User talk:Ling.Nut/Archives/2008/2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] I wouldn't worry about it

Hi Ling, I've disagreed with the same editor quite strongly before myself. Wikipedia tends to self-select editors who have a high opinion of their own opinion, and this is particularly true for math editors (including me). Fools (which can sometimes mean those not intelligent enough to agree!) are not tolerated lightly by us.

In answer to your question, I don't think he was right, no, but I expect there was also a certain amount of misunderstanding and wiki-baggage involved. I am sure you know from my high opinion of your work how important I think the contribution of non-expert editors is to technical articles. Both experts and non-experts are vital in fact. So I wouldn't worry about that particular disagreement too much. Disagreements are not a problem as long as there is also respect. Geometry guy 23:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

It's not an imposition at all. I will mention it when it becomes relevant, and also let you know when I do, so you can join in again if you have time. Geometry guy 17:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eloquence

This was extremely eloquent! And I also agree with your comment that we should let the opposes oppose. I have just made a couple of comments myself, and don't intend to make many more. Geometry guy 21:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Admin?

Hi there, SandyGeorgia recommended you as somebody who might make a good admin. If you would be interested in being nominated, please drop me a note on my talk page. Tim Vickers 04:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

My "adminnishness" has greatly increased my time spent on Wikipedia with the deletion of images and CSDs (my grades are probably suffering!). Anyway, thanks again, I appreciate your assistance. I'll keep an eye out if you ever consider becoming an admin. --Nehrams2020 21:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 13:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Australian ringneck

Go for it I thought it would be more productive to let you edit in peace than to continually fall over each other. The choice of cite format doesn't worry me I just follow whats being used if you got a better way to present them I'm not going to argue, my contributions have been more imagery than anything substantial in the way of text. Gnangarra 14:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

you can even turf the gallery, I'll link to the commons category/gallery page later on. Gnangarra 14:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The Fauna Barnstar
For stepping up and rescuing Australian Ringneck when it appeared at WP:GAR Gnangarra 15:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


I'll chase the reference down for that, it came off a PDF from the WA Agriculture department. Gnangarra 15:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OhanaUnited's RfA

Thanks for voting at my RfA. Unfortunately, the result stands at 51 support, 21 oppose and 7 neutral which means that I did not succeed. As many expressed their appreciation of my works in featured portals during my RfA, I will fill up the vacuum position of director in featured portal candidates to maintain the standards of featured contents in addition to my active role in Good articles. Have a great day. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commandery

My apologies, it appears to be historical Chinese administrative level. I see now that we have an article on it. You should perhaps link to that to prevent others like me bulldozing it merely because we assume our vocabularies to be be all-encompassing. Andplus 14:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Chibi for FA?

Let's hope it passes. It'll be good to have contributed to an FA-grade article. Video game articles are largely ignored and labelled cruft regardless of quality, so WP3K is probably the best chance I've got of having contributed to an FA article. Gamer Junkie 22:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you.

Click there to open your card! → → →

[edit] Volunteers

I thought we did have agreement on the workshop that we wanted a stable list. Arguably, controlled growth isn't entirely bad. We'll see how it develops. Marskell 09:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for L.A.M.B

The article is now GA. Thabk you for your contribution. Indianescence 10:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Red Cliffs

They're certainly taking their time with the assessment. When's it gonna happen?

Anyway, what's next? Battle of Changban? Gamer Junkie 01:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

FA has a glut of nominees and a dearth of (competent) reviewers. It may be a week or two before we hear any final conclusion. :-) As for what's next, i assume we'll palaver over it in WT:3K. Later! Ling.Nut 01:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Guess that's reasonable. But yeah, taking it to the group would be best, I suppose. Cheers. Gamer Junkie 01:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Guan Yu will do fine as well, although I've always thought it could actually use more of a trim than anything. That's why it's the only article I never bothered contributing to in any way at all. Gamer Junkie 05:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my rfa

If you voted in my RFA...

