User talk:Philcha

Invite

Hi there Philcha!
	Please accept this invite to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving articles to GA status while working with other users. We hope to see you there!

Dinosaur

Just a couple of comments about your edit [1]:

• Bullet points or lists are fine when communicating a checklist in personal communication (like here), but it's harsh on readability in an encyclopedia article. Why it's bad is that you make a list, then actually repeat the list elsewhere in prose (or even worse, you don't). I would revert, or rewrite, your edits.
• You ask a list of questions in the part about thermoregulation. Setting aside the list issue, a bunch of questions is hardly encyclopedic. You could have written it as, "there are several unanswered questions including ......"
• Missing a lot of citations, so it sounded OR.
• You have a tendency to use adverbs and adjectives that are best placed in the talk space, and not within the article.

I don't mean to be a critical SOB, BUT, I think that's some of the reason you were reverted, instead of factually so. Anyways, just my two cents.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, OM, the points you make don't justify a revert - especially when the revert reduced the accuracy of the article. Point-by-point:

• I think some editors have listophobia - lists and other guides to structure are widely used in Web articles. In any case it would have been easy enough to edit the content into prose.
• Ditto. And the previous content failed to explain that "warm-blooded" is a complex and potentially ambiguous term.
• What I added about the K-T extinction became the backbone of Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction. I wouldn't have minded if someone had said "It would be better to put the details in Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction and a summary here."
• The "before" version of the article was then practically a citation-free zone, especially in the "Definition" section. As awhoel it would struggle to make B-class now.
• Which "adverbs and adjectives"? And what was wrong with someone else copyediting if they concerns? --Philcha (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A bit of fun

The unfortunate condition of the front cover of my copy of MCO-2 (see photograph on that page) makes it appear that it received a pearl necklace at some point in its 95 years, and was not cleaned up thereafter. I didn't do it, I swear. Krakatoa (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wilhelm Steinitz

Hey. I've placed Steinitz on hold, and am letting you know since you're the primary author, but weren't the nominator. Most of the issues are prose-related, so it shouldn't take too long to fix, ideally. Also, make sure you keep up with nominations you place on hold, I shouldn't be seeing ones that have been on hold for a month. Wizardman 21:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

James White

Hello. I just want to say thanks for the work on the James White article. srushe (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Development of the World Chess Championship

Hi, Our roads have finally crossed :). Sorry for my two edits. First I thought the whole article was just removed and replaced by a redir, but then I saw he did an attempt for a merge. But obviously, like you point out, there was no concensus whatsoever to do so. If you think these articles need to be separated, his edits can simply be reverted as he suggests here: Wikipedia:CHESS#..._to_merge. Best regards, Voorlandt (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Phyla

Season's greetings! I mentioned the annelids because I thought they'd been omitted from the original list; I guess that evolutionary order does make sense. I don't think I have any strong preferences at the moment! Best wishes, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 12:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Bald Ibis

Thanks for taking this on, I'll be out most of today, but just two comments for now

• I prefer manual conversion, and the convert template is not terribly accurate
• Bird GA and FA always use Breeding as the section heading

jimfbleak (talk) 06:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Your Commons image re the evolution of the mammalian jaw

Hello Philcha. I am hoping to be able to use your splendid Wikimedia Commons image depicting homologies between the mammalian jaw and a non-mammalian amniote in my forthcoming book for Hodder and Staughton: The Selfless Gene. We are at proof stage, and we have just discovered that the resolution of the internet image isn't high enough. Do you have a higher resolution copy that we could use? I'd be very grateful, and of course you'd be fully acknowledged. Could you email me directly both to tweedpipe@aol.com and charles.foster@ethox.ox.ac.uk Many thanks and all best wishes.Charles Tweedpipe (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

NBI

Thanks for your thoughtful comments on the ibis. I've started responding/fixing, but running out of steam now, will continue tomorrow jimfbleak (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

North Sea

Seasons greetings and happy new year. Took some more time and added more references. Replaced some website references...tried to find reliable references or google book citations. Took out some article material not referenced. Re-wrote sections to comply to information in references available. I hope it meets GA now in regards to references at least. I tried to find every fact that was mentioned in the article and add in an inline citation for it. I tried to open every reference put on the article by other editors and make sure the statment matched the reference. This is a unique experience as the article is always changing with editor additions, but went through again. Tried to add progress in history as well. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 22:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Superman Returns

Hello. I noticed you are reviewing Superman Returns for GA-status. Anyway, I'm the main contributor and I noticed there are a number of concerns which need to be fixed. (It's not All my fault =). So, just go ahead and fail the nomination. You have my permission, and hopefully I can get that article back into shape some time in the future. Cheers. Wildroot (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Turbellaria

On 31 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Turbellaria, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

NBI

thanks for adding the images and passing the article. I've replaced the hieroglyph image with a freehand sketch, which should avoid copyright issues. jimfbleak (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

North Sea

Are you going to finish your GA review of the North Sea article? If not, I will gladly finish it for you. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 03:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, just checking. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Jim Baxter in Scotland shirt.png

Thanks for uploading File:Jim Baxter in Scotland shirt.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Good article nomination

Hello Philcha - you recently requested some progress on Bouncer (doorman), or you would have to fail the process. I would really like to get this over the line, and would be happy to work on this a lot during the next days.

