User talk:Philcha

Leave a new message.

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!

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.

North Sea

SriMesh ^talk has smiled at you! Thank you for taking the time to review the North Sea, your comments have both helped the article to come along, and have increased my understanding of how to edit an already started article. Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Flatworm

Due to the controversy in this review, I have removed it from WP:GAN and listed it at WP:GAR, where it will get the specific attention by multiple experienced GA reviewers. I am still rather disappointed that you described my review as a "incompetent, lazy review", because it is certainly not that at all. But I digress. I think the best way to resolve this issue is for other experienced reviewers to get involved at this point. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have listed it at WP:GAR. It takes a little while for the automated bot to add it to the page, but the GAR template was added to the talk page. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Please cease and desist your continued renominations of Flatworm to WP:GAN. It is inappropriate for an article that is currently listed at WP:GAR to be simultaneously listed in both places. The article has been removed from the GAN list again, and the GA3 review has been moved to the GAR reassessment review.

I am aware that there are issues with the GAR bot, because it's for some reason, still not listed on the WP:GAR page. But the article is in the GAR nominees category. I am working on getting that issue resolved as soon as possible -- I do not know what the issue is. But continuing your to buck the system is not helping. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(the following also posted to User talk:Derek.cashman

Scrap the GAR as a new GA review is in progress. I have reverted your redir as it disrupts that. In addition under the GAR rules the final decision is up to the person intitiating the GAR. In this case that is you. Since I was totally dissatisfied with all aspects of your performance with the first GA review, having you make the final decision is unacceptable. I have also reverted your removal of the new GA review from WP:GAN. You can terminate GA2 yourself. Do not interfere in any way with the GA review that is now proceeding. --Philcha (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The article has been reverted again. You need to stop slandering me on the GAN page as well. That is totally inappropriate and unacceptable for an editor. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this again, I see that no matter what I do, I can no longer be considered neutral with regards to this article by you, and I am removing myself from this process. The GA reassessment tag has been removed from the article, and I've relisted it at WP:GAN. My only request to you is that you review WP:CIVIL and refrain from slandering me on the GA nominations page, like you've done. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(copy of my response at User talk:Derek.cashman --Philcha (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

My objection to your initiating a GAR was that according to the GAR banner on the article's Talk page the final decision would have been yours. In addition your repeated removal to-day of my most recent renom destroyed the information that a review is now in progress, and therefore would have caused confusion at WP:GAN. I have therefore reverted your changes.

My comments there were not slanderous. Since the renoms for this review have, thanks to your actions, repeatedly disappeared from WP:GAN and been reinstated by me, I think some explanation was required. That I was dissatisfied with your performace is not slanderous, it is a statement about my feelings. "Tardy" is not slanderous, it is a fair description of the nearly 3 weeks' delay between your signing up to review Flatworm and your posting of comments - if you had withdrawn a couple of days after signing up, someone else might have reviewed it and we might not have had all this trouble. Since you initiated the GAR, it was appropriate to point out why this was not a satisfactory resolution. If this comes down to a formal dispute process, a blow-by-blow account will put your conduct since 5 Feb 2009 in a less favourable light than my comments at WP:GAN ever could. --Philcha (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Morphy/Staunton

To avoid clogging up my Talk page with this big issue I've moved:

• The discussion of this to User talk:Philcha/Sandbox/Staunton-Morphy
• Draft(s) for sections of Howard Staunton to User:Philcha/Sandbox/Staunton-Morphy

Others who wish to contribute there are welcome. --Philcha (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Molluscs

Hey Philcha, Canada's treating me well, thanks - although I've still not quite had the chance to think about a thesis topic! These things will come with time, I suppose...

I'm afraid I left the verify source note in the mollusc text because it's something which I'm pretty sure is correct, but can't back up with any documentary evidence... it seemed a bit dishonest to just leave the tag off, so I thought I'd leave it there in case any passing editor happened to be able to help out. I've not run across anything in a cursory check, I'm afraid.

