Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aaroncrick (talk | contribs) at 23:47, 12 July 2009 (→Hope everything went smoothly!: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

October, 2006 to May, 2008 3 June, 2008 to 28 June 2008 28 June 2008 to 31 July 2008 1 Aug 2008 to 17 Oct 2008  ??  ??  ??  ??  ??  ??

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?

York Park GA

Thanks, don't worry I doubt there will be any conflicts. All the best, Aaroncrick 05:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you been to Tassie? Aaroncrick 09:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite a bit, but I was wondering If you had come across any of those "Tassie Jokes" Aaroncrick 09:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha yeah, spot on! We even have two heads!! Aaroncrick 09:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a real problem with referencing in the History section because a detailed article on Aurora Stadium had to be removed as an unreliable source, therefore that's the reason why some sentences aren't referenced properly and I'm struggling to find any others, so it's looking like some sentences have to be removed. Aaroncrick 04:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Here is the article

Thanks for your patience. I again went to the library yesterday and found virtually nothing on York Park's history in Launceston/Tasmanian books. I was surprised by the amount of Tasmanian books out at the moment and also after waiting nearly 30 mins the council said they were busy. Shame really, maybe in a few years a book on Aurora Stadium may come out or it's history could become more prominent in Launceston books. Thanks again for your suggestions. Aaroncrick 01:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Good morning, well reading it again it sounds that way but that's not exactly what I was meaning, sorry for the confusion. Later tonight I'll go through all the refs and see what I can find. Aaroncrick 06:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Were you going to fail it? Aaroncrick 07:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, I'm currently trying to find a ref for "becoming the Launceston Showgrounds in 1873" It's currently the site of the show but can't find reference for that year. Aaroncrick 10:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Should be done by then. Think I've made a breakthrough! Cheers Aaroncrick 10:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should become mayor and get someone to write a book on the place, then source the article and expand it! ;) Aaroncrick 10:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Silly rules, who wrote them! Could just remain anonymous, or even just throw that idea out the window ;) I think the referencing issues are now fixed. Aaroncrick 11:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we move on with review? Thanks Aaroncrick 09:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Shit! Just when we're nearly done, I'll have to re-write the section about the Northern Stand because of this latest development I didn't read properly a few weeks back! 1 2 What happened to stage one and stage two? The joys of Tasmania! What's next? The whole thing gets canned because of the financial crisis... Aaroncrick 10:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh and just changed a couple of images.. Dull 11 degree weather can't you see! Man it was cold, it better not get any worse! The Queenslanders would have been moaning! haha Aaroncrick 10:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Shit, didn't see your message. We'll try and finish it over the next 2 days. It seems to be close. Aaroncrick 03:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I haven't fixed is finding a naming rights ref. The only working one is from Aus Stadiums. The info is too important to delete though. Aaroncrick 05:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

So can you anything else stopping us from moving on, as things seem to have stalled? Aaroncrick 06:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Think all issues except naming rights have been resolved. Shame you won't be able to continue as you've done a fantastic job so far. Aaroncrick 10:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

YP ref issues

Aaroncrick 02:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I sent an email to Robert Groenewegen about the stands capacity and he replied,

Hi Aaron,

It would be accurate if it read as follows:

"The Gunns Stand surrounds approximately half the ground, and has a capacity of 5,700. The Northern, Southern and Eastern Terraces have a capacity of 6,000. The current seating capacity of the venue is 11,825 with the new Northern Stand proposed to be finished in August 2010, an additional 2175 seats will be added.

Total ground capacity is 20,000 and seating capacity will be 14000.

Cheers

Robert Groenewegen Manager Inveresk and Aurora Stadium Phone: 6323 3383 Fax: 63318769 Mobile: 0407 971043 Email: Robert.Groenewegen@launceston.tas.gov.au www.aurorastadiumlaunceston.com.au

Original Message-----

From: Aaron de Wit Sent: Saturday, 13 June 2009 12:07 AM To: Robert Groenewegen Subject: Stand capacity

Hi Robert, Great to see plans for the Northern Stand coming along!

Do you know of an internet article/book that notes the combined capacity of the Northern Terrace, Southern Terrace and Eastern Terrace? Otherwise this sentence on wikpedia's York Park page will have to get deleted. "The stands surround approximately half the ground, and collectively have a capacity of between 5,500 and 6,000, bringing the grounds seated capacity to 11,700," because the sentence doesn't have a reference, even though the claim is probably correct. Any help would be appreciated.

