Hi - I see you have recently created a new stub type. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. In the case of your new creation, stub types ar not made for biographies on a subnational region basis except in cases where a person is significantly tied to a particular place by virtue of their occupation (such as politician-stubs) - instead, they are divided first by nation and then by occupation. the reason for this is that people tend to move around between regions, resulting in considerable use of large numbers of templates. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any reason why this stub type should not be proposed for deletion at WP:SFD. And please, in future, propose new stub types first! Grutness... wha? 02:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I'm curious how you arrived at the ratings you added to the talk page of
Oakland Cemetery. Thanks for your time. --
mattb @ 2007-03-01T22:00Z
Thanks for the information and comments concerning the NRHP photos. Your list of places needing photos and your road trip discussion is interesting. I'm planning on taking care of the Brevard entries as soon as I have some free time. I'm not real familiar with WikiCommons, I'll have to take a look at that. Fl295 19:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for fixing the template up for me; I wasn't even thinking of adding anything like that, but it sure is helpful. Hopefully, if no one else is working on the WP Del page, I should have it up and running (at least minimally) by the end of the week.
On a side-note, I was reading your userpage and the places you've visited, and I'm sorry to be nosy, but what brought you to Pedricktown? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EaglesFanInTampa ( talk • contribs) 19:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
Hey, I was wondering if when you're assessing IL Registered Places, could you just match the WikiProject Illinois assessment to the NRHP one? A mcmurray ( talk • contribs) 03:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Great infobox btw. Hahahaha. I may have to jack that one from your user page. The Department of Fun should be notified immmediately. ;). A mcmurray ( talk • contribs) 04:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
(Message generated via copy and paste, sorry for the impersonal delivery, but I am hitting up all members. So check it!) Hey, saw you were a participant in the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject. I thought I would let you know that there is a new Collaboration Division up for the project. The goal of the division is to select an article or articles for improvement to Good article standard or higher. There is a simple nomination process, which you can check out on the division subpage, to make sure each candidate for collaboration has enough interested editors. This is a good way to get a lot of articles to a quality status quickly. Please consider participating. More details can be seen at the division subpage. IvoShandor 11:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you help with the wording and content of the opening paragraphs? futurebird 22:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I see that your "boyfriend" is a writer (seems like an interesting book that you might like).
Looks like there's enough good content in the Project to start a Portal:Historic preservation, Portal:Historic Places or Portal:Cultural heritage? What do you think? — Dogears ( talk · contribs) 15:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you are cordially invited to join the Aviation WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to aviation. This includes aircraft, airports, airlines and other topics. |
We look forward to welcoming you to the project! Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 23:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
The March 2007 issue of the Aviation 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. Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 23:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Just kidding. Thanks for the Categories clarification. It certainly makes more sense than listing all of the larger categories in addition to the more specific ones. I mostly just wanted to replace the useless page List of Chicago music venues which was redundant. Jcc1 08:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC) (Jeremy)
I just noticed that you reverted all of the recent edits made by the IP 64.163.55.18. It appears to me that some, but not all of those changes were actually legitimate. For instance, here on the Guadalupe National Park website, it shows the dedication as being September 1972. I agree with reverting the edits to Carlsbad Caverns, but I haven't checked the others- perhaps you should double-check the dates yourself and assume good faith. johnpseudo 19:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Ebyabe. You recently assessed a few articles within the scope of WikiProject Abortion. I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to do so, and also to note that, thanks to your contributions, our small WikiProject has now completed its goal of assessing all of our articles. Thanks a tonne! - Severa ( !!!) 23:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it helpful to this project for me to just be adding stub tags and cleanup tags, for example, as I did here Cellular Microarray or Cellmark, or would adding full category be vastly preferable where applicable? I guess what I'm asking is does a stub tag count as a category, or does removing the uncategorized tag and adding a stub notice just put the article right back into the uncategorized list? Cornell Rockey 18:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I was planning on poking away at the articles in Category:Unassessed organized labour articles today, and I couldn't find them. With a little detective work it turns out you are the culprit! Thanks for your great work in cleaning up the backlog. Cheers.-- Bookandcoffee 19:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for your input on the Mali Empire page. I've done a majority of the work on the page and am happy for the grade it recieved. If it is not too much trouble, could you bring me up to snuff on exactly what info I would need to include or clarify to make the article a GA (good article). I'm still pretty new at this game but have learned a lot in a little bit of time. I read the grading system and believe I know at least some of the things that must be corrected on the page (the references for one thing). Is it possible for you to fill me in on any other problems. I couldn't find any gaps in info, POV or original research.
