User talk:AndyZ/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Photosynthesis 2 Reaction Centre 3 Alpha Phi Alpha 4 Wikipedia survey 5 Hong Kong action cinema 6 Mount Rushmore/gallery 7 alex 8 Thanks 9 Alpha Phi Alpha 10 RE:States 11 Thank you 12 Wikipedia: Peer Review Goldfish 13 linked dates 14 COTW Project 15 thanks! 16 Lambda Theta Phi 17 Reverted your MOSNUM edit 18 RFA nom 19 My RfA 20 Thanks for voting on my RfA 21 Quick question.... 22 DYK 23 Peer review 24 Military history Collaboration of the Fortnight

Photosynthesis

Some time ago you helped improve the article Photosynthetic reaction centre to bring it to featured article standard. The article never became featured, probably because it's too obscure, so now I want to merge it with photosynthesis and then eventually rewrite that whole article. Few people have heard of reaction centres, but the majority of people have heard of photosynthesis, so this is probably a better candidate for a featured article. I just wondered if you would like to help merge the two articles appropriately. Thanks. --Miller 17:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

On the photosynthesis discussion page it is suggested that the article should be cleaned up. Maybe parts of the reaction centre article can be 'borrowed' to describe the light reactions in the photosynthesis article. I'm planning to create a section on the Calvin cycle and the pentose phosphate pathway too. After so much effort has been put into the reaction centre article by so many people it seems a great shame to get rid of it. The reason I want to do this is I'm desperate to get a featured article to my name! I figured photosynthesis is something that can be considered to be mainstream science and so has a better chance of becoming a featured article.--Miller 19:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Miller 12:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Reaction Centre

Thanks for the initial cleanup. It would be a good idea to compress the articles in the way you have. I have laid out a more appropriate layout on the peer review page. Please could you rearrange the layout according to that new template. Thanks. --Miller 00:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Link to peer review page

The reason why is suggest that layout is because it starts by comparing plants and bacteria (3), and then goes on to explain the structures of the three reaction centres (3.1, 3.2, 3.3). I certainly don't think oxygenic photosynthesis and the bacterial reaction centre should be under the same heading; bacterial photosynthesis is anoxygenic. --Miller 00:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think the stair analogy helps explain the principle of quantized energy levels in an understandable and approachable way? I think it should be put back into the article. --Miller 01:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

On your user page you've got some blocks showing that you've worked on various featured articles. Would I be able to put something similar on my user page showing that Photosynthetic reaction centre has been nominated a good article?--Miller 21:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

When does the 'featured article candidate' period expire? How is it finally decided whether or not it will be a featured article? It's been a long time now. --Miller 20:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Alpha

thanks for your peer review on Alpha Phi Alpha article. I'll start to work on your suggestions. Ccson 04:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

can you review the lead paragraphy for Alpha Phi Alpha. the entire article is still a work in progress, but I'd like any help along the way. feel free to peak in occassionally and provide additonal feedback, thanks for you previous advice. Ccson 18:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia survey

Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 00:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong action cinema

Hi, i saw your edit on the Hong Kong action cinema so you may be interested that it is now a featured article candidate. Please "support" or "object" with your comments at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hong_Kong_action_cinema. thanks! Zzzzz 07:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

fyi, the article is now featured! rgs, Zzzzz 10:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Mount Rushmore/gallery

Wikipedia does not use subpages and does not use the / syntax (since late 2001). I have moved this to Gallery of Mount Rushmore images but really it would be best if the images - where possible - were moved to Commons. Rmhermen 23:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

alex

I am Alex Kuper, thanks for your help! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alex Kuper (talk • contribs) .

Thanks

Thanks for fixing Crash Test Dummies. I'm wasn't trying to be difficult with the FARC, just trying to get the article the help it needed, which you provided. I have now withdrawn my nomination. As far as the USCOTW, I'd like to see more people involved. Its hard when the topics are Omaha, Nebraska or Denver, Colorado, because no one outside of those prospective states really cares. The genius of nominations like Mount Rushmore and Statue of Liberty is that they belong to every american. Thanks for your work!PDXblazers 01:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Alpha

I'm not really sure what you did other than remove the prior comments. You state that Featured article review is not what I wanted. did I infact have it listed as a feature article candidate? I mentioned Feature Article because once it has gone thru a second peer review, I will follow the steps outlined for requesting a Featured article review. thanks again for all the help you have provided to me and this article. How long should I wait for comments before requesting a feature article review? thanks Ccson 03:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks, i understand now and appreciate the clarification. I'm not sure which one i would have use, but will certainly use the candidate option. thanks again Ccson 01:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you review the history page of this article. There is a contributor is reverting the article to a version which is months old. He is sockpuppeting and not using his ID, but sometimes he signs on as bobbydoop or mikeandike. it's going to be difficult to have a valid FAC review if reviewers get the wrong page when they visit. thanks for any additional help you can provide. Ccson 00:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

