| Revision as of 22:49, 26 July 2008 editOpus33 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,856 edits Thanks← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:44, 29 July 2008 edit undo71.33.90.152 (talk) ← Replaced content with 'fudge'Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| fudge | |||
| {{Notice|Deja Messages Ici Bitte. I will generally respond to any comments, queries, calumnies or complaints here.}} | |||
| -------------- | |||
| {{archivebox| | |||
| #] | |||
| #] | |||
| #] | |||
| #] | |||
| #] | |||
| #]}} | |||
| ==Dirty Dancing== | |||
| I'm going to try and take '']'' to FA again... Since you were one of the principal opposers, I thought I'd check with you, what do you think? --]]] 13:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *I'd be happy to take another look when you have it nom'd at FA. ] (]) 14:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ** It's currently at ], if you'd like to comment there. --]]] 15:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Scrubs== | |||
| Is it your intention to piss people off, because you're certainly good at it. My restoration did not contain "gussied up trivia", I'm pretty sure that details of it being a homage to something else, its director, it being the last episode, various production details, plus the directors views on the episode could be called, erm, oh yes, "real-world focus", at least by most people, perhaps not your interpretation, and evidence so far suggests that this episode will be plenty notable. I'm trying to go by the book here, I'm trying to make improvements, and if you actually bothered to contribute to the discussion about the episode articles, which by the way is showing a likelihood of more reverts, you'll see that I'm trying to prevent this, and advocating more article expansion. Its hard to feel motivated when you seem to delight in acting like a dick, Can you not consider the fact that you're not the only one trying to do what they feel is best for the project?--] (]) 03:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :oh and i feel that i should mention that should i restore the article, your reverting will be the 3rd revert, not mine, and also, this was a new episode, created after your redirects, there was no discussion on it. You want it gone, afd it--] (]) 03:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are right and I am wrong: as the series finale, it will likely be notable enough to warrant an individual article and I apologise for turning it into a redirect. Please ensure that the primary focus of the article is its real-world significance and bear in mind it is important not to dress up trivia. There are lots of vandals who restore willy nilly and I did not pay close enough attention to this case. Sorry. ] (]) 13:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::accepted and forgotten. Thank you--] (]) 13:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::On a similar point, I plan on completing the WP:FICT-failing-synoptic+trivia Scrubs articles redirection soon. If you plan on rescuing any of these specific articles, please let me know. ] (]) 16:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I do intend to try and rescue a few, not for a few weeks though, exam period is upon us--] (]) 16:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ok, well listen I know we have had our differences (you reported me to arbcom after all); the bottom line here, however, is that we are both striving for the same thing: better content that satisfies general encyclopedic exigencies. I appreciate your efforts to improve articles & not just blindly restoring content that violates our guidelines governing fiction and I appreciate that you accept my apology for having misapplied redirection. I look forward to improving our engagement in the future and I hope that we can work together on finding the right balance between redirecting content that is mere fan material and restoring articles that aspire to something more. ] (]) 17:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I do hope that the two of us can work together. I still believe that all the episodes should have articles, you're not going to convince me otherwise, but its hard to keep going over the same debates, and i also no that i will never convince you they could stay as they are. But thats irrelevant, if the two of us can find a common ground and move forward from there, perhaps it will encourage others in "the big debate" to try a bit of working together, which is the best we can hope for. I do apologise for the whole arbcom thing, i could have handled that whole situation much better, lets call it a bad episode and redirect it to the past. As a quick heads up, when i'm free, the articles i'm thinking of trying to salvage are ], because its unusual, and won an award, some s1 episode, i forget which one, which apparently caused some controversy by offending some nurses, and some of the ones with major guest stars, e.g. ] and ]'s episodes (3 and 2 respectively) because they were particulary notable episodes.--] (]) 00:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I am so sorry for that terrible redirection joke, don't know what i was thinking. I should get an indefinite block for that--] (]) 00:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: Nonsense - that made me laugh! I am glad the olive branch has been extended here. When you have the time, why don't you consult here on the specific episodes you would like to improve and I'd be happy to help; the basis for improvement in those you cite above sounds very solid to me. I know it seems I am against all fictional topics, ]! ] (]) 01:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Jac, thanks for your post at the AE board. It's depressing isn't it that in instances where editors actually find a way to work together that the specific instance actually gets cited as edit-warring and a block is solicited? Let me know when you are free from exam burdens and we can chart a path to get the notable Scrubs episodes resuscitated with appropriate content (4 cameras episode is probably a good place to start). I will invite ] to join this effort, per his message below. Cheers, ] (]) 18:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Rather than replacing the articles on Scrubs episodes with redirects please post a message on my talk page and I will attempt to bring them up to standards, considering that gives specific requirements for a TV show episode page it shouldn't be too hard. Or rather, It might be possible to combine each season into its own article with separate pages only for episodes with considerable real world significance. Let me know what you think. ~ A. S. Castanza 03:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Careful with the "V" word == | |||
