User talk:Ryz05

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, welcome to my talk page. Feel free to leave me a message. Thank you.

Please click here to leave me a new message.


Talk archives: Archive 1 | Archive 2


Welcome!

Hello, Ryz05, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  SqueakBox 17:03, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] FPC promoted
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Greatwall large.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.

I forgot to put this on your talk page earlier. Thanks for nominating the image. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Narcissu music

Try alamone's NSAOut ([1]). That should extract the music (in MP3 format) along with all the other game resources. — Haeleth Talk 00:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Works fine for me... try downloading again, maybe with a different browser?  :/ — Haeleth Talk 12:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USA -- History section

A History of the USA that mentions nothing of the Louisiana Purchase, the War of 1812 & the war with Mexico? All are mentioned quite succinctly in that paragraph - which is not long. Removing @45 characters to reduce the length, while removing such important details, does not improve the article. If you are concerned to reduce the size, an easy solution is to take out just one of the 40 kB photos that fill the article --JimWae 18:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

JimWae, not every war or conflict that had occurred in the United States deserve to be mentioned on the US article. They are better put in the main article on US history. This helps to keep the article's size optimal.--Ryz05 19:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States superpower 'counterclaim'

Hi, Ryz05.

You may have other reasons for wanting the sentence about limits to the United States' power. (You: "it retains NPOV by countering the statement about US being the sole superpower". Me: "COUNTERING would be saying "it's NOT the sole superpower" (which would be to present 2 contradictory statements as fact)." You: "countering that the US is the sole superpower means to say that its influence is limited to constraints- not that it isn't a super power".) But, by most denotations of counter as an adjective, a noun, a transitive verb, an intransitive verb, an adverb, and a prefix, one would indeed have to say the U.S. is not a superpower in order to counter the statement that the U.S. is a superpower.

• adjective: "Contrary; opposing"
• noun: "One that is an opposite"
• transitive verb: "To move or act in opposition to; oppose"
• intransitive verb: "To move, act, or respond so as to be in opposition"
• adverb: "In a contrary manner or direction", "To or toward an opposite"
• prefix: "Contrary; opposite; opposing"; "contrary : opposite", "opposing : retaliatory"

Anyway, I'm just being picky about your edit summaries. My message isn't really worthy of a response. No ill will intended; just wanting to make a point about your wording and possibly the thought process behind it. President Lethe 21:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi,
I might have used the wrong term to "counter" the claim that US is a super power, but what I mean is (I hope you understand), that the sentence helps to create NPOV by saying that even though the US is a super power, it can't push around everybody else or fight anybody that opposes its policies, because it's "power" is limited by military, political, and economic constraints. If the sentence is taken out, then just by saying the US is the world's sole super power would sound a little arrogant, and that would not make a very good NPOV statement.
I'm not exactly sure why you still want to take the sentence out, but the issue regarding that sentence had been discuess in the talk page a while ago and the argument is to keep only if it mentions that being a super power is always limited by constraints, which the sentence does by saying "like any other nation". Please don't waste each other's time and effort by trying to delete something not worth deleting in the beginning. You can help out the US article by adding references or help to create a more NPOV in the "human rights" section, or help me summarize the rest of the article and find nice pictures to accompany it.--Ryz05 21:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryz05,

Thanks for your reply. I understood and understand the reasons that some persons have for keeping the sentence in the article. (I was a 'heavy' participant in one of the recent discussions of it.) I disagree with its inclusion. But, really, my note to you was more about your edit summaries than the actual sentence in the article. Anyway, I've kind of been withdrawing from most arguments about the U.S. article, at least for now. A lot of emotion involved (including my own, I admit); and I've seen some persons sometimes get rather rude to each other.

I feel torn about whether to work/bother with the article—that sentence or any other part.

Your "You can [...] help me" wording reminds me that sometimes people can get things done in a good way by first conferring one on one, or in little groups, before going to a larger group. Anyway, as I say, I'm kind of withdrawing—but your rather personal wording in your message to me makes me think to offer that, if you want, you can discuss those things (the ones you mentioned working on) with me. I might have a useful idea. ... I'm not saying that's what you had in mind; I'm just mentioning it.

I go back and forth between feeling happy and excited about Wikipedia and feeling rather disillusioned and annoyed about it.

Well, as usual, I'm rambling.

