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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Greetings,
I took a look at your suggestions and some are not half bad, lol. Check out my suggestions as well. My fear is that if we were to implement some of your suggestions it could cause for articles to become so broad, that they are not really going to be a resource for anyone.
Cleaning up the articles is a good idea, but moving some content into a vacuum helps no one trying to find information.
Moving information about medical cannabis into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_medical_status_of_cannabis would be the wrong move. That article is way too broad to be a resource for anyone. It is fine to conform with the standards set forth by this community, but one must also take into account the potential to diffuse information so much, that it become worthless to everybody.
Let us start a formal talk about how to improve this article, and make it more of a resource for the whole world.
Thanks for your time,
-- The Pot Snob ( talk) 19:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
-Responded Res Mar 00:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I see the corelation; I'm a WP:SEAMOUNT guy and you're a WP:HAWAII guy. Res Mar 00:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I am touchy re check user after receiving a whole load of spurious accusations against me for my work on the pedophile articles, though I also do see check user as an invasion of privacy, something becoming much more relevant as the internet evolves technically (lest just say I am a tv loving Englishman living abroad). I do appreciate that before I came along you were the only experienced wikipedia user debating this issue and thus with a far better perception of what is not appropriate on cannabis articles, which by their nature attract passionate individuals on the subject. I have to say the word sockpuppet had passed through my mind before you had mentioned it. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
See here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.0.4.224 ( talk) 15:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Issue 29 - March 2009
| |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 17:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
This might interest you. Still gathering members! Sorry about spamming you, Res Mar 21:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Replied. Res Mar 23:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Viriditas, at this time i don't have the energy to engage in this discussion to the degree it deserves. I would probably only be repeating what i have already said, other then "where" on the page new Obama updates would go. It could be a new section altogether, as we have had so little to say in the past 8 years, it makes sense that there is no section for this already. Sarah Katherine 18:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind, i answered you on the talk page, in the "new policies" section. Sarah Katherine 20:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I so appreciate your time and open-mindedness. Would you feel comfortable with posting your ideas from my talk page onto the main talk page? The reason is, i unfortunately cannot spend any more time on this due to my work schedule picking up here... but if we laid out these ideas, any of the editors on the page could come in and we could work collectively, which is the brilliant idea behind Wikipedia anyway! Again, thank you for your efforts on this topic and trying to keep everything NPOV and high in quality. Sarah Katherine 18:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I will go ahead and paste your suggestions to the main talk page, i'm sure since it's easily accessed info anyway, that you won't mind. Mahalo. Sarah Katherine 20:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Is your "childish" comment here not a personal attack? Sarah sko1221 talk 04:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Purpose it to bring the articles to GT, it's a long-term thing. Perhaps even FT, if possible. The group was designed like TomStar81's "Iowa Class battleship" workgroup; to get a certin specific group of articels, in my case the Volcanoes of "Big Island", to GT, and in the long-term possibly FT. What it is not is a WikiProject or task force, who have hundreds or thousands of articles under their juristiction. Res Mar 18:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I have appreciated your input to the People's Park article. I appreciate also the sense of contribution that Apostle12 and Dlabtot have added. In having read the recent comments on the Talk:People's Park page, I propose a "breathing space" before editing comments or responding to Talk on the Talk page.
Peace, rkmlai ( talk) 23:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
In addition to violating WP:TALK, your repeated removal of my talk page comments is in violation of the three revert rule. I am placing a notice on WP:AN/EW. Dlabtot ( talk) 23:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
"In the case of V838 Monocerotis, the light echo produced was unprecedented and is well documented in images taken by the Hubble Space Telescope." I put the fact tag on V838 Monocerotis thinking the reference could link to those Hubble Space Telescope images the sentence is referring to. The unprecedented bit is OK as you clarified, so thanks. Pomona17 ( talk) 10:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I thought you might like to update the page on Ed Ricketts to include the sea slug named after him, Catriona rickettsi. Also, many great references here: http://slugsite.us/bow/nudwk400.htm
Best, Maya —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maya43 ( talk • contribs) 23:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I added the "warning" because a number of people, who have participated in the AFDs and edit-warred over the page, have complained that the "casual reader" could be taken unawares and believe it's an article. Regardless of the merits, I thought it best to add the box to dispel such criticism. Since you removed it, I thought you should be aware the lack of a warning will be pointed out, I'm sure, again in the future. -- C S ( talk) 08:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Gatoclass ( talk) 11:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I've partially remixed the article so that it made more sense, added a table, more refs, a bit of other stuff, and generally tacked the issues you've raised, although there are still some on my agenda. Res Mar 23:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Gosh you're right, we probably need fair use. The problem is that the photo itself is supposed to be PD, but the site its on is not, presenting a problem. I had a similar problem with this image for the article Ferdinandea. I was sorted out by more copyright-knowlegable users at WP:VPP. The problem is that faithful representations of work that is Public Domain, regardless of source, are also Public Domain. I'm worried this isn't PD. Oh well, the article desn't lose much in that resppect anyway. Res Mar 19:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I think I've fixed the lead well enough, as that seems to be the outstanding problem at the moment. Res Mar 19:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Just like you said, I've sent it for GA. I've also started the "FeMO" section, but it's a bit of a stub. The problem I've hit is that I can only locate the logs for the 2008 expedition. Res Mar 18:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the accolade, the train is a great ride in a wonderful location--I'm really glad this helped the wiki project hawaii. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobtalbot61 ( talk • contribs) 06:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
No prob, thanks for the fix. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 16:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and refactored your comments per my request. I hope we can move on.