| Believe me, I understand the temptation, but nothing will come of it but trouble.] (]) 12:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Re:RFArb/Footnotes == | |||
| Thanks. It's like ] around those guys. Until I found your/his RFC I was beating myself up for being a pansy, but I don't feel quite as bad anymore. It's my first ArbCom statement - I hope it was acceptable to link to the RFC instead of repeating your hard work. I hope even more that ArbCom puts some meat into their decision, but based on current trends in their "decisions" (and I use the word loosely) I'm not optimistic. We'll see. :-) - ]] 08:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Hey == | |||
| Incase you're wondering, I'm taking a wikibreak for about a month and I'll be back soon. By the way, before I leave, I just wanna tell you that the Darkstalkers, Tekken, and Guilty Gear character pages might need a little work, don't you agree? ] (]) 05:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Prose-master== | |||
| is some pretty good work. You should be reviewing articles in the sunshine at FAC more often rather than wallowing in the trenches at AfD..this is great work! Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 06:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Personal attacks == | |||
| Regarding your comments on ]: Please see Misplaced Pages's ] policy. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to ] for disruption. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. It would have been quote possible to critique Alansohn's nomination without adding hyperbole of your own, and DGG was quite right to ask you politely to refactor. Your "braying schoolmarm" reply was completely uncalled for in response to DGG's polite request. Thank you. ] 04:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Yay! Brown haired girl posted to my talk page and even ]! Anyway, I disagree that my comment is a personal attack; perhaps my observation that the nominator was so moved by his rhetoric can be construed in this way, but I am unconvinced. But there is indeed a braying schoolmarmish quality to DGG's reply: he knows full well ] of ] that Alan brings to disputes, and ]. This behaviour is simply intolerable and I am disappointed that, in the face of a gross and insulting caricature of the closing admin which imputes his good faith and judgement, you & DGG both come whining to me. Shame on you! ] (]) 13:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == "en vif"? == | |||
| You recently used the phrase ''en vif'' in a discussion at WT:NOT. Thinking that I might learn a new phrase, I tried to look it up. I could not find anything at Wiktionary (where I thought we had pretty good coverage of such phrases) or even through a google search of online dictionaries. What does that mean? And can you create the page at Wiktionary please? ] <small>]</small> 17:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Thanks for the heads up - I googled ''en vif'' and found no English usage - so I should not have included it in my comment. Apologies. It means live or, figuratively, in the act in French. ] (]) 20:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==AE thread regarding TV episode articles== | |||
| A thread has been ] at ] regarding your edits to TV episode articles. Thank you. --] (]) 05:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You are strongly encouraged to be more civil. See the case's closing. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 11:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Removing content without talking about it ... == | |||
| As I have said in the past to user:Opus33, your neutrality towards my comments is generally under question. You can not hide the fact that very high value coins have been minted using very important representations like people, castles, etc. If you want to remove the content because you do not like it, then you should comment that in the talk page first. | |||
| If you continue reverting my edits on purpose, I will escalate your behaviour to a Misplaced Pages neutral administrator and your account may be blocked. Way more important articles than the ones your review have been happily accepting my comments, you should take that as a sample! ] (]) 14:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Oye Miguel, listen up - you added content to a stable article. Opus and I have reverted your changes. So your next step is to go to the talk page and discuss the material you want to add in. (Go read Misplaced Pages Editing Process if you are confused about this). You now need to go to the talk page and make your case for why this content should be included, not come to my talk page with misplaced adolescent threats. *snap* ] (]) 14:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Is not a thread, is the reality. Please check Hadyn, we had a long discussion about the inclussion of the coin, and it was decided to let it there. Then Opus33 deleted similar content, in a building article, nothing related to music! He knows the process and he could start the conversation in the talk page. You want the conversation, fine I will start it, but I am definitely escalating his behaviour. | |||
| :The content that I am adding is real, sourced and well accepted by a lot of other articles. The fact that you and Opus are taking "your articles" so personal is not correct. What is wrong showing that there is a unique commemorative coin in honour to this building in this case? ] (]) 14:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *:Thanks for being reasonable. Let's move all discussion of this to the talk page. Cheers, | |||
| ] (]) 14:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:|The discussion can be found under the topic ].}} <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Yours, --] (]) 15:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Eusebeus, it will really mean a lot to me if you can give your honest comment on ], even if it is "I do not like and I rather the whole mention of the coin and the image to be removed". Thanks in advance. ] (]) 13:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Guten abend mein herr ''(now where do the umlauts go again?)'', | |||
| the translator on google makes for some highly amusing reading of: | |||
