User talk:Vanished user 58234729/Archive2

Diagrams for knitting
Re your request: I can probably do some diagrams for knitting, but it may take me a while to get to them - been swamped with my day job until a few days ago, and have a huge wiki to-do list. Happy new year... - PKM (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Textile Arts newsletter
Hello again, this month's textile arts newsletter highlights the expansion of top-importance knitting and good article candidacy for Palestinian costumes. We've had several more new articles appear at Template:Did you know and other exciting developments. Regards, Durova Charge! 23:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Textile arts newsletter
Hi, the textile arts project had an exciting month in February: 7 featured pictures, 2 good articles, and 4Did you know? entries. There's still time to join our featured portal drive. Our Marchnewsletter has all the developments. Regards, Durova Charge! 00:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force
I wanted to know if you (or any friends of yours) are interested in dermatology, and would be willing to help me with theWikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force? Kilbad (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Acorn Park high five :D
Hi there DroEsperanto!

I live quite close to the park and am fond of its oddness and stubbornness, so I was horrified by someone's suggestion in the talk page to nuke it. I also took the photo, although it's already out of date, given that there's now another condo on the other side of the park. Perhaps I'll take another one when this rotten snow melts.

Mi ankaux parlas esperanto, sed ne bone :) Glad to know there are other Esperantists lurking about Silver Spring!

Cheers babbage (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for catching that. Forgot how to spell it :P. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, no problem. It was such a difference in meaning that I had to check wiktionary to make sure there wasn't some alternate definition of respiratory. – DroEsperanto(t /c) 03:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit Problem
Hello DroEsperanto! You did such an amazing job writing and editing the "University of Chicago" page. However, I was trying to add two more rankings in the table within the "Undergraduate College" section. I was trying to note that UChicago was ranked 1st by College Crunch ( http://www.collegecrunch.org/rankings/top-50-colleges-ranked-for-2009/ ) and 1st by the Princeton Review in 2006 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp_YVt7CfJI ). I tried to make changes to the table, but it did not work. I apologize if my format does not follow the Wikipedia format; I am new to Wikipedia editing.

Ok
Yeah ok. I was going to go through and add the ✅ tag to everything once I had done it. I just started seeing so much wrong with the article. GA reviews are so demoralising! Francium12 12:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. Maybe I'm being a little too harsh for a GAC; I'm kind of just sweeping through and marking everything I see that can be fixed. But in any case the article will be stronger when it's done! I hope I'm not being too demoralizing in the process, though!&mdash; DroEsperanto (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

2003 University of Bristol admissions controversy GA Review
Hi DroEsperanto. I note that you have taken the GA Review for 2003 University of Bristol admissions controversy, but that there is nothing on the talkpage to indicate a review is taking place, and Talk:University of Bristol admissions controversy/GA1 is empty. But I have looked at your contributions and found this, which suggests you are actively engaged in the review. It would assist others now, to know that the review is taking place, and some of the issues being raised - this is so that nobody else starts doing a review, and also so more people can help out and bring the article to GA status. To do this you need to activate Talk:University of Bristol admissions controversy/GA1 by placing your review comments in there. This also assists with record keeping, so when people wish to look into the GA review in the future, it can be clearly seen what went on. If you need any help, let me know. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 16:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, whoops! I'm sorry, I'm kind of new at GA reviewing. I actually told a contributor who found that to not act on the things I wrote until I was done. Was that not kosher? If so I'll redact my comment. And should I move my review to that page even if it's not done? Sorry if I've caused any inconvenience! &mdash; DroEsperanto (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * People do reviews in different ways, and it's up to you how you do it. The /GA1 page was created in order to have a place for GA Reviews and to keep a record of them. It is very helpful to put your comments in there, and people might wonder what's going on if that is empty. So, yes, put your review in there. A good GA Review is a discussion between the reviewer and the editor(s) - the more you can let the editor(s) know what you are thinking, the better really. Even though there are criteria which the article has to be measured against, there is a fair degree of personal interpretation of some aspects of the criteria, and it helps sometimes to talk things though to get some clarity. You don't need to deliver a complete review in one go - indeed I often start a review by saying I am doing a review, and I have spotted one or two strengths (to make the editors relax a bit) and one or two weaknesses (so they can work on something), and I'll give a fuller review later. Some reviewers work through an article in bits, and give feedback as they go along.