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the comment at my RfA! It made me laugh and surely contributed to the relaxed atmosphere. Geometry guy 20:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Red Cliffs

Again, good work on the article, but right now, I don't review FACs since I'm not all too familiar with the criteria, and am still focusing on GAs at this time. I don't think this article should have too many problems passing though. It was interesting to see an FAC that was using Harvard referencing, I think I've only seen that once before in a GA. Anyway, I hope you get others to review the article, and sorry I can't help out. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, though it might be a day or two. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

By the time I got back on the net it had passed FA. Glad to see it; sorry I wasn't back in time to help (though I doubt I'd have had the time to be honest -- I'm travelling right now). Anyway, congratulations. Mike Christie (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Above user got my hopes up, Ling! I thought we'd passed FA, but it looks like it's still at vote stage. Ah well... Gamer Junkie (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it passed; you can see it here, in the warfare section. The nomination will be archived by a bot shortly; all Raul does is add the article to the FA page and remove the nomination from the nomination page. He doesn't add the star, either; you get to do that if you want to. Mike Christie (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
And now, for the rash of questions as people wait (don't wait) for the bot :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
This is fantastic. Just made my very long day! Gamer Junkie (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, I forgot to congratulate you on your hard work, Ling. Great job with bringing Red Cliffs to FA status. I guess that out-of-place GA pip at the top of your user page can be turned into a shiny little FA star now alongside the others, eh? Gamer Junkie (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guan Yu

Yeah, I'll be helping out a bit more now. Like I said, I've always thought the Guan Yu article has too much information and appears almost sanctified amongst its regular editors, so I won't be adding or removing much. I'll be happy to add some pop culture references if I can find them. Been busy with Sima Yi and Zhuge Liang. They're all referenced up now. Gamer Junkie (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finnish people

Finnish people is up for GAN, however it has tags in the template, and so would automatically fail, unless these can be fixed. SriMesh | talk 03:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi SriMesh, and thanks for the heads-up. What does "tags in the template" mean?--Ling.Nut (talk) 05:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EngVar DIY conversion kit

I know you're busy but I've done a sortable list of common words requiring transmogrification into other English spelling variants. It covers all (plusa some) of the variants I've encountered on Wkipedia so far. It's here. Could you please take a look and add, delete or comment? The idea is to de-mystify EngVar conversion, as I'm sure fear of the unknown is the root cause of many disputes. Many thanks,--ROGER DAVIES talk 13:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of the ones you've listed are of the -or -our variety. Lists of conversion rules of thumb are all over the Internet & can be googled easily.. e.g. this one. But it is worthwhile to say something on the topic. Later! Ling.Nut (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA question

Hi Ling.Nut. I remember working with you on the Ronald Reagan FAC, and saw you have nominated an article at GAN, so I was wondering if you could help me out a little. I have nominated Ronald Reagan Presidential Library for GA status, but do not know the correct category to place it under. Right now I have it under "miscellaneous" but I'm wondering if you there is a better section? Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference for Red Cliff

Okay, how about this one?

http://english.cri.cn/3086/2006/08/30/60@132766.htm

If this is good with you, I'll change it. Gamer Junkie 11:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cantor's birth (and death) place

Hi, I just left a reply for you on his article talk page. Best--Gilisa (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

HI L.N, lets not make the discussion to a dead one-please revert your last edit on Cantor leading section-I dont see how it make the article any better and it clearly have a statment: "German" is enough, while "Rossian-born German..." is too much and also implying that Russia was only a random birth place for Cantor or that he was an ethnic German, of German heritage, that was born in Russia-which is, off course, not the case.--Gilisa (talk) 07:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the welcome. I am taking it real slow, have made mostly talk page comments, and a few minor edits. I even disagreed with an editor over a GA review, and was real friendly about it. The new and improved IvoShandor, the one without the desire to perform bizarre rituals meant to bring about the end of the world. I never was a mean Wiki editor, I just got really frustrated, and angry. Thanks again. IvoShandor (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see you back. Let me know if you need anything. later! Ling.Nut (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Hawaiian language

Hi Ling.Nut, I don't have a lot of time today to dig through the talk page, but I noticed that many of the recent posts were insulting and had nothing to do with improving the article, so I removed them. I'll try to take a closer look later, but it may be a few days. If you can be more detailed about your suspicions that would help--you don't have to create an SSP case, just point out some of the relevant posts. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your support

Hi Ling.Nut. Thanks for the support vote. Writing that article was a lot of fun. I hope to work on another one soon. By the way, I assume you did fine on your prelims. I will never forget my experience; I nearly cracked under the stress. They were far worse than the thesis defence! --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Pauline Green

Thanks for the GA review: will try and work on the issues raised. No idea what to do about the photo - it wasn't me that uploaded it: perhaps I can hang around outside Co-operatives UK and pap Ms Green when she finishes work! All you work much appreciated though - hopefully I'll get the GA next time. JonStrines (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review of The Carpenters