However, as you can see on the GA page, some other user has now taken offense, and has claimed "This article needs a massive overhaul.", listing about twenty things (some pedantic details, other massive, far-reaching questions) that he wants changed. This sounds more comprehensive than "Featured article" requirements to me - he basically wants everything, and there's no promise at all that he will be happy with anything we write or rewrite. Plus, he also wants the images discarded, apparently just because we can't provide legal proof they actually show bouncers!

This is extremely disheartening - I am about to give up and say "fuck it" (excuse me). Before I do so, can you please clarify two things

a) What do YOU require to pass it as a GA - I know you already noted some things (and I would be working on these, such as (for example) doormen during Nazi times. But do you feel that any of his change demands are required in addition?

b) Can you pass or fail it, or does he have a say too? In other words, if you agreed that the article is GA, could he say "No way" and make all our work for naught?

Please respond here on your page, I will also tell the other main contributor. Ingolfson (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Evolutionary history of life

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Evolutionary history of life you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.)—RJH (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Greased lightnin'! For a self-styled non-specialist you ask some penetrating questions.

I've fixed some of the points you raised, and responded to the rest. I think the first issue we need to resolve is how big the article should become. Normally I'm a moderate inclusionist but, because of the scope of Evolutionary history of life, I thought it necessary to apply WP:SUMMARY quite ruthlessly. --Philcha (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I've updated the comments. If you could take a few moments to look, it would be appreciated.

There seems to be a natural dividing line between the initial part of the article and the discussion of multi-cellular lifeforms. I'd like to suggest a split at that point; doing so would remove most of the concerns about length and allow for continued natural growth, as it were. It may also address the issue with the length of the lead. The sub-pages could then be summarized.—RJH (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, its an important article. Please e-mail me if you need access to journal articles. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've responded to the comments you made to-day. As far as I can see there are only 2 items outstanding:

• "Why nothing about the reasons for the evolution of photosynthesis?" which is part of a comment you half struck out.
• Ref formatting, which I suggest is best left to last. --Philcha (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you. All of my concerns have been resolved, except for the ref. formats.—RJH (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! A fine piece of work. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, and for having the patience to review such a monster. Your comments have led to some real improvements. --Philcha (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad I could be of assistance. Good job on putting that page together; it's an interesting and informative read.—RJH (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

North Sea

Hello there. Am trying something new. Does it help, before I go on and on and on. The Early History and Early modern period sections have quotations embedded within their reference citation templates to show their support for the text in question. Will start on Modern era section next. SriMesh | talk 02:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Golden White-eye GA

I've addressed your points. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was me that gets annoyed by increasing MOS demands. For example..... Sorry about this, it's something I forgot first time round. With refs to books, page numbers are officially required. In the the case of dictionaries etc. I think the name of the entry is more useful as it will not change in new editions etc., and reviewers of "my own" articles have been happy with this. I suppose you could use the chapter= param for this, althout I generally use the contribution= param of {{citation}} (which {{cite book}} annoyingly does not support). Either way, please identify the entry. Come again? I already consider mandatory page numbers imbecilic to the extreme. Let's see, a sceptical moron doesn't believe a fact and wants to check, so he manages to locate a library with the book in question, get to that library, track down the book using Dewey Decimal, open the book, only to fall at the last hurdle by his inability to use an index!. Only now you suggest that having been pointed to the right page they will still be stuck? Is it not obvious that the entry needed to show what Cleptornis is well, is Cleptornis? Just how dumb are our readers? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I lump all those things into a general hatred of instruction creep. But my point about not doing FAs anymore is more related to results versus effort. For the same effort I can get three or four important articles up to a decent B standard or one semi-important article up to FA. As you've no doubt noticed my area of interest is content not polish. As for making articles less techincal, it is a balance between dumbing down too much and making things to technical. As WP:JARGON states (and I hate the term jargon, it's rude) an article which defines every term, or every symbol, may be so cluttered that it is not readable by anybody. I don't use to many obscure terms, but I do use them when explaining the term would break up the flow of the sentences and they are commonly used in biology. But anyway, I've been a terrible reviewee, so I'll stop bitching now. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Jim Baxter

On January 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jim Baxter, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

WikiThanks

Thank you for the barnstar--it really made my week. I mentioned the AfD you talked about here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Excellent_Article_for_deletion_debates. I will look forward to seeing you on the AfD circuit, keep up the good work dear knight. travb (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Philcha, you didn't finish your comment:

"The English newspaper [[The Guardian] also printed the"

I think the current RfC you propose maybe too long. travb (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just trying to help you. :)

I am no good at Herding cats, I get to frustrated at the fluid multiple opinions and tired of stroking fledgling egos.

Maybe its just better if I step back and let other editors argue away.

I fear by saying your current RfC is too long, and attempting to change the name only, then you may not support a name change alone.

I want to be a road to progress, not a wall. I am always worried I am being a wall. travb (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Philcha. You have new messages at Inclusionist's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your note

Hi Philcha, thanks for bringing the discussion at WT:VAN to my attention, but I'm concerned that your notes are a problem per WP:CANVASS; you state that there's a consensus, I see no such thing in that discussion. And the "tougher on vandals" wording is hardly neutral. On the other hand, I don't think we've met or you'd have any reason to think I'd weigh in on one side or another, so that's a good thing. I'd just recommend making sure you're really familiar with the canvassing guideline and that you're in line with it when you invite people into discussions. Thanks much. Peace, delldot ∇. 20:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)