| of the ], which otherwise has some fine referenced scientific material to add to the anglophone article. The third paragraph of '''Eiablage und Brutpflege''', with the bit about the cuckoos (and the ref) would be fantastic. There is some other good material on timing of bird development but I couldn't figure out which ref went with it. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 14:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Can you give me a more precise request with respect to the references you want translated over (i.e. the ref numbers?). Then I can give it a try. My ornithological German ... well, we'll see ... ;) ] (]) 15:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Para 3 of '''Eiablage und Brutpflege''', with refs 15 and 13. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 01:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :PS I have an interesting idea for a collaboration cleanup on an environmental topic. Let me know if you are interested. ] (]) 15:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes. sure. I have been hamstrung by some access issues ''(feeling very antipathetic to my modem or adsl, not sure which is responsible....lots of phone calls and frustration)'' Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 01:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::] and, if true, how fucked are we all? No good straight up web sources - an obvious lacuna for WP to fill as an FA. ] (]) 03:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Indeed, that is a depressing read. I have generally avoided writing too much on general environment stuff and extinctions as I find it too depressing, but this sounds like something out of science fiction and is worth investigating.Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 04:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've asked ], who has some strong environmental views, to hunte around for some images, which the article needs. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 08:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == A composer(?) named Thompson == | |||
| Hi. I am currently working on ] (yeah, I know, poor taste), and I want to decruftify its ] for lack of good sources. It currently mentions a fellow named Thompson several times, but I don't remember his name from music class, and I also can't find him at ]; google isn't really helpful either since it's such a common surname. Now, I don't know whether I am stupid and incompetent, or whether he is just utterly non-notable (in which case I'd have no second thoughts about removing any mention of him instantly). Since you seem to have a thing for classical music, can you help out? If it takes you more than five minutes to come up with a reply, please don't bother. :-) – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 08:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Mein hochgeehrtes Fräulein: | |||
| I doubt music classes would have helped on this one. The music is English folk dancing melodies (as noted in the article text). I think the reference to Thompson is to this compendium: ''Dances as they are performed at Court, Bath, and all Publick Assemblys.'' (ca. 1795 seq.) From teh internets: "Thompsons of St. Paul's Churchyard published a collection of twenty-four dances each year." There's lots of web references (youtube the various Thompson titles and you'll ). Also scholarly refs such as this one: The Morris Tune, John M. Ward, "Journal of the American Musicological Society," Vol. 39, No. 2 (Summer, 1986), pp. 294-331. Is that ok? Let me know if you need help about any of the other cited music. Tschuss, ] (]) 15:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :(Hinweis: Lies mal meine deutsche Sprachbox auf meiner Userpage ''genau'' durch. ;-) Aber ], ich will es nicht ].) | |||
| :So I guess the man is notable after all, but not in the way I expected. A Making-of book that I have ordered (but not yet received) may be helpful here after all, but if they make no significant mention of Thompson, I'll trim/remove the list as ] anyway. | |||
| :On another matter, has supported my Carnivàle LoC with only minor reservations, which is like an A+ in an FAC. I'll fix his points tomorrow morning (too tired now), but since you're pretty eloquent (and a native speaker at that), could you run through the article and mark (or even fix) the spots that may deserve some more attention? Don't feel yourself obligated to anything though. I still haven't responded to your , but I haven't forgotten about it either. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 19:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Blush. Nächste mal, muss Ich etwas besseres durchlesen! I have made the due correction. I saw Tony's comments and you deserve congratulations for having earned what is high praise indeed. I would be happy to comb through the prose when I have time. ] (]) 21:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::CoC got promoted yesterday; I have only fixed Tony1's concerns but I'll read through his how-to-satisfy-criterion-1a page again soon to find some more improvable sentences myself. You are still welcome to have a closer look at the article, but it's not "urgent" anymore. :-) Anyway, I'll be busy with family and education in the next one or two weeks and won't be as wiki-involved, although I'll still read up on the important developments. Have a nice sunday. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 11:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Scrubs == | |||
| I can add a comment to the effect that you stopped reverting the moment someone added anything meaningful to the article, or I can stay silent. It's your decision whether a comment from me at this point is helpful or harmful. ] (]) 12:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Hey K, I'll email you. ] (]) 12:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case== | |||
| Per the ] the RFAR on ] is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 21:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Comment == | |||