Thank you for your constructive criticism. I will be sure to make the appropriate edits. --Cuyler91093contributions 04:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your GA review of Norman Finkelstein

Your edit brought this footnote to my attention. I'm not sure what you had in mind, since the "(1)" you deleted went with the (2) you didn't delete, but in looking at the cite I noticed that it contains emphasis not in the original, missing ellipses, and a duplicate link as well as the orphan "(2)". Since I didn't see what the additional quotes in the ref added to what was in the inline text except piling on unnecessarily repetitive examples of Pipe's disdain for the literary quality of Peters' work, I replaced it with a normal cite. A claque of pro-Finkelstein (and pro-Ilan Pappe -- there is history on the talk page between us, there) have now reverted me several times, without even bothering to fix the added-emphasis distortions (the missing trailing ellipses is minor). Whether the repetitive disdain is desirable may not fall within your purview as a GA-reviewer (though I think it is relevant to your comment about detectable non-neutrality) but I would hope you have something to say about defective quotation. Andyvphil 20:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Japan GA review

If you are willing to work with me, I will fix any and all of your concerns about the article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

the spirit is willing, but the calendar is weak. It will take a couple weeks to fix it, unless you work really h ard. there are sevral useful references in the long footnote in Occupation of Japan... Cheers Ling.Nut 07:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It is going to take weeks anyways, even for me. I got finals in the next two weeks (ironically, I am giving a presentation on the Hinomaru in my Japanese class, in Japanese, on this coming Tuesday). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Then you'll have to let the GA fail, then renom it after it's competely fixed. Sorry. Ling.Nut 08:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I refuse to let it fail. I'll just make tiny changes every day and get help from #wikipedia-ja. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If it gets delisted, you can renominate it. No big deal. Ling.Nut 08:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I know, but it would be just easier to just keep it at GA and make the changes. Honestly, writing is not the big issue. I know exactly what I need to add, I was given some pointers where to snag it from. I just need the time, that is all. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Flag_of_Japan#Controversy. I hope that works for some of your objections. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I made some more changes, mostly in what references are used. I am reducing the use of the English-language links from FOTW and using more Japanese links (or English links from government sources). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, more Japanese language links. I noticed from some of the comments that you wrote state that the English sources I am using might not be reliable at all. So, I been trying to get the sources from "the horse's mouth," which happen to be in Japanese. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
This seems like an OK version to me, but since it was you who brought up the GA review, I wonder if this is acceptable to you or not. (About the sources in the protocol section, everything is from the same source). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three Kingdoms

After looking at your user page I became aware of the Three Kingdoms project. I did not find it as I was looking for similar projects when I set up the task force for Chinese historical states. The task force was created to coordinate the questions regarding Chinese states within the WikiProject Former countries and one of the reasons it came about was the current use of the Former Countries infobox in Chinese dynasty articles.

WikiProject Former countries would like to cooperate as much as possible with other WikiProjects, and I think the two projects could be helpful to one another. There is ongoing work to to separate articles that cover royal and princely houses, especially within the Holy Roman Empire, from the states that they ruled over. The same kind of separation also needs to be achieved in other parts of the world, like the Indian subcontinent and China.

I haven't been able to work much with these articles myself, but this might be something that the members of the Three Kingdoms project would respond to. I'm adding your project to the collaboration list at the task force. Feel free to contribute or give your input on the take. Cheers, -- Domino theory 17:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Content review/workshop

Hi Ling.Nut - I don't know if you're still following the goings-on on the above page, but having taken the PR topic as far as we can for now, we're currently deciding on the next topic for discussion. Your input, if you still have the time and inclination to get involved, would be most welcome ;) EyeSereneTALK 10:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Characters of Carnivàle GA review

Thank you for your GA review. But since I believe the review was inaccurate, I listed it at Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment#Characters_of_Carniv.C3.A0le like recommended. (No hard feelings from my side; I just want to keep you updated in case you don't have the article on your watchlist.) – sgeureka t•c 19:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote all character sections, with a focus on establishing the source/point of time when something happened to a character and why it was relevant for the character (or for other characters). I tried to conclude each character section with a sentence for the significance of the character within the series. Tweaking is still possible, but I fear more major changes would bring the character sections too close to WP:OR. I left larger sections/sentences from the original biographies mostly untouched because the source (40 pages) was already in universe; the importance of the original bios will be apparant to those who watched the show and noticed all the hints. I also just noticed today that much of the characters' significance is so overarching in the show that I had unknowingly moved it to a separate article several months ago for explanation (Mythology of Carnivàle#Avatars and Mythology of Carnivàle#Reception, interpretation and legacy). The Character article links there 20 times (including twice in info boxes and once as a hatnote). If you would reconsider reviewing this article or relisting it with its original nomination date, I wouldn't need to wait for five weeks again. (It's not a reason to prematurely promote the article to GA if it hasn't earned it, but I'd like to start a Carnivàle Featured topic nom as soon as possible, and need the article to be GA for that.) – sgeureka t•c 19:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GAR Carnivàle

