User talk:TCO/Archive 2

__NOINDEX__

Adding Autosign
Hope you don't mind, I'm adding because you forget to sign your talk page posts often. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite OK, but can you make it so it doesn't send me those nag notices (please)? IOW fix the goofs but not send me a bonk on the head notice. :)TCO (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sinebot is well behaved and bonk feature free. ;-) Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's spanking me. And edit conflicting me.  :(TCO (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I read the bot page and that is undocumented. :( It has also never happened to me despite not signing at various time. I'll had the bot exclude from your user page. Hopefully that is shut it up it's barking at you ever again. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

:)

 * right back atcha translator! Thanks, mon ami!TCO (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply waiting for you

 * Here. Cheers.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  05:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. Very sweet of you to reply immediately. Here's a list of Gimme Danger's top edited articles: Buddhism, Tibet, Himalayas, Jane_S._Richardson, Dalai_Lama, Triangle, Bhutan, Punk_rock, Index_of_Benin-related_articles, 14th_Dalai_Lama. :) Best wishes   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  05:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to bring the guy down, honest. P.s.  Let's keep it at the RFA, for benefit of all.  Cool topic and thanks for researching. have a few furhter comments there.TCO (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * :-) No problems. With Malleus on a warpath out there, I did not particularly wish a war of words to start by posting the articles there. Take care and best.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  05:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * People are funny. If you want to research the topic and present the info (can you summarize it better than lists of articles?  I felt I still had to research it all), than it would help things. I flipped through the list of 11 and seriously was underwhelmed. I'm honest and open to changing opinion, but just suspect that I'm looking for "more" than what you do.  Don't worry about Mall.  Worry about should we set the bar for content creation at a foot of the ground or three feet or six.  Capisce?  (Be of good cheer, man.)TCO (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand. Actually, to analyze the editor's contributions, one would have to go through every page of contributions to fully understand the relevance of the editor as an administrator. In general, my personal consideration for a good administrator is one who understands policies and guidelines, applies them well, and is well versed in content creation. Now, well versed by my standards is of course on a different scale from many excellent content creators like SandyGeorgia, Malleus, Wehwalt that we have. I personally don't believe a prospective administrator needs to have the most outstanding content contributions - in as much as the prospect needs to have outstanding quasi-admin contributions (like CSD, AfD, UAA, AIV etc). In essence, I appreciate your views as much as you, I think, appreciate mine :) It's been good to have had a chance to interact with you. Best wishes again and take care.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  05:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No sweat. I agree everyone does not need to be Wehwalt or Charles Matthews. We will never get enough like that. I do think some harder checking of the box, even just to experience it, is useful for the individual and the community and sends a needed message about content and prose, that will lead to improvement. Look at the average person who has gotten somthing to GA or FA. they're NOT some super-Wehwalt, but at least have been in the wars. The value is that as they apply policies and such, they have some real thought about how to make this place better (it is pretty bad in some aspects of quality and could really be upgraded in quality...not to perfection, but better). And this has nothing to do with not banning Malleus when he acts up or letting me be a troll or the like. You will still ahve some prima donnas that need to be disciplined. But even on that front, less. And again, that's really far from my concern. TCO (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

We're picking out turtle images (Portal talk:Turtles)
Over at SunCreator's new portal, we're picking out our six favorite turtle images. What do you think of mine? What are your favorites? We'll all talk it over and we need just six.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

combining cleaned Tanner pic
Howdy TCO! I think the correct protocol for this situation is to wait until the Featured Picture Nomination is concluded. Once it is over, if the cleaned-up version is promoted or neither version is promoted, you can switch out the images in each of the articles so that the cleaned version is used instead. If somehow the non-cleaned version wins, you'll need to leave that one in the articles. Either way, you should leave both versions as separate files on Commons (in case someone needs the original version for some reason). Hope that makes sense. Good luck! Kaldari (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Thanks man
No problem. I enjoy randomly coming across images and cleaning up their descriptions, especially after an image has been transferred from one of the projects to Commons. CommonsHelper is great, but it leaves a mess. Btw, I've also applied the same template to the cleaned-up image description, with proper attribution to the modifier. Thanks for pointing that out. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Question dos
Why isn't your name under "Nominator(s)" on the FAC review page any more?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't mind the thorough go over, honest. Especially the refs, they should be gnat's ass perfect.  Realio trulio.  (I do think the templates lead to some of the issues, not just mechanics but also because we lose track of the output in a way that would not if doing it manually.)  I wouldn't mind a ball-busting on the writing quality, either, if it was making us better.  But I didn't get the sense that writing comments were.  Really, had more a sense that there were some things wiki is not doing right.  Also, very disappointed that the first couple of writing-contenct reviewers did not even respond to disagreement with the reviews.  (I appreciate Sasata hanging in with us, despite some philosophical differences.)  But, just not what I'm used to elsewhere in publication reviews, elsewhere, man.


 * Get the star. The thing should be "front page".  It's good work and a lot more relevant than doing FAs on low Google hit count [i.e public not interested in] topics.)  And you still got work out of me, even after taking my name off of the paper!  ;-)   Oh...and keep the peace and keep the train moving forward.  I don't mind my name not being on the nom (maybe it's seen as pique, but it's also wiki that might lose a little).  Be of good cheer.  (I would just not say anything about who the nom is and just let the article roll, man.)


 * P.s And this had nothing to do with my neuro condition (I think).  Could be partially my personality, but don't think it was my mind.  And I got a bunch of tests MRI, CAT,  etc. that didn't show anything.  I think it is something with the blood flow, but has gotten better last few days.  Not the "big C" at least.  TCO (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * TCO, use the advice and experience of Malleus who recommended putting your name back. Withdrawing because somebody hits on your baby being a pile of rubbish is part of the FAC process. Anyone can criticizes an article in anyway for any or no reason. That's some of reason to why FAC is difficult but ultimately more rewarding if it passes. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it's not cancer. I also recommend putting your name back.  You have edited that article more than anyone, you spent A TON of time on it, doing work in your sandbox, contacting people about images...come on, you deserve it.  Don't let anyone's comments disgruntled you, truly.  NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. I still have reservations about the quality and method of article review and the readability of articles on Wiki versus real magazines.  And that FA group seems a little clubby.  But I'll put my name down.  We'll sink or swim together.TCO (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the spirit friend. Everyone has their own idea about what the ideal article should look like.  It's compromise and collaboration that makes each editor happy (or no editor happy).  :-P  NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre
Hi, thanks for the response. First, with the title, current consensus has it to keep it as two words, because it is the official title of the film. The title has been discussed in the talk archives of the article, and the latest FAC. With structure, it's just following the WP:MOSFILM style guide to keep it consistent. The themes section, it is a difficult one, yes, but with the length of the article, I am looking into creating a seperate article altogether which goes into further detail. It's an important section, but that issue wasn't really the focus of any of the FAC's. But let's see what we can do. I should probably put this article up at Peer review, where more people can comment on it from there. Thanks, -- TÆRkast  ( Communicate ) 18:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, go ahead and think through what you want to do and get some alternative thoughts. The title is not the biggest thing and I know title wars occupy way too much time on teh wiki.  Although I was a little worried that it migh be a sign of kind of being a little pompous.


