User talk:Stemonitis/Archive08

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between December 1 2006 and January 24 2007.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarising the section you are replying to if necessary.

Interested?

Hi there! I've seen you have been a long-time constructive user among wide areas of Wikipedia. The mop crew could always use the help of a dedicated and interested editor. As such, would you be interested in being nominated for adminship? (Radiant) 16:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In many ways, yes. I always feel bad at having to go and pester an admin in the case of finding a persistent vandal or a page needing deletion or the like. I'm still not entirely certain what would be expected of me (if anything), but in principle I think it would be useful for me (and thus for the wider community, I should add). I'd been holding off from nominating myself for several reasons, including modesty, telling myself I didn't have the time, and a desire to see how long it would take before someone offered to nominate me. If I managed to make 2,800 edits in a month (can it really be that many?), I've obviously got the time, and you've now suggested nominating me. That only leaves modesty, and I shan't let that stand in the way! So, if you think I'd make a good admin, I'm happy for you to nominate me. --Stemonitis 16:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I have created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stemonitis for you. Please answer the questions at your leisure, and when you're done, add it to the main WP:RFA page. Good luck! (Radiant) 17:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2,800 isn't even your record. The record was last August, where you had 3,236 edits :) Caution: Some RfA regulars might oppose due to low participation outside of the main article namespace. This is a silly reason in my opinion. Also, in answering the questions, I would focus on your desire to not badger other admins when confronted with a vandal or a page needing speedy deletion. If you're not certain about how to proceed with answering the questions on the RfA and/or posting at WP:RFA then ask! Happy to answer! --Durin 21:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I'll bear all that in mind. --Stemonitis 10:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni DonCara hoax

I've been watching this article since its creation with the same exact worry. I've been unable to locate any of the names, places, or astronomical bodies mentioned in this article. This is despite searching google, google books, Web of Knowledge, JSTOR, etc... (essentially every relevant academic database I have access to). I didn't want to bite this newbie by tagging the article too soon, but I'm going to bring it to afd if some complete references aren't provided soon. I'm relieved you think this is a hoax; I was afraid RC patrol had made me paranoid. Cheers, shotwell 17:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. It all seems so plausible, but there's still no evidence to back it up. Actually, my first concern was that a supposedly Italian place-name (Capurt) didn't end in a vowel! I would be very surprised if these two turned out to be real. --Stemonitis 17:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gooseneck barnacle

Hi,
Why did you remove "binomial_authority = Sowerby, 1833" from this article ? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gooseneck_barnacle&diff=82437492&oldid=77019900 Is this an error ? For french Wikipédia, I'm searching for "which Sowerby" described this species. El Caro —The preceding unsigned comment was added by El Caro - WP:fr user (talk • contribs) 17:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I removed the authority because, according to the taxobox, the article deals with two genera, and even if both had the same authority, it would be misleading to cite just one authority for both. It looks like Sowerby is not the author of either Lepas or Pollicipes, but I can't find out who was (probably Linnaeus for Lepas). There is a problem with the interwiki links, in that some foreign language articles which are linked to (including the French one) are about the single species Pollicipes polymerus. I wasn't sure how to solve the problem, so I've left it until now. The best way would probably be to create an article about Pollicipes polymerus at the English Wikipedia. That would allow most of the problems to be solved, I think. --Stemonitis 09:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linnaeus (1758 Syst. Nat., ed. 10, 667; 1767, ed. 12, 1107.) was indeed the author of Lepas. He categorized it under "Testacea" ([1]). Pollicipes is by Leach, 1817 in Journ. de Phys., 85, 68; 1818, Ency. Brit. (Suppl. to ed. 4-6), 3(1), 170. Lycaon 13:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you could try Nomenclator Zoologicus for finding authors. Lycaon 13:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a very useful resource — a shame it only covers genera and subgenera, and I would never have thought of implementing a search option for all taxa published on a particular page in a particular volume, but of any publication! [2] Thanks for the information. --Stemonitis 13:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the links. But I don't find who described Pollicipes polymerus, just sources with : "Sowerby 1833". Do you confirm it's George Brettingham Sowerby I ? -- [[User:El Caro - WP:fr user|El Caro]] 20:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got a clue which Sowerby described P. polymerus, to be honest. It's complicated by the fact that they sometimes published names in each other's works, e.g. Conus obscurus Sowerby I, in Sowerby II, 1833 [3]. It would probably be OK in this difficult case to link the author citation to the Sowerby family disambig. page. --Stemonitis 09:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of Ken MacLeod categories