The Carnivàle GAR has been closed two days ago and left it to you to promote the article. You have been wikiactive in the meantime so I'm pointing this out in case you missed the closing statement. – sgeureka t•c 11:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lisbon

It would probably be useful to mediate the question of the nature, status, and effective requirements of FA. Well-respected editors express views in this review which go beyond anything I hold. If this is to be done through the Mediation Committee, it would require at least a core of editors who will not derail the process by declining to take part, and your view that the FA-process is the backbone of WP should be heard. (I think it ought to be; but will not be as presently conducted.) Would you be interested in taking part? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Mediation regarding this article and its review? Blood has not yet been spilled therein (though innocent pixels have been martyred). Mediation regarding the conduct of the participants is not warranted (yet...?). If you're seeking mediation in order to nail down once and for all the answer to the question "what content should have inline references?" then I fear you will probably be disappointed in the end. Wikipedians don't seem to like to be constrained by iron rules. These things... I dunno. If you take the long view of these discussions, I personally suspect the result is a washout. Some days editors such as geogre and giano win out with their "inline cites are ugly and evil" philosophy; other days folks whose perspective is similar to mine (see User:Ling.Nut/V-challenged) carry the day. In the end, no one ever wins decisively. It is a neverending circus. :-)
  • Maybe you could explain a bit more clearly what you have in mind... Cheers! Ling.Nut (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Mediation on what role FA should have, and what standards it should insist on. Perhaps I'm a newbie on it; but if FA is going to evaluate articles, the combination of Geogre's "we don't need no stinking footnotes" and Tony the Tiger's "footnote in every paragraph, whether it serves any function or not" is fundamentally meaningless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • What then would be the goal of mediation? What would be the desired outcome?
  • Moreover, what is there to mediate? Mediation is for disputes, isn't it? Discussing the role of FA... doesn't seem to me to be the kind of question that goes to mediation. It... is only for the FA forums, or (extreme worst case scenario, but laughably impossible in this particular case) WP:MfD.
  • I agree the Cite Wars have gone on long enough. But... I don't think they will ever end (see my first reply above) & I don't think mediation is the proper avenue for addressing this particular dysfunctional aspect of FA (of all content review, in fact). Ling.Nut (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The objective would not be content review, but process review. One of the flaws of FA (and FAR is worse) is that it tries both to rate articles and to improve them. These ought to work together; but in practice "Oppose for the following small flaws" produces (in me also) "Oh, come on now, that's not the difference between FA and not FA." I may ask the new ArbCom to do something about this; if FA were to become solely "how can this article be perfected?" the civility would improve immensely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • (undent) I've been thinking at length about your comments, and I'm conflicted about your proposal. I strongly agree that the vitriolic atmosphere is largely caused by fears among nominees that they won't get the bronze star (at WP:FAC), or will have it wrested from their clammy grasp at WP:FARC. :-) I also strongly agree that throughout the whole content review process there are too many people who simply review (adopting the tone of a sage on the stage) and not enough who lend a hand to help (a guide on the side). I also agree that the Cite Wars and other entrenched conflicts are a pointless and neverending circus.
  • I'm just not sure that either mediation or Arbcom are the way to go. They both deal with the fallout, either from lone rogue editors or from dysfunctional exchanges between editors (whether stable or not). They are neither designed nor equipped to handle realigning the structure or implementation of various Wikipedia processes... don't you agree? Ling.Nut (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finnish people GA

You're winner! ViperSnake151 15:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kimi ga Yo

I am not sure how interested you are in Japanese topics, but I figured you might wish to look at this article. I plan on expanding it, but have a lot less to work with. I have asked about protocol and I got nothing. I just created and uploaded the previous score of the anthem. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Squashing?