 * This template is useful:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * You don't need to use it, and some reviewers are very much against a "tick box" approach to reviewing - but most reviewers and editors find it helps focus attention on the GA criteria. The template can be found at Template:GAList2, with a guide to how to use it. Let me know how you get on - and feel free to ask me any questions. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 20:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and you are allowed (encouraged even) to sort out minor stuff yourself. If you see a spelling mistake or typo, then just fix it. If there are a lot of spelling mistakes, then you can tell people to do a copyedit, but you needn't point out every spelling mistake yourself. If the editors are total boneheads then you can direct them tothese people, who are willing to help out on copyediting.  SilkTork  *YES! 20:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's very helpful. Am I encouraged to help make non-minor fixes as well during/after the review (i.e. if I put it on hold)?&mdash; DroEsperanto (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Take a look at Reviewing good articles - "While it is not a reviewer's responsibility to fix an article, fixing small problems is often helpful." But don't get too carried away. If you are making significant changes to an article you may start to become too involved and this may impair your judgement. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 23:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers. It might be worth leaving me to deal with all of the issues mentioned before checking references as I think quite a few more references need to be added first. I'm going to try and give the article a little more context and make it more easy to understand for the non-British reader. Francium12  12:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Diamonds
Hey there! Thanks for asking, I'm happy to explain my rationale. I meant to redirect Ms. Strawn's article to the diamond's (which I just did, apologies for earlier). However, as for the Easter Sunshine one, I don't feel that either of those two articles contain notability. I've put them up for deletion as a result. You're welcome to comment here. Hope that answered your question! Cheers, Master of Puppets  - Call me MoP! :D  03:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe there's a misunderstanding. I wasn't trying to delete the Easter Sunrise Diamond article; my AFD was for Shirley Strawn (which has been deleted) and for Glenn Worthington (the discoverer of the Easter Sunrise Diamond), which you have now listed for AFD again. The result of the AFD was that each diamond searcher's article should be merged into the article on their respective diamond, so I think that that should have occurred and that the current AFD's inclusion of Glenn Worthington is unnecessary. (I do, for the record, support the deletion of the Easter Sunrise page and will vote as such shortly). &mdash; DroEsperanto(talk) 03:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know you weren't trying to delete the ESD or Glenn Worthington articles. However, I noticed that neither had particular notability; Strawn's diamond has noteworthy factors, at least. Glenn Worthington, on the other hand, has no notability in this case, so I've put his article up for deletion too. Master ofPuppets - Call me MoP! :D 17:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But I was trying to delete the Glenn Worthington article; it was listed under my Shirley Strawn AFD and the people there voted to delete it in addition to Shirley Strawn, making your listing of Glenn Worthington redundant. &mdash;DroEsperanto (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't know you were trying to delete it. Aside from the usual banter I have to give about this (AFD isn't a vote etc.), consensus was to redirect both to their respective diamonds; redirect is different from delete. I could go rouge on this and just delete both based on my discretion, but there's no point. Cheers, Master of Puppets  - Call me MoP! :D  11:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Good Article review
Hi DroEsperanto. Although this is only my third attempt at a GA I think you are supposed to give the user time to act upon the GA review you have given! For example on the last GA I did the article English Poor Laws stayed open for months on hold allowing improvements to be made before the reviewer was approached to decide whether to pass it! Francium12 10:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's usually the case. WP:RGA says "If the problems are minor or easy to fix, the article can be put "on hold"for a week or so'. If the problems are serious or extensive, the article can be failed. In the latter case, editors should be invited to renominate an article once it meets the standards: almost all articles can be improved" (emphasis mine). Since the article needs an widespread sweeping of NPOV phrasing, organizational changes, and additional content, I thought that a fail was more appropriate, although I tossed around the idea of an on-hold. You're welcome to renominate it once the problems have been addressed or take it to WP:GAR if you think it's been improperly failed. &mdash; DroEsperanto(talk) 10:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

TFA
I was upset to see an obvious word to avoid in the lead sentence of TFA. Thank you for not only raising the issue onTalk:Polish culture during World War II, but offering a highly literate and persuasive defense of NPOV.Madcoverboy (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

