User talk:Malkinann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here!Kukini 03:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Great barrier reef

Thanks for fixing up the referencing for Great Barrier Reef. :) What part of WP:CITE told you how to do that properly? I fell back on good old Harvard, I'm afraid. Thanks again! - Malkinann 00:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Malkinann. Thanks. It's true that WP:CITE doesn't really tell editors which citation templates are available. I think this is because it's not official Wikipedia policy that you must use them. Harvard style is completely acceptable too. So the way the references were done prior to my changes was fine, but using the {{cite web}} template made the url linkable. That's why I changed them. I guess the other advantage is that the references look consistent with the refs on many other Wikipedia articles too. I'm glad you weren't annoyed that I changed the format from the Harvard one! Cheers — Donama 01:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heehee

Thanks for categorizing Image:AmazonTrio.jpg. I can't believe I forgot! --Masamage 05:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice!

Thanks for your additions to the PGSM article. :D It's a huge improvement! --Masamage 02:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request to you

Hi. Can you tidy up 'Fiore' as it's been vandalised, and then block user cummins1 from editing stuff as I've already cleared up some vandalism elsewhere from him today but I'm too new to this to be able to do anything constructive about it. Ta

[edit] Re: Sailor Moon Movies

Thanks for doing the reorganization! :D --Masamage 01:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ella Enchanted

Thanxs for adding the categories! =D Jumping cheese ^Contact 06:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Winx club contributions

In light of your recent edits to the mentioned article, I have started started a discussion thread to highlight your suggestions as well some of my own that would organize and clean-up content from the main article. Perhaps we can coordinate our efforts?--Kenn Caesius 21:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Barrier Reef edits

Hi, thanks for your edits to Great Barrier Reef. I would firstly like to clarify that I agree with you that the section now titled "Human use of the Great Barrier Reef" was previously incorrectly titled "Indigenous Australians". My original revert was attempting to remove several accounts of vandalism, including one that added an extra zero to the number of species of coral found on the reef. The reference following this claim clearly states the number to be in the order of 400, (not 4000). Apologies for the confusion in reverting your edit, and I have now restored the changes you made with the minor exception of the 'fact' tag that you placed after this claim. The claim is referenced at the end of the paragraph. Tug201 12:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cane Toad

Thanks for your work on the Cane Toad article. It is good to see that featured articles can continue to be improved. Have you thought about joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles? Thanks --liquidGhoul 12:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Humorous is correct worldwide, see Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings/H for example. There is a fuller discussion at [1]. Hope that makes sense. --Guinnog 12:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said, "humorous" is not an American spelling but the worldwide spelling. "Humourous" is an error (as well as an archaic form) along the comparison with "humour". Spelling is illogical sometimes. If you read the discussion I referred you to it should all become clear. --Guinnog 13:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Malkinann, I think Guinnog is right. Wikitionary, like Wikipedia, can have mistakes, and for some reason this one hasn't been cleared up. I use the Maquarie Dictionary for Australian spelling, but unfortunately can't find it at the moment. I looked in the Oxford Dictionary of Australian English, and it lists humorous as the correct spelling, with no mention of the alternative. Even though humour is spelt with the u, they must have decided it looks too clunky :). Thanks. --liquidGhoul 09:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

See also Talk:Humour for a discussion concluding that 'humorous' is correct. If it makes any difference I use UK English myself so I am particularly sensitive to creeping Americanisation of spelling. --Guinnog 09:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Malkinann, like LiquidGhoul, I am a fellow Australian and I fully support your desire to use Australian English in Australian articles. However, I support Guinnog's view that "humorous" is the correct spelling. I use Mirriam Webster online and offline, the current Australian Oxford Dictionary. The spelling "humourous" is not even listed as an alternative spelling. It actually isn't listed in any of my < than 10-year-old dictionaries. At work I use the Australian News Limited Style Guide for Journalists and Professional Writers and it specifically states to use "humorous," not "humourous". I have several editions of the guide and they all say to use Australian English and list "humorous" as the correct spelling. I think "humourous" is an old British spelling and it is true that some people in Australia still use it and you can find it in some old dictionaries, but I think it is incorrect to claim it is Australian spelling.