| Is really necessary? There's nothing to be gained by antagonizing people. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 18:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Pumpkin has already established a long list of my transgressions which he keeps, (either on- or off-wiki, I am unsure) and trots out to demonstrate my bad faith at every instance that he can - including, as one example, forgetting to sign my posts. That is curious, no? Bah- let others be polite; I weary of his antics. Your question: faced with the larger disruption of such querulousness, insistence and obstreperous response, is it ''necessary?'' No (what is?). Is it warranted? Yes (in my view). I regret that other editors do not show or express similar misapprehension, if perhaps couched in somewhat more felicitous tones. But then, as far as choice of language, de gustibus non disputandem est (naturally). ] (]) 18:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| And antagonizing your antagonists accomplishes what? - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 18:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * It's just good for the Gestalt of the place. ] (]) 19:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 20:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Don't link me to civility like I am some kind of fumbling rube. In my years here I have seen bad behavior from faces you are well-familiar with (MD, BdJ, etc); this kind of gaming the system through a reliance on other editors CV is unacceptable. Going after me is unhelpful; frankly, I am surprised you disagree. Anyway, you've called me out on it - leave it at that. So, no more messages. ] (]) 20:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: WQA comment == | |||
| <small>(Original Comment, reposted here)</small> | |||
| I commented below you at WQA and saw your comment, viz: Amen to that brother, but I wonder if this doesn't rather compromise your opinion in such matters - if you cannot even bring yourself to participate in such discussions, does that not qualify any comments you make regarding those who do? Perhaps not, but I would add this: you seem to be saying, all policy discussions are tedious and in that context, some users are more tedious than others. I don't disagree, but I do wonder if a rather more aggressive approach wouldn't be useful insofar as it would discourage the accretion of tedium in an already tedious demesne. It seems needlessly supine to say merely: Oh well, this is what such discussions tend to produce. Anyway, just a thought. ] (]) 14:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| A very fair point, and in fact I (in bold face type no less!) that somebody else besides me really ought to take a look, but surprise-surprise there are not a lot of volunteers ;D | |||
| I really don't think Pixelface is violating Wikiquette per se -- I think the disruption cause by his edits is a natural manifestation of the attempt to use a consensus-based decision-making process with 20+ active participants. (Note that Misplaced Pages's consensus process works well for most ''articles'', because usually only three to five editors, and at most a dozen, will be active on a given article at any given time. It's on sweeping policy issues that I believe the process is hopelessly dysfunctional) With so many participants, and so many of them coming and going, his tedious habit of repeating his argument over and over actually has some merit -- newcomers will not have read the entire discussion, and so may have missed his earlier point. Pixelface isn't helping, but at the same time, it's not his fault that discussion is an abject failure, and even if Pixelface were banned altogether from editing, can you really say it would elevate the level of dialog at ]? | |||
| Anyway, I'll gladly bow out of responding to the Wikiquette alert if you want, which may attract other editors to intervene. Just let me know :) But as per above, I am beginning to be of the opinion that the nature of the problem is beyond the scope of ] altogether. --] (]) 14:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I don't think you should bow out - no; I am impressed you care at all. The problems raised by Masem, however, go well beyond the scope of WQA and should properly be the subject of an RfC. The specific issues at WP:FICT are currently insuperable, but disruptive or pointy editing practices in one forum implicate other editorial tendencies in other areas (e.g. the symphony pages, or Pixel's epic fit over spoiler tags). I personally don't give a damn about Pixel's occasional tantrums, but I do think it important that one not emasculate one's position with needless disclaimers over the dysfunction of the consensus process. | |||
| Have you seen the Tennis renaming debate - that is honestly one of the worst ] I have ever witnessed. While I generally agree with you about the process, I think the answer is that participants who become destructive to the flow of discussion (Pixel, Redux) be encouraged by neutral, 3rd parties (e.g. you), to foreswear further participation. To be clear: I include myself in this unhelpful process and . I used to engage in the FICT debate much more closely than I do now and I stopped in large measure because my contributions were adding little and indeed counterproductive to the support of my views. Users like Sgeureka are far more effective than I in making the case - so I largely leave the field to them. Fractious editors like Pixel would be well-advised to do the same. But that is mere distraction - the larger point here is I think we need be rather more active in working to rectify what you rightly identify as a dysfunctional process. Urging more responsible contributions to debate would be a good first step and you could have made that point more forcefully at WQA, even if the larger issue of pointy and disruptive editing is more appropriate for RfC. That's all I was trying to get at. ] (]) 15:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Excellent points all around. In regards to the Tennis renaming debacle, I have been subtly suggesting that the editors simply give up trying to achieve consensus, heh, given that previous community attempt at coming to a consensus on diacritics in article names have all resulted in a resounding failure. But that is probably not a productive attitude, you are probably right. | |||
| :You have a fair request: to make the point more forcefully that Pixelface's contributions are not helpful, not to the community at large, nor to his position. I don't want to disrupt the current attempts at compromise, but I will see what I can do to reinforce that message. | |||
| :As far as fixing the process on a community level, I am not optimistic, because any remedy to the dysfunctional process would need to be vetted by ''the exact same dysfunctional process''! :D My thoughts are that for policy issues, a small number of editors (5-9) representing all major viewpoints should be designated by the community, and then the discussion takes place (publicly, of course) between those editors, and the consensus only has to be achieved among the small group. This will never fly (it smacks of elitism, which goes against the unrealistically egalitarian ideals of Misplaced Pages) but that would be my proposal. | |||