RE:States

Ah, excellent points! I did not realize there was such as standard as a lead; I will begin following that standard. Thanks Civil Engineer III 18:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate the fixes you made to retain crash test dummy as a FA. I worked very hard on this article and am very proud of it - your work helped take away the sting of the move to decommission it. Denni ☯ 04:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Peer Review Goldfish

I made some changes to the article on Goldfish after you gave some recommendations in the peer review. What else do you think I should do to make it a possible featured article candidate? QuizQuick 19:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Please see my reply on Wikipedia:Peer review/Goldfish. AndyZ _t 22:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

linked dates

There is no point in changing the format of a linked date (9 September -> September 9). The whole point of the link is to present the date to each user based on his/her preferences. Plus I'm not sure what you mean by "two commas". Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 22:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In American English, dates with years have two commmas, as in September 11, 2001, was a momentous day. (copied from Comma (punctuation)). Generally, articles with topics related to US or Canada have dates written in that format (please read WP:MOSDATE#Date formats related to topics). Thanks, AndyZ _t 23:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the bottomless MoS. The sections immediately above the one you reference spell out user preference date formating, which would seem to all but moot the issue. Anyway, thanks, I was unfamiliar with that section, and with the trailing comma rule. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

COTW Project

You voted for Caribbean Sea, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. -Scottwiki 03:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks!

Posted by (^'-')^ Covington 07:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC), on behalf of the the AID Maintenance Team

Lambda Theta Phi

I am a sister of Lambda Theta Alpha Latin Sorority Incorporated. The Lambdas (Lambda Theta Phi) are my brother fraternity and noticed that the link to their website was in fact the link to the Gay/Lesbian Alliance website, an organization also known as Lambda. I only wanted to change the link to its correct address so that any interested person may see their website. The person who first added that web link did so incorrectly and should be considered culpable for vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.44.250.83 (talk • contribs) .

• My apologies; see my response on talk page. AndyZ _t 01:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverted your MOSNUM edit

I have reverted your edit of Washington, D.C., "revert AndyZ claiming to go with one WP:MOSNUM guideline while breaking another one in same section, not spelling out source units"

MoS dates and numbers says to spell out source units, which had been done in this article, before you changed it contrary to the MoS rule.

There is more good reason for that rule than the totally unnecessary nonbreaking spaces between the number and the unit. Gene Nygaard 00:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my edit and pointing this out to me; I can't believe I missed that! (Somehow I misread Use standard abbreviations when using symbols) To let you know, I have changed it back to my previous edit, except fixing this issue, since the majority of my edit (I hope!) did not contradict with WP:MOS. Thanks, AndyZ _t 00:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA nom

I know you do exceptional work with FA and peer review and I'm wondering if I could nominate you for adminship. Reply on my talk page. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaranda (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AndyZ All done, just go on and add the date time and accept. Add to the RFA page also. :) Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for voting at my RFA. Even though you did not vote for me, your counsel was appreciated. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWynekenTalk

Thanks for voting on my RfA

Thanks so much for voting! Thanks so much for voting on my request for adminship. I have decided to withdraw my nomination as it seems that consensus will not be reached. If you voted in support, thanks for putting your trust in me to be a good admin. If you voted in opposition, thank you as well for your criticism as it will only help me be a better Wikipedian and perhaps help if/when I apply for adminship again sometime in the future.

--Mets501^{talk • contribs} 01:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Quick question....

Is it proper for an article to have a "Trivia" section. I know that by definition, its unencylopediec, and I certainly know a lot would rather have it turned into a prose, but according to WP:ALBUM:

Describe history, trivia, themes (musical or lyrical), a consideration of its specific influences, specific followers, where it fits in its genre and what leanings it may have toward others, reasons for the order of tracks (if any), etc. Also, synthesize the general critical reception of the album, being as detailed as possible.

I just want to be sure before I make any major changes to the format. Again, thanks for the advice! Chubdub 02:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article 5th New York Volunteer Infantry, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 08:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi! Thanks for your comments on Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom on peer review and also for your edits. Would you make any structural improvements? What do you think of the sections which are more fully developed, quality of prose and referencing etc? TreveX^talk 18:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Military history Collaboration of the Fortnight

You supported Mobilization, which has been selected as the Military history WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Fortnight. Please help improve this article to featured article standards. Kirill Lokshin 23:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)