User talk:Outriggr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 William Wilberforce 2 a thought 3 Literary responsibilities 4 CE request 5 Signpost 6 Barnstar of Madness!! 7 The Third of May 1808 8 Load data 9 Bosch 10 Giraffe 11 Copy edit 12 Care to review an article on a novel by Honore de Balzac? 13 RFA Thanks 14 Please don't stop 15 Ping 16 Request for Peer Review help 17 Garden of Earthly Delights 18 The FA-Team 19 Long time no talk

[edit] William Wilberforce

I wonder if you would be willing to take a look at this article that we are trying to get to FA quality. SandyGeorgia said to say she sent me here! [1] Don't worry if you don't have time though! --Slp1 (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and for the encouragement that the copyediting situation isn't too dire! Actually Awadewit has already indicated that she might be willing to give us the benefit of her experience. [2] Thanks for all the advice. --Slp1 (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a thought

I find dumping out ashtrays to be very expressive of myself. I just lump everything in a great heap which I have labeled "the past" and having emptied this deep reservoir that was once myself, I am ready to continue. --JayHenry (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree that the lament was ironic in its mildness. It's a real substantive problem and although it never generates the heat of many of our behind the scenes battles, I think it's more obvious to our average reader, who never sees WP:ANI (thank God), but does notice that the articles, while often accurate enough, are almost never brilliant. Sometimes I imagine what the Wiki could have been and it makes me want to quaff my lava lamp and die. The bit about ashtrays, by the way, is a quote from Zelda Fitzgerald. At the moment it's a lot of citations, mostly to the uninteresting parts, but in time... --JayHenry (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Literary responsibilities

The publication is a magazine with a subscription base of several hundred thousand, and the column will be a modest, but regular feature on art. I can give you more info, but would prefer to do so through e-mail, rather than on wiki. Cheers, JNW (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CE request

Oh boy...Probably you are a bit pissed at me at the moment, but I, (and rallying) Johnbond, JNW, Modernist and a few IPs would appreciate a special powers copyedit from you at The Third of May 1808, round about now. We done what we can, but Tony sez its just not good enough. Please, your special powers. thanks. Ceoil (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No I'm not. I think I am only a good copyeditor sometimes, when the right structure is already there, because I'm too lazy to think at the organizational level. The paintings often need help, first, with the organization, so I kinda disappear. Your new user page picture is scary; on looking closer it seems you've repurposed it. Is the idea to pretend that that is you with your face covered in disconcerting, identity-denying, and/or S&M stuff? ... 98%? In one of your "moods"? :-) –Outriggr § 20:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries, thanks anyway. Re: S&M, and disconcerting? God no, I just thought it looked kinda cool. The 98% thing is a lyric from a "Rock song". Doesn't mean a whole lot either. I'm shallow; what can I say. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, but you should get some third party review of your user page, because as a friend I can tell you that it's throwing off some real nihilist–S&M guy vibes without you being aware. Or perhaps I'm projecting. I'm sure "thick useless ĊʊɲЋЅ" is meant in the nicest way possible? –Outriggr § 23:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it was intended as it it sounded at the time. I have to deal with these thick useless, 'guys', every day; I'm allowed blow off a bit every so often. Anyway the pages is improved, and less offensive now. Christ Outriggr, you're friggin high maintenance. Ceoil (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I know you are but what am I! –Outriggr § 23:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I never said it was offensive. Actually, I quite liked it, and was disappointed that you renounced my interpretation. I merely suggested that it may have been saying something you didn't intend, but it is I who reads things idiosyncratically. Will you please make it offensive again? Seriously. –Outriggr § 23:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In other news how are you? Uum, ready to return to Friedrich? Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no books really... what do we do now? I'd love to see that big shiny 2004 Vaughan book, which I'm assuming contains better reproductions than any I've seen. But I live in a land where the oil wealth will not have much of an effect on library holdings (they'll get more computers when they get any money), and I'm a cheap bastard. Do you think we should be content with "good enough"? There is so much to say; Friedrich would be disappointed in you me Dogriggr. –Outriggr § 00:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, american. I'll buy the books of if you wish. Cradel unto me, europe will make it all grand; again. Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It we Who r Dissapointed in Friedrice! Friedrice Did Lack Doggie Depikshuns; Got on Canine Bad Side! Oh, Friedrice, Your Pictrs Too Serious to Include Doggies? Look This Painting, and Do Tell Dogriggr how a Cute White Doggie tilting His Head in Synkrony with Woman not Improve Composition? Ever Since, Do No Help Friedrich Legacy. DOGRIGGR (deflea) 00:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ooh! Sir! Thanks for the Fast show link. I called you 'popular' and 'special'. I wasn't trying to be clever, I was mearly describing what I see. random link. Swiss Tony is just soooo great. Ceoil (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I was a joke only, maybe highly insensitive and in poor taste though. I have a way with words, but its not a good way. So sorry. Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[ec] You're welcome, it was your dirty link to the show on JNW's page that got me to that video. Looks like the show is more entertaining than Saturday Night Live, but maybe that's not saying much. Now, I go ahead and add to my edit count with this small talk, do I? P.S. Dogriggr thanks you for removing your last "fuck off" or "fuck you", whichever it was. I had to reassure him that I couldn't make sense of the message either, and that it wasn't his reading skills that were the problem. –Outriggr § 23:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we are so imired in bullshit that we are in the same place as the two in the doctor sketch at 3.18 in this. We should do work. Ceoil (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Two more for you. two, three one, the artist formally known as Prince. Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Pure evil. Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost

Outriggr, what are your thoughts on the Signpost? Do you read it? Do you think it serves a useful (or potentially useful) function in WikiSociety? --JayHenry (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi JayHenry. I read it only indirectly, such as when I see the blurbs on someone's talk page. I don't pay too much attention to it, but I would think it serves a useful function, because it's an aggregator, and this site is, in general, very unaggregated. My principles would be that it a) ensures some sort of journalistic neutrality; b) is in the project and of the project, that is, it is not required to report on matters that come from on high, but chooses to report them at its discretion; c) that contributions are encouraged from the wider community; d) that the ultimate decision as to what is "published" rests with ... well, there's the tricky part. Wiki/pedia decision-making is something I often don't grok. How does the publishing decision work right now?

Nice to hear from you... is there something going on with the Signpost right now? I must announce that I did not look at your contribution history before replying. :) –Outriggr § 23:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Tangentially (now that I've looked at your talk page)... when I happened on the deletion thing for an episode of "not the wikipedia weekly" because it contained a banned user (according to my brief review), my jaw dropped. It is beyond my comprehension that some of the community thinks of itself so insularly that it can suggest deleting speech. I've got to assume the banned user wasn't trolling on the audio recording, saying repeatedly, "wikipedia sucks and wales' mom is ayn rand!" –Outriggr § 00:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility warning! Some people may find your uncensored reporting of imagined third-party comments offensive. Any more of that and I shall have to report you at the appropriate noticeboard, as part of my campaign to rid Wikipedia of unpleasantness. Yomangani^talk 00:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is reasonable. A corollary of "assume good faith" would be to assume bad faith of banned users? I won't speak hypothetically about a banned user in a way that doesn't worsen his or her reputation again. –Outriggr § 00:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that "feeding the trolls" is the concern. On the one hand there's some validity to that, but on the other, the histrionics that accompany the troll famine often seem to backfire. But how did my talk page lead you to the NTWW MFD? As an immolation-avoidance strategy I try to avoid any of those discussions, and just allow the usual suspects to keep the fire burning, as it at least keeps them away from articles. As for NTWW, it seems that in their coming issue or skypeblogcastchatpod they have a panel about "Inclusionism is 9/10 of the problem on Wikipedia." Understatement really (and in no way is that trolling). If we simply deleted the 100,000 or so most controversial articles I suspect we could reduce the "problem", whatever that is exactly, to 1 percent of its current levels. Thus inclusionism is at least 99 percent of the problem. --JayHenry (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You're only talking about NTWW right? What about the Signpost question that started this? :) ... There was simply a mention of NTWW on your talk page that reminded me, nothing about the MfD. –Outriggr § 00:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just rambling about NTWW since you'd mentioned it above. It's unrelated to the Signpost question, except their both musings about the role of WikiMedia (oh wait, that's taken)... er, WikiJournalism and WikiSociety. --JayHenry (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

While I'm interrogating you, do you know anything about any computer-related topics? You wrote a javascript tool, right? So you must be some sort of tech? --JayHenry (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It is fair to say I know something about some computer-related topics. Let me put it this way (and I'm reminded of the lyrics of Leon Russell's Magic Mirror—warning, embedded MIDI): the average person might think I'm the computer type. A computer type would be less inclined to think that. At any rate, I did write the javascript tool; it was the second thing I've ever done in javascript. Do you have an idea for a javascript that will solve all our problems? (Careful, some people confuse javascripts with "bots".) –Outriggr § 00:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the thing... this will sound lame I know. I sort of want to help User:Cobi. In general I'm a bit skeptical of "botmasters" but I read the paper linked on his page about ClueBot and I think he's written a good bot and genuinely has the right philosophy about the project and bots. He's failed a couple RFAs now, largely for lack of article writing experience (a concern with which I almost always agree), but in this rare case I think he could probably use adminship to develop more good tools, and wouldn't go about causing problems at all. People had been bothering me to run, which I'm not going to do, but I thought I could help get someone across the line who would be useful in the role. Then it occurred to me that, as I only edit articles about fat animals, I'd be unlikely to identify computing-related articles (his area of interest) that could be improved. --JayHenry (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar of Madness!!