Thanks again. President Lethe 23:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

PS. You wrote, in your message to me, "the issue regarding that sentence had been discuess in the talk page a while ago and the argument is to keep only if it mentions that being a super power is always limited by constraints". It's possible that you're thinking of a discussion different from the one I'm thinking of; I bet it's been discussed many times. But the most recent discussion I'm thinking of is one that I had this month, at the Talk page, with the person who claimed to have written the sentence in the first place. Among that person's final words on the matter (at least in that section of the Talk page) were "I am not personally attached to the specific wording of the sentence" and "I'm happy to just state that the U.S. was one of two superpowers before the fall of the Soviet Union and the sole hyperpower after the fall" (emphasis mine). I agree with the view of that person. Of course, someone else has cut out the hyperpower bit (possibly because of a desire to avoid using neologism). The person who included the sentence in the first place has recently said he's happy to leave out the bit about limits to superpowers. President Lethe 01:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: US geography

Hi there; thanks for your note. I disagree: peruse any other country and you'll likely find a general description of where a territory is in relation to neighbouring lands and waters. This overview article, given its content and the breadth of US territory on the continent (and given the fact that it has more coastline that it does land borders with its neighbours), deserves no less. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 09:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with including a more functional map (which I'm working on), but I otherwise defer to my prior comments: all things are not equal and this is germane and summative information. I acknowledge your efforts to prune the article, but there are other arguably extraneous details in the geo section and others that can be massaged ... like the bloated economy section instead. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Great. Thanks for your understanding; peruse the talk page and you'll note that I wholeheatedly support nixing excessive detail from this article ... the above isn't one of them. Yes: I just noticed that the economy sxn has been recently pruned significantly – that was much needed! I'll try to address other sxns as well, but I've been spread pretty thin these days. :) Merci! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy editing. --Randy 01:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] demographics

The demographics are explained in the sub pages but not on the main page which is misleading. I think for the main page we should include what is counted as white to add credibility to the article. Most Americans even admitted by the US census do not consider Arabs and latinos white. To say that America is 81 percent white is extremely misleading when you do not include who is counted as white. I think we should either remove it (I dont see a reason for it to be added when other pages go in depth) as it would encourage readers to go to the other pages. The alternative is to atleast include who is counted as white on the main page. I encourage you to think it over.

Please understand the difference between saying white, and saying Caucasian, before you make a comment. In any case, I further specified the difference in the US article. Thanks for pointing that ou.--Ryz05 20:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PRC

If you paid any attention to what my edits actucally were before reverting them, you would have noticed that I moved the relvant links inline. The Mao image is not discussed and does not have the necessary fair use rationale for use in this article, read WP:FUC.--nixie 01:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Links should be relvant not anything basically realted, see WP:NOT, for example scouting is not remotely relevant to a general reader wishing to find out about education in China. Second the TIME images does not meet fair use requirements, as a copyrighted image there needs to be a good reason why it is being used in the article - this image is simply being used as decoration and should be removed. You seem to have some ownership issues with this article, my edits are in good faith and improve the article which is more than I can say for your current behaviour.--nixie 01:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion page for how the intro to the U.S. article should look

Yeah, I have to say that it would be a useful feature if we could protect a section of an article in such a way that you had to read the "guidelines" for that section first.

That notwithstanding, I think you overreacted by reverting my first edit.

Now, when you say that there is a "iscussion page for how the intro to the U.S. article should look", are you talking about something other than the "Intro" section at the bottom of the Talk:United States page? If so, can you point me to it?

--Richard 01:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry to jump into this conversation, but perhaps you can use comments to achieve that. Using <!-- --> allows you to add text to an article that you can only read if you are editing the article. A short note can be written in the comment to tell an editor to follow a certain guideline for the section. Regards, AndyZ t 19:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overusing pinyin

Hi, I would like why is every Chinese name transliterated to pinyin by you? There is no convention for doing that in Wikipedia and it makes reading a chore. The pinyin transliteration belongs to the first line of the article and not later. If you want to do that you have to propose at the Chinese messageboards first, and get consensus. Thanks. Mandel 03:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I make a mistake, but there's surely too much pinyin in Journey to the West. Hard to trace who did all that though. Mandel 03:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then nevermind.--Ryz05t 21:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States FAC

Hi,

I'm just the messenger -- Raul654 makes all the FAC calls -- but it's not unusual at all for a nomination to fail after five days if it has a number of objections and doesn't seem to be making a lot of progress overturning them. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for note. See here:[2] Kaisershatner 19:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Will (E@) T 13:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Move for United States

