User talk:Cryptic C62

A note on coherency: You may prefer to respond to a message here, or you may prefer to respond on your page. I'll watch both pages, so do whichever you want. I'll try to follow suit.

WikiProject Halo

Wikiproject Halo Call to Members In order to streamline and coordinate further improvement to Halo-related articles, there is an active roll call to all Wikipedians who put themselves down as participants. To show your continued involvement in the project, simply go here and sign your name. If you do not wish to be active, et al, simply ignore this notice and you will not be bugged again. Thanks, David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!)

Interview re: WP:JUDAISM, yes

Hi Cryptic: Thank you for contacting me. Sorry I took a little but I have been busy with some Internet projects off Wiki. I would be happy to do an interview for the Signpost regarding WP:JUDAISM issues with which I have been heavily involved for over six years on Wikipedia. Contact me via my talk page as to what you have in mind and you can also send me a reminder via the "E-mail this user" on my talk page. Let me know what you have in mind. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 06:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Cryptic: I was away for a couple of days, but I have now started with the interview @ User:Cryptic C62/Workspace2 and given some extensive views. Tell me what you think. Feel free to ask more. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi Cryptic. I just answered question two. I enjoy writing and you may feel free to use or not use whatver you like that I wrote for you in the interview. Just please do not quote me out of context. Feel free to ask whatever you wish. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Hi again. Have answered question #3. Feel free to follow up and keep going. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Ok then, answered your final one. Feel free to stay in touch, and if I can help, please ask. Thanks again. IZAK (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for GRB 970508

On March 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article GRB 970508, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Elements Report

Avid reader and fan of the report here. :) For the next report, could you add the group & period articles along with chemical element and periodic table? Those articles are just as important to WP:ELEMENTS as the element articles themselves. --mav (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Aye, Nergaal mentioned this when I first started publishing the report. I didn't really want to at the time, but if you're both interested, then I'll do it. I'll incorporate them into the report within the next couple of days. If you think of any other articles you want included, feel free to list them here or on the WP:ELEMENTS talk page. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 06:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Signpost next week

I'm on a sort of semi-wikibreak, but I'll attempt to get an interview together with WikiProject China. If I can't get round to it, would you mind doing it this week? Thanks,  GARDEN  21:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that'll be fine. I've already contacted IZAK of WikiProject Judaism, so it shouldn't be any problem. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much :) I'll probably be able to get one down for the 22nd.  GARDEN  21:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you got it?  GARDEN  22:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Argh, nevermind, I see that you have. Thanks!  GARDEN  22:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ken Goodwin

Date corrected to 7 April 1933. Source 'Who's Who on Television' ITV books 3rd edition 1985--Sealman (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Cookie!

download has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

-download | sign! 02:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In the news

Howdy! Are you planning to do "In the news" for the Signpost for the imminent issue? If not (and if you don't wish do it regularly any longer) that's fine, we just need to indicate that the beat is open for someone else to step up.--ragesoss (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, I think I should probably step down from the beat. I'm just not that interested anymore, plus I'm busier now with article work than I used to be. I'll keep doing WikiProject reports though. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for all the work on it you did!--ragesoss (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries, mate. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject China interview

Sure, I don't mind being interviewed. Thanks for the consideration. Is there a particular time you want to do this or have responses submitted? I'm going to be rather busy today until about 5:00 pm (EST), so it would be best if we could conduct this afterward.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So are we done with the interview?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a question: when will our interview be featured at the Signpost? I would hate to miss it. Thanks.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

RGB FAC

You struck out the issues, by doing that it lets the delegates and directors know that the issues are resolved, so no worries. In addition, I only review for techy stuff like the disambiguation and external links, and the ref formatting, so I can't give a !vote based on that, sorry.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Wow. Major embarrassment.

Well, I suppose the number of times I've screwed up still outweighs this :P I suppose we could try and merge the two, might be a little difficult (well, obviously) but should be manageable.  GARDEN  21:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! Maybe that would be a good idea :D  GARDEN  20:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Permission

I've just updated that periodic table, type in File:Periodic Table by Radioactivity.pre.jpg. Pi399 (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Interview

I'm all for it. Wrad (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject articles

Hi there. If you're ever short of WikiProjects to interview, I would be more than willing to help represent Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy. — Deckiller 19:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that works for me. — Deckiller 20:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent—I'll add the page to my watchlist. — Deckiller 22:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I just posted the first answer; I'll be online for the next couple hours, so feel free to ask the next one. — Deckiller 21:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Gamma-ray burst

