User talk:Robth/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Thank you

I appreciate your comments and contributions to Glacier National Park (US). It's not easy to see things that need correcting unless a fresh set of eyes look things over. Thanks again.--MONGO 11:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've made more changes to the article, removing redundant "in the park" comments and a fairly large reduction and wording in the intro. Leave comment there if you agree with the changes or see more enhancements are needed...thanks.--MONGO 06:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Advice

Robth, thank you for your advice on the alcibiades article, and editing and writing on wikipedia in general. I am still very new to the editing of wiki articles, but i've been a long time reader. I will certainly keep your advice in mind as i continue to edit the article. please understand it is very much a work in progress, and any assistance you can provide is welcome and appreciated as i am having a little trouble getting used to the format used in these articles. I'm not even sure if this is the right area to reply to your comments, but i'm sure at some point you will read this. please also see my response to your explanation of your edits on the wiki talk page for the alci article. take care, dmcheatw.

[edit] Err... I did?

You sent me a message regarding removing information from a wiki page I'd never even visited (John O'Shea or something). I was wondering what was up with that? If it was an IP address thing, I think my ISP might issue dynamic IPs or something, because I can't think of any other reason that might have happened and I know at least one of my local broadband ISPs does (I don't know who my current service provider is, since I don't pay the bill). It could have been another user on my home network, but I don't think any of them are likely to have even ehard of Wikipedia, much less visit it regularly.

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Robth! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Wisden17 13:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - May 2006

The May 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 05:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Cloud article

Will you help me get this to featured status?? --☁SX 09:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funny indeed

You should have heard me laughing when I saw someone edit an article on "myself" (at first I assumed it was a creation of the vandal who had been following me around). While it's a long time ago I'm pretty sure I got the name from Thucydides or Xenophon, both of whom I was reading at the time ... I know a little more about the place, but not much. There's some coins from there which are prized, and it is the seat/name of a contemporary archdiocese. I've been using it as an online name for about ten years. Thanks for starting the article! Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David and Mary Thomson C.I.

Sorry for reverting your (well-used) blanking (if you noticed)! The "edit conflict" page doesn't give edit summaries, I'm afraid. Is there anything we can do to get students to stop posting messages to each other through this article? See this disgusting diff for an example. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 05:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I've been trying to get this page under control -- thanks for helping me out with the removal of that huge student council block! Note that I've tried several times to remove that same block. If you want to keep your eye on it over the next few days while I try to get this article to a state where it doesn't look like a bunch of high school kids playing around, that would be great! --Stephane Charette 05:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Thameen

Thank you for looking at my edits of the Child suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Actually I was frustrated and decided to leave this article for good. but you comments encouraged me.

But as tried to edit again, and I made a on line edit, cited and well resourced, I faced the same tatic. i was RV twice by moshe, then his friends appeared and RV me again. The same tacktic used with me days ago.

I'ld appreciate if you have a look at the recent talk.

Thanks --Thameen 19:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. A December 2005 report is pretty up to date due to the fact that in 2006 only one attack happened. this brings the number to 148. Regards. --Thameen 09:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Italian War of 1521

Thanks for the comments! I've responded to them here. Kirill Lokshin 03:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transwiki to Wikisource

I noticed the transwiki of s:Seventy-two resolutions over at Wikisource. The history was not transfered to the talk page, and also there is no entry in s:Wikisource:Transwiki log. You might want to read m:Transwiki if you are not sure of the procedure in this regard. Thanks for the work in moving this over.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pearle not retagging?

I noticed that it's been over a month since Pearle made a full sweep of changing {{cleanup}} tags to {{cleanup-date}}. She(?) has been doing the normal runs of changing {{wikify}} to {{wikify-date}}, and has changed a few cleanup tags, but hasn't gone through and done a full run. I just wanted to know if there was some reason for this. Thanks, --RobthTalk 17:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, there are some articles that cannot be fixed, and Pearle aborts the run when she encounters them, as a signal that something has gone wrong. I just hadn't checked up on things in a while. I'm doing a supervised run now, so the category should get cleaned out. Thanks for noticing! -- Beland 01:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation spot checks

