Archive of past comments to Epolk

I made some changes to this page. I wanted to point out especially that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style discourages " and ' for inches and feet. Of course it also wants to require in instead of in. and lb instead of lbs. so there you have it. Also I don't know if you know but our dynamic date linking feature requires all dates to be linked as [[month day]] [[year]]. Did you make the map? Rmhermen 14:48, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

The map looks good. I was just wondering if you were the one who recently asked how to make them and had figured it out. Rmhermen 16:18, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who asked. I did read the discussions for the PA project about the maps and used the sample image of the U.S. to make the map. Epolk 16:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Great job on the Mayfair article. Are you familiar with that school? → JarlaxleArtemis 00:13, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I live near Mayfair in Lakewood. I got most of the info from the BUSD website. I was just cruising around Wikipedia and looking for stuff around me when I found Mayfair and saw that it could use some work and TLC so I gave it some. Epolk 02:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wow. I'm currently attending Mayfair. What a coincidence. ‡ Jarlaxle 07:41, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. I do think, however, that it may be better to follow the shortened form (without the authors' first names). At the moment the refs look rather bulky. Also, if you type PMID 5280465, it automatically generates a link to PubMed, without need to link to the journal's own website for an abstract. JFW |  T@lk 06:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You've removed the "wikify" template from a number of articles, despite the work not having been done. Your edit summaries indicate that you think that the work has been done, but this is mistaken I'm afraid. Guide to layout explains much of what I mean. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 08:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply

I reviewed the pages that I removed the wikify tag from. I also reviewed the Guide to Layout and must admit to being a bit confused as to how those pages don't qualify as meeting the layout guidelines. Could you please provide specific examples of what you mean? Epolk 16:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well, for a start the subjects of the articles weren't mentioned, in bold, in the first sentence or two of the summaries. There were a number of other problems, but the database has been playing up, and I haven't been able to retriev the articles to check. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Ah! I found the ones you are referring to: the Ayyavazhi pages. I will endeavour to remember to check for the bold subject in the future. Epolk 23:00, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have specified which articles I was talking about. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC) reply

You have removed a major physics entry. "Liquefaction" is the process of turning gases into liquids by cooling (and/or raising the pressure). This goes on and on and on though I have commented on it often. See: [1] (note in particular, please, the repeated use of "liquefaction" and the absence of the word "liquification", as well as [2] (about Linde, after whom Linde gas company [3] was named), and the entry for Heike Kamerlingh Onnes, who got a Nobel Prize for liquefaction (not "liquification"!) of Helium. Helium was the hardest, but many famous chemists received renown for the liquefaction of Nitrogen, Oxygen, Ammonia, It is fine to use either one for soil, so far as I am concerned, but please reverse your separation of the term "liquefaction" from the body of physics and engineering. Thanks Pdn 00:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Actually, if you look at the history of the page, all it ever has been was either a redirect to Soil Liquefaction or a Disambiguation page. All I did was remove the geolocical and seismic categories and add a disambiguation template.

I believe the entry you are referring to is Liquefy. That contains the physics definition and the Liquefaction disambiguation page points to it.

My apologies. I thought that there used to be a page that evidently was not there! I fixed up something in Liquefaction of gases; not terribly well Wikifacted, but maybe an OK stopgap. Thanks and again, sorry. Pdn 04:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC) reply

No problem. Mix ups happen!  : )

Epolk 21:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Based upon your Pending tasks, you may be interested in both the California WikiProject and the Southern California WikiProject. Please take a look around both projects and see if their is anything that interests you. If you have any comments or questions, please contact me. (If you don't mind, I think that I'll borrow some of your lists to add to the Open tasks for both projects.) BlankVerse ∅ 12:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Welcome to WP:WPSC (that's the shortcut for the SoCal WikiProject). BTW: I'm in Signal Hill, so howdy neighbor.