Thanks in advance Scott Free 20:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand your motivation for moving the pics, but each was intended to be in the section it was illustrating, rather than clumped together like that. Thanks for trying to help. -- Orange Mike 16:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
== I cannot figure out why you are making nonsense edits on the bee and beekeeping pages. Are you using some kind of template for something else? Please stop. Pollinator 14:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
{{
WikiProject National Register of Historic Places current collaboration}}
IvoShandor 06:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
You added a B-Class assessment to Postage stamps of Ireland today and I wondered if you have any constructive advise on improving it. I did a lot of work on this article last year and would love to see a philatelic article get a GA or A class level. It might be a great boost to the philately project. Thanks, ww2censor 01:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Have noticed a few assessments you have made of late. This is a bit of a bugbear of mine. Take scratch awl for example. Rating it as a stub implies that there's a lot more that could be written about it, but frankly if it's ever more than a two or three paragraph subject, then I would be looking to pare it back. There is only so much you can say about a steel spike with a wooden handle that you use to scratch markings in a bit of wood. Possibly the only reason I can see for it being anything other than an A is that it cites no references. Otherwise it "provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic..." and is "... of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content."
So I'm just wondering what criteria you are using in these ratings (yes there are quite a few in the woodworking project that I feel the same way about) and if it's more than just a cursory look at the relative length (I'm sure it's more than that, isn't it ;)), then perhaps you could help out by highlighting the deficiencies as you see them on their respective talk pages. Or even better, cut loose on them yourself. SilentC 04:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
A question about your recent change to this template. Did you see a problem with the case-sensitivity? The switch statements checking for class and importance both use {{lc:{{{class}}}}} -- the lc should convert the class variable to lowercase, so you only need to list the lowercase options. I'm pretty sure I tested it to make sure that, for example, "class=stub" and "class=Stub" both worked, so I'm just wondering if you were having a problem or if you just changed it based on looking at the code. Thanks -- MrBoo ( talk, contribs) 22:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
FYI -- Keesiewonder talk 00:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
...for reverting vandalism to my user page. :) BTW, I have some Fort Myers historic place pictures sitting on my computer at home somewhere. March 31 I'm going to see the New York Mets play and that will probably be the last baseball I see for a while - then I'll likely get back into taking historic place pictures instead. Thanks again! — Wknight94 ( talk) 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You rated the saturnalia article "start class" recently; could you give some suggestions for improvement? Novium 20:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC) thank you Novium 23:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your infobox, and unfortunately I'm not very good with the workings of wikicoding. Could I bother you to create a derivative for the Portuguese Historic place registry? I can provide you with the fields that are registered, so it would look consistent with the info available and your infobox. Galf 11:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Infobox_IPPAR
Registry of the Instituto Português do Património Arquitectónico ID Designation/name; Other Designations; category/type of property;
Location lat/log; District/Council/Civil Parish; Address;
Protection Current status; Protection category; Decree; ZEP (special protection zone); "non aedificandi" zone; Coverage by ZEP or ZP (special or ordinary protection zones); World Heritage Site
Is this enough to get you started? if you have any questions let me know. This are the fields that are available from the Registry Galf 12:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey! How goes it. I was wondering if I could acquire your assistance. I have this article Rock Springs Massacre which is just about ready for GA, in my opinion. It has its second peer review, still open, and is now getting ready to go through its final proofread with the League of Copyeditors. However, one user has expressed POV concerns about the article. Could you give it an independent assessment and note any specifics or just change the wording. I contend that the background is necessary to understand the event and to omit the background or the events that occurred after it would be a disservice to the reality. Either way. Let me know what you think, I want to flesh this thing out, and this kind of thing requires more than one opinion. Thanks ahead of time. IvoShandor 02:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I see you have recently created a new stub type. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. In the case of your new creation, stub types ar not made for biographies on a subnational region basis except in cases where a person is significantly tied to a particular place by virtue of their occupation (such as politician-stubs) - instead, they are divided first by nation and then by occupation. the reason for this is that people tend to move around between regions, resulting in considerable use of large numbers of templates. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any reason why this stub type should not be proposed for deletion at WP:SFD. And please, in future, propose new stub types first! Grutness... wha? 02:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I'm curious how you arrived at the ratings you added to the talk page of
Oakland Cemetery. Thanks for your time. --
mattb @ 2007-03-01T22:00Z
Thanks for the information and comments concerning the NRHP photos. Your list of places needing photos and your road trip discussion is interesting. I'm planning on taking care of the Brevard entries as soon as I have some free time. I'm not real familiar with WikiCommons, I'll have to take a look at that. Fl295 19:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for fixing the template up for me; I wasn't even thinking of adding anything like that, but it sure is helpful. Hopefully, if no one else is working on the WP Del page, I should have it up and running (at least minimally) by the end of the week.
