User talk:ALoan/Archive5
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
edit User talk:ALoan Archives |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 |
|
|
• Archive to 11 February |
• Archive to 28 February |
• Archive to 28 February |
[edit] R U There
Hi Aloan I hadn't seen you arownd lately so dropped by to see if you are still with us?, see from user contributions you are - Great. Happy New Year! Giano 08:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] United Kingdom Corporation Tax
I'd be grateful if you would provide further review comments/make amendments to this page. I'd still like to get the article up to featured article status and would like to resubmit it soon. Any help you could give would be appreciated. Kind regards, jguk 12:30, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Bok globule
Hi, just wanted to explain a couple of changes I made to the Bok globules article - just that I removed your line about them being smaller cousins of Giant Molecular Clouds, because I thought it gave the impression that they were the same type of object only smaller, which I think would be a bit over-simplified a description. And I removed the bit about them being roughly spherical - Bok globules are not my field so I don't know if most of them might be, but the ones in the image look distinctly non-spherical to me.
Also I just thought I would say hello to a fellow astronomer, nice to see another one on wikipedia! Worldtraveller 20:05, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. If you were only an astronomer for 3 years then your output was quite impressive - 8 papers? I know people who have been post-docs for years and haven't scraped together that many :) I see you worked with Ofer Lahav - he's head of my department now. Astronomy's a small world. Worldtraveller 22:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Duke of Wellington
Well done on the reversion of the vandalism,that was fast work, I was just in the middle of doing the same when I saw the page change. Richard Harvey 11:11, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Duke of Wellington
Hi ALoan, I've just uploaded (as per my comment on The_Duke_of_Wellington's_Regiment discussion page a revised image for the regimental colours, 'DWR_Regimental Colours.jpg' which can be altered in size easily would you like to try it and see if it appears ok and more preferable on your screen. Richard Harvey 17:10, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Colley Cibber
Hi, ALoan. You found Colley Cibber, huh? I wrote the first two thirds of that, Geogre wrote the third third. I know you're not obliged to care, but we'd rather not have it featured. Not right now, at least. I've lost enthusiasm about the FA thing. Remember John Vanbrugh? You were in a big hurry to nominate it on FAC, way back, because it just had to be feaured on the Main Page as soon as possible? Well, it's still waiting (and if you remember, Raul even wanted to unbold all the really interesting articles so he could recycle them and not have to use the boring ones). I'm proud of John Vanbrugh, I think it's bloody good, and I'd hate to see a piece of fast-written fluff like Colley Cibber on the Main Page before it, for one thing. There's more—well, I recently explained my problems with the article and with the FAC process in an exchange with User:PRiis, I'll just refer you to that if that's OK. Please see my question, PRiis' response, and my further comment. Please note especially my argument about how nominating Colley Cibber would be like "disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point"! Anyway, quite apart from the discussion about to FAC or not to FAC, PRiis and I agreed, as you will see, that the article tends to fall into two disparate parts—a Bishonen and a Geogre part—and needs revising on that score. It impressed me that PRiis pinpointed this as a problem without even knowing there were two authors. Geogre is revising it now, working in a text editor. So, could you at least wait a bit, please? (Please note another thing I say to PRiis, also: I like to self-nominate. Again, not something you have to care about. Anybody can nominate anything.) Anyway, thanks for liking it. In a weird way—a fast-written fluff way—I like it too.--Bishonen | Talk 00:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Baby satyr
You marked Baby satyr for speedy deletion. It doesn't seem to fall under any of the criteria for speedy deletion; could you please explain? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Certainly it's bullshit. But it's pretty well established here that bullshit is not the same as patent nonsense; and the article was considerably longer than would fit this shortness criterion. Redirecting the stupid title still leaves the stupid title around. The proper solution would have been a vfd. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I've never been to WP:VfD - there are plenty of more useful and more entertaining tnings to do - and I don't intend to start now. If you want to nominate it, feel free. As you will have seen, I redirected it to satyr (which will prevent the stupid content leaking out) - who knows, some day someone may want to write about something that refers to baby satyrs in art or literature :) -- ALoan (Talk) 20:50, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] fictitious force
Hi ALoan,
I have written a new article on 'fictitious force'. I think it is a fascinating subject, with lots of ramifications. Please check it out.
Is it OK with you if I remove your discussion with William Connolley on fictitious force:Talk? I think the current article answers the questions. Cleon Teunissen 09:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- [...] Indeed - please don't delete talk [...] -- ALoan 11:22, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi ALoan,
OK, that makes sense: de-cluttering and de-fragmentation not by deleting. I tend to ramble, so often I feel a need to clean my act.
If I move a thread to the archive by way of cut/paste, I can append to the end, maybe insert somewhere if that is better for the chronology.