FYI: I've put each of the area lists of Missing articles and stubs onto subpages for the project. The subpage for Long Beach is at WP:WPSC-LBA and for Orange County WP:WPSC-OC. Right now the California WikiProject ( WP:CAL) just has one big Open tasks list at WP:Cal-OT, but I hope that project grows enough that the list will need subdividing. BlankVerse ∅ 18:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Alphabetized even! Nice work. For your additions to WP:WPSC-LBA, any article that is no longer a stub, unless there are still major deficiencies, should probably be deleted. The Signal Hill, California article, for example, still needs work, but isn't a stub (on the other hand I don't think that I will ever try to upgrade that article to a Featured article). The article on PCH probably says everything that needs to be said about Long Beach (it even mentions the Traffic Circle). The Jeff Burroughs article, which didn't exist when I created the list, is now a nice sized article.

The Boeing article, on the other hand, doesn't say anything about Long Beach, even though the company is still the largest employer in the city. Both the McDonnell Douglas and Douglas Aircraft Company articles are no longer stubs, but both probably qualify as articles that still need plenty of work.

I'm not sure about all of those hospitals. Personally, I think that only Long Beach Memorial, the VA hospital, and St. Mary's have national reputations. On the other hand, just as there will probably be articles on every school in the world, there will probably be articles on every hospital in the world, so I won't fight it. BlankVerse ∅ 19:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Perhaps using strikethrough (Example) to denote items that are complete would be useful on the project list so people won't waste time checking into articles that are already done. Epolk 15:54, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I did not mean to be rude in my edit comment. I am not in the least opposed to animal studies. My concern was the relevance of these studies for the reader. There are many studies being performed on animal models, including interventional models, and it struck me as odd that this particular study should be mentioned. On the whole I do avoid animal studies which have had no follow-up in humans, unless they confirm a long-held hypothesis or something like that. Please let me know what you think. JFW |  T@lk 16:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply

I did not take offence. One of the first things that Wikipedians should learn is that if a person does not want their writings to be edited, do not put them on Wikipedia.

I was asking because the article I got the information from (Nicotine's Good Side - Science News - Vol. 166, No. 19), mentions the fact that the results of the animal study coupled with tests of nicotine on human cells suggests a pathway to effective therapies. I did neglect to add that information to my edit on the sepsis page. If I add that information would the animal test results be acceptable?

Epolk 22:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Thanks! I appreciate the recognition.

Epolk 16:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Excellent response on the talk page for this article. I'm going to bookmark that for future reference. Jasmol 18:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Just to let you know, I've come to see that you're right about keeping the article. I put in a keep vote. Peace.-- Alhutch 21:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Hi! Good work on this disambig repair. However, your last edit to Olivier Messiaen broke some unicode characters - not sure how that happened! Did you use a different browser from your usual? I don't need a reply - I just thought I'd let you know in case you want to look over some of your other recent edits to check that it hasn't happened elsewhere. Regards, RobertG ♬ talk 06:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I've reverted your change to this page - species lists are in taxonomic order to show relationships, and should not be alphabetised. The only exceptions are two or three very large families like hummingbirds where an alphabetical list is given in addition to the standard taxonomic one to make it easier to find individual species. Thanks, jimfbleak 06:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I noticed that you changed the stub for this article to 'wireless-related'. While ARINC does some work in the wireless field, it is as a byproduct of their business interests noted in the lead paragraph "(aviation, airports, defense, government and transportation)". While I agree that this article is a stub and could use a lot of clean-up, it really does appear to be a stub about the company itself, and not necessarily about any of the fields they do business in. Would you consider reversing your edit, or explaining your reasoning? Aarky 00:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply

My purpose in changing the stub to wireless is to depopulate Category:Corporation stubs and to fine-tune stubs to reflect their business aeras more accurately. There are currently over 2,100 articles with Corporation stubs, most of which can be fit into other categories.

As for my reason for putting ARINC as wireless, it seems that most of their business seems to involve wireless (or radio) communications. Wireless may not be a perfect fit but it was the closest fit.