Finally, I've gone against my instincts and decided that administrative tools would occasionally come in handy; one of the contributors to my request for adminship has suggested that as a frequent co-conspirator, they'd be interested in your opinion. I think it's frowned upon to personally canvas input, but as your voice was personally requested I thought I'd let you know...

All the best, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right that I've little interest in a lot of administrative activities. There are, however, some routine tasks which I sometimes find myself having to wait quite some time for administrative intervention, when I could readily and uncontroversially do them myself - the ones which jump to mind are page moves and editprotected requests at templates, as well as deleting sandbox and test pages I've created. On the impetus of these alone, it's not a great inconvenience to simply ask somebody else to do the work (but I feel a bit rude when my request rate is high). However, there are varied instances in bot development where I have been frustrated by having to wait long periods for admins to show up. There's not really a pattern to this, and the circumstances can be unpredictable; the most recent has been associated with Template:Cite pmid. Where a DOI is available, the bot should create a redirect page linked to the cited PMID, and also create the target page, at a doi-linked location. The bot had been creating the redirect, but not the target, and I needed to delete the redirect page to allow the bot to create it again. Without administrative powers I was basically powerless to test my code, and I don't like running a bot with untested tweaks - errors have a tendency to appear.

Anyway, I hope that that makes sense - it's quite a difficult situation to explain, which is why I didn't want to detail it at length at the RfA page - I wanted to keep my case relatively clear. I don't envision changing my behaviour to match the 'admin stereotype', but access to the tools would regularly make my life significantly easier, while also reducing the backlog of menial tasks for other administrators.

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Kidneys

Keep me posted on the kidneys - let me know if anybody starts to disagree and you could use some moral support! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible proposed Wikiproject of interest

Hi, I've noticed that, among your many, many edits, you've contributed to several pages that are within the scope of the wikiproject I'm proposing, Wikiproject - Organismal biomechanics, so I was wondering if you'd be interested in it. A list of the pages I plan to have within the project scope are on my userpage. A deep evolutionary perspective on issues would definitely be a plus. Happy editing! Mokele (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

deletion

Thanks, I'll have a look jimfbleak (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Date autoformatting poll

Hi Phil, I noticed that like me, you are opposed to any form of dates autoformatting. I have created some userboxes which you might like to add to your userspace to indicate your position. You will find the boxes here. Regards, Ohconfucius (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Notice

Philcha -- This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty regarding an issue with which you were tangentially involved in February 2009 -- see Can a book in Chinese and only available in China be used as a reliable source?.

To clarify, you are not the subject of this ArbCom process, but the thread in which you participated was identified as relevant by one of the parties -- see here.

You have no obligation to do anything in this context. Thank you. --Tenmei (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA process

Thanks for your praise. I'll let my head shrink a few sizes before deciding whether and how to preserve my analogy for posterity. --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

On the Origin

Just a heads up that I've added a rambling comment at User talk:Rusty Cashman#On the Origin of Species on the areas I'm thinking about or trying to work on. Thanks for your help with this, dave souza, talk 21:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me Philcha that the way you've handled this review gives the lie to those critics of the GA process who claim that it's all down to one person. Kudos for that. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Milo of Croton

Thank you! It's been a pleasure working with you. You're very perceptive and thorough...couldn't ask for anything better! ItsLassieTime (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Re ItsLassieTime

Well, sometimes CheckUser results can be surprising. In this case two different CheckUsers looked at the evidence and came to the same conclusion. Hopefully, ItsLassieTime will take the month and learn from his mistakes and return as an even more productive user. Let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

ItsLassieTime

I think that you are a sock of User:ItsLassieTime, because you both have the letters "I", "L", and "A" in your names. You might as well just admit it now. ;) CarpetCrawler^{message me} 01:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh my goodness! :O I guess I may as well report myself right now! I've been in denial this whole time... :( I plead insanity! CarpetCrawler^{message me} 07:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I love silt. What's your excuse? ;) CarpetCrawler^{message me} 07:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Mistake?