Cheers, Aaron

Burgess

Hi Philcha, afraid I've been very busy recently, and have also somewhat lost interest in WP for the moment. My own fault for getting sucked in to pointless debates about reference formatting, I think. I'm next likely to have a patch of free time in October or so... so my August target isn't looking too hopeful )-:

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Disputed

Regarding this edit: the reason I had replaced {{disputed}} with {{underdiscussion}} is that, as far as I know, the "disputed" tag is only for articles. And it looks awkward to say that a guideline's "factual accuracy" is disputed—especially for newbies who come along to read that guideline for the first time and wonder what the tag is supposed to be telling them. It's the guideline's value to Misplaced Pages, not its "factual accuracy", that is disputed. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 20:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with creating a new tag (like {{disputed-guideline}} or something), and actually was thinking of suggesting that. Do you think it would be used at all, or would it just be creep? rʨanaɢ /_contribs 21:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with doing it, but it sounds like you already have a pretty clear idea how you'd like it to look. (Plus I'm half-busy watching Chariots of Fire.) So it's probably just as well if you make it. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 21:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I re-watch it about once every year or so, out of tradition :). rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, nice—I guess WP just has all kinds of great stuff if you just know where to look! Thanks for finding that.

As for Chariots...I guess I meant more just a personal tradition/habit. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 01:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer

Thanks for intervening in Bobby Fischer. As I said, I was about at the end of my rope and in danger of offending WP:CIVIL. I felt as though I'd been marooned in The Twilight Zone. Krakatoa (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, he's now reverted the same edit (made by you, then Brittle heaven, then me) thrice in less than 9.5 hours, in flagrant violation of WP:3RR. Ironically, in his latest revert, he warns us that edit warring is disruptive and will be reported if we persist. Now what? Krakatoa (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm wrong - the rule is violated only by more than three edits in 24 hours. No doubt you, unlike I, knew that. He has now filed a complaint against me, claiming I'm guilty of "edit warring" (pot, kettle and all that). In the course of it, he refers to you, Brittle heaven and I as "stooges". See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Krakatoa_edit_warring_on_Bobby_Fischer_and_mislabeling_edits. Krakatoa (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure whether the three of us are all stooges of someone else. Or simply collectively "The Three Stooges"? Or perhaps you and Brittle heaven are my stooges? If the last of these, I am afraid I will have to lodge a complaint against you for conduct unbecoming a stooge. You have consistently exhibited far too much independence of thought for my stooge. I will have to insist that in the future you accede to my point of view in stooge-befitting fashion. Krakatoa (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

On the Origin

Thanks for your support and kind words, presumably you'd like to sign it rather than having an unsinged template added ;) Having slogged through that, may I timidly request your thoughts on whether it's worth putting The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs and Fertilisation of Orchids up for the same treatment? Perhaps better late than never.. dave souza, talk 10:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, if you can give one or both a good article review that would be great – presumably I should put them up at WP:GAN? Anyway, your house move has priority, hope all goes well. Thanks, dave souza, talk 12:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Done, I've put Orchids up under the biology heading, and Coral Reefs under geology as that's its main focus. Lets hope they get under way before you can look in again in about a month or so. Thanks for all your help on this, dave souza, talk 10:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, many thanks for doing so much to get On the Origin of Species through FAC. Great news! . . dave souza, talk 18:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to follow up on the appreciation Dave expressed; there is no way it gets through FAC on the first try withiough that extraordinary GA review you did. So, for what it is worth, I am going to award you:

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For the pointed, lengthy, interactive and incredibly helpful GA review of On the Origin of Species Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I am going to hold the hemlock though. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Phew! That's a relief! --Philcha (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Second that, dave souza, talk 11:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

		The Origins Award
		Thanks for all the fish, Philcha, and for doing so much to improve On the Origin of Species. . . dave souza, talk 11:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:Good article reassessment/Exploration of Jupiter/1

It isn't completely clear to me whether your concerns have been addressed sufficiently for the article to meet the GA criteria. Can you comment? Thanks, Geometry guy 20:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You are requested to confirm!

Hi Philcha,

As you know, I have been developing a mentor/adviser plan (User:Mattisse/Plan) for which you and others have provided input at User talk:Mattisse/Plan, Arbitration Workshop and Proposed decision talk page. Previously, you said you were willing to be one of my mentors/advisers.

I think this plan will work. I have learned a great deal from this arbitration and feel comfortable with my panel of mentors/advisers and trust their judgment.