You seem to have gone in and changed all the Ken MacLeod cats to Macleod. Why? He spells it with the capital L, as his own webpage will testify: http://kenmacleod.blogspot.com/ --Orange Mike 14:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a question of spelling. I have commented on this recently. Please see User talk:Stemonitis/Archive07#Mac. I'll happily answer any further questions if that's not clear enough. --Stemonitis 15:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soulbot and the Crab article

Sorry, my bad. - Soulkeeper 09:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shark categories

The surplus shark categories will be removed by bot soon, & the job will rely on the "Sharks" cat being there. You were right in removing the cat, but maybe just leave others (there are 100s) for a while. Thanks GrahamBould 08:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, good, so that problem is being dealt with. I wasn't about to jump in and change it all anyway, at least not without consulting the relevant project. I am more than happy to leave it for someone else (or someone else's robot) to do! It was an article I got to via Special:Random, rather than an attempt to work on a particular field in more depth, in case you were wondering. --Stemonitis 09:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnedd Llewelyn

Bore Dda. I see that you have reversed the spelling of Carnedd Llywelyn to Carnedd Llewelyn on the page with that name. Whats in a name? Here in Eryri, where I live, names carry a great significance and though our bards take liberties with words and make puns in a time honoured and highly complex way, we try to get the spelling of names correct whenever we can. Carnedd Llywelyn has been incorrectly entered on modern OS maps as Carnedd Llewelyn, and until the O.S. reprint, unfortunately that is the way that it appears. LLEW means Lion in English. LLYW means Leader. Tyysog Llywelyn, Prince of Wales (killed 11 December 1282)is remembered among his people as 'Ein Llyw Olaf', Our Last Leader. He lived nearby at Garth Celyn, at the entrance to the Aber valley. His name was Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, and the mountain, very significantly, is named in his honour, to his memory. Here in the heart of Welsh Wales the landscape keeps faith with memory.

Parc Cenedlaethol Eryri, Snowdonia National Park Authority, use the correct spelling, Carnedd Llywelyn (see their website). The Royal Commission on Ancient Monuments, Wales use Carnedd Llywelyn (see 'Caernarvonshire Vol. 1, East, page151, entry 552, Carnedd Llywelyn. Enwau Eryri, Iwan Arfon Jones (ISBN: 0 86243 374 6) uses Carnedd Llywelyn The Mountains of Wales, Ioan Bowen Rees (ISBN 0-7083-1163-6) uses Carnedd Llywelyn The name is spelt correctly in countless numbers of books and articles written by local people, as it is in documents in UCNW, Bangor, Archives and elsewhere.

So where do we go from here? By far the majority of people who use Wikipedia will not have an OS map. Many people, interested in the mountains of Snowdonia, for what ever reason, do know of Snowdonia National Park and might check out the Park's website. A title to the Wikipedia page with both spellings, might resolve the issue for the present. My own preference would be to retitle the page Carnedd Llywelyn, and have a link to the alternative spelling. However, all the text on the page surely must contain own our local and recognised spelling of the name. BrynLlywelyn 11:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with Snowdonia, and with the attitudes held towards the names and legends with which it is imbued. I sympathise with your desire to "correct" the spelling, but the approach was perhaps a little mis-guided. When you changed "Carnedd Llewelyn" to "Carnedd Llywelyn", you not only rendered the image invisible, but also made the article differ from its title. If the majority of reliable sources do use the "Llywelyn" source (and I'm prepared to believe that they do), then the best way forward is to make a move request (full details given on that page), and try to establish a consensus for the new name, but the article must always be spelt in a way that is consistent with its title. I would note that in previous debates, the OS has tended to be seen almost as the ultimate arbiter of British place-names, tending to out-rank other sources, but perhaps in this case the consensus will be different (and also a link is provided to the OS maps via the grid. ref. for those who haven't got the map to hand; I shall add a more direct link shortly). The fact that the NPA and others use the other spelling would be pretty good evidence, I should think. Please note that while it would technically be possible for anyone to move the page directly, because of the (perceived) primacy of the OS, consensus for such a move does need to be demonstrated beforehand, and so the procedure must be followed. --Stemonitis 11:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

