User talk:JayHenry/archives1

List of films with similar themes and release dates AfD
Hi, you've expressed an opinion in the deletion discussion of this article. I've recently suggested a compromise in hopes of improving the article while keeping both sides happy, and would appreciate if you could revisit the issue. Thanks. --Wafulz 18:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Parents of the Prime Ministers of Canada
Hi, thanks for your vote to keep on the article on their children, but they have put this one (Articles for deletion/Parents of the Prime Ministers of Canada) on AfD as well. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete frenzy
I think Kevin Ray gives up to easy when Philippine articles are nominated for deletion. He says, "Fine, but if you delete this..." I have support for the articles if the content is valid. I usually suggest merge instead of delete if I think it isn't a reasonable article. Here is some Philippine lists. There is some merging that could be done to avoid all this nonsense, but they will pick on just about anything. Thanks, for the heads up. I will try to keep an eye out. Jjmillerhistorian 15:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Lists and their deletion
Don't wory, I hadn't interpreted your comments personally or cabalistically. Thanks for the positive contributions to the discussions around the aussie lists. We're not necessarily looking to get them deleted, just debated to get a consensus on which are valuable over categorisation. --Steve (Slf67)talk 03:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

lg15 userbox
Has anyone made one? --BBrucker2 01:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Jay, the idea that LG15 was a hoax is central to the story, is cited in many, many sources, and is not a POV. For you to continue to delete any reference to the fact that this was a hoax is for you to *create* a POV where one does not exist. If you *really* wish Wikipedia to be a true arbiter of facts, then not only should you delete facts which are untrue or unsourced, but you must allow facts which are true and are sourced. That is the rule, yes? Or is *your* POV so much more important than the facts?

Looking for Alaska
I appreciate it...I managed to convince them to remove the quote from the author's page and move it do a different section on the book page...they wouldn't remove it from the awards page. The reference is a blog for the same agenda. I'd be happy to help you with this. Czolgolz 17:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Informal mediation
I have accepted the mediation case involving Looking for Alaska, Michael L. Printz Award and John Green (writer). I am contacting all involved parties. If there is someone else who has been involved in the disagreement, please let me know so I can invite them to participate. I am currently reviewing all three pages and their talk pages. Please indicate if you accept my assistance on the case page. Cheers!! Vassyana 13:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Mediation has been accepted by all involved editors. The case has been updated. I have posed some questions at the case page. Thanks! Vassyana 09:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A compromise has been proposed. Please review my suggestion and let us know what you think. Vassyana 07:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have provided a few suggestions that may help get us to a final agreement. Please review the case page. Thanks! Vassyana 18:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The mediation has been closed. LEAC has said he's leaving the mediation and will be leaving the disputed articles. If you have any further questions, concerns or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Be well!! Vassyana 04:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fossil Hippo References
The references I've been using for my anthracotheres and hippo pictures are the books "Mammoths, Sabertooths and Hominids," "Evolving Eden," and "Animals of East Africa." The last book is out of print, mind you, but I think they're all available in Amazon.com. One of my next projects is to illustrate the final anthracothere genus, Mercycopotamus... I think it may have been found in early Pliocene strata, even.--Mr Fink 14:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's go with "Category:Extinct hippos" and have it as a subcategory of Prehistoric artiodactyls and Hippos. You think we should shuffle the Anthracotheres into it, too?--Mr Fink 19:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The anthracotheres aren't hippos per se, but they are regarded as the immediate ancestors of the hippos. Maybe we should ask around for more opinions about that, then?--Mr Fink 22:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, on second thought, I did a brief search of my own, and the relationship between the anthracotheres and hippos are muddier than I realized. |Mikko's Phylogeny places the anthracotheres closer with the pigs and entelodonts within "Suina."  If such is the case, you think erecting a "Category:Suina" would be superfluous?--Mr Fink 19:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hippoquarium
Thank you so much, the hippoquarium is a great attraction at the Toledo Zoo, and I am glad my reigon can offer it to its visitors. Please, if you find any pictures, add them, it would enhance the article very much. Wpktsfs 19:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your kind compliment on my talk page. We're always looking for more volunteers at WP:MEDCAB whenever you feel experienced enough to come help out. I'd recommend participating in WP:3O and WP:RFC if you want some experience that will be helpful in developing mediation skills. Be bold and don't be shy about providing an outside perspective on article talk pages and proposing compromises to conflicts. It will help you gain good experience for a mediator to have. If you have any further questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact me. Vassyana 05:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Walking with Monsters
I noticed your reversion to a note by User:Apokryltaros on the page Walking with Monsters. I'm unsure why you reverted his note. The edits he made are supported by the articles gorgonops and scutosaurus. Also, I noticed you left a note on his talk page, saying that his edits are "obviously incorrect." I find the use of that template incredibly condescending to someone who has edited wikipedia since 2005. I have reverted your edits and gently suggest you read the articles more carefully before slapping a warning like that on a respected contributor. --JayHenry 02:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, I find it extremely insulting that my edits are not only reverted, but I'm given a warning, too. Why?  Do you dislike the way I type, or something?--Mr Fink 03:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you shouldn't ignore the fact that at that time, all the continents were connected together to form one "super-continent". So, it may be possible that those animals migrated and it is very possible that they lived there. Anyways, I apologize about my revertions and warning, but please don't ignore some important facts. Radical3 22:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ken Kesey
Hello JayHenry. I'm having trouble following this edit you made to Ken Kesey. In the edit summary, most editors indicate which version is the "good version" usually by date/time, revision number or editor name. It appears you selected an older version and made additional edits. Could you clarify how far back a "good version" was? —EncMstr 17:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm no fan of the revision id, but many of the tools give that—I assume out of "implementation efficiency"—and it's not too difficult to figure out by hovering over each "last" entry in the history list. WP:POPUPS and WP:TW are two tools I'm aware of which make this easier.  I've used popups for about a year, but initially found it difficult to configure for reasonable messages:  I have to type the username of the version I'm reverting to.  I think that is the most friendly way to identify a version:  last version by  as that says who is being trusted. —EncMstr 18:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the consideration. No need to worry about preserving my arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic.  I didn't realize which ship I was on.... :-)  Thanks for fixing the article.  Cheers!  —EncMstr 18:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

re: lonelygirl15
Yes, removing the material that wouldn't work under WP:NOR (interpretive statements, etc.) and shortening the plot summary would be a big help in addressing the OR issue on the article. --Core desat 19:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright
Hi, I saw you added Image:Bitsietulloch.jpg to Copyright problems/Poster claims permission. In cases like this it's better to use the imagevio tag. See the instructions here. I already added the tag to the image and warned the uploader. Thank you for looking out for copyright violations. Garion96 (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for improving the Baseball Nicknames page
When I had originally moved it from the Nicknames page to its own page, I did forget to do some wikilinking and such. Thanks a bunch for getting that. Whammies Were Here (PYLrulz) 10:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks
thanks for the help on the veoh page, new to wikipedia so I'm still figuring things out...appreciate it! Ekrekr 00:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No prob.
Your welcome. I was just patrolling for vandalism and found a persistent vandal. Regards, « razorclaw »  15:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Luangwa River
Good point about Luangwa being unaltered. I wonder though whether it would be helpful to add a note (which could be in the ref itself) saying what unaltered actually means in this context.

Incidentally, the article used to be unreferenced and I put most of those references in there, aiming to come back later and convert to in-line references, but I haven't prioritised it. Google Earth is a specific reference for a number of points in the article, and I'll put it back in in-line form later.

Incidentally, I'm not convinced by the point about the valley being relatively uninhabited due to the river's flood cycle — do you have a reference for it? — because the upper and lower Zambezi and the middle Kafue Rivers also have extreme flood cycles which the people have adapted to very well. I think that the answer is more likely to be tsetse fly and British colonial policies in the early 1900s. A number of settlements (eg Petauke) were moved out of the valley in the past.