| :Maybe if I get bored some day I'll write an essay about it, but I'm not optimistic about it going anywhere. --] (]) 15:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==WWII== | |||
| You might want to state your view about the WWII dispute on ] in order to avoid the article becoming a farcical fudged compormise with little credibility. ] (]) 09:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == More help with German == | |||
| I was hoping you may be able to help with the derivation/etymology of ''lorchel'', which is a german-origin word for '']'' which I am on the cusp of nominating at FAC - also, having seen your skill at ], pointing out any glaring deficits in prose flow would be much appreciated...Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 23:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : ''Conversation with Casliber about the fungus moved to ]''. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 08:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I have no idea about the etymology, but presumably any standard German mycological reference would provide it and I'll let the hochgeehrtes Fräulein worry about that stuff. I will do a drive by on copy editing for you. ] (]) 15:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've left some improvement suggestions for Casliber at his talkpage an hour or so ago, so you might want to wait a little before reading the article to avoid double work. – ] <sup>]•]</sup> 15:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Some Copy Editing Points for Casliber=== | |||
| <blockquote>'''''Gyromitra esculenta''''' is an ] fungus from the genus '']'', widely distributed across Europe and North America and one of several species known commonly as ]s.</blockquote> | |||
| ''Changed for comma use and language'' <font color="green">(yep, flows more nicely)</font> | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| It normally sprouts in sandy soils under ] trees, in spring and early summer. The ], or mushroom, is an irregular brain-shaped ] dark brown in colour which can reach 10 ] (4 ]) high and 15 cm (6 in) wide, perched on a stout white ] up to 6 cm (21⁄2 in) high.</blockquote> | |||
| *''Move verb from passive (is found) to active (sprouts)'' <font color="green">(yep, marvellous choice of verb and I wish I'd thought of it)</font> | |||
| *under conifers… ''Typically soil associated with conifers is more acidic – this may therefore be the PH preference of the genus (5.0-6.6) in which case, perhaps some precision as in:'' "It normally sprouts in spring and early summer, preferring the acidic soil conditions associated with conifers and coniferous forest. <font color="green">tricky this one, as there seems to be uncertainty whether this fungus is saprotrophic or mycorrhizal - if the latter, then it may all be species-dependent and have nothing to do with the pH at all. this may be veering into OR, '''unless''' you have a source for this in which case I would be extremely grateful for its inclusion</font> | |||
| *''I might use “stipe” instead of “stalk”, since there is no need to shy away from the technical terms in a proper encyclopedic treatment. It shows professionalism & competence. That’s a personal preference, however.'' <font color="green">(no, I do agree with this and done)</font> | |||
| ''I'll do a rewrite of this next bit below, since it strikes me as the emphasis is somewhat wrong (i.e. it will kill you, oh, but look here's how to cook it.) '' | |||
| <blockquote>Although ''Gyromitra esculenta'' is highly toxic and potentially fatal if eaten raw, it is described by ] as one of the best of all culinary mushrooms. It is popular in ], Eastern Europe, and the upper ] of ]. It may be sold fresh in ], but it must be accompanied by warnings and instructions on correct preparation. It is eaten in ]s, soups, or ]d in ]. Once popular in the ], it is now prohibited from sale for consumption in Spain. | |||
| Although it is still commonly consumed after ]ing, recent evidence suggests that even this procedure may not make the fungus entirely safe;<ref name="dart">{{cite book |last=Dart| first= Richard C. |chapter=Mushrooms |title=Medical toxicology |publisher=Williams & Wilkins| location=Philadelphia |year=2004|pages=1719–35| isbn=0-7817-2845-2}}</ref> thus raising concerns of risk even when prepared properly. When consumed, the false morel's principal active agent ], is metabolized into the toxic compound ] (MMH). The toxin is hepatotoxic and neurotoxic in nature; symptoms of poisoning involve vomiting and diarrhea several hours after consumption, followed by dizziness, lethargy and headache. There may be liver and kidney involvement in severe cases, leading to ], coma and death after 5–7 days.</blockquote> | |||
| ::<font color="green">I know, I have mused on the whole issue of the juxtaposition of its toxic and culinary attributes. Have at it and I will be keen to see what you come up with. I did trim it a little after sgeureka's input.</font> | |||
| :::I probably will not get around to this. Quite busy - sorry. But best of luck with the FA process; I'm sure it will pass easily, my minor caveats notwithstanding. ] (]) 04:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No problem. Your copyediting skills at coming up with clean, precise, succinct prose have been masterful and among the best I have seen here at WP. I really appreciate the input thus far and did think you were kinda busy. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 04:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Bach== | |||
| {{discussiontop}} | |||