I am pleased to let you know that, consensus reached, you are now an Administrator. You should find the following forums useful:

Congratulations on your promotion and the best of luck with your new charge! Redux 13:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. -- Agathoclea 13:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, and thanks to all the people who supported me (I won't be thanking them individually because I see that as a waste of server resources). And let me pacify those who were worried about my inexperience with deletion debates right now by stating that I won't be jumping straight in to such tasks without getting a better idea of how they work first. It'll probably be a while before I start making administrator actions; those extra buttons do look rather tempting, but I think I'll be able to control the urge for a while. --Stemonitis 13:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Stemonitis! Have fun with the new tools! If you ever need any admin-related help, feel free to contact me. =) Nishkid 64 21:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, well done! Sorry I got here to say that so late - if you have any questions then please ask! Regards and happy mopping, (aeropagitica) 23:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fauna Barnstar

		The Fauna Barnstar
		For your thousands upon thousands of tireless edits to arthropod-related articles, and in particular crustacean-related ones, I award you the Fauna Barnstar. IronC hris \| (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it's all good news at the moment, isn't it?! There doesn't even seem to be much vandalism going on at the moment (touch wood). Thank you very much. --Stemonitis 16:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Punt-Chamues-ch

You're right! Very odd! I have moved it back.

Ksnow 12:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Ksnow[reply]

oz maritime page

thank you very much for that template fix - appreciated!!SatuSuro 14:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem — glad to be able to help. --Stemonitis 14:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badcall

Thanks for helping me out on the Badcall villages article in Scotland, I've done a bit of research and added that its economic importance is its fishing industries. Nitro calibur 15:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Keep it up, and try to include references where possible. I'll gladly help out if you have any difficulties with formatting, etc. --Stemonitis 15:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need you to sort out an image I've just uploaded for badcall, its the sealine near the village and I need it reduced and labelled, I'm just a new user and I don't quite know how. Nitro calibur 15:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. The Manual of Style should contain everything you need to know about formatting, WikiMarkup, etc. --Stemonitis 15:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ileana D'Cruz

Can you explain why you want to spell her name incorrectly in the category indexes? Valrith 13:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This is a topic that keeps recurring. The sort key (the text after "Category:…|" in each line) is not so much a spelling as a position marker in the list of the contents of a category. The MediaWiki software uses the ASCII values (or something similar) to order characters, which means among other things that all capital letters come before all lower case letters, even though in normal alphabetical ordering, the upper-case/lower-case distinction is irrelevant. This also applies to punctuation, with the apostrophe being treated as a letter before "A" in the alphabet. Therefore, to make Ileana D'Cruz (and all other people with surnames beginning "D'") sort in its correct place, we have to sort it as if it were really "Ileana Dcruz", between Uwe Daßler and Billy Dea. Left as "D'Cruz, Ileana", the article would get sorted to the very beginning of the D section. --Stemonitis 00:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the apostrophe is part of the name, and should be part of the sort. Does Wikipedia have a style guide on this? Valrith 14:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you think that all "D'…" names should precede "Da", "De", and so on? I suppose that's one point of view, though it seems a little illogical to me. No-one doubts that the apostrophe is part of the name, incidentally; it's merely a question of how that name is collated in an alphabetical list.