 * But forget the title, main issue is organization. I'm just saying my reaction as a reader was that the thing seemed to jump around.  We talk about the film, then the sequel than back to the film.  We talk about academic criticism (womjep issue and the nihilism) and then much later have conventional film critics.  Some of the enonomics seems a little scattered (that's tricky, may not be able to consilidate all, but would look at it.)  I don't know if this is a general issue of following the film template too closely or if it is just this film has less depth in terms of themes.  I would consider not following that template, if it doesn't tell your story best.  What's that worst that happens?  It works and you pass FAC?  My take is that the more you can have a "story" within an article the better.  You still have to give all the info, but if you can make it flow better, people will enjoy it here.  And the "story" here is "cheap film went on to become cult favorite" (not some professor opining on the ennui of early 70s political landscape.)  Good luck, man.  ;-)TCO (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I will look into organization, after all, the themes were originally below the critical reception before the previous FAC. In terms of actual analysis, a lot of it is the same, and I don't know if it can be portrayed more objectively, or in more detail than that. I'll look into it, but I don't think it'd compromise the integrity of the article at FAC (I may be wrong, but as I said before, it wasn't an issue at FAC). Do you think the intro needs to be expanded? Comparing with other FACs it looks like it does. Thanks, and I'd really appreciate your help.-- TÆRkast  ( Communicate ) 19:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I really want the fifth FAC to be the last one. It seems everytime it's come close to passing, something's not quite right. Almost 3 years later, it's still not FA and I could use all the help I can get. Thanks,-- TÆRkast  ( Communicate ) 19:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel ya man!

The lead is not bad. You do have 4 paras allowed, so could add a bit more, or perhaps just use the "break" if there is a thought you want to split. First para seemed just a tad rough for me (and it should shine). I would probably completely cull the cast list (they're obscure names and you pretty much have to blue link them as names, but then you get one of those blue mashes that really slow the reader down. I think if you just say "rookie cast" or some words to that effect (like you have in the article) that's actually more relevant information than the list of names that no one has heard of.  Plus they are all in the info box, a little to the right.  I would do different if the names were recognizable or special somehow to the end result.  Half a loaf would be to move them down to second lead para at least.  They really are just kinda "details" that are getting too much prominence now.  I think there was one sentence in the lead, middle of first para, that gave me a "huh" factor, because it had like three clauses in it and too many separate thoughts.  That's an easy fix though.

Like I said, I think the way to deal with the themes is to finesse it a bit. You can leave the content, but move it down in promince, put it after the film critic stuff. It's just not strong enough to go in the front, plus in some ways it's really just another aspect of what the film critics said (violence against females and nihilism, are more sophisticated sure, but are followons from the thing being just...violent!)

I'm about 97% sure that this will make your article better for a reader, regardless of policy. But we'll get some clarity on the whole "follow the template" thing before I move all the furniture!

Would you agree with my take that the "story" of TCSM is that it was an ugly duckling (no budget, by unknown people) that struggled to get released, struggled to get past the censors, and then ended up making a lot of money, getting a lot of sequels, becoming a term that is on everyone's lips (even those like me who have never seen the film)? TCO (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I do agree with your take, it's become one of the most successful films of all time, after all. I want to flesh out the three lead paragraphs, but I think somebody else would do that better than I do. The themes section will probably be moving, per your suggestion, and some more cleaning up of the structure. It's a bit funny, because I want it to become FA, but then I wouldn't know what to do after that, where to go from there, because this article's been my main project for 3 years now.-- TÆRkast  ( Communicate ) 19:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me ask a few people that I respect (maybe Wehwalt, he has a play in there now, so he can advise on this template format thing and if he agrees with my take on the org). Maybe one way to keep it more your baby, would be if I just give you a murderous review and then you can do all the changes yourself. Otherwise if you let the baby in my hands, there will be all kinds of body parts moving around. (get it, haha, fits with the movie). Like on Painted turtle, I did a pretty major rewrite. They were cool with it and appreciated it, but personally I would hate it if someone did that to one of "my" articles. TCO (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, I would like to keep the general structure of it, and I would be more comfortable doing those changes. If you could list suggested changes and improvements to either peer review, or better for me would be my user page on Chain Saw. Thanks, -- TÆRkast  ( Communicate ) 20:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, and you may also want to ask for input from and, while you're at it, because they've also been helping with the article. Regards, -- TÆRkast  ( Communicate ) 20:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll give it a readthrough and just a list of thoughts over at your user page. You can share it with those fellows. BTW, I (just now), read through the MOSFILM guide. It says right in there that if "themes" belongs better in crit reception, you can put it there. It does, for this film. Also, I see that they require you to put the cast in first para. But given the "who cares" natures of the actors, I would just call out the girl and Leatherface actor (in the lead) and have some comment about the rookie cast and all. That should cover you and actually gives more relevant info. Some other quick things I noticed (need to reread but just jotting down): seemed like you misuse the word post-production for commercial activities related to finding a distributor (not film editing as word is commonly used and as MOSFILM does); Also, I didn't see the rotten tomatoes and such (although might have missed it). TCO (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I added post-production as a result of a suggestion over the previous FAC, so that could be changed. Rotten Tomatoes is mentioned at the very bottom of the critical response subsection.-- TÆRkast  ( Communicate ) 20:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments, I'll see what I can do. Some of them I may not agree with, but I suppose I'll make a lot of changes nonetheless. Unfortunately, the problem with the film is that some of the information just isn't there. Take for example, the gross revenue, $30 million, that's all the sources say, there is literally no information on worldwide gross. The title isn't really the biggest problem at this stage. But again, thanks for the comments.-- TÆRkast  ( Communicate ) 12:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh and the bit about the innovations in the slasher film genre is the, in the cultural impact section, second paragraph.-- TÆRkast  ( Communicate ) 13:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

re:Request sideneck picture
Hi yes I can have a look at that and will probably add more to those available as well. Sorry for delay had no internet for a week, hence my absence. Faendalimas (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks man. We are going to pick six other species pics for now.  When you come up with a sideneck pic, we will swap yours in.  No pressure.  :-)  TCO (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really such a great idea
Softly softly catchee monkey.
 * This rubbed me wrong too. I've never seen such a bold move made before.  I still think it would be wise to give it more time TCO.  NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive news
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 21:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC).

