Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:19, 14 October 2009

Archives

October, 2006 to May, 2008 3 June, 2008 to 28 June 2008 28 June 2008 to 31 July 2008 1 Aug 2008 to 31 May 2009 31 May 2009 to 10 July 2009 8 July 2009 to ??  ??  ??  ??  ??

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Invite

Hi there Philcha!
	Please accept this invite to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving articles to GA status while working with other users. We hope to see you there!

DYK for Turbellaria

On 31 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Turbellaria, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

North Sea

SriMesh has smiled at you! Thank you for taking the time to review the North Sea, your comments have both helped the article to come along, and have increased my understanding of how to edit an already started article. Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Γειά!

Σε ευχαριστώ! I don't speack Greek really, but, I studied Koine Greek. Thanks for signing though. And a favor, can you review Trombiculidae?

WP:Areas for Reform

Last week i left a message about this. I recognize you simply may not care. But since then a range of editors have been working on it, and so far with no personal conflict. I was hoping I could get you to check it out. You care about good content, and policies, so perhaps you can make a constructive contribution here? Slrubenstein | Talk

Phineas and Ferb & podcast

Yes, thanks for reminding me, I will attend to that today. If you read a bit above that section you'll see what I'm actually suggesting to do. It's seriously impossible to get an exact time, I don't know how many times I can say that, but I figured saying "Beginning," "Middle," and "End" would work, no? The Flash 15:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You got it! After that do you think the article is able to passed? Cheers, The Flash 19:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, do you mean you want me to put it down to ten usages? If so, I don't know if that can actually work for most of them. Yes, there's a lot, but not all, ya know? The Flash 22:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Tenths? What? Haven't you been understanding everything I've been saying for so long? This is the best way I could get it, and now you're not even happy with that? What do you mean by tenths? There's no percent and nothing at all, why don't you believe me? The Flash 18:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll try getting back on this as soon as I can - I have just gotten back access to the internet, which I did not have for several weeks, and am also busy with several things. I'll be sure to get to it as soon as I can. The Flash 19:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

See my comment on the review page. The Flash 21:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Done! Every instance of the podcast has been removed. It took a lot shorter than last time as I removed a lot last month. I think it's finally ready! :P The Flash 22:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

What? I didn't complain - I said I agreed with the user that it's going on for a long time, and after this while it feels like it's been to long. The Flash 19:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't me complaining. That was me commenting that I have grown irritated with the length of the review, but that's it - I never said I want it to end or anything, I was just saying that the length also was bothering me, not that the article didn't deserve it. Do you see what I'm getting at? The Flash 19:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

All the awards mentioned in the lead are in the awards section. Which one are you talking about? The Flash 17:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not a picture gallery and why is it a "mistake"? The Simpsons uses the same thing and it's an FA. The Flash 20:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Great Southern Group, chapter 3

Hi there.

• First of all, i am very grateful for the in-depth work you've done on this GA review, and it is underpinning significant improvements. I am toying with taking this through to FAC (which would be my first such attempt), and there's no way I would have been able to consider that without having you identify a wide range of issues, including in relation to the article structure.
• Second, I had noted that a couple of people had dropped in and expressed views, one in response to my request that they look at the article (I actually hadn't asked them to look at the GAR - just the article itself, but they did anyway); and the other in response to your second opinion request. I've a lot of time for both you and Malleus, so I was pleased to see him drop in.
• Third, I was wondering whether the bar was getting set pretty high, and had decided to stay away for a few days while things settled a little and so I could have a think about what I wanted to do :-)
• Fourth, you are absolutely right about the need to explain better what MIS investments are, and how they work in relation to Great Southern Group. I still have some trouble udnerstanding aspects of them myself, hence my lack of recent writing on this subject; and I'm not entirely confident that the newspaper articles were getting all that side of things quite right. Anyway, I have now located some valuable new sources - my problem is getting the time to integrate them in - new text for a GA candidate is a bit different to ticking off articles at DYK! But I will apply myself to this ASAP and let you know when I'm done.

Once again, thank you for all your help. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I'm done with adding an explanation of MIS in general, and a partial restructure, moving more material into the "rise and fall" story, as well as a clean-up of the referencing. Can you check this out? Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm done once again if you want to check it out. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not planning on doing further work on Great Southern Group at this stage, but I hope it meets the GA criteria. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Monitoring page

If you could watchlist User:Mattisse/Monitoring' you could help me in dealing with future problems. I hope not to disappoint you again. Thanks! —mattisse (Talk) 23:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

York Park

At FAC. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Issue with Mattisse

This issue with Mattisse is that she's been lobbying to for Giano to remain blocked. In light of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse, that's a poor idea.