I think you left your !vote for Drilnoth's RFA on my RFA page.—Kww(talk) 15:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hate to pop back so soon. Oppose me for exclusionism if you must, but I would like to point out that the vast, overwhelming majority of my edits have been to protect, improve, and correct popular culture articles.—Kww(talk) 16:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

My RFA

Hi Philcha. Just to let you know I've responded to your comment at my RFA; if you could take a look and comment again it would be much appreciated. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

–Drilnoth (T • C) 16:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

SSF...

Thank you for remarks, advices, and other! It very helps me :-) Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

Thanks!

An awards from you is especially meaningful. I was about to ask your opinion yesterday about a GA article I am reviewing, and then I remembered we had somewhat of a "dustup" and was unsure if we were on good terms. I'm glad we are. Thank! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Annelids

I don't ever recall seeing a resolved phylogeny of the annelids. I'd be very cautious of basing a cladogram on a single source, especially a recent molecular one. When I get the chance, I'll see if I can track down a review article [or check Brusca and Brusca], but I'd be surprised if you could put anything other than question marks on a phylogeny!

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Molecular clocks are to be treated with suspicion. Molecular phylogenies are usually relatively reliable. However, it takes time for them to reach consensus - phylogenies at the Lophotrochozoa-Ecdysozoa level are relatively mature, but finer division is more recent. As different types of gene can be sequenced and added to the dataset, the resolution becomes more robust and secure; different genes or data types (e.g. 16s SSU RNA etc) give slightly different trees which need to be meshed together. It takes quite a bit of reading and experience to work out just how tightly the phylograms hold together, and I don't profess to being able to produce sound judgement. A simplified version of the tree as you propose sounds sensible for the time being; hopefully in the next 3-4 years a clear consensus will hit the textbooks, but until then I don't think there is a 'killer tree' incorporating all different molecular phylogenies and morphological data; at least I have had a quick scan and can't find one, and am pretty sure I'd be aware of some proposed hierarchies if anything could be said with confidence. But then what do I know... Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Annelids

The phylo section is looking, to be frank, awesome. The second paragraph of 'family tree' is a bit cumbersome, but only because it is so packed with details - I would be inclined to trim it a little, perhaps.

Polychaetes

Might I propose highlighting the polychaetes on the tree, so that their paraphyletic nature is clearly visible? It's pretty interesting that they are so dispersed; I had no idea that they weren't supported as a clade. It kinda throws a spanner into the idea of having a separate 'polychaete' article! If you get round to it, my take would be to have a more in-depth discussion of their polyphyly there, along with a summary of the reasons that they were historically thought to be a clade (e.g. presence of chaetae).

Bryozoa

There's no reason to assume that the earliest bryozoans mineralised. If they didn't, they're tiny things that would have no chance of entering the fossil record. So no surprise that the crown group isn't represented until the Ordovician. They sound like a good candidate to be done next!

Cambrian explosion

The phyla are (arguably) more important than the C.Ex; with the 100th anniversary of the discovery of the Burgess Shale coming up in August I had entertained the idea of taking C. Ex. to F.A. status by then and trying to get it featured on the front page. With both of us diverting our energies to other tasks at the moment, this may be quite ambitious, but I thought I'd throw up the idea for your consideration!

Keep up the good work! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Knowing how much you love anthropocentricism-bashing, I've been frustrating myself over at Talk:Human swimming if you have a dull moment to spice up with some heated argument! Although I may be being won over to their point of view (shock horror!). Best, M

I agree that Burgess Shale is more relevant... but it's much more work!! I'm still dumping relevant information on the sub-pages in a very haphazard manner and feeling no closer to producing a decent summary of knowledge. Perhaps it is a more meritious project... I'll digest your comments and think about it. The FA process at Ediacara biota was relatively painless, probably because no-body cares about palaeo, which suggests that we might be able to sneak the Burgess past the nit-picking crowd...