An article is never done, but perhaps this one is ready for a FA candidacy? Jehochman ^Talk 20:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, talk about perfect timing, I was just about to talk to you about that. After giving it some thought, I've decided to split the History section off into a separate daughter article at History of gamma-ray burst research (I'm currently in preview mode as I write this). It'll take some more work before I'm satisfied with that, but I've come to realize that if I continue to expand it, it'll just be way too huge for the main GRB article. Hell, it's already too large as it is now! So yeah, I'll just finish splitting it off and shaving down the section in the main article, then we'll go for the FAC. Sound good? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, would you mind taking a look at the history section? It's difficult for me to decide what should get the axe since I wrote most of it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I will, tomorrow. Good work! Jehochman ^Talk 03:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please check how it reads. I did not summarize the current missions section because that one is short and has a nice picture. Jehochman ^Talk 03:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Woot, that was fast. I read through it and made some minor changes. I think it definitely makes sense to end with the beaming/non-beaming thing, as I haven't come across anything that definitively supports either theory. As for the FAC, should we start it tonight or wait until tomorrow when we're not tired? Also, do you want to make the page and the nom statement or would you like me to? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. I'll ride shotgun. Jehochman ^Talk 02:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I think I'll just finish converting the references to the new format for consistency (since someone's bound to bring that up at FAC) over the next day or so and then create the nomination page. Also, very cool news! Today I sent an email to my physics professor asking if he knew anything about gamma-ray bursts. His response:

“ Believe it or not but the following wikipedia entry has quite a good

description what we know about GRB: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst

”

Made my day :) --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

GRB 970508

Its difficult to help out with an article when a person makes instant reversions to ongoing and unfinished edits. While I appreciate you may not agree with some of the changes I made, I think it might have been a good idea just to hold fire and wait to see what the end result was before you dived feet-first. I was going to read through the entire article in the FAC review (I had already began to do so, and comments have been made in the FAC review), but your 'mindlessly' edit comments were a bit off-putting. Good luck with the article, although I don't think I'll be giving any more time to it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

FAC zinc

Hi Cryptic, Thanks for the hlep in the FAC, but striking things in the FAC should only be done by the persone who made the comment. Better write a Done below the comment. (there the people do not like the use of the green hook images). FAC has its rules of its own. Thanks for the help and with the reviewers we will have all the problems solved soon. --Stone (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

GRB FA

Congrats on the shiny star! Sorry I didn't get a chance to reply to you sooner. Wronkiew (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations from me too! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 12:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hee, thanks mate. About time I got my second one, eh? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Project merge

We have merged WikiProject Final Fantasy into WikiProject Square Enix; this could change the tone and scope of the interview significantly. — Deckiller 16:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Molybdenum

Hi Cryptic, you did some work on the molybdenum article (back in 2007), and on my way through the transition metals I will take a stop at molybdenum in the next time. If you have some time you can help to get it to GA, or only to a solid B, which is not the case, when somebody takes a closer look. --Stone (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on Jehochman's talk page

Hi Cryptic,

I have read your recent comment on Jehochman's talk page. It seems that you are interested in issues related to verifiability and determining reliable sources. If you already had a look at the 9/11-related articles and talk-pages, you might already be familiar with the battleground nature of the discussion that is going on there. Sadly, any policy item (or sound bite) that seems to lend some credibility to a claim is used there, no matter how relevant to the actual question.

There were even arguments along the line: We agree that there is a primary source (FBI) that shows that a secondary source (CNN) was wrong on an issue (phone call as proof for the use of box cutters), but, as WP uses only secondary sources, the information should remain in the article. The sentence on the boxcutters is still in the text, and trying to remove it would probably result in an edit war, with administrative measures following.

I don't wan't to drag you into this mess. However, I have tried to decouple the discussion on one of the policy issues that should be addressed by posting a comment on the talk page of WP:Verifiability. There is already some discussion there, maybe this discussion and possibly a specific proposal can be put to the village pump or some other place where it will get more attention later on. Please feel free to join the discussion on this page. --Cs32en (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Cs32en, Cryptic and I have been working together closely on gamma ray burst. If he's willing to look at the issues you bring up, that's fine with me, but he might not be completely neutral due to our past collaboration. Jehochman ^Talk 19:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Cs32en wrote: "I don't wan't to drag you into this mess." That's all I needed to read. Not interested. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That's ok with me. Happy editing! --Cs32en (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

GRB FAC

Hey mate. Most of your concerns at the GRB FAC have been replied to. Would you mind having another look and seeing which ones still remain? I only have about 24 more hours of access to the book sources, so any feedback made in that time would be extremely helpful. Thanks! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay I looked it over. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit needs checking

