User talk:RandomCritic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive

Archives


Astronomy pages
Religion pages
Fiction pages
Other pages
The garbage pail

If you're looking for a Talk segment that used to be here, consult the appropriate Archives file.

cosmology[edit]

Random critic, I wasn't aware that you are watching this article for a while. If I had known it, I would have discuss it with you before making changes. The reason I removed the word shape in the top description was because it has more to do with planes of higher or lower vibration, rather than anything concrete that we can map out on earth or the physical plane. I changed the name because having the english label in front is easier for people to read through it. I added some quotes from the suttas along with its citation because it is lacking citation.

The page didn't indicate anywhere regarding the name of the person that I should contact before this.

cosmology[edit]

Hi random critc.I just spent a lot of time adding a lot of text, instead of removing and added a lot of citation. It took a long time to find the sources. I would appreciate it if you discuss it before undoing everything I added. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simpliciti (talkcontribs) 13:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

New Latin[edit]

Hi random critic. I see the winds of your randomness have wafted in my direction, only I do not think they are random. You didn't like something I said about something YOU wrote. This is something of a surprise attack. You could have questioned me about this or waited until I put the references in but you chose to sweep in and delete before I could reference anything, even though I said, references to follow. But in another sense you are making life interesting for me. This is a little different. You throw down a challenge. I take up the challenge. I wouldn't give you any barn star for your behavior in this article so far or for the article either. The article is not a good article and needs improvement, including all the missing references. I intend to improve it. You caught me with my references down in some sort of Wiki Pearl Harbor. You won't find it so easy from this point on. The stuff is going back in with the missing references, but I invite you to collablorate with me on this. Find references for your own generalizations! Rewrite my stuff! Add things I never thought of! The one thing you aren't going to do from now on is just revert everything I do. That will be vandalism and right now it is only not because you caught me unreferenced by surprise. I invite you, play the game with me, or else yield the ground in this tournament of the New Latin article. See my initial comments in the discussion on the article. Changes will be coming but slow. Forgive me, I move slowly but I hope surely. I got something else to do right now but I will be back. The first step is to do your dictionary work for you, which you evidently didn't do. Why do I have to do everything myself around here?Dave (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That's 100% better. I think we will have to agree to disagree on the mildly anti-Catholic. I'm sorry, as a Protestant I've listened to and looked at too much anti-Catholic material not to be able to spot it. There's a shoe to go on the other foot as well but we won't get into that. For myself at my time of life having had to live with it all my life I'm pretty sick of it. Holy holy ho, with no one especially very holy. I am glad you believe the article is a stub. The treatment of the whole subject is too shallow, but that is not the immediate problem. There are no references on it (save one). By this time you should well know that an "unreferenced" tag should be on it and that unless someone takes a hand the material will not stand, regardless of what anyone thinks of it. The problems will become more evident when we start trying to look them up and find out that no one thinks that. As for my edits - well, they were unreferenced, you were allowed to take them out forthwith without any further justification. You probably treated me no worse than I've treated some others. I'm interested in getting this article informational, accurate and referenced. This is its time. What I have in mind is something such as you see in Latin, Classical Latin and before long Late Latin, and partly in Old Latin; that is , a subsection giving some definition and origin of terms, such as can be found, an authorial section and a section on the details of the style, with links to some of the works online. That's the basic design I found when I got here. I don't disagree with it. I'm following the dates on the box at the bottom, which so far I've found justified. Since you took out my edits I already have had further ideas on the subject, so it won't be exactly the same. I'm trying to do the others concurrently so it won't be overnight. I challenge you, if you have ideas about what it should say, do some of the work, find the references, rewrite something you think needs it. I can cooperate with anyone who wants to cooperate; if not, either take it over or back out, and if you take it over I'll be watching to see what you can do. The one thing that cannot and should not happen is nothing at all. We do not and should not have an interest in maintaining bad articles as bad just because someone views it as their personal article and blocks all attempts to change it. The articles are all linked by the box. If you want to change the overall design, the info in the box, the plans and policies utilized so far, by all means let's discuss it. For me, my main concerns are truth and esthetic design. Well I'm going on with it now. Next on my agenda is the investigation of the relationship between new latin, modern latin, and contemporary latin and how they got to be called that. For the rest of your points I can't say that I agree with most of them but the issues can only be resumed after references, the bottom line. Then it will be clear with whom you disagree, botteville or the source, and what you must do to fix it. So long now, and you won't get much of a chance to delete me again if I can help it. I am amenable to discussion. You will know you're in trouble with me when you start seeing expressions such as "I may not look at this right away..." and "eventually I will get back to this..." And, I'm going to use the templates, but don't let that upset you. They come off as soon as it gets fixed. It's just a more formal procedure. So long.Dave (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Barnstar-atom3.png The E=mc² Barnstar
I hereby award you the Science barnstar for doing all the hard work in getting List of moons (and with it, List of moons by diameter, which you also worked on} up to FL status. Well done! Serendipodous 00:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Papal States/Holy Roman Empire[edit]

