User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Toilet Paper for the Port-a-Potty.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Easy sources

Sorry about ignoring this project for a while. I've been dabbling through, but I haven't really focused on it well enough. I just wanted to know of a few easy sources to grab some of the material for the government outline pages. That would make going through it much easier, I bet. Thanks for your help. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 02:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The easiest source is the Politics of link at the top of the government section of each outline. That page has a subheading for each country's government's branches. You will find most of the links you need there.
Copy the following link to the top of your talk page for easy access to that section for each outline: User:The Transhumanist/List of country outline government sections.
The Transhumanist 02:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll get right to it. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for all your help (with both the VM season lists and my userpage). Hope the image change wasn't too troublesome, and the rationale looks fine as-is. :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 03:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with the table colours; do you know how to fix it? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 03:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for alerting me to that; I forgot that I shouldn't be using my script on lists (it breaks them). I've fixed that. Congrats on your work by the way. I scanned your userpage and you've been busy since the last time we've talked. Also, since you too are into TV articles, have you seen Jericho before? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
No, unfortunately. I did follow the fan campaigns and was surprised they managed to get a second season renewal, which is very impressive. I guess the best shows are always cancelled too early, *cough* Veronica Mars *cough*. ;) Have you by chance seen VM? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 03:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The second season renewal was very fun to watch happen, and I was very shocked when it actually worked. Too bad we could not get a third season renewal though (which I'm surprised about; 11 million viewers is pretty good for CBS, no?) Unfortunately, I have not seen Veronica Mars, though it did ping my interest when I heard it come up. It sounds like it was a great series; pity I never got a chance to see it. I would love to work with you again though More like work on a little bit until you blow by me and finish the whole thing in like two seconds ;); what shows are you currently writing about (or watching) now? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Lol, working with you was fun... and I don't really remember it that way. :D Well, 11 million is very good so that's surprising. VM averaged like 2.5 per episode, so you can see why it was cancelled. I'm supposed to be focusing on my studies and I have told several people that I am leaving, but this has yet to happen fully. I wrote the pilot episode for the new 90210, "We're Not in Kansas Anymore", which you probably noticed; although, I do not really like the series. Right now I like Lost, Dexter and Fringe (can't think of any others). I'm happy that Prison Break has been cancelled, and I watched some of Life on Mars before I decided it was a bit boring. :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 04:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Aw, too bad we don't watch anything together. I'll be happy to collborate with you on any article though, as I remember it nicely. I'll your userpage on his watchlist, and see when you update your working-on section; hopefully I'll see something I like there. If you are ever working on an episode article, I should be able to help with that; after all, getting episodes online is easy :) NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Your user name reminded me of this pic

Terrorists don't have the Bomb... Yet.

I thought you might want to use it on your user page.

The Transhumanist 03:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ha! That's a good one. I like keeping my userpage kinda neat and tidy, but I have to get that picture up somewhere :) NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

16 article hook DYK

Updated DYK query On March 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the articles Henry Fielding's early plays, Actor Rebellion of 1733, Love in Several Masques, The Temple Beau, The Author's Farce, Tom Thumb (play), Rape upon Rape, The Tragedy of Tragedies, The Letter Writers, The Welsh Opera, The Grub Street Opera, The Lottery (play), The Modern Husband, The Old Debauchees, The Covent Garden Tragedy, and The Mock Doctor, 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) 17:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


Screenshot of 16 article DYK
The Surreal Barnstar
For having sixteen articles in one DYK hook, I award you this Barnstar. Believe me, I know how hard it is to put a 16 article hook together. Great work on Fielding. --Doug Coldwell talk 12:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The one you should be thanking the most is Ottava, as I didn't do all that much. Thanks anyway :) NuclearWarfare (Talk) 17:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, agree. Ottava did most of the work and did an outstanding job on the Fielding articles. I gave him The Surreal Barnstar and a screenshot of the DYK back on March 7. He was most appreciative of these. He introduced me to Henry Fielding, who I find most fascinating now. I see that several are credited for the DYK at the Hall of Fame, so I passed on the credits.--Doug Coldwell talk 18:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Scripts for renaming pages

See User talk:Sj#Scripts?.

The Transhumanist 22:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Missed the Role Call for the Avatar: The Last Airbender project

Damn, I missed it. Is it okay if I just add my name to the members list? Keyblade Mage (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Keyblade Mage

Sure, go right ahead! That "roll call" was just to see who was still interested; feel free to readd yourself if you are :) We could always use another hand. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 23:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Get ready, get set, go???

I've worked on 3 country outlines today (so far).

How many have you done?  :)

The only way to get through these is one-at-a-time. Otherwise it looks like a monumental and forebodingly huge chore. But it's not - it's just a lot of small easy tasks. Each government is pretty interesting - I'm surprised by their variety.

They take 10- or 15-minutes each, even less as you get familiar with them.

Jump on in, the water's fine.

The Transhumanist 00:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: By the way, I've forgotten... do you have LINKY installed? Have you tried using it on this list yet?

I've just been so busy, especially with trying to multitask with another project that I've been doing, that I've just fallen behind some. I'll see if I can go through little by little and see how I can chip in some more. (Yes, I have most of your optimized tool set). NuclearWarfare (Talk) 01:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Outline of knowledge project update - 2009/03/11

Allow me to shift focus for the moment from the country outline project to outlines in general...

Where's the Outline of knowledge project headed?

It's growing fast, so fast that it is catching up to portals.

I just stumbled on to a subset of 50 more outlines (one for the history of each state of the United States), and have added them to the top of the outline. Buaidh has been busy - it's nice to meet another fanatic outliner.  :)

That brings the total number of outlines in article space to about 450.

It won't be long before there are more outlines than portals (which number about 600).

How long before outlines outnumber portals?

Four months, tops.

Then what?

I don't know. Do you have any ideas?

Of course the set will continue to grow. Which branch of knowledge should we tackle next?

And...

Perhaps we should push for Main page coverage?

Need for traffic analysis

We need to begin taking a deeper look at outlines and how they are integrated into (linked to from other pages on) Wikipedia, to optimize their usefulness.

The Traffic counter is useful for monitoring page traffic on Wikipedia.

