Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
OK, would much appreciate a wiki-analysis of this one; I finally think I've got the content just about right, though I am a bit irked by the Attacks on humans section for some reason. I didn't add the material there and am not really familiar with it so have been loath to play with it much yet. Clayoquot nicely did some tweaking too, and Marskell's been ducking in and out - anyway, I might take it to FAC pretty soon depending on what you reckon (always nice to deal with problems before the FAC than have a big page of text on the FAC page..). I've left the cockatoo for a moment pending a couple of bits information I need to retrieve from somewhere (how much the damn things cost in an aussie pet shop for one..) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
..I appear to be missing something; I am making a lions in captivity subsection but can't for the life of me find the piddly bit you mention on my talk page..and I've scanned the page up and down a few times..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah... I moved another one before that was two admins using their rollback tool against each other. I figure that any two people can revert each other, and the fact that it's using rollback doesn't turn it into a wheel war. That's sort of a judgement call, though. Grandmasterka 23:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks for rewriting the opening, it looks 100 times better now. Just thought I'd thank you for all the work you've done on the article whilst I've been away and prior to that. Thanks again... :) Spawn Man 08:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I know you been watching the page. But for many days now I've seen you update other entries yet you seem to have totally forgot about this one.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 21:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I have copyedited per our discussion; further comments on the article talk page. Cheers! EyeSereneTALK 10:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
What category should this go in: Dougong? Are the categories supposed to go from most general to most specific? Regards, --Mattisse 20:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I have listed zaojing for DYK so I am wishing you don't screw with it until after. Dougong already got through so I won't worry about correcting it for now. Regards, --Mattisse 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Why not? Hesperian 03:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry. The only articles I tend to politely stalk you over are those you extend or create. Feel free to stalk me over to some of my current work, though . Circeus 03:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on an excellent copyedit on the suggestions provided. I have now passed Édifice Price as a Good Article, and have updated the templates on the article talk page. You may wish to copy the following template: {{User Good Article|Édifice Price}} and paste it to somewhere suitable (such as your user page).
It will produce the following userbox
This user helped promote Édifice Price to good article status. |
and add you to the category "Good Article contributors".
It's been a pleasure working with you, and well done! EyeSereneTALK 16:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey! Thanks for the fix on the table in Christmas tree cultivation, I think that's the first time I ever used one in an article, so it was kind of messy, just tried to follow instructions on the help page, not bad I guess for a first try. IvoShandor 20:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I see you were the nominator here.
For other kinds of deletion I believe it is a conventional courtesy to give a heads-up to the person who created the article, image, whatever.
Is this not a conventional courtesy for templates? If so is there some reason why you do not follow this convention?
I am not happy that I did not have an opportunity to participate in the discussion prior to the deletion.
Geo Swan 02:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I left a message for the closing admin. I asked them which of the criteria the policy states make a template eligible for deletion this template satisfied.
I thought you might offer me a meaningful explanation as to why you didn't give me a heads-up -- or that you might offer me an apology.
With regard to your suggestion, Feel free to go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. That's why it's there, after all. -- have you ever instantiated a deletion review? Do you know how much work it is?
The first time I went to deletion review was for Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism.
I created this article after many attempts to introduce coverage of the allegations of terrorism to the Tablighi Jamaat article. At the time I introduced this coverage this section was the only section of that article that had any references. Admirers of the movement kept removing that section, either without any explanation, or with the explanation that the allegations were flimsy, ridiculous, baseless, ignored that one of the founding principles of the movement was a commitment to stay out of politics All arguments for excision that I am sure you recognize are not valid, as the allegations referenced verifiable, authoritative sources.
By this time I had about three dozen references to include in the article. I created the empty table first. And another wikipedian nominated it for speedy deletion, mere minutes after it creation.
This did not comply with the recommendation in the policy.
I placed a {{hangon}} on the article, and went to the talk page to explain why I didn't think speedy deletion was appropriate. When I finished my note I found that a hasty administrator had already deleted the article -- in spite of my placement of the {{hangon}} tag.
So I initiated a deletion review, my first ever. Maybe if I had a more Zen-like attitude this would have consumed just a few hours. But abuse of procedure, upsets me. I had to wait several days before I could complete my work.
The admin who closed the {{drv}} opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism as soon as they closed the {{drv}}. I think, since the consensus that the nominator and closing admin used bogus criteria, the admin who closed the {{drv}} could have used some discretion and waived the {{afd}}.
This should have been an open and shut {{drv}}. Yet, it consumed days of IRL time, and dozens of hours of aggravation. Even {{drv}} that should be open and shut can place an enormous drain on wikipedians. Not just the energy of those who contributed to the article, but the time of those who participate in the discussion(s).
The point of this story is to illustrate how important it is to comply with procedure. All of this wasted energy could have been avoided if the nominator and closing admin had complied more closely with policy.