Lastly the sentence 'The animals rely on the water in the dry season, congregating near the shrinking river and pools, and are easily seen' was not meant to apply to the hippos but to the land animals, but was certainly unclear. I'll put it back in better form. Regards, Rexparry sydney 03:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sasha Spielberg
Please revisit Articles for deletion/Sasha Spielberg. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the kind compliment over at AfD. I am glad to have left you with such a positive impression. How has the wiki been treating you lately? Vassyana 08:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I figured I'd just put this here considering your scary talk page. The Wikipedia is quite daunting to me. I don't do much unless it's something quite tiny that needs editing. I prefer the LGPedia :P Chelseyrl 06:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Buckley
Ok, make the changes as you suggest and your reasoning seems sound to me. I have to base a lot of what I find on the content of the articles themselves and often there is little to give details of notability, generally a problem with the articles anyway. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  16:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to issue warnings when reverting vandalism
Hello. I'm in agreement with the recent revert you made. You may already know about them, but you might find Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Kralizec, I'm aware of all the warning templates, but I actually respectfully disagree with you that it's appropriate to use them after every single incidence of edit reversion. As cautiously worded as the  template is I really believe these templates intimidate and discourage users who made a single, trivial mistake.  In the case of "Seven Wonders of the World," the edit I reverted was over 30 minutes old and it was clear that the contributor was making no further edits.  I think it's important to look at an edit history before slapping on templates (for example, if you'd looked at mine you might have seen I make frequent use of the warnings templates.)  But at any rate, I appreciate that you're keeping a keen eye on things. --JayHenry 21:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * While I understand your perspective, warnings are the clearest path to blocks. Ultimately I guess we will have to agree to disagree.  Thank you for your time, speedy reply, and courtesy!  Kralizec! (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I need help in a discussion
Do you mind taking a quick look at an article I wrote? JoeyC5 19:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much! Those were very helpful tips. I know it's hard finding information on CJ Johnson. I'm constantly updating the article as I find more information. I referenced news articles that he was both and wrote articles in. I also gave three external links. Is there anything else that might help? JoeyC5 20:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey
I've replied to you on my talk. Cheers :) – Riana ⁂  11:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:lonleygirl15
Hello JayHenry, I am going to post this on your page too but I am going to copy it there and leave a copy here(on my page). Anyhow, I never said that ALL of her videos were rated low, just that many of them were. And more are rated 2's and 3's than most videos.... What should I use to make a "controversal" claim then? And besides, being in the trivia section it may be more recognizable to the wikipedia readers. I noticed the format was messing up for some reason, so I guess I should let it lie for now but if I find a way to source my claim(which is true) then I will do it and hopefully it won't mess up the format of the page. Wwefan980 23:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Kay Korner
Saw your note in passing. He assertions winning a significant competion, so it is not a speedy under A7. Any boa fide assertion will do, if it seem possible that its made in good faith. The thing to do is to nom for AfD--I expect it will be deleted there with no trouble at all. If you think it will be contested, you might as well send for AfD in the first place, because even the author can remove a prod. Prod is very useful for neglected pages. DGG 00:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see AfD agreed with you, or at least the first two people to look at it did. --well, that's what AfD is for. (smile)
 * Until this I had never thought about an assertion of a local competition possibly not counting as an assertion for purposes of A7--I continue to think it should count, for "local" is always debatable, even if the item at hand probably wouldn't show relevance at AfD; I'll discuss it on the talk page for WP:CSD. -- so thanks for sending it, & for starting the discussion.
 * Sometime it's an Interesting question what counts as local anyway: for Rebecca Stewart, I conceivably might have said A7 partly because the source was MySpace, & partly because it was high school. --peripheral things like that do have an influence But if she had won the State competition I wonder if it still would have been A7--
 * As for Kay Korner, I think you gave a good argument for delete, the not for speedy. I'm certainly not going to follow it up as a particular case, unlike the general question. DGG 20:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC) I agree that such articles are a nuisance, and I usually ignore them at AfD. DGG 16:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Re, RFA
Hey, don't feel bad :) The worst part about fighting between Wikipedians is not that it causes strife, but that it disservices our readers. Just stick to the WikiWay, and beyond the politics, things can't be that bad. Cheers, Grace notes T § 17:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Howdy back
I sure do, Jay, although I rarely make edits. But I can't be a true wiki lover if I don't have an account on Wikipedia :). I do find it to be a lot different from LGPedia in some aspects though. I tend to like the feel of a small project more than that of a huge project--it's less intimidating I guess. Anyway, thanks for the comment and I'll see (in the broad sense of the word) you around.--Jonpro 21:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think WikiProjects kind of do combine the worlds. I just started helping out with WikiProject Go, but I'm not even sure if it's active actually. I like to play Go though, so I thought, hey, why not? I have a feeling I may be drifting from one WikiProject to another since I don't really know very much about any specific thing. As you probably know, I like to do more wiki-related things rather than content-related things anyway, so I guess it really doesn't matter that much what WikiProject I'm a part of.--Jonpro 01:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops, that's kind of funny that of all the ones I could forget, it's the one I edit the most (and I'm an admin on...). Thanks for pointing that out. :)--Jonpro 06:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'm spending lots of time here, but mostly reading up on bizarre animal mating habits for my blog. A guy's gotta have standards. --BBrucker2 18:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Presidents table -- technical concerns.
1. There's a problem--the sorts are not working--clicking on the sort button at the top of any column sorts by the sequence of presidents, up or down. It sees the sort button, for it changes to up or down, but then it doesn't get the right column 2. Once you get it working, the next problem is to have it start at the appropriate column. If you want to use it for multi-purpose, then there needs to be an appropriate title: a. " Table of US Presidents by ___" and I can;'t think of a good last word. b. An alternative is to call it just Table of US presidents, to have the various list of __by all redirect to it, and to have bold faced at the top for the possibilities, so people know what to do. 3. There's another way I just thought of, though it is much less elegant. show/hide now works. Call it table of US presidents, and have a presorted list for each, all of them hidden until you expand the section. I could do that myself, but you should have the chance first, in respect to the amount of work you have already put in. 4. I think with a sortable list or with a page of hidden tables, it will be functional enough that it will be easy to defend, and then other lists can be done the same way. Part of the opposition to lists of X by Y, is the multiple lists the same group could have--but a single page should be thought of more highly, and that will help the other lists.

I now understand the numbers, that, but the left hand column still goes Washington Adams Jefferson, or Bush, Clinton, Bush regardless of the setting. Could you check what you see--I'm using Safari. I have Java turned on, and use the monobook skin. That shouldn't make a difference though DGG 19:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hey Silver!
Wow, Jay? This was a surprise. Usually I'm not the know-it-all type (unless it comes to LG15), so I usually work on punctuation edits and wikifying pages. =D I work on that sort of stuff over at the LGPedia as well. LOVEED the newest vid ("HOLY SH%T!!!" from Sarah). I'm a big Bonas fan. Bonas is definitely an added bonus to LG. --silverBULLET(x3) 15:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice portfolio!
I wondered over to your user page, after replying to your comments at WT:NOT, and found Billy (pygmy hippo) among other gems of articles. Nice going! I love the userpages design as well, with the tabs. Might imitate that one day. I dunno, I find articles like those you wrote so interesting, but the line with people and tabloid-style journalism articles feels different somehow. Writing about a person should, I think, require a different style to that when writing about a magazine article (the Sinatra one), or a famous pygmy hippo. Collating from different sources to write the definitive article on something like that is OK, but doing it for a person can be an invasion of their privacy, or a short stub that can't really be expanded. I suppose the closest thing I can find in your collection is John Dau, which could be merged to God Grew Tired of Us. For example, why does John Dau have an article and not Daniel and Panther? Hope you don't mind me using this article as a discussion point! Carcharoth 21:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not much to add, but wanted to thank you in turn for the nice reply! I'm afraid I rather expect people to be defensive, but it is nice to be able to discuss things calmly like this. BTW, I haven't seen the film God Grew Tired of Us, I presume you have? It sounds good. WOuld you recommend it and is it generally available? I noted the year of release in the article, though at the bottom it only said "planned for release". Do you know what happened with that? Carcharoth 21:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Woody Guthrie
Thanks for the Good Article listing! I actually have not edited a ton on this article, but have followed it for a while and realized that it has a lot of potential. Its the first time that I have listed an article for Good Article status, so its great to see that it held up to review. I'll keep grinding away to improve it more. &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 07:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

re:Hippos
Hai JayHenry, I am a student on Leiden university and doing my master thesis on pleistocene dwarf hippos from the mediterranean. I work in the National Museum of Natural History in Leiden (Naturalis). I am currently overlooking the taxonomy. The name is Hippopotamus minor. If the genus Phanourios is used it should be Phanourios minor and not minutus. minor come from Desmarest and mintus from Cuvier. Since Desmarest was 2 years earlier than Cuvier, his name has priority over Cuvier's. When I finish my thesis I will look further into wikipedia at the hippos especially and probably post pictures. This is the Cretan, Cypriot, Sicilian and Maltese. Hopefully I have answered your questions, if not you can mail me directly at Naturalis. -Basvanhuut 03:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hai Jayhenry, I have added some discussion point on the cretan and cypriot hippo. I was wondering if you could take a look and say what is your opinion. I would appreciate that very much. Discussion can leads to good ideas and keeps you alert. Thanks in advance. Greetings --Basvanhuut 09:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jayhenry, The idea about putting all the Madagascar hippos together is good on my opinion. I did not study them, but I know the taxonomy is not clear. For as far as I know there are 3 or 4 hippos known from madagascar. These hippos are all Hexaprotodon and not Tetraprotodon, so 6 incissors instead of 4. I could look up some literature here at the library. My thesis will probably lead to a publication. I will keep you posted Best regards Basvanhuut 13:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

My comment on Signpost suggestions talk page
Hi Jay. I just want to make sure that you understand that I wasn't saying that anyone had done anything bad. The only reason I was concerned about the Benoit thing was because when the first edit was made that said he'd died, there was no source, and in fact the media hadn't picked up the story and nothing had been released by the authorities on his death. The original editor has actually admitted as much that it was a terrible coincidence. Thus I was making the point that it was really original research. The reason I said it was a violation of BLP was because it stated that a subject was dead with no verification. Imagine the potential distress if Benoit hadn't actually died! Thus it's a violation of BLP.