Though I'm not sure exactly what it measures. Do you know?

What interests me most is the difference between outline traffic and portal traffic. Use the above counter on various portals and the corresponding outlines, to see what I mean.

Is the traffic volume of portals related to the structure of their links?

Where is portal traffic coming from? Can the answer be found in "What links here"?

And what about the portal menu bar at the top of every portal page? Does that account for the huge number of hits the main portal list gets each month?

I also wonder how much of the traffic comes from the Main page. Is there any way to tell?

If you have any ideas on this subject and how we should proceed, please visit my talk page and let me know!

And if you know of any other traffic analysis tools that we could make use of, please let me know!

The Transhumanist 19:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Geography outlines project update - 2009/03/12

I needed a rest from countries...

The states of the United States

So I switched over to states. United States.

I've added outlines for all 50 to the Outline of knowledge.

How?

The main activity in creating these was using LINKY to execute advanced Google searches on all 50 states at the same time (do a single search on google, then on a Wikipedia user page create a list of state links, then search replace the front and back bracket pairs with the parts of the google search url that come before and after the state's name, respectively - once you have a list of searches, you can easily modify it with search/replaces. WikEd works great for this. The page I've been using for Linky loads is User:The Transhumanist/Google state searches - but I used it for more than just google searches: check the history to see the various link sets and google search sets I used for linky loads). The search strings "in x" and "of x" reveal a lot about a state. But the magic is in Firefox's tab navigation keys (Ctrl-W) and (Ctrl-tab), which provide a bird's eye view of the coverage of the whole set of subjects. Flipping between the search results for each state using the tab keys, you quickly notice the common titles ("Governor of x", for instance).

As I found common titles, I added them to Template:Outline U.S. State.

Besides Google searching, I used Linky to open all state articles at the same time, to look over their headings (those usually expand into stand-alone articles), and I added the main ones to the outline as well.

Using Linky again, I opened all the lists on the list of lists by state, to look for those with state subheadings. The outlines contain section links to the few of those I found.

When I couldn't stand building the template anymore, I used it to create 50 outlines! That was fun. It's like they appeared out of nowhere.

Further development

The region section contains temporary links - I knew that subset of links would get at least some matches, so I figured that would be better than nothing. I'll swap those out with an accurate list of regions for each state as I find the time. Feel free to jump in and help - I'm not greedy.  :)

The standard links I used for the government branches sections matched almost all the states, except for a few in the legislative section. It won't take me long to finish fixing these - there are only a handful left.

There are fewer fill-in items on these outlines compared to those for countries. So these will be much faster to complete. And there's only 50 pages, which makes passes go by very quickly (less than an hour for most passes).

One nice side-effect of doing passes on these outlines is that you naturally memorize the 50 states (forward and backward, if you reverse your passes to alleviate monotony).  :)

That brings the total number of outlines on Wikipedia to about 500

Which puts us within 100 titles of portals.

Further coverage of geography

Political divisions lend themselves to rapid outline development because of common titles.

Other sets that are begging for creation include:

  • the constituent countries of the UK (England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland)
  • the provinces of Canada
  • the provinces of France
  • other sets of subdivisions that have extensive coverage on Wikipedia
  • the major cities of the world (those with lots of articles about them)

That last item on the list above looks especially juicy. My mouth is watering.

Cities are pretty fun. So far I've only completed two of them (because they happened to be city-states and were included in the set of country outlines we've been working on): Outline of Macau and Outline of Vatican City. I especially enjoyed outlining Vatican City, because WP:COMMONS had lots of pictures to choose from.

Though cities in general will probably require the building of a new template.

The Transhumanist 00:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sozin's Comet FAC

Great work on expanding the Production section. Sorry about my belated thanks. :P Anyway, I've been looking at it on and off these past few months, glancing at the peer reviews and previous FAC and just simply reading the article.

I think it should be ready for FAC, since there are simply no new information to be added and the ones we have now are great and written really nicely.

Although by FAC rules, I'm qualified to nominate the article without asking you, I still want your opinion on the article's current status. What do you think? --haha169 (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You are most certainly allowed to nominate it without asking me. Don't forget that you brought it all the way to GA status before I even made a single edit on it!
In any case, I'd hold off on a FAC now. I feel that the article still deserves one or two additional lookovers from us both, and then another peer review. I'll try to contact someone over the latter, so if all goes well, I think we could nominate it by mid-next week. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 02:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I went through about 60% of the article just now.[1] The article could use just a bit more work I bet. Do you think you could contact any editors you know and ask them to do a copy edit? I'll do the same, and we should be able to nominate the article this weekend. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
That's a lot of copyediting you've done there! Great work. Perhaps we should contact Derek? Actually, I'll do that right now... a peer review at this stage would be unnecessary because it would be extremely difficult to find a reviewer. --haha169 (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
If you could, that'd be great. I'll see if I can get someone as well, and we can launch a FAC tomorrow? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 19:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure, that'd be great! And on another note, how's the FTC plans going? I highly doubt that Universe could possibly pass GAN without lots of real-world connections ... and the individual character articles are going to be difficult to pass as well.--haha169 (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
FTC plans are all right. I'll try to see if it can pass without Universe of Avatar: The Last Last Airbender, but an FTC needs it, then it is probably out the window, unless I really clean up Universe and try to get it through as a subarticle, which necessarily does not need real world connections, I believe (per List of Naruto characters)? Merging "list of characters" will make it so that we don't have to try the impossible goal of getting that through FLC. I don't think any of the individual characters besides Aang is actually needed for FTC, and that is already a GA. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 00:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've given it a bit of thought, and (I posted this at the merge discussion) I think it would make our job much easier if we merged all individual character articles (except Aang) into List of Characters. This would effectively allow us to keep all the secondary character information, include real-world text from the individual articles, as well as finally cut down on the excessive images and plot-details present in a few of the individual articles. And it would mean that we wouldn't have to make all the individual articles up to GAN (one would have to be FA to pass the new FT 32% FA standard). I think we could get the character list up to par, and I'm working on it right now. --haha169 (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a thought. I'll check out what you posted at Talk:Avatar: The Last Airbender. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 02:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, we don't need to get Katara, Sokka, etc. up to GA standard for FTC; check out the most recent topic idea at the FT. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 02:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