Hey, Robth. I'm intrigued by the citation spot checks you've been performing at WP:FAC. Just curious: Do you only check source citations on articles that are primarily referenced from web sources, or do you try to track down print sources, too? — BrianSmithson 18:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW Robth, The Filmaker has went through and checked all sources you were concerned about on the Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones article. If you don't mind, take a look at it and see if you have any more objections to it being a FA. Thanks. :) The Wookieepedian 04:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't notice your comment on my talk until now (someone else posted after you; I'm not used to more than one at a time :-)). I do go after print sources; I have a very good library collection at my disposal, which is what gave me the idea in the first place. Of the three reviews I've done so far, only one has been print heavy; I've actually been surprised how much some FA noms rely on web sources; I guess the ones I usually comment on tend to be on subjects that tend more towards print sourcing. If I keep this project up over the long term, it may be interesting to see whether there's a correlation between number of errors and type of sources used, or something of that sort. --RobthTalk 04:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

(Moved discussion here to avoid fragmenting.) Okay, that makes sense if you've got a large library at your disposal. I really like the idea behind the spot checks, but I was curious what the logistics would be for something that wasn't sourced from websites and online PDFs. I do like how your work has underscored how easy it is to check the sources on these web-referenced FACs; all FAC voters should click at least a few of them to check that the article is honestly written and referenced. Keep up the good work. — BrianSmithson 14:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Robth, thank you for your review of the Talbot Tagora article. I have corrected the references basing on your comments, and it indeed required a fair amount of work. I would be glad to know whether this part of your objection can be voided now. As concerns the other part of your objection ("this needs a copyedit"), could you please be more specific so that the deficiencies of the article could be removed? Reviewers who have pointed towards editorial problems previously were kind enough to indicate them exactly and even suggested the way to improve them, not to mention some of them being bold enough to correct them themselves. Thank you in advance for your kind cooperation, Bravada, talk - 23:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Robth, responding to your next comment concerning the Tagora, the whole point of editing the references was to make them point to specific pages, both in print and online, so this has been looked after. As concerns copyediting, one merciful native speaker went through the article editing it significantly, I have also tried to improve the sentences you pointed to directly. I would be grateful if you could take a look at the article again, and either point to the paragraphs/sentences that still aren't satisfactory, or perhaps just correct them yourself, as I believe it would be equally time-consuming, and would reduce unnecessary recurrences of the process. Thank you! Bravada, talk - 03:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Robth, thank you for reading the article again and your answer - excuse me for answering so late. Of course I understand you have other things to do than copyedit the article, but it is really hard to try to improve the article not knowing where the deficiencies are. I believe you had some general impressions after reading it, I guess it would not take you too much time to help us direct our efforts to improve the style of the article. What is wrong exactly? Grammar? Are any sentences unclear, misleading or lack sense? Can you point towards paragraphs that are really bad? You see, a native speaker copyedited the article quite extensively, and we would like to know whether we are moving forward anyhow, and what could be changed further - he obviously saw all the issues he observed rectified, so I guess it would be hard to work on that without guidance. Thanks again and sorry for bothering you, but I would really like to make this article worthy of your support. Bravada, talk - 11:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NHL Spot check

Regarding your comment on the NHL page for Brian McFarlene's History of Hockey not matching with the ISBN. For me the ISBN matches. See [1]. I have also added page numbers for the notes that refer to the book, and fixed the other reference. Can you please take a look. -- Jeff3000 00:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006

The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 05:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: email

You're right; I was pretty much thinking the same thing about the conversation needing to go someplace else. I've added an email to my account; as long as you're not totally sick of the discussion by this point, I'd still value your further thoughts. -- Lee Bailey(talk) 02:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rugby World Cup

Hi Robth, thanks for performing the citations check. I was wondering if you could give me any advice on what to improve on in terms of the article's prose. I have used a number of guides/articles in an attempt to make it of a high quality nature, but if you could kind of steer me in the right direction so to speak to bring the article up to a better quality? Cvene64 02:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AndyZ/Suggestions

Mea culpa. You're exactly right. Rebecca 04:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iqbal

Hi - thanks for your review! I've fixed the citation issues. On the two points in which you felt the wording was stronger than the source, I have to disagree but I've picked up an alternative source. This Fire Burns.....Always 17:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excel Saga FAC

I've added a citation to the "Characters and plot" section of Excel Saga. This one is to an episode guide published in Newtype USA, one of the major anime magazines in the U.S. Combined with the recent copy-edits, perhaps you might consider supporting its FAC? Regards -- Monocrat 04:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enta Da Stage

I fixed your issues with the Enta Da Stage FAC, but don't know where the other citations you wanted are. Could you please tag them with {{fact}}?

