User talk:TCO

Merry Christmas!

Fallschirmjäger ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Redirect me if not sure

Hey there! For astatine, I'd love to add alpha half-lives (half-lives if we ignore all other decays except alpha) for 210At and 211At, rather than just usual half-lives and alpha decay probability. I know there's a rule that every number in an article should be cited. After I had realized I couldn't find them cited, I turned on my math skills. After about 40minutes of thinking, I got the answer. Since it only requires numbers I can easily cite (if haven't already done that) and math (not pretty simple) (and this site, which helped me to turn meaningless expressions like log₂(20000/19964) into numbers I can insert into a calculator), is there a way of inserting this info into the article? Thanks in advance, and if you're not sure, could you tell someone to contact?

Also, I've got a few questions about your work on fluorine. When should I ask them, now or after you finish the work and get to PR? I want you to know: I'm sure that after you explain, I'll be pretty OK with it. I trust you, man. --R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

At: jJust cite the source for the activity. Conversion to a half-life is trivial. I am on your side. I don't think you need some note explaining the trivial conversion either. No one will question it or notice.

F: Speak.

TCO (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

test

2 edits	Largest prehistoric animals
2 edits	Acherontemys
1 edits	Calipee
1 edits	Painted turtle
1 edits	Rhinoclemmys panamaensis
1 edits	Olive ridley sea turtle
1 edits	Bairdemys
1 edits	Aldabra giant tortoise
1 edits	World Turtle Day
1 edits	Turtle farming

These are the articles that have been edited the most within the last three days. Last updated 21 July 2024 by HotArticlesBot.

test elements

20 edits	Nonmetal
13 edits	Europium
12 edits	Lise Meitner
8 edits	Unbinilium
7 edits	Actinium
7 edits	Gadolinium
6 edits	Aluminium
5 edits	Metal
5 edits	Carbon-14
5 edits	Neptunium compounds

These are the articles that have been edited the most within the last seven days. Last updated 21 July 2024 by HotArticlesBot.

Hot Articles request

Hey TCO, unfortunately due to ongoing problems with the toolserver, I'm often not able to successfully run the script for projects with more than about 2000 articles (and even ones with only 1000 articles time-out sometimes). I need to rewrite the script so it can work around the time-out problem, but it might not happen for a while. I'll go ahead and set up WikiProject Elements, but there's a good chance it won't work reliably :( Kaldari (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate your trying. There are only 118 elements. We do have an article on the Periodic table and on the various columns and rows and such. Much less than 1000 that matter. I guess we have a lot of pages on the ions, but maybe there is some way to exclude them if that puts us over the limit. Like by a category or subproject (it used to be one) or the like.TCO (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's working for now. Keep your fingers crossed! Kaldari (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Now get back to the workhouse! :) Kaldari (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice. Kaldari (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Improving

• Comment left at User talk:TCO/Improving Wikipedia's important articles –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

test

hello [[User:TCO|TCO]] ([[User:TCO#Reviews needed||Reviews needed]]) (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

TCO (Reviews needed) 00:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

A friendly warning

This remark of yours has just been brought to my attention. I am rather disappointed that no one seems to have taken the time to discuss it with you at the point it was made. I realise it was a month ago. However, I simply want to make clear that the remark is utterly unacceptable, a clear breach of civility, and the invective about "pussy juice leaking out of its nutsack" particularly offensive. Any reasonable editor would be aware that it was likely to offend, and thus be disruptive of a healthy editing environment. Had I seen the remark at the time, I would have blocked you without hesitation. Whatever your intention, please refrain from that type of rhetoric in future, which can only serve to harm the editing environment. Please consider this a warning, designed to prevent you stumbling into issues going forward.--Scott Mac 01:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This warning is frankly crap. There is no personal attack contained in the diff, and per the recent village pump policy discussion you ought not to warn over words. Pull your head in Scott, your action is not supported by community consensus on what civility policy ispolicy and community consensus formed around perennial attempts to produce policy on the role of specific language within civility is. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC) [Struck and amended at Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)]

Civility is about creating a conducive working environment. That post offended at least one user (and reasonably would offend more) - needlessly offending people is something good Wikipedians avoid doing.--Scott Mac 01:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reading comprehension problem, the community has clearly spoken: policyfailure to form policy on language in civility? Fifelfoo (talk) [Struck and amended at Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)]

That page does not say what you are making out. "To the extent that discussions remain WP:CIVIL consensus is clearly against language restrictions" - I completlet agree with that. "To the extent that discussions remain CIVIL"--Scott Mac 01:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Individual offence is not incivility; stop playing the school marm and the defender of helpless ladies. You may also want to exit the area of civility as you cannot sufficiently explain a warning over civility. Your assumptions of self-evident content, and over what the nature of policy is, are so deeply flawed as to make these contributions a pointy support of some normative morality you possess. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever.--Scott Mac 02:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Scott, who did it offend? I'm at something of a loss here. The comment strikes me as possibly vulgar, but that's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It is gratuitously vulgar. A female editor found it to be offensive and sexist.--Scott Mac 19:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I figured out who it was. There is a history and a grievance there, not related to civility.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I saw it when it was posted and thought it was disgusting. My reaction: unwatch the page. In my view, that's the best way to deal with something like this. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a warning? Malleus Fatuorum has just been indeffed (now at ArbCom) for ostensibly much the same use of language. There's more backstory to both of these, but neither are "parliamentary expressions" that either editor should be using. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