As far as I can see, there are no guidelines (yet) on this. The closest place is Wikipedia:Categorization of people, but that says nothing specific about punctuation. I've been meaning to try to add a line of two about internal capital letters to that guideline, but haven't got around to it yet. I am also unsure what to do with surnames of several words (currently "Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie" sorts before "Ringo Le" because the space sorts before the comma, which seems wrong). --Stemonitis 14:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I've seen some hierarchies that would omit "Le" from the sort for the first person, and some that would include it. This would also apply to "D de Champs", "D deLaurentiis", etc. Valrith 15:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Our poor Atlantic Salmon has been repeatedly vandalised. Be sad. Pity it. Woe is the Atlantic Salmon article. Dark jedi requiem 02:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Burnside (inventor)

Doh! Thanks for fixing the Cats on this article :) I should know better! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation of peers

This morning I made dozens of edits reflecting what I thought were the rules regarding categorisation of peers (and what you seem to be implying are indeed the actual rules), but I was corrected by User:Proteus, with reference to the wikipedia namespace page in question. On re-reading, the guidelines seemed to corroborate what he was saying, but were ambiguous. Given that you reverted my edits to the guideline page, what is the actual state of affairs? If I was right, could you make the guidlines clearer and reason with Proteus? And if I was wrong, then why were my edits to the guideline page wrong? Thanks in advance for any help you can give me, I am confused!! Jdcooper 16:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that being Earl of Buchan doesn't stop him still being plain old David Erskine. As I see it, the principle behind category indexing is to find the most logical place for a given article title (not personal name) in a one-dimensional listing. In this case, I think most people would expect "David Erskine, 11th Earl of Buchan" to be sorted among the other Messrs. Erskine, and not under "Buchan". That is also my interpretation of the existing text at Wikipedia:Categorization of people, and apparently yours. Proteus tried to change the text after reverting your edits, but before that, the text read "In categories dealing with peerage, British peers are sorted by name of the title rather than surname", which seems pretty unambiguous to me: categories restricted to peers should be sorted by the peer's title, but that doesn't apply to other categories. A discussion has begun at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage, where I've explained the existing guidelines. --Stemonitis 17:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RaD Man

You say that internal capitalization messes stuff up. While I think it's possible, I'm rather familiar with collation sort orders (I actually enjoy learning about partial orders...), and I don't quite understand. I didn't revert your change beacuse I think you probably know what's going on here better than I do, so I would like some schooling on the subject (If you're willing to teach). McKay 19:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seem not to be hard and fast rules (yet), but my feeling is that "RAD" should come after "RAC" and before "RAE", regardless of whether upper-case or lower-case letters are used. The MediaWiki software, being a machine, is ignorant, and only sorts by ASCII code (or some derivative) in which capital letters all come before lower-case ones. Since almost all articles use sentence case in the sort keys (first letter capitalised and later ones in lower case), this means that "RaD" will be sorted before "Rad", and even before "Raa". The best solution seems to be to sort "RaD Man" as "Rad Man", such that he appears between "Raczkowski, Damian" and "Rada, Ionuţ Alin" in Category:Living people. I'm trying at the moment to get the whole situation cleared up (possibly in the wrong place, at Wikipedia:Categorization of people), which I hope will make everything more transparent in future. --Stemonitis 20:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see what you're saying now. You have in your mind what you think the "correct" way of sorting things is, and because MediaWiki doesn't sort that way, we should make the articles conform? Personally, I don't think there's a problem if "RaD Man" appears before "Raczkowski", but I can totally see why you like it that way. Curious, where should "O'Brien" go? between O'Adam and Oarty? Because O'Brien has an apostrophe, he gets a bump in lexographical superiority? What about "McKay" (that's my name). Should I be before Mchedlidze? Not very many of the "Mc"s have been changed to use the lowercase version. Should that be changed?