I wrote most of this before I had rechecked your user page, and realized you were an administrator.
I was shocked to learn you are an administrator. I am still shocked. I am shocked to learn that you administer policies, when, if I understood your note on my talk page -- you aren't really familiar with them.
Candidly, Geo Swan 06:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello! You edited Neutral Milk Hotel discography, which is currently a Featured List Candidate, but didn't voice a an opinion on the article on its nomination page. I was wondering if you could vote or comment on the article, especially considering your prior experience with Featured Lists. Even an oppose would be a major boost in my efforts to get this list featured. (I saw the notice on the top of your talk page saying not to ask for updates related to FLCs that you'd commented on, but you haven't yet voted on this one so I decided to ask you about it anyway. If I've bugged you at all, many apologies). Much thanks, --Brandt Luke Zorn 03:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
--Allen3 talk 17:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I remember you editing a list in my watchlist with the summary saying that a list needed a header. (i.e. just before the actual table). Is there a specific policy somewhere that states this? Or is it more of an undiscussed convention? I ask because i added in a header to the List of West Bromwich Albion F.C. managers article remembering your edit. It has subesquently been reverted and i would like your opinion. Thanks. Woodym555 17:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Based on your comments on the FLC candidacy of Ian Svenonius discography a few weeks ago, I've split the article up a bit. The first of those articles, The Make-Up discography, is currently at FLC (nom page here), and has been there for almost three weeks now and has only garnered one support vote. I know you don't owe me anything based on your last review, but I was still wondering if I can beg your attention to the new FLC, since it seems to be going nowhere fast. I don't think it'll fail just on lack of responses, but god knows how long that'll take. Either way, thanks for a good review of the Ian Svenonius discography: it was definitely for the better. Drewcifer 10:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Circeus,
Thanks for your interest in Planetary nebula luminosity function, however, your change has undone the references split which you state is not needed.
The reason for the split is to mix footnoting for inconspicuous citations together with the Harvard reference style. One aspect of that style is to have the references to appear in alphabetical, which your change loses. This style of citations is consistent with most of the other wiki articles on Planetary Nebulae and Protoplanetary nebulae. Normally, the wiki process is to follow the ref style of the original author, in this case me.
Therefore, I am planning to revert your change. If you feel strongly about this, let's discuss it further before deviating from the style I have already established in this article.
Thanks.
WilliamKF 03:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why Ħ should stay in the list of IPA-inspired capitals. Given the context, I can only assume that "Other IPA-inspired capitals supported by Unicode include Ɓ/Ƃ Ƈ Ɗ/Ƌ Ə/Ǝ Ɠ Ħ Ɯ Ɲ Ɵ Ʈ Ʊ Ʋ Ʒ." on International Phonetic Alphabet means that those capital letters didn't exist until a language adopted the IPA character and needed a capital version. --Avxxv 14:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
You added the Help:Magic words <onlyinclude> to the Alpha Phi Alpha article in 3 separate parts. I reviewed the magic words page but I still can't determine what this accomplishes. Can you explain here for me?--Ccson 15:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
mea culpa....i didn't see what you were doing until too late. --emerson7 | Talk 18:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
lol! i don't know...i guess it has a place somewhere....but i just can't imagine where. --emerson7 | Talk 20:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow, thanks! Do you have a tool that does all that? Melchoir 20:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey Circeus,
Thanks for the pop culture reverts on multiple dinosaur articles. I had reverted a few, but had to go offline for a while. Nice to see someone else monitoring these for cruft. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 20:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Icon removal, Thanks :) you just beat me to it. Jeepday (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I like the new templates, but there are some extra returns in {{cleanup}} in the categories area which are causing it not to stack properly. – Basar (talk · contribs) 06:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Why are you removing the icons on the templates? ViperSnake151 20:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
We have {{COI}} for all the non-notable COI articles. {{COI2}} is worded differently for COI situations where the subject is notable. The wording of these templates was discussed at length. Please help out at WP:COIN and see how these are used. Happy editing. - Jehochman Talk 02:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The SVG preview is back to normal again, I would ask if you could look at the icons > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 16:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
(In reference to this edit) "To mention something in passing" is a common notion in English, and goes closer to the essence of why comics were put in that section rather than your replacement phrase "Comics indirectly related to Wikipedia". We should always try and word things better, but a history comment that says "Simplify wording of section title, remove off-topic template" would have been more informative as to what you did, as well as not offend the original author (me). Not a big deal, but I'd actually like to see this section axed rather than see it grow... they were comics I pulled out of the original list because I really felt grounds for their inclusion was weak. So I'm putting back the off topic tag and what I'd like people to consider is whether we need it at all before it grows. It's tenuous as it is to have a big list of comics people get into by referencing Wikipedia, and already prolific webcomic authors are writing comics about getting linked to. So we might as well have the bar for inclusion set a little higher, like "someone has to be able summarize a