I've started a discussion to try to get everyone working from common ground, WP:LIST. We'll probably need to discuss list inclusion criteria, list maintainability, and similar lists separately, but it's a start. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
[1]. Badagnani ( talk) 19:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be well versed with volcanology and geography in general. Are you interested in article building, by any chance, or do you prefer gnome work? Ceran thor 19:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
You've got a different perspective on this situation that I do; perhaps I can learn from you. I know that there are three or four editors who have been reverting some of Badagnani's edits, and I've had some rather strange interactions with Badagnani. He wants me to help him, but only if I'm willing to play policeman, and spank the other editors. I won't do that, of course, but you argue that they should be admonished for opening an RfC.
Why not post a comment to the RFC, and say as much? That would send a message of encouragement to Badagnani, I have no doubt, and if your comment attracts a lot of support, that will send a clear message to the antagonists. I might be inclined to support - I'd have to see what you write first. Anyway, I appreciate your input. Take care. - GTBacchus( talk) 03:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you at least tell me about a good edit of Badagnani's that they've been edit warring over? The only examples I've been given were disputes over pretty questionable edits. I can't tell someone to stop removing commercial links to non-notable products. How could I do that? If you could just point me in a direction where I can get some traction, that would also be very helpful. - GTBacchus( talk) 14:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I hope no one is offended if I contribute here. I've been trying to find ways to work with Badagnani for almost two months now. During that time I've seen him add references from Google books. While these are rarely the type of sources needed for GA articles, they're fine for the poorly-sourced articles where the many disputes have occurred. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Ronz, please put the stick down and step away from the horse. The RFC is over there. I don't agree with your POV. My concern on this issue has always been one thing: hounding and edit warring by editors engaged in content disputes and the complicity of administators who either take sides or ignore bad behavior. That's it. Viriditas ( talk) 00:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
If I were aware of any edits being reverted that amounted to anything, then I'd be much more inclined to listen to your point of view, Viriditas. You stated above that "this has nothing to do with good or bad edits". However, reverting spam is not "hounding"; it's good work.
Since you seem unwilling to help me find any reversions that are actually wrongful, I'm having a hard time seeing your point of view. I'm an admin who would be inclined to support Badagnani, if he showed any side to me other that what I've seen so far. My experience with the editor is that he is absolutely dead-set against any collaboration in which he is not held to be 100% right, and that he will attempt to lawyer any decision with which he disagrees to the death.
I really wish someone would bring some good edits of his to my attention, so I could have a reason to ask these guys to stop hounding him. The fact that nobody is showing me these examples leads me to believe that they don't exist. You could be of assistance in this matter Viriditas. You have, right now, the chance to get an administrator to take this editor's side. All I require is proof that good work is being reverted. This should be easy to find, right? - GTBacchus( talk) 04:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
[2]. Badagnani ( talk) 04:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
[3]. Badagnani ( talk) 04:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Because after the 20 or 30 messages I've posted to that admin, requesting assistance with the very trying campaign of wikihounding I have been subjected to each day for the past two weeks, I am not convinced that he is even-handed. It has to do with this policy issue:
“ | With the evidence of blatant, coordinated hounding, egregious edit warring, and incivility, it's clear that the 1,633 administrators don't find it necessary or important to enforce policy and guidelines. When you've got this many administrators and not one willing to step in and stop this kind of behavior, there's a problem. | ” |
Badagnani ( talk) 15:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't lose content disputes, and I don't get Wikihounded, despite making controversial edits. Why are you so stubbornly unwilling to learn from me?