Double sorry
Sorry twice! I just removed it without noticing you had replied. Do you want me to restore it? Oopsidaisy! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries.TCO (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits dos
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you repeat the message to me, Sinebot? The very first time is informative, but after that, it is just hitting.  Bad, bad sine-bot.  TCO (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)



Upcoming FAC review
Let me handle all the comments left by Casliber. She may/may not remember me from a while ago and you've been doing more then your fair share of the work. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. ;-o  00:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that was easy. ;-)  I'll get the next one man.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Aye, aye. TCO (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Burger Kibg CE
Thanks for the offer, it is greatly appreciated. I will take any offered with much gratitude. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 23:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Tanner
Sorry about your photo, I thought it had featured written all over it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Your FPC nomination
Hi there. I just wanted to let you know that I closed the William W. Tanner nomination as "not promoted" because it did not have the requisite amount of support. You're welcome to re-nominate it in the future to see if it attracts more attention. If you choose to do so, I'd recommend waiting around a month to avoid any complaints of "we just voted on this." I'd also like to welcome you to FPC. We're always happy to see new contributors, whether they're uploading, nominating, or just reviewing. I hope to see you around more in the future. Cheers, Makeemlighter (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Very cool of you to come and explain. Seriously, I am not upset.  Now certain FAC reviewers...hmmm...need Hogwarts detention.  ;-)  Of course if you could have put your thumb on the scale and voted for us that would have got us ju....ust up to the magic 5 mark.  We were actually 4-1 (and it was a weak 1!)  Oh...well.  Like you say, learn another aspect of the project.  And it is a killer pic for the article.  BYU features it.  Seriously, I'm fine.  TCO (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We try to make an effort to welcome new participants, but none of us do as well as we should. In the past, FPC has been extremely tough for newcomers due to all the expert photographers with high standards and keen eyes. That's a big reason we have the picture peer review project - to get some feedback on images before being tossed to the wolves at FPC. Your first nomination went well, though, and you already have a good grasp of encyclopedic value. If you have any questions, just let me know. Best, Makeemlighter (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that
. I wasn't sure how we were going to do this. :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Myrrha
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   12:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: OK flood over, got GA?
Hey, got your message yes I can try get some articles to GA, been trying to get rid of red links. Anyways I am happy to do Chelidae and Testudinidae and will also work on some of the common species of Chelids eg Chelodina longicollis, I would also like to do some of the species I actually named such as Elseya albagula, Chelodina burrungandjii and Chelodina canni. Any other suggestions feel free. Faendalimas (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Basically whatever fires you up. I will take a look at those pages though and tell you what looks fun to me, but it comes down to you if you are the main contributre...satisfy yourself!  I would make sure you get at least one across the goal line and think about which one is most enjoyable and feasible (sources available, no drama attached, etc.) TCO (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

FA
We got FA!!!!! NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations are definitely in order. You two stuck to it like glue, even though TCO did appear to be close to throwing a wobbly at one stage. But you've now got a template for many more turtle articles, so go turtles!. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 03:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe today is pay day for you TCO. ;-)  We done good, I'm happy with our little trio.  Long live the picta!  NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys. Wow, what a piece of work!  (As an aside, I still feel like I'm coming at right angles to this whole place sometimes.  Like, I'm trying to imagine professional editors with the tone or agenda of some of the stuff that is just accepted here.  CAn you imagine someone like 56asasdasdf in a work environment?  I don't think any company would keep him.  But it's OK.  Will roll with the punches.  Even for science journals with anonymous peer reviews, I'm just used to different concerns and way of expressing it.)  Good on both of you and sorry for the wobbly.  Hey, I'm not even banned yet.  Wonder where my case officer admins have gone to. TCO (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
--  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hardware
Very cool. Thank you so much for the star and for working with me. Big up!TCO (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Wilmer Tanner
Good job! I'm impressed by where you brought the article since last time I checked. Nice picture too! [CharlieEchoTango]  05:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You are the homme! Mon ami! The pic is killer. It's pretty prominent on the BYU website and I actually wrote the special collections director and got it donated with the whole CC-by-SA and all. Then I got a 5Meg image. And I even had it cleaned and worked up by one of the experts at wiki. Took a run at a Featured Picture and it was 4-1 support, but director said I needed 5 supports. Now it is in the queue at DYK. So if I could sneak in there, then pic might still make headlines! ;-) TCO (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Congrats! Glad your hard work pays off. Cheers - [CharlieEchoTango]  06:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Reptile Map
I've uploaded the map onto Wikimedia Commons, file title is "Official Reptile States.svg, let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. :)  Miyagawa     talk   10:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Very cool and fast! Stop on by the talk page so we can congratulate you, man!TCO (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Gorgeous map! Ever thought about doing animal distributions?  ;-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that there is a Sunbelt preponderance. I don't know that I would make any statement about it, but it shows the value of the graphic.  It's not just a speckle pattern, but there are insights available.TCO (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

State Reptiles
Hi there,

I'll go through a few points that might help speed you through FL (State Dogs is only my third, so I'm no expert by any means!). One thing that surprised me was that they wanted the "List of" dropped from the title of the article, with the dogs page becoming U.S. state dog breeds. Now I don't think you'll need to make it U.S. state reptile species, but I'd suggest a rename to U.S. state reptile. Second, third and fourth paragraphs need to be referenced.

Regarding the table - they tend to like a separate column for references, so just add an extra one called Ref(s) and move the citations from each line to there. You'll need to remove the sorting function on the image column and the refs column (open up the dogs list and look at the table - in fact feel free just to copy the code to make it easier).

References all look fine, but they'll want the dates all in the same format, and in American format so Month Day Year in whatever style you choose.

Other than that, I think it all looks good. They're likely to ask questions about the prose section at the top - but you won't know what they'll ask until you nominate it. :) Hope it all goes well. 10:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, I went through and did a few changes to the article, looks pretty good! Like the other user said above, pick a date type for your references (i.e. 2011-01-20 or January 20 2010), and also refs 30 and 31 need to be converted to full references, not just a link. As said above, I guess the form now is to drop the "List of" from the title if there's no other article to separate from, so the list should be moved to U.S. state reptiles. You're pretty much good to go, though! -- Pres N  17:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will transfer this comment to talk page (hope OK). Yeah, we will get all the all refs squared away like an FA.  We know how to do that.  Are some old ones left over, from when we started.  But we will both check their veracity and make them format perfect.  I like the idea of changing the article title.  Usually when I link to stuff, I'm already using the shorter words in text.  And maybe it encourages a bit more wholistic work product.  I'm kinda worried on the images.  I tried going through them but there are a variety of licences (and almost all were put there before us, different than Painted turtle where we were the uploaders.  Some of the ones that say Federal government, I can't find currently on govt websites.  I just need an expert to advise (and to learn how to do that myself in the future).  Asked FN to take a look at it (figure if we go with the toughest critic to help us brush up, then we are "clean" when go to review.  He has not responded, so will ping him again.  17:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do the paragraphs in the lead require citations? I thought it was similar to an article in that if it's sourced in the article it doesn't have to be in the lead.  Only general trends are discussed...is this original research though?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that it is original research to note things like this about a list. I think OR policy is directed at people who strive to put genuine OR in (like an unpublished Keevil observation) or who make some conclusions that are bigger jumps (like some event in history caused another event...for that you would want a source). Saying things that are mathematically directly in front of us is just normal discussion of the topic. I'm not trying to get anything past anyone, but I think I have thought about this pretty carefully and that an object would be more knee-jerk versus nuanced. I think I'm being encyclopedic. If we take OR too far, then we would have to eliminate all topic sentences in paras (which would be a writing catastrophe). If the observations are helpful content to the reader (like this is how you would write a factual article for a news magazine) then I say to leave it. It really is not me making some conclusion about Israel-Palestine or the like. It is just an "in lede" summary of what is in the article (the list) itself. If it really bugs you, then clip it. but would ask that you reflect on it. I mean...I didn't speculate why people have more turtles (because they're cute, because kids like small animals because they remind them of their own childishness, because they are non-threatening, etc.) I just said 15 of 26 were turtles.

P.s. We might be able to drop in the WV ref into some parts of that blathering, but obviously not for every summary observation.