Hi RandomCritic, I see you've been adding "Papal States" and "Holy Roman Empire" to some of the medieval pope articles, but is that really necessary? It's not like they conceived of a country the way we do now (that is, it is not at all like saying "New York, New York, USA"), and besides that, it is not really accurate to say that the Papal States are "in" the Holy Roman Empire. What was wrong with just "Italy" or whatever was there before? Adam Bishop (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


Jews in Space[edit]

Hi RC, great job you did on List of Jewish astronauts, I'm a bit sad to see the title Jews in Space go since this is what prompted the creation of the page in the first place (from Mel Brooks' film History of the World, Part I). Motti (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

More accusations[edit]

I thought I should tell you what I noticed just last night, which is that User:Doug Coldwell/timetable was chasing a sock-puppet theory about us again in March of this year, expending an awful lot of labor tabulating our edits, and displaying the gifts for inferential reasoning he honed by proving that Petrarch wrote the New Testament in English. Wareh (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever keeps him off the streets! Wareh (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
No comment (cf. "Ch. 100 analysis" just above here). Wareh (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know it's just a private parergon that I link. Of course, my impression is that things like the Lex Junia Licinia are mainly interesting to such a mind because of their connection with a more exciting project. While he's acquired the art of keeping article contributions appropriately focused, one has to wonder whether the hidden criteria of relevance are influencing the coverage various topics & details receive. Eventually, I trust, competent editors come along to prune and round things out. I don't have the patience to unravel it all, nor do I expect you to, but I couldn't resist sharing the observation at least with my alter ego! Wareh (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to the Princess of Wales page[edit]

Hey man! I just wanted to say good job on your additions to the page. You added some useful and appropriate info/links to it! Dphilp75 (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Vereeniging[edit]

Re. your removal of the ad hoc pronunciation guide - are you able to provide the Afrikaans IPA, using the shiny new Wikipedia:IPA for Dutch and Afrikaans key? Or do you happen to know the Anglophone pron? Lfh (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't shake the feeling[edit]

That I've been treading on your toes. I know some of my alterations to your work over the years haven't met with your approval, and I just wanted to say that I think you're a fantastic, dedicated editor and I hope I haven't annoyed you too much :) Serendipodous 20:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Orcs, again[edit]

Iustinus Crit.Forrt. suo sal. plur. d.
So, I decided to drop in on orc again, and the whole Melko/Melkor thing is still being an issue. Note this series of edits I just did. The "push back" note seems to ignore that sic means precisely what it says we need to indicate. But perhaps it has a point: since this has happened again and again, perhaps you could help by drafting a footnote explaining (and sourcing) the evolution of that name? Obviously this information doesn't belong in the text itself, but the way this has been going on for years, even with my brazenly over-the-top warning notes hidden in the source, as a footnote it would be really helpful. Quid rere? --Iustinus (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That'll do, thanks. --Iustinus (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, and what do you think of this claim? --Iustinus (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Spacewalks[edit]