| Hey, since you seem interested in Bach, I thought the following might interest you: . Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 17:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :. Man, Civ II had all its shit right. ] (]) 17:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Definitely one of my all time favorite games! I always found amusing. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 17:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Posting that last link may count as your most useful contribution yet. ] (]) 17:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, I knew sooner or later we'd find something we both appreciate. :) Which as I believe I've said before, if you ever think of an area where we might agree and may be able to cooperate constructively, I'm always open to help. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 17:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *If you agree to stop commenting on my AfD !votes forthwith, I will undertake good faith, positive engagement with you in a bid to make us both better editors - an improvement we certainly could use. ] (]) 18:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **If you also are willing to not comment on my posts as well, sure, why not. Just let me know what you think we could work on together as soon as you would like and I would be glad to give it my best effort. By the way, have you only played ''Civilization II'', or have you played the others in the series as well? I've played all but the new one for the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 (gas prices are hard on graduate students who don't make much money...). Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 18:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Loved Civ I, liked Civ II, and gave up on insanely long loading times on Civ III in endstages of game. Not gone back since, but maybe one day...Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 14:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::The first three are among my all time favorite games; I started getting too busy with stuff like my dissertation and ''Misplaced Pages'' :) around the time of the fourth one. Now, my video game time is mostly singing games as seen at ]. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy Independence Day! ]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 07:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Listen up Pumpkin, per the above, you agreed to stop with your boiler-plating of my AfD comments with idiotic links to essays like ] and your little anti-cruft obsession. So please desist as you said you would and cut this shit out as ]. As I have noted to you before, this stuff means: you marginalise your opinions; you needlessly get other editors' backs up, and you will probably invite sanction against you, as has occurred with other editors of your disposition. | |||
| That said, be assured that I don't care if you go about changing how you engage with other people; in fact, I would be more than happy to see you enjoined from contributing to AfD discussions, which is the likely outcome of any remedial action. Your wikilawyering, appeal to false authority and outright dissimulation more than overwhelm any positive contribution you make at AfD in my view - muh, it's the personal opinion of an encyclopedist, but at least I don't give every inclusionist grief for tearing down our encyclopedic standards, one cruft-ridden, unsourced, unnotable, fan-obsessed, in-universe junk "article" at a time. | |||
| So Pumpkin, this: respect our agreement to disengage at AfD. I am posting this here, since you seem to have my talk page watchlisted. ] (]) 23:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *If you do not make boilerplate posts in every AfD I commented in as your main edits each day written in a manner that deliberately seems a response to my own keep argument and stop calling me "pumpkin", which as you know is not a translation of my username, then yes, I will not reply to your posts. Where you lost me is if you look at your edits since the above comment I made on 26 June, consider these discussions ], ], ], ], ] (even though my post appears after yours, your comment is posted chronologically after me if you check the time), and ], where I ignored your comments in AfDs, and yet you still saw fit to toss in . Perhaps we'd be best to just not comment in AfDs that the other commented in altogether. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing! Sincerely, ]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 23:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **That's mere hubris, Pumpkin - temper temper running around after my edits. Posting links to personal essays won't get you very far. Too bad you never seem to have policy or guidelines (hence: nn, etc...) to support your positions. As I note above, sanction would be salutary and my comment to Judge reflects the fact that, since your editing style is disruptive and pointy, a compendium of relevant diffs may prove useful in having you enjoined from AfD participation in the future. If you keep this up, I'll write the RFC myself. As for your diffs, you will find that I have a long history of participating in fiction & in-universe related AfDs, extending back to before you were here. Your suggestion that once one has weighed in on the debate the other should desist from adding in their view is absurd to the point of incomprehensibility. You will note that I have not responded to you, nor bothered answering your misleading responses. And for reference, unless you seriously manage to irritate me, I won't bother and will remain indifferent to however many essays you care to link me to. Finally, Pumpkin is a perfectly reasonable and neutral translation of your user name; or I can call you Pumpkin King, but to my ears that sounds ridiculous. ] (]) 23:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ***If you are willing to be a respectful and serious contributor, I am more than happy to interact with you as such. As seen at ], I seem to be "right" more often than not. You make disruptive, pointy, incivil, and other problematic posts in many discussions and given the stress that has resulted in the arbcom cases, I strongly encourage you to stop doing so. There is no reason why you cannot be a productive editor and I hope that you can be. And, I can take LGRdC as an acceptable abbreviation. After all, I don't call you by something other than your username. --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing! Sincerely, ]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 23:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *I call you disruptive and pointy, you call me disruptive and pointy. That seems very passive aggressive and uncreative - similar to your style of mindless gainsaying of delete votes. This resembles argument in your universe? That's lightweight. Still, since you are happy with and committed to your contribution style, I think RfC a salutary next step. Now - '''stop''' posting to my talk page since you have unrepentantly savaged our agreement. I'll meet you in the trenches at AFD. Ça suffit Citrouille maintenant. ] (]) 23:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Both of you stop commenting on each others' afds and stay away from each other as much as possible...or learn to get along immediately. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 00:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Why do all these folks have my goddam talk page watchlisted? Anyway, Randy, I've gotta ask wtf? Any fractiousness has been limited to this exchange here on my talk page - now ended. And even a minimal glance at the AfDs in question will show no CIVIL, AGF or NPA problems. So frankly, this comment strikes me (and I am very surprised) as remarkably presumptuous and high handed, both to me and my sworn AfD nemesis, his silly backbiting notwithstanding. Anyway, general comment on this thread: no more posts please. If you want to yell at me some more, you can email me. But this thread is closed. To everyone. Period. Even Casliber! ] (]) 00:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::You were just trying to bait me with that one, weren't you? :) Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 01:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{discussionbottom}} | |||