I believe Guinnog is correct to change the spelling to humorous to be consistent with modern Australian spelling conventions. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I would strongly caution you against using Wiktionary as a reliable dictionary. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I still think it's humourous... Someone had better tell the Sydney Morning Herald, then. - Malkinann 09:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free. No paper dictionary that I know of lists it as being current in the modern era. This is the trouble with relying on the likes of Wiktionary or Dictionary.com for info... --Guinnog 09:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The Sydney Morning Herald website has 27 hits for "humourous" [2] and 614 hits for "humorous" [3]. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edits

Hi! I would like to request that you not use the 'minor' box so much when you make edits. That's ordinarily reserved for things like typo-fixes and other such; I imagine that probably what you're doing is marking things minor when you know people will agree with them. Which is a reasonable thought, but moving all that text into the PGSM article, no matter how good an edit it is, is still a pretty big change. So maybe leave things like that as normal edits? Anyway, thanks for consistently being so helpful. ^^ --Masamage 00:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sailor Moon episode articles

Hi! Thanks for all your help with these. :) I'm glad you're so enthusiastic. However, I'd like to ask that you not proceed any further just yet; I'd like to work alongside you, but I can't catch up that fast. We're still talking about stuff at Talk:Sailor Moon episode 001--once everyone agrees that's all squared away, we can press on. Thanks! --Masamage 06:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Barrier Reef

Hi Beland, a few days ago you tagged some facts at Great Barrier Reef with {{fact}}. I've had a go at sourcing the ones that you tagged (the others I've got no idea about). Could you please take a look, and see if they meet with your satisfaction? ;) Thankyou. - Malkinann 06:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Awesome! I tweaked the article a bit to more accurately summarize the referenced info. Thanks for tracking that down; now that we have more background info our explanation is much better. -- Beland 18:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haplodiploid sex-determination system

Good job on that table! Shayno 19:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bold to statistics on SM

Please consult on format changes like bold to the stats by posting in the talk page first. I believe that Masamage was against bold for the stats... because they have the bullets already. (I tried it she removed it...) So please clarify before doing that, get consensus, once you get consensus then if you do it to one change it for the template for all of them. (Usagi through Hotaru) and then when you do it to one, do it to the rest. Thank you. --Hitsuji Kinno 07:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bacteria

Hi there, thanks for the encouragement and copy-editing. TimVickers 22:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lain FAC

Hi! Thanks for commenting on the Lain FAC. Your comments have been taken in consideration, and, (apart for the kanji namings, for whitch I am looking for help) actionned. I thought you might want to know so you could comment some more :). --SidiLemine 13:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The only way I see to get to that paper (Lain and Eva by Napier) would be if someone here at wikipedia happened to have issues of Sci Fi magazine and would like to post scans of it (.....!) Do you know of a place where I can post "Requests for Sources"? Also, do you know any "experienced editors" to copyedit the article? I am way too involved to detect any mistakes. About the episode list, I finally believe it is fine where it is (a link in "see also"), as it make the article looks more ecyclopedic ;).--SidiLemine 10:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Great Barrier Reef...

I made a few minor edits and agree that the section stub notices can be removed. I will try to take a closer look at the sections you recently edited and the species information you gave me in the next few days. In the geology section, it would be nice if we found a way to tie all of the separate data points into a single line of reasoning, since we have three different dates for the forming of the most recent barrier. As for species, not sure what the best approach is there -- don't know if it helps to list every species, but maybe if we can incorporate it into a summary or create a category "Species of Great Barrier Reef" we can tag all associated articles with that category and point readers there. --MattWright (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Serial Experiments Lain episodes

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article List of Serial Experiments Lain episodes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:List of Serial Experiments Lain episodes. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. - Basically, with the recent improvement of the main Serial Experiments Lain, the episode list is a duplicate of the information. Sorry if this causes you any grief.Malkinann 21:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not prod that page nor try to get it deleted. The duplicate info can be removed from the article can be removed but see List of Planetes episodes. I had been meaning to nominate that for a "featured" status. I will do so soon. --Cat out 23:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