		Barnstar of Murder, Madness, and Mayhem
		On behalf of Murder, Madness, and Mayhem, this barnstar is to thank you for your hard work and patience in motivating, mentoring, and moulding the work of student editors, and helping them to achieve excellence in research and writing. For all your hard work and many contributions, both editing and reviewing. Thank you so much! On behalf of the entire class of UBC's SPAN312. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Third of May 1808

Thank you, Outriggr, for all of your contributions to The 3rd, which were instrumental in getting the piece to FA status. If it reaches the main page next weekend, I would like all the contributing editors to meet in a pub to celebrate. Barring that, since I gather that some live in Ireland, some in Australia, some in England, and some in the U.S., a virtual toast will be in order. Cheers, JNW (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Outriggr, possibly the time spent on haberdashery and absinthe has taken a toll on my ability to address people by their correct names. JNW (talk) 04:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Bravo! An opening this evening necessitated a number of toasts, so I'm all caught up on the celebrating. We done good. JNW (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Load data

What a motley crew on this page ! Outriggr, wasn't it you, centuries ago (in our Wiki infancy :-) who had a program that analyzed load times ? I recall something that showed how much load time was coming from images, refs, etc or somethig like that. Can you add anything to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Hillary Rodham Clinton? It's just a slug even when I'm on a good connection: I suspect it's all the cite templates, but it could be images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I remember that. All I did was use a web site such as this to get an idea. Note that the measurements include the download of CSS and scripts, which the normal user would only have to download on their first page visit to en.wiki, so you should pay attention only to the "HTML" and "HTML image" information—that's what is unique to the article. For Clinton I get 125014 + 225291 = 350305 bytes; for intelligent design, it shows 96077 + 82870 = 178947 bytes. Clinton has 225k in images, which is probably too high. An arts FA like The Third of May 1808 has 150k in images. Just as much, with Clinton, the sheer number of inline citations must be bulking up the text a lot. So there's the conundrum: do you want a super-referenced article or not? ;-) –Outriggr § 02:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect part of the problem is piecemeal citation to a whole lot of news sources, rather than citing a few definitive books. But a big part of the load time is coming from images ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, the calc would be: 64% of the load time is due to images (at the time I used the web site). –Outriggr § 00:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm in that website now; not sure which column and row of numbers to use to compare the four articles listed at the FAC talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it the first two rows, HTML and HTML images ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct. I just tried it on Evolution—545225 bytes worth of images. So, does that article load even slower for you? It should be considerably worse than Clinton according to this. –Outriggr § 00:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's slow (as are DCGeist's B movie and Sound film). Maybe I should stop worrying about it. Does no one else have these issues ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bosch

Hello. How's it going? I though you had went there for a bit. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

One never really knows. Not happy with wikipedia, but drawn back by the few impressive things going on. Did my email inspire your interest in Garden? I hope so! I'll see if I can help (research-wise, the other stuff is a given). –Outriggr § 23:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the high res images were just great. Its going to be a long project though, so much to cover. Not happy with wikipedia? Changes in corporate governance, amongst other things, are underfoot, from what I can see. Ceoil (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Outriggr - Can we pick either Fränger or Fraenger (at Garden) for this author's name (perhaps the latter, as this is English Wikipedia, but it doesn't matter to me) and use it throughout the article and references? I'm not trying to be a pain - I just think it should be consistent. Let me know what you think. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice to meet you too. :) Not to worry -- I'm done on this for the evening, so go right ahead. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The screen name's a bit difficult to explain, actually; there's not much logic behind it at all. I don't dislike Kafka, but neither does he have a special place in my heart. My name isn't Elizabeth, either. The whole thing was a sort of random, off-the-top-of-my-head pseudonym that popped out of my mouth one night about 15 years ago. :) And your name (admitting I haven't had a chance to read your userpage yet)? Kafka Liz (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

...although it doesn't seem to say, now that I look. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've never been asked about my name before. It's pretty random, but I like the symbolism of the outrigger, a thing at a distance that balances. Later I realized it could be parsed as out-rigor, as if I were competitive in matters of rigor, which may or may not be true! –Outriggr § 01:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