As for the "critically similar" text, I don't know if it's possible to source this, especially given the lack of information available on this album. A quick perusing of AMG reveals that they all have 4.5/5 or 5/5 scores, but I don't know how to go around properly sourcing this. 69.116.150.174 18:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've found a source for the "critically similar" text. 69.116.150.174 18:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robthbot

Hey Robth, just checking in with you on the status of the bot; Rob approved a one week trial on the 1st, and I'm doing follow up and asking everyone with a currently active trial to give us a report back on how things are going. If you could drop a note on the progress at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approvals#Robthbot in the next couple days, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Enta Da Stage

Thanks for the input and for the props. As for the fair use, I don't really give a shit, I'm not much of a stickler for the strict little policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PDTantisocial (talk • contribs)

[edit] Reference checking

It's nice to see somebody doing that! I've tended to restrict my article reviewing activities to WP:GAN and WP:FLC but I've been doing the same and I've often been left startled - websites to anecdotes relating to the point in question but not actually backing up any of the "facts" stated, or facts which are just overgeneralizations, references which are obviously unreliable sources, all kinds of rubbish! And unfortunately it makes the article look - at first sight - very thoroughly referenced, supported and reliable. I'd hoped that greater use of footnotes would make our articles more trustworthy (I've always been suspicious, for instance, of de:'s almost complete lack of footnotes, and a tendency just to list a whole bunch of thick books at the bottom as references so nobody can tell which fact came from where!) but even now it's very much a case of caveat lector and not allowing yourself to be lulled into a false sense of security. Hopefully the more people crack down on it, the better behaved people will be. One thing I have found disturbing is the number of editors who confirm they add page numbers to paper references using booksight and similar - it shows that a lot of writers didn't actually read in full the prime reference texts that they are citing! That's at least a little worrying ... anyway, hope all is well - I enjoyed working with you on Image:Lechaeum.png so if you've got any similar requests just throw them my way! TheGrappler 01:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking your input

Dear Robth, I am seeking your advice and input regarding the article Eurovision Song Contest. I nominated it as a Featured Article, but it failed - see the page here. Many of the objections arose because there were not enough sources, or they were not properly cited.

I have now gone through the article thoroughly, and along with a few tweaks here and there, I have added many more references. I even bought a hard-copy book in order to ensure that some facts had been published, before citing it as a source.

Now I would like to ask you a favour, as one of the people who objected to the original nomination. Could you please take another look at the article, and let me know if, in your opinion, it looks better - and now up to Featured standard with regards to source citations? I do realise that most of the sources are online ones: unfortunately there has been surprisingly little published in hard-copy about the history of the Eurovision Song Contest, and most of the information that I know myself comes from having simply lived and breathed Eurovision for the past 14 years - attending the Contests, and experiencing the events, stories and rule changes as they have happened. If I could get more "hard copy" to verify this then I would, but it doesn't seem to be out there. It is, however, online. Therefore I have formatted all my web citation templates as best I can.

I am seeking to re-nominate this as a FA. However, before I do so I would value your input, as a former objector. Thank you :) EuroSong talk 03:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I went right ahead and submitted it for Peer Review. Please feel free to comment. Thanks. EuroSong talk 15:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charizard referencing

Thank you for check, it uncovered some hidden errors I had either missed (or made) along the way. You can find comments here. In relation to the Serebii comment, while it is not that grammatically awesome, it is the most reliable Pokémon site on the whole internet. Highway Return to Oz... 20:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Macedonia (terminology)