C-Class

It is great to see such diversity in the Military History WikiProject. Even though we don't agree I still respect your opinion and it seems that one of us will have to bow to the consensus of the WikiProject. I am so glad to see that people are really showing that they care about the future of this WikiProject, keep up the good work! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver The Olive Branch 04:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for this kind message! Good luck with your candidacy. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


Guy Cloutier

Check the article history. The article was originally about a legitimately notable figure; somebody subsequently rewrote it to be about somebody else entirely. The correct thing to do when something like that happens is to revert the article back to the last version that existed before the vandalism began, which is what I did. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that you introduced a tremendous BLP issue. That was awful; it called him, without references, a child abuser. While this may or may not have been true (it apparently was[2][3]), WP:BLP says to take that stuff out immediately if it is unsourced. I'll readd the material, massively trimmed down, but remember for next time: If it is unsourced, negative, and about a living person, it shouldn't go in. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 23:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I did a one-click "edit old version, hit save" revert to the last version that existed before the article was rewritten to be about a non-notable financial writer instead of a notable television producer, on a page that had been wrongly tagged for speedy deletion. I did not review the article's content any further than that — because BLP-violating content shouldn't have been there in the first place, and anybody can remove such content any time they find it, I didn't have a responsibility to do anything more than click on an old version, hit save and move on. Bearcat (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
That's incorrect. You have an affirmative responsibility NOT to introduce BLP violating content at any time. If that means you have to thoroughly review what you're reverting, so be it. You should be doing that anyway. If you're simply reverting content without looking at what you're doing, you are endangering the project, and that WILL result in your losing editing privileges. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC).
I'm willing to accept that I made a mistake, and to revise how I handle such things in the future. However, I still object to the characterization that I "introduced" anything into the article; if it was already there, the responsibility for adding it ultimately rests with the person who added it originally. This way of looking at it suggests that every person who happens to edit anything in an article with BLP-violating content, but doesn't happen to notice or remove that content in the process of their edits, is equally culpable for that content existing in the first place — which, to my mind, is an extremely accusatory and inflammatory view, and one which could lead to about 95 per cent of Wikipedians getting kicked off the project, because I can quite safely assert that nearly everybody on here has missed something like this at least once. I most certainly don't deserve to be singled out for an attack or a threat over an easily correctable mistake I'm far from being the only person ever to have made. Bearcat (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it existed in a prior revision. If you reverted it in, from a GFDL standpoint, you have introduced that content. Just quit being defensive, admit that you should have paid more attention, and don't do it again. Case closed. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Just quit being defensive? You have every bit as much responsibility to monitor the tone of your writing, and to adjust it if it's contributing to the conflict, as I do. I apologize if I came across as defensive, but you came across as confrontational and attacking — and I deserve the same courtesy and the same willingness to acknowledge that I wasn't the sole contributor to any communication conflict as anybody else does. Admit that you should have paid more attention? I said I'm willing to accept that I made a mistake, and to revise how I handle such things in the future. Bearcat (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Relax, and take a step back from the keyboard, there's nothing wrong with my tone. You were being defensive, you're attempting to justify something that is fundamentally wrong, by arguing that everyone else does it (they don't) and that you didn't have any responsibility to do it (you do.) There's nothing discourteous about it. Instead of saying you're willing to accept that you made a mistake, simply admit it, and move on. It's as simple as that.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I always so love being told that the other person in a communication conflict is only responsible for how they intended to sound, not how their words actually landed, whereas I'm responsible for my intentions and how they landed with the other person — with the result that the entire burden of ensuring that the communication goes smoothly is mine alone. Whether you intended to or not, you did come across as confrontational — and defensiveness, while obviously not the most constructive response in the world, is a very normal response to something that comes off as an attack or a threat rather than a constructive dialogue. Communication is a two-way street, and a communication conflict is never the exclusive fault of just one person in the exchange. Bearcat (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Regardless, the point is made. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Glassy State

Sorry but I have had to reinvoke the redirect from Glassy state, the reasons being identical to those made by the previous editor (an admin in fact) but also because there is enough going on over at Glass where the same content is being (regrettably) argued and (debatably) discussed. Jdrewitt (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I've been following Talk:Glass, and what you did seems pretty reasonable. Thanks for informing me. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 14:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

RE

Ah, yes, the IRC. I never really knew what that was and my browser doesn't really know how to open it. Could you teach me? Anyway, I'm a little tired now, so if you could work on writing decent summaries for Iroh and Zuko, it'd be great. Thanks! --haha169 (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I can work on that. Anyway, for IRC, if you use Mozilla Firefox, you can use Chatzilla. Going directly through a Java Website or Mibbit to the channel "#wikipedia-avatar" on server "freenode" is also another way. In any case, I only suggested it because of the edit conflicts, but if you are ever around, just hop on and we can use it to confer.
I'll get writing about Iroh and Zuko. I dropped a ton of links for a reception section by the way, which from List of Naruto characters, we seem to need. Also, what do you think about renaming the article to Avatar: The Last Airbender characters and seeing if we can get it through GA, as there is enough text to merit that. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 18:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
That wouldn't work, because it is still a list and the text is written in the form of a list. It would likely end up the way it did with the season articles - demoted GA b/c of list-class. --haha169 (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Ahh...you found another character FL. Seems like I missed one - but I'm certain that there are only two. :P --haha169 (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I've an improvement idea on the character list talkpage. What do you think? --haha169 (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice; I've replied there. Also, do you want to nominate Sozin's Comet for FLC now? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
You mean FAC? I'm not sure, in complete honesty, since I might be a bit bogged down with this new character project. Do you think Dylan is willing to help? Having three nominators will make things a bit easier. --haha169 (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, it should be fine. FAC doesn't usually take very much time anyway, and I can always get a friend or two to help out if I get really bogged down with other stuff, which doesn't seem likely at this point. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll certainly help since the character list only needs work on minor characters and reception. Btw, could you write up the Reception section, since I haven't read any of those review articles yet? I'll work on the minor characters, and that way, we both have some time to spare with Sozin's Comet FAC. --haha169 (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That should be pretty good. Can you file the FAC? I'm kinda swamped right now. I'll work on the Reception probably tomorrow; I think I can do that pretty well. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I am too. But I'll go and initiate the FAC now. I'll put you as one of the nominators, all right? --haha169 (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure, that would be fine. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 00:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Geography WikiProject update - 03/15/2009

The award images are complete!