 :) I figured it had something to do with an outrigger, but I'm always curious as to how people chose their names. Not that I attach deep symbolism to it, but it's generally interesting. To out-rigor... I'm just imagining the possibilities. ;) Kafka Liz (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty finding an angle on this; the article is mostly descriptive so far. Fränger is interesting, but I'm not sure I buy his thesis. Bosch very much had a medievel mind, and projecting 20C values seems fanciful. I'm not sure I'll add much more from him. There is, as far as I know, no legacy, save Bruegel, to talk of. I'm touting for ideas really. Ceoil (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the Peter Glum article about divine judgment? It looks like it could be useful, but I've only skimmed it thus far. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there an online copy? Ceoil (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've got it through JSTOR, but I can check. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking at JSTOR too. The difficulty is that journal articles tend to have so much idiosyncratic thesis that it's hard to decide whether to even gloss the thesis in the wiki article (and it's hard to do so, if you decide to :). Books are better as reviews. Franger? From what the article mentions of him, I don't understand what you mean by his "20C values"—the ideas from Franger seem to be the default interpretation from the reading I've done so far. But I am over my depth in matters of involved religious symbolism, so I don't know how to help with this. Since it hasn't been linked here yet, The Garden of Earthly Delights. –Outriggr § 00:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Normally I use the opening from journal articles only, where they give an overview of published thought. I got a small light book on Bosch this morning, and it examines Fränger in a very pricise and clear way. I also read a lot of Fränger himself today (on questia), and I'm being won over. Gibson was quite dismissive, and I supposed I my initial openion was recieved from him. fickle, moi?Ceoil (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I completely agree about the difficulties of using articles; I too tend to use them initially to get a feel for which standard references I need. I suggested it mainly because I thought it might be a source for new ideas, and I could easily pass it on electronically if I didn't have the time to read it myself. I've located a couple of books that we don't have in the bibliography, one of which I can get on Monday, the other which may take a week or so longer as it's currently checked out. Can either of you give me any feedback on the Glum article? I still haven't gotten around to reading it. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have dr padas article size script? For some reason it wont work on the computer im using at the moment, but if you could give the article size data that would be great. Just to get a feel of where we are. Ceoil (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for including me there on your userpage, mate. A while back you mentioned going back stub sorting and reverting children, and maybe thats a good idea. There are too many sharp objects waiting in the direction you are going, and I'd hate to see such a pretty and dainty soul get hurt.[3] Thanks for all the help with Bosch, bty, its great to work with a skilled copy editor during the process. Ceoil (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I have no article size script. I have scripts for other measurements, but that's nothing to do with computers. Next, you are no doubt right about the dangerous waters ahead, and I'm glad I'll be traveling with such a competent navigator. And also with you. Finally, I do not condone external links being posted to my page with file titles like "cmon-little-bitch-lets-see". The potential humor of the picture is kinda ruined by that title, isn't it? While a picture is worth a thousand words, the title of said picture has in turn even more power, by framing the image within a certain discourse. For example, If I moved the venerable The Third of May 1808 to Safer Streets: the LAPD Late Shift, well never mind. I'd also like to say "Hi" to the Fat Man if he is reading. –Outriggr § 03:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And hello to you too. You boys have really done a smashing job on one of my favorite paintings--beautiful work! The Fat Man has a soft spot for all things infernal, as evidenced by his earliest edits, which took the form of highbrow IP vandalism to an article about an obscure Senegalese basketball player[4]. Not wishing to spend my retirement at either end of that enthroned bird-creature, I have mostly repented of my sins.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a brilliant edit, and I'd award you a vandalism barnstar if only I felt like hunting for one. (See the Willie Dixon quote.) My attorney has advised me against offering any edit as entertaining, or indeed, any edit at all, in return.

I'm wondering if my recent revelation of Dogriggr's intervention with Yomangan (see user page) prompted you to come clean? It's true, Dogriggr and I run a tight ship here, always ready to offer a little loving rigor to any user who has gone astray. Fat Man, by bringing this to our attention you have prevented a slow downhill course that could only have ended one way for you, and I applaud you. –Outriggr § 03:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The pathetic sum of my encyclopedic contributions will never never equal the majesty of my maiden edit. I spent weeks dreaming it up (Pape Sow = PopoZão = pape Satàn aleppe), but no one gave it a second glance or a chuckle before reverting me. I hate Wikipedia. Our man Garney, by the way, appears to have relapsed, all but repudiating the therapeutic utility of your carnivorous companion. Someone ought to straighten that fellow's ass out, lest it become a hymnal or a legal document.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh whatever. If you dont have the belly for this, I will be all the more mecyful in my judgement. Ceoil (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you crop the owl from the left hand panel andd add to that section? I dont have a good image editing tool, only paint. Ceoil (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah; too many by far. The Owls look very well in print, dark orange. Feel free to cut imagises otherwise. I only added to see what would work and tie in with text. Ceoil (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giraffe