All of the article is duplicated on the main SEL page, though... I won't prod it further, but you might want to confer with User:$yD! on what exactly is going to happen with regards to the episode list, and the main Serial Experiments Lain article, which is currently in FA nomination. - Malkinann 23:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not see a reason to further discuss. And please do not get that the wrong way, I just feel this would satisfy all parties involved. I will put a note to the main lain page to explain my actions but I think he would prefer having two featured articles/lists. I'll however wait for that FAC to conclude and nominate the episode list after it for FL. --Cat out 23:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The full list has been removed from the main article, so deletion is no more needed. Yes, two FAs are better than one ;). SeizureDog has suggested that even the abbriedged list should be taken off from the main article, and that there should only be a link in the "see also" section. Any thoughts on that?--SidiLemine 09:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science Fiction Template

Thanks for the notice. I looked at the template, and I think it is a good idea. I would eliminate the words "Science Fiction" out of the template as much as possible to make it simpler with less clutter and bulk. I wanted to edit it to put Novels and Films ahead of Other Media, but then I thought what about Short Fiction, and couldn't find an appropriate SF link, and I also thought that TV fans would want equal prominence with Films. Speculative fiction and Fantasy links should appear as cross-genre links, but please keep out horror. I may have more to write later. Get User talk:Jim Douglas and some other people involved. Hu 00:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So does that mean that I can start editing pages to use the template? I tried to do the media section in alphabetical order, but I think I stuffed up a couple of times. I've asked Jim Douglas, as you suggested, for his comments, and I put a notice on Talk:Science fiction. Thanks :) - Malkinann 01:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you put it into a couple of novels, a Heinlein juveniles, a couple of films, a couple of TV shows, and a couple of other places and then list them all on the Talk:Science fiction page in your note so we can see how they look. People may also try out some edits. After the feedback settles down, then it's open season. Hu 01:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I've had a teeny little go at your suggestion (Heinlein juveniles, Babel-17, Science fiction comic, Nebula Award for Best Novel, The Left Hand of Darkness) but looking at where the fantasy template's linked, it seems to be mainly used in the articles that it links to, and in subgenre articles. Maybe later we could think about having a science fiction genres template at the bottom of the genre pages? - Malkinann 01:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the template according to the suggestions I made, also to make the format consistent. Hu 01:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how editing out the science fiction would look, but now that you've done it, I can see that it looks quite nice. :) Jim Douglas has said that having a template is a good idea too, especially as Fantasy already has something similar. I'm not sure about sticking it on individual works, though. I feel maybe we should keep it to the 'big topics', like genres, themes and suchlike. - Malkinann 02:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea, particularly if we already have something similar for Fantasy. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 01:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An invitation

Hi, I saw you've been tagging articles with our banner - would you be interested in joining WikiProject LGBT studies? We've been dormant for sometime but are now rapidly developing. We'd love to have you on board! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GAR

Will do good buddy. See nasty grams on the GAR and GAR talk page. I don't care if it pisses people off as this happens far too often on the GAR page. Rlevse 02:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: WP:Harry

That's a possible idea, though twice the work! :-) There are templates like {{PA}} and {{GF}} which aren't in widespread use, where doing {{PA|ch=3}} will yield ^{PA Ch.3}, which, though it doesn't cite the exact page number, will at least get you in the right general area, but I don't think that's good enough. After we get together our act (the project's been dormant for a little while, basically just a place where Harry Potter fans could put their name in a participants list), we'll move on to citing – there are a bunch of really good articles out there that aren't GAs or even FAs because the only source is our heads, right now. Sigh. Thanks for the suggestion though – what do you mean by a "Harry Potter reference guide"? Sounds interesting. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of work. Yeah, I'll bring it up on the WP talk page when we get past our initial bumpy restart… --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 04:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Heads up

I disputed it. There is no such thing as a head shot of Naoko Takeuchi that was released to the public. Besides, I know from Volume 5, she really doesn't care. ^^;; There are some model shots she took that we could post, but I rather think people are going to think they are improper... O.o;; She did some modeling. --Hitsuji Kinno 05:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article received

Napier Lain/Eva article: User:GunnarRene/Sources#Science fiction. --GunnarRene 14:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/l/User_talk%7EMalkinann_79b5.html"