I just want to make sure that you understand this and that I'm not intentionally being harsh. The only reason I said anything on the Signpost page was to suggest (or in fact warn) editors to be careful about this story. If anything I said made you upset, or if I wasn't clear about my motives, I apologise. I just want us to be careful about this story. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Incidently, as a total aside, I really like your opuses page. I have a similar thing, but probably not as extensive, on my focus article page. This has nothing to do with the previous comment, but when I see an editor who's so willing to edit the main article namespace I feel pretty happy for Wikipedia as a whole! I just don't see enough article editing... so I'd just like to say "thanks" for your hard work. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

from john green
Hi, Jay, I just wanted to say thanks for the spirited (and committed) defense of the wikipedia page about me. I really appreciate it. I have found myself wishing there were more content on the page, but never wishing that there was, like, random things I happened to say on blogs taken wildly out of context. So thanks. -John

Hi there!
Hi. This is grundle2600. My user name is a reference to the video game "Adventure" on the Atari 2600. "Grundle" is the name of the green dragon in that game. See Adventure (Atari 2600).

general concerns about stuff at AfD.
Your compromise was ignored in large part because of the large number of less useful lists that had preceded it. The first one of a number of similar things sets the pace, and people who want to delete a whole class will know enough to start with the weakest. The only tactic is to then nominate the strongest oneself, but this can be defeated by their then nominating separately each of the others. I think when defending classes of pages in the future, people who like the class of things should say when a weak one comes up, that they !vote to delete this, but will support anything more important. I see it both ways--for some things, I am trying to set a pattern of deletion, and for some things just the opposite. Decisions at a random group like Afd can be greatly influenced by the randomness of people who show up and what they pay attention to--I look once a day, but do not comment on most of the items. There are only a few who tend to comment on everything. This is aided by the ban on canvassing--obviously if there were not the ban, then everything could be kept if there were 8 or 10 people who would support it, unless there was equally strong opposition. But one can still canvass an interested group in a neutral way. It is not forbidden to announce a debate without indicating which way, provided you don't single out individuals, but something like a president's list could be announced at the history and the presidents workgroups for example. Not everyone there would vote to keep, but most would, if it were any good.

More generally, this sort of dynamics happens in face-to-face meetings also, but not as strongly because typically a much larger percent of the possible people are there. But to try to sneak something through when only your supporters are present has been a device used for centuries, and still effective.

What is not typical is that there is a very strong reluctance to improving things at AfD, and I think that should be addressed in general. I improve bios while they are there, and some others do the same, but there is nothing more common than for someone to say, it's notable, based n the following 3 references, and then not put them into the article so newcomers to the debate will see it. This is different from most groups--generally the way of getting something done is to amend the motion while its on the floor, so people dont have the usual length of time to react. It rarely works here, for better or worse, though some of the people more experienced in committee work do it very well.

That's another factor, which is that experienced people have an advantage. Obviously experience here at WP debates, but also from outside. I am experienced in committees, from university committees but also some geographically dispersed ones that do the business on the phone in conference calls,  and some of the people here are a good deal more so. Use of postings--or even IRC is a different art, however, but I've some experience in that also. The reason important things work better in person is that it is easier to see when someone is really upset, and one can appeal non-verbally to the others. also, everyone has to leave in an hour or so, so some decision must be made, which can either encourage compromise, but also gives an opening to last minute reversals. (The last few days of congress or a state legislature are good examples.) (And some Afds have had sudden reversals also. The end, as well as the beginning, can be a strong position. )

The method I like best for things I think worth the trouble is to bring things up again, calmly, not pressing very hard, at intervals of several months. WP works much faster than that, so people who do have a long range plan and patience enough not to get into uncooperative modes along the way, can accomplish a good deal for whatever it is they support. (The way I keep from gettingto angry is to work on several different things. Most WP people concentrate on one, and then they tend to get into fights. Your user page says you're thinking of a 20-year period. I think in terms or 2 or 3 years.. (Please excuse my using your page for the rough draft of an essay)

Thanks for your recommendation, JayHenry.
in regard to the new article on Cecil Morgan. I will no longer send anything to Did You Know? Everything I have sent with one exception has been rejected and often ridiculed as "not unusual". One thing that was accepted for DYK was later removed from Wikipedia falsely on grounds of non-notability.

I am just contented to get my material included. No DYK for me.

Billy Hathorn

Crocodiles, lions and hippos, oh my!=
I don't know how to do referencing and things but I can give you the information about where I found the information. Michaelritchie200 23:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I got my information from The Book Of General Ignorance. The exact words are,
 * Not many animals are stupid enough to attack a hippo ... They dispose of lions by plunging them into deep water and drowning them, crocodiles by biting them in half, and sharks by dragging them out of the water and trampling them to death.

Michaelritchie200 07:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ford fording the ford
Haha. Now that made me laugh. I thought about that and for a moment wished this was Uncyclopedia. : ) IvoShandor 11:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, if virtual
Thanks very much for letting me know you'd support me. I appreciate it. I'm already really getting my feet wet with the extra buttons. Daniel Case 05:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost conflict of interest
Taking up your offer to take this discussion to user talk, I'm curious about those ArbCom cases you mentioned. It would put more meat on the debate for me to see some examples of real wiki problems with inadequate separation of power.--Chaser - T 02:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Chaser, I'm happy to discuss the philosophy behind a separation of powers principle on talk. And I privately e-mailed you a selection of ArbCom cases and RfCs that were highly contentious.  I doubt that everyone is going to agree that all the cases I sent you indicate a problem, but I think most people will agree that there is some problematic behavior in there (and actually, just ask any wikipedian: 'what have been the 5-worst blow-ups on Wikipedia?' and see if you don't see any conflict that might be related to the sort of thing I'm talking about).
 * Also, I really want to again emphasize how much respect I have for Ral315. This is just not a personal thing at all.  I really respect and like Ral315; as an aside I really like and respect several of the candidates that I opposed; Majorly who I've seen around a lot, is another example.  But this is a general philosophical principle about how groups best function (principles being generally unpopular in wikipedia, I probably have many people who now think I am incredibly wrongheaded, have the wrong mindset for the project, just don't "get it", etc.)  So I'm happy to engage and try to explain my position so that, even if we ultimately disagree, we can understand where others are coming from. --JayHenry 03:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll bite too. By the way, the statements in parentheses in the paragraph above don't hold true - if everyone thought the same way, then there would be no innovation, nor room to grow. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 09:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing is, even in the Essjay controversy, it is not a matter of having a class of super-users or anything like that. I actually consider that the mess would have been exactly the same, as the issue was not that a bureaucrat/arbitrator/IRC group contact/etc. broke the community's trust. It was that one of the most trusted users broke one of the pillars of Wikipedia, and there would have been outrage regardless of the amount of hats that he was wearing. There's no way to quantify that, though, so I guess we're both left to pure speculation; however, I think that the hats are a function of the community's confidence in one's judgment, not the other way around. While I won't give names, I think there are a few users in high-ranking positions within the community that should not be there. That they have a bit or two extra does not mean I have a blind trust in them, for assorted reasons.
 * I do agree that we have many trusted users; I do not agree that we need to make users pick and choose one "career path" and lose chances of getting involved in other areas. In the real world, that causes people to pick a career path, and use illicit means to reach higher positions within that same path, be it by connections, bribes, etc. If I know that I can't expand my field of opportunities, I may as well form a coalition that will allow me to retain the power I've fought hard for. That stems from a rigid checks-and-balances system; on the other hand, with a fluid checks-and-balances system, in which people are given the ability to rise upwards transparently, such things don't happen. Such a fluid system is more appropriate to Wikimedia's volunteer nature - trying to tell users to do something they may or may not particularly want just causes them to burn out more easily.
 * In a fluid system, there will be significant overlap between power groups, but due to users' own tendencies to concentrate on what they do best, there will never be complete overlap. The key to such a system is its flexibility: if you are afraid of a bureaucrat making a decision once a year to promote one of his buddies, make it easy to lose bureaucrat status. But that is impossible to do in the current climate, which has elevated bureaucratship to a goal in itself, instead of a way to serve the Wikipedia community.
 * More importantly, I just don't see Ral's position in the Signpost as a position of power at all; he just gets to do all the grunt work, and rarely any glory. That's what makes the conflict-of-interest issue baffling in my point of view. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 23:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of United States Presidents by longevity (2nd nomination)
You commented that there was a discussion, I looked at all the talk pages for each article suggested to be merged into the by age one, there was no active discussion at the time I put it up for deletion.  Kwsn (Ni!) 18:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nature (journal)
I passed it as a GA -- nice work. The only trouble is I am not sure where to stick it here -- I ended up creating a new magazines and journals section. HOpe this suffices. There doesn't seem to be a general sciences section, though that would probably be useful. best, -- phoebe/ (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah, I thought about all of those places -- education, general science, publications... I don't think education is quite right, but it's kind of a toss-up in my mind between general science and some sort of publications section. We also don't have a good section for non-fiction or "reference works" like they use here. It could be useful from a usability standpoint if the same classification was repeated across wikipedia, then we could see the gaps better... Anyway, I find it hard to believe that there aren't other "general science" articles out there that might get nom'ed, so it would probably be useful to create that category for GA.