P.s.s. I think the bigger question is, is it good content (useful, interesting). If you came across that info on the net from whatever site would you find it helpful to have the numerics pointed out, or did I drone on too much.TCO (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

P.s.s.s. What we could do is cut the genera paragraph. I was getting a hard on for doing the analysis. But it's probably less easy for the average person to grasp (or care about) then discusison of species.TCO (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If it were up to me, I wouldn't cut any of it and would leave it unsourced. It seems to be the exact same thing as a lead in an article: editors run the gammet of what the topic's about without sourcing it because it's all already sourced in the article.  I think we should leave it as is (certainly don't take anything away, it's beautifully written and interesting).  I just have to find a source on when and why this process of naming a state reptile started.  --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Concur. It is just a summary of content that is in article.  Maybe some herp website (CNAH or the like, will have a couple words to cite on state reptlie starting.  Could also look at NYT news stories.  Also maybe the Oklahoma city paper from when first reptile was done.  TCO (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking as someone with 12 FLs, I can pretty authoritatively state that you don't need citations in the lead for statements that are summaries of the table. Those last two paragraphs are an analogue to, for example, the last paragraph in Hugo Award for Best Novel- I just counted up the winners/nominees and wrote down the interesting bits. 10 FLs later, no one's had a problem with it. Looking through it, I don't think you need to look for cites for anything in the lead that isn't cited already. -- Pres N  19:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

COOL! I think you would make an excellent reviewer for our list. Wink, wink, hint, hint! ;) TCO (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Turtle project
Thanks for the invite, but I'm pretty busy with my current project on thatgamecompany and its associated articles. Good luck! -- Pres N  19:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wish you best on the article. Looks great already.  But ya now if ya need a breat, there are a few turtle lists that could use your love...some hardware to rack up! TCO (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do. And thanks, but I actually haven't touched that one- I did Flower (video game) last year, and got Flow (video game) and Jenova Chen to GA this month. Hit me up if you need any help with anything on those turtle articles! -- Pres N  21:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Stover at Yale book cover image.jpg
Hi, can you tag this image as to which edition this cover is from Fasach Nua (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I really have no clue.

Think it came off of this site: http://www.ctrl.org/stover/  (there are some copyright infos in the right, but they just tell you that copyright came to go to the writer.)

Here is a site with a bunch of book covers. You can tell it was not the 1912 version. http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Owen+Johnson&sortby=1&tn=Stover+at+Yale&x=0&y=0

I tried surfing around and could not find it. I have read it from the library as well and was an old volume but had a yet still different cover. Just donno.TCO (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * quite often a books cover is continually updated over time, and while the text may be free it does not follow that the cover is necessarily free, and in this case I see nothing to suggest that this version has its copyright expired, can you tag it Template:Db-self Fasach Nua (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I stuck that into the file page. But nothing visual happened.TCO (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

FN, I tried taking the colon out and that did not work. I think speedie will not work when that thing has already been through an AFD (I wasn't part of it, was permabanned, but they kept it. Let's just put in the AFD again...will go learn how to do that.)TCO (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the image appears to be the 1911 edition. The reason it differs from the version you found at abebooks is because that copy had the dust jacket. The artwork does indeed appear to be in the public domain. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * what about the whole 45 degree thing? You can even go back and read the discussion at the last AFD (while I was permabanned) when it was kept.  I must be guilty of some crime here!  TCO (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the rotation of the book makes the artwork any less in the public domain. Anyone with access to an original copy would have the exact same image. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Bonk
Regards, SunCreator Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Spotted turtle
I have a huge favor to ask. I've put some new content into this little article and was wondering if you wouldn't mind giving certain parts if it a ce sweep. Just the description section, distribution and habitat, population features, and the diet subsection. The rest is likely to be revamped beyond recognition these next few days. It would really help me out! NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. I wanted to give you some space after doing so much on picta (and I still totally appreciate the Ernst-Carr skeleton to that thing)!  Just want to engage in a way that's fun for you and still you can rock stuff out and learn without some old dude taking over (worry a little that Jimmy might think I did that).  IOW, yes, sure, and I'll keep it targeted.  Well, unless I start googling and find statues of the turtle and soups and all.  Kidding!!!TCO (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha...take your time. You don't owe me anything and I'm glad you stepped like you did with painted turtle...if it weren't for you that article wouldn't even be GA and I would still be (wrongly) arguing that the "in culture" section is unnecessary.  You rock TCO, thank you so much!  NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Allegro
This is why I like to have some reviewers who are just learning about the subject of the article. Very helpful indeed. Thank you. You need to sign your review, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Will do. Your welcome.TCO (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Contributor award

 * Thank you, SunC.TCO (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Songs
Was reading through the Myrrha article and noticed the info about the music. So decided to go check on http://www.bmi.com/search/ then for some reason I did a search for painted turtle and well - I found this. Regards, SunCreator (talk)


 * Michigan state reptile is what it refers to. I can fit it in.  Let me figure where.TCO (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

TUSC
d190d4005b037388332cc4d0c4d98e9f
 * How id you get this? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Go to Commons, go to Flickr upload, go to use the third alternate option for uploading (it is a Magnus tool) and it will (I think prompt you and give you a TUSC). I know I have seen it talked about there, just now, but I may have come across it elsewhere also. I do remember being pissed since I did all this and then it didn't work anyhow. I might look into retrying it, but for some of the methods you don't need it. Sorry, that is my level of understanding. Wehwalt might understand better. TCO (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually I think it was some book upload tool where I was trying to use it either. I was pissed after doing all this cut and paste junk that it did not work.  Hmm...maybe you need to post in Commons talk  or even de:wiki.  I just moved on though.  So much stuff to do.TCO (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it is news to me. I am very all thumbs when it comes to images.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Belated replies
Hello TCO,

Logged in after a 1 month break, and saw your posts on my talk page. Replying: Enjoy the remaining 11/12's of the new year. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy new year to you to. You appear to be busily doing content work, so you're already more of a benefit to the encyclopedia than I am.  Therefore, by the power vested in me by the people who bothered to comment at my RFA, I solemnly declare that you may now officially consider my "liberalness to your evilness" now justified in full, with all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto.
 * Re: Mel Chin: To be honest, I can't bring myself to care; I may be semi-back, but I'm still pretty demotivated about much of what goes on here, and my DGAFism is at historic levels. For the foreseeable future, if I don't find something personally compelling, I'm considering it SEP. Sorry.


 * On Mel, it's fine. I found some NYT articles on the guy.  He's notable enough to have a page.  I could rewrite the thing and make it both more objective AND substantially a better read and such.  But I'm not going to bother.  (I would be doing him a favor, with the attention!)  We even link the dude from Myrrha and cite a NYT reference to a particular huge sculpture of his.


 * On the lack of Wikiying, no sweat! I am still an evil troll at heart, not a goodie two shoes.  So the thought of you only checking on me when you bother logging into Wiki and not doing any work makes me smile. Mwahahaha!