About the Google search results ... I took a few minutes to look at how 'United States', 'United States of America', 'United States of Europe' and 'United States of Mexico' fared at The New York Times, London Times and a few Australian dailies; then I realized that big results for 'United States' cannot be interpreted as meaning they all refer to 'United States of America', though they most likely do. The fact that the semantic ambiguity can't be resolved without specific inspection plays right into the hands of the folks who would say that there's confusion between America, Mexico and Europe in use of the 'United States' term. Sorry, but I felt it best to share my thoughts on the matter with you considering your comments. Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAC

I've responded to your comments on Talk:United States. Cheers! The Disco King 13:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reg. US FAC

Hi,

The relevant part of my objection is copied below:

   
User talk:Ryz05
 Image problems in "Largest cities". Please have a look at "Largest cities" in 800x600 screen resolution. One advice: It is better to have a reasonably big image rather than 5 tiny ones. Images are there to provide visual aid for the readers to understand the subject. Seeing one representative skyline is enough to fire the imagination of a casual reader. There is no need to fill the page with images as additional images aren't very helpful.
   
User talk:Ryz05

I think its pretty clear from it that I NEVER objected to the table. My objection is regarding the use of 5 images that overlap over the table in 800x600 screen resolution. Please do it yourself to see what I mean. Also noting that the problem exists because of multiple images, I suggested removing most of them (images, not table). I haven't acted unfair as I have also suggested the remedy (the straw poll says nothing about images, I believe). My other objections include in-appropriate captioning of images and inconsistant use of reference placing. Both of these stand on their own and are not content related disputes (like people wanting some information being added according to their whims). -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahem...Ahem...I didn't mention the most common critizism: SIZE. The article is extremely huge. I would suggest you try to bring it under 70KB. If this is achieved (along with the other issues mentioned in the paragraph above) you will get my support vote. But I can't guarentee if anyone else will relax the criteria this much. I have a few suggestions that you may want to consider. Concentrate on "History". This section has the potential to lose as much as 30% of the flab. I have seen that the major problem with this section is (1) It tries best to show a continuous history, and (2) It flirts around the topic before describing them. In summary style, both can be bent substantially. Considering the article on history is continuous and extensive, the section here can be summarized in such a way that only important events are discussed. However, it will not be a usual copyedit. You will have to ensure that the prose does not look bits-and-pieces of information presented in paragraph format. Here's what I suggest: Take a pen and paper and scan through the section writing down (in a few words) the topic being mentioned. Also mark the sentences that act as bridge between events. Now arrange them in decreasing order of importance you feel relating to US history. Now browse through your list asking yourself whether a person will look for this information in US article or US History article. Wherever you feel sure that this is suitable to be discussed in US History article only, delete them. Now come to the bridges. Those bridges that are between events very high up can usually not be made shorter if the writing style is good. However, try to merge the bridge between the events lower in the relative importance list with one of the events. Your personal evaluation will matter in the order but still in the end nothing important would be lost. Now concentrate on sentences that come just before the historic event is discussed. They can be either removed completely or merged with the sentence introducing the event. The other sections that can allow reduction in flab are "Public health", "Population migration and growth" and perhaps "Foreign relations". One rule of thumb: For sections that are not the main theme of the article, anything that goes over 2 scrolls on the computer monitor is worth summarizing. I have other issues as well, but they belong to {{sofixit}} category and are not critical for the article's FAC. If I get time, I will fix them myself. Regards, -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
One more thing....I didn't "ask" to remove all but one image. It was my "suggestion" to remove "most" of them. If you can make it look good in any other way also, it would be perfectly fine for me. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US

Hi, I'd rather you found someone among the multitude of good US editors here to run through it carefully; preferably you need someone who's unfamiliar with the text.

Then I'll have another look.

Tony 03:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's going on in the US

Ugh. I thought it was considered a bad idea to discuss current events. Was this a response to a criticism from the FA process?

--Richard 18:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to United States

Your recent edit to United States was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 18:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States article nomination

Oops. Thanks for letting me know; I've fixed it now. -Vontafeijos 20:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your request that I cast my vote at United States article FAC

Umm, first, people are kind of sensitive right now about folks putting notes on user pages aiming to increase turnout for a particular outcome to votes and polls - I'm ok with it, myself, because I don't subscribe to the 'thou art sheep and shall follow thy shepherd's lead' line of reasoning implied by opponents of talk page requests for vote/poll participation, I'm just passing along my perception of the current climate. I'm also not implying you are asking me to vote a particular way - you explicitly did not do that (thank you) ... I'm just saying to be careful in the current climate.