[1] looks like it might need a new reference if it is accurate. Jehochman ^Talk 19:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently discussing it with the author. It seems to check out based on the information and refs in GRB 090423. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Interview

Hey there: I finished the draft of the interview, and I'll be giving it a polish over the next couple days. If you have any suggestions about how to improve/polish my answers, feel free to provide them. — Deckiller 12:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it looks very good to me. I'll start the publishing process and post the interview in the newsroom, but you're more than welcome to keep tweaking your answers all day today and tomorrow. Thanks for the good work, mate! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and tweak it up tonight. — Deckiller 20:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I just had an idea: you should ask me what my favorite Final Fantasy is :) — Deckiller 21:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's all set, unless you wanted to add things like a quote box or an image. — Deckiller 11:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In The News

Hi, Pretzels. I have completed a draft In The News for this week. Since you're listed as a backup, think you could take a look over it and add/fix what is there? Xclamation point 23:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:MJJ

Hey, I was reading this and I would be open to being interviewed about WP:MJJ if you are ever interested. Best. — R² 08:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure! I was just about to start looking for the next project to report on. This certainly takes care of that step. So here's how the process works: I'll post questions to this page, usually just one or two at a time. There's nothing there now, obviously, but I'll start asking questions once you confirm that you're good to go. My report is due on May 10, which gives us plenty of time. I'll keep posting questions until we either get close to the deadline or we have a good solid page of content (usually five to seven questions) and I can't think of anything else. If you don't understand a particular question or don't want to answer it for whatever reason, just leave a note here or on the interview talk page. Feel free to tweak your answers after we've already moved on to other questions. That should be all there is to it. Thanks, mate! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem :) — R² 15:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Interview feedback

Hello. Thanks for the message. I think it's a distinct improvement, especially up to #5. After that, however, most of the information elicited is pretty generic: 6: "I've become a decent copy-editor... I've become effective at writing concise synopses... I've learned that debates on Wikipedia can be very intense". 7: "Users should understand our policies and guidelines, as well as the specific guidelines for the WikiProject.... all editors — not just newcomers — should understand that editing Wikipedia is a team activity...." I think these points are true of many editors and projects. Questions like these last two will elicit similar thoughts week after week. What if, instead of the next couple of interviews, you put all of these interview points gleaned from all the previous interviews, together into an essay that you serialize over a couple of Signposts and then post permanently, somewhere easy to find, about the purpose and benefits of wikiprojects, and how editors can most effectively contribute to Wikipedia and wikiprojects. I think that this paragraph (from answer #7 this week), for example, has a great idea that could be included in such an essay: "I also suggest that users work on articles that have not yet reached good or featured status. Maintaining healthy articles [GAs and FAs] is always necessary, but it should be a low priority when there are other articles on life support. Instead of ten users spending a week debating the length of a plot summary, I'd like to see users spend that very same time sourcing a poor article or merging redundant content." I would also add "researching an article and expanding the content of short articles should have a much higher priorty than debating grammatical points". In any case, I think this is a better interview, but I still wonder how the wikiproject to be featured each week is selected. Is it random, or are they considered to be particularly in need of the publicity? Or, if publicity is not the purpose of these interviews, what is? And how are the particular interview subjects chosen? I would suggest, as a minimum criterion, that the editors chosen must have succeeded at getting at least x number of articles promoted to FA. But, I would really rather see a regular feature on, say, editing tips, than more interviews. Just my 2 cents. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: WikiProject Report feedback

Hmm, good points raised there. I'll keep them in mind for my next interview. Speaking of, maybe I should get a move on :)  GARDEN  20:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Outdent template

I think {{outdentarrow}} is a great idea. Thanks for taking the initiative. It may well become my new favourite template!   user:j    (aka justen)   03:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

had to laugh

First let me say that I did not understand this diff [2] at all, though we appear to be of the same mind. I did however have to laugh at your spelling in your edit summary! Now there's a great wiki user name! :D --Best, Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Analgoy. I'm an idiot. Anywho, allow me to explain what was meant by my 'analgoy': Carpenter A represents a user who is polite and nice and all that crap but has a history of abusing a certain tool. Carpenter B represents a user who is a major cockbag, but who has never abused that certain tool. While instincts may lead one to give the tool to the person who is "nice", the correct course of action is to give it to the person who seems least likely to abuse it. Again, I didn't read through the exasperatingly boring details of this convoluted case, but from what I've gleaned, the user in question is Carpenter B, and should thus retain the use of his tools. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No, not an idiot. Your mind is just faster than your fingers! Thanks for the clarification, Cryptic. (I won't call you AnalGoy, though the temptation is there ;) Best, Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, now that I've gotten your attention, check this out! I created this nifty little template {{oda}} (stands for outdentarrow) for use in big discussions. When you hover over the arrow, it says "Outdent". You seem to be active on the West Bank Who Even Knows What's Going On page, so maybe if you use it, it'll catch on. I'd like to see some kind of standardized outdenting rather than the superbly horrendous {{outdent}}. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You know what, I noticed that a bit further up on your talk page, and was thinking of stealing it without attribution, she said, hanging her head in shame. It is really neat! How do you do that? Is it a compiled program or what? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC) -- oh and ps: You sure got the name of that page down pat. :D