Please could you explain this edit. I feel the template was quite clear in specifying the problem, and would appreciate your input on how it can be clarified. Thanks --GW 20:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, RandomCritic. You have new messages at GW Simulations's talk page.
Message added 20:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GW 20:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision to Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri articles[edit]

I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

I intend to revise those articles following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted[edit]

Redaktor Wikipedia 600px.png

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Vaiśravaṇa[edit]

Please check my reply. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Replied. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Your Fairy etymology is a great bit of work. Wouldn't mind some refs for academic purposes, though, but thanks. Redheylin (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

re List of Governors of Georgia[edit]

I admit what I did was hardly complete, but it was a first start in 1) actually getting some sourced information up there, and 2) removing vestiges from old article formats that have no place now, like the garish party table. Before you call something "extensive vandalism", you should pay attention to what the edits actually are. --Golbez (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No, but I don't think it belongs in that article, any more than any of the other featured lists include colonial governors. It will be split out into another article. I admit that I should have done that first before removing it, but you should still have - and should do now - assume good faith. --Golbez (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, with my track record, I don't necessarily have to ask for faith in my edits; that does not absolve others of assuming it. Frankly, I'm surprised anyone but me was watching it, as it clearly had not been improved upon in years, I figured it had been long abandoned. That said, you're right, my edit summaries - especially when removing information - should have been better, and I will improve upon that in the future. On the other hand, I've singlehandedly brought a dozen of these lists to featured status, and helped substantially on another half dozen (plus or minus), so I probably thought that after doing it for so many, having a good feel for what's needed, that I didn't need to spell out every step on the way to turning a rather nasty list into the next featured work. But that isn't a good way of working and I'll do better.
Incidentally, you're free to restore the information that you want me to restore, though the party table will be replaced, the colonial governors will likely be split out, and the etymology column will not survive.
Finally, as the person who's worked most extensively on these lists, I stand by my comment that I'm hating Georgia, at least for the purpose of this list - its early years were a horrible mishmash of chaos and poor documentation. It is becoming more difficult to find out just exactly who qualifies to be considered a governor. I somewhat expected this, as it was the first colonial + Civil War state that I was working on, but I didn't expect this. Even Pennsylvania was less hectic. --Golbez (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, RandomCritic. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Neo-Latin[edit]

Yes, /c/ is an allophone of /kʲ/, so I'll remove it. /sk/ is used when words begin with 'sc', like 'scepticismus'. The reason this happens is probably that a word beginning with /stʃ/ is considered too Slavic-sounding.

As for /h/, you are right, I forgot about it and I'll rectify it, but while 'ch' is pronounced h in the middle of a word as you stated, I do see a tendency to pronounce it /k/ in 'Candor Chasma' (on Mars), for example. Similarly to /stʃ/ vs. /sk/, /k/ is preferred at the beginning of a word.

The reason I'm saying it's intermediate is that under German influence, 'qu' is pronounced /kv/, unlike any of the Western versions.

Thanks for your input --Ayceman (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrolled[edit]

Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

  • This permission does not give you any special status or authority
  • Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
  • You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
  • If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

List of lunar probes / Exploration of the Moon[edit]

I did this timeline Exploration of the Moon#Timeline of Moon exploration not knowing about the article you started List of lunar probes (by the way it's better than what I did). Any ideas for merger? Tom Paine (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Neo-Latin (continued)[edit]

In the 19th century, sce and sci were pronounced like ște and ști. It was analogous to ce and ci, due to the sound change in words with the -esc (or -ăsc) termination: it turns to -ești (-ăști) when pluralized (this is also the reason why, academically, when using the genitive of town names using -ești/-ăști, you have to treat it like a plural). When the phonetic argument won around 1900, this was seen as superfluous, as we had a way to represent ște, with the letters used in Romanian, as opposed to ce (tʃe). As știință entered spoken (common) Romanian earlier on, sce turned to ște. Ayceman (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Stars/planetary systems controversy[edit]