Second, I'm not really a supporter of the FAC system as it currently stands. I think there are better ways of achieving the same end through the WikiProject system. This isn't anything I've proposed because I've not had the time to follow it up with a good supportive campaign but I believe the current FAC system should be replaced by a WikiProject activities review group that would look at articles currently being intensively worked on by WikiProject groups and pull 'featured' articles from this pool. This would have the knock-on effect of giving the WikiProjects, one of the major sanctioned personal networking mechanisms in Wikipedia, some much needed recognition.

As a result of my second point, I don't engage in nomination or voting in the FAC system.

Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long articles

I wish there were a good way to take care of long articles by doing whatever can be done to make them short, but United States sounds hard. Georgia guy 01:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guess what??

My user talk page now has over 1000 lines. Anyone know what to do?? Georgia guy 01:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAC

My no vote is related to the quality of the prose (2a). I merely identified size as another crucial issue. I think that you should go ahead and flag on the talk page that you're "strengthening the summary style" of the article to get it through FAC. Invite objections from other contributors on the talk page "before they revert", and go ahead and do it.

As for what to move into daughter articles, aren't there lots of examples on the FAC page?

Tony 01:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

But I did a nice job on that paragraph. There are lots of good American copy-editors on WP; can you network them? I'm sure you'll get help at such an important stage. I edit for a living, so here, I ration my input, I'm afraid—mostly it's just examples, to keep the standards of FAs high (well, to raise them, let's face it). That way, I can maximise my impact.

Why not research the user and talk pages of the participants at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team; but don't tell anyone I said that. Tony 15:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why I don't like using Web sites as sources unless they themselves are the article subject

It's a lot harder to change several thousand copies of a published book or article in libraries all over the world than it is to change a single Web site. And even if you were to link to static Internet Archive versions instead, that still doesn't solve the problem of how most Web sites (even those from government agencies) simply don't go through the same thorough editing process that most academic books and journals go through.
Plus, in the case of many Web sites, a relevant fact might be buried in the middle of a huge Web page that's 100 screens long. In contrast, one can only fit so much text on a piece of paper, so as long as citations are given to specific page numbers, it's easier to trace and audit citations to ensure that the editor has cited the source for something it really says. --Coolcaesar 05:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAC spamming

I've reverted your post on Talk:Apollo 11; it really doesn't seem appropriate to spam talkpages of tangentially-related articles to get people to "cast their vote ... pass the nomination" of an article on FAC. Shimgray | talk | 14:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not sold. I've only rarely seen FAC nominations mentioned on other article talkpages, and then usually only on directly related ones. Talk:Economy of the United States is a daughter article, fine. Talk:Battle of Wake Island? Talk:Bald Eagle? There's about a thousand articles of this level of "relatedness" to the article in question - were you planning to canvass votes at them all, and to clean up the notices afterwards? You might find places like Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board somewhat more useful. Shimgray | talk | 17:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US History

Well, let's compare to some other country FAs. Canada's history section is 200 words shorter, Belgium's and South Africa's are about 400 words shorter, Australia's and Pakistan's are about 500 words shorter, Bangladesh's, Nepal's, People's Republic of China's, Sealand's and Nauru's are about 700 words shorter, and India's and Cambodia's are both almost 1000 words shorter. Only Bhutan has a longer history section. All of these countries (particularly China, India, Bangledesh, etc.,) have very lengthy histories. The point of summary style is to pare down the history to the bare bones, and leave the bulk of it in the daughter article, History of the United States. If you ask me, India overdoes it with paring things down, while Bhutan and Canada have bulky history sections. China's approach is just about right.

As for particular criticisms, the history section is overly focussed on the twentieth century. More is written about the twentieth century than is written about the nineteenth, eighteenth, and everything before. Yes, a lot happened in the twentieth century, but a lot happened in the nineteenth that you're leaving out as well. Some statements that could be cut:

  • The perception that the U.S. was losing the space race against the Soviet Union resulted in government efforts to encourage greater math and science skills at all levels of the education system
  • Unlike most earlier conflicts, the Cold War was characterized by a basis in opposing ideologies vying for supremacy
  • For historical reasons, American sympathies were very much in favor of the British and French. However, a sizable number of citizens, mostly Irish and German, were staunchly opposed to intervention. (Public sentiments are not mentioned re: WWII, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War)
  • After the war, the United States Senate did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles imposed by its Allies on the defeated Central Powers. The primary argument put forth by opponents of the treaty was that it would pull the U.S. into European affairs. Instead, the country chose to pursue a policy of unilateralism that bordered at times on being isolationist (Replace with: "After the war, not wanting to become entangled in European affairs, the United States pursued a policy of unilateralism and isolationism.")
  • With the support of most of the international community, U.S. armed forces invaded Afghanistan, which was considered to be a safe haven for terrorism activities in the Middle East, and overthrew its Taliban government. More controversially, the "War on Terror" continued with the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's government. This second invasion proved relatively unpopular amongst the international community, even amongst long-time American allies such as France and Germany, resulting in a wave of anti-American sentiment; however, over 30 governments supported the U.S. led invasion of Iraq, in what became known as 'the coalition of the willing.'[17] (Replace with: "This War on Terror has involved the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 by a coalition, and the internationally-controversial invasion of Iraq in 2003.")