As a woman from America who has lived in England, what Malleus said offends me far less because I understand that the word is used differently, i.e often directed by men at men in cities such as Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, etc. As an American woman I understand exactly what TCO was saying & the spirit, and I found it to be mean-spirited. That's the difference. In case anyone cares. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Very well, opinion expressed and no doubt taken on board. Anything else to be done here?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

As a man from Glasgow, I'm aware of the usage of "cunt", and while it is not particularly sexist, it is the language of the macho gutter, which even men who use it among men would seldom repeat outside that circle of male friends. And we really don't want to go to the lowest common denominator of what men feel free to say to male friends in a pub, as a mark of what's acceptable in wikipedia. Trust me, we don't.--Scott Mac 20:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbs asked for examples of inconsistent civility enforcement, so ... Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence#Evidence submitted by SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Scott, that language was unacceptable. TCO, your talk page is on my watchlist now, as well as several others I presume. You don't repeat the behavior, then there's no problem. OK? Cla68 (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Reviewers?

Hi, I'm with the Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2011. I saw that you had written on User:JimmyButler's talk page about how one of my classmates should go write on a reviewer's talk page to get someone to review her article that had been up for peer review for a few weeks. I already had about three different editors go through my article and proofread and help me with some referencing issues, and they told me that it was ready for GA review. Then I had one of my classmates go through and review it also, and after fixing some of his suggestions and explaining why I wasn't changing some others, he told me he thought it was ready for GA review too. I nominated it last night, but I don't want to wait weeks for a reviewer because our classtime for this project is almost over. My article is the Olympic marmot. I understand that there are certain editors with expertise in different topics. Do you possibly know of someone that I could request to do my GA review, even if he isn't a marmot expert? I'd really appreciate your help! --Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hit up Ucucha, Visionholder, Sasata, and Casliber. The first two are expert mammalologists. Third and fourth have job and Wiki biology strengths in general. If those don't work, then I'll just give you some general peeps.

I skimmed it. Looks long, which is usually good (I want meat on the bone, want info...we can shape that to perfection, but if you have not done the research...) Actually looks like more info than your classmates. I think the sexual dimorphism is repeated in differen sections. Have it in one or the other (probably description). You can repeat stuff into the lead of course (have to, should actually since lead is a summary), but other than that, don't duplicate same point.

May be some other things, I just totally skimmed it, but it really looks ready to be in the GA queue, so I would just ask for a GA review (not more pre-GA stuff). Good luck, dude. Keep after it. Squeeky wheel and early bird and all that.TCO (Reviews needed) 16:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the part about sexual dimorphism in the taxonomy so it's now it's only mentioned in the lead and in the description. I'll stay on top of it and go ask those users you mentioned right now. Thank you so much! Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Few more names: ORlady, Tonythetiger, Hawkeye7, NYMFan, MaterialScientist, Kevin Myers, Mike Searson. They aren't biologists, but are just some heavy hitters in the content world. Might not have all the names spelled right, but that can be a little work for you to figure it out.  ;-) Peace, babe, and Happy New Year! TCO (Reviews needed) 16:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I got them all! Hopefully I'll get a reviewer soon. Thanks again! Happy New Year to you too! I hope it's a good one ;) Imthebombliketicktick (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2011 Year-End Report We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2011. Read all about these in the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report. Highlights Membership grows to 764 editors, an increase of 261 Report on coordinators' elections Around 1,000 articles removed through six Backlog elimination drives Guild Plans for 2012 Requests page report Sign up for the January 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Get your copy of the Guild's 2011 Year-End Report here On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. We look forward to your support in 2012! – Your 2011 Coordinators: Diannaa (lead), The Utahraptor, and Slon02 and SMasters (emeritus).

