User talk:Phoenix-wiki/Archive for November 07
Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 44 | 29 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Preity Zinta FA
[edit]Hi. I'd like to thankyou personally for your comments which helped the Preity Zinta article achieve A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
WP History userbox
[edit]Hi! and thanks for the welcome. I was just wondering if WP History had a userbox that I can put on my userpage for easy access to the Project page? Just wondering.
Thanks, --Malachirality 17:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Technology categories
[edit]Not sure what you mean. Please elaborate. The categories already exist. It would probably be easier to adjust the banner to fill the extant categories, which would only involve returning the capital T's to the start of the various categories. John Carter 17:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Click "show" to see my message.
|
My RfA
[edit]Here's the page. Add your co-nom, talk to User:Husond on whether or not he was wanting to be a co-nom as well. When it's ready, if you want to go ahead and transclude it (people are already voting), that's cool. I just got called into work for a 180 person party, one check. I'm so excited. When I get home tonight with my wheel barrel of cash (Haha), I'll be able to answer questions. Thanks, regards. Lara❤Love 12:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)
[edit]The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Delivered by grafikbot 14:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
lara
[edit]hey, are you supposed to ad "support as co-nom" to the support column? Just wondering. --Ling.Nut 14:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think both Phoenix and UT were probably waiting for me to transcluded it. All you GA folks voted before it was posted to the RfA page, lol. Lara❤Love 16:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)
[edit]
 Issue XX (October 2007) | ||
|
New featured articles:
New A-Class articles: | |
| ||
| ||
|
What is Tag & Assess MMVII? We'd better explain. A month or so back, we ran a script to list all the articles in categories related to military history. This gave us about 165,000 articles. Some of these are already tagged and assessed as military history; some are military history but not yet tagged and assessed; some are not military history articles at all. This huge project — working thorough 165,000 articles — is called Tag & Assess 2007. To make it manageable, the list has been broken down into 330 ranges each of 500 articles. This is where you can help. Just... adopt-a-range from the available worklists then keep track of your tally on participants' list. The tagging is easy, just follow the simple instructions. Afterwards, as our way of thanking you, you'll be presented with service awards and barnstars based on the number of articles you process. Remember... the ranges are broken down into sub-sections of ten articles, so you work through them at twenty or thirty articles a day if you wish. To make Tag & Assess 2007 a success, we need your help. Please sign up now. Thanks. | ||
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | ||
Delivered by grafikbot 15:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
FLC discussion continued
[edit]The discussion you participated in continues at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of basic geography topics. The Transhumanist 04:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Re: Congrats
[edit]Thankyou very much! I look forward to getting started. Best wishes, Lradrama 11:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge tag
[edit]Well, next time, please log in before adding such tags, and remember to actually bring it up on the talk as a proposal, otherwise, nothing has been proposed. Unless you're NOT that IP. If you are not that IP, I'm going to have to ask you to self-revert. There was a discussion on the Thor page about splitting it, it had consensus, and months later, the IP tagged and ran. I see no good faith in a drive-by tagging. Any editor who really believes in such an action would bring it to talk. I removed it because i saw no good faith in it, as evidenced by the IP's unwillingness to discuss the merge. A tag alone isn't a proposal, and isn't a merge. Further, I actually used the talk page. As for my talk page, that was in response to months of action by a vandal; after it was posted, the vandalism stopped. I've got no interest in removing it, and I won't be doing so any time ever. ThuranX 17:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- since you wouldn't self-revert, I did. There's simply nothing to build upon. If someone proposes it, they actually have to write a proposal. Putting up the tags notifies editors that there's a discussion, but can not substitute for the discussion and proposal. Tagging isn't defacto talking. ThuranX 17:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I didn't particularly think you were, if that seemed to snarky, I apologize. But my point stands; the IP didn't really substantiate any 'why', just tagged and ran. Even if I try to AGF here, it doesn't mean the tagging should stand. Once the tag was added, the editor should have initiated the discussion. ThuranX 18:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- No harm, no foul. Nice talking to you, thanks for discussing it, some editors don't. ThuranX 21:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I didn't particularly think you were, if that seemed to snarky, I apologize. But my point stands; the IP didn't really substantiate any 'why', just tagged and ran. Even if I try to AGF here, it doesn't mean the tagging should stand. Once the tag was added, the editor should have initiated the discussion. ThuranX 18:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