O, I think I heard you say you were going to tag it spam, notability, possible copyvio? :) Help me out here! We need a paper trail. the_undertow talk 18:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even catch that. That would be as blatant advertising as I could think of. Thanks Ling. I love the smell of speedies in the morning. the_undertow talk 18:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refs

Is it just books that need page numbers and not scientific papers? Fainites barley 19:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Okay, will reply here

I'm not the person to ask about the usefulness of admin tools in dealing with troublesome editors. Being an admin allows you to block other users, but that isn't a tool that I ever intend to use. As for the dispute you mention, being an admin is not much help there: what matters is community respect, which one of the parties has in abundance.

Finally, in the spirit of ArbCom, let me suggest that if you think you may have offended another editor, why not try an apology? Even if you don't feel you were in the wrong, it isn't worth losing a wikifriend for the sake of pride. Good luck with the dissertation and sabbatical. Geometry guy 12:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

C'est la vie, I guess, and you make wise comments on friendship: lets see if time heals. As for "British English", I didn't see your comments at GAR because you were never there :-) Well, I don't want to rubbish your linguistics profs and I was being deliberately provocative: the term "British English" does exist, but it makes little sense, and suggests a North American worldview to me. Suppose European linguistics professors came up with the term "New World English" to describe the English of North America, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Pretty meaningless isn't it? Similarly, grouping together English and Scots is not very helpful, as the two languages are quite different. I'm reminded of the story of an English person in the U.S. who is asked "Where are you from?" and answers "England". The questioner responds "You people from England speak English really well". Geometry guy 19:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm completely in favour of overcoming long-standing prejudices about some varieties of English being inferior to others; unfortunately, in the process, a term has been constructed ("British English") which makes little sense, as any Scotsman will tell you. I'm most definitely not interested in ArbCom, blocking, wikipolitics, but I am not naive about these things, and don't worry, she'll be back, in less than a week I predict. The associated people you describe are not really a faction, they are the voice of intelligent reason on WP, and that won't go away. They generally rise above the fray and that generates respect and influence. Personally I think WP:AGF is not one of WP's better guidelines: it is mostly quoted by those with an agenda to discredit their opponents. My own aspirations for nobility rely more on WP:DBAD and WP:DGAF, even though these are merely essays. As for this British English construct, it seems to me that the most likely reason for it is that the most natural term (to give equal validity to the English of England and other varieties) is "English English", which sounds stupid—ah well, c'est la vie encore. Geometry guy 19:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAR notice

A Tale of a Tub has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Cirt (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:User DGAF2

Template:User DGAF2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Mayalld (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dissertation-Wikipedia group

Do you want to start a I-need-to-work-on-my-dissertation-but-I-keep-editing support group? Note my banner on my talk page. I think I need to make it a little more forceful. Awadewit | talk 19:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Keys to dissertation here; forced breaks of self-defined duration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think creating little WP images and giving me a cool award is part of your dissertation. This is the only warning you will receive. Get on to your work or I'm blocking you. :) Lara❤Love 03:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:User degree/MA2

A tag has been placed on Template:User degree/MA2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Howdy, Ling

Thought I'd drop in and say hi, my friend. How's life treating you? You've been almost as absent as me recently! :) Gamer Junkie T / C 13:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I know how that is. Trying to avoid wasting my whole life here as well. Things are good, can't complain... nobody listens anyway :) I'm trying to get back into referencing the DW page, but it's proving difficult to get enthused about the task at hand. It'll get done... just a matter of when! Gamer Junkie T / C 05:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] rongorongo

Hi Ling.Nut,

Looks like you may be taking a break, but if you'd like to take a look at rongorongo, which I'm trying to get in shape for FA, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks, kwami (talk) 09:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


The Reviewers Award The Reviewers Award
Finally made it to FA - but you kick-started it. Many thanks Fainites barley 19:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Covering of the Senne

I have no dislike of you Ling, quite the contrary. As someone whose real life and Wiki activities almost exclusively involve scrutiny and review, I absolutely appreciate the articulation of concerns – even if it’s airing of old laundry.

Covering of the Senne was failed due to the implications of this comment, which came from a nominator who had been combative and terse throughout the process. This ultimatum, in my interpretation, meant the nominator was not willing to work with me to find alternative solutions - the purpose of hold and the GA process itself. When cooperation is off the table, the review ends; it's that simple. It was not failed due to “trivia” and, frankly, my grounds were absolutely supported by GA criterion 1A: “the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct”. At GAR, the nominator was not able to defend his position on his own devices.

