User talk:Philcha/Archives/2011/February

Rossen PR
Hi Philcha. I've replied to several points and added the missing persondata. Finetooth (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Steph Cunningham
Hello, thankyou for taking the review on Steph Cunningham. I'm just wondering when you would like me to make a start on correcting things? I'm very ready. lol RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 13:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi,  RAIN*the*ONE . I appreciate your eagerness to get on with the rest of the review while the discussion at WT:GAN goes on (or or rather when other editors start!). I'll work through a few sections and then tell you - otherwise the review becomes fragmented and hard to manage for both of us. --Philcha (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay I'll wait then. :) (I do want to comment however, the BBC america link isn't a deadlink.) RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 15:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi,  RAIN*the*ONE . Clicking on "BBC America - Hollyoaks - Steph Dean" returns the Hollyoaks home page. If you use the Linker Checker, I expect it will show code 301, "redirect" - and you need to look at the content of any 301 or 302. --Philcha (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, It's a Javescript or flash? The same url for all the characters. If you click Steph's profile on the website, the path doesn't seem to change at all, nor for any other character on their chart. RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 17:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I'd actually like more help, please. You haven't reviewed some sections, yet expect me to sort the problems out. (I'm sure you can see the problem there) You tell me theres a dead link, but if you visit the source you actually see it's still there. I've corrected everything other than the storylines as of yet. A lot of your comments are very rude aswell, but that's not to say you meant them that way. RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 02:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry you found a lot of my comment rude, but I was trying to be concise, hoping that would make it easier for both of us. --Philcha (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've commented on all but "Cervical cancer", "Departure", " Reception" and the lead. In the earlier sections there still problems: --Philcha (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's too long. Some content looks irrelevant. A WP article isn't an annual for committed fans, it's an introduction for the general reader. You need to summarise, summarise, summarise.
 * The article depends on too many quotes by Stenson, and also from other actors and production. I suggest you reduce direct quotes to about 25% to 30% of the current level and paraphrase for the rest, concisely.
 * I'd like more comment on Steph from independent sources.
 * The writing is still poor, even in the sections reviewed so far. You don't need to be a poet, but please be concise and clear.
 * It might be useful to look at User:Philcha - you make not fancy the zoology and paleontology articles, but possibly some of the others, plus their GA reviews - most of the reviews are fairly short, because I'd done my homework.
 * You might also look at GA reviews I've done of other articles, in User:Philcha
 * As I said before, GA reviews are quality control, not an improvement service - you should have the work before nominating for a GA review.

Some of it is your opinion, Not all of it is quotes, I didn't use half the quotes available. I've bled the sources dry for Steph. There isn't anymore to add, I cannot magic them. I've worked hard on that article. I'm not very good at grammar, because I'm not a uni grad or anything like that. Just the basic english. Wikipedia's meant to be a collab project, so why not help improve. I've seen countless reviews go on for more than 2 weeks helping. What content looks like it isn't needed? All articles go in depth. There's either not enough info or too much. RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 19:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Btw, I can't source all of the storylines because you haven't stated how you want to proceed with that. RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 20:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You did most of the work on Loretta Jones, Zoe Carpenter and Lydia Hart, including through the GA reviews. Lydia Hart is particularly concise, and the reviewer had relatively few comments - if you can make Steph Cunningham as concise and light on the quotes, you're well on the way. --Philcha (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And avoid repetitions. In especial, the quotes often wholly or partly repeat conent. --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Images under headings?
In the mollusca article, you reverted my edit and included the statement "pics should be under headings." Where in the Manual of Style do you see that, exactly? I referred very specifically to Manual of Style (layout) when placing the image as I did. My placement violated none of the tenets there, and from a layout standpoint, it just LOOKED better. It didn't create a big chunk of inappropriate white space in the middle of the article. It didn't horizontally separate the heading from the following text. It was clearly related to the adjacent text, and had an appropriate caption.

