User talk:Michael Goodyear/Archive 12

2017

January 2017 at Women in Red
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

February 2017 at Women in Red
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Precious two years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sincerely touched! Thank you as always. Best wishes --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Congratulations to your FA William T. Stearn! I looked up when to show him, - would be best his birthday, Easter Sunday, - perhaps next year, - I asked the coordinate anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Next year, unless there's another close date connection, or it should run "any day" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Today's featured article/requests/William T. Stearn --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Three years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You might be interested in my latest Women in Red GA candidate Julia Stephen --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, beautiful! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William T. Stearn
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William T. Stearn you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HalfGig -- HalfGig (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Stearn suggestion
IMHO this is really good. You may want to nominate it for FA. I'd suggest having someone such as User:Jimfbleak look it over first. HalfGig  talk  13:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have had that suggestion made on a number of my GANs but thought strategically it would be better to get it reviewed at GA level first? Of course GA review guidelines say ideally GA review should keep FA criteria in mind! Going FA now would just create further delays in promotion I think? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh I see you already did! Thanks!!--Michael Goodyear (talk) 9:59 am, Today (UTC−4)
 * Thanks HalfGig . Michael, I'm happy to comment if you want me to, just let me know Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  14:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be delighted --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We have fallen between two stools a bit here. I didn't have your page on my watchlist, so without a ping i wasn't aware of your response. The one edit I made was just a drive-by. I'll add comments over the next couple of days to the article talk page, essentially as an FAC review. Sorry, Jimfbleak - talk to me?  12:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of William T. Stearn
−

The article William T. Stearn you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:William T. Stearn for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HalfGig -- HalfGig (talk) 10:02 am, Today (UTC−4)

Problem with legobot
just wanted to ensure you saw this: Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations   HalfGig   talk  02:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * yes - and other odd things happened like my comments here got removed! I have fixed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Google Maps screenshots
Hi Michael, I saw your imminent DYK on William T. Stearn in the queue and took a look, nice read. However I was alerted to two things, both the misuse of fair use claims on images. I removed one which didn't have a fair use rationale (and wouldn't ever, for use in the Stearn article at least), and started a discussion about the Google image of the front of the house. That discussion was short and sweet, it' here. The conclusion is that it should not be used under fair use. I would remove it myself and nominate the file for deletion, but I didn't want to unduly disrupt the article. Let me know if you'd like me to that, otherwise perhaps you could attend to it before it's featured on the main page. Letting and  know too who reviewed and promoted it without checking these things. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I see a lot has been happening to this article in the space of a few days. Ok 1. I reverted the Agnes Arber deletion pending discussion on the basis of the comments under GA review that it is public domain. I think we should discuss this further. 2. Google Screenshot. I was not aware of this as a problem and only used it when I saw other similar images on Commons. So yes I could remove it. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm attempting to reach the person who used the Arber image originally--Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Also pursuing all avenues on this file, and added provenance to file page --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I also removed the High Park image --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok good news. If and when the Arber image is licensed for use in this article, of course re-add it. Until then it should stay off the page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm talking to Professor Schmid right now who obtained the image from the daughter who has since died. Sounds PD to me. But you can see it is confusing to get different opinions from different people! Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Better safe than sorry but I hope it works out!  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue is how to establish that it is free use. It appears it was never copywrited, and all the principals are long deceased. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I fully understand the situation, that's why I left you the note in the first place. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for William T. Stearn
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:17 High Park Road.png
 Thanks for uploading File:17 High Park Road.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

two test edits
I made two test edits to William T. Stearn to show you what I mean. You can revert them if you wish. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

