This page is an
archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
Re: Question
I wouldn't object; it's not an article I frequently edit anyway; my only question is whether you intend to focus on the asteroid belt or whether such a formation section would also apply to all asteroids including (perhaps) the centuars. Serendipodous 22:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Right now I'm revising the maths on
List of Solar System bodies in hydrostatic equilibrium, which is a suicidally boring task. Eventually, once major work on the Solar System lists is finished, I intend to go onto
Jupiter Trojan, the last unfinished component of the Jupiter subtopic. Serendipodous 22:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hoo boy. You do realise that now I'm counting on you to get Hills Cloud up to FA level? Because it will have to be included in the Solar System FT. Serendipodous 23:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The 2009
WikiCup will begin on January 1, 2009. The first round will run through March 31, 2009. For more information on this tournament, read the "
about" section on the main WikiCup page.
This year, we have a different system in calculating points. At
User:Garden/WikiCup/Submissions, you will find information about submitting your article (and other) work to earn points. Each contestant will have their own individual
subpage for submitting completed work to us.
This year,
User:ST47 will also be running one of his
bots to calculate mainspace edits and read your submission subpages to calculate the point values you receive based on
our scoring chart.
Questions or comment? Ask at the
talk page or go directly to
Garden or
IMatthew's talk page. Good luck and Happy Holidays! -- ayematthew✡ and
Garden. 14:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Done with the review of your volcano article. Yeah, that would be cool to collaborate on an article. In fact, there
have been cases where hurricanes trigger earthquakes... –
JuliancoltonHappyHolidays 15:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
No worries, I'm just very strict with prose. Good work with that article. –
JuliancoltonHappyHolidays 15:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I'll take a look. Just so I know, which sections of the article have you finished? –
JuliancoltonHappyHolidays 15:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I copyedited about half the article (since simply listing prose issues would have been to easy :)). I'll finish it up in a few minutes. –
JuliancoltonHappyHolidays 15:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid, but the article has a serious problem and is unlikely to pass now. The problem is the use of copy-pasted lightly paraphrased text from the cited sources. I want to say that it was a bad idea from the beginning. I suggest you to withdraw the nomination, than rewrite offending text in your own words and renominate after that. If you want I can help you. I should have raised this issue before, because I noticed several such examples in the past. Meanwhile, Happy new year!
Ruslik (
talk) 08:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Nope, looks pretty good now that my comments have been addressed. Good luck with the article! –
JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 16:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I am quite busy in reaql life at the moment - I can make some comments, but iot will likely take me several days.
Ruhrfisch><>°° 04:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
1970 Tonghai
I'm not sure if 1970 Tonghai is long enough to become an FA. I guess it's worth a shot, but it's pretty hard to bring it up unless it is >15 kb. ~EDDY(
talk/
contribs/
editor review)~ 13:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but most of them are on storms that generally stayed out to sea and didn't kill anyone. 1970 Tonghai killed 15,000 people. See the difference? ~EDDY(
talk/
contribs/
editor review)~ 13:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, but I have left FPC (at least for a while) - my reasons are on the FPC talk page, "Signing off". Wishing you a Happy 2009! --
Janke |
Talk 14:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
This year a bot will be tallying the scores for the tournament. This bot will be run by
ST47 and will count edits–at 0.1 points each (major edits only, see below)–and submissions at the scores listed
in the tables.
You must submit any work that you manage to promote in each period on your
submissions page. Your page is located here. Rules and instructions are
here for submitting.
Due to the massive influx of Huggle users, and because this is a content contest rather than an
editcountitis extravaganza, minor edits will be scored at only 0.01 points. If you are a Huggle user your edits must be marked as minor or you will be disqualified. If you are unsure, check
your contributions.
If you wish to drop out before the tournament begins, please do so as soon as possible, but not later than January 5.
Most importantly, good luck! Happy New Years,
Garden. and ayematthew 20
Hell's Gate National Park has been nominated for a
good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to
good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are
here.
While looking at some Good Articles by a nominator I am currently reviewing, I noticed that another editor had raised concerns about this article which you had passed as a GA. I share those concerns. I am opening up a review. SilkTork *
YES! 20:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
Dear Ceranthor,
Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.
Hey. I'm just wondering if you are interested in making a new project on
seamounts. Seamounts are not within the scope of the Mountains WikiProject and there's an overlap with the Volcanoes WikiProject. But I don't know how to create a new wikiproject so that's why I'm asking you if you're interested or not. Contact me on my talk page if you have any suggestions.