About the list
[edit]It looks like those opposers are't going to relent untill someone spells out the difference between a topic list and a basic topic list. I'll create subsections of Wikipedia:Lists--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 19:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Lists#Types of lists, there--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 19:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Nice addition to the list guideline; I've refined your definitions further. But I don't think the opposition over at FLC has a problem with the difference between the two types of list, but rather with the scope of the term basic. What differentiates a basic topic (that is, one that belongs on a list of basic topics), from one that is not basic (and doesn't belong on such a list)? I think this is splitting hairs, and that a good faith approximation serves navigation purposes well. But Wikipedians are an intellectual lot, and working out the technicalities is part of what we do here. Therefore, please visit the thread of the geography FLC discussion on inclusion criteria, that is, on the definition of "basic", and help us work out the wording. Thank you. The Transhumanist 20:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting my RfA, it closed today with a final tally of 39 supports, 1 oppose and 1 neutral. As always, if you ever see me doing anything which would cause you to regret giving me your support, let me know. henrik•talk 18:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
There's an RFD on WP:TECH at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#WP:TECH → Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia Tech. I created some new redirects for your project--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 19:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hey again, I created WPP:GT as a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia Tech. You can see WPP:BIO for a similar redirect--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 12:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting idea. :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 13:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I nominated WP:GT at RFD per the discussion. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 16:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your response to the PR request. I appreciate you taking the time to comment.
I have indeed been trying to figure out how to find appropriate images for the article.
Cheers, and happy wiki'ing! - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 23:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
A reply...
[edit]...has been waiting for you on your coaching page. The Transhumanist 07:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much
[edit]
Dearest Phoenix-wiki,
Special thanks to you for your co-nomination in my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your kind words of support and defense of my character are very much appreciated and I look forward to making you proud. I would like to give special thanks to The_undertow for his nomination as well. Thank you again and best regards.
IRC
[edit]On my RFA, you mentioned IRC channels and the like. I don't currently use these; I should, however! Could you point me in the direction of the connection details? Thanks! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 45 | 5 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 46 | 12 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Re: My question on sockpuppets
[edit]Don't worry, I wasn't jumping to any conclusions about your stance on alternate accounts, I was just trying to point out problems with the way that the question had been worded, and trying to explain why the admin candidate had given such a short answer. It probably doesn't matter on that particular RfA, given the way it's going, but it may help to be clearer in future; presumably the question was meant to be about abusive sockpuppetry (for instance, a respected user vandalising with a second account)? --ais523 13:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
my rfa
[edit]
...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations.
New assignment
[edit]I'd like you to read Auroranorth's coaching page. He's been advancing rapidly, has been picking my brain to its limits, and there's a lot of issues and instructions on there that you may find very interesting. Let me know if you feel ready to take on the building of a subject index. (See the aforementioned coaching page). The Transhumanist 22:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
And yes, in case you are wondering, you have been challenged. :-) The Transhumanist 23:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thankspam
[edit]Your recent edits
[edit]Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 20:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Oops
[edit]Sorry, should have been clear. It is TBSDY. But it's not right for an editor to try to "unmask" an "anonymous account" (who makes an account to be an anon?!?) as myself. Pretty soon that IP will be recycled into the Optusnet Cable pool.
FYI, I'm just tying up loose ends. - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah darn.