Don't mind me, I'm just trying to throw a wrench into things :D McKay 20:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm way ahead of you. You're right that the McX articles haven't seen much work, but all the MacX articles (at least the ones about living people) have been changed. Similarly, I'm working on a guideline (at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people, in case you're interested) which would have an impact on the O'Brien problem: my solution is to sort it as "Obrien", and I can't see any problem with that (which doesn't mean there aren't any). I don't want to start changing the O'Xxxx articles until there's consensus about how they should be sorted, but I agree that that "bump in superiority" does seem inconsistent. But to answer your question, yes, McX almost certainly should be changed to collate as either Mcx or Macx. If I knew which of those two was better, I'd probably have done it by now. Sometimes laziness is a good thing. --Stemonitis 22:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, if you're willing to go all the way, That's fine. Also, I've seen McXyz been collated under MXyz (putting them before all of the other 'M's), and as M<nbsp>Xyz (Unicode value sort collation) putting them after all the Ms. So let's just pick something and stick with it. Having a template to do these kinds of things would be great, so then we can change the policy without having to update all the articles, but meh. McKay 14:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing?!?!?!

Guten Tag is not hello in German! It means Good Day in German, not Hello(Hallo)! Hans is short for John in German. See Johann, Hans, Johannes.-- Hrödberäht 04:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, translated word for word, Guten Tag is "good day", but "hello" is a better translation of how it's used in everyday circumstances. English speakers rarely say "good day", usually saying "Hello" instead. "Hallo" is used in German when answering the telephone, or very informally, when it is better translated as something like "Hi". Personal names should not be translated even if they are equivalent. Arguing that "Hans" is the same as "Johnny" (as I've seen done several times) is laughable. If you met someone called Johann, you'd call him Johann even in English, or French or any other language. --Stemonitis 12:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phyla moves

I apologize for any inconvenience i may have caused. I was under the impression that it was common for the next level of taxonomy to just be included, rather than seperated. In truth, it is acually more confusing to have them seperated without a clear reason why to the common layperson. I recognized Chordata along with some others but a few were unknown to me and i thought that they were all just mistakenly put there, the spaces being accidental. I've seen the convention to use an asterisk before to denote a special group, but never just a space. Is this a convention that the relevant wikiproject proposed or one that i missed when reveiwing the category conventions? Pls respond on my talk page. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, i think that the best thing to do then would be to create Category:Animal phyla there are already several examples of categories that exist purely to subcategorize and in addition it would already have it's own main article, Phylum. what do you think? I know you thought it might over complicate things but as it stands right now, when you first go into the category, all of a sudden there's this seperate list and it's like "Huh?" so you have to look through it to figure out why it's there like that. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that would make sense. I would be concerned that not everyone will know what phyla are, and it would make it difficult for them to find where the real animals are, which they might reasonably have expected to form the bulk of the contents of Category:Animals. Under your system, Category:Animals would then only contain almost nothing but subcategories (I count fewer than ten articles in there that are not for formal taxa), which is not a problem. Perhaps "Animals by classification" or "Animal classification" would be a better title than "Animal phyla" to make its contents clearer. I quite like the existing system, so I'd be sad to see it go. Perhaps you could ask around (at WP:TOL for instance) to see if anyone else supports either the current system (no-one commented when I enacted it), or your replacement. --Stemonitis 19:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Fungus Collaboration as of Jan 2007

DYK there are no fungal Featured Articles on wikipedia at all? I've modelled this on the dinosaur collaboration which has yielded a few FAs. Please have a look and cast your vote and we'll try a concerted attempt at an FA. Link here......Fungi Collaboration

(hope I got all the templates right...) cheers Cas Liber 03:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. Count me in. --Stemonitis 11:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin needed!

Hi Stemonitis,

I have just nominated for deletion a recently created article, rock mites, which is a suspected hoax (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock mites). It has been edited by 3 different users, all of which have only ever edited this article: Ian pizza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Abbyratsolee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the creator of the article, Herbert101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'm not sure what the procedure is for dealing with users creating hoaxes, but I thought that being an admin you could possibly help in this domain. Cheers! IronC hris | (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to help, but for now, I don't think there's much that can be done. Now that the AFD has started, we should wait for it to finish, since the article doesn't seem to qualify for speedy deletion (although it's almost certainly not true, it's somehow believable, so it doesn't fall under G1). The users in question could be warned that perpetrating hoaxes may be considered vandalism (trying to assume good faith as much as possible — templates {{Test1article}} to {{Test4article}} could probably be used here). If they continue, then there may be grounds for blocking, and if not, then there's no problem. If they continue after a series of suitable warnings, inform me and I'll gladly block them, and I'll delete any nonsense pages that I'm pointed to. For the moment, however, I don't think there's much we can do. It's frustrating, but give it a week, and it'll all be gone. --Stemonitis 22:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysiridia rhipheus

