User talk:ErgoSum88/Archive02

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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

Thanks for the welcome

=0)

- Peach (talk) 05:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ditto! Garonyldas (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

New-Ish

I've been hanging around for a while, making very minor edits (often involving apostrophes) but only recently created a profile. Yes, I have a lovely male crowntail - do you have any? Thanks, I tried to keep it neutral but also, I hope, to improve the lot of a wonderful and often-mistreated creature. I do wish people would do a bit more research before buying pets.

- Peach (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


Thank you

Many thanks, ErgoSum88, for your words of welcome. Your labors in the realm of Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula, one of contemporary life's underpinnings the existence of which I was hitherto completely unaware, are to me, an ordinary road-user, technically awesome; indeed mind-boggling. I likely will need technical help sooner rather than later. So who better to turn to! Thank you again for your kind offerWingspeed (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment

This: you are not a member of this project, please do not interfere with our actions, thanks is unacceptable. Non-members of projects can edit main page (as well as talk pages) of projects. The project isn't reserved for members only to edit. Members don't own the project, see: Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. While it's directly not about the project, it states ownership policy fine for this situation. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Your actions are unacceptable. Removing the link to an article that you have nominated for deletion is a clear-cut case of conflict of interest. This:removed user subpage. Leave it be Le Grand... stop trying to get people to vote there, due to you posting there has no bearing on whether or not the link belongs on the T&PC project page. He has every right to inform members of this project about articles facing deletion. Furthermore, he is not telling anyone how to vote. You don't own the article either, so why are you trying to conform it to your POV? You and I can sit here and quote policy all day long, but that doesn't change the fact that you are trying to keep members of this project from voting on this article that you nominated for deletion. If the article is not notable, it will not stand on its own, no matter how many project members vote for keeping it. Just let it be. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


RFC discussion of User:RobJ1981

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of RobJ1981 (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RobJ1981. -- McJeff (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I've fixed it now, please ensure you do not remove the outside view template in Rfcs when commenting. Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. It was my first time participating in RfC, I didn't know. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That's ok. Please note, as you have been involved with one of the parties in the past, I have adjusted the heading as it is not an outside view as such. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Good Luck

Thanks. And good luck on your GA's and FA's. I-70 in UT is finally in FA nomination. So far the beatings haven't been too severe =-). I noticed you got drug into an RfC. Ouch, those never seem to go well, I hope things work out. Davemeistermoab (talk)

Re: Kolkata facts

Yep. I have tried to to clarify stuff a bit. The data was for two different years - 2006 and 2007. I have also added a projection for 2015. Check out. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops

Oops, my removal of the navbox on incest was accidental. Thanks for the replacement. WLU (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats ok, I assumed it was an accident. No harm done. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I-70 in UT

Interstate 70 in Utah just barely passed the FA process. Thanks for your help in donating pictures and creating some of the red-link articles to help make that happen.Dave (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Good work, I gave you a barnstar. BTW, I dunno if you were confused or what, but the talkback template is used by the person who leaves the message. You don't have to put it on your page, I put it on your talk page when I leave you a message on my talk page. Sounds kinda complicated, I know, but thats the price to be paid for keeping a conversation contiguous. What are you working on next? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 06:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate it. I don't know what I'll do next. Right now I'm in some scuttles with some fellow editors, Hopefully it will stay civil.Dave (talk) 06:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Rollback

Hiya. I've granted your request for rollback. Please remember to use it only for clear cut vandalism. Pedro :  Chat  10:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sweetness. Thank you, I will use it wisely! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey,

Don't know if you noticed. Interstate 70 in Colorado just passed GA. Thanks for all the cool pics. Did you notice one of your pics is the featured pic on the P:USRD U.S. Roads portal? You're getting famous =-)Dave (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That is awesome! It's a nice photo but I'm surprised they featured it because you can clearly see my mirror at the bottom! I could've easily cropped that out. lol, Well thats cool. I put Hours of service up for FA and so far so good, the only beef so far is with a few of my questionable sources. Keep up the good work. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 06:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Moncton

Thanks for all the help with the Moncton article! It seems to be my pet project, however the majority of the writing of the article was done by others before me...if you look up the history of the article there have been about 22,000 edits to it since 2001...only about 430 by myself. However within the past year its been mostly me...last summer I worked for about two months solid to get the article to GA status however I had another editor helping me then...I figured this summer Id go for FA, see if I could do it. I greatly appriciate your help with the article, copyediting is not really my strong-suit haha. I agree about the captions, and I will think up something for the city hall one...something including the fact that its the 3rd city hall for moncton, and it was built in 1996 most likely. Ill see what I can do for references in the captions aswell. Thanks again! and happy editing!! :D Stu pendousmat (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Galleries

After some study and tracking down various edits, it has become clear to me that the concerns about "galleries" in the NIF FAC is wrong. I am in the process of attempting to make a change to the Image Use guidelines to make this problem more evident. (update: completed)

After looking about I found that another user had come to the same conclusion that I had, and that the guidelines were using the term "gallery" to refer to "pages consisting largely of images". Further links and searches demonstrated this was the case to my satisfaction. To whit, "Galleries are pages which contain large numbers of media content -- almost always, images -- with little or no supporting text." Admittedly the MoS Image Use rules are vague, but that's only because someone changed the original terminology, "image montage", to the current text, "galleries".

One of my complaints with the FA process is that it almost always focusses on minutiae of the MoS and so rarely on the actual content of the article (NIF was not one of these cases). Almost always, MoS is seen as a trump that must be applied, unfailingly, at the cost of a failed FA. In this case, however, it is clear that the MoS is unclear, yet it was being applied anyway.