Hi. All your concerns were dealt with. Please continue...:NikoSilver: 22:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Robth. Please take your time and find whatever glitches may still exist in the article after so many corrections and recommendations by so many users. I wish you had joined the discussion earlier, since we'd have more time dealing with anything that may find you disagreeable. Just, please, don't oppose because you imagine that there may be more reasons for objecting! It is kinda insulting to all those who have worked so much to bring it to this level. To push it a little further, I don't WP:OWN it, so feel free to edit your corrections directly to save time. Thank you. :NikoSilver: 13:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I was waiting for your next move. I'll be online for the next hour or so, if you want to cooperate. Thanks...:NikoSilver: 14:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I'll be right on to them. I didn't think you just wanted to oppose for no reason; I just noticed you hadn't specified one. Your comments are appreciated, and have already ameliorated the article in two instances.:NikoSilver: 14:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Pheww, I think we pulled it off! Please check it. :NikoSilver: 00:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selena FAC

I fixed the 4 refs, I think, in the Selena FAC, please review. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 05:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

All refs look fixed to me, I rechecked them and no other concerns are found, if you see any tell me. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 21:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

The July 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

[edit] My ReCat of Old Articles

Robth, Sorry I missed you. As per your comments on changing outdated tags, you are correct. Many articles are written poorly. I can claim that some of my articles need citations, etc. None the less, the general cleanup allows the author(s) to linger. Generally 1 year with a cleanup tag is quite bad. If no one is cleaning, then no one is watching nor maintaining. Hence, as Eric Raymon reminds us, it's not worth much. As such, I'm reverting slowly. If you are near by, talk - I'll stop and listen to suggestions. meatclerk 05:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I prefer to work on the oldest tags first. Sorry, your run-on sentences made it difficult to get your exact meaning. For instance you said, the right place to shift them from is the newly-tagged articles pool. Where is this pool of tags?
As for older tags, I've got
  • 8 articles I'm watchdogging. They authors have been absent. I tried to PROD a few, but was caught.
  • 2 inaccurate.
  • on cleanup 1 meger, 5 AfD and 10 PROD = 16
  • 17 resolved as 11 general, 2 redirect, 2 wikt and 2 deleted
total 33 in about 3 days.
I still have to watch them, but they are moving, if slowly. More exact pointers to your suggestions. These old tags are bothersome and time consuming. (For instance, Jay Ryan started a minor revert incident.) I may limit myself to 3-4 per day. Suggestions please. :-) --meatclerk 03:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Robth, Thanks for your comments. I see your point in the context you describe - it makes sense. However, leaving older articles to sit makes no sense, especially if I can't fix them. Little's theorem says we can measure the efficiency. If more queues are available, silly as it seem, more people will arrive to fix them. Basically, if you can identify the problem, an expert will show up. Wikipedia has many, many groups organized to work in specific areas and specific problems, hence all the special tags. Yes, ID all general cleanup early, just as you suggest, but also tackle the toughest.

The Jay Ryan I mentioned was more than two years in the queue. I decided to take a whack at it. I got 4 Speedy Del tags before I could ID the three Jay Ryans now there. The revert incident prompted me to take a 3 hours lunch (it's my day off). When I returned someone was kind enough to fix the whole thing, with disambig. The incident was painful and I don't recommend it to anyone. I cried FUD midway through. Lesson learned. --meatclerk 04:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I should also point out that retagging an article does not mean I will only do that. I do check back on progress. If nothing is happening, I can take other actions. Like finding references, putting them in the talk page, but not writing the article. I will even organize a talkpage like MSG. I can see the problems, but know I can't time to fix it YET. If I organize new information, someone will come along and do the work. If not, I might get to it, or at least fix or edit the current article. Especially if there are references. --meatclerk 04:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your last message. I've taken your advice to heart and cleaned up, merged and other various tasks. I don't think the system is clear to many editors. Some cleanup tags I've noted have been just placed and never tended to. Some tags should have been removed. Many just reclassified when the changes are made. Another month of this and I could write seven steps to cleaning up a cleanup tag.

For now, my own articles are suffering neglect, that and my boss has put me on five days a week, so more writing and 2 backlogged articles a night, at most.

BTW, I'm working on an article about Monterey Clippers, a local type of fishing boat. Tell me what you think. I took the images myself. meatclerk 06:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

 Thank you so much for voting in my recent RFA. It passed on the relatively narrow vote of 38/8/8. It was also one of the least-participated-in RFA nominations in several months, so pat yourself on the back, and join the party on your left, but first, take your cookie!