Black Tusk (
talk) 02:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: Apocalypse
Meh, even if it does happen, the East Coast will be fine. –
JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 23:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: Review
Happy "late" New Year's to you too. Hope 2009 is starting to be a good year for ya. :) Did I review an article of yours? I don't remember. Sure, I'll review your article, but the review won't be done today, cause I'm busy working on other stuff right now, if that's cool with you. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 21:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. :P Alright, cool just wanted to make sure all was cool. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 21:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering if you had an opinion about Edit 2 (processing from original file) to confirm this as the leading FPC? Thanks.
Diliff |
(Talk)(Contribs) 13:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you going to finish this article? Two things need to be done. 1) I think, the giant quote should be moved to the
Armero tragedy article. You can replace it with a short summary. 2) Try to find all places where the text follows sources too closely and try to rewrite it in your own words. I have just expanded parts about geology of the eruption on the basis of the Science article.
Ruslik (
talk) 17:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph in the 'Geology' section too closely follows
this website (ref 13).
Ruslik (
talk) 16:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the article should provide more information about flora, fauna, social and environmental value of of Nevado del Ruiz. There is a
good source (ref 8).
Ruslik (
talk) 09:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Thought you would like to know I created another article about an earthquake on Vancouver Island in 1918.
Black Tusk (
talk) 14:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Electron GA review
Hi,
I look forward to reading your GA review of the
Electron article. Thank you.—
RJH (
talk) 20:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I've finished reviewing the article.
Here is the review.
₪Ceran →(
cheer→
chime →
carol) 12:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I think I have addressed your concerns. Could you take another look?—
RJH (
talk) 17:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello again. Thank you for listing the article as GA. Please could you clarify why you moved it from Physics to Chemistry? On the
WP:VA page, electron is categorized under Physics, and I think that is a more logical place. Chemistry tends to deal with the atomic and molecular level, rather than sub-atomic physics.—
RJH (
talk) 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 03:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Ursula Franklin
As requested, here is a note reminding you to go to the
Ursula Franklin entry which is a featured article candidate and give it a complete read through. Thanks.
Bwark (
talk) 21:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Spencer has had 1 successful "In the news" nomination.
From the Judges
This years WikiCup started off great! It's only the second full week of competition, and we already have a lot of content promoted. We have some very close pools, such as Pool A and J. We also have some pools who have not been very active yet, but hopefully that will start changing in the coming weeks.
Garden and iMatthew have also opened a new pool, the "Judge's Pool" where we are competing against each other and following the same rules as all of you. This pool however, will never have any effect on the actual competition, but you can still check back often to see how we are doing compared to yourself.
That's it for this newsletter edition, everyone. Any questions or comments are always welcome on the WikiCup talk page, or our user talk pages. Until next time,
Garden. and iMatthew //
talk // 13:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from
this list.
Current leaders
In this round of the WikiCup, the top three contestants from each pool will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are:
Pool A
Catalan (138)
Gary King (86)
Spencer (67)
Pool B
Sceptre (22)
Spittlespat (7)
Greatestrowerever, Malinaccier (6)
Pool C
Candlewicke (60)
Scorpion0422 (24)
Steven Walling (9)
Pool D
NapHit (27)
ThinkBlue (18)
97198 (11)
Pool E
X! (69)
Sasata (10)
LOTRrules (4)
Pool F
Bedford (29)
RyanCross (21)
the_ed17, Howard the Duck (5)
Pool G
Sunderland06 (46)
Skinny87 (16)
What!?Why?Who?, Pedro_João, Ceranthor (2)
Pool H
Juliancolton (133)
Tinucherian (41)
Ottava Rima (28)
Pool I
Durova (144)
Theleftorium (121)
Wrestlinglover (15)
Pool J
Paxse (78)
Climie.ca (67)
Useight (46)
All scores are accurate as of the time the newsletter was sent out.
The first copy-editing pass is done—be sure to address the comments; I will probably come back for a second pass and reread. I recommend asking somebody else to look at the article, maybe Ruslik?
Dabomb87 (
talk) 23:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm done with RFA...*note to self*
Just in case anyone cares, I've decided that RFA is totally over-rated, and I will now rarely !vote in discussion. It's full of people who just support without actually evaluating the candidate. This doesn't apply to you if you previously knew the user, but it's really not fair to just support based on other people's opinions. Have your own mind, people.