 * Good luck to you for the year and hope you are of good cheer in the big bad real world. Don't let the turkeys git ya down or the ennui stop your fighting spirit!  Go turtles!  ;-)  TCO (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yah, cheerful enough in the real world; it's online where everyone seems to turn into a turkey. It was good to turn it off for a month; remind myself what's important and what isn't. Cheers. And sure, what the hell, go turtles. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Wilmer Tanner
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Roar, roar! Front page now :) Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, man. I will go and drop an attaboy on the pages of the other contributors.  TCO (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good job TCO. Long live Tanner (the tiger not so much).  NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We need to talk to him soon man. Getting ready to go.  What a hoot to be able to note in your Chihuahua paper that you consulted two 100 year old dudes before the expedition.  Eff it, let's contact them now.  If we wait for funding they'll be gone by then.  I don't even care if they have any info (although you never now) but just what a cool herp heritage thing.TCO (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Congrats, TCO. Smiley.svg [CharlieEchoTango]  01:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * TY man. You were there at the very beginning too!  Me n you!  P.s.  get to watch a few vandals mess with it.  ;)  TCO (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, TCO. Good job in getting this to the lead hook spot! - PM800 (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1.9K the article http://stats.grok.se/en/201101/Wilmer_Tanner. 1.3K the image http://stats.grok.se/en/201101/File:Wilmer_W._Tanner_with_museum-cleaned.jpg. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Pretty good considering it ran in the middle of the night on a weekend. Going to see if there is more registered tomorrow, since the overnight and all. Then send a note to Utah.

Shapley–Folkman lemma: Preparing for A-class or FA review
Hi TCO!

You made good copy-editing comments before, and I would invite you to examine the revised Shapley–Folkman lemma, which I would like to improve for A-status or FA status. (I am unfamiliar with the next steps, but I suspect copy-editing should be prioritized.)

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Kiefer,


 * Looking at the project pages, they aren't using the A grade much or effectively. The only project I know that really uses the A level is Mil-hist.  This is too far from their baliwick, so I would go for FA direct.


 * Article seems to have made strides in helping the interested reader at least get understand what the topic is about. This is the key thing for making this thing useful to many people.  Not to teach them the proof, but to at least allow them to have some contextual feel for how important this lemma is, what field it is in, etc.


 * Let me start by giving the thing a thorough read and asking questions. I will use a section at the talk page.


 * P.s. No immediate need, but like to have a raincheck to get some turtle related help in the future.  A review or a photo or some-pin.TCO (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your offer of help. Of course, I should be glad to help with reviewing a turtle article: Just ask me, and I'll probably agree to help in some fashion. Would you like me to notice pictures of turtles in Swedish media or look for a button with a turtle? Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you do a Google search in Swedish (or German if you are) and see if you find an image or even a specimen of a fossil of painted turle, Chrysemys picta? It's an American turtle.  But it is very common and maybe trying a different language helps.  I found an image and specimen in Indiana, but the prof would not collaborate with Wiki.  Have also been corresponding with Michigan State and the Smithsonian (not very effectively).  Don't spend much time on it, but maybe a shot in the dark.  Don't worry about the buttons or general turtle reviewing.  I'm sure you'd be great, but rather wait for something with a math tie-in (niche modeling or genetic drift or even anatomical geometries).TCO (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll make a copy of this for my talk page, so I don't forget.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  00:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I was going to suggest sending to a WP:Peer Review but I just noticed that is being done. Will make some comment at the review. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of List of U.S. state reptiles
Hello! Your submission of List of U.S. state reptiles at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Bushranger One ping only 05:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

User rights management

 * You are now a reviewer and rollbacker. Please read up on these features.  If you do not want them, ask me or another admin to remove them.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've read them. Features accepted.   The reviewer thing seems more useful.  There's one page I deal with (Shawn Johnson) that has those flagged revisions on it.TCO (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Rollbacker is very handy against vandalism, one click rather than two.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggested guidelines for MOS policy discussion page
I've tried to construct some guidelines to post at the top of the discussion page for the MOS policy. I would appreciate your reaction to them. They are at User:Student7/Sandbox 17. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your helpful and supportive comments! I've implemented all of them. Student7 (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for inactivity
Sorry man, I've been so busy lately, probably won't be back on until about Saturday. Keep the ship headed in the right direction, we'll get it waxed and polished in no time. :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

GOCE January Backlog elimination drive conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 15:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

DYK for U.S. state reptiles
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

MSU photo
Sorry it took so long to respond. I will try to go down to the museum on Monday with a camera and get the pictures for you. D guz (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like both of us are late to the party... sorry for taking forever to respond. Although D Guz is reliable, if he forgets shoot me another message and I will find the museum. Epistemophiliac (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I really want to get this done and how collaborative to be able to reach cross the country like this! Fossil will really dress my article up.  Have a million like turtle pics, but fossil would be special.TCO (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Response
You rock, Spartan! I don't know for sure if the specimen is in collections or is on display (or 100% that they have one, as there is some super-academic database to track fossils and I can't access it), however the former director of the musuem was famed for his fossils of painted turtles, so it boggles my mind that they would not. This is all a little tricky to coordinate with 3 parties, so probably best if you can go over there and just curteously poke into it.

A. Here is the museum website, with hours, location, etc.:

http://museum.msu.edu/ResearchandCollections/DVNH/researchvisits.html

Note they request an advance phone call to get stuff from collections.

B. Michael Gottfried is the curator that I had an email with. Maybe if you refer to him (and that he emailed us on the 28th saying we could stop by to photograph) it helps smooth the way.

http://museum.msu.edu/ResearchandCollections/Profiles/?show_profile=3

C. They have GOT to have this fossil as they mention J. Alan Holman and he was like the MAN in this field. (see herpetology)

http://museum.msu.edu/ResearchandCollections/DVNH/collections.html

D. Am hoping for an image of an intact shell, but will take whatever I can get (random bones, fossil in rock, whatever you can get and makes sense when you are looking at it).

GO TURTLE! TCO (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I called them just a minute ago. They are swamped this week, but I may be able to come in next week.  I will try to stay in contact.  Unfortunately, they only have bits and pieces of the fossil, but if you like I could still document those for you.  I'm about to send of an email to Dr. Gottfried as well; coincidentally I had him last year for one of my classes!  I will keep you updated as I get more info. D guz (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's progress. Yeah, let's go for the bits and pieces.  Just make an appointment, if that's convenient and get the pic.  Very cool that you had that professor in class.  Personal contacts always help get things done!


 * Just use your judgment, but I think the more "sciencey and fossily" it looks the better. So is probably fine that the shell is not intact.  After all we have lots of pictures of live turtles to show that.  If you want to show a brush or some sort of tool or whatever in image, that's fine (not pushing, just throwing out ideas, whatever works!)


 * I will give them a little bit of a "plug" in the caption of the image (and we can give a link in the file name.) Obviously we are not the New York Times, but this article gets 500 viewers per day (and will get a few gazillion on the day it goes on the front page).  So it's kinda good press.  (Not a huge hairy deal, but just want to leave it positive, that they know it's showing them in a good light and to numbers of people.)