After months of toil and attention to detail, Penubag has completed the set of images for this WikiProject's awards!

There are five race ribbons:

There's an engraved medallion:

And by far the hardest to create, a golden trophy:

If you have any ideas about awards these images can be placed upon, and how to award them (to show appreciation and to attract participants), please let me know.

And be sure to pop by Penubag's talk page to let him know what you think of his graphics artistry.

The Transhumanist 21:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

-download | sign! has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the bubbliness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Test?

DUUUDE IT'S YOU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.247.228 (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Um...who is this? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 23:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
That really was quite strange. Probably some wierdo internet stalker? :P Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible FT issues

Rst brings up very legitimate issues with the FT prospect. I think my argument could most likely buffer his initial argument that we are cherry-picking by changing the name, I cannot in good conscience defend or turn a blind-eye towards the missing character articles.

There is a way that we can remedy this.

  1. Take them to AfD for a test.
  2. Bring the remaining ones up to GA. (I have some ideas that could easily bring Katara up to GA)
  3. Nominate a "Characters" GT.
  4. Nominate the Avatar FT with a "Characters" subtopic script, so we can avoid including the individual character articles

What do you think? --haha169 (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I really disagree that any of the characters are actually needed for an Avatar FT, but as you know, I feel that the main character by themselves is important enough to add without any other characters. I dislike option 1; we should only go to AFD as a last resort. I think the best thing to do would be to just nominate the Avatar topic as is, and then later on shoot for a Characters GT, where we could modify it so that Aang would go into that subtopic. What do you think of that? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 01:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm personally OK with having Aang in the topic itself, but am not sure others will be. If we send the FT to candidacy with Aang on it, then it will certainly be opposed. I'll just stick with your plan about removing Aang if there are opposes b/c of it, I guess. The GT will need plenty of work, if you're up to it. It will be extremely difficult, mind you. --haha169 (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm unsure if I could really help with that; there are a couple of other TV projects I wanted to work with, as sources are really just not there. I wondered if you had at least a few good sources for articles like Toph or Azula, as otherwise it will be impossible. :( NuclearWarfare (Talk) 02:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
No. That's why it certainly is impossible. I've found some interesting things on IGN that might work with Katara, and probably Toph and Azula, but it just isn't enough. One or two IGN cites that only explain Reception and not character conception. Sorry... --haha169 (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, that is fine. We can try for what we have then, as it should be comprehensive enough. Also, there is a comment on FAC now, and I'm heading off. Can you deal with the rest of the points? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Done with all except the prose issues in the "Production" section. I hadn't noticed it before, but he brings up some legitimate issues. You should check it out. Also, (if you have the DVD commentary), can you find anything about how the episode was written, what process was undergone? --haha169 (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Userpage

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to the userpage. Seems like that guy enjoys doing that! GoCuse44 (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirect to CAT

Your recent article, CAT:Living people, has some undesirable side effects; it's putting itself in the category, see here. The better way to provide a link to a category, for talk purposes or whatever, is like this - Category:Living people Studerby (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Woah, so that's how people do it. Thanks for the heads up; I'll fix that :) NuclearWarfare (Talk) 00:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

To Die in Jerusalem

Actually, as it turns out the article is just wrong, it's not non-notable, it just somewhat misidentifies the film in the first line. I recommend closing the AfD. Thanks. 141.161.68.46 (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

[4] checkY Done. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No Problem

No Problem. Cheers Kyle1278 (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Below Poverty Line

Please see discussion on Below Poverty Line at its talk page Talk:Below_Poverty_Line Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have replied there. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Revert

I made a couple of edits to the page on Lance Burton. They got reverted as apparently incorrect with your name on the change. That revert has helped protect a tiny bit of the very wrong information that has haunted Lance's entry. (Look back at the history of the page. The information has been so bad as to be ridiculous.) To check other sources of where Lance was born and raised, I suggest you take a look at some of the external links from the wiki page like Lance's official web site, the TV.com bio, and the USA Weekend article.

Ah, OK. Thanks for your notice. I saw you changing material on an article on a living person without any references or edit summary, so I became a bit suspicious. I have undone my change; thanks for your notice. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

SZ FAC

Sorry for being absent these past couple days. I had a few big exams and I've been studying like crazy. I just came on today and saw quite a bit of progress on the SZ article - (I can't believe I forgot the little technical details again...Sandy hates those). Anyway, I'm kind of confused as to what should be done, so could you get me a bit caught up? Thanks, --haha169 (talk) 05:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Your personal life comes first, of course. As for the article, I think the biggest thing to do right now is to get another copy edit of it, with a third party if possible. As for the MoS...I'll go through the entire thing tonight and hopefully pick up whatever I missed. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 18:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Lists

I noticed your change to Wikipedia:Lead section. If it stays as is (not a given), then you should also change WP:SAL and WP:LISTS. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and change them per WP:Bold, and invite discussion on WT:FLCWP:WIAFL in my edit summary. Thanks for your notice on this. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 23:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, WT:FL? is a better place. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 23:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Kurdish Boys Diyarbakir

Hi

Regarding the copyright status of that image, I am sure that it had the proper tags on Flicker at the time of upload (CC-BY-SA). I was checking very carefully to find the proper files so as to avoid deletion. I strongly believe the tag has been changed since its original upload to wikimedia. If there is any solution, please kindly let me know. Regards.Heja Helweda (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That is very interesting. I am going to take your comments in good faith though, and move the image to Commons, and add a template known as Commons:Template:Flickr-change-of-license. I think that should be enough to keep it. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 00:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks in country outlines

To browse the links of the country outlines by topic (to see which ones are red), take a look at the lists listed at User:The Transhumanist/Lists by country.

The Transhumanist 01:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Nuke power

There're a few things I could use your help on...