 * RE: the superfluity of manga... there's a certain kind of dedication often on those very specific, fan-club types of articles to get them polished and nom'ed for whatever level they can be. I don't see the same level of passion on the general articles, core articles, or ones that you or I think might be "important".. I don't know what to do about this, as they often more difficult to write. I also think there are probably a lot of "hidden" nearly-GA quality articles out there that no-one has taken charge of nominating and polishing. There must be a project out there for this!


 * Anyway, I'm a science librarian (so have handled many an issue of Nature) and I learned something from the article, so again, nice work :) -- phoebe/ (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Pioneer, Go Home!
Rigadoun (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ral315 RfB
Hi Jay,

Thanks for requesting my input, although I'll be the first to admit that I'm not sure whether my eccentric thought patterns should influence anyone but myself! :) I believe that, if Ral were truly serious about running for b'crat and addressing those concerned by the Signpost issue, he would have resigned his post as editor-in-chief already.  I know there are other capable folks able to handle the task of putting the thing together; if the position is as "hands-off" as the more-forgiving side of you is now thinking, Ral wouldn't be losing anything.  I don't believe anyone would have objections to his continuing to report for the Signpost, on non-RfA matters.

If I were Ral, with objections having been raised to a conflict-of-interest, I would have made a decisive choice: resign the editor-in-chief job and continue on to a unanimously successful RfB; or, if I valued my Signpost work more, withdraw the RfB. His failure to address the COI issue directly does worry me -- I expect b'crats to be sensitive to the appearance of legitimacy, ready to recuse themselves if there is even the slightest hint of compromising circumstance. My standards are high, but being a b'crat is a very contentious job. Such circumspection in a candidate is a great positive sign for the future; the lack of it is, contrariwise, disquieting.

If Ral really gets the message regarding COIs, he may always return to RfB after resigning. I do not for one moment accept the excuse that the "editor-in-chief" has little power at the Signpost. Even if that is true, the hifalutin sound of the title creates the implication of power. If an over-blown title is Ral's undoing, I won't regret that. He might always have chosen to reflect the humility of his office by calling himself "delivery boy", but he didn't. When one calls oneself "editor-in-chief", one should expect to be regarded as a person of importance. These two important jobs, in particular (maybe even more than b'crat and ArbCom), don't fit together very well. The wiki-press needs to have a healthy skepticism of those in high places, and not permit even the appearance of being beholden thereunto. Best wishes, Xoloz 21:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ral RfB
I think one of the things is that is *is* a newsletter; unlike a number of the other writers for the thing, I do this professionally. It had never even occurred to me that people would think of the positions as being in conflict; people on the Board or working for the project in different capacities are no in conflict by holding administrative or bureaucrat bits, and editor of the newsletter isn't that important. The only issue I see that can cause conflict is if we writers for the Signpost started to throw our weight behind him constantly, he'd get the accusations of cabalship. The issue should be negligible; the positions really are not in conflict, if things are clarified as they would be in a professional environment. If either was a position of advocacy, it might be more of a problem, but both the editor and bureaucrat positions are defined by neutrality guidelines. --Thespian 05:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your respectful comments. I hadn't had time to revisit the issue again until now, so this was the first I saw of Cecropia's comments. I appreciate the concerns about the story being biased (although I'm a bit puzzled why nobody bothered to raise it there), and I've added a quote from you that helps make the discussion about Ral315 more balanced. Obviously, it's not actually possible to fully do justice to the debate in the context of a brief news summary. As the change comes more than a day after publication, it's not really possible to undo the effects that have already taken place, but I'm not sure what can be done about that.


 * I didn't notice that the bylined reporters had also supported Ral315's request, which gets into the thorny problem of how much a reporter must be restricted from expressing opinions even outside the pages of the newspaper or what-have-you. As you may know, some journalists refuse to vote at all on principle, while others find this a bit ridiculous and see no problem with journalists holding personal opinions so long as this does not show in their reporting.


 * From some of your observations elsewhere, it seems you have a decent grasp of the challenges in keeping the Signpost running. When it seems weak and amateurish, that's because what's there is all people have come up with. It always needs more people putting more diligent effort into reporting, especially since there's no particular limitation to its size. Its coverage could potentially be much broader in both subject matter and ensuring that important perspectives are covered. You, or people like you, seem like a good way to bring in additional perspectives without disrupting the effort. If those perspectives manifested themselves in the form of actual work product the Signpost can publish, I think you'd find it was much appreciated and would resolve some of your concerns. --Michael Snow 17:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrat
Thanks for your comments. I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to keep your concerns in mind as I perform my duties. Andre (talk) 07:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jay
I hadn't logged on to Wikipedia for a while and just saw your message. I'm kinda bummed because I won't be able to mess around on the wiki or the cove while at work (which of course, is the whole point!) Anyway, if you want to keep in touch, email is probably the best way to go (although that's blocked too). Looking forward to more PQ in August! OwenIsCool 23:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Novels WikiProject
Hi, and welcome to the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books often referred to as "Novels".

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated quite regularly. You can watch it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including WikiProject_Novels_announcements there. While you are updating your userpage, don't forget our userbox  .
 * The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but other methods are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines / template outlines some things to include.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the members, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  07:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

How dare you insult Hungry Hungry Hippos strategies?
At least you have a sense of humor. I need to find mine. Oh, I just found out something important, Hungry Hungry Hippo is redlinked! KP Botany 04:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * sniff, sniff. I'm so touched.  I knew I'd eventually do something barnstar worthy on Wikipedia.  I will treasure this always.  KP Botany 05:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT
Hi. I was just re-reading through the AfD for Chess Rules, and I saw you make this point. The same editor who is trying to get these articles for chess deleted also used similar tactics and arguments to get Glossary of sumo terms. It seems picking and choosing articles to prove a point goes against WP:POINT the way I just read it. Anyways, hopefully someone will close the chess rules AfD soon. XinJeisan 13:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Template Question
Thanks for your offer to help. I have created User:Jmfangio/Template:NFLretired and am having one minor problem. Every NFL draft has an article about it (for example: 1997 NFL Draft). I have successfully created a feature that when someone enters a year for the draftyear function, it creates a link to that draft article. I am trying to do the same with debutyear and finalyear so that they would link to the appropriate season. Thus entering debutyear=1997 should result in 1997. You can view the template test page at User:Jmfangio/Template:NFLretired/test. Any help would be much appreciated. I'm watching this page so you can either comment her or on the template talkpage and i'll see it. Thanks for your offer to help, it is much appreciated. Jmfangio| ►Chat 10:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

DYK Next Update
Minor changes (and even major changes) to the wording are acceptable, but if possible it is best to suggest the changes on the nomination page beforehand, to check it is OK with the nominator, as sometimes people will change the wording just before it goes live and inadvertently change the sense at the same time. Thanks for your help, we only need a few people doing it occasionally to make a big difference. Yomangani talk 22:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Polish-French relations
No problem. I like DYKs :) Keep up the good job! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)



Hippo taxa
You do have sources for it on the Hippo page and the Taxonomy section is quite robust. My point was in part that "The Hippo is the closest land relative of the cateceans" and "the cateceans are the closest living relatives of the Hippo" are two distinct points. You need to source the relative unrelatedness of the Hippo to Ruminantia and Suina as much as its relatedness to cateceans. Hope that makes sense.

Also, I'm concerned that after ref 10 no more research papers appear. For generic descriptions (e.g. oldest Hippo turns 55) newspapers are fine, but for facts of biology you ought to have scientific sources. Good luck, Marskell 07:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

DYK Credits
Thanks for doing that, I had to go out. Yomangani talk 17:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Clara the rhinoceros
I have removed the template from the article after consulting the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject:Biography. I had assessed it since a template was previously put onto the article without realized that animals are not in the scope of the project. Sorry about that mistake. Captain  panda  12:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Austin M. Knight
Thanks for the suggestion to nominate Austin M. Knight for DYK. I had not previously realized that feature had any use beyond self-gratifying publicity, so your note about how DYK helps attract more editors was very helpful! I've inlined the references and submitted the article. Morinao 17:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hippo reply
(I like to start new threads if there's a couple intervening!)