| == Remark ended up in wrong section == | |||
| I thought you were talking about Blackeagles and not the GHcool report, but really, you added it, I didn't move it :) I think the Wikimedia software messed up, I think it had something to do with Ncmvocalist archiving the section at the same time you made your edit. No worries, hopefully it's cleared up now! :) --] (]) 16:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| oh ok. Sorry about the imputation. ] (]) 17:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == '']'' == | |||
| OK, I have incorporated sgeureka's suggestions. I have struck the ones done on the talk page and left notes in italics. Some suggestions I wasn't sure about for various reasons so a third set of eyes is most welcome. I will chase down a fact as noted but otherwise have at it. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 14:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry, I missed your input above. Feel free to delete this segment as clutter. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 14:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I wrote a new essay with the shortcut ]. This is an essay that is supposed to explain the word "cruft" in neutral terms and promote intelligent discussion about the cruft problem on wikipedia. I know there are already many essays about cruft on wikipedia. But I hope you might be able to give it a read. Perhaps it can be copy-edited or improved in some way. I hope you find it useful. Thank you! ] (]) 21:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Are you a regular editor who has created an ] for the purpose of this? As noted at the MfD for ], many editors simply do not have a problem with this term; I am unconvinced, therefore, that its use constitutes a problem save for a few arch-inclusionist editors and their preoccupations are frankly so marginal, picayune and insignificant it hardly seems worth even the bother of an essay. ] (]) 21:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *:Surely it would be better to discuss and incorporate material and opposing viewpoints and/or constructive ways of looking at material in the existing essay rather than yet more essays...Incidentally the Fancruft essay was originally started by an IP. I can't begin to describe how insanely bored I am getting arguing pros and cons of this. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 21:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *::Seriously. Here's a newsflash: people disagree. ] (]) 21:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Well duh, that is plainly evident. oh well, back to the trenches...Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 01:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ** You are probably right that most people do not get offended by the word "cruft". But I am the one who bothered to create the essay anyway. I guess it is there just in case a few "marginal arch-inclusionist" take it personally. Thanks! ] (]) 19:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == The Suite Life of Zack & Cody == | |||
| Why isnt it okay to give the characters there own pages. Then the character info can be expanded based on apperances on other shows where they play the character not just limited to Suite Life | |||
| *'''Note''': I think it could expand Misplaced Pages, which im sure other user would agree--] (]) 03:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Zapatero talk page== | |||
| Per WP:TALK, the talk pages are for discussing changes/improvements to the article, personal observations about the subject don't really achieve that. ] (]) 19:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *True, but as a meme, it is a worthwhile observation and could be used as the basis for the inclusion something along the lines linked. This now exhausts my interest in the topic, so do what you feel best. ] (]) 21:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Don Quixote == | |||
| Hi Eusebeus, | |||
| I noticed that you reverted my edit on '']''. Why do you feel that it is a "trivial addition"? ''Sheerluck Holmes and the Golden Ruler'' is a notable film, the first half of which is entirely a parody of ''Don Quixote''. I can provide references if required. | |||
| ] (]) 21:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :References would be an extremely good idea Neelix - this sort of material has been a battleground for as long as I have been around WP. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 23:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == GP^2 == | |||
| ===General=== | |||
| Hi Casliber, ok I've started in on the GPGP after a bit of a wait. Can you go look through the Garbage Patch article and take a first look? I've only just started in on a top-to-bottom rewrite and some fresh eyes and smart thoughts would be appreciated. Organisation, additional material, etc... That kind of crap. | |||
| Oh, I've been in touch with Charles Moore's institute and they appear happy to help out in terms of furnishing maps, images and other material since they are the leading advocate/resource for the GPGP. I'm thinking an FA on this puppy may be feasible, although I know you couldn't care diddly squat about FA ;) | |||