Of course, the government sections of the country outlines. We still need to keep picking away at these... or bulldoze through them!

And the other is checking each page listed at country outlines and making sure it is listed at Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge. I'm certain some of them haven't been added yet.

By the way, please look over the outlines I created for the U.S. States, and see if anything (problems, ideas) jump out at you. Then let me know.

I look forward to your reply.

The Transhumanist 21:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Been a bit busy recently, but I scanned over a couple of outlines and I noted a few useful things we could add. Under "Cities in 'Insert US State'", we should probably add a section for "Largest city". "Naval militia" and "State Defense Forces" would probably be pretty useful for the "Military of Alabama" section. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Good ideas.
I added the largest city to the outlines for the Western States, including Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. I also added their capitals, via redirect "Capital of x" with the capital name as a pipe, and moved their portal links to the see also section.
I'll work my way east as I find the time.
Let me know when you expect to be able to roll up your shirt sleeves.
The Transhumanist 01:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The Author's Farce GAR

Hi, Thanks for your comments. The article is much improved now and has passed the GAR. Grammar and writing style are an important part of making Good Articles. Please do not take my reversion as a personal criticism. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you do the same for the country outlines?

Thank you for going over the state outlines and spotting those missing items.

Would you mind browsing the country outlines and look for ways to improve them as a whole?

I look forward to your ideas.

Thanks man.

The Transhumanist 00:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for image review

Hi! Since you've done a number of image reviews of Featured Article candidates, I was wondering if you could take a look at Planescape: Torment's images. We're hoping to nominate it soon, and it would be nice if we could fix any image-related problems before the actual nomination. There's a peer review page open right now; it would be much appreciated if you could comment there. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing; I did so and have posted at the peer review. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 19:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Email

I read your email, and I'm a bit confused at what the issue is. I read the discussion, but all I understood was the bit about article size. Is the discussion about shrinking the article, or a split into a different one? If so, what would the second article be? Could you clarify a bit? Thanks, --haha169 (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the editors there, think the article is too long and so ought to be split. They think the most logical splitting part is to recreate Bending in Avatar: The Last Airbender. I disagree. Mind popping over to Talk:Universe of Avatar: The Last Airbender? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind doing it, but I have nothing to say. I wasn't very involved in the original articles nor the universe articles, and I don't really have much of an opinion on this issue. Sorry about that, but I feel like I would just be asking questions more than debating. --haha169 (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
That's fine. I just thought I'd contact you as you are one of the most active WP:AVATAR members. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not yet a WP:AVATAR member yet. :P --haha169 (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Help Request

This article Chiang Kai-shek and Kuomintang and Republic of China frequently Vandalism by anonymous IP address, so I consider these article should be became full-protected or semi-protected for a long time. thank you. 59.105.23.41 (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

He wrote some four editors> I told him I disagree. Debresser (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear IP: While I'm not an administrator, I would agree with Debresser's opinion here. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 18:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Debresser: Thanks for letting me know. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 18:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

New FL criteria discussion: Final phase

Hello, I think we've hammered out a good revised Featured List criteria here. If this passes, there will be quite a few FLs that could soon be delisted just because of 3b. With that in mind, I'd like to get comments and opinions from all FLC regulars and everyone else who has participated in the discussion before it's implemented. Thanks, Scorpion0422 17:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

AFD

Spoilsport. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Come on, there are plenty of other places to mess around. :) NuclearWarfare :  Chat  01:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't tempt me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy April Fool's Day

File:Portapotty3000ppx.JPG Port-a-Potty!!!
Fastily (talk) has given you a Port-a-potty!!! Now whatever are you going to do!? Happy April Fools Day!!!!

Give others port-a-potties by adding {{subst:User:Fastily/Portapotty}} to their talk page with, importantly, a friendly message.

Happy April Fool's!!! :P - Fastily (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Date autoformatting poll

Hi there, 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. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Last Airbender

I'm not sure what you're trying to do. You restored a lengthy lead section and marked it as too long. You removed spacing from {{Infobox Film}} so the fields don't line up as easily. You replaced a cited "Premise" section with an uncited one. You restored an inappropriate non-free image. Please undo your edits, and let's discuss each item at Talk:The Last Airbender#Fresh Start. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm typing now. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
NuclearWarfare, I do not understand why you went to a poorly written version of the article and then tried to clean it manually. Would it not have been easier for you to go back to the original, shorter superior version? Alientraveller (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I have responded at the talk page. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Glad we were able to balance out the revisions. I was wondering, where can I find the support you mentioned for the "crumpled" infobox fields? I always found the uncrumpled layout (as seen at Template:Infobox Film) and was wondering about the justification. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! And honestly, I'm not actually sure. I'll dig around; see if I can find it for you. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

I don't understand why this was nominated. It's been around for some time, and hasn't been substantially expanded recently. Am I missing something? decltype (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied there with a clarification. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Outline of knowledge WikiProject update - 04/02/2009

Hi everyone.

Things are going slow again. Where have you been?!

Maybe what you need to get you going is a little competition...

Who are we competing with?

Encyclopedia Britannica. Specifically, with its Outline of knowledge (presented in its volume called the Propaedia). Currently, they're kicking our asses. You've really got to check out their Outline of Knowledge (available only in the encyclopedia's paper edition - not the online version).

Portals. Informally, of course, just for the fun of it. There are around 600 portals. We're about 100 behind them, with about 500 outlines. Let's blow past them and leave 'em in the dust!

Confusion in editors at large

Now that the country outlines have been moved to the encyclopedia proper (article space), recruiting help on these is of high priority -- it will soon be time to alert all relevant editors to the nature and function of these and how they relate to other country coverage on Wikipedia.

However, I've noticed instances in which editors do not understand the nature and function of outline pages, and complain that they are redundant to articles. Well, ya. (That's the point of an outline - to provide the essentials in a structure for greater understanding, for easy viewing and faster reading, and to provide a topical guide).

A few editors over the years have viewed outlines as redundant to portals, not understanding the purpose and scope of outlines, nor the benefits provided by their structure and standardization.