NOTE: I can't code HTML to save my life. I copied this from Misza13. I guess I should write him a thank you note as well. Cookies sold separately. Batteries not included. Offer not valid with other coupons. May contain peanuts or chicken. Keep out of the reach of small children, may present a choking hazard to children under the age of 3. Do not take with alcohol. This notice has a dark background and therefore may be eaten by a grue at any time. The receiver of this message, hereafter referred to as "Pudding Head" relinquishes all rights and abilities to file a lawsuit or any other litigious activities. RyanGerbil10, Jimbo Wales, and the states of Georgia, North Dakota and Wisconsin are not liable for any lost or stolen items or damage from errant shopping carts.

Thank you so much! RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 19:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plutarch quote

hallo, i just happen to see that you have easy assess to the whole Loeb, i don't know, you're probably busy these days, but when you've got time, could you help me trace a certain quote from Plutarch? that will be used in the dung beetle article. Thanks a lot in advance! :)--K.C. Tang 04:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kindness! indeed that's a "must" quote in books about dung beetles, but i've never read anyone providing any source for the quote, so i somehow doubt its authenticity... hope your research could clarify my doubt...:)--K.C. Tang 00:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Things are beginning to get interesting:), hope you can find more funny stuff in this odyssey of classical entomology...--K.C. Tang 23:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
O, my! how could you do that? Wonderful! you know I didn't really have much hope when I first contacted you... but somehow you were able to trace it! Much thanks, I really feel a sense of community here.--K.C. Tang 01:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ketuanan Melayu

Hey, you were the only active commentor on Ketuanan Melayu's peer review, so I thought I'd let you know that I've finally put it on FAC. I know you're busy at the moment, but if you have some free time, it wouldn't hurt to go over the article again to see if there's anything major we can fix. Your comments at the peer review were really helpful. Thanks! Johnleemk | Talk 14:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There are outstanding objections about the article's length. I know you're busy, but if you have any thoughts on the subject, it would be nice to know that I'm not completely insane for thinking summary style isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread for this article. Johnleemk | Talk 21:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 12:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pericles

Thank you for all the work you've done and you are doing. But I still believe that Sepentrionalis crossed the line, when he added the clean-up tag and changed his objection to strong objection without justification. I'm also frustrated, because he did that after I sincerely thanked him for his contributions, something that he misinterpreted. In any case, I thank you once again for all your contributions and your great eagerness to improve the article.--Yannismarou 14:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to see that they were sincere thanks; unfortunately, they did not come across that way. I will remove Strong. Septentrionalis 15:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Only for the nomination's sake and only because I have a great respect for you I removed this argument. But my statement stands.--Yannismarou 17:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I saw in the quote boxes you made the following change: "according to"-->"as recorded by". I agree with you. After all, I first implemented this solution, but Sepentrionalis did not like it and he was the one who proposed "according to" instead of "as recorded by". I donot know if he will agree with the new solution.--Yannismarou 07:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello again! I just wanted to point out that I'm very happy, seeing that this nomination goes to its closure with a clear consensus (until now, at least!). During this tense procedure, your composure was really valuable and admirable.--Yannismarou 19:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

Excellent writing you've been doing so far, congratulations on getting your most recent article, Corinthian War, to FA status. Oberiko 13:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ketuanan Melayu

Thanks. To be honest, I was skeptical it would pass FAC. I'm really glad we managed to get it through, even though I still regret that I couldn't prune more. I'm still wondering if there's any fat we can trim...but still, thanks for the note, and thanks for all your work during the peer review. Johnleemk | Talk 11:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pleasant surprizes!