[edit]About this edit - [1] - sorry mate, it was me! - 211.30.71.131 (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Help
[edit]thanks i got it. have already de orphaned. corrected one article.Gs44631 (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Picture
[edit]Love the picture, but you spelt my name wrong!!! It's Ryan Postlethwaite ! Want to give it another go!? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC) HaHa, fixed th size anyway--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 23:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Lists and the "contents" pages
[edit]You have a reply to your post at Wikipedia talk:Contents:
- I would leave everything in the wikipedia space. These aren't articles so that would be logical--Phoenix 15 (Talk) 18:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- How are these not articles, exactly? According to Wikipedia:Lists both lists and lists of lists are articles, and they're treatment is covered by that guideline. If these lists should be moved out of the main namespace, why shouldn't other lists also be moved? Whatever reasons you have for declaring these as not articles may apply to other lists, so it's important to be very specific. Lists are articles, what is different about these lists that make them not articles? The Transhumanist 22:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Please respond at Wikipedia talk:Contents. The Transhumanist 23:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm still interested in learning why you think the articles "aren't articles". The Transhumanist 20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thx spam
[edit]
 
|
My RFA (Random832)
[edit]Kingdom of Mysore
[edit]Sir, while your copy edit efforts are appreciated, I notied you have removed 3 images from this article. Please dont do so without concensus. All those images were relevant to the article. Also, many power links have been delinked. Please put those links back. thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, no problem, I've reverted but that list of kings needs fixing--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 21:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. thanks. Does the list of kings appear misplaced in your browser after your revert? When you moved the template earlier, it appeared misplaced in mine, which is why I reverted it. If this is the issue, then it may have to do with browser resolution. So far, nobody, either during the FAC review or afterwards has complained about the template placement, excepting you. So this may be an issue with your browser. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Lists of basic topics WikiProject status report
[edit]I've just created List of basic human anatomy topics. It's not complete. Please look it over to see if there is anything you can fill in.
Also, we've got a pretty long wish list of basic topics lists that don't yet exist. Please adopt a topic from the list and create a basic list for it -- the {{BLT}} template is for creating basic topic lists, and is used like this: {{subst:BLT|topic|Topic}} (where "topic" is the name of the topic being covered). Instructions are included on the template. Once the page is created with the heading skeleton, fill it in to the best of your ability. Post a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists of basic topics to let the whole team know what you are working on.
The Transhumanist 01:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Snappy?
[edit]If my answer to the public relations role account was too snappy, it was too snappy, period. I shouldn't change my tone depending on whether or not I was up for RfA. I felt that my tone was firm, but not aggressive; but some folks have expressed concern that I may bit the noobs too often. It is my bitter conclusion that public relations offices, paid flacks and general spin doctors are just aching for "permission" to fill our pages with artfully-shaded holy cards of their clients and patrons. I was making it clear that we will hold them to a very high standard. Where do you feel I was over-the-top on this one? I'd really like to know. --Orange Mike 02:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 47 | 19 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
LOTD experiment
[edit]Now that my project is fully up and running, I though you might want to consider the four main benefits of my method over the one that you seem to be supporting:
- There is a set of orphaned articles for persons who do not have any featured lists of their own or persons that would like to take responsibility for more. Anyone can nominate such orphans. This benefits WP by getting people involved in list articles that might not have active editors to update them or defend them against vandalism. Please consider adopting one of our orphans.
- Each list will be encouraged to respond to commentary and feedback during the candidacy period, which will hopefully improve the quality of the articles.
- Articles without pictures will be encouraged to find them. E.g., List of Harry Potter films cast members had no image before its nominator added an image for this experiment. This type of thing, of course, improves the project.
- Articles are encouraged to add relevant projects to their talk page. This alerts other project to articles that they would likely have an interest in and would be able to either improve or protect.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Re: Woah!
[edit]Thank you for the kind words, although I'm nowhere near the top of the heap for RFP. :) east.718 at 05:59, November 21, 2007
Privatemusings arbitration
[edit]Thank you for your reply. I am aware that blocks are preventative, rather than punitive. The aim of my suggestion was to rehabilitate the user into Wikipedia, not to punish them. I apologise if I did it wrongly. I was trying to be helpful, but it went wrong. I'm sorry, and I did it wrongly. Thanks, --Solumeiras talk 23:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. That was very helpful. Next time I'll have to check to see what else was posted before suggesting something! But we all live and learn from our mistakes. Anyway, what articles are you working on at the moment?? As for me, I'm editing everything and anything, if there's an article you want to bring to featured article status, well, I'll help you if you want! Thanks, --Solumeiras talk 23:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I see from your userpage you're interested in editing history-related articles. I am, although, to be honest, I've been editing too many other things at the moment. However, I am working on the primary source article: feel free to help me with this one if you want, I'm trying to make sure it's good. Hopefully it could become a good article some day, if there was enough interest.