Your signature is two links: one to your User: page and one to your UserTalk: page, how do you add the link to your talk page? Manually each time? Or is there an option to automate that? Cleon Teunissen 12:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Buckingham Palace
Hi Aloan - nice to see you around - just to explain why I took out your explicit dates at Buckingham Palace security, I was trying to make that section quite general rather than a catalogue or crime sheet, for that reason I had omitted names as well, but I have left your's in. If you feel strongly that the exact dates should be back then OK I won't revert, but your links do cover them. I just don't want every nutter who has ever held a placard thinking they can have a moment of fame in that section too. The article is too long as it is, and desperately need some pictures of the interior but I don't think they are likely to materialise somehow, not legally anyway. Royalty and ceremonies are not really my thing, but the page was a mess when I found it, and it is quite important with hundreds of links to it, so I took it upon myself to fix it up a little, I suspect though its a page that will be vandalised again and again. Regards Giano 11:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-
- PS You may have noted there is a secret link in there to fathers4justice, click link on 'single fathers'. I don't think the palace should have links to any political or protest groups, but as a father I do have immense sympathy for those blokes.
- PPS do you think its good enough for FA? I expect people would say its too long though, and I don't want to divide it up, there is already stubby page on the Buckingham Palace Gardens but apart from its address the garden is not particularly noteable, besides which all houses belong with their gardens, the same with the mews, the coaches etc are part of the palace treasures, better to have one good article than three mean little stubs - That's my POV anyway. Also do you think the rooms should have capital letters (ie Green Drawing Room) they do in the ref books I have used, is that right? And finally people will moan abot the HM for Queen at the beginning, and subsequent referals to her as just the Queen, I was aways taught she is referred to as "the Queen", untill she is dead then QEII, and Queen Elizabeth would correctly refer to her mother, or Elizabeth of York. I can just envisage all these problems, would welcome your view Giano 14:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. we seem to agree. Proteus says The or the Queen are both correct, but The Queen is more correct so I've changed it to that. I've done all I'm going to do there now. I'm only really interested in the architecture of the place (which actually in my POV is crap or more kindly in the words of one eminent architect "street architecture") but its now a page more worthy of the subject than it was before. I'm not going to nominate it for FA because its the sort of page that will attract huge debate, also people will always keep popping in with their own bit of Palace information, and I'm not interested enough to keep changing it for it to remain FA standard constantly, and also I feel strongly it should remain complete, so I'm taking it off my watch list now, and the Brits can do what they like to it - its their palace after all! Glad you think my and Bs articles are interesting, that's kind of you. This was the first and last time I have attempted a "big" page outside architecture Giano 16:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- PS You may have noted there is a secret link in there to fathers4justice, click link on 'single fathers'. I don't think the palace should have links to any political or protest groups, but as a father I do have immense sympathy for those blokes.
[edit] United Kingdom corporation tax
Hi. Just wondering if you're still going to be looking at United Kingdom corporation tax. I'd still like to turn it into a featured article, and if you're willing to help, that would be great. If not, could I ask that you let me know, and I'll plough on with it in my own way:)Thanks, jguk 17:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've been ridiculously busy myself (I blame my clients!) Kind regards, jguk 18:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket
I've just noted you've not signed up for Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket (it's a lot more fun than tax!). Just thought I'd invite you along. Kind regards, jguk 23:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Test matches in the 19th century (to 1883)
I've put this article on WP:FAC (and I'll probably rename it to History of Test cricket (1877 to 1883) once it leaves there. Just wondering if you'd be willing to give it your support/make useful comments?
Kind regards, jguk 21:16, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] FAC heading
No, thank you, ALoan—I must have fixed that small thing on FAC and peer review about ten times in the past month—it happens a lot, as going with the == obviously comes very easily, it's almost second nature—anyway, that's definitely the first time I got thanked for fixing it! :-) Bishonen | Talk 15:23, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for ...
... what was much-needed pat on the back. Now I understand what those "stress meters" on user pages are for. Perhaps you could tell how much I was fighting to hold back. I last almost "lost it" a few months back when someone "objected" to the then-excellent "bicycle" article, after five strong "supports", because he didn't "like the picture". Like any editor, I too can be a nit-picker, but unlike some of these bozos I wouldn't let a couple of nits on an otherwise exquisite monkey (tortured metaphor, but I think this is where the expression arose) cause me to kick him out of the zoo. Sfahey 23:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-
- Re your clever comments on the FAC talk page: I considered that maneuver, as well as the sneakier one of mounting "objections to objections" from someone else's computer. I figured it would be more satisfying getting articles to FA status while playing by the (unwritten) rules ... which it is, but you have to put up with a lot of b.s. in the process. Sfahey 15:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Sorry about that...
I was trying to copy the text and move it to another template, but I accidentally submitted without changing the URL. When I went to revert, you had already fixed it, so I assumed that the request hadn't gone through.
I considered putting the Math COTW in the Wiki mainspace as well, but the UK COTW was in the mainspace, so I left it there. I'll leave it in Wiki, though, it does make more sense to be there. ral315 16:34, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] User:Bishonen/Antique toilet paper holder
ALoan, you are most cordially invited to contribute to the cultural page in my userspace. Bishonen | Talk 16:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] MediaWiki_talk:Copyrightwarning
Thanks for your interest. In addition to the table version (Your changes will be visible immediately text on left, table on right), there are also full-width versions (like the current version, only with more characters, see my edit to the talk page). I'm still interested in pursuing this idea... perhaps the table was too drastic and obtrusive a change, though. A poll or request for comments might work. -- Curps 12:12, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Bishop Tempier
I've read (and edited) you contribution on the historical interpretation of the Vacuum with interest. And thanks for completing the 'Bishop Tempier' sentence. But now I'm curious about this guy and his condemnation. Could you elaborate?
—Herbee 23:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