I think it would be fine to cite a good book for academic disagreement, rather than all the papers. But if you can, go to google scholar etc. and look for the papers themselves; if they've been cited more recently, you may find a useful update. I see that you've done much work and that refs have started to increase, particularly in the Description section (for an animal as well covered as the Hippo, I would expect to see more than 20 or 25 all round). So good then—glad you're having fun! I plan to update my comment on the FAC within a day or two. Marskell 18:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Byzantium under the Komnenoi, and Did You Know?
Thanks for suggesting this article for DYK! I'm proud to see it has succeeded in reaching the main page today, and I owe you my thanks for suggesting the idea. Thanks! Bigdaddy1204 14:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I had an article I wrote and one I suggested make it on the same update! Yay! --JayHenry 14:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Again
I'm baack :-). Okay, so I'm trying to bite off a pretty major "template" issue and I'm wondering if you would help.  The community has built a new template for use on National Football League player pages (Infobox NFLactive).  You can see it in place on an article like Michael Vick. Infobox_NFL_player#Team_colors lays out the accepted colors for NFL teams.  On NFLactive, I would like tohave the currentteam field dictate what colors should used for primarycolor and secondarycolor.  I can easily work it in so that if the colors are "queried" i can pull them in.  This seems similar to the flagicon feature, but it is pretty advanced.  Do you have any suggestions?  I've tried reading some of the stuff on it, but I'm obviously missing something.  I have marked this for watching if that will help. Jmfangio| ►Chat  01:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Steal my thunder why don't you :-)! You rule, spectacular work! Jmfangio| ►Chat 03:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That was a great edit you made to the template. How exactly do the colors fill themselves in? I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to template stuff.► Chris Nelson  03:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * D'oh you beat me to it...forgot about that darn bug :-) Jmfangio| ►Chat 03:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, being that you are more template-savvy than I, do you think you could un-autolink (if that's the right wording) the position section? See my comment here about why I feel it's necessary.► Chris Nelson  04:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah sorry, one more request. Is there any way you can make the whole NFL debut section optional, as in it only appears when it has info filled in? For rookies, it created some ugly stuff. See Ted Ginn, Jr. for an example.► Chris Nelson  04:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please be aware that there are some heated debates over the template. I obviously welcome your adjustments and such, but please be aware that a wiki alert is in place so that differences between Chrisjnelson and I can be worked out.  There is some discussion needed about his requested "adjustments" and with all of the current "issues" already opened, it might be best if we wait until these issues are dealt with. Jmfangio| ►Chat  04:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well just because Jmfangio doesn't want to discuss other unrelated issues doesn't mean the rest of us can't.► Chris Nelson  04:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I took this reply here because I felt this shouldn't take up any more of the template talk page's space (it's already done WAY too much of that). I appreciate your attempts to help, but I have absolutely no desire to discuss anything with him ever again. However, I'd love if you could discuss the issues I asked about earlier, located here and here. Thanks.► Chris Nelson  05:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Bertramka
Hi Jay! Many thanks for your kind comments on Bertramka. I was not aware of how the DYK operated, so I've learned something. I only found your message tonight. I am not technically minded, and have just been struggling with learning how to operate a digital camera and, in the last few days, since returning from Prague, the techniques of uploading onto computers, wiki commons etc. I've now added an image to the Bertramka page and made some improvements, and also created two new articles so that there are no red links in Bertramka. I have put in a nomination. I don't know whether it will be considered too late, but thought I could give it a try, dating it today. Incidentally, I can see the bot nomination under 21 July but cannot find it in the "edit" mode. Perhaps me being technically stupid again?

I'd like to tell you the connection between Mozart and hippos but I can't. Cheers. Hikitsurisan 21:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Generations reformatting
I posted to the Templates for Deletion a suggestion to reformat this awful table into a useful navigation box. I'd be interested in your thoughts at the tfd. &#8756; Therefore | talk 19:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am looking again at both the box and the theory as a whole. DGG (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * re-read, and checking Google Scholar also. the basic theory is not generally accepted academically. It's extreme fringe--the seminal work has been referred to zero times in the major American history journals, 2x in journals about Chinese history, and a total of 56x only, half web sites, the others almost all journals in applied social science--one mainstream anthropological journal. For  a general theory of world or american history, that's trivial attention. 13th generation, possibly the best known, only 47 times,again mostly web & peripheral subjects--one good history ref. saying it's important.
 * it's better known popular--the theory is import as pop history, but the article outrageous POV, with criticism section repeatedly removed. It and the others are a walled garden. To save myself aggravation, I won't touch it.

The only articles which stand up are the ones where they have adopted other peoples ideas and appropriated it.
 * What is wrong with your compromise is that it does exactly what it should not do--it puts the template highlighting a fringe theory on other articles where the theory does not in most scholar's opinion apply. I'd have less objection to a nav box that included only their own articles, but that wouldn't be complete. It wont be complete anyway, for they've never been able to write and keep articles for all the periods. I will conceivably accept a box that includes gen. XY Z and C, but it is altogether wrong to call their theory to the attention so prominently of those looking at the article of the Great awakening or the Jazz Age. I await your comments before posting. I have no objection to articles on pseudo-social science any more than pseudo-science, as long as it doesn't pretend to be mainstream. I don't insist on calling it pseudo-. In fact, I've argued elsewhere against using that term.
 * By the way, the proposal should have included the related template: U.S.Generations. But it might be well to wait until this succeeds. if it fails, i will nom them in a month or so both together. I'm sorry if this isn't the response you expected.DGG (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

DGG (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate your comments--thats why i posted them to you first & have not yet posted on the page. and it is true that in the long discussions I sometime forget that I have spoken before--let alone who proposed what. I also need to check the templates--I did think there may be another one out there. I've meanwhile been trying to figure something out, that will provide a way to get the articles linked and still not obtrude.I think I've worked out something & will add it to the discussion. DGG (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Understanding
You say "The system has no purpose outside the context of Hofstadter's book." That's a pretty non-intellectual understanding of the book GEB, the system PQ (logic), and the wikipedia. Do you know what it means for one statement to be a "syntactic consequence" of another? Because FS, and PQ are pretty useful in elucidating that concept. Gregbard 11:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fauna Barnstar

 * Sometimes more concise articles are easier as you can have a well-defined topic. Some of the dino FAs are on critters with limited material. I think its a great idea. Look at all the FA whales and now cats...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit to T:TDYK
Hi, I'm sorry, but I had to place back your removal of the July 22 nom. July 22 has expired; it is 8 days old, and five days is the limit. Please pick articles from only the last five days. Please do not add this to the next update. regards, -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 15:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats ok. Everyone makes a little mistake once in a while :) Cheers -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 15:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hank Green
Ah, I see. Well caught. --Tony Sidaway 18:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

lonelygirl15
the reason is that this should be deleted is because its not even a tv show--Physik 20:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi Jay. Thanks for reviewing me over at WP:ER. You're the first one to review my edits. Thanks for all your suggestions; I'll definitely follow them! See you over at the LGPedia! *silver* ► 23:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Kubadabad Palace
Thank you for your kind words Jay. I will think about your suggestion a little while more, but I think I will target a featured article on that one. I am filling in the red links for the moment. Thanks again. Cretanforever 23:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 2
Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship, and for keeping an open mind. I also have to say that I very much agree with you, that some of the opposers with a "long memory for a slight" have made for a frustrating experience. I've had several people come to me over the last year and basically say that if I want to make admin, the thing to do is to start a new account, keep my nose clean for a few months, and then I'll get voted in as a nobody with a clean record. I probably could have brought multiple accounts to admin status by now. But, that's not who I am. I've made the decision to stay on one account, as me, and work through things, learning from my mistakes and steadily improving. I'm confident that I can maintain my sense of integrity, and make mistakes, and still go on and make admin someday. :) Best wishes, --Elonka 05:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! RMS Dunottar Castle makes Aug 6th DYK.
It was your recommendation that made it happen. -- Ctatkinson 02:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Template help again
I wanted to adjust Infobox NFLactive so that when player has no notable achievements, the highlights formats with a blocked bullet and the message. Not surprisingly, the workaround does not seem to fix the problem. Got any ideas? Let me know if i did not explain myself well enough. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 00:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You rock! I'm gonna look for a barnstar. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Anna Svidersky AfD
Howdy! On the Anna Svidersky AfD you expressed sentiments to keep the content regarding the notability of the aftermath following her death. I recently created the Mourning sickness article with a section ascribed to Svidersky and the reaction to her death. My intent is to respect the content that you and other "Keep advocates" have wished to retain but still maintain the encyclopedic focus on what is actually notable about Anna Svidersky. If you have an opportunity, feel free to review the article and give me any feedback about what I can do to improve it. AgneCheese/Wine 08:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XV - August 2007
The August 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