And so forth and so on. Trim without mercy; you just need to give the bare bones of American history, touch on all of the important points, and leave the rest to the daughter article. Cheers! The Disco King 17:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on United States article

I've been observing your improvements to the United States article and think your doing a commendable job. If there is anything in particular you may need help with, let me know. --Northmeister 04:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I very much second that. It looks great. —MJCdetroit 18:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAC

You're right, I have realized that my flipflopping on the vote has been unfair. It's simpler for everyone if I just neutralize my vote altogether. --Golbez 04:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No, at this point it would look too mercenary. My vote will remain neutral. --Golbez 17:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
And yes, it's entirely my fault that it would look too mercenary. I acted too quickly in my vote switching. --Golbez 17:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I have made my choice. If I switch it, it will be on my own time and motivation. --Golbez 17:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevant notices

Please do not leave messages irrelevant to the article topic, as you did with Talk:Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor. Your original message was

"Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States

Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.--Ryz05 t 22:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)" MickeyK 19:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Those were not irrelevant. I thought that people might be interested in bringing the United States article to featured.--Ryz05 t 21:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
If you were seeking help on the article United States, please ask for it in the appropriate location, not on the talk page of the article Attack on Pearl Harbour. MickeyK 19:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Some working on the article Attack on Pearl Harbor might be interested in voting on the United States article nomination.--Ryz05 t 21:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Canvassing for votes is considered spamming, as dictated by WP:NOSPAM. MickeyK 13:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You didn't respond to my issues

Hello:

I stand by my vote. Please see my response to PDXBlazers on the FAC page. No one has responded to that response. --Coolcaesar 20:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

Please, my response is that featured articles must be good in that they are:

  • Just right in size for a Wikipedia article
  • Not vandalized
  • Having no cleanup info or citations needed.

Georgia guy 23:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] US

I have explained my objections in the first FAC and extensively in the peer review, I have no intention of doing so again.--Peta 01:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Re-read the peer review.--Peta 01:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I feel sorry that despite your sincere effort, the article could not become an FA. There may be other factors associated, but what I feel the main cause of failure is the article needed even more summarisation. Will talk to you regarding this later, after 3 or 4 days. I shall go through all the PR and FACs of the article, then. And keep up the effort, I believe it will be FA in near future. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mooncake

Thanks...it went very well with my Mars Milk..Thanks. Amaas120 23:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States

I'll give it a shot as far as revamping the geography section...I'll work on it later tonight.--MONGO 05:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I made a huge expansion to the geography section. I think all the fuss about making the article small is dumb...look at Retreat of glaciers since 1850...it is huge and was featured and on the main page too. Anyway, I didn't add any references for my additions but they should be easy to locate...I do know my info is factual....edit what I have added as much as you wish.--MONGO 11:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking at other articles that made the grade such as Canada mentioned and also Australia and my edits have been attempts to fit this mold. Now that I've made such edits, I am interested in your comments and observations. I reduced the text a bit to fit the bytes complaint, and would like you to look over the article and make any changes you feel necessary to improve the article. Looking at the Canada and Australia articles the opening is wholly inadequate and needs expansion I think. The rest just needs fixing up and organizing which I trust you would handle fine. I still approve of your work, and don't let my edits leave the impression that I disapprove of your version prior to changes. If there are any points of contention you feel need addressing from the FAC, I feel the best approach would be to start with each paragraph on the talk page (one by one on contention), have each editor offer their version - then work out a solution to the best version from there which would be a collaborative version - pretty much as the Founding Fathers worked on the Constitution. Just a suggestion. --Northmeister 23:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could you help me? :)

I am editing a film article, Bionicle 2: Legends of Metru Nui, and all it needs to get GA status is the plot trimmed down to like 4 paragraphs. I am not the best at copyediting, but I see that you do it a lot, so could you maybe help me out? Thanks! Judgesurreal777 20:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know?

With almost 750 edits, you are the biggest contributor to the third most revised article! (User • Talk) 02:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/y/z/User_talk%7ERyz05_3d38.html"