Hi Stemonitis, after Trebor's coment, I'm here to ask you to grade the C. rhipheus article. (See Wikipedia:Peer review/Chrysiridia rhipheus/archive1). Thank you in advance. Pro bug catcher 02:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I haven't graded it in the Lepidoptera scheme, because I don't really know enough to rate its importance there, but the quality assessment ought to be the same. --Stemonitis 11:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ranunculus septentrionalis

Hello. I started this article specifically to populate the Flora of Connecticut category. It may be widespread, but I am trying to define all of the flora and fauna (and thus have something to write about in the articles proper) by populating their respective categories. I do not see what harm it does to include this category tag, and there are plenty of other articles with many, many categories listed. I believe the same principles apply to Caltha palustris. -- StAkAr Karnak 14:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed many articles which are placed in large numbers of categories, but where the categories are all subcategories of a single, larger category, the best practice is simply to use that one, larger category. There has been a lot of debate about the use of biogeographical categories recently, and the consensus was (if I remember correctly) that they should be used more or less for endemic taxa of an area, where possible. Thus, Category:Flora of Connecticut should only contain those taxa which are broadly restricted to the state. It may also contain lists, which is probably the sort of content you're trying to produce. A list of the flora of Connecticut (see list of the vascular plants of Britain and Ireland) could contain the information you're thinking of, but without swamping the categories. --Stemonitis 15:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding with such practical suggestions. Best regards. -- StAkAr Karnak 19:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chistians Against Mental Slavery Links

Hello,

The only reason that I included multiple links is that the site's webmaster screwed up all the links on the site, and didn't include the domain name, so a user gets 404's. If you include the domain name, they work. Maybe the NWO was 'controlling his mind' and made him do it! LOL! - Fairness And Accuracy For All 07:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Agnew

I have just contacted him because I hope he agrees on having this article about himself on Wikipedia. I realise I got carried away and I should have asked him first. In case he disagrees, can this article be scrapped for good - with no one being able to edit it back? I see you're an administrator, that's why I'm asking (and you're familiar with the page apparently). I am a bit worried. However, until I get a response from him, I don't think we should do anything about the page... Zigzig20s 23:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope he doesn't mind, but it doesn't make much difference to the deletion process if he does or not. Provided the article is true, the man is notable in his own field, and there's no reason not to have an article about him. We must, of course, make sure that it is true, and is must adhere to the criteria laid down at WP:LIVING, but his approval or disapproval is not a reason to delete an article. Sorry. It would be possible to delete it under speedy deletion criterion G7, but I really don't think it's warranted on this occasion. I'm not familiar with the page, incidentally; I merely did some routine cleaning-up on it. I don't think you need to worry at all; input from the subject will probably help to improve the article, but it is not required. --Stemonitis 23:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what if he says he does not agree because his ideas are protected by copyright or something? I would then want to delete what I edited. And make sure that no one can edit it back. (If they want to retype it, fine, but not under my version, dyou know what I mean?) Zigzig20s 23:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he has published his theories, then there is no problem with our reporting what they are. We may not repeat the text verbatim, but we can summarise his ideas with impunity. If it's never been published (which appears not to be the case, judging from his website's list of publications), then he would fail the notability criteria. Have the courage of your convictions: if what you've said is verifiable, then there's no problem with it at all; a couple of references, probably to Agnew's publications, would help to demonstrate that. If the article said anything critical about Agnew, then I could understand your worry, but it says he's an award-winning geographer who has come up with a new theory of place. I don't see anything that he could legitimately complain about (not that I know his work), and I see no reason to worry about the article at all. --Stemonitis 23:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear...well, I have added a reference to that definition...I just don't want to appear rude to such a prominent modern thinker. So if he tells me he does not agree, I will want to delete it. I just don't want to be held responsible for being rude. It was rude enough for me to publish the article without his consent in the first place. (I am a bit of a manners freak.) So anyway, am I trapped? I hope not... Zigzig20s 23:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just wait for his response. If he demands that it be withdrawn, I'll look into it, and it may well be possible, but I honestly can't imagine why he would. --Stemonitis 23:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nano Reef article nominated for deletion