RfD
I noticed that you voted to keep the Wp:an/i and Wp:afd redirects at the Redirects for deletion page. I also voted to keep these redirect pages. I thought that if they were removed, then I would not automatically get to the pages I was looking for if I happened to type all lowercase letters, which would be pretty inconvenient. However, it turns out I was wrong. The software will automatically send someone to the appropriate page, even if they type all lowercase, and even if the redirect pages are deleted. It's just like a redirect, but without the redirect page. Deleting them will remove needless clutter in mainspace searches. With this knowledge, I wonder if you might consider changing your vote to delete. Thanks, and have a good day. Nick Graves 18:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hippo FAC
PS: Do you want me to start on the fixes? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. I actually just drifted by following another FAC I actually happened on. I do check potential biological FAC's from time-to-time, but I guess I'll keep watching this one for now. Not sure I can keep 100% of my wikiattention on it though, I'm currently also embroiled in another...rather heated IfD. Not zoologically-related though, but you know how these AfD/IfDs quickly sap our wikienergy. :P Shrumster 14:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've looked it over and it's getting better. Personally, it still needs a lot of work though. And I still do have issues with the structure, it's not something I can readily turn off. But I've already given permission to just discount my vote on the FAC so don't worry about that. Getting really close to wikiburnout so I'm probably just going to stop for a while. Shrumster 18:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Pygmy Hippopotamus
re: Prehistoric Species, you are saying "this acts as a disambiguation page". The most straightforwards way to deal with this (and pretty standard as far as Wikipedia is concerned) is an actual disambiguation page with a notice at the top, like "this page is about the extant species Choreopsis liberiensis, for other species called "pygmy" or "dwarf hypopotamus", see Pygmy hippopotamus (disambiguation)". Another solution is to properly refocus the section as "similarly named species", but honestly, that still makes the content superfluous. Dwarf Hippopotamus (and its lowercase parent Dwarf hippopotamus) would then be redirected to that page.

re: "Evolution", I think the section as is is simply way too detailed for the topic at end. As I read through it, I kept thinking "but where is this species involved??". The first 5 paragraphs could easily be, for the purpose of this article, condensed to maybe 2, with a link at the top for the detailed evolution of the family as a whole. Also, try to specifically mention the species early in the section.

Does that make more sense to you? Circeus 00:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Evolution section looks much better. There's still a few things that confuse me, though.
 * If Choeropsis and Hippopotamus diverged "as far back as 8 mya", wouldn't that push the divergence back prior to Archaeopotamus, the ancestor of Hippopotamus? Looks like you mean "the branches that would become", not the genus themselves.
 * Also, when you say that Archaeopotamus is the ancestor of "the modern hippopotamus" I think it should be clearer that this excludes the species being discussed.
 * Other than that, it looks great. Maybe the fact that Choeropsis and Hexaprotodon are quite distant on the tree should be mentioned in the earlier bit about the disputed placement?
 * I'm still iffy about the "other species" section. Now tat I'm looking at it, shouldn't C. madagascariensis be mentioned earlier, since it is the closest related species in the classification used for the article? Circeus 17:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A new section is entirely unwarranted. Such content should, in my opinion, be in the first part of the section (probably right after the superfamily mention), along the line of "C. liberiensis ' closest parent was the Madagascan Pygmy Hippopotamus (Choeropsis madagascariensis)". I had a shot at transferring the content. How does it look? It makes it necessary to add some citation for the content to which it was tacked, though, since it now looks like the Madagascan Hippo cites cover the entire paragraph... Circeus 18:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your support and kind words. Yes, I can get it that the hook can sometimes be tricky and once a person gets into a certain thinking, it is difficult to get out of it. Regards. - P.K.Niyogi 20:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay - here's a new one!!!
I think i may be able to stump you. For Infobox NFLactive if the current team is set to "Free agent", could we automatically add them to Category:National Football League free agents? If so, and there are no "technical" concerns, I'm all ears. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 10:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that was cool! Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 17:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment
Thank you very much for your enthusiastic comment on my RfA, which was successful. LyrlTalk C 00:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your note. I appreciate it. Andre (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

CUR-CHICOTW
I would appreciate your comments on the newly redesigned CUR-CHICOTW--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Are we there yet?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from Scartol
I want to thank you for your kind comment on the DYK proposal page. I'd like to see my article about Robert E. Murray featured, but even if it doesn't ever make it onto the page, it's really nice to get some positive feedback after months of what has only ever been negative commentary from admins in this place. -- Scartol 02:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. I really appreciate your assistance and support. You've kept me from wanting to throw in the WikiTowel. -- Scartol 13:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are around
I have a question that isn't so much "how to implement" something, but rather - what's the best way to implement it. If you are and don't mind helping, LMK! I can either ask here or on my talk page..whichever works best for you. Juan Miguel Fangio|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> ►Chat 06:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, i'm back in the swing of things - so if you are still willing to chat, the conversation is still up at my talk page. Thanks again. Juan Miguel Fangio|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> ►Chat 06:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, there's another comment for you on my tp. If you want to do other things and leave this to us, that's certainly okay by me :-). Juan Miguel Fangio|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> ►Chat  22:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Award Annals links
I am concerned that you are interpreting too strictly WP:EL. These guidelines can be interpreted so as to reject all external links, or to include all external links, depending on the temperament of the interpreter. The purpose of the guidelines is to promote and guide critical thinking about what is helpful and what is not.

Why do you think the links useless? You went so far as to say the pages were not about the Pulitzers at all. Pulitzer_Prize_for_Biography_or_Autobiography is a page that lists the winners of that prize, and I inserted a link that lists the winners/finalists of that prize ranked according to other honors they have received. It is extra, useful information that is unlikely to be included in WP. It's inclusion is easily allowed by the guidelines, and the others similarly. KennyLucius 16:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Happyslip
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that, as suggested by User:Jreferee, I nominated Happyslip for DYK [Did You Know?]: see here. The article is also a B-Class now (see Talk page). If it succeeds, however, it will be put on main page in a day or two, so let's keep in contact through the talk page ;) cheers -- Out span  [ talk ·  contribs ] 23:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Anna Svidersky part deux II
Howdy! I hope you don't mind the second interruption but there is currently a Request for comment on the talk page of the Svidersky article aimed at resolving disagreements over the outcome of the last AfD. We'd like to get some additional input so that we can amicably resolve those disagreements and your thoughts would be greatly appreciated by all the editors on the Svidersky page. Thank you for your time. AgneCheese/Wine 15:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK August 23

 * Wow, that was a serious violation of WP:COI for me to have written that article and nominated it for DYK! Good thing nobody noticed... I need the publicity. --JayHenry 17:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: On Wikistress
Hi JayHenry -- Many thanks for your comment, and sorry for taking so long to respond (I was deep in writing a couple of DYK articles, and then getting some sleep...) It's actually rather timely -- a few weeks ago I would have said that I'd experienced a lot less stress this time round; however, at the moment, a number of tiny things are beginning to niggle again. I really must walk away for a cooling-off period! I've been finding DYK an excellent haven where article creation is actually valued -- which seems increasingly rare in much of the rest of the encycopedia, unfortunately.

I do have a couple of articles that I would love to get to Good status eventually: bovine papillomavirus and William Gaskell. (Listed buildings in Nantwich, Cheshire might be another possibility, perhaps as a list, though I need to get around to adding all the photos I've been taking.) Any help, advice or encouragement would be sincerely appreciated, as I have to admit I tend to put off working on them in favour of the much easier gratification of my urge to remove red links. Cheers, Espresso Addict 23:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the star
The whole thing was kind of surreal. With a couple of exceptions, the first several responses were deletes. I kept thinking: OK, any second there'll be a tidal wave of astonished keeps to confirm this isn't a Twilight Zone episode. In the end it came, but it took its sweet time about it. --Rrburke(talk) 18:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Strauss etc.
Hi, I decided that I don't really want to get involved in that particular mess. But I totally agree that most of those article should be rolled into the article about the book - there are both notability (undue weight) and IP issues with reproducing their whole "theory" at length in wikipedia. --Peta 04:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * They're quite painful to read - the early ones are just composed of marketing babble and don't actually say anything of note. I'd probably just make a forth column on the book page and summarize each one in a sentence or two, then redirect back to the book article. --Peta 05:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK thanks!
Thanks for the update - i saw that - and thought - how cool!! :-). Let me know if you have some time to look into the sort by winning percentage issue.  Juan Miguel Fangio|<font style="color:#fff;background:#0000fa;"> ►Chat  19:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you know...