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Value judgements at FPC

We get that you don't agree with the featured picture criteria (and there never will be a "TCO has determined the subject to be important" criterion, so I'm not sure you ever will), and I know it's going to take you a while to get into your head that you are being unambiguously disruptive by opposing on your made up criteria, but surely even you can see that to claim that a subject is completely unimportant despite having not even read the opening line of the article is just ridiculous? J Milburn (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I will try not to be disruptive. I do think you should allow different perspectives. If you start tossing out my votes, I will just not participate, but I think that will be a loss for your program, not a gain. Sometimes it is worthwhile to allow different ideas, even if you don't agree. And encyclopedicity can be a spectrum not an on/off. (I mean we don't list every technical blemish as an on/off decision or an equation either.) Do you just want robots or people actually thinking about the stuff. I do try to engage with this stuff and look at the articles and such. Purely technical discussions will lose a lot and you end up disconnected from really serving articles and readers. Anyhow, I really think you should allow alternate viewpoints, man. Even ones you disagree with.TCO (Reviews needed) 14:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Look, I agree with you completely about allowing different perspectives, and I certainly agree with you with regards to the on/off of "encyclopedicity", but dismissing certain images because they're of something that you personally don't care about (or do not meet criteria that you personally have arbitrarily decided) is most certainly not in the spirit of cooperation, or anything to do with the featured picture criteria. Yes, there may be grounds for being stricter on incredible minor topics or more leniant on incredibly important topics (though, on the flip side, we may say that with the important topics, it's important to get it right). There are certainly grounds for being harsher/more leniant depending on the rarity of the photograph. However, what you're doing is not fair, and is not based on the featured picture criteria; it's based on your well-known and clearly apparent agenda. If you were editing like this in other areas, you'd face blocks for pushing your point of view, tendentious editing and so on. People have made quite clear where you can go and stick your ideas and theories when you've pushed them elsewhere; that doesn't mean you can just move onto the next process. As I've said before, I liked you as a person, and had respect for you as an editor, before this whole situation; I'd love to get back to that, and I'd love to see more of your articles. I hope you won't take this too personally.

There's no way I want tickboxes for the criteria and robots for the reviewers. I'm a philosopher, not a computer scientist. However, this isn't a free-for-all. As a point of comparison, two Biblical scholars could have a legitimate disagreement about the meaning of a particularl parable; that doesn't mean someone else can come along and say "this parable should be ignored, because the sky is blue and today is Friday". Especially when it isn't Friday. J Milburn (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm just calling it the way I see it. Is it a viewpoint or an agenda or just taking a wider perspective? Could be the same thing but all have different connotations. It's not some sneaky thing. This is how I've always voted.

Honest, just start throwing my votes out and I will disengage. There is no need to threaten a block or vote to get rid of me or any of that white blood cells resisting the foreign organism stuff.

I still think you lose and become more insular if you toss out a different perspective. I am really trying to engage with the pics and the articles.

I'm not discussing it further, here. You and I are repeating points.TCO (Reviews needed) 15:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I have ideals; you have an agenda; they are conspiring. Highly irregular verb.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Fluorine paper

Hi TCO. I can get hold of that fluorine paper you want, but not for a week or so. If no one else gets it to you by then, drop me an email (I'll need to send it to you by email) and I'll get on to it. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Stupid me, I should have said that I meant "The early history of hydrofluoric acid" SmartSE (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sent.TCO (Reviews needed) 21:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting post

And thanks for leaving it although in the current climate I might have smiled a bit more, if you know what I mean. Have you ever seen this? Most interesting. I was a bit surprised to see who supported elections, in 2007.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Pathetic. (that old discussion.) Wiki seems to attract people who want to have control over others. To play moderator. I wouldn't want a volunteer job if I couldn't pass an election. I respect the admins who have done followup RFAs. Not the pry from my dead hand types.TCO (Reviews needed) 13:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ouch. Hope you don't mean me. I consider my use of the tools inoffensive.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean you (whatever that means). I'm not as smart as you think I am. Like I have no idea what smiled a bit more means. It's fine though.

I respect you even if we disagree sometimes. No one sees everything 100% alike. Besides, you have lots to be proud of, huge stuff...no question, and shouldn't lose sweat on what TCO thinks! But, if it makes good feeling, same as I told Malleus, it is very favorable. FWIW.

Still two days of Xmas left...TCO (Reviews needed) 16:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not important. Thanks though.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Basically I was trying to hint what Carcharoth said rather more bluntly.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your comments at WT:FAC

I've temporarily redacted the comments you made in that discussion at WT:FAC, and pointed people to your talk page for details. In an edit just before that, I've stated my objections to the atmosphere your comments there have created. I'm asking you to please rewrite what you said and remove the personalised comments. Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I've shown less disrespect to others than others have to me. And I stand behind the remarks. It is plain speaking.

FAC should not be a single person's preserve. You all are WAY too trapped in that mindset. And no emphasis on growth or outreach. Just more discussion of the same people. We need to stop thinking about one person and think about the program.

Actually I did not see a big kerfuffle after my remarks so that part of your comment is off. Probably more accurate to just say you disagreed with the tone per se than that it prompted a scuffle.

I'm not going to rewrite my comment. You can, if you care. End of discussion.

TCO (Reviews needed) 01:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The only points you'd really need to rewrite are points B and E (and possibly a few other bits I may have missed). What I will do is add a diff there to your original comments (so they aren't censored, and anyway, one of the comments was quoted back at you) and a diff to what you've said here, and then leave it at that. What I'm trying to do here is ensure the discussion doesn't go off the rails, and people carry on commenting. Carcharoth (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I trust you. Do what you think best. Thanks for taking care of it, man.TCO (Reviews needed) 01:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)