These problems of misunderstanding need to be solved before "going public", to prevent their expansion as the community's awareness of these pages increases. Consider the response we'd get now if we announced these pages on the talk pages of 500 WikiProjects, 500 article talk pages, and placed links in 500 see also sections, etc.

That could be a nightmare.

So...

Encyclopedic and administrative support

I've been working on a couple things that will help alleviate confusion and hopefully reduce the need for editors to ask questions and seek advice. They're drafts, still under construction. Please look these over and jump in and help complete them (directly or by providing feedback):

First is an Outline article draft, intended to replace the current Outline article.

Next is a guideline on the Outline of knowledge and its outline pages.

Let me know what you think. Do they help you understand outlines better and how to develop them on Wikipedia? What is missing? How can they be improved?

The Transhumanist 04:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

RFA

Hello Nuclear Warfare,

You recently closed my RFA request early. I would like to thank you for your advice. However, I would like to request you to let the RFA last for the full time. I would appreciate it if you reverse your actions.

Thank you, Yuvmil (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to still be open at the moment (see current revision). If a non-bureaucrat does close it early, you of course have the right to let it run for the full time, but let me caution you that it probably will not be long before it is closed. I hope you do stick around Wikipedia though; it is a fun place to interact with people who are interested in collaborating on important reference material for the public. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ulitimate Edition‎

This is a cleanup effort but I could see how it might look otherwise.

This article was created under Ulitimate Edition‎ and Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 Ultimate Edition, both are copy and pasted from Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3#Ultimate Edition. It appears that the editor plans to split the article but simply copied and pasted to each of these articles, then stopped. Ulitimate Edition‎ is a highly unlikely redirect so the first step is to clean up this. A note has been left on the editor's talk page about their intentions for Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 Ultimate Edition.--RadioFan (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. I went ahead and nominated it for RfD. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 01:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Why did you nominate it for review? Is there some question about my making it a redirect?--RadioFan (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I have no question about it; it was more for propriety's sake than anything else. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 01:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Understood, thanks for the clarification,--RadioFan (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup of Prakash Amte

...just a note to let you know that your clean-up was good, and makes the article encyclopediac and readable! Cheers. prashanthns (talk) 05:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! It is very kind of you to say that. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 16:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

FTC

See ? at USNA alum FTC. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Outline of knowledge WikiProject update - 04/06/2009

As the country outlines have been approaching completion and more attention has been given to the non-country outlines and the Outline of knowledge as a whole, I've run into this...

Topic lists

As you know, we've been cleaning up sets of pages the links of which are displayed on the outlines.

One of the most prominent of the sets presented are the "List of x topics" (including "List of x-related topics) pages, and they are in a sorry state.

There's actually 2 different kinds mixed together in the same set: most of them are alphabetical indexes.

The others are non-alphabetical hierarchical lists. That is...

outlines!

So, I've been renaming the indexes to "Index of x articles" or "Index of x-related articles", and wikifying them (especially their lead sections). So far, all the country-related topics lists that are indexes have been renamed. It appears the new name fits so well that nobody favors the old name over the new. It's been over a week since that was done, with no complaints, so I've started on the rest.

As for the topic lists that are outlines, those can be absorbed or merged into the OOK. Even though this would entail a lot of renaming and reformatting, and cutting and pasting, these pages might still save us some work! I'm not sure how many there are, but that should become clear once the index pages are all renamed.

Feel free to join in an help. It's hog's heaven!

The Transhumanist 04:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of judicial appointments made by George Washington/archive1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

www.misericords.co.uk

Hi, I recently edited about 80 articles, adding information about the either the complete church or just adding information about the misericords and adding an "external link" to the relavent page on the www.misericords.co.uk site - as this site currently has in excess of 3000 photos of misericords, and by the time it is fully complete will have about 40,000 photos, is an educational, non-profit making site, I thought that these were valid links.

In the middle of March, your bot decided that I was spamming - something that I still do not understand, as this was never the intention. When I queried this - stating for the record that I am the site owner - I was given the very unhelpful (as i did not explain how I had infringed) answer, that I had not been blacklisted, but I would be if I continued to spam. As mentioned I did not, and still do not believe that I was spamming.

As several links had been left intact by your bot, I decided to restore a coupel of the most relevant links - [misericord] and [Cologne_cathedral], both of which have been deleted by your bot under the heading of "unreliable source" - without in any way making this a threat - I would point out that for someone who has dedicated some 8 years of his life to studying misericords, who has be quoted as a source of information in at least 7 thesis, and has had been quoted in at least 4 published articles, this could be construed as libel, howerver the point is, I am at this point unsure why I am supposed to be an "unreliable source" and whether to bother adding the other 490 articles to Wikipedia.

Please can you explain what I have done wrong, and how to correct this.

If at the end of this you still decide I'm an unreliable source, surely you should remove all of my edits!

Lalratty (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I had gone through parts of your website, and I did not think that it was a reliable site. Since then, I went through further and researched your site a little more. It looks like it was indeed a good site, and I am at fault for removing the links. I shall see if I can get the "Conflict of Interest Bot" (which is not actually an editing bot, just a tool that collects the information; human editors decide individually to remove the links) to whitelist you, as your edits seem great. Please do continue adding your references and accept my apologies. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 00:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Apology accepted ;-) Could you, please, leave a message when www.misericords.co.uk is whiltelisted - I'll then add details of the misericords to [Magdeburg_Cathedral]
Lalratty (talk) 08:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Project update

Thanks for the update. I just read a bit of User:The Transhumanist/Outline of knowledge, and it's proven quite useful so far. I'm sure I'll be able to use it to my advantage in the future.