Every last reviewer misses something, from the greats like Sandy, Tony, Karanacs, and so on, to the lowly folks like me. The only “big problem”, a subjective interpretation, was the thoroughness of the lead, which, for my purposes, was satisfactory. It’s unfortunate that the event soured your opinion of me, but the ultimate outcome of the spectacle was an excellent article, which, frankly, should probably be running for FA; a Machiavellian interpretation I happen to like. It did, however, result in the GA process permanently losing an active reviewer. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've responded at my talk page to keep the conversation in one place. ЭLСОВВОLД talk

[edit] Discovery Expedition stuff

Hello & thanks for contacting me. I don't have access to JSTOR but you can email me with attachments. I'd be most interested to see the material. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic Church

I have improved the section on Final Judgement incorporating a new reference, please let me know if this meets your satisfaction. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I love your new lead, can you please make the edit to replace the old one? I think it is far superior to anything we have had previously. Thanks for taking the time to do such a great job. I am making the changes to Final Judgement but would like to leave the quote from Jesus since it is significant and really captures the essence of the faith of the Catholic Church. I think the article would lose some of its ability to convey a decent definition of the church without it. NancyHeise (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hand washing

The article. I don't believe I've made any ad hominem attacks. Well at least not here! :)

Seriously, though...I think I'm going to have to walk away for a little while...I can't stand the butchered prose. I'll stick to articles about rare lizards, obscure saints, custom knife-makers, and guns! If it fails FAC I'll come back and will do whatever I can to avoid another premature nomination.--Mike Searson (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic Church

If it makes FA, it will be because you came along and saved us! Thanks for your great advice and reworking. I am giving you a star when its all over regardless of the outcome. NancyHeise (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess if you thought it was good enough you wouldnt have seen everything that could be improved. I am just wondering what you meant by "indisputable". I looked and don't see that word near any mention of apostolic succession -where do you see it? NancyHeise (talk) 13:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I responded on the articles talk page regarding the Nicene Creed. I still cant find "indisputable". I also have to go somewhere for most of today so I wont be back until later this afternoon or evening. While I appreciate your edits, I am convinced the article should be FA. NancyHeise (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me to the indisputable quotes, I answered you on my talk page. Thanks again for your significant help. NancyHeise (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I am hoping for the FA reviewer to make a decision about the page and consider the version I thought was perfect and actually a useful Wikipedia piece, not a useless shell. Thanks for your kindness. NancyHeise (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
To the version just before Wassupwestcoast changed CC to RCC in the article, needlessly making it longer. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review idea

Hi, I have made a proposal that no peer review request be archived without some response. To aid in this, there is a new list of PR requests at least one week old that have had no repsonses beyond a semi-automated peer review. This list is at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog.

There are just over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, so I figure if each of these volunteers reviewed just one or two PR requests without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog (as there have been 2 or 3 such unanswered requests a day on average).

If you would be able to help out with a review or two a month from the "no responses" backlog list that would be great (and much appreciated). Please discuss questions, comments, or ideas at the PR talk page and thanks in advance for your help, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Worst experience?

No, the RCC page is nothing like the worst experience ever! But I sense an edit war is starting. I'm not comfortable with the article as it is, and have decided to 'oppose' it for now. I hate doing that...but I think it is just going to get nasty. I'm off to better editing pastures. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the massive edit. This is probably going to trigger an edit war. Sorry. I'm off to project novels! It's quieter over there. The worst experience ever was to push, pull and drag Introduction to Evolution to FA. We succeeded but it was nasty. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] pulling punches

Sorry, one of my faults is I tend to say(type) what I think and I guess I type the way I speak...or the other way around. :) --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RCC

Dont worry about me, I am happily involved with a very nice new FA reviewer whose comments have really improved the page - and I got rid of the Creed. NancyHeise (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RCC FAC

Will you please weigh in regarding sources at the RCC FAC? I would appreciate it. Awadewit (talk) 05:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discovery gets its star

This is to thank you for your help in enabling Discovery Expedition to achieve FA status. Your interest in it, & other polar matters, is much appreciated. Watch out for Captain Scott - I intend to do something with it soon. Brianboulton (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Antonio de Montesinos

I guess being a copyvio "solves" the license question, eh? :) Flickr is really just an image sharing site, so it still sees its share of folks uploading images they found on web - indifferent or unaware of copyright implications. Flickr does have a section for images with the wiki-compatible creative commons license, but, otherwise, authors typically have to be contacted to upload to or “bless” inclusion on Wiki. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RCC NO vs TLM