It's really simple, actually. Take a look at the code:

<span style small title=Outdent>(←)</span>

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

definitely neat. Where does the code tell wiki that it is a template and how does it turn it from the code to the template? I hope I am not taking too much of your time. Best-- Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries, mate. If I weren't willing to waste my time, I certainly wouldn't be editing Wikipedia, would I? Take a gander at Template:outdentarrow. As you can see, there are two chunks to the page: The first is the template being used, and the second is the documentation. The documentation doesn't do much for templates as simple as these; with more complex templates, such as Template:Infobox GRB, it's essential. Anywho, if you hit the edit button, you'll see the following:

<span style small title=Outdent>(←)</span> <noinclude> {{documentation}} </noinclude>

The first part is the code itself as I showed you earlier. The second part is the documentation, which is stored on a separate page. The <noinclude> tags make it so that when you use the template, it doesn't show the documentation (or anything else you put between the tags). When you type {{outdentarrow}}, the wiki code recognizes the curly braces and trancludes the content of the target page (in this case, Template:outdentarrow) into the page that you're editing. So, to summarize, I wrote the code at Template:outdentarrow, and when you type {{outdentarrow}}, the page displays the result of the code that I wrote.

Finally, the reason {{oda}} works is because Template:oda is a redirect to Template:outdentarrow. Make sense? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I just went for a little walk with the dog. I am going to read it a few more times. I will let you know if I still have questions, since, as you so astutely noted, if one weren't willing to waste one's time ... You are a funny one. I am beginning to think that "Analgoy" was no accident! Meanwhile I will mull the template thing over. Best, Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't you add this under "See Also" on this page? Template:Outdent Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

By jove I think I've got it! :D Thank you. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, mate. I'm not exactly a technical wizard around here, but if you have any other questions, I'll help you figure it out. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Diffusion damping is a GA!

Hooray! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Very groovy. Wronkiew is like the iron chef of science GA reviews. Ready to resume the peer review thing? Also, what do you know about the Rambot Spike? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I am indeed ready to resume the peer review. I have also requested help from another physicist, as Wayne Hu won't respond to me. If you are asking about my knowledge of Wikipedian history, the answer is "yes", I have long known about that. I spend a lot of time procrastinating by surfing WP:STAT and related pages. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Righty-o, I'll have a look. I've been in contact with an particle physicist who works at CERN. Want me to ask him to take a look at the article? Also, what do you know about HyperCard? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how much a particle physicist would be able to help. Wait a few days on that. And no, I don't know anything about HyperCard that I didn't just read in its article. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Combination Company

Hey so i looked over combination company. The writing looks fine to me but there were a few issues that I found. You make reference to "generic properties" in the second paragraph of the Repertory v. Combination section without making it clear what they are. Also, the mention of Laura Keene in the Origin section seems a bit abrupt, perhaps give a few words on who she is as well as the link. Hope this helps.--Ylime715 · Talk 13:52, May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for this. It had been a change of bolding that had occurred to me before several times, and I had been intending to change it: nice to see that someone else saw the same issue. Geometry guy 21:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Aye, when I'm looking for any kind of review page (GAN, FAC, FAR, PR, AfD) my instinct is to always click on the boldest link, as that usually works. That the GA templates worked differently was a source of perpetual annoyance, as some of the computers I use are fairly slow. In cases like this, WP:Be Bold > WP:Have long drawn-out discussions before making minor changes that everyone will agree with :P --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

ITN

Hi, I can't get In The News this week, could you get it? Xclamation point 22:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:MJJ stuff

Hey, one interesting prospect is that WP:MJJ with join with WP:JANET and we will have a super Jackson family project instead. Might be something to discuss in our interview. Sorry it took a while to respond to the last question, I was very busy. — R² 11:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries, we still have another week. I'm a tad confused by a typo in your statement: "WP:MJJ with join with WP:JANET" did you mean to say it will join or it might join? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a possibility, so it might happen, sorry for any confusion. I will re propose it in the summer. We couldn't attain consensus on the issue last time around. — R² 15:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Combination company

On May 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Combination company, 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) 06:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for GRB 050709

On May 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article GRB 050709, 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.