Also, I think it might actually be a good idea to advertise the outlines, so the redlinks turn blue. Thoughts? –Juliancolton | Talk 13:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this looks really great. I've come up with two suggestions: One thing that might be really useful is advertising the "Outline of Knowledge" in {{Infobox Country}} (or whatever template is used). Another would be to figure out how to expand the lead without bloating it too much. The simple one-sentence lead is too short, but four paragraphs for an outline would be excessive. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 18:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
In a thread above (on my talk page), Penubag wondered if outlines could be made for medicine and physics. I pointed out that those already existed, and he replied: "I think we should make the outlines more visible in the article. The current outlines are buried all the way down in the See Also sections. It would be nice if they appeared at the beginning of the article like the hat notes. (I didn't even know we had outlines for those)."
Hatnotes would be the perfect place to mention these, because they are topical guides (tables of contents) for their respective subjects.
Anyone want to help with this?
The Transhumanist 03:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dates

There's nothing wrong with the way I format my dates. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know; I have just always preferred a consistent format, and your lists happened to be the first one I checked. I was just running the standard whitespace/table cleaner, and I figured I could run the date formatter at the same time. If it is a problem for you, please do tell me, and I'll stop immediately. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 02:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind the whitespace and table cleaning but I would like all my list on the academies (I've worked about 9 so far) to be consistent. Five are already FLs. Can you automate putting the dates back the way they were (2009-04-07 fmt)? If the list isn't an FL already they may not be consistent within that list but would be by the time I'm done with them. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is no way to convert back to yyyy-mm-dd with an automated tool. Hmm, this seems to be a bit of a dilemma. If you want, you are free to revert my edits entirely, and I can go back in and add the other fixes. Alternatively, I can change all article you wish to follow the mdy formatting. My apologies for this inconvenience. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Either way it's a whole lot of work to get things to be the same through the series now. Argh. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you only want it to be the same throughout the series, converting it all to mdy makes the most sense, I'd think, as that puts it all in one format and takes very little effort. If you pointed me towards a category of "List of X Academy graduates", I'd be happy to go through it for you. Sorry about all of this. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
You can change from B to A but not A to B? Unreal. If I'd wanted them formatted the way you did it, I'd have done it in the first place. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I can talk to the script creator; see if I can't come up with something. Hopefully, it wouldn't be too hard to code. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 02:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

All fixed. Python \o/. BJTalk 02:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! I have "replied" on your talk page. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 02:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I asked him ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 09:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

New hatnote based on Penubag's suggestion (look at it in the edit window)

For a topical guide to this subject, see Outline of whatever

It is the template {{Topical guide}}.

I hope the comment works to protect the hatnote. Suggestions welcome.

The Transhumanist 03:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Characters list

Before I retire from the cartoon Avatar articles, I would like at least one decent attempt to get the Characters list past FLC. Since you are much more experienced at FLC than I am, is there any current problems with the list (besides the Reception) that will need work? Thanks, --haha169 (talk) 05:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I was moving on from Avatar articles too, but I was hoping we could at least finish the FTC together. It's OK though; I should be able to get Universe through GA with a bit lot of work. As for the character list; obviously the reception section could use work. I also think the Katara, Sokka, Toph, and Azula sections should be expanded to two paragraphs each; that would fit better with the rest of the sections. After that, we should copy edit the whole thing and send it to peer review, as the prose is extensive enough for us to need a third-party look over. After that, a FLC wouldn't be all that hard, I'd bet. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 15:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

FLC nominations and reviews

Hi, NuclearWarfare. You may not be aware, but the new Featured list criteria was implemented Sunday 5 April, 00:56 (UTC) following two weeks of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#New criterion discussion.

I've gone through the nominations and have noticed you have !voted Support, Oppose or Neutral at the following nominations:

  1. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Dexter episodes/archive1 (List of Dexter episodes)

Please could you take the time to revisit the articles and candidate pages, and check them against the new Featured list criteria, and confirm/revise your !vote; any !vote made against the old criteria that is not confirmed against the new criteria will be ignored when the nomination is closed.

Finally, please accept my apologies for the brusqueness of this message; the same wording is being sent to everyone who has outstanding reviews, with only the names of lists being changed. Regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry about the edits I have made a few months ago. I hope that ypu will accept my sencirest apolagy.

Jiggley puff (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC) jiggley Puff 4/9/09

Apologies accepted :) NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Last Airbender

Updated DYK query On 10 April, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Last Airbender, which you recently nominated. 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) 07:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Yes, I should really create a duplicate version for testing, rather than editing the live version. Let me know if it's still broken, and thanks for letting me know! By the way, the script now has some documentation in the comment section at the top, and the buttons have been split into more buttons. Thanks again. Plastikspork (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

WPTC straw poll question

Heya, I just had a quick question about the straw poll (since you're the only person who's voted that I don't already know well). You said that because all cities have articles, why shouldn't tropical cyclones, but cities only exist (and are thus notable) if people live in them. If no one live in them (or ever lived in them), then it can't be a city, so it doesn't have an article. For most storms, I would agree with likening tropical cyclone articles to city articles, as most storms do affect people. That isn't the case for tropical cyclones that didn't affect people (or land), is it? What makes those storms just as notable? There usually isn't the same amount of info, as for storms that didn't make landfall, the info comes from only one place. Sorry to badger you, but I'm just a little curious! :) --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The best I can explain put my rationale is here. Even if the storm just formed in the ocean and ended in the ocean without hitting land, it still was tracked and warned on by at least one source, which merits keeping it in my mind. I noticed on Juliancolton's talk page, you said "I don't think the WPTC should be focusing so much of its time on articles that didn't affect anyone, and which nobody looks at." I don't mean to be rude, but if it bothers you so much, just try to encourage people to work on the more important articles in drives with you. I see no reason to merge articles and lose information which will actually have value to some people who don't want to bother to dig through the NOAA/NHC's very obscure and out-of-the-way database. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I have tried to get people to work on the more important articles, and it's never worked. As for the fish storms, most of the content is usually preserved when it is merged, and anything that isn't is usually trivial or not overall important. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Outline of knowledge project summary, and future direction

In response to a friend on Wikipedia who was wondering about how I've been and what I've been up to, I got to spewing about our little endeavor, and well, I got so carried away I pretty much told him everything.  :) The message turned out to be a pretty good summary of what we've accomplished so far and the overall plan.

See User talk:The Rambling Man#What's up?

The Transhumanist 23:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

United States Academic Decathlon

I have finished my first run-through of the article (you've seen my comments on the talk page). Overall, I think the article is quite good. It has a little repetition in the first half that can easily be solved by a little reorganization. The writing is also very good - it is clear and concise. You might want to ask one more copyeditor to go over the article before FAC. It can never hurt to use a finetooth comb before FAC when you have the leisure time to fix things. I would recommend someone like Scartol or Brianboulton. Let me know when you want me to read the article again and return to my list of comments. Note that I haven't read through all of the notes to see if they are properly formatted. You should do so before you submit the article for FAC. Awadewit (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Heads up...