 * You wrote an article about a different John Carroll? Well congrats on the DYK, its a very interesting article there. Thanks for the Barnstar, and your help on the article and its process!--Patrick Ѻ 01:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Eggan
You did quite well, and the article is being defended well, & clearly headed for a keep. I cannot figure what bothered the nom., a usually reliable editor. Only real thing it needed was to have the actual articles and number of references for the most-cited papers added. I did it with Web of Science, but Google Scholar would have done fairly well. And I went through and removed some more remnants of PR talk & there's still a little more to go. I have never seen a PR job that didnt need re-editing, but this was bette than most. DGG (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation style in M200G Volantor
I just noticed that the article you started employs an interesting citation style trick. Could this be the way for all articles? There's now a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes, so you might want to leave a note. GregorB 14:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

silent generation
I think this term is used other than Strauss and Howe, and the article reflected it. As there was in my opinion no consensus to merge on the talk page--no discussion in fact of this particular one-- I am restoring it in place of the redirect. I yield to none in my lack of enthusiasm for the Generations pseudotheory, but this one is an encyclopedic subject. DGG (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

RFA: Question
Answered. --<font face="Comic Sans MS"><font color="Black">Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor ( tαlk ) 23:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Best. Question. Ever. Joe 02:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI - September 2007
The September 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 09:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Audioslave
I reckon there's quite a bit that could be moved to articles Audoslave's albums and singles, esp. the critical reaction to each album. I'll copyedit afterwards; it'll be a better time to tackle concerns about flow. CloudNine 09:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Pablos Hippos
Man that is the most insane story! It has clear conservation issues of a critter that could be a pest - I'd write a paragraph or two and put it under conservation or captivity bit - either is OK. (Wow cool...) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: Ever go back to Romania? I went there but am frustrated as have roots there and doing genealogy there is next to impossible....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Link removals
Hi JayHenry, thanks for your message and the reference links. I don't completely understand why the links were removed however. The links are very similar to an actor having a link to imdb.com - which is quite common throughout wikipedia. UgcDb.com is like an "imdb" but for user-generated content. It's a relatively new site. The contributions are very similar to wikipedia as well - the contributions come from dedicated editors and the community. Some other users have added the links to ugcDb.com profiles in wikipedia and they're still present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Froopstr (talk • contribs) 08:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: NPOV
I fully agree. You see, my comment was not meant to criticise yours, but rather as an explanation of why I agree with your basic contentions. — [&#8239;ˈaldǝˌbɛːɐ&#8239;] 16:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ban Ki-moon
No, it's perfectly fine. Thank you so much for taking interest in this person & developing it into a featured article. You've done a great job. : ) Yes, I'll see if I can make any improvements on the article some time later.(Wikimachine 05:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC))

Do you have time for a peer review?
Hello there. Given your past generosity toward my editing work, I wonder if you have time to do a peer review of Honoré de Balzac, a page I'm looking to nominate as an FAC. There's a request at WP:BIOPR or you can just leave comments on the HdB talk page. (Or on my talk. Wherever.) Thanks in advance! — Scartol  ·  Talk  15:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for volunteering for the peer review.


 * Do you mind if I jump in and make minor WP:MOS fixes myself?)


 * No, go for it. I'm curious to see what slipped through my day-long combing with MOS in hand.


 * P.S. I've recently submitted a peer review myself


 * I'll have a look when I can, probably this weekend. Thanks again. — Scartol  ·  Talk  22:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, look at that. I had some time tonight. It's at the place. Cheers! — Scartol  ·  Talk  00:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the HdB review. I was hoping to get away with just minor repairs, but I will defer to your experience and find myself some more sources. As for a link to a review indicating the value of a source I do have – where does such a thing go? (I assume not in the article itself?) — Scartol  ·  Talk  12:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, with regard to the list of works – is the problem that there are so many works, or just that the subheads take up so much of the TOC? I can fix the latter with changing subheads to simple bold type. Cheers. — Scartol  ·  Talk  12:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the words of wisdom. I'm going to take your advice and visit the UW library to get some more info and cull from the two External Links items you mentioned, just to give it as much oomph as I can before we descend into the FAC netherworld. I'm glad you told me about the "oppose" format; I can see myself getting chagrined about that. (And you know how fragile my ego is, heh.) Cheers for all your support and guidance. — Scartol  ·  Talk  21:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't thank you enough for reminding me of my proximity to the UW Madison libraries. Today I checked out eight good books about Balzac, realism, and naturalism. (They gave me a card since I'm a HS teacher in the area.) Next stop: FAC! — Scartol  ·  Talk  03:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I've finished my latest major revision. If it's not ready for an FA nomination now, I'll eat my shoes. (Note: I own shoes made out of fine gouda cheese.) Thanks as always for your support and let me know if you have any comments or suggestions. (I'm going to hold you to your offer of a vote in support of FA status once the nom is open! That was you, right?) — Scartol  ·  Talk  03:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You asked: "So when is Balzac heading over to FAC?" I was just telling Awadewit how jealous I get seeing other folks racking up the stars. WillowW made some good notes, which I need to implement (basically, adding some details about his adult life and rearranging the info in Style and Legacy a bit. Now that school's started, I'm often pretty wiped out in the afternoon/evening. So it may have to wait for the weekend. (Geez, I just wrote "evening" there instead of "weekend". I'm so out of it.) I have this horrible fear that someone's going to come along and fix the stuff that needs fixing and then nominate it and take all the credit. I need a nap or something. – Scartol  ·  Talk  21:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the encouragement. I'm off to fix a few link-related things and then post the nom itself. So it may be up by the time you read this. Also, can I take your comments as verification that Awadewit is a she? I spent some serious time scouring the userpage for a sign one way or another and I couldn't find a thing. Of course it doesn't matter, except I hate using the wrong referential pronouns. Scartol  ·  Talk  11:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: NPOV
I fully agree. You see, my comment was not meant to criticise yours, but rather as an explanation of why I agree with your basic contentions. — [&#8239;ˈaldǝˌbɛːɐ&#8239;] 16:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ban Ki-moon
No, it's perfectly fine. Thank you so much for taking interest in this person & developing it into a featured article. You've done a great job. : ) Yes, I'll see if I can make any improvements on the article some time later.(Wikimachine 05:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC))

Barnstar

 * Hey, congrats on the FA! Well done. – Scartol  ·  Talk  21:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Thanks again Jay. Where do you get all this really eclectic variety of articles from?  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 04:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Dreadstar RfA
<div style="padding: 5px; background: #B0C4DE; border-style: solid; border-width: 10px; border-color: #00008B; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 100%; "> <div style="margin-top: 3px; padding-top: 9px; padding-bottom: 9px; padding-left: 9px; padding-right: 9px; width: 250px; float: center;"> Click there to open your card! → → → JayHenry, Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 55 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to vote in my nomination. I'm a new admin, so if you have any suggestions feel free to let me know. I would like to give a special shout out to Fang Aili,  Phaedriel , and  Anonymous Dissident , for their co-nominations. Thank you all! <font face="Comic Sans MS"> Dreadstar

Credits
This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor's modification of Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

I will do my very best to live up to the trust that has been placed in me, and I hope to earn yours one day as well. Dreadstar †  09:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Just trying to help out
I hope I'm not intruding - please let me know if I am. I noticed over at Scartol's page that you mentioned you were having trouble with access to good libraries. Usually, large state universities let residents of the state check out books. Is that an option for you? (I can't believe your alma mater won't let you check out books! Perhaps if you gave them $10 million?) Also, most public libraries participate in interlibrary loan. You could get the most important or rarest books that way. I am a big fan of wikipedians doing hard core research, so anything I can do to assist that process, I will. Awadewit | talk  03:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * hate to be a wet blanket, but nobody is likely to get rare books that way. Fortunately, everything before 1920 will soon be on Google Scholar. State universities vary, and are certainly worth trying. DGG (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Abolish?
You are seriously overreacting. Nobody is trying to abolish anything, a page move is not a big deal, and whereas several people on the admin board said not to do it because it wouldn't help, nobody said that it would actually cause problems. If several people see a benefit and nobody sees a harm, that sounds like a good action to me.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Well, of course I don't mind waiting around for a while more. But I don't think there is substantial objection to this change (and it really isn't a big chance to begin with). At least, the only objection raised so far is that it might not help. Other than that the objection is mainly from a trio of aggressive editors that continually sidetrack discussions into ad hominems. This is all rather unfortunate, and to my knowledge Wikipedia lacks the means of dealing with such people.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that. Unfortunately nobody seems to be willing to tell them that. This makes for a one-sided situation with a lot of sniping going on atm.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

&lt;ref>, etc.
Hi,

Thanks for the comment on &lt;refhide> on my talk page. I'm at a loss as to how and where to push cite.php extensions as well. I got the idea &lt;refhide> via previous discussion about the "hidden section trick" mainly here. See the example using the "hidden section trick"  here, which is conceptually similar to the &lt;refhide> usage I described.

Actually, I'd like to see several enhancements to cite.php, but I'm afraid that bundling them up, even for discussion, might make it seem like too much change. The changes I'd like to see break down to several unrelated changes, and perhaps it's best to introduce them one at a time.

All together (and not really well thought out yet), the changes would include


 * 1. A way for editors to control ordering of expanded references - Refhide provides that.


 * 2. A way to put subheads (actually arbitrary blocks of wikitext) in an ordered lists of references.
 * In an article, this would look something like:
 * References
 * This is a subhead
 * 1.This is a numbered reference.