No worries, my friend. It is a very common mistake; one many Catholics make. I used to think that was all it was too, until I went to my first Latin Mass. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Award for work on Roman Catholic Church

The Saints Star Award Thank you for your time and effort trying to improve this article, I know you put in a lot of work to make it acceptable to FA. I am sorry it did not pass but much has been learned to be able to improve the article further. NancyHeise (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] arguing notability

Ling.Nut, Thanks re: the name! As my namesake once said, "Can't lose my name, it's on all my stationery!" It IS a bit clunky to type, so I answer to THPT as well. One of the reasons I try not to edit too much is that once I get going, I find it hard to stop. Yes, our argument was about what constitutes notability, which seemed like a good argument to have at the time. I don't find it surprising that different editors will have different ideas when it comes to judging notability, and that WP policies won't (always) settle it. Since I spend much of my time studying medieval controversies, the current scandals look like small potatoes. I'm sorry if I was a mite too persistent on this one, and I am glad for your many significant contributions to the RCC article - much more than me (I probably wrote more in our little dialog than I have in the last six months)! If you're not around, who am I going to argue with? :) I can't promise not to argue if I'm going to be on the talk pages, but I do promise not to call names and to have no hard feelings, and to keep a better WP article in view. The.helping.people.tick (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review request

I saw your comment: "But bios only please," and thought, "Perfect!" Would you review Emile Lemoine? Thanks! Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tidied up a bit. Do you think it's ready for FAC? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I sound impatient, but have your friends (friend, rather, I see that you asked Geometry guy) responded? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi NoUser. I understand how keen you are to get Emile Lemoine up to the highest possible quality standard... that's a commendable goal. :-) I did do a fair amount of copy editing. I hope that plus the biographical article I sent you have helped. I'm sorry that no one else has found the time to chip in lately—everyone I know is really busy! But eventually things will fall into place. Meanwhhile, have you tried Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/A-class rating? Ling.Nut (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I've seen your very helpful help, for lack of a better word. I didn't know WP Math had an A class review; I'll try for that first. Thanks! Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 16:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flickr "trusted user" review

Unfortunately, no, I wouldn't be able to do the review (I haven't requested to be "trusted"). The list of trusted users is here. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Funerary art

I'll take a look. Johnbod is very good on these things. Amandajm (talk) 05:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Useful addition - I'll no doubt add. Johnbod (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thxs! Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes - stylistically they are much more Greek than Egyptian. No? Johnbod (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Well Egypt had been ruled by Greeks or romans for about 500yrs at that point. Of course it could go in the Egyptian section, but I think wehat's most significant about them overall is that they are the only large group of survivals from classical painting. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I looked at it again & did notice the word Greek, even hyphenated, is not actually in the lead, though there's plenty lower down. I suppose it should be but that article's a bit of a battlefield between people who are more expert than I am on the subject .... Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
actually I see I am wrong just above - it is in. I'm unfamiliar with the archaeological end of the subject & it might be an idea to ask for help at the Archaeology Project. They should have an article on urn burial too - urn is poor. Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, another article I was surprised we don't have.... Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The outline looks decent. I like the fact that you've used an image that I uploaded! Very cool. As to providing some aid, I will snoop around for sources on funerary art. Hopefully something at JSTOR will pop up.--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (both). It was very timely for me, as you will see from the talk at Church monument I was (and am) not very happy with that article; I had also been working on the Antipope's tomb recently for its FAC. I can add an Islamic section - just architecture really, and more refs to what I've added so far. I think its coming on nicely. What do you think about mini-galleries (1 or 2 rows) below some sections? Examples at Nativity of Jesus in art Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Robert Peake the Elder has a gallery at the end, and the subject came up in the FAC. I think on large art subjects they are clearly justified, and sentiment on this has changed, though some still have prejudices against them that reflect no policy. The key is to add value in the captions I think. As I said above, I can add more refs, although I think where there are links to well referenced articles they are only needed sparingly in a survey article like this. If necessary many can be copied over from the detailed articles. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Scott

Hello again, Ling. As promised, Captain Scott is on FAC from today. It's got a lot of common ground with the Discovery article. Please take a look, and comment. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC) PS: The article's formal name is Robert Falcon Scott. Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] email

OK. Umm, thanks for that info?--RyRy5 talk 03:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Easter egg effect

So glad you pointed that out as I repeatedly tried to combat it in Che Guerava. I have complained about it many times in making comments on articles, but I called it "disguised piping" which is not nearly so descriptive as your terminology. I am very watchful for it because, as you point out, POV can lie hidden from FAR editors and other general editing processes that are not sensitive to the nuances of an article. Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 17:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] funerary art