Currently the ArbCom is in the process of rendering decision and have requested that my mentors/advisers confirm that they are aware of the plan and agree with their role in it. See Moving towards closure of the case. If you are still willing to serve as one of my mentors/advisers, and I fervently hope you are, I ask you to indicate your willingness by posting on the Proposed decision talk page.

Thank you so much. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

--Next-Genn-Gamer 14:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope everything went smoothly!

Yeah that's great, I'm ready when your ready. Aaroncrick 22:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw you come back a few days ago but wanted to wait for you to shout out. Let's try and get things done as I'm going to Melbourne for 5 days on Wednesday morning next week. Aaroncrick 06:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The sponsorship naming rights ref has come back! Aaroncrick 07:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you please help me with the grammar in the structures and facilities section as that's all I have to fix. Aaroncrick (talk) 23:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

re: WP:NOTPLOT

Good morning. You recently made a cogent and articulate comment at WT:NOT on the topic of plot summaries. Would you consider joining the effort at Misplaced Pages:Plot-only description of fictional works?

The goal is to more fully explain all the nuance and detail about dealing with plot summaries without bloating WP:NOT any more than it already is. In that regard, this page is intended to parallel WP:WINAD, a drill-down page which very successfully elaborates on and clarifies WP:NOTDICDEF.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts you might have. Rossami (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Great Southern Group

Hi there. I'm the nominator of Great Southern Group. Because I was watching the GAN page for a review flag, i hadn't realised a review had started. I only just realised today after you flagged it. I will respond to any review comments (whether from Willy turner or yourself) now that i know a review is underway. I already have a query about the use of company logos with which you may be able to help. The reviewer suggested including a logo in the infobox. I would have thought a logo would be protected from use on WP by trademark restrictions etc. I can generate an image (from a Great Southern pdf document), if its upload would be permitted, but the logo includes graphic elements (ie. it is not just lettering), so i would first welcome some advice. BTW thanks for offering to assume the role of reviewer. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Phineas and Ferb

Hello. I've responded to the suggestions you've put on that page's GA review page. Come check them out, please. Thanks. The Flash 15:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand the reference thing, and I've asked if you wish me to remove it. Please continue the review - I'm sorry I had to argue over it. The Flash 21:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you able to continue it? I'm going around now and removing/fixing refs linking to those e-mails. The Flash 21:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, but I'm still not sure what you mean by refs issues. That's why I wanted you to point them out as I go along, but alright. I'm still not sure what constitutes as a ref issue - do you mean unreliable? Because not even the WP:RS will tell me that when it comes to websites. The Flash 15:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, that clears it up. But what about IMDb and TV.com? Because other than those everything I'm pretty sure is good, I just heard those weren't very reliable. The Flash 16:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, good, thanks. The Flash 16:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if all you wanted me to do is check and make sure every ref is reliable, then done. If you wanted me to make sure the article was perfect in every way, then I don't see why, as the point of the review is to get it fixed then pass judgment - i.e., give the article a chance, right? But, again, if the "ref issues" were just making sure every ref is reliable, then I'm done. Please tell me which and when you continue the review, please inform me of ref issues and such and don't just fail it, please. Thanks. The Flash 19:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, I am sorry if I am bothering you. The Flash 19:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Great Southern Group

Thanks for starting the review. I was aware the article was light on financial / company structure info, and your initial comments have underlined that. If you are agreeable, and as per your remark "review paused", can i ask that you leave the review on hold until Monday without doing anything further, and in that time i will try and provide an expanded profile of the company. Please bear in mind that, until the s**t hit the fan with the collapse of these MISs, the company/ies (it has a complex group structure, and itself seems to use different names somewhat interchangeably, as do the media) had a relatively low profile. Thanks for getting me to pay attention to a side of this thing i probably knew needed work. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Amstrad_PCW_16_01.png

Thanks for uploading File:Amstrad_PCW_16_01.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MBisanz 19:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The company that made Amstrad owns the copyright to the GUI, so it is impossible for you to release their copyright over the image of the GUI. It would need to comply with WP:NFC and WP:FURG to be used. MBisanz 20:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The template says the same thing in more words, which is supposed to be more user-friendly in providing details about what each term means, etc, I could go and plot my short followup to each section of the template and there is an arbcom ruling around somewhere saying that people who question images must be thorough in their notices or something. MBisanz 21:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Found it at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Abu_badali#Principles. The general gist I get from those principles is that if I am disputing an image, I need to fulfill ever letter of the process and not be vague in any way, using a template that is community-approved seems like the best way to do that. MBisanz 21:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Annotated image/Extinction‎

Thanks, I reverted that change of mine. Eubulides (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)