Now I don't want this to become an edit war, but I have reverted the edit and am introducing the topic on the talk page there. Wilford Nusser (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I just checked WP:Accessibility because it occurred to me that screenreaders might do strange things if the image is ahead of the heading... but I still don't like the whitespace, so I removed the . Wilford Nusser (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And I checked WP:MOS, which says, "Images should be inside the major section containing the content to which they relate (within the section defined by the most recent level 2 heading)." As "Nervous system" is a 3-level heading, you're right per all MOS we checked.
 * However, the position you recommend puts the pic and the text in different sections in the markup, as you see if you open an edit box. And if someone puts text after the pic in the earlier section, the result is a mess (text, pic, text, heading, text).
 * The pic should be replaced as it has an error - there are 2 pairs of main longitudinal nerve trunks; the visceral ones are linked at the back end while the pedal ones are in-linked. I could make a more correct pic, at citation(s) on the File page, and also reduce the height, but I'm not sure when I have time, both in WP and in Real Life. --Philcha (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

article about Phoronid
Hello, Philcha! I have noticed, that you collect material for article about Phoronid. I can send you interesting articles on your e-mail. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC))
 * E. N. Temereva and V. V. Malakhov. Development of Excretory Organs in Phoronopsis harmeri (Phoronida): From Protonephridium to Nephromixium // Entomological Review, 2006, Vol. 86, Suppl. 2, pp. S201–S209
 * ELENA N. TEMEREVA and VLADIMIR V. MALAKHOV. Embryogenesis and larval development of Phoronopsis harmeri Pixell, 1912 (Phoronida): dual origin of the coelomic mesoderm // Invertebrate Reproduction and Development, 50:2 (2007) 57–66
 * V. V. Malakhov and T. V. Kuzmina. Metameric Origin of Lateral Mesenteries in Brachiopoda // Doklady Biological Sciences, 2006, Vol. 409, pp. 340–342.
 * E.N. Temereva, V.V. Malakhov. The answer to Thomas Bartolomaeus: "Larva of phoronid Phoronopsis harmeri Pixell, has trimeric coelom organization" // Invertebrate Zoology, 2006, 3(1): 1-21
 * E.N. Temereva. New data on distribution, morphology and taxonomy of phoronid larvae (Lophophorata: Phoronida) // Invertebrate Zoology, 2009, 6(1): 47-64
 * E. N. Temereva, V. V. Malakhov. The Intestine of Phoronids Has Epitheliomuscular Cells // Doklady Biological Sciences, Vol. 386, 2002, pp. 469–471.
 * E. N. Temereva, V. V. Malakhov and V. V. Yushin. Histology and Ultrastructure of the Body Wall in the Phoronid Phoronopsis harmeri // Russian Journal of Marine Biology, Vol. 27, No. 3, 2001, pp. 156–167.
 * V. V. Malakhov and E. N. Temereva. Embryonic Development of the Phoronid Phoronis ijimai // Russian Journal of Marine Biology, Vol. 26, No. 6, 2000, pp. 412-421
 * E. N. Temereva, V. V. Malakhov, and A. V. Chernyshev. Giant Actinotroch, a Larva of Phoronida from the South China Sea: The Giant Larva Phenomenon // Doklady Biological Sciences, 2006, Vol. 410, pp. 410–413.
 * E. N. Temereva and V. V. Malakhov. Ultrastructure of the Blood System in the Phoronid Phoronopsis harmed Pixell, 1912: 1. Capillaries // Russian Journal of Marine Biology. Vol. 30. No. 1. 2004. pp. 28-36. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alnagov (talk • contribs) 15:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Aleksey, many thanks. --Philcha (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Rregrettably the most interesting - about Phoronid origin and philogeny, segmentation their body (Phoronid body (metacoel) is divided into two segments), three types of Phoronid embryogenese, intestines, 3D reconstruction of blood sistem... only on russian in Elena Temereva doctoral dissertation "Phoronida: construction, development, world fauna, phylogeny"(2008). On what e-mail to send these articles? My address alnagov@gmail.com Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC))

Your note
Please re-read WP:VAND and WP:BITE. Let me quote from WP:VAND for you:
 * Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

Relevant to the closest thing that actually happened, let me quote further, from WP:VAND:
 * Editing tests by experimenting users
 * Users sometimes edit pages as an experiment. Such edits, while prohibited, are treated differently from vandalism.

If you care, I was messing around with the template and saved accidentally. Nevermind. If you cared you would have noticed that I undid it immediately. I suggest that your time is better spent harassing real vandals rather than harassing me. Thanks. 71.87.23.22 (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to express my extreme displeasure with your snide note a little more... please examine this and tell me what trend there gave you the impression that I was a vandal. Never mind. I don't actually want to hear from you. Kthxbye. 71.87.23.22 (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice. I am not a new user as the contributions list clearly shows, nor particularly in need of the sandbox as explained above. Please find a better way of spending your time. Thanks. Bye. 71.87.23.22 (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)