It's good to hear from you again! If you wanted to help with WP:CP in little ways, it would be useful to remove red links (that were deleted for other reasons). Also, if the comments indicate that the copyvio was dealt with (e.g. it's struck through and someone says they removed the copyvio part of the article), then you can delete those too. Thanks for offering! – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 12:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laas Gaa'l

Thank you for rephrasing the sentence it helped a lot, can you find a sutibale image for it please? Abdullah Geelah 17:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seven Starz

Thanks for the heads-up. I've voted on it. -Elmer Clark 18:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Administration

You're not an admin. I'm thinking of nominating you. Would you object? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I find that Wikipedia is big enough that I can shift from task to task. I might go a month and do solid writing, and then spend a month doing mindless cleanup tasks to unwind. It's good to have options. Besides, I've found the admin tools free up time when I do routine tasks - but YMMV. And to be honest, we need more admins like you. You certainly don't have to spend time everyday at WP:ANI (I know I don't!) So think about it. Let me know. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, glad to hear it! I've nominated you at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. You'll need to officially accept the nomination, and fill out answers to the questions. Good luck! – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like you have to accept at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Robth before you can be listed. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All Hallows' School

I notice that you have removed this from the copyvio queue. By simply reverting you have left the copyvio material in the History, keeping it available. In my view the copyright material needs deleting from history. I should welcome your views before I restore it to the queue. BlueValour 16:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the offending versions from the history. No need to relist. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Syboat Acker

Hi, I appreciate your interest in clearing up the article, and it does still need some research but the tombstone itself is historic. It was one of thrity-six restored by the Rockefellers. Additionally, Syboat was a prominent member of the small but influential community of Sleepy Hollow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James Russiello (talk • contribs)

[edit] Biography Newsletter September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 00:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 01:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations, you're an admin

Use the new tools wisely to help out where you can. But especially at first use them conservativley and re-read the relevant policies before acting. As you get the hang of them, dig in and help out with the backlogs. Have fun helping to make this a better place and again, congrats. - Taxman Talk 20:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Remember: Mediocre power corrupts mediocrely. :) And congrats. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Let me add my congrats to a definitely much better than mediocre editor (wink). I really appreciated your help in getting Henry James to FA status, and was happy to see you win adminship with such overwhelming support. Good luck with your new responsibilities. Casey Abell 03:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations! Kirill Lokshin 03:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes- Congrat's. Squeaky clean floors! Great promotion. JungleCat talk/contrib 04:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations and thanks

Quadell has bestowed upon you the Public Domain Astronaut award for diligent work with copyvios.
Quadell has bestowed upon you the Public Domain Astronaut award for diligent work with copyvios.

Congratulations and good luck with your new role!

Thanks for your contributions to Alcibiades. I'm just a bit concerned about the current length of the lead. I'd grateful, if you could have a look at the rest of the article. If and when you can! After all, I intend to ask for another review by the military project.

My congradulations once again!--Yannismarou 06:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on your promotion, and you're quite welcome! --Merovingian - Talk 03:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

My congratulations too, and you'll do a fine job! BaseballBaby 04:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure, and congratulations! Jayjg (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

All the best with your new responsibilities! — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 04:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes best of luck, and thanks for the belated thanks; it was my pleasure to support! Batmanand | Talk 09:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Van Leer

Are you sure, that is was I who removed the {{copyvio}} tag? Nevertheless author most likely was a guy from the van leer website eitherway... --Jestix 17:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

And thanks for your thanks. --Guinnog 04:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

My congratulations, it's really great to know there will be an admin with a strong classical expertise. And thanks for your very nice words.--Aldux 21:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theramenes

Wow! I don't think you need much help!! You've already done all the work! But I'll see if I can add something. My Greek bibliography about Theramenes is not so rich, but I'll have a look.

At the moment, I'm also stuck with Demosthenes and Alcibiades, I want to finish; and Aspasia I've nominated for FA (but hasn't earned much attention! I'm getting asleep!!). And I've also initiated a Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Greece, which seems a bit frozen without my "pushing"!