This article has been nominated for deletion, and I think it has value. Given your insight and experience in helping me with some other articles, I'd greatly appreciate your weighing in on this one. Thanks! Mmoyer 02:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it should be keepable, since the only real cited problem is the lack of references (poor writing can always be improved and is not in itself a reason for deletion). A web search gives over 100,000 hits for "nano reef", many of which are not just links to forums (plenty of links to companies and some magazine articles among them). There must also be books which mention the topic. Just add some good references, and note on the AFD page that you've done so, and there's no way the article will be deleted. --Stemonitis 08:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Jujst wanted to say, thank you for sorting that stub on Gopal Metro, I spent about an hour trying to find a propper category, but just couldn't, so thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emevas (talk • contribs) 20:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks...

...for stub-sorting Tashkent Treaty. KazakhPol 00:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defaultsort

Didn't know about that template - thanks for enlightening me during your stub sort. (And sorry for not finding a better stub cat in the first place, and for missing the sort keys off the categories too!) Regards, CiaranG 16:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "remove from article namespace categories per WP:USER"

Thanks; I had forgotten about that entirely. However, please remember to close HTML comments you open, or the resulting page will be invalid XHTML. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 03:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, it seems I did forget to close it that time [4]. How odd. Don't worry, though: I normally do it right. --Stemonitis 11:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Busch Default Sort

Is the numbering convention you used for the August Busch III and August Busch IV default sorts standard? I have never seen it before. TonyTheTiger 18:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Edits: [5], [6]] Um, no, but it is a means to the right end. At the time, I thought using Arabic numerals was better than using Roman numerals, but now I come to think of it, there would only be a difference if there were at least 9 people called August Busch (which I assume not to be the case: surely no family is that unimaginative?!). But since either method works, there is hardly any need to worry about which to use. --Stemonitis 23:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

defaultsort template?

Hi Stemontis - what is this defaultsort template I just saw you apply at Ranajit Chakraborty? I looked for it at Template:DEFAULTSORT but didn't see it. Can you point me to some documentation? Looks very useful! --17:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed very useful, but it is not a template, however much it may look like one. It is a new magic word, which has been in use since late December 2006. It hasn't made it into the help pages yet (as far as I know), but it was announced on the Wikipedia Signpost on Jan 2nd 2007 (archived here). --Stemonitis 17:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (not sure what happened to sig last time but it is) --lquilter 17:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's documented here. CiaranG 16:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, copies of that original text from the announcement have been posted in a variety of places. I notice, now that I check, that it is included at the Meta help page I linked to above, as well. --Stemonitis 19:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standard format for cities or towns

Is there a standard format for cities or towns to use; when adding information? Something that is formatted, where a user can add the information, but the design is standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musial78 (talk • contribs)

Template:Infobox City Spain is a template which could contain most of the key information about Spanish towns (which I mention because I see you've been working on El Arenal), and similar templates exist for other countries. I hope that is what you had in mind. It is no substitute for a prose dsecription of the place in question and its most important features, but it is a standardised means of presenting certain facts. For details of how to use it, see Template talk:Infobox City Spain, or look at one of the articles that uses it, such as Valencia, Spain. --Stemonitis 21:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael O'Dwyer

Re: Michael O'Dwyer, I should have checked the categories first to see if he was showing up right or not. Sorry for not thinking. スキャンダルの家 (House of Scandal) 03:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's no problem. I expect a few to be reverted in every batch. --Stemonitis 12:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?uestlove

Please check out the talk page for ?uestlove. Hoof Hearted 22:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied there. --Stemonitis 22:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]