Well, I am "back in the saddle" again today, working on the cleanup project. I was certainly disheartened yesterday to see that the "<Starname> in fiction" debate has attracted unfriendly - not to say retaliatory - attention to the main list. I am glad to see that my analysis of the AfD proposals did attract some support. There seem to be a number of objections to the list:

  • Not enough citations. I am confident that after I have assembled a significant number of citations, this will be resolved.
  • Not enough citations from secondary sources. This is a tough one. I am not sure how to find secondary sources on this topic. For example, Clute and Nicholls' Encyclopedia of Science Fiction does not contain any references to individual stars.
    • There is a thread of sentiment in the debate that secondary citations are needed to establish notability. Is that the only way? What if the list is of great interest to a large number of Wikipedia readers?
  • Some debaters (eg Chris Cunningham) do not want a list at all - they would prefer a wholly theoretical article about the uses of stars and planetary systems in fiction. That would be a completely different article. I believe that there is a real place for a list (which is why I am doing the work):
    • The list does in fact have a ranking of High-importance.
    • Readers can view the references (even passing references - I won't call them trivial) to each star across time and gain a sense of what stars have attracted the notice of authors in various sf eras. (This seems to me to be the a good hope for finding secondary references.) A notable example of this is the early print emphasis given to otherwise unimportant Gliese and Ross catalog stars.
    • Readers interested in a certain star can read the descriptions (short synopses) and see if the works of fiction are something they would be interested in learning more about, or even reading/seeing/playing.

Random critic, you appear to be an experienced and somewhat senior contributor. I wonder if you have any words of advice or encouragement for me. What do you think will be the upshot of all this? OperaJoeGreen (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the lead on these articles. I will contribute where I can.

As for establishing notability, the philosophy I am operating under is that if a third party resource (such as a review in a reliable source, literary dictionary, etc.) mentions the pertinence of a star (or other element) in the work, then that counts as a third party source and a case can be made that the entry is notable. As always, consensus is a key factor. - Sangrolu (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Stars and planetary systems in fiction: Cleanup complete[edit]

RandomCritic,

I have completed the cleanup project for the main list Stars and planetary systems in fiction. Please take a look! I've also provided guidance for future contributors in Talk:Stars and planetary systems in fiction. To continue the cleanup project, I will next work on the subsidiary lists "Aldebaran in fiction" and so on.

I have made all items conform to the standards set out on the Talk page. The References section of the article now has 97 citations (all previously existing citations were cleaned up also). 47 of the citations are secondary references establishing the notability of items in the list — and adding value to the article in their own right. As explained on the Talk page, I have removed a number of items on the ground that they are only trivial fictional references to stars and/or planetary systems.

At this point, I'd like to apply to have the remedial tags removed from the top of the article. How can I do so? I assume that this is not as simple as just deleting the code for the tags — or is it?

Thanks for your ongoing kind support in this project.

OperaJoeGreen (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Federal Europe and the United States of Europe[edit]

Hello, RandomCritic. Could you shed some light on the situation involving the above articles at the discussion at Talk:Federal Europe? Thanks, Skomorokh 20:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons[edit]

I've removed S/2004 S 3, 4 and 6 as they have not been recovered and are lost: would that be OK? 220.255.1.69 (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Cosmos satellites[edit]

Category:Cosmos satellites, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. GW 15:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

N2e the deletionist[edit]

I see that you encountered user N2e at [1] (Astronaut birthplaces by state). I checked one of the astronauts he tagged for future deletion and it was present in the source I see on the bottom of the article. I already deal with his deletion urges elsewhere, but if you want - you can see which of his tags are nullified by the source at the bottom and remove these. Jeffsapko (talk) 08:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Ekumen planets[edit]