On a side-note, I was reading your userpage and the places you've visited, and I'm sorry to be nosy, but what brought you to Pedricktown? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EaglesFanInTampa ( talk • contribs) 19:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
Hey, I was wondering if when you're assessing IL Registered Places, could you just match the WikiProject Illinois assessment to the NRHP one? A mcmurray ( talk • contribs) 03:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Great infobox btw. Hahahaha. I may have to jack that one from your user page. The Department of Fun should be notified immmediately. ;). A mcmurray ( talk • contribs) 04:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
(Message generated via copy and paste, sorry for the impersonal delivery, but I am hitting up all members. So check it!) Hey, saw you were a participant in the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject. I thought I would let you know that there is a new Collaboration Division up for the project. The goal of the division is to select an article or articles for improvement to Good article standard or higher. There is a simple nomination process, which you can check out on the division subpage, to make sure each candidate for collaboration has enough interested editors. This is a good way to get a lot of articles to a quality status quickly. Please consider participating. More details can be seen at the division subpage. IvoShandor 11:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you help with the wording and content of the opening paragraphs? futurebird 22:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I see that your "boyfriend" is a writer (seems like an interesting book that you might like).
Looks like there's enough good content in the Project to start a Portal:Historic preservation, Portal:Historic Places or Portal:Cultural heritage? What do you think? — Dogears ( talk · contribs) 15:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you are cordially invited to join the Aviation WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to aviation. This includes aircraft, airports, airlines and other topics. |
We look forward to welcoming you to the project! Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 23:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
The March 2007 issue of the Aviation 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. Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 23:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Just kidding. Thanks for the Categories clarification. It certainly makes more sense than listing all of the larger categories in addition to the more specific ones. I mostly just wanted to replace the useless page List of Chicago music venues which was redundant. Jcc1 08:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC) (Jeremy)
I just noticed that you reverted all of the recent edits made by the IP 64.163.55.18. It appears to me that some, but not all of those changes were actually legitimate. For instance, here on the Guadalupe National Park website, it shows the dedication as being September 1972. I agree with reverting the edits to Carlsbad Caverns, but I haven't checked the others- perhaps you should double-check the dates yourself and assume good faith. johnpseudo 19:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Ebyabe. You recently assessed a few articles within the scope of WikiProject Abortion. I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to do so, and also to note that, thanks to your contributions, our small WikiProject has now completed its goal of assessing all of our articles. Thanks a tonne! - Severa ( !!!) 23:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it helpful to this project for me to just be adding stub tags and cleanup tags, for example, as I did here Cellular Microarray or Cellmark, or would adding full category be vastly preferable where applicable? I guess what I'm asking is does a stub tag count as a category, or does removing the uncategorized tag and adding a stub notice just put the article right back into the uncategorized list? Cornell Rockey 18:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I was planning on poking away at the articles in Category:Unassessed organized labour articles today, and I couldn't find them. With a little detective work it turns out you are the culprit! Thanks for your great work in cleaning up the backlog. Cheers.-- Bookandcoffee 19:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for your input on the Mali Empire page. I've done a majority of the work on the page and am happy for the grade it recieved. If it is not too much trouble, could you bring me up to snuff on exactly what info I would need to include or clarify to make the article a GA (good article). I'm still pretty new at this game but have learned a lot in a little bit of time. I read the grading system and believe I know at least some of the things that must be corrected on the page (the references for one thing). Is it possible for you to fill me in on any other problems. I couldn't find any gaps in info, POV or original research.