And yes, I am keen on publicity. As palaeo isn't taught in schools for fear of offending the ID crowd, I feel I have something of a duty to get the topic into the public conscience wherever I can - especially to remind people that there's more to it than dinosaurs!! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not? We could certainly give it a go. As it's the subject of my studies, I should probably care about it enough to make it worth the effort! As it's got a smaller scope than the C.Ex, and is largely less controversial, it should be somewhat more achievable. That said, there will be a lot of new content available after 7th August - we're organising a conference which includes some pretty interesting abstracts, and I'll be taking a camera up to the sites to help in illustration... perhaps we should aim to have something complete before August, but leave room for these expansions. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. The ball's back in your court, and I'm headed home! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 23:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A request

I was wondering if you would give me a second opinion on a GAN. Nothing in depth. The article seems overly laudatory to me and not objective. I just want to check out that I am not over reacting. The article is Maxwell's Urban Hang Suite. Just give me your impression as I don't want you to feel that you have to spend your time on it. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 13:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Field lacrosse

It needs copy editing. It has many unnecessary, repetitious words, and the writing is clunky. Examples

• The other versions, women's lacrosse (first played in the 1890s) and box lacrosse (which originated in the 1930s), are played under significantly different rules. - repeating "played"

• Called the "fastest sport on two feet," a series of rules limit the number of players on either side of the midfield line, and requires the ball to be moved continuously in an offensive manner. - could you say this differently? "in an offensive manner" is wordy and ambiguous. What is the difference between "the ball to be moved continuously" and "the ball to be moved continuously in an offensive manner"?

• A former Olympic sport, attempts to be reinstated to the Games have been hampered by insufficient international participation. - grammatically unclear, as the sport is not attempting to reinstate itself - A former Olympic sport, attempts to reinstated it in the Games have been hampered by insufficient international participation. - Even better would be a sentence saying who is attempting to reinstate it; ditch the passive voice.

• Known as the "fastest sport on two feet", lacrosse is a traditional Native American game. According to their beliefs, playing lacrosse is a spiritual act used for healing and giving thanks to the "Creator. - Should say who "their" is. Assume it is Native Americans, but since "Native American" is only used as an adjective, it is not well worded.

• These games could last several days and as many as 100 to 1,000 men from opposing villages or tribes would participate. The games were played in open plains and the goals could range from 500 yards (460 m) to several miles apart. - Repetitious to start sentences with the same wording in a row ("games"). Also, Tony1 hates that use of "would". - 100 to 1,000 men from opposing villages or tribes participated.

• The name "lacrosse" comes from the missionaries reporting back to their superiors that ... This is what Tony1 called noun + ing. It should be "the reports of missionaryies" or something similar.

• He established the Canadian National Lacrosse Association and created the initial written rules... "initial written rules" - created the first written rules? or initially wrote the rules? Or he was the first to put the rules in writing?

• The rules he established - extra, unneeded words

• Field lacrosse contrasts with the other versions of the sport, women's lacrosse and box lacrosse, in a number of ways. - it is already established these are other versions of the sport.

• Women's lacrosse, a non-contact version of the sport which was first played in Scotland during the 1890s, plays with twelve players, longer fields, and less protective equipment than is required in the men's game - extra words. Also, how about "than the men's game requires" and avoid the passive voice.

These are the types of things I see. I can copy edit it, if the editor wants. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oxidation event

An interesting paper in Science this week (link). Tim Vickers (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It caught my eye too. My thoughts: The summary is very much a 'maybe' paper. It opens the grounds for more investigation, but MIF is still somewhat in its infancy. The Science summary itself gives a good flavour of how much ambiguity remains! It might be worth including in an article as a 'current research may suggest that...' but cynical ol' me wouldn't attach any more weight to it than that. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gropecunt Lane/archive1

Hi there, I wondered if you're happy with the changes, if you wouldn't mind striking through your comments on the above entry? Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) I don't believe the current porn star FA would get on the front page anyway as it probably doesn't meet the current FA criteria. It will be interesting to see what happens if the Gropecunt article is put forward for TFA :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Jenna Jameson - poor grammar is the first thing I see. Incorrect ref formatting (a huge number don't use templates). I'm sure I could find more things but its a long article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheers!

I would like to ask you if you would like to look and give your opinion on the new Articles for deletion proposal for FreeOrion. I wrote a new version article and I would like to ask you if you could vote on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeOrion and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FreeOrion_(3rd_nomination) . Thank you! Peer-LAN (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)