Category:Ekumen planets, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

hey[edit]

I'm wondering if simply deleting something because it is out of date is the best way to go, usually, it's like, updating is a good way to go. I put in a similar graph to the other one, that has the same information as the pic, rather than leave it representing a single sided view. Penyulap 13:35, 16 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Stars in fiction[edit]

RC,

As you know, I completed revamping the article Stars and planetary systems in fiction some time ago. I have now completed similar revamps for the particular articles on the stars Aldebaran, Alpha Centauri, Altair, Betelgeuse, Deneb, Epsilon Eridani, Rigel, Sirius, Tau Ceti, and Vega. If you'd like to take a look (and from the talk pages, I know you occasionally visit these articles), they are conveniently available via links in the "Other Systems" category at the bottom of each article.

"Other Systems" also includes: Binary stars, Nebulae, Black holes, Galaxies, Supernovae, and Wormholes. Having finished the stars in the list, I am interested in proceeding. The next article to revamp would be Binary stars. Interestingly, according to the View History tab, this article has not been edited in over 11 months.

OperaJoeGreen (talk) 06:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited List of Russian manned space missions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aleksandr Skvortsov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The Space Barnstar[edit]

Space-Barnstar-1a.png The Space Barnstar
Awarded for creating, improving, and expanding numerous space-related articles. Congratulations! Fotaun (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The Russia Barnstar of National Merit[edit]

BoNM Russian Federation Hires.png The Russia Barnstar of National Merit
For updating and expanding List of Russian manned space missions Fotaun (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The Template Barnstar[edit]

Blueprint Barnstar 2.PNG The Template Barnstar
Awarded for creating multiple templates, including Venus spacecraft, Planetary Rings, and others. Thank you for contributing them. Fotaun (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your help[edit]

RandomCritic,

As noted above, and as I'm sure your remember, I have been spending some time upgrading the various "<astronomical object> in fiction" articles. I believe that I have been doing a creditable job, starting in most articles with bare unordered lists and providing them with solid research and referenced critical commentary. Most of these articles have had good traffic (Stars and planetary systems in fiction has had over 10,000 visits a month for some time), and have achieved top ratings in all four categories of the "Page Ratings" section when it exists.

In the last week or so, a user named Nikkimaria has agressively edited many of these articles, in some cases removing up to a quarter of the content. Ironically, he has been most intent on removing precisely those parts of the articles that many users in the "Delete" discussions we participated in a couple of years ago were calling for—that is, the parts which go beyond mere listing of works and critically discuss the works in terms of the astronimical objects (with appropriate references).

When I objected and reverted the first of his deletions, he responded with a slew of "tags", apparently seeking to put me in my place.

So, several questions:

  1. Do you know anything about "Nikkimaria"?
  2. Do you have any advice about how I should proceed?
  3. Is there any forum or mediator I can turn to to try to get third parties involved in the resolution of a conflict of this sort?
  4. Here's a question that I've been meaning to ask you for some time: I have been a frequent and substantive Wikipedia contributor for several years now. What paths for "advancement" are available to me in this informal organization? How can I apply for a more advanced status?

Many thanks, RC, I've always valued your advice.

OperaJoeGreen (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

. Gian Francesco Poggio Bracciolin[edit]

Reverted back to your version, posted to editor's talk page - have you read it? It would be a good idea I think to start a discussion at the article talk page. 11:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talkcontribs)

Dutch monarchs move discussion[edit]

Please join in: Talk:Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands#Move discussion DBD 15:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


2013[edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For diligence in contributions and editing in 2013. Fotaun (talk) 02:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Space Barnstar 1e.png The Space Barnstar
For outstanding contributions and editing on articles about space. Fotaun (talk) 02:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Fictional Countries[edit]

Just thought you may like to know, I've cleaned up List of fictional countries. Ncboy2010 (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)