Thanks in advance Scott Free 20:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand your motivation for moving the pics, but each was intended to be in the section it was illustrating, rather than clumped together like that. Thanks for trying to help. -- Orange Mike 16:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
== I cannot figure out why you are making nonsense edits on the bee and beekeeping pages. Are you using some kind of template for something else? Please stop. Pollinator 14:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
{{
WikiProject National Register of Historic Places current collaboration}}
IvoShandor 06:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
You added a B-Class assessment to Postage stamps of Ireland today and I wondered if you have any constructive advise on improving it. I did a lot of work on this article last year and would love to see a philatelic article get a GA or A class level. It might be a great boost to the philately project. Thanks, ww2censor 01:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Have noticed a few assessments you have made of late. This is a bit of a bugbear of mine. Take scratch awl for example. Rating it as a stub implies that there's a lot more that could be written about it, but frankly if it's ever more than a two or three paragraph subject, then I would be looking to pare it back. There is only so much you can say about a steel spike with a wooden handle that you use to scratch markings in a bit of wood. Possibly the only reason I can see for it being anything other than an A is that it cites no references. Otherwise it "provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic..." and is "... of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content."
So I'm just wondering what criteria you are using in these ratings (yes there are quite a few in the woodworking project that I feel the same way about) and if it's more than just a cursory look at the relative length (I'm sure it's more than that, isn't it ;)), then perhaps you could help out by highlighting the deficiencies as you see them on their respective talk pages. Or even better, cut loose on them yourself. SilentC 04:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
A question about your recent change to this template. Did you see a problem with the case-sensitivity? The switch statements checking for class and importance both use {{lc:{{{class}}}}} -- the lc should convert the class variable to lowercase, so you only need to list the lowercase options. I'm pretty sure I tested it to make sure that, for example, "class=stub" and "class=Stub" both worked, so I'm just wondering if you were having a problem or if you just changed it based on looking at the code. Thanks -- MrBoo ( talk, contribs) 22:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
FYI -- Keesiewonder talk 00:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
...for reverting vandalism to my user page. :) BTW, I have some Fort Myers historic place pictures sitting on my computer at home somewhere. March 31 I'm going to see the New York Mets play and that will probably be the last baseball I see for a while - then I'll likely get back into taking historic place pictures instead. Thanks again! — Wknight94 ( talk) 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You rated the saturnalia article "start class" recently; could you give some suggestions for improvement? Novium 20:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC) thank you Novium 23:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your infobox, and unfortunately I'm not very good with the workings of wikicoding. Could I bother you to create a derivative for the Portuguese Historic place registry? I can provide you with the fields that are registered, so it would look consistent with the info available and your infobox. Galf 11:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Infobox_IPPAR
Registry of the Instituto Português do Património Arquitectónico ID Designation/name; Other Designations; category/type of property;
Location lat/log; District/Council/Civil Parish; Address;
Protection Current status; Protection category; Decree; ZEP (special protection zone); "non aedificandi" zone; Coverage by ZEP or ZP (special or ordinary protection zones); World Heritage Site
Is this enough to get you started? if you have any questions let me know. This are the fields that are available from the Registry Galf 12:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey! How goes it. I was wondering if I could acquire your assistance. I have this article Rock Springs Massacre which is just about ready for GA, in my opinion. It has its second peer review, still open, and is now getting ready to go through its final proofread with the League of Copyeditors. However, one user has expressed POV concerns about the article. Could you give it an independent assessment and note any specifics or just change the wording. I contend that the background is necessary to understand the event and to omit the background or the events that occurred after it would be a disservice to the reality. Either way. Let me know what you think, I want to flesh this thing out, and this kind of thing requires more than one opinion. Thanks ahead of time. IvoShandor 02:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)