knew about updating the talk page project templates (which I forgot to do) but thanks for doing it for me. As far as the list of "recently passed good articles" I assumed that was the responsibility of the nominator (I always end up having to add them to the list myself when my nominations are passed). But the "GA number" page was new to me, I didn't know it existed. It seems you have more experience with this stuff than I do, so I appreciate the heads up. Honestly, yours is the first GA nomination that I have passed, so I either wasn't aware of or used to all these little details that tend to get overlooked. Thanks for the info and I'll try to remember them next time! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably only 2/3rds of all passed GAs ever get into the recent and a bot comes by every now and then and counts Category:Wikipedia good articles. The other day it found nine missing.  Right now the numbers disagree by 3.  You are in good company omitting a few steps.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OOps You forgot the most important step, which is to put the article on the GA page in one of the topics.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet another cry for help...
I'm having a bit of a problem with an edit I attempted to make to the "Cinderella" page. Another user reversed my edit because, in their view, I made unsourced statements. I disagree. I have posted a message to the discussion page stating that I would leave the issue up to others. I would really appreciate it if you would take a look.

- Peach (talk) 02:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm having a bit of a problem finding this edit you made to the cinderella page. Was this done with another username or under an anonmyous IP? I looked at the contribution history of Cinderella but couldn't find any changes made by you. On another note, arguments over unsourced changes happen all the time. It's not totally necessary to provide sources for changes made to an article, but it is normally considered good practice to provide sources for new additions made to an article. If you made a change that someone disagrees with, then providing a source usually resolves the dispute (unless there is a debate about the reliability of the source, then the argument can drag on forever). If you're changing something that is already cited to another source, you might be able to use the same source for that change if it is backed up by that source. If you are editing the plot summary of the Perrault version of the story, then any changes made could be sourced to the book itself (fiction books can serve as a primary source, so long as no interpretaions are being made about the plot), simply provide the page number and what version of the book you are taking it from (using the template Cite book makes this easy). If you're unfamiliar with wikicode I can help you with adding refs and citations. I guess thats about all I can tell you, does that make things clearer? If you're still have questions just let me know. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess my edit *was* anonymous, I thought that I was signed in at the time. Mea culpa. It was indeed an edit to the plot summary of the Perrault version of the story. I think that my edit would fall closer to a "change" than an "addition," it was labeled as a minor style edit and I considered it as such. It involved changing the explanation of why C. had to be home by midnight, namely, that at midnight the spell would be (...). The original ... was "broken," I changed this to "wear off." This was based on my understanding of the usual connotations of the two terms; it seemed that "wear off" was more appropriate. - Peach (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like no one has replied to your post on the talk page of Cinderella. If I were you, I'd change it again... and in the edit summary just say something like "broken->wear off, see talk page" and if someone reverts your edits again.... without discussing them with you, feel free to call them out on it. I'm sorta in a hurry so I gotta go, but just try that for now. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Truck Driver
I was cruising your user page and noticed that you felt Truck driver was a mess. I don't know anything about the subject but you may want to include some material from a book called Uncommon Carriers by John McPhee. Only a third of the book is devoted to truck drivers but it is a good read throughout and it makes for some penetrating (sourced!) insights into the profession. I would edit the page myself but A. I don't have my copy and B. I know jack about truck driving. Just a sourcing hint. :) Protonk (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I will keep that in mind. My only problem is bringing a world-wide perspective to the article. It seems there isn't much information about drivers in other countries, and if I were to give the article a complete makeover I fear it would turn out too US-centric. One solution might be to start a new article such as Truck drivers in the United States. Someday, when I have time I plan on going to the library and seeing what I can turn up, and I will keep in mind your suggestion. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Try these: China, Also China.  If you can't get to the article, let me know, I'll e-mail a pdf.  Bunch of links to Australian trucking stuff from the page of what used to be the NTFS. Protonk (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)