I just assigned Julian Colton 50 AWB tasks.

He might need your help or advice.  :)

The Transhumanist 20:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Post Mortem (video game)

I am sorry if i edited incorrect information in the biography on Gustave Mcpherson. I have the game and it's sequel Still Life and the information in Still Life about Gustave seems to contradict itself. When you play as Victoria and you are in her father's attic and you are just about to start play as Gustave for the first time, he says "Prague 1929, two years since that weird case in Paris". This would seem to indicate that the events in Post Mortem takes place in 1927. However, in a document Victoria finds later it says that the events in Post Mortem takes place in the autumn of 1925. I got confused by this and it wasn't my intention to edit incorrect information, I apologize for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.69.147 (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Update on the Outline of knowledge WikiProject & Geography WikiProject (Country outlines workgroup) - 04/16/2009

Momentum in the development of the outlines is continuing to build, even though we haven't added any new outlines lately. Plenty of work is being done on the outlines we already have.

Keep up the good work everyone!

Inspiration!

Kudos go to Buaidh, who has dived head first into outline development, continuing improvement of the country outlines, and doing so vigorously. Take a look at his contribs. He has taken the initiative and has been expanding those outlines' design and coverage. Be sure to let him know what you think of his work!

Coming soon: the Super Huge Expansion (it will be really really big)

Excitement (mine at least) is building as we approach the Super Huge Expansion, during which notices will be placed on thousands of subject talk pages and their corresponding WikiProjects (see below concerning which ones). Though not all on the same day! - this will take place over a period of weeks or months, because it's best not to open the flood gates all at once.

The existing outlines should serve as strong examples for editors who wish to develop new outlines, and so we need to complete them as much as we can before we start to take this to the next level (in about 3 months). The rewrite of the outline article (the draft, which explains outlines in detail), and the guideline on outlines and outline development, also need to be completed before the transcendence begins. These will help guide the decisions and actions of editors, and reduce confusion.

Projected outline, at the OOK WikiProject page

What's next? Where is the Outline of knowledge headed?

Well, it will grow, to encompass all of human knowledge.

But, is there a plan?

YES!!!

Currently under construction on the Outline of knowledge WikiProject page is a version of the outline that will display links to all the outline pages currently in the encyclopedia proper, links to all outline drafts, and redlinks to all planned outline drafts.

You can help. Please place links to the remaining drafts in there (with complete pagenames so we can easily tell they are drafts). Once all the draft pages are placed, please look over the overall outline for gaps in coverage, and add missing subjects. I expect there are thousands of missing subjects extensive enough to benefit from being outlined. New subjects should be included as red draft links. Thank you.

But it's not just an editing task list...

During the upcoming "Super Huge Expansion" (mentioned above), the article talk page and WikiProject for each of the subjects listed on the projected outline will receive a notice requesting the creation and development of the outline page for that subject. Each notice will also explain how a subject's outline will integrate into the Outline of knowledge and into Wikipedia's navigation system as a whole.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge#Projected outline.

Topic lists

The nice thing about a reverse outline is that it turns up problems that exist in the publication being outlined, which provides opportunities to fix them. Since we get very little or no opposition to fixing problems even on sets of hundreds of pages, we've been plowing through them.

One of the biggest problems in Wikipedia that our work on the Outline of knowledge has uncovered so far is with the set of topics lists. Their titles, in the forms "List of x topics" and "List of x-related topics" are ambiguous, and they are not the most common terms for describing their content. See WP:COMMONNAME. To make matters worse, the set is divided between 2 competing types/sets of pages: alphabetical indexes, and outlines.

In an effort to sort out this mess, the indexes are being renamed, and the outlines are being reformatted and moved, or merged, into the Outline of knowledge.

So far, almost 300 topic lists have been renamed to indexes. Nobody has objected to the names chosen, but one editor has expressed reservation on the approach - he was concerned it would cause confusion by having 2 title standards in place at the same time for these. Though he himself was not confused, nor did he object to the titles. And nobody else has expressed confusion or dissatisfaction with the new titles either. It has been over 2 weeks since the renaming has begun, and since no confusion seems to have been caused, and since there is no opposition to the new names, I plan to continue with the renaming.

Also, one topic list has been merged into its corresponding outline so far: List of transport topics was merged into Outline of transport. It turned out very good. List of cell biology topics is currently being merged into Outline of cell biology (see the link dump in hidden comments at the end of the outline).

I'm not sure how many lists have "topics" in their titles, but Google turned up 788, and these appear to include the ones that have already been renamed to indexes. Subtracting those renamed so far, there are about 500 more to go.

Watching tips

I thought you might want to compare notes on the methods we use to watch over the outlines. Here's how I keep an eye on things...

My watchlist had so many thousands of articles in it that I finally just deleted them all. Now I have it set so that I have to manually add pages to be watched, and I use it only to watch trouble spots and collaborations I'm participating in.

Because I like to watch specific sets of pages at a time, I use "Related changes" on list pages. That way the results are not watered down with edits from pages I'm not immediately concerned with.

I always use WP:POP and Related changes together. With POP installed, you go to a link list, like User:Buaidh/Country outlines of the Americas, then click on "Related changes" in the toolbox menu, and then hover the mouse cursor over the diff and hist links so you can look at those without clicking on them.

It's pretty fast.

The technique turns Wikipedia's list system into a crystal ball.

Update Scanner

Penubag recommends Update Scanner, which is a Firefox add-on that periodically scans pages and pings you when a change is detected. You can even set its level of sensitivity for each scanned page (e.g., "ignore changes of 100 words or less").

I'd use it, but I don't have a computer.  :(

See also WP:OTS for more power tools and techniques, and User:Penubag/optimum toolsets for some more nice addons, that do a variety of things.

I'm always looking for new power tools and power skills, so if you know of any, please share (let me know)!

The Transhumanist 04:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive_8&oldid=1089981817"