wikipedia-related plot point on this page", right? I tried to give the section a meaningful title without using "in passing" but to be honest, I think I had the semantics right the first time. Metaeducation 03:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for reading Letters Written in Sweden, Norway and Denmark. As I am going to be submitting a series of Mary Wollstonecraft articles for a featured topic, I would appreciate it if you would either change all the ISBNs across all of the MW "Works" pages mentioned in the MW template or resist the temptation to change the style on this one page. It would be best if all the pages were standardized stylistically when I submitted them for the featured topic, I think. If you want to change them all, I have no objection, just please change all the articles. Thanks! Awadewit | talk 04:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Leave their representative colors alone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.23.57 (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, a user has opposed this FLC based solely on the fact that the articles that make up the list are, for the most part, of poor quality. Since you are an FLC regular, I was wondering if you would mind taking a look and leaving some comments. Thanks, Scorpion0422 23:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that you recently deleted this article and moved it. I certainly understand the reasoning. I can't find where it was moved to, though. Could you leave a link on my talk page? Thank-you. EPM 17:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the refs cleanup! I really appreciate it; it's great to have you do such a fiddly job without even being asked. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Yep - I concede that sometmes starting from scratch is warranted. I'm working up Superb Fairy-wren and prbably then Variegated Fairy-wren for FAC, but some old prose in the former on communal breeding etc. is giviing me a headache. Trying to photograph teh little blighters is sooooo tricky.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey when this popped up at the beginning of the Subspecies ection of lion I was perplexed - is it just a typo for zoo? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I hereby award this Wikipedia:wikignome award to Circeus for help in chiselling away at the mighty lion, which is now featured. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
sorry i listed that wrong. I saw the red and thought it was delisted. WOuld it be possible to mark them as green if kept? The Placebo Effect 21:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the white space. Maybe it was a left-over from Word. I edited the article there prior to cut pasting it here. --Lenticel (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
--Carabinieri 19:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
There was a discussion on WP:PLANTS a little while ago, the outcome of which appeared to be that my practice of abbreviating specific epithets in infrageneric taxa is not kosher. Apparently only generic epithets may be abbreviated - all other parts must be spelled out in full. Sorry, I can't point you to the discussion at the moment, but if I find a diff later I will. Hesperian 04:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Circeus! I've recently commented on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leonardo da Vinci, and referred the nominator there to you (Don't know if she'll use you though). She also said she needed to know about how to do something with the citations/footnotes, and I remembered you did something similar when copyediting Kertesz, so thought she might benefit from your aid. Anyway, I don't care if you do or don't, but just thought if you wanted to help her out or not. I'm busy with Vampire anyway, so a lot of work to be done! :) Did you see Cas getting lion featured?! Amazing eh? Hate to admit it, but it's one of the best biological FAs or even one of the best FAs I've ever seen. Apart from yours of course Circeus! If you have any; I'm not sure... Anyway, cheers... :) Spawn Man 07:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
See here, I'd support but for this one bit...any thoughts? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for your support and indeed help. Also, my apologies. Somehow (a slip of the keyboard?) I accidentally stopped watching the list a couple of days ago. Thus, I failed to see your edits to the references, which shortly afterwards I in part reverted. This may well have seemed rude without an explanation. A related secondary issue is that I remain somewhat unclear about what WP:MOS does and does not want in references, but unless you feel so inspired I don't want to waste any more of your time. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips. And, yes we are aiming for a featured topic (more info here) and we are very close. We have seven that are pretty much ready for an FLC and only 2 that really need work. I guess the FLC regulars must be getting pretty tired of seeing trophy articles, but it really can't be helped. The main pages wouldn't have enough content to reach GAC, so that's why we can't have a Hart Trophy and List of Hart Trophy Winners article. I know you have some experience in the FTC area, would we have any chance with a "Stanley Cup" mini FT that just included articles relating to the physical cup itself - Stanley Cup, Traditions and anecdotes associated with the Stanley Cup and List of Stanley Cup champions, or would that be a too poorly defined topic? -- Scorpion0422 22:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Your always there with those little fixes on my DYK noms that I am terrible at catching in my own work. For your efforts, so that you know they are appreciated (by more than I, of this I am certain), knowing that I have no idea if you care for these:
The Minor Barnstar | ||
For major efforts on minor edits on many articles, I IvoShandor bestow this Minor Barnstar upon thee, Circeus. Thanks for your work. IvoShandor 05:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC) |
IvoShandor 05:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Circeus, thanks for the assistance on Authentic; I was interested to hear you used to be an sf reader. I am hoping to do a few more of these -- I'm an sf magazine collector and have quite a few refs so they're pretty easy to put together. With regard to your inline comments:
Thanks for all the edits -- I'm always delighted when I see your name on my watchlist for an article I've been working on. Mike Christie (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.