This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
On 20 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Counsel and Care, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 16:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you look like a serious editor. Please evaluate this page I've spent much time editing. Thanks. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 21:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
You've always been a good judge of content...what would you reckon this article rates as on the quality scale?-- NYMFan69-86 ( talk) 04:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
If I have a brochure/pamphlet/map to a place, and it's not copyrighted, can I just scan it to my computer and upload it to commons without giving credit to anyone?-- NYMFan69-86 ( talk) 17:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
An AFD you previously participated in is being done again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kresimir_Chris_Kunej_(3rd_nomination) Turqoise 127 02:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm trying to remove some pervasive linkspam from the articles on chess openings. I noticed you reverted some of my edits, saying "wikibooks required". Please look again at these articles. In the cases you're reverting, the linkspam was the only link in the "External links" section, so I ended up removing the section entirely. However, Wikibooks was already linked further up the page, so it should not be a problem not to have it in external links.
I'm going to go ahead and revert your reversions, so as to remove the linkspam again. If you really think Wikibooks needs to be linked to twice in those articles, please manually edit them to doubly link Wikibooks without re-including the spam link.
Thank you very much. 98.28.19.62 ( talk) 14:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Why are you adding unreferenced sections to obvious facts? The standard is verifiability not that everything should have a local citation. It is obvious for instance from the amount of time between the edits of Logarithm and your previous one to a totally unrelated article that you did no have time to even read the section properly so I get the feeling you did it for ideological reasons. Dmcq ( talk) 13:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I need some help, and I wonder if you would be interested. One of the reasons that fact-tagging isn't especially helpful is because the tags are essentially ubiquitous. Category:Articles lacking sources contains tens of thousands of articles. As a result, it's too big for anyone to find anything in, and thus editors don't use it. They also mostly ignore the tags. (After all, anyone who reads an article can see the absence of citations, so plastering "There's no citations!" on it doesn't really tell them anything new.)
However, a sizeable fraction of articles in the category don't actually belong there, especially if the tag has been on the article for a couple of years, e.g., Category:Articles lacking sources from November 2006. Editors add sources and then forget to remove the tags, or new editors think that you need to be specially authorized to remove the tags. For example, in looking at the first ten articles under "A" in that cat, I found Abbott's Hike, which contains an external link that verifies about half the content of the article. In that case, the {{ unref}} tag should be removed, and the ==External links== section should be renamed ==References==. (The article would then be using WP:General references.)
It's also possible to focus your efforts on a particular WikiProject, through this new tool. Would you be willing to go through some of these, and try to weed out the articles that contain references? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 01:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am the same editor who wrote Pedro II of Brazil and I've nominated another article, José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco, as a FAC. It is about a 19th century Brazilian statesman and is closely related to Pedro II's life. If you enjoyed the Emperor's article I believe you might enjoy this one. Thus, I'd like to see your opinion on whether you would support or oppose its nomination. The link: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco/archive1 -- Lecen ( talk) 12:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello again, I have another question. I'm rearing to take another crack at this article: I was wondering, concerning in line citations, if something like the following would be acceptable. If I wrote a sentence like "Glyptemys turtles were forced south by encroaching glaciers from the north," could I provide two in-line citations that don't directly say this but rather, one for a source that said bog turtles were forced south and a second, different one that said wood turtles were forced south? Is that an acceptable way to construct most of that article?-- NYMFan69-86 ( talk) 22:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
09:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Phylogenic ranking of Glyptemys | |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
The evolutionary history of these two turtles suggests that they share a recent common ancestor and that the bog turtle, in its history, has split into two distinct populations. |
Cladogram 'C' | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Test 1. How about this? |
Cladogram 'C' | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Test 2. |
Had a go, still messy. Try again later, perhaps in reverse order of original. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 15:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Cladogram 'C' reversed | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Test 3. |
Cladogram 'C' reversed and lined up with names |
Test 4. |
The layout of 4 is slightly spoilt by the long names. Still I think it's better with the diagram like in test 3 and 4 then it is in 1 and 2. Regards, SunCreator ( talk)
Emydidae family |
Test 5. |
Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 19:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Great job! Cladogram 5 is what I'll go with for now. Thank you so much!-- NYMFan69-86 ( talk) 21:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and if you ever need help from a janitor please feel free to drop me a line! I hope that if you do have any concerns that you will feel free to share them with me, I promise I don't bite! Panyd The muffin is not subtle 23:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The images look so very much better. :-) NYMFan69-86 ( talk) 23:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
-- NYMFan69-86 ( talk) 23:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
For helping me out an uncountable number of times over the past year. You are an exceptional editor of the wiki! NYMFan69-86 ( talk) 02:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC) |