User talk:Sun Creator/Archive 7

DYK for Counsel and Care
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2010 (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, 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) 16:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Request
Hi, you look like a serious editor. Please evaluate this page I've spent much time editing. Thanks. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 21:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. I'd assess the article as C-class. One section is marked as requiring expansion. There is some sentences that appear to be unreferenced. Both those things require fixing before B-class would be appropriate. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ  05:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello old friend
You've always been a good judge of content...what would you reckon this article rates as on the quality scale?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Notable topic, well structured, good images, all content referenced, all apparent good sources, no obvious concerns, no talk page concerns. Assessed as class=B. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 08:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's great, I appreciate it. Hopes of GA soon!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Add some more references for GA even if re-use of existing references, the section 'Ecology and behaviour' especially. It seems I was a little generous with the B-Class having rechecked through that. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * More inline citations? Because I used four well noted books in conjunction with about five or so internet sources.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The books and references are great. What I mean is there is some places with few references that a future edit(to insert more information) could lead to fragmentation. There are places in this article with eight sentences before a reference. While it is okay to do so, it's also unusual. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oooooh...sorry for my misinterpretation (and subsequent aggression). That's a good idea, I hand't thought about it much.  Will do. :-} --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It might happen naturally over time as the article matures. Some other edit will come along and insert a sentence and then afterwards the original reference gets copied or re-added. Few FA quality articles have many sentences in a row without any reference. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite right. Thank you.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 07:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Question
If I have a brochure/pamphlet/map to a place, and it's not copyrighted, can I just scan it to my computer and upload it to commons without giving credit to anyone?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you know it's not copyrighted? Anyhow, I don't know enough to give an answer, perhaps pose a question at Media copyright questions. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure its not copyrighted only because it's a little pamphlet that has no copyright information on it (it's essentially one of those small maps that you pick up when you go somewhere). Thanks though, I'll ask around.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Left a comment and received a swift no...oh well. Thanks again.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Things are normally copyright without it being stated, hence my questioning above. Copyright often becomes fair game to copy once in the public eye but not always and it varies greatly from country to country. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I was told...that's alright. I appreciate it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Kresimir Chris Kunej at AfD again
An AFD you previously participated in is being done again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kresimir_Chris_Kunej_(3rd_nomination) Turqoise 127  02:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have little recollection of that and doubt I will take any further interest. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

 * Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
 * There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
 * If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Linkspam on chess articles
Hi, I'm trying to remove some pervasive linkspam from the articles on chess openings. I noticed you reverted some of my edits, saying "wikibooks required". Please look again at these articles. In the cases you're reverting, the linkspam was the only link in the "External links" section, so I ended up removing the section entirely. However, Wikibooks was already linked further up the page, so it should not be a problem not to have it in external links.

I'm going to go ahead and revert your reversions, so as to remove the linkspam again. If you really think Wikibooks needs to be linked to twice in those articles, please manually edit them to doubly link Wikibooks without re-including the spam link.

Thank you very much. 98.28.19.62 (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikibooks is normally required on chess opening articles, but if Template:Wikibooks is used twice I'm happy for it to be removed. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced section
Why are you adding unreferenced sections to obvious facts? The standard is verifiability not that everything should have a local citation. It is obvious for instance from the amount of time between the edits of Logarithm and your previous one to a totally unrelated article that you did no have time to even read the section properly so I get the feeling you did it for ideological reasons. Dmcq (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You have added unreferenced citations to many track listing sections in song articles currently waiting to be GA reviewed. Please note that track listings do not require cites - see any FA album/single article. Cavie78 (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Good article criteria says part 2 'Factually accurate and verifiable'. To be verifiable information is required to be reliably sourced (in some way), if it isn't that's okay but it would not meet the requirement of a Good article. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The relevant bit of v erifiability is "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question". Note that there is no need to stick inline citations beside straightforward stuff that is not liable to be challenged. And challenged does not include people just sticking in citation needed because they think it is needed, it refers to actual material that is liable to be challenged because it ha some small probability of going against what the reader thinks is right. How many readers actually think adding logs does not give the log of a product? Dmcq (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * May I draw your attention to this nomination and these criteria. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And your point is? The criteria say "it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[2]" So exactly what was counter-intuitive or controversial? Dmcq (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is verifiable is required to meet good article criteria. If it's not verifiable then what you are left with is original research or more. Also whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, adding a tag has challenged the section; so the burden of evidence applies. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you please read the policy statement which I copied out above. You are wrong about the contents of the policy. The policy is verifiability when somebody actually wants a citation for some reason not that people should jump up and down when every drive by tagger sticks in a citation needed. This point has been done to death at the policy so please take this to the verifiabilty noticeboardf if you don't believe it. Dmcq (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What you copied above is about 'in-line citations', which is nothing to do with my tagging. The section is not referenced at all and it is required to be. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe you have a misunderstanding of the policy. Please raise your objection at WP:V/N rather than engaging in edit warring with two other editors on this article. Dmcq (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a requirement to question a source that isn't supplied as obviously no source is not a reliable source, but to keep the peace and make it easier for you I will raise the question on your behalf. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Could I borrow some of your energy?
I need some help, and I wonder if you would be interested. One of the reasons that fact-tagging isn't especially helpful is because the tags are essentially ubiquitous. Category:Articles lacking sources contains tens of thousands of articles. As a result, it's too big for anyone to find anything in, and thus editors don't use it. They also mostly ignore the tags. (After all, anyone who reads an article can see the absence of citations, so plastering "There's no citations!" on it doesn't really tell them anything new.)

