User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/Archive2

Laika
Just when I thought the article could not be improved any more, someone comes along and proves me wrong. Thank you for your work on this article. :-) --Zerbey 14:04, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup and substub
I've noticed a few of the pages you've put up on cleanup can well go for substub. A substub is something which only has one or two sentences about the article. See substub for more information. --[[User:Allyunion|AllyUnion (Talk)]] 09:22, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Windows XP
Yeah, I think it's fine in either case. I'm already supporting it for FA status, but I think that updated sounds a little less cliche... Good work with that, btw. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:53, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

CPU Cache
Hey, I just noticed that CPU cache is on your cool pages list. It's on WP:FAC, and I thought you might want to vote on it (you seem pretty active on FAC). --d 00:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mark Latham
Do you have access to the Latham books, or to the piece in Quarterly Essay (I've so far found a newspaper-printed summary, but not the full article)? Is there anything else you view as needing improvement within the article? Thanks for your input, Lacrimosus 23:14, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC).

Exploding Whale II
Sorry, Ta bu shi da yu, my vote remains to oppose. This story strikes me as one which is most appreciated by the rubberneck crowd - I can see nothing in it to enlighten, elicidate, or instruct. It is entirely sensationalist, and though it may teach a minor moral lesson about sticking explosives in without considering where the results may fall, it is first and foremost an off-color joke, and nothing near a featured article. Denni &#9775; 00:21, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC)


 * (For the record, I of course disagree with Denni's assessment. I have noted on his talk page that I respect his opinion.) - Ta bu shi da yu 02:34, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Research centre
See Talk:Exploding whale -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   20:59, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

Exploding whale
I regret that you interpret my objection to this aticle as being that it is "beneath" me. Quite the contrary. I find it most amusing and see it as a wonderful moral lesson in how people think they can solve a problem by force but only manage to make things worse.

My objection is not with the concept. It is with, as I have already said, the topic and the tone. I oppose the topic because it consists of only two events, hardly a common occurrence, and in the two cases, the cause of explosion was completely different. Second, I find the writing style flippant and irrelevant. For example, Paul Linnman's quote is foolish, and the fact that the blast scared away scavenging birds is (a) no surprise to anyone, and (b) an utter irrelevancy.

This is a fun story, and it is exactly the kind of article I like to see appear in Wikipedia to ease the tedium of charged politico-economico-cultural articles. But I cannot bring myself to see it as having any value as a feature article. Sorry.

Denni &#9775; 03:12, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

Please don't jump to conclusions. The article was already replicated when I arrived to answer your previous query. It appears you have your nose out of joint because I can't see fit to vote your way. Alas, that is life in Wiki, but don't use it as a reason to get cranky. Denni &#9775; 17:28, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

Beatles' song articles
You flatter me. :-) Personally I think "Norwegian Wood" is the worst Beatles' song articles I've expanded so far, but since I couldn't see anything wrong with it, I nominated it anyway. Most of them are good because Google rocks. 99.99% of the stuff I know about them is from Google. So, yeah, compliment Google, not me. :-p Johnleemk | Talk 15:40, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Legal citation
Given a question you had a while back, you might want to look at Wikipedia_talk:Cite_sources. -- Jmabel 18:53, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

James Joyce
Hi: can you have a look at James Joyce and WP:FAC to see if I have addressed your objections? Thanks. Filiocht 09:55, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi

I like Exploding whale and have supported it, with a short rant, on WP:FAC. Thanks for the kind words on Joyce. The article as I found it was particularly weak, considering how famous he is and how many people seem to have an opinion on his work. Filiocht 14:52, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Paragraph 175
I believe I've answered all of your objections at Featured_article_candidates. Would you please either respond or strike your objections? Thanks. -- Jmabel 22:07, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * TNX -- Jmabel 22:58, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Exploding whale
No problem! Thanks for putting effort into it - it was a great read. I'm from Oregon, and its something of an occasional folk legend here. Every once in a while you'll run into someone who has a copy of the video and breaks it out for a party or something - yeah, we're kinda morbid, I guess. I had totally forgotten about the Taiwan incident, too. Anyhow, thanks again! -Seth Mahoney 16:16, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Fourth International
I've tried to clarify the article. If it still does not seem clear to you, please detail what you would like to be explained more clearly. thanks, Warofdreams 18:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)