 * This is real scholarship to be using a sample from a museum collection. REally appreciate your initiative and the museum's playing along.  Makes us that much better than anyone else's painted turtle article!TCO (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Galápagos tortoise/archive1
One of our friends went bold. What do you say we help him/her out a little with this?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. I scanned it.  Has some interesting content.  Could use a copyedit.  Maybe a rewrite in a few sections.  I can't tell if there is anything missing without getting into it more.  I'll try what I can do, but my head is hurting again.TCO (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oye ve. Best wishes man.  The articles appears to be in good shape, maybe some formatting help (for instance, a section set aside for two "Notable individuals" seems odd).  I'll scan it too, fixing anything I see.  Should offer a boost to our count!  Feel better man.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Please revise "start shot" for video?
I'm sorry, but this is impossible. As far as I know, there is no way for the uploader to choose the preview image...it is simply the frame taken from exactly 50% of the way through the video, much as YouTube used to do with their uploads. To change the image, I would have to cut apart the video, and I'm not comfortable doing something like that to someone else's work. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. So much for my plans to have a spokesmodel holding my turtle!  ;)  TCO (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Painted Turtle Map
<b style="color:#4D5D53">Fallschirm</b><b style="color:#2E8B57">jäger</b><b style="color:#701"></b></i> <b style="color:#3CB371">&#9993;</b> 19:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Pipe dreams
If you want to see an unexpectedly interesting article shaping up, take a look at the work I'm doing over at Pipe Dream (musical). Before you wonder, I always do the lede last.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Good job, man! Nice how you are getting a lot down on the topic.  Also, I'm a Steinbeck fan, so that makes it more interesting.  Yeah doing the lead last or with different itertions makes sense.  I assume that as you're working, you're writing, researching an learning.  Unless you completely know a topic, don't see how you could do the lede first.  Even if you really did know the topic, still think the act of writing leads to different decisions on org and inclusions which feedback to the lead.TCO (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Even if I know a subject, I know it better when I'm done.  And sometimes sources are contradictory and the facts changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Pipe Dream is finished. I will probably take it to FAC late in the week.  Will keep you posted.  I think it turned out well.  There are actually a number of jokes in the text ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And we're at FAC here.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Awesome production, man! Do you want the pain of another TCO review?TCO (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bring it on.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Turtle pics
Hi

I spotted your conversation on MF's page.

Did you mean something like this ? User:Chaosdruid/gallery

Chaosdruid (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I have what I want in article. Rexx and Jack made it for me. Go look at it under Description!TCO (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That looks lovely :¬) Glad someone helped you - the Wiki spirit lives ! lol Chaosdruid (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Painted Turtle Map
<i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#4D5D53">Fallschirm</b><b style="color:#2E8B57">jäger</b><b style="color:#701"></b></i> <b style="color:#3CB371">&#9993;</b> 21:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * TCO, are you sure about Eastern in Florida? http://www.iucn-tftsg.org/wp-content/uploads/file/Accounts/crm_5_000_checklist_v3_2010.pdf doesn't give florida at all. Page 000.99, you can find state list by species and all state for painted turtle. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not believe it is in Florida. That is a first draft map.  Borders are not exact.  We will use the opportunity to check multiple sources though.  Not just that one.  Some of the states are really very exacting (others suck), but we will look at all the info and compile the best picture.  If anything, my impression is that it steers shy of the subtropical coast from about Charleston, SC on down (rather then being all the way to Jacksonville, FL).  TCO (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What other sources do you have? Rhodin says Western even gets into ok and tx. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a gazillion sources. Yes, our text says its in parts of those states and I call out the specific places and the primary literature!  (which Rhodin is summarizing).  ;-)  Seriously, it's cool, but Rhodin looks fine, but he just has a list of states, I'm so much past that.  Unless he has a detailed range map with references to primary literature?  I just saw a list?TCO (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And I'm not sitting on the sources (well I just got a couple extra just now), but in general I have put them into the article as we worked it up. Just read the section on range and then look at all the sources.TCO (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Painted Turtle Map Changes
<i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#4D5D53">Fallschirm</b><b style="color:#2E8B57">jäger</b><b style="color:#701"></b></i> <b style="color:#3CB371">&#9993;</b> 23:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

MOS standards discussion
Is underwhelmed with a response. Could you vote? Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Proposed_MOS_talk_page_standards. I don't really care which way which is good because otherwise I'd be guilty of something! :) Student7 (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Turtles and all that
I am flying out to LA tomorrow and will be staying not far from the turtle bar, but the racing is tonight, alas.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you wander in for cocktails, maybe there is still some intel you can extract from the bar/tender (an image, a pamphlet, a reference). Take care of business first, though!TCO (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I stopped there briefly, but they don't open til 4, so I will stop back later on. They had a nice image on the outside of the building, and the Thursday night Turtle Racing is still mentioned on the marquee.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I wandered over there. I took some pictures of the racing area.  The thing is, you will have to be careful about derivative works,  as they have the walls painted with turtles (on two legs) racing.  If you send me an email, I can send you images as attachments to my reply and you can tell me which ones to upload.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Very cool! Enjoy the Cali warmth!TCO (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is much easier on my lungs.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Try File:Turtle racing course.jpg--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Cool. I added it to the article.  Put a caption emphasizing the course.  Does not look that infringing at 300px.TCO (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I figure if there's objection, we can negotiate with whoever on how to trim the image to satisfy him.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Turtle Map
<i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#4D5D53">Fallschirm</b><b style="color:#2E8B57">jäger</b><b style="color:#701"></b></i> <b style="color:#3CB371">&#9993;</b> 09:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion
Hi TCO

I've thought about editing the article on List of Metamorphoses characters. I've made a workpage for it: Talk:List of Metamorphoses characters/Table and an example of it (I would like to make it a full table on all of the characters). What do you think? This is my first list so I just need to hear if I'm forgetting something :) (don't worry about sources yet, I'll handle them later). Anything you think I should add, is welcome! (as always) Thanks in advance --Mottenen (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Could be something to make an FL out of.  I'm not an expert on that process, but I know some people who are and suggest getting their guidance to help you target your work.  It's less work than an FA prose-wise, although still not trivial.  Can give you names of who to ask for advice. I like you table listing there they apear.  Probably want to make it sortable as well, but I know people who can help with the coding.  good project!!TCO (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, if you would give me their names or notify them, it would be great! --Mottenen (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2011 (UT

PresN, Rexx, are good starts. Look at the FLC and the guy in charge is pretty nice too. Just tell them, you are just starting, not ready for submission OR peer review, but you want a few tips on main things to work on. That'll get it going.


 * The Rambling Man is the other fellow.TCO (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

