User talk:Neil916
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You are welcome to leave messages here. When adding comments, please create a new section and add the comments to the bottom of this page. I will reply here (rather than on, say, your user page). Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there.
If your messages are rude, wandering or repetitive I will likely edit or delete them. If you want to leave such a message, put it on your talk page and leave me a note here & I'll go take a look.
In general, I prefer to conduct my discussions in public. If you have a question for me, put it here (or on the article talk, or...) rather than via email. If you still prefer to send an email, use the link on my main user page. Sending me an email indicates your permission for me to publicly reveal the contents of that email without exception.
As time goes on, I will migrate our conversations to /Archive1 if we're no longer discussing a current issue.
Contents |
[edit] Barnstar
 |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
| For your excellent review on the SSP page against Father's Wish, and always keeping the case up to date. Well done. PS: Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. Iolakana 12:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC) |
[edit] DYK
 |
On 18 November 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article barndoor skate, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
--Allen3 talk 01:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Botany articles
Well, if I can find one done halfway well, could you make suggestions about needs for expansion areas and put it in logical order--(Sei whale) flows, many botany articles don't, even some of the best ones. We have good copyeditors, and good technical editors, especially with multiple editors on one article, what's missing is a comprehensive look at what the botanical article should contain, imo, and I'm not getting good feedback from botany editors? Not being a botanist, but having a biological background, would actually be to everyone's advantage. KP Botany 17:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, time permitting, I'd be happy to help out. Point me in a direction, my latest article projects are beginning to wind down. Neil916 (Talk) 05:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sei whale lead paragraph
Ahhggg, no! Don't expand the lead section of this article--it's very well done. See my not on FAC page. KP Botany 18:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I looked at it last night and have a lot of comments today. Please don't take it as being critical overall of the article, which is excellent, that I have so many comments. I spent enough time in Marine Biology that I care more about how this article looks than many others, plus it started off a lot stronger than many FAC in my opinion. KP Botany 15:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- This article is really excellent, so I feel badly for providing such a tremendous number of edit comments for FA status. In fact, many FAs are not up to the quality they really need to be, imo, and the exceptions tend to be weird articles, like the one on Jaws the movie, in spite of its tone, and there is some weird cricket article up now, that could be. However, I think this is one of the very few standard encyclopedia articles that could be everything Wikipedia should aspire to, in fact, it appears that many of the Cetacean articles could be superb. When Sei Whale gets featured on the front page, I would like everyone to really see that Wikipedians can do science. KP Botany 18:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Is that appropriate
Hi! Heads up on this if it was yours.
Additionally, I'm concerned that GA Candidate tag is now on the talk, and don't think it all that appropriate. That's a heady claim for something that went down in flames so readily, and which obviously needs a lot of work. Has that aspect of things ever been discussed on a forum, and if so, can you give me a lead? Seems a lot like a mouse putting on a beard and beating it's breast, claiming it's a lion. Go figure. Thanks // FrankB 01:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've responded on the article's talk page. I don't know what you're referring to about the GA Candidate tag. Do you mean the tag that says that the article was a former GA candidate that did not make it? Neil916 (Talk) 16:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GA/JSB
Thanks for your comment and I have no interest in getting into some kind of flame war, but I would remind you that civility extends to making a serious effort when reviewing the work of many other committed participants. Your review (of an article I have never contributed to, btw) strikes me as highly, even offensively, insolent. You have made a set of criticisms in the context of judging the quality of the JSB article that is demonstrably false and, in the case of your OR assertions, almost inexcusably lazy. The project, frankly, deserves better. Eusebeus 01:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Eusebeus 14:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sei Whale Congratulations
 |
The Original Barnstar | |
| Let me be the first to congratulate you on Sei Whale reaching Featured status. Thanks for your excellent work! Kla'quot 17:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC) |
[edit] Sei Whale FA
Please post a note on my talk page when this is set to be on the Main Page! KP Botany 19:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WindowHome template
WindowHome template is widely used in Italian Wikipedia. I found nothing similar in English one. Of course, if any is available, I will be glad to use it. Otherwise I would appreciate if you could keep it. Thank you in advance.--Dejudicibus 13:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proteasome peer review
Hello - you had commented on the prose in proteasome during its peer review, but the holidays intervened. There have been some subsequent improvements to the prose, and an additional image created to better illustrate the inhibition section; the article is now up for FAC here if you have any further comments or thoughts. Thanks! Opabinia regalis 06:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