University of Miami
Thank you for dropping me a note on my talk page. I'm not sure what request you have in mind, but we resolved the misunderstanding yesterday. I applied a tag to a statement about what the school colors represented, not to the places where the colors were recited. I also eliminated repetitive recitals of the school colors and what they represent. I explained it on histalk page. User:Rynlong misunderstood the edits, but we worked it out. The important thing is that communication continues. This is much better than September 2-5, where I would propose a change or explain a change on the talk page, and it would be summarily reverted without comment. I think the article still needs serious work, particularly from experienced editors not associated with the school. Please jump in. Racepacket (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant that it was reasonable to request that a statement about the origins of the school colors or their meaning, since that hardly constitutes common knowledge and frankly could easily be something someone just made up. I'll do work where I can on the article, although I'd rather not become too involved in any more content disputes.&mdash; DroEsperanto(talk) 18:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of University of Chicago
As you are one of the principle contributors to the article I wanted to be sure you were aware that University of Chicago has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.Malleus Fatuorum

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

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit question
My reason for the pointer you removed was in fact in hopes that it would lead to improvement of the article. Would you please consider replacing it with a note to that effect? Thank you. 99.27.132.102 (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking so long to get back on this. I didn't see how directing people to your reference desk question could lead to a better article; it appeared that you just wanted more knowledgeable eyes on your question. Feel free to let me know if you still think I'm mistaken. &mdash; DroEsperanto (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I do, but I've decided to pursue the issue by breaking the question down into its component parts.99.60.3.23 (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't revert accurate information on the U of C talk page. Thank you —Precedingunsigned comment added by 63.26.137.51 (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the statement is true, you shouldn't edit other people's comments on talk pages; add them below theirs (preferably indented by adding a colon before your comment) and signing your post with ~ . &mdash;DroEsperanto (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I justed edited there because that person's name was there. I have added accurate information neatly and signed. It is up to you to add it into the actual page topic or not- but there is good info on the talk page fro future reference. thanksUcmaroons(talk) 22:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Global Warming
Are you still recording an audio version of this article? The tag on the talk page goes back to July so I thought I'd better ask. --TS 13:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point I guess probably not. I started over the summer but then got busy, so I haven't worked on it in a while. I've been reluctant to take down the notice since I've been toying with the idea of starting back on it (I have some free time coming up for the holidays), but you can feel free to do so if you'd like since I'm not actively working on it at the moment, if that's what you were getting at. &mdash; DroEsperanto (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sir or madam, I said hours to days until the footnotes. Why revert so hastily?  Is this policy for something you can reasonably presume is going to be in the article soon?  Do you see it as a very major edit?Julzes (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation
Dear : Hello, my name is The Wordsmith; I'm a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here:
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-08/Global Warming

I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, The Wordsmith Communicate 21:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

History of global warming
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. -- TS 18:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of South Campus Residence Hall
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, fordeletion. The nominated article is South Campus Residence Hall. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/South Campus Residence Hall. Please be sure tosign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that given the U of C house system, a series of articles on the resident hall/complex level is sound, and oppose deletion. Unfortunately, a number of articles are coming up for deletion tomorrow because they were nominated on March 23.  Please do what you can to save the articles. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

us university ranking discussion
Hello DroEsperanto, I am the original publisher of the Consus Composite ranking. The discussion for its use is reopened. Since you contributed originally, feel free to rejoin the discussion. I am currently defending its use. ThanksZoroastrama100 (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * DroEsperanto, I am assuming the best of u. I hoped it wouldn't happen, but if you look at the discussion again level headed, you would know I tried everything to be reasonable, but all of you (who advocated removal in the first place) are gaining up on me unreasonably. You are the majority; you will get your way in the end, but I hope you are better an editor than that.Zoroastrama100 (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that you were trying to be reasonable, but we have an honest difference of opinion. And although it may feel like we're ganging up on you, it's just that the consensus up till now among members of the project is that we only include notable rankings. You are not the first, and probably not the last, to try to add such a ranking to the list. My only suggestion to you at this point is to gracefully accept that consensus is against you and move on to editing other parts of Wikipedia. &mdash;DroEsperanto (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary
Hello. I was over on Wiktionary and I came across a recording of yours that I don't believe is completely accurate, and looking at your userpage over there you said to let you know; it is regarding "", it kinda sounds like "that's when she said", thought that you might like to know. Thanks  Nowyouseeme talk2me  09:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Chicago Rankings
Please look at the Discussion on the Chicago University page —Precedingunsigned comment added by ArthurGD (talk •contribs) 14:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:DroEsperanto/Sandbox/WMS draft
User:DroEsperanto/Sandbox/WMS draft, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DroEsperanto/Sandbox/WMS draft and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:DroEsperanto/Sandbox/WMS draft during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)