have one on me

 * 干杯!. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You wrote, "I looked over a random sample of Biography FAs and its all over the shop - and often not all that well done." If there are only one or two little eyesores in an otherwise good FA, you can quietly tweak the offending issues. It's relatively rare for anyone to complain about individual edits, at least in my experience. If the entire FA converges to "yuck", then you could FAR/FARC it, but then you have to listen to the resulting petulance. Another option is to find someone else who enjoys fixing or FAR/FARCing, and contact that person either on talk page or (in problematic cases) via email.
 * I'm mainly saying that there is very little consistency in style or structure, and may depend on who reviewed it and when. The bar for promotion may mot be consistent, but also many were promoted ten years or so ago and standards may have changed. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want the sfnm, let me know & I'll do it. If not, then not. Cheers... Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I imagine that is the very last thing one does? I mentioned I had no fundamental objection. I am not that familiar with the FAC review process. Can you be sure that before the day is out someone won't come by and say they don't like it. Hopefully your programme has a reverse gear! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey. A third thing: I hope you won't mind me saying this, but I want to point out that the article has a running problem with dangling modifiers. I have already corrected three or four, and forgotten where they were, but here's one mild example (other examples were a bit worse): "The final proposal was entrusted to a joint editorial committee, which Stearn then published in 1952...". Did Stearn publish the joint editorial committee? Of course not, but the phrasing is awkward. As I said, I've seen/corrected others before this. I am only mentioning because it seems to be recurring. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 01:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I recall a department head who once said to us - Perfection is the enemy of the good. I am sure that when it comes to writing style there are things that only I, or only you see. At school our English teacher used to tell us to read the leader in The Times daily and base our writing style on that. I think we were also urged to absorb the style of Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch (Q), although that is now a style of an earlier century - On the Art of Writing came out in 1916 (written in 1913-4). In this specific instance the perceived ambiguities, are probably more technical than real - in that I doubt many readers would actually form the opposite image to that which was intended! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Out of town today, so will take a while to get back to article. All comments taken in constructive context and vice versa. Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: sfnm. (Long answer for minor point, alas) FAC is irrelevant. No one will care one way or the other, so long as 1) things are consistent, 2) all relevant information is included, and 3)the style isn't too far from the mainstream. [I once Opposed a nom that had all references sorted by middle initial, but that was an extreme case]. Technically, we're supposed to put a notice and the article's Talk page and wait for discussion that could build consensus one way or the other. In this case I am assuming that no one other than you has any stake or strong investment in the outcome, so I am asking you directly. Unless you think someone else is watching that page and might object, it is totally your call... So why, you ask, do I keep mentioning this? I apologize. For me personally, seeing this: "...well as major regional Florae including the Flora Europaea[84][85][86] and European Garden Flora.[87][88][89]" is like hearing someone scrape his or her fingernails down a chalkboard... In FAC, however, no one will object if you keep it that way, and no one will object if you change it.
 * Re: "this is looking like a major rewrite". Actually, no. This really is a fairly minor copy edit. Just tightening prose, and suggesting some baseballs be thrown back into the closet. Perhaps it seems excessive because I keep asking questions, but I do that to respect your wishes on every unclear point.
 * Re: dangling modifiers. English teacher me. PhD, not cram school.
 * Re: "this [section of the review] is getting awfully long". Ha. Ha. Ha. And again I say Ha (in a good-natured way) You apparently haven't seen an actually long FAC before... this is nothing, trust me.
 * Re: "working backwards". I have good reasons, but you'd probably find them tedious. :-) Let's say that on balance I think it is a virtue rather than a vice.
 * Summary: Almost every point raised is flexible/negotiable. I understand that you think "one person should write it", but your prose really does need tightening. And even in that regard, there is always room for compromise....If you are unhappy with my review/edits, I will make a one- or two sentence summary of my general concerns and stop reviewing. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Тахтаджян, Армен Леонович.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Тахтаджян, Армен Леонович.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity
Articles that you have been involved in editing&mdash; Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity&mdash;have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Nessie (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Nice job
Your work on HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer is great and much appreciated. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  19:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Blooming vs Blossoming
Hi Michael, havent been around for some time. I made photo of flower, wanted to nominate it on Valued Image, but not sure which word to use it. Cirsium eriophorum blooming or blossoming ? regards. --PetarM (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just say "flower head", as in Flower head of Cirsium eriophorum, to match text on that page --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017 at Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red October editathon invitation
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Jurors and promotion for WikiScienceCompetition 2017
Hi. I can see from the information on your profile that you work in the academia. Actually, I wish I had seen this profile before.

Have you seen any of my message here or on commons or wikiversity about the upcoming WSC 2017?

I am looking for active wikimedia users with academic background and some bibliometric record (so I can prepare or use their wikidata items) to work as jurors. Specifically I am looking for people from countries without a national jury such as Canada or New Zealand.

I am sorry that we basically completed the final jury and if you are interested to join at that level, I can only offer you a place in the second-level jury. We might create different second-level juries for different areas of the world if we have enough jurors. Would you be interested in any case?

The jurors are not supposed to be all wikimedians, but we wish to promote the use of the images on the platforms and show that there is a continuum between the wiki-world and the academia. At the same time, I want all the jurors to show they are involved in the peer-reviewed process, so the uploaders can see they are students and researchers like them. Let me know. The event starts on 01/11/2017 or maybe two weeks later. We can define the last details of the jury during the month of November, but we'd like to be almost ready in two weeks, in order to provide the challengers with a rough idea of the composition of the juries. Jurors work after the competition.

In any case, we can contact you next time if you are still interested but you can't join this time.

Also if you can spread the news around in your working environment, that would be great!

Regards.--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What led you here?! No, I hadn't seen it, I don't follow wikipolitics much. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

November editathons from Women in Red: Join us!
-Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Zygopetalum taxation
Hi Michael, i got new pic of Orchid Zygopetalum were is written '''Zygopetalum spec. Dunkle Blüte'''. I checked all on Google and specimen is probably hybrid with unknown parental status ? There are some similar, but couldnt find so much redish leafs like here, while violet-white is visible on some other specimens. --PetarM (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If it is a hybrid it is incorrectly named, since it is not a species (spec). But the International Orchid Registry has no record of this variety or cultivar. It may simply be an unknown Zygopetalum. It is not unusual for hyrids to show some variation.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

So naming Zygopetalum (Dunkle Blüte) would be best here ? --PetarM (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Cultivars and hybrids should be designated Zygopetalum 'Dunkle Blüte' Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thanx, will do that after FP nomination is ended. --PetarM (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

New Year's resolution: Write more articles for Women in Red!
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging


 * Oh, but I have been a member for some time! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Its just a reminder Michael, I get one and I co-founded it! As for Julia, I think your additions are more than a small conservatory or porch. You have added two large wings, outhouses, a full height attrium, a hall, swimming pool and a ballroom. Good luck with the GA. Victuallers (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)