The same can be said for the oppose side - too many "per X", "not enough edits in z namespace" and well, you know how it goes. It's really not fair to oppose based on other people's opinion. Opposing good candidates is far more damaging than supporting bad ones. Majorlytalk 22:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Yup, exactly my feelings. All just contributing to my opinion—people don't think for themselves!
₪Ceran →(
slip→
sled →
snow) 22:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I've also found an overwhelming presence of the bandwagon effect at RfA. Meh. –
JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 22:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The reason I vote "per x" - I simply don't have the time to do a full evaluation of RFA candidates. It takes time away from editing. For this reason I usually skip people who are at < 60 or > 85 unless I have something to say or want to make a point. As for those on or near the bubble, I usually rely on the research done by those who nominated or discussed the candidate before me. I'll rely on spot-checks of their claims and their wiki-reputations. I do this out of efficiency. This isn't always the case. It's not common but sometimes I'll be so impressed with a nom that after spot-checking it I'll !vote early in an RFA "per nom" specifically to boost the numbers, hoping for a pile-on. Experienced editors with no negatives who are admins on other projects or nominations that make me think "what, this guy's not an admin already?" fall into this category. I'll also vote "NOTNOW" early on in obvious cases, with an explanation and encouragement. If I have time or I have a particular interest in the candidate, I'll do my own research and bring my findings to the discussion. If I'm very interested in the candidate I've probably already been eying them for nomination so I've probably already done the research. That's rare. My
one nomination was a spectacular success, with 66 supports, zero opposes, and one neutral. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Davidwr (
talk •
contribs) 03:14, 15 January 2009
I'm sorry, really, but we can't allow a copyright violation like that to be posted here. I'm sorry about this, but laws are laws and lawyers are lawyers. --
Orange Mike |
Talk 17:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I restored the part that wasn't a copyright violation. --
Orange Mike |
Talk 17:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Ceranthor for voting in my successfully closed RfA! I'm glad that you trust me. Ping me if you need anything! Best regards, --Kanonkas :
Talk 19:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
NDR
it is believed that fauna exists on the mountain Strange statement. Nevado del Ruiz is not a mountain on Mars, about which little is known. I would also prefer slightly longer section. Well, you can nominate now, the problems can be fixed during FAC.
Ruslik (
talk) 18:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Ursula Franklin edits
Many thanks for your comments on the career section of the article on
Ursula Franklin. I have tried to make the revisions you suggested.
Bwark (
talk) 23:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Seamounts
I've been going around, and I think it should become a task force under WikiProject Geology.
24.185.37.213 (
talk) 23:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow, you guys are racking up the DYK's fast! Good articles are also coming in quite quickly, and we also have a few new Featured articles. This is coming along great so far; we're glad to see almost everyone working on something.
Also, Thehelpfulone is our newest judge. He will, starting Monday, be helping maintain the WikiCup and help us ensure all runs smoothly. It's hard to gain consensus between two editors, so I guess "majority rules" (with three people) will start to apply while we make our decision. :-P
In this round of the WikiCup, the top three contestants from each pool will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are:
Pool A
Catalan, Gary King (191)
Spencer (127)
Pool B
Shoemaker's Holiday (112)
Sceptre (34)
Spittlespat (9)
Pool C
Candlewicke (182)
Scorpion0422 (72)
Steven Walling (16)
Pool D
97198 (79)
NapHit (29)
ThinkBlue (25)
Pool E
Sasata (91)
X! (69)
Straight Edge PXK (6)
Pool F
Bedford (55)
RyanCross (31)
the_ed17 (24)
Pool G
Sunderland06 (104)
Ceranthor (34)
Skinny87 (17)
Pool H
Juliancolton (230)
Tinucherian (64)
Ottava Rima (28)
Pool I
Durova (319)
Theleftorium (196)
J Milburn (65)
Pool J
Climie.ca (101)
Paxse (97)
Useight (81)
All scores are accurate as of the time the newsletter was sent out.
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from
this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.
Eco
I don't. Anyone who thinks it is OK to stalk people because they opposed his RFA is not the kind of person I want to associate with. Good riddance to bad rubbish. ~EDDY(
talk/
contribs/
editor review)~ 00:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)