ectothermic
Good Idea, thanks! I've been reamed on every reptile article I've brought to GA or FAC because of cold-blooded being used.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's just when they go to that link, they will find that definition. And a lot of people don't go to links, so we lose them if we only define by "blue link".  Or even there may be others that find they don't need the link, given the combo of the proper term and its colloquial equivalent.  There is a section of the MOS where they talk about giving quick in article parentheticals when possible.  There are some where you can't, like mitochondria.  But a lot of times carapace (shell) or the like, it's possible to follow the guideline.  Tony1 is a big fan of giving both terms (simple and sciencey) in article, but linking the sciencey one.  I think it will be fine, no reaming.   Oh....and don't let the FAC meanies get to you.  They all need to go for a bike ride and a lift.  Go turtles!TCO (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources on Myrrha
Hello there. SunCreator added some sources to the butterflies etc., and I made them look like the rest of the citations. What's bothering me is a ref just saying "Herrich-Schäffer, 1852". If you added it, what is it?? Thanks in advance Mottenen (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I probably cut and pasted it from the relevant wiki article. Go to Google scholar and "advanced search". Try limiting the years to 1850–1855.  Try search with the name of the insect as key word, or perhaps the author.  It's a little bit of grunt work, sorry.  :-) TCO (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Found nothing on Google scholar. Found a source http://www.ftp.funet.fi/index/Tree_of_life/insecta/lepidoptera/ditrysia/papilionoidea/lycaenidae/polyommatinae/polyommatus/index.html about 2/3 down the page. Not a high quality source but does say
 * "Polyommatus myrrha (Herrich-Schäffer, [1843])
 * Asia Minor, Transcaucasia, Iran?. See [About maps] Lycaena myrrha Herrich-Schäffer, [1843]; Syst. Bearb. Schmett. Europ. 1 (2): 26, (49): (ii) f. 508-511
 * Polyommatus myrrha ; [NEN40]
 * Polyommatus myrrhus ;
 * Polyommatus mirrha[sic] ; [BRU2: 196, pl. 77, f. 16-18]"
 * By the way Herrich-Schäffer refers to Gottlieb August Wilhelm Herrich-Schäffer the person who first categorised/name the species. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, maybe searching on the Latin name would be more effective (can you order the search results by date?) This stuff is honestly a bear, but it's just a thing to do to be a real scholar.  Lot of work for a tiny result, but it shows care.  I literally spent two hours tracking down those 1700s and 1800s initial papers for the species in Painted turtle that Sasata had asked for.  But the citation must be out there, somewhere.  I mean the species WAS named.  And there's a paper where the species was first described and named.  (The paper may be part of a book or even a museum collection).  Even for old stuff, sometimes literally in Latin.  Still smile with the 1790s Latin book on reptiles, I found.  Have Mottenen read it for us poorly educated Americans.TCO (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * link to original book. It's called "Systematische Bearbeitung der Schmetterlinge von Europa, Zugleich als Text" in 6 volumes 1843-1856 by Gottlieb August Wilhelm Herrich-Schäffer with Revision and supplement by Jacob Hübner. Can't find the actual page but it's not in volumne 1 or volume 2 (seems google version of this is incomplete. Given the 1952 date is used elsewhere I gather it's from one of the later volumes. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've asked for some help from WikiProject Lepidoptera: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lepidoptera. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry I'm not doing the work myself. ;)  Sometimes "Open archive" or "Harvard something or other" (they are like google books but are web copies of off copyright science stuff) can be helpful.   We had refs like to old Smithsonian papers in picta, where I used the Open Archive as the link, not google books.  Sometimes a little easier as you can get a clean text version that is less photographic, more like just a typed version.  Also, now that you have the title, try doing a web search (not scholar or books), may get it that way.


 * Good idea with the project. Just realize a lot of projects live and die, here, and I find I hvae to do it all to get it done.  But worth a shout out for sure.TCO (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Archive.org has first three volume in text form. Still can't find the page. Maybe it's a language issue, because it's in German. :( 21:14 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You've made me happy with the digging. If you don't come up with it, I'll look.  I can get by in German OK (reading, not writing).  Can't get to it right away as head hurting and need to do some off Wiki stuff.  But I will bestir myself in a day or two.TCO (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've cited the book Myrrha but still don't know the page number. Doesn't matter really until it gets to FA level. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * TY. GA seems a reasonable goal.  Think we should give Mottenen some time before exposing him to the level of pain involved in FA.  Plus sign would be a nice piece of hardware for now.  Also, to really get that thing to FA, would want some scholarship in terms of literary criticism.  (Lot of work.)  Think may be more fun for Mottenen to rack up some plus signs on different articles that interest him as that likely does not require same level of literature Ph.D. type work.TCO (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Going after shiny ratings!
Talking about me? I'm totally in for FA still, this is getting exciting! It's got to be good now, if there is any justice in the world (comparison Splitting of the moon and Erebus and Fenrir - Myrrha has got more sources AND content than any of them!). Done the most of the interpretation for now, I might add a little bit more but the main things are there. CE is the keyword now I think. Mottenen (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Cool that you are up for the Hydra-battle! And I can see some work done on interpretation--there is some meat on the bone, now!  I'm OK on content for GA now.  Let's fix all the formatting and add refs where missing (brush it up, I have not been watchlisting, wanted you to move it along a bit without me stealing your fun).  Then I'd like to see if Wehwalt (or someone like that, with an broad literature knowledge, Malleus?  Giano? some classics or literature professor/grad student?) will GA review it.  It's not just having a good person to proof it as a piece and versus the plus sign rules, but that involving someone like that helps make sure we can eventually put this thing (for FA) into a broader context of literature and ancient history.TCO (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * SunC think it's cool for GA nom now, how about you? I want to know if you feel it needs some extra CE or anything, before I nominate it :) Mottenen (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply
(Pre-emptive apology if this seems strongly worded or pedantic...we're all just God's chillun, equal Wiki editors, etc. ;-) )

It needs another draft first. You've made great strides.  Seriously, not just being nice, it was very clearly "decent" to start with. Was a great topic with lotsa sex and violence. But still very high culture. Actually something I had never heard of before, but when I did and saw all the art and music and literature, I thought I should have! Seriously, perfect topic for the the Project. And your treatment of it was actually pretty polished, maybe even more smooth than a native English speaker (or a sciencey one). Really, I thought it had a nice tempo to it, even a style that I have to work to get, that doesn't come naturally.

And then you pretty readily "upped your game". You've doubled the content including whole new aspects of the topic. You've added many citations and improved formatting of references. Really appreciate you pitching in and doing those strange things (and NYM and Sun for helping you!)

I'm NOT pushing for the Ph.D. Literature theses sweep and etymology primary journal review and the 12 species of insect. (now, we'll see for FA...) It's not just nit-picking, but it's NOT major surgery. We're close. But it's more than just picking little spots of dust off a perfect house setting. Random people coming by and changing a comma or a word is not going to get it to an integrated composition (in some cases, it can actually devolve the thing). That's not to say that more eyes won't find things, just that you need to look at it holistically. And also be a bit of an advocate for the thing if there are stray edits that clash. It's not going to the store to buy new furniture. And I'm not telling you to lug the bed from the basement and put it upstairs. But...we might have a couple chairs that are in the room to room traffic flow paths or lamps that don't cast light on us as we sit in our reading chair...or...you get it (that's part of what I mean by "logic"...org and maybe just I donno "logic"...like if we have three supports for an assertion do they all really support.)

Remember this article is MORE than just a retelling of the myth (although that is a wonderful aspect of it and to YOUR credit and love of story that you brought it to the the rest of us), but also more of an "in the real world" discussion of the topic.

The Biblican myrrh and functionality of myrrh, really fits since it's under that etymology para and we even said that, previously that the girl and the substance have been linked in their origins (even get the impression the myth may have come from the substance, not visa versa). Would maybe just rewrite the Bible para though, to put the Old Testament stuff first in the para (can still mention the Gospel of Matthew reference, OK, sure, definitely, but the OT is more connected to Origins and to Semetic etymology of the word. So just kind of dress that up a little so it seems to fit even better in it's new home.

We should add the dates of myth versions (it's in your head anyhow), so make it clear. If you can source a negative statement that it's not known how the different classical versions affected each other, all for the better. But if not, at least what ever we have on timing and "real world reception". Ovid was a literary sensation even in antiquity! A short contextual para at the top of Ovid ("famed in ancient times and most translated Latin work over the ages, Ovid's version of Myrrha is the one that has carried to our day and influenced other artists... blabla...") as well as a *dates and relationships and physical locations* para for the non-core versions, at the top of THAT section.