However, a sizeable fraction of articles in the category don't actually belong there, especially if the tag has been on the article for a couple of years, e.g., Category:Articles lacking sources from November 2006. Editors add sources and then forget to remove the tags, or new editors think that you need to be specially authorized to remove the tags. For example, in looking at the first ten articles under "A" in that cat, I found Abbott's Hike, which contains an external link that verifies about half the content of the article. In that case, the unref tag should be removed, and the ==External links== section should be renamed ==References==. (The article would then be using WP:General references.)

It's also possible to focus your efforts on a particular WikiProject, through this new tool. Would you be willing to go through some of these, and try to weed out the articles that contain references? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have much time, and answering unrelated questions in contradiction to evidence present is not my idea of productive time. Regards, SunCreator (talk)

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, 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) 01:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

 * Wasn't this dealt with days go. I removed the tb having read your page before but the temple part hasn't archive because there is no signature and hence no date. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco is now a FAC
Hi, I am the same editor who wrote Pedro II of Brazil and I've nominated another article, José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco, as a FAC. It is about a 19th century Brazilian statesman and is closely related to Pedro II's life. If you enjoyed the Emperor's article I believe you might enjoy this one. Thus, I'd like to see your opinion on whether you would support or oppose its nomination. The link: Featured article candidates/José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco/archive1 --Lecen (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Another question
Hello again, I have another question. I'm rearing to take another crack at this article: I was wondering, concerning in line citations, if something like the following would be acceptable. If I wrote a sentence like "Glyptemys turtles were forced south by encroaching glaciers from the north," could I provide two in-line citations that don't directly say this but rather, one for a source that said bog turtles were forced south and a second, different one that said wood turtles were forced south? Is that an acceptable way to construct most of that article?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know. WP:SYNTHESIS is tricky. It's best to get the input of others, maybe see if you can get consensus on the talk page of either the article, WP:NOR, WT:AAR. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll ask around. Thank you!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
09:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've found an excellent source that explains the past and present taxonomic classification of our little turtles. I can add the text easily, but I was thinking about expanding the cladogram in Glyptemys to include more genera.  On page 81 of this source, cladogram C is pretty darn close to what I was looking for.  Could you find it in yourself to explain to me how to put it together?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Cladogram Test 1 and 2
Had a go, still messy. Try again later, perhaps in reverse order of original. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Cladogram Test 3 and 4
The layout of 4 is slightly spoilt by the long names. Still I think it's better with the diagram like in test 3 and 4 then it is in 1 and 2. Regards, SunCreator (talk)

Cladogram 5
Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Cladogram 5
Great job! Cladogram 5 is what I'll go with for now. Thank you so much!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved talk to article page => Talk:Emydidae, you can watch the page, maybe someone else interested may turn up. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have both pages watched. "Calling all turtle experts!!..."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Commented on Emydidae talk.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and if you ever need help from a janitor please feel free to drop me a line! I hope that if you do have any concerns that you will feel free to share them with me, I promise I don't bite! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 23:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
The images look so very much better. :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)