 * 2.This is a numbered reference.
 * This is a subhead
 * 3.This is a numbered reference.
 * This might be produced in an ordered list of reference definitions with some wikitext like:

This is a subhead This is a subhead
 * In Cite.php, it looks to me as this can be easily implemented by adding processing of the new &lt;refhead> tag so that it would be stacked with $this->stack( $str, 0 );. function stack{$str,$key} in Cite.php currently considers numeric arguments in $key to be illegal. This could be changed to allow a numeric zero and process it by stacking it with a zero value for the 'number' element of the $this->$mrefs[$key] array. A zero value for ['number'] is currently not used, and could be detected during unstacking to generate the subhead format instead of the numbered reference format.


 * 3. A way to have multiple named reference sections, so that the cite.php mechanism which editors could use to generate multiple separate footnote sections as they deem appropriate (for table footnotes, footnotes to sections and subsections, etc.) As I see it, this could be done (speaking generally -- I've never been an object-oriented programmer) by having an array of objects of class Cite (let's call it $list), changing all instances in Cite.php of $this-> to $this->$list['refname'], adding an optional list="listname" parameter to &lt;ref>, and defaulting that optional parameter to "references") if not supplied.

All of the above is backwards compatible with existing wikitext.

I've thought about testbeding this stuff myself, but I don't have a testbed wiki to do it on. I've tried putting Wamp, Mediawiki, and Cite.php up on a couple of WinXP systems I have, and haven't been able to get it going. I have a hosted website out there, but its host has php-4 and mediawiki requires php-5. I have a linux system, but my linux system manager skills are numerous years out of date.

I hope some of the foregoing was interesting and/or useful. -- Boracay Bill 02:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(later) I saw your response on my talk page, and have responded there. -- Boracay Bill 04:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Re Chinua Achebe
Thanks for making the CA cat. Since I've already had a full week to catch my breath from HdB, it's time for me to undertake my next insanely-intense WP assignment. My main problem is going to be images – I'm going to have to use some related stuff, I expect. Thanks again. – Scartol  ·  Talk  22:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Cosmic freakin' order, as a friend of mine used to say. Yeah, I'd like to take Achebe to FA, since he's the most important author to come out of Africa in the 20th century. Things Fall Apart is one of the most important (and excellent) books I've ever read, and both he and that book deserve highly-polished pages. It took some work to find an actual biography – most of the stuff I've found are in-depth explorations of his novels. I've never read his Conrad piece, so I'll have to reserve judgment until I do. Alas, I recently found out that I can login from school, so now I'm editing here instead of grading papers. Bad teacher! Cheers. – Scartol  ·  Talk  00:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

LG15
Um, whoa. Creepy, much?

Yes, it's me :) I'm still working on getting in contact with Greg. He's been crazy-busy prepping for that live KM event on Saturday, so I'm not even sure I'll be able to get in touch with him before next week.  I promise as soon as I know, I'll let you know!

And I must officially scold you for missing chat last night! *scold*

--Zoeydahling 20:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine fine. I still call "creepy" though.  Come on IRC, I'll tell you the latest?  I don't want to post it publicly.. and I'm too lazy to open up my e-mail.  Yep. --Zoeydahling 23:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
(Just leaving a note here in case you haven't watchlisted/miss my comments amongst everything else) You opposed, stating that "I'm unhappy with the behavior here and here. I understand these are your friends; do you understand the concerns about this behavior?" Well, the answer is no - I don't see what "behaviour" you refer too. Could you please elaborate? Thanks, Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your RFA was successful
Thanks, JayHenry! I'll do my best to wield the mop & bucket wisely. Regards, Espresso Addict 20:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Carson
Thanks for your very helpful comments about Rachel Carson. I've tried to address all your concerns, and I invite you to evaluate the revisions. Thanks again, ragesoss 01:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Template review
I've made a template – MoSElement – which is designed to give an article's talk page a place for listing which optional standards the page is following. I wonder if you could have a look and tell me if I'm missing anything? Thanks in advance. – Scartol  ·  Talk  13:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I hate to keep bothering you, but at 's suggestion I've made a Template Tutorial. I have no idea what your level of template skill is, but I'd love to have someone kind beta-test it for me. Would you be able and/or willing? Cheers. – Scartol  ·  Talk  23:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I happened upon this discussion and have used the MoSElement template in an article that JayHenry is reviewing: Harold Pinter; see Talk:Harold Pinter. Thanks. --NYScholar 10:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Attacks
As I suspected I didn't need to. At any rate I was having a rather pissed off evening already, so it was less of me being apologetic and more me trying to avoid being uncivil. :) - Warthog Demon  18:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Harold Pinter
JayHenry: I have updated my comments in Talk:Harold Pinter after making the changes that you suggested in your earlier comments and replies to mine; I have posted an update there and also at User talk:WillowW, addressed to both of you. I appreciate the help of both you and Willow with the "good article" review, and I hope that you will both be able to pass it now. As I've said, I have to turn back to my non-Wikipedia work. Thanks again! :-) --NYScholar 07:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVII - October 2007
The October 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 09:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A Barnstar

 * Am I the only one who thinks it's odd that the Barnstar of High Culture uses a Hollywood star as its image? – Scartol  ·  Talk  12:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... that really is bad. The book you created is much better. --JayHenry 05:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

hey, you qualify for this...

 * I am so proud! --JayHenry 05:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Re : RfA/R 2
Since you talked about single-letter usernames, you might be interested in something rather parallel... ;) - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 18:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, what a little gem of an article. I love finding this sort of stuff on Wikipedia. --JayHenry 05:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA
I am sorry you felt it necessary to oppose my recent RfA, which did not succeed. I will attempt to get more experience in the main namespace and the Wikipedia namespace and will try again for RfA in two month's time. I hope I will have satisfied your concerns by then, but if not, please comment as you feel you should. Just a sidenote: I have had/do have interaction with other Wikipedians, I just prefer to do so on IRC, which is why I don't have a ton of talk-space edits. You also voiced concerns about how my bot was so great but I didn't have that many edits. While this is true, if I had taken the time I put into my bot and put it into other areas of Wikipedia, I would have more edits which would put me up around that of other administrators passing RfA. My bot has over 40k edits, which, due to the nature of bots, could be considered mine. Thanks for participating in my RfA. -- Cobi(t 07:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

C of the EU Peer Review
Hi, thanks a lot for your comments for the peer review on Council of the European Union, they've been very helpful. I think I've sorted out the points, but history and powers may still be lacking (very hard to get data on these). I'd be greatful if you could tell me if I've sorted out the points enough. Thanks for your time. - J Logan t: 19:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh my, I am such a bad person, I haven't done this yet!! --JayHenry 05:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for your comments, once I manage to get the information for it I should be able to sort it now, very helpful, thanks! - J Logan t: 08:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you know
WjBscribe 08:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:DYK 25 Woot! Toot!
Not sure if you're into this kinda thing but you qualify, noticed you add yourself to the list. Allow me to toot said horn. IvoShandor 02:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words, keep on keepin' on and such. I don't think Mattisse is worthless, but I am utterly confused by his constant and often wholly confusion opposition me at DYK. IvoShandor 06:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture of the Week
&mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 11:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Churchill quote
Thanks for this. I like it even better that way, and am going to fix it on my userpage forthwith. And thanks for compliment! Professor marginalia 13:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Thanks for your help and suggestions about the new article I created on the book about South Park. I love the way you have organized your user page. Do you mind if maybe in the future I copy some of the elements from it? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 06:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC).

Cillian Murphy FA
I'm not saying that MeltyGirl ignored all of the suggestions, only the ones that she disagrees with. SandyGeorgia has given some other examples of problems with the article such as unreliable resources (IMDB), there is at least one example of mismatched sources, then there is of course the tone of the article which seems to read more like a fan site than an encyclopedia full of weasel words. No featured article should be in the category of "articles with unsourced statements". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidudeman (talk • contribs) 02:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm catching up with everything tonight, and I can't thank you enough for all your help with the article and the process. I thought everyone was supposed to take your attitude of seeing all the good things and then helping out with the few things that aren't quite right, in the interest of improving Wikipedia, rather than closing the door on something that's just about there for a few minor things. The whole blue eyes objection has been really baffling, so thanks for using Nexis on that to really demonstrate that verifiability is undeniable; no one was listening to me. Anyway, two things: in the interest of sticking with one consistent style, can you please hold off on using citation templates? I have found it easier to just type the citation style I want, and that's the existing style in the article. Also, I have a question for you: you cited an LA Times story in the lead: Abramowitz, Rachel. "When Irish eyes are beguiling", The Los Angeles Times, March 11, 2007. I am willing to bet that it's the same story that I read on the LA Times site at that time, titled "Cillian Murphy: More to offer than pale blue eyes," which is already sourced throughout the piece. Can you check to see if this is a duplication? I don't have Nexis access. Thanks! --Melty girl 04:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, I now see your quote in the history from the article you cited is a quote from the article I got under a different title by that same writer. They are the same article. So I'm going to collapse the two citations into one. Cheers, Melty girl 04:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)