I'll mention something at the Wikipedia:WikiProject History talk page. Thanks, --Solumeiras talk 23:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
RfA thanks
[edit]Just wanted to say thanks for supporting me! Please find your thank you card here, should you wish to see it. I'm honored to have received your support. All the best, ~Eliz81(C) 02:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Official thanks, slightly delayed due to post-RfA crash (who knew?)
[edit]
...for helping me navigate the waters of my surprisingly peaceful RFA, which closed successfully with 85 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral.
I would particularly like to thank Acalamari and Alison, my nominators, and everyone who watched the page and ran the tally.
If you hate RfA thankspam, please forgive me. I promise I won't block you in retaliation for deleting it ;-)
If there is anything I can do to be of service in the future, please feel free to contact me.
And forgive me if I need a Wikibreak now and then (like now. I'm exhausted!). You wouldn’t want to see me climbing the Reichstag, now would you?
Off to flail around with my new mop! (what?!)
This RfA thanks inspired by Neranei's, which was inspired by VanTucky's which was in turn inspired by LaraLove's which was inspired by The Random Editor's, which was inspired by Phaedriel's original thanks.
Request for help with banners
[edit]Several of the regional based WikiProjects, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Central America, Wikipedia:WikiProject Micronesia, Wikipedia:WikiProject Melanesia, Wikipedia:WikiProject Polynesia, Wikipedia:WikiProject South America, Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa, and the like would definitely benefit from having their banners set up to allow assessment per individual country. I haven't yet completely understood all the parsing info, so I am incapable of setting them up myself, but was curious as to whether you might be willing to set up a few of them. If you would be willing to do so, let me know, and I can set up the appropriate project subpages, categories and the like as well so that we can have greater specific information available on individual countries in these areas. John Carter (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Any of the "multinational" projects' templates, like those above, could benefit from such work. No rush, clearly, considering that some of them (like the Africa project's template) will have a lot of different assessments. Just let me know which ones you change to include separate assessments for the various involved nations, and I'll set up the categories and subpages accordingly. If you want to tackle the biggest of the lot, Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa's template would be the most complicated. If you want to hold off on that frankly gargantuan task, any of the banners of any of the other "multinational" projects in any order would be very gratefully received. And whether you want to use a checklist or a todo template, I think either would be welcomed, although maybe including the B-class parameters would be better for wikipedia as a whole, considering that'll probably help standardize the B-class assessment a little. John Carter (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- If it would be possible, and sorry for not having been clearer earlier, it'd probably work best if they were set up as different work groups for each country. I can create the various individual pages for the individual countries. The only countries in Africa which have existing assessments (and separate projects) are Algeria, Ancient Egypt, Chad, Egypt, Ethiopia, Morocco, Rhodesia, Tunisia, Western Sahara, and Zimbabwe. Separate projects exist for Eritrea, Libya, Nigeria, and Sudan, although their banners don't have assessment parameters. So if it would be possible to set up the new banner with assessments for (at least potentially) work groups for all of them, I'll create work group pages and categories for all the countries that don't have projects, and maybe suggest merger for the four without assessments. Once that's done, you'd probably want to post a message on the Africa project talk page letting them know about the updates. I can try to set up the individual national pages as soon as I finish updating a deprecated Canada template I'm currently replacing. I do think that this will almost certainly help to improve a lot of the Africa content fairly quickly, though, and thanks for the rather extreme amount of work involved. John Carter (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- It'll take me at least that long to get all the work group pages and assessment categories together. Don't worry about it. I'll let the Africa project know that it's being set up though, and that they can expect a bit more specific assessments in the near future. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 48 | 26 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)
[edit]The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)
[edit]|
Issue XXI (November 2007) | ||
|
New featured articles:
New featured lists: New featured portals: New A-Class articles: | |
| ||
| ||
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | ||
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 04:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)