Given that these sorts of problems are inevitable, perhaps there needs to be some sort of "weighting protocol" for these tasks. For instance, having no images or references is a problem, and it's a fatal one. Perhaps that should be a DEFCON1 error that requires immediate failure. On the other hand, a gallery, or a single extra bold term, might be a DEFCON5 problem that doesn't necessarily have to be fixed at all. Do you think that might work?

Maury (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that would most certainly work, the problem is getting people to agree with you. I highly doubt a FA candidate would fail just because of a single minute detail that does not conform to the MOS... yes it is frustrating when people pick on little details like that, but I often find it is because people have no idea how to give constructive criticism about an article. I have the same problem with some of my articles (such as Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula or Hours of service), because most people are totally unfamiliar with these topics and really cannot give constructive criticism about the content itself. All they can do is pick on little things that have no bearing on the big picture. I admit that I have a knack for science, but National Ignition Facility was a little too thick for me. Too much jargon, too many details, and not enough prose.
My suggestion, if you really want constructive criticism of your article, is to find other like-minded people and ask them to review your page. Ask them to review the article flow, the order of headings, factual errors, and for general prose improvements. Not only that, but your article failed GA assessment. That is not only a red-flag to most editors telling them not to approve it for FA, but it also tells you that if you can't even get one editor to agree that your article is good, then you certainly wont find seven or more.
Your article failed not because of the little things (which did take up a lot of the review) but because of the larger picture. While having an image gallery isn't against the rules per se, most people do not like them and will tell you to spread the photos around like you see on every other article. The FA requirements are not set in stone, and will follow what people like and want to see in a well-structured article that is readable and factual. Too many facts and not enough prose will turn off most readers. I'm not saying you should remove all the facts, but at least have a few sections devoted to the laypersons who don't really care how many megajoules this thing puts out, or how many picoseconds apart the lasers are firing, but what the hell it is going to be used for and why it is so special.
When an article is readable and well-illustrated, then people will support it, regardless of the technical issues. Technical issues can be fixed in a few minutes, other problems take much longer to fix. Editors want articles to look consistent, and when editors tell you to remove a gallery or a bold term they're telling you the article is not following consensus on what articles should look like. It doesn't matter how many examples you can find of other articles that break the rules, because they are not Featured Articles and have not been reviewed by knowledgable editors. On the other hand, if you can show them Featured Articles which break these rules, then you have a valid defense. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not talking about my FA here though... NIF would have failed regardless. My concern is that the process seems superficial, it always seems to bog down in little stuff. If we could triage it maybe that would keep it "lighter". Maury (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
While I see your point, I doubt anyone would be in favor of making the little problems "optional". I fail to see how ranking the issues in order of importance makes the process any easier. Editors are still going to point out the little problems, and they are still going to want you to fix them... no matter how "unimportant" they are to the overall quality of the article's content. Most problems should be taken care of before an article becomes an FA candidate, so the reviews can focus on polishing the article by fixing the little problems. Most FA reviews are put off by the "larger" problems, and will oppose an article that needs lots of work. Does that answer your question? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Units of Formation and evolution

Hi-

Thanks for your copy-editing of formation and evolution of the Solar System. One note: US units have been deliberately kept off of the article. We've been sticking to metric and natural units only, as is typical in astronomy-related featured articles and allowed for scientific articles by WP:UNITS#Conversions. If you think it's important to include the US units, we can certainly talk about it on the article talk page. ASHill (talk | contribs) 03:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I just saw your comment at the FAC review; I'll reply there. ASHill (talk | contribs) 03:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I was not aware of that. Everyone is always bugging me to "convert!" I figured it was standard practice. I reverted my edits. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Practices vary from field to field, of course, but imperial units are never used in scientific contexts these days, so we normally avoid them to reduce clutter. ASHill (talk | contribs) 03:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC and resolved template

Per the instructions at WP:FAC, please do not use the {{resolved}} template at FAC. [1] ] It does not contain a signature, and hidden comments must be signed. See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Script SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I wont use it anymore. Should I change it (and there are a few more where I used it) to another template? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, I see you already did that. Thanks! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

M-35 FAC

I took a look at your comments. All the links checked out, although I have removed the URLs for the WLUC-TV6 references since they reorganized their website. Thank you for your comments. If you have any more, they would be appreciated. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC Moncton

Hey there ErgoSum! The template you used to collapse your comments on the Moncton FAC page was removed...I was wondering if you would mind using the "proper" template to hide it again, just for space consumption sake...the comment above yours uses the other template if you were wondering how to use it. Im not saying you have to, just a request. Thanks and have a nice day! :) Stu pendousmat (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

M-35 FAC

The WikiProject Michigan State Highways Contributor Barnstar
Thank you for your review and support. M-35 passed its FAC. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


The Truck Driving/Tobacco Smoking/Arkansas Residing/Atheist/Liberal/Getting Hours of Service to FA Barnstar
Sure, lots of people have one of those ordinary passe barnstar's on their userpage, but how many can claim this =-). Congratulations on your featured article, you deserve it.Dave (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Congrats on the FA! I'm glad to see that article up - it really was one of the most unique ones I'd read on Wikipedia. —Rob (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Dave, I just woke up and I'm barely conscious but I laughed my ass off when I saw your barnstar. And thanks Rob, especially for reviewing my article for GA status. Without your help it probably wouldn't have made FA. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 10:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For pointing out the error of my ways at in pop cult project - as I know some eds who see a very bright colour of red when they (sections in pop cult) creep into articles of scientific subjects - anything to try to negotiate consensus and reduce stress all round is worth it SatuSuro 10:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And thank you for pointing out a glaring omission from the project page, namely that pop culture articles lack a world-wide focus. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)