User talk:Strdst grl/Archive 1

Warning
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I was working on Digital television in China (PRC), and you reverted my edits. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies
Okay, you're right. It wasn't vandalism. I have removed the warning and restored your text. Thank you for bringing it to my attention :-) Sorry again! Scarian Call me Pat  18:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Children's literature
Assessment has now been added to the project page. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Neil Gaiman importance
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but in your recent edit to Talk:Neil_Gaiman your comments were "rated mid importance"; however, on the page itself the rating is "Top" importance. I'm not involved in ratings but I thought I should bring this to your attention. Thanks, Macduffman (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Pantomime
Hello, I notice you deleted the children's literature project tag to pantomime. I was wondering about what lines you were following. Are you excluding theatre from children's literature? Or just popular theatre? (Neither seems appropriate to me, but perhaps this has all been decided elsewhere and I hadn't noticed.) N p holmes (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've answered your reply on my talk page (trying to stop dispersing the discussion), but then I thought it best to put the query on the project talk page. So you'll probably want to add anything there rather than here or on my talk page.  (Sorry I don't really understand how communication works on Wikipedia.) N p holmes (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Pigeon Post Rating, please explain
I noticed that you rated the Importance of Pigeon Post as "Low", that seems to be a little strange. Note that this book is rated "Mid" in the Novel Project in the box immediately above and also that it was the first winner of the Carnegie Medal and is usually mentioned in articles published every year when the medal is awarded to a new book. I now wonder what your criteria are for your rating? Could you please account for it. Thanks Dabbler (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that the rating was changed, but its events like this that explain why I am opposed to the whole concept of rating articles. It seems purely POV and what may seem of High importance to one individual even with some sort of framework to guide them, may be Mid or Low to another. Also what may be of Low importance to most people is of High importance to someone who created the article and the rating seems to be grossly insulting. Dabbler (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Motto of the day
Hello, I notice you're using one of the motd templates, run by Motto of the day. You may have noticed that some of the mottos recently have been followed by a date from 2006, or on occasion simply "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". The reason for this is that Motto of the day is in some very serious need of help. Participation in the project, which has never been especially high, has dropped considerably over this past summer, to the point we have had several days where no motto was scheduled to appear at all. Over the past several weeks, I've been the only editor scheduling mottos at all, but there aren't enough comments on some of these mottos to justify their use. If we do not get some help - and soon - your daily mottos will stop. In order for us to continue updating these templates for you, we need your help.

When you get a chance between your normal editing, could you stop by our nominations page and leave a few comments on some of the mottos there, especially those that do not have any comments yet? This works very simply; you read a motto, decide whether or not you like it, and post your opinion just below the motto. That's it - no experience required, just an idea of what you personally like and what you feel reflects Wikipedia and its community. If you do have past experience with the project, then please close some of the older nominations once they've got a decent consensus going. There are directions on the nominations page on how to do this.

If you have any questions, please let me know, or post on the project's talk page. I'm looking forward to reading your comments on the suggested mottos, and any additional suggestions you'd like to make. Until then, happy editing! Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Children's Literature
Hello, I recently joined the project but have noticed that, although lots of good work is being done on articles within the project's scope, the project itself seems to have fallen into disuse. I'd like to try to revitalize the project. I don't mean to come off as pretentious (i.e. the new guy trying to take charge of things), I'd simply like to see it return to the level of activity it once enjoyed. I'd be very grateful to hear your thoughts on the matter, either at this talk page or my own. Aurum ore (talk) 08:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your rating of Private (novel series). --James26 (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Stub assessments
I notice that you rate a lot of articles as Stubs which are at least Starts, going by Wikipedia guidelines. Stubs may be short (like The Greek Who Stole Christmas), or longer but rambling and a bit pointless (like The Falcon's Malteser), but you seem to apply it to many fairly reasonable articles. I believe one reason for the introduction of C-class was to encourage more Start assessments, as Start wouldn't be seen as half-way towards B. It is a bit discouraging to have an article you've worked on classed as a Stub, to be honest! You also seem to rate articles at a fair clip - are you really reading them? Probably no assessment is better than a rushed one. Best wishes. Robina Fox (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Fledgling Jason Steed
Thank you for taking an interest in this article. It is now being considered for deletion under AFD. If you would like to comment on the article, the discussion is here: .--Beehold (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Lightning Thief GA nomination
I have nominated the article for GA-review. Pmlinediter (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for letting me know ^^, I've done so :). Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thunder Oak assessment
First, thanks for doing it. XD Second, what terms do you think I need to explain? And umm... well, I apparently suck at excluding in-universeness in my summaries, because everyone has said that about every entry I've made. I try, but it seems I just don't fully understand what constitutes in-universeness. Suggestions? Zekiw (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages
Hello. A discussion is going on at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages) concerning the inclusion of Disambiguation pages as parts of Projects. Can you join in? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)