• See where Mattisse commented at least three times.

Hope that is a sufficient explanation for the basis of my concern. Please feel free to address my concerns by adding information. Jehochman 15:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• In context of the entire thread I don't think my comments were out of line. I believe I have a right to properly express my opinion. Please see my reply at User:Mattisse/Monitoring Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it is at best unseemly for you to be so vociferous in supporting the block of an editor against whom you hold such a public grudge. What is it that you hope to achieve by this stand? That Giano's block is not shortened or lifted? There is no spin that presents you in a good light Mattisse. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I hope fervently that in the future those who nominate an article at FAR in good faith will not be personally attacked and a scene created as happened here and has happened so many times before over the same issue. This is a repeated scenario.I said that I had no opinion on the length of the block and I do not. Please do not misrepresent my words. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Perhaps a good start would be for you not to misrepresent the words of others. Where in what I said above did I say that you had an opinion on the length of the block? You are vociferously supporting the block of someone with whom you have very publicly disagreed. Are you unable to see how some will choose to interpret that apparent conflict of interest, whether rightly or wrongly? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Revisit to Megalodon

Hello Philcha,

I have thoroughly reviewed the Megalodon article and added many new and good references in it. The content within many sections of the article has been vastly improved. Kindly re-evaluate the article to check that whether it has now become good enough for GA criteria in your perception or not, and leave updated remarks on the Talk page of the Megalodon. Thank you.

LeGenD (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Bryozoa, Ectoprocta

Hi, I've reversed the renaming of Bryozoa to Ectoprocta as the move has been contested. If the current discussion on Talk:Bryozoa is resolved and a renaming becomes warranted, I'll gladly move it back. Meantime, and before all those incoming links (300 +) get changed, the article should remain at bryozoa. Vsmith (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Graphic_Lab/Image_workshop#Bryozoan

Updated the image. — raeky  08:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

— raeky  10:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus skull diagram

I remember you had an idea to make an annotated Tyrannosaurus skull diagram, but that we didn't have a proper image to use. But in this new free Plos one paper, there are some good ones that we are free: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0007288#top FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Socks / alt accounts

Phil, I'm very pleased to hear that you support a clean-up of the alt accounts situation, and I would support an RfC to stop the rot. This diff of WP:SOCKPUPPET since 30 August shows pushing and pulling in different directions, although it's hard to work out what is happening. I see my "strongly recommended" (the provision of links between alt accounts) has been watered down to "generally required": too vague, IMO. And worse, this has just been removed:

1. Administrators discovered to be using a second account in an abusive or forbidden manner have been summarily desysopped.
2. Candidates for adminship should normally disclose any past accounts they have used. Adminship reflects the community's trust in an individual, not merely an account. Administrators who failed to disclose past accounts have usually lost their administrator access.

I've asked User Sandstein whether it's possible to briefly summarise the direction changes to the policy have taken over the past month or so. Tony (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Phil, yes, thanks for clarifying that. On the "no need for sockpuppets", I think sockpuppets (improperly used alt accounts) are banned already; the problem arises in the slack rules for the operation of more than one account, and the temptation to misuse once you have an alt account. It's human nature, so I think we should move towards a much more restrictive policy on this (from one that was alarmingly permissive until recently). Misuse ranges from playing practical jokes to serious abuses of the consensus process (and the democratic process when it comes to RfAs and ArbCom elections). Am I on the right track? Tony (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

How about an RfC on the removal of one word? Tony (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Howard Staunton

Hi. As you well know, both of us have spent a lot of time on Howard Staunton in the past couple of years. Having again reviewed the article, I think that it is now reasonably balanced, and have decided to (very belatedly) accept my side of the Half Barnstar that SyG awarded to both of us last year. Thanks for your hard work. I'm glad that we were finally able to reach a consensus. Krakatoa (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Bryozoa Photo

You give up on it, do you want me to redo it another way, add/remove anything? Hello? — raeky  22:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Euglena

I think you are a good person to ask about a small issue. I reverted some obvious nonsense at Euglena, but I see that the previous edit changed "Euglena can survive in only fresh water" to "...fresh and salt water". I'm concerned that my reversion of a later edit might make it appear that I checked the previous edit, and while I'm suspicious I have no idea. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the detailed reply with the interesting links; "fresh and salt water" seems very reasonable. Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom clarification on Mattisse's Plan

Request opened by Moni3 here. --Moni3 (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)