But I'll keep an eye on Theramenes, because it is reallt such an interesting an ambiguous figure.--Yannismarou 08:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read Theramenes in deatail, but I donot doubt about its high quality. I donot think I can contribute something crucial. You've got all the necessary sources. I could only add one or two Greek sources (Paparrigopoulos, Vlachos) and Britannica's CD version of 2002. But I am not sure you need this stuff.
I prepare [[Demosthenes}} (whom I always admired) and I've already nominated Aspasia, since I had most of the material ready from Pericles. Unfortunately, the article has not earned much attention in the FAC page. No supports! No objections! Just one comment I tried to address! I'm getting asleep and I'll explode. Where are the good old days of Pericles' nomination?! If you had the time for a very very very quick look to check any major language flaws in Aspasia or to suggest anything, I'd be grateful. But do not change your priorities for this issue.
I'll check the talk page and I'll elaborate on my opinions for further improvement. Thanks for informing me! Since I'm not the best evaluator of the prose, I'm most worried about the number of reference of some articles. We insist on the in-line citations, but we donot care so much about the number of references, which constitute the basis of our work. I see FAC pass with 1, 2, 3 or 4 sources! I think this is an important issue. The research of a FA must be thorough and "exhausting".
I'm sorry I am not a native English speaker. Otherwise, I think I could offer much more to Wikipedia and I could be even more creative. Regards!--Yannismarou 10:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Winter's page

Why did you destroy the Bill Winter page? It was redone without any copyright problems and you thrashed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.162.143.5 (talk • contribs)

This appears to be a case of confusion; I deleted a number of edits to that page, but all were copyvios, so far as I can see. --RobthTalk 16:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging

Sorry about that. I fixed the mistakes. Kyriakos 07:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helping out with the backlog

Hi there and congratulations on your brand new sysop flag. Now that you are an admin, you might want to help the community in a way you weren't able to before. The obvious example is clearing out the Category:Administrative backlog :-) You might want to start with Wikipedia:Requested moves which I find the easiest to deal with. If you have any questions, just drop me a note! Enjoy! :-) --Dijxtra 09:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theramenes

Hi! Reading Paparrigopoulos-Karolidis about Theramenes, I saw they insist on Aristotle's version of his sentence to death and execution. I donot know if this version is regarded as credible by contemporary scholars. You'll see I edited an inline citation and a note based on Aristotle's version. If you think they are redundant, do not hesitate to change or even remove these edits. Thanks for the tweaks in Aspasia. Regards!--Yannismarou 16:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the 400 have you noticed the slightly different accounts of Aristotle (30-31- Theramenes is mentioned in 32 and 33) and Thucydides (VIII, 67-71)?--Yannismarou 16:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belated thanks

Congrats, now choose your poison;>
Congrats, now choose your poison;>

My friend, your belated thanks could not have come at a better time...just when I needed a reminder of why I still bother to logon here. Now I owe you my thanks. So cheers and here's to admins who are great writers and to making obscure ancient generals less obscure;>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CP stuff

Hello Robth.

Plowing through that backlog takes some time. To be honest, I cheat a little. I pull up the Wikipedia page in question, and check to see if it has a temp-replacement page or a discussion page. If so, I need to look more thoroughly, but if not, I just look at the page's history. Often, there will be a single IP editor or redlinked user who made the page, and then a well-respected admin who marked it as a copyvio. (Sometimes inbetween there'll be a user who just tagged in {{Wikify}} or {{Ad}} or whatever, but that's fine; I'm looking for cases where the entire article was made by an anon in one fell swoop, and then tagged copyvio without any meaningful edits.) In these cases, I don't even bother to look at the page it's supposedly copied from. Over 99% of the time, these cases will be copyvios, and among the ones that aren't, 99% of them will be not articles worth keeping - they would just be moved over to WP:AFD to take up other people's time there. In those few cases where I make a mistake and delete a valid article (an article worth keeping, that was made in a single edit by an anon, and that was mistagged as a copyvio by a respected admin), then the creater will usually contact me and complain, in which case I investigate, apologize, and restore. No biggie. But it saves tons of time this way. YMMV. I'm not saying you should take this shortcut; I'm just telling you what I do.

About "claims to be the author" pages and images: as I understand it, when permissions(at)wikimedia(dot)org gets a verification e-mail, they leave a template on the talk page. I'm not really sure how the process works, though, and a brief look around the help pages doesn't give me any good info on this. I've usually ignored that section, to be honest. You might want to contact some of the folks at the Wikimedia Communications Committee (who get the permissions@Wikimedia emails). Some of the members are User:Mindspillage, User:Michael_Snow, and User:UninvitedCompany. I would personally delete any if a month goes by without WCC getting an e-mail.

All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 24 September 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Athenian coup of 411 BC, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.