Jamie^☆S93 18:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Reviewers Award
		To Cryptic C62, for an excellent review at the FAC nomination of Euclidean algorithm. Thank you for your dedication to improving that article. Karanacs (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Aww, thanks mate! Who says reviewing FACs is a thankless job? ;) --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for C. K. Alexander

On May 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article C. K. Alexander, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ralph G. Allen

On May 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ralph G. Allen, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Jonathan Alper

On May 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jonathan Alper, 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.

Jamie^☆S93 20:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and congratulations

My warmest congratulations to you and your collaborators in bringing Gamma-ray burst to Featured Article; and my warmest thanks for your keen reviewing of Euclidean algorithm. Proteins (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we're not quite there yet, but at this point it seems fairly certain that Gamma-ray burst will get the star. I see no harm in accepting your preemptive congratulations ;). As for the Euclidean algorithm, it's my pleasure. Our job is not to stare lovingly at the bronze stars we've amassed, but to create the best possible articles. It makes me happy to see that even after the release of stress that comes with the success of an FAC, you're still willing to work on the little stuff. I see that you've already started working on Fermat's Last Theorem. Let me know if you'd like me to take a look at that article at any point. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Gimmebot is a tad slow, but if you examine this diff, you may be reassured that Gamma-ray burst is a Featured Article at last. But please don't give up improving it after the release of stress that comes with the success of an FAC. ;)

I was already planning to ask you for help with Fermat's Last Theorem once it's more polished; thanks for offering! We're still adding raw material and rough-hewing it into shape, but if something occurs to you, I'd appreciate your insights. Proteins (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Will do! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For breaking my Wikipedia Signpost "cherry" so gently and ably. Lol! I of course made a mistake so added a correction[3] which I hope is OK. Thank you again for including the LGBT Wikiproject in your work! -- Banjeboi 22:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Expand language templates

They already exist! (but by different names.) See Category:Articles needing translation from foreign-language Wikipedias, which includes lots of categories like Category:Articles needing translation from Spanish Wikipedia. For big languages there are also subcategories by topic like Category:Geography articles needing translation from Spanish Wikipedia. I'm trying to overhaul the translation system so it is more useful. Soon I aim to do a recruitment drive for multilingual editors because I don't think people realize how much stuff is out there and how much easier it is to translate than to write articles from scratch! Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ralph Alswang

On May 31, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ralph Alswang, 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.

Royalbroil 20:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Daphne Anderson

On June 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Daphne Anderson, 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.

Royalbroil 08:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Your new category

I've responded to your post at the village pump, and at the discussion of the category itself. Needless to say, I am very excited about this, as it could eventually be one of the best resources we have on wikipedia.Drew Smith What I've done 06:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that we have slightly different views on the baseline of this project. I think I was seeing it more as a list than a category. Perhaps I could start such a list, and we could work together? If this wikiproject resources thing is still active, we could work with them as well.Drew Smith What I've done 01:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Synthetic diamond

Please look at discussion there. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest continue our work at Talk:Synthetic_diamond/FA1. The FA administrators have a point of keeping FA page out of blowing off (though it is clearly technically solvable) and I don't feel like to fight them now. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

An alternative was suggested there, namely peer review. What do you think of that ? Materialscientist (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

GRB thanks

Hey, thanks for your comment, and also for getting me off my tail and working on this article again.  :) I definitely hope to stick around and improve some of the other gamma-ray/transient astronomy articles if I have a chance, though for the next few weeks my schedule is filled with travel so it might be a little while! -- Daniel Perley (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK

You tagged the PokerTracker DYK hook as questionable and I corrected it two days ago. You have not given it the green light.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:File correction

Thanks; feel free to update the file (I don't have the skills to do it), or post what needs to be udpated on file's discussion page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

How much time do you have on your hands? Are you conflicted on Cold Fusion or User:Abd? Hipocrite (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, I have never worked on Cold Fusion, nor have I worked with Abd. I have time enough that I would be willing to help out however I can. What did you have in mind? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We need a third party honest broker. It might be helpful if you attempted to mediate a discussion what method we should use to determine what stable version we can come to agreement on on the talk page. I apologize for the very meta-ness of this reuqest, but one "side" doesn't trust the other "side" not to shenanigans the poll, and the other "side" thinks the first "side" is "a fox in the henhouse," which I assume mean that the poll they started is designed to dupe people into complatency so they can be eaten by an experienced wikipedian. This might take substantial time and have possibly little benefit, be forwarned. Hipocrite (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)