As I mentioned above, I am merely trying to clean up the corp stubs so I have no vested interest in this particular business one way or the other. If you wish to change it back to a standard Corporation stub, feel free. I won't disagree with your choice and will leave it as a corp stub if you put it back.

Epolk 17:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the response. I did change back to a corp-stub as I know from working in the industry that ARINC is involved in a lot more than wireless. I tried my hand at updating the article above stub status, but I don't know enough about the company, and their web site is too full of hype to be of much use for an encyclopedia, so I didn't make any changes in that area. Aarky 10:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Hi Epolk Can you elaborate the processs of how to become an RCPatroller? Bkris 11 Jan 2006

Basically, an RC Patroller uses the "Recent Changes" link in the left navigation of the site to look at recent changes made to the site. What an RC Patroller looks for is vandalism, spam, uncategorized pages, etc. To become an RC Patroller, simply check out recent changes and either fix or flag problems that you find.

Detailed information on the RC Patrol and what you can do to help can be found here: RC Patrol.

Epolk 17:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:LocMap Muir Woods.png. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{ GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{ Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. cohesion★ talk 01:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:LocMap Oregon Caves.png. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{ GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{ Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. cohesion★ talk 01:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Melbourne elementary.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{ Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 22:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply

i've removed the {{ context}} tag you added to Double Aught and restructured the article, adding a couple {{ fact}}'s. hopefully it should be in better context now. feel free to update more if you think it needs it. i don't however see how much more context can be added to it. note also that i haven't verified that the organization actually existed, only changed the structure of the article and added links so that context is more apparent. cheers. 68.49.149.232 18:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Epolk. My understanding of that list is that it is meant for missing articles, stub articles, and articles that otherwise have things "to do". If you really think that all the cities in Orange County belong in such a list, I won't revert again. If you do add them back, would you mind linking to the articles directly instead of linking to redirects? Some of the things you linked to are actually disambiguation pages, e.g. Lake Forest. Mike Dillon 05:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Although most cities in Orange County have at least the basics covered, there are still a few cities (e.g. La Palma, California) that are stubby and should be listed on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern California/Orange County to do list. If you would like to help the Southern California WikiProject, it would be a great help if you could go through the list at Orange County, California#Incorporated cities in Orange County and add those cities that do need work to the Orange County to do page. Any small or red-linked article in the List of neighborhoods and unincorporated communities in Orange County also should be added to the todo list.

Also: I've been spending most of my time working on the Los Angeles County and Long Beach area todo lists, so the whole Orange County todo list needs work. I can help with the Seal Beach/Huntington Beach area, but the todo list really needs the attention of someone who knows Orange County better than I do. Would you be interested in helping with that task? ^{Blank Verse} 07:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I am also in Long Beach area but work down in Newport so I cover about the same area as you. I can do a little bit of that area but mostly off of official city websites and the like.

I posted a question about the PCH photo expedition in Orange County. What did the community have in mind for that? I can take pics of the area since I drive down there five times a week but I am unsure of what pics are desired or needed.

Epolk 07:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry for taking awhile to respond. I haven't been editing much on the Wikipedia lately--RL! For photos, anything distinctive, iconic or representative that would help illustrate Wikipedia articles (such as photos of any of the piers). For example, for the Bolsa Chica State Beach article a photo of the entrance off of Warner (wide-angled to show some of the beach) and also a photo of the nature center on the other side of PCH would be nice to have. Some photos that I'd like to see on the Wikipedia, such as for the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station and the Natl. Wildlife Refuge, may require special permission or waiting for one of the official tours to avoid being considered a terrorist.

Just curious--I'm probably going to be purchasing an electronic camera soon. Would you recomend the one you have? ^{Blank Verse}

Thank you for you help with the pics and their recaptioning. Ccson 02:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Certainly! I am glad to help. Congrats on the Featured page!

-- Epolk 16:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello, just wanted to let you know that there is a CFD going on for Category:United States federal boards, commissions, and committees. Please take a look and leave your input. Paul 19:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC) reply