| We (yes, that's presumptuous, sorry) need to ensure this doesn't descend into advocacy and remains bound by the scientific material. For example, there are no data on the impact of marine polymer ingestion on the overall food cycle and human health issues - although that can't be a good thing one would imagine. But that needs to be clear. Also, perhaps replicate a chart showing the degrees of particulate concentrate in the Neuston? Do you have sciencedirect so you can go access the scholarly material? The Garbage patch-specific stuff is all at Moore's institute site, but there is wider work on pelagic and neustonic plastic debris that may be useful. I'm a historian, not an oceanographer, so the article will remain pathetic if I can't get some science-trained eyes on the material. ] (]) 16:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It is a pity that the '''Geology, geophysics and meteorology'''section of the ] is so loaded with hurricanes - I was looking for some analogue FA to give guidance as a template. I don't have science direct as I am in a hospital rather than a uni 99% of the time, so medical is easy but other science is tricky. Agree about the importance of a neutral and sober tone. I have avoided some of these 'bigger picture' type articles for that reason, though ] and ] have kept me busy - the talk pages are host to some rather amusing points raised by readers from time to time to negotiate. I will post some more ideas at the article talk page. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 21:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok, thanks for that! I can get to you by email all the scholarly material that might prove useful. I'm gettin gsome more stuff together to throw up in a few days and am waiting back from Alguita on images/maps etc.... ] (]) 23:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes please - email away. I felt a bit unclear about what to do, where to start or how to proceed with it ''('all at sea' as it were)'', but sat back and looked again and it sorta clicked into place. I have had a delayed wiki-epiphany several times. It took several bites at the cherry to get '']'' up to FA and I am still struggling with the legendary '']'' after two years... | |||
| :::I am trying to think of a good scientific article which displays uncertainty rather than puerile dogmatism in one of these areas - there has been debate over '']'' and whether it was a scavenger or predator. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 04:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| PS: What history are you into, Yannismarou asked me to have a look at ] which is at FAR for prose issues and I have given it a bit of a copyedit but am unsure of what else should be in it...Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 04:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Casliber, sorry for the delay. I'm a Europeanist, but I doubt I can bring much more than Yannis to the 1896 article as he is usually very thorough. If you send me an email, btw, I can cc you on my correspondence with the Algalita folks. We have a liaise there now (doctoral student). If you are still interested that is. Feel free to tell me to bugger off. ] (]) 18:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Eusebeus' Shit to do Scatchlist=== | |||
| #] really needs some work. | |||
| #Background on the pollution stream of plastic material & the origins of pelagic plastics (e.g. land v. ship pollution) + some REAL numbers on the %-% breakdown. | |||
| #Studies on Sea of Japan-originating material?? | |||
| ===Guestbook, Commentary and Guff=== | |||
| :Good job to both of you on the Great Pacific Garbage Patch article. Fascinating article and it is really satisfying to see constructive efforts going into it, especially between those who have disagreed about other issues in the past. ] naturally has me down, and so I guess anything encouraging to see helps. I hope y'all are having a nice weekend! --<font face="Times New Roman">Happy editing! Sincerely, ]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 17:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Your comment == | |||
| Hey. I launched the Emperor of Mankind question on the JP:project talk page , and nothing really decisive came out of it. Seems like the rest of the project editors know nothing of this either. Not that this is definitive, but apparently the title is not exactly note-worthy, even if it is real. (btw, 上御一人 means literaly : "the respected one person above", and 王世子 would mean something like "king's firstborn", but it does have the "world" character in it which might be misleading). Hope any of this helps. ] (]) 14:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *That's exceedingly thoughtful of you, thank you very much - it seems likely, reading through the discussion, that our initial suspicion was correct. ] (]) 15:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Fair-use rationale == | |||
| Eusebeus, | |||
| This is just an FYI. Coins can not be left without a small description of their design, or a small critic. Either way will do. Leaving the coin without a comment or critic will break the fair-use rationale of the image. This is why I added the extra text in the bottom of the image. | |||
| And again, I know I might sound like an ass changing all the articles you like. Please fill free to remove my comments; I am not going to fight against it. But please do not say is trivia, this particular coin, just for your info, is the biggest silver coin in the world, and Vivaldi (among the others) were selected to be there, that is not trivia at all on the contrary this represent how important Vivaldi is in today's life. But I do understand that a set of editors like you are against my comments in your articles, so apologies in advance if I do change other articles with other coins. | |||
| Also based on the explanation of the fair-use rationale, please do not remove the paragraphs and leave the image only. Try reducing the paragraph, removing the paragraph and embedding some text in the description of the image (as I just did) or remove the whole thing. If the image stays, a small explanation (even if it is just three words) needs to stay. | |||
| Thanks, | |||
| ] (]) 00:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == My proposal at the ] RfD == | |||
| I have placed a section in the '']'' article and, if there are no objections, will be retargeting the redirect appropriately. ] ] ] 20:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I closed the discussion, as the candidate expressed a wish to withdraw the request. I hope the resolution is palatable for you. Thanks, ''']''' '']'' 02:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi Eusebeus. Please re-visit this AfD when you have a chance, as I believe I may have addressed the problem with the article. Cheers, <font face="Comic sans MS">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 00:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Ladies and gentlemen == | |||
| Thanks, Eusebeus. I replied on my own talk page. ] (]) 22:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:44, 29 July 2008
fudge