Interpretation needs a bit more somehow to make it translate to some "nutshell" graspability. I struggled to summarize a sentence for the lead (and it's not there yet). You've got some decent facts in the section. But I was hoping for something a little more towards: A beleives X, B beleives Y, C believes Z. Or even: A believes X, B argues "not X". It may not be simple to make some "pat" theme like that. But let's take a strain and see what we can squeeze out. It helps the reader. {A small thing, but it looked like you had a couple of points on "within mythology" interpretations. SAme topic and same reference (22). Let's group them, one after the other, instead of scattering them with other stuff in between.) I'm still hoping for something like "mythology scholars see the myth in a context of...I guess...the other myths...or petulant Aphrodite (she was a baddie, wasn't she) or some-pin;  Freudians see Myrrha as not getting enough village-boy sex, so that turned her into an incest sex monster; the Marxist feminists see the story as evil men not letting women speak (the silent tree); the Guardian says the sheer stomach-churning fucked-upedness of Myrrha date-raping her dad is what makes the myth the best incest story EVAH!

Oh...and shifting from logic and org, some of the word choice (e.g. "the fact that") and prose (little more windy, passive voice and nominalization), needs cleaning up to get back to the "early Mottenen period" polishedness.

I recommend you or "we" clean up the storyline and prose aspects as much as possible on our own first. We can still get copy editor in here after, but it will be with a closer solution. Or probably at that point, it's ready for GAR and we get Malleus or Wehwalt to handle it. They're great writers, willing to upgrade and not just criticize, and all literary and all.

TCO (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay I'll keep this short. Thanks a lot for all that! For the myrrh, I've found more (added some to the plant, but there are some things like how the antique and later the middle age societies viewed myrrh). Interpretation is pretty damn hard, but I have found some books that might have something. In most cases Myrrha is just mentioned before they go to the "big one" (Adonis). My early period was when I had cleaned it up myself, now I can hardly put something on before you're there editing ;) it's nice, but I'm not used to write anything as perfect as I can before I'm positive I've got it all and then I make a full edit (it's easier, when you edit in a context). I'm working on the dates etc. for the writers, but it doesn't seem like the editors of my versions felt that was anything important (but it should be possible to extract something). Thanks for your continued help, I like it! Mottenen (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You're doing great.
 * I agree that working on the content in terms of the facts themselves as well as organization should take primacy over the nit-picking wording. You can do a sweep for that later.  I work the same way, myself.  Just, when we talk of putting it in for GAR, you should have done that brushup prior.
 * I'll stay out of it, other than giving you coaching. I actually took the page off watch (and it's again off watch) so that you can push it ahead.
 * Myrrh: I would stay away from the middle ages myrrh discussion (unless for some odd reason, it's connected to Dante or something).  We have an article on myrrh.  A para or so on the substance, in the context of origins makes sense (since the two were really linked and probably the plant name predates the girl).  Also, it's really just a service to the reader to have  short "in article" discussion vice forcing him to read another article.  I say this since we refer to the tree and substance so much in the context of the plot and all.  If you want to say something about Egyptian use for mummies fine.  The reason why I want the Bible para to discuss the OT first, is becaause it will seem to "fit" better with the time frame for origin and for the language (is in Hebrew, not Greek as the Gospels were).  Please still leave the Matthew comment, because it's SO notable everyone has heard of the Three Kings, is good to give the reader a "connect point" to the topic.  Plus at least it occrurred in antiquity.  But put it towards the END of the para, as its a teensy bit of an aside.  IOW, for that myrrh usage para, make it chronological.
 * Interpretation: Look at the google link that SunC gave you in talk, and then how I used that to follow on to other web references.  there is a lot out there on Myrrha herself, if you start from the Nagle paper.TCO (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * TCO (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but if this is just GA, I can hardly imagine how much FA requires. Anyway, would you do me a favor and set up an archiver or something on Myrrha's talk page? Unless I should delete the out-debated topics (of a total of 60 topics)... Thanks anyway in advance Mottenen (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ask SunC please, or just cut and paste the header from edit mode from another talk page that has it. (I donno how any more than you.)  Go ahead and submit it for GA/FA if you are getting sick of working with it.  There's no harm.  Maybe they love it as is and any fixes are easy.  Or maybe they give same feedback as I do.  Sounds like your motivation would benefit from moving along to the next ranking, so go ahead.TCO (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * So far as I can tell it meets all of WP:GACR. Bring it on. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Make it so. "The die is cast."  :-)  TCO (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And yet, fate is against me here. Found a professional critical review of the myth, comparing a particular translation with James II fate (it sounds weird but it's actually pretty persuasive when you read it). I will work until I feel I'm done, need to get a hang on the Nagle article too... lots and lots to do, just weird that so many of the GA's are less comprehensive than this one :-) but I don't want them reviewers messing around until I can't do anymore (that little green thing will come sooner or later anyway, I hope) Mottenen (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Screw it, I want to see what they want me to do if it needs more improvement :-) nominated it Mottenen (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

A question on literature
Hello, I found out that Dante compares Florence with Myrrha in one of his letters. It seems like a funny fact, but is it relevant and more important: where to add it - literature (under the Divine Comedy)? Thanks Mottenen (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Add it under the Divine Comedy. Can you push a little more to find out the nature and background of the analogy?  Like is Dante's point that Florence is a seductress, young, incestuous, what?  Looking at our article on Dante, it appears he was already exiled from Florence at the time he wrote Comedia.  So perhaps, his point is that Myrrha is an exile?  In any case, whatever the exact nature of the analogy, it should be mentioned that Dante was a Florentine exiled for political factionalism (so his negative remark should be taken with that in mind).  TCO (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Wauw easy now, I can do the Dante's situation pretty easily. His analogy was that he felt Florence was making an unnecessary and unnatural alliance with the pope instead of supporting Henry VII (I think, I'll check up on it). He was exiled when he wrote the Comedia - there are a lot of references to his coming exiling in it (it is written as though it takes place before he was exiled). I'll write it and then you will see - eventually check the article on him, though it's only C-class. Thanks again Mottenen (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That's fine. I don't know the exact details.  Just from your first comment, could not tell what the point was to it all.  Probably just requires a couple words to put it in context.  You know more than I do, for sure.  I'm just reacting as a reader.TCO (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Garh! Some dude just put on "citation needed" templates on the summary of Ovid's version and the Dante thing?! I've written to him, it just seems lame to cite a source 5-6 times in a summary and a source stating the obvious in Dante's Divine Comedy. Mottenen (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I really dislike the tagging. It's such a power move.  Way better to discuss in talk.   As commented at article talk, he's wrong about needing a ref at end of every para within a plot summary.  That said, I would just add them.  He might have a point on the DC inference.  Take a look at it and think about it.  And hang in there and don't let the taggers get to you!TCO (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ovid
Remade the intro to him - shorter, more precise - and cut down the quote. Is it good enough now? Don't worry about the interpreting parts - I'll add them later under interpretation when I make the next big edit there. --Mottenen (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Real upgrade. Congrats for pushing it.TCO (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Hi somebody is editing my refs (all of them) on Myrrha - what is he doing, is it necessary?? Mottenen (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)