Are you sure? I wasn't planning to do anything on China/Africe & Pre-Col. Of course we can do that if you want. I hope its ok to leave it where it is until its ready for the mean streets - not too long. It would be a tricky one for FA, as it will always be vulnerable to whingeing like from whoever. I don't usually do FA noms myself. I think the thing is to get it a bit tidier & more refed then DYK it & see what additions come, & how it settles down. Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sure - I hope I haven't been a cuckoo in your nest, or whatever! When I get interested I do tend to go on the rampage. Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK nom of Funerary art

Updated DYK query On 12 April 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Funerary art, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Feel free to reveal, remove, or archive this once you're back :) Best, Fvasconcellos 01:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New user

I've come across him already, but the Normans aren't really my beat - there are plenty of others there. He seems to know his stuff. Johnbod (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Where should an editor address comments to you ? - feel free to erase this after reading it.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 14:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I check Wikipedia once or at most twice a day. I check my email more often. I'm supposed to be... busy. Ling.Nut (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
As someone who has written a dissertation, I can surely empathize. Should your talk page be used at all ? Or do you prefer another route? Also as an aside, I previously had an edit war with another editor and it is not my desire to return to that. It's my hope we can remain civil with one another and work together. You are obviously an intelligent guy, and I trust that you will work in good faith.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 15:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maronite mummies

Hey,

Sorry I couldn't finish my edit to that article... I suddenly had to go to work. In the event of a copyvio, the safest thing to do is place that notice on the page while its copyrighted content gets rewritten. In this case, since it's only the two sections, it shouldn't be that difficult. I know it seems kind of extreme, but I get the impression that Wikipedia requires the safest route to resolution. —Rob (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AWB edit summaries

Hi Ling.Nut. Just to let you know, your recent AWB edit summaries all say "+new jersey-->different jersey avoid confusion w. state" even if that change hasn't been made. Some people might find it confusing. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review of Funerary Art

Hi, I am not sure if it a gauche to leave this message as you are semi-retired....but I just reviewed Funerary art and placed the article on hold. It is very well written and only minor issues are raised....please let me know if you have any questions! Lazulilasher (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Britons with Latin American ancestry

Just to let you know there's a question waiting for you here. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Funerary Art GA Pass

Hi. I feel that Funerary art now meets GA criteria, thus I have posted the article as such. Thank you for working with me. Lazulilasher (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I got your email just after Lazulilasher removed the {{fact}} tag. I'll keep an eye out for a citation for that, but it's one of those broad (but true) statements that's difficult to provide a direct quote for. Thanks, Madman (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Funerary

Yes, we'll get there in the end. I'll add what I can, and a short para may attract some one with more expertise. Sorry to see you getting mauled a bit on the GA talk-page. GA has always been a snake-pit imho, one of the reasons I avoid it. Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McCain and Ravenel

Thanks for the good info about Ravenel. I've moved it from the main article about McCain to the article about McCain's early life.Ferrylodge (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

That's asking quite a bit, and I don't know how to approach it, so you gotta work for it. Send me some diffs both of old discussions and recent activity and I will try to think of a way to make everyone happy, but I can promise anything right now. Geometry guy 22:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks but...

you should be able to click the reference in the notes section and that leaps you to the full reference. That's what happens on Learned Hand, but it still doesn't on William! --Slp1 (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Doh! So sorry and thanks very much again! --Slp1 (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I'll have to go to sleep more regularly. I seem to have managed to miss both an attack of the vandals as well as seeing the citation elf at work! Thanks very much indeed. I don't know what it is with me and sequences of numbers, I have often have a dreadful time with these! --Slp1 (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Activity

To the betterment of Wikipedia, you are more active than most highly active editors ;-) I'm sure you've been asked this many times, but have you considered adminship lately? Avruch T 23:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Avruch. Thanks for asking. I'm certainly too busy and will be for the next 8 or 9 months. Thanks though! Ling.Nut (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Music

Ah, thank you. I actually need to update the list; McLaughlin is now my favorite guitarist, and the Mahavishnu Orchestra has moved in my top ten. I'm also dropping Lifeson to 5 or 6; he's gotten really sloppy on recent tours. But it could just be the gain and distortion :)— Deckiller 04:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks....

for your vote of support on my RFA. Much appreciated, as was the help you offered on William Wilberforce in the last few weeks. Thanks again! --Slp1 (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)