Thank you and well done on adding the across animal; the pic is very clever and very strange. Its not something I had noticed before. Ceoil (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There was probably only one live giraffe seen in Europe during Bosch's lifetime, so he would have had little choice but to copy it. It was quite in vogue to include them in religious scenes around the time (though I see its inclusion has upset the child of Dogriggr and a kangaroo who stands forlornly by its side). Yomangani^talk 15:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure, and thank you for taking the time to thank me. The orange bar lights up my neurons after a dull day of work, with the anticipation of friendly banter (or rarely, poisonous random criticism, as the Manga Nanny found with the Northern Arctic Whale guy).

But you say you didn't notice the similarity. How could you not notice, unless you don't read 15th century travel literature? Seriously?

And yes, that ~Kangaroo deserves its own wikipedia account. Kangaruffr, indeed! But to be part of the family, Kangaruffriggr? Dogriggr, incidentally, is spayed, and could have bore no such Creatr. (The sneaky devil is playing with gender identity on wikipedia.) –Outriggr § 23:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite. Of course I don't often read 15th century travel literature. Its really no longer necessary to know its best for witches to dress discretely when visiting Tipperary, or that plague has broken out yet again in Athlone. And the discos those books recommend are usually dreadfully boring. I meant I never noticed the friggin giraffe before; my eyes were usually diverted elsewhere. Ceoil (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm still here. Something turned up, goddamn something. Venice late thursday. No prisoners. Ceoil (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copy edit

Hey, i see your on a wikibreak, i hope you will be back soon. Ive been directed to you by Happyme22. The Michael Jackson article needs a copy edit before its next FA nomination. It failed the last one purely because it needed a copy edit. I hope you will be able to spare a few hours of your time to help me. Please get in touch. Yours. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 23:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, thanx for replying tho. YoursRealist² ('Come Speak To Me') 01:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Care to review an article on a novel by Honore de Balzac?

Outriggr, I seem to recall our paths crossed once upon a time with regard to some literary affair or another; I have polished Louis Lambert (novel) over the past few months, and I seek now to proceed onto FAC. Would you be willing to have a glance at it and scribble some comments at the peer review? I'd be ever so grateful. – Scartol • Tok 18:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I just came across the placeholder you dropped into my drawing board, and it completely freaked me out. I'm not used to other folks editing it, so I needed a second to figure out what was going on.. =) Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 11:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't stop

Your copy edits are very good. I wouldn't change a thing. I'm particularly keen on trimming unnecessary verbiage. Please, keep chipping away! --JayHenry (talk) 05:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ping

Email to ya. Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Peer Review help

Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Garden of Earthly Delights

Hey Outriggr. I just wanted to say again how much I enjoyed working on this article with you guys. Hope all is well and that we will see you back again soon, Kafka Liz (talk) 02:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Second that. Its only 3 days to friday night.......dude.......prepare. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The FA-Team

Hi. There has been some discussion of how to improve the FA-Team's functioning. It's be grand if you could comment on the new suggested structure, and perhaps also look at our current proposals. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Long time no talk

How it going like. Nice to see you crop up on my watchlist just now. Ceoil (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ceoil. To tell to you the truth, I was literally about to put Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer into my "book". Not without an email of course. [ceoil rolls eyes, says 'not this again'] And you? :) –Outriggr § 03:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, on with the show. Goodbye everyone. I've appreciated conversing with many of you over the last couple of years. Let's face it, I've said goodbye a few times, and to lessen the "boy who cried goodbye" effect, please email me if you wish, rather than post here. There is no specific reason for my departure from this account other a general malaise about things, including many aspects of wikipedia. I am not very productive as of late. I still like the idea of coming along and adding a bit to an article, or starting a new one, when the mood suits, but I don't need all this account-identity baggage to do so (well, there really isn't much of that, outside My Head). Nevertheless, in my new incarnation, I will blissfully ignorant of things like: high-school policy-making, the expectation that anonymous volunteers are somehow to develop and enforce policy that has supposed legal ramifications for a real organization, Rating an Article on Any Topic in 7 Easy Steps, It-Needs-An-Infobox, There-Are-No-Citations-So-The-Article-Must-Stink, Bots, and so on. My friends will know who I am. I'll tell them. But please, let me (and remind me to) wear the clothes of a pauper. –Outriggr § 04:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)