If you are only willing to delay your demand for justice, then you will reap bountiful rewards. Want to keep refusing my offer? Got a better plan? - GTBacchus( talk) 18:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
That is very kind of you; I hope you understand, though, that you've been confusing me with your last few messages to me. Badagnani ( talk) 22:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I notice that you've taken it upon yourself to add even more heat to the Badagnani situation. Can I ask why you think what this fire needs is gasoline? - GTBacchus( talk) 01:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh... haven't you been around here long enough to know about gasoline? I'm very puzzled by that... - GTBacchus( talk) 02:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Look, I'm sorry.
You know I've been trying to help mediate this ongoing dispute involving a handful of editors. I've observed what I've observed, and I'e developed some opinions. I'm still learning. I'm also talking with different people, and trying to convince people talking about edits more, and about each other less. This is what I know, and it seems to work, at least some of the time.
Your input has puzzled me from the start, and then Caspian blue dropped those links off on my page, and I looked at them. What I saw seemed to me to be rather unhelpful. That's not the point - I can be right or wrong about that. Either way, it's clear I didn't look very carefully, but reacted rashly instead. Bad idea.
I was already upset because an editor was repeatedly restoring warnings to Badagnani's talk page, and I pointed out to him that reposting comments that someone delete from their own page is out of bounds. I may not have done it in the best way; like I say, I was upset. This is why posting while upset is discouraged.
I managed to get a bunch of tabs open, and I started getting the order of events mixed up, and as part of that, I became convinced that you were - right then - goading Eugene2x. I now see that nothing like that was the case, and that I was off by days. It wasn't the only mistake I made right about then. Maybe it was one of those things that comes in threes.
If you're willing, I'd still like to compare notes with you, I'm sure. This is not the place for that, though. I'm only posting now to say that I was not posting judiciously last night, and I'm sorry for barfing on your talk page. - GTBacchus( talk) 19:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking of brushing up Hawaii hotspot and sending it to GA while Loihi sits in the backlog. I've also de-redlinked Cross Seamount (in DYK right now), and decided to shot for an FA for Loihi...just as soon as I finish cleaning up Marine Protected Area. Can you give me some guidance? Res Mar 16:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned a comment you made about AJL's edits to William M. Connelley's main space article. I didn't mention your name specifically but I thought you might want to know. OlYeller Talktome 01:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I followed your 'lead' on the Domino article and moved the screenwriter's quote from the introduction to the screenplay section. I agree that it's silly and probably should not be there at all, but for those that disagree it certainly fits better in the latter section.
Cheers--- Williamsburgland ( talk) 07:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, let's. I'd just like to keep it in one place. It's nice you're on when I am for once :) Res Mar 00:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't the request for page protection that was disruptive, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Hopiakuta. MBisanz talk 01:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I replied there. My Internet was down yesterday, or I would have replied sooner. I'm now just about to check in at Talk:List of liqueurs. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
From the one editor's perspective, he's editing perfectly within policy, and his edits are very positive, and add value to the articles. So, from that perspective, he's clearly being hounded, unreasonably and unfairly. From the group's perspective however, it's no more "hounding" than cleaning up after a vandal is "hounding".
I'm not going to presume to say which perspective is the "right" one, or even precisely what that would mean. I feel that the best thing to do is to ask more people, and try to get a feel for what the community thinks - inclusionists and deletionists, eventualists and... whatever the dual of those are. That's what I'm doing, posting at various talk pages. (I know how I feel personally, but I'm not important, compared with a broad consensus of Wikipedians. As an admin, I serve the encyclopedia and the community, not the other way around.)
I think that the one editor is not sufficiently taking into account that the group of editors are acting based on their good-faith understanding of our rules and norms. I think the group has been insensitive to the fact that the one editor is a long-time contributor, who will very naturally be upset if he's dealt with as a common vandal. On the other hand, I'm very sympathetic to their actions, because if we're trying to keep spam out, then we're trying to keep it out now, and not just eventually. I think that it's very fair to say that the standard is to copy removed material to the talk page, and re-add it bit by bit as consensus guides us. The idea that the material should be re-instated wholesale, and only removed on a link-by-link basis seems wrong to me.
I'm interested in what you think of this description of the situation. Whether or not you choose to respond, thanks for listening. I hope I haven't bored you. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
My understanding of behavior at Wikipedia is that, ultimately, this is an encyclopedia, and not a court of law. Whenever I've seen someone try to prosecute a dispute totally in terms of behavior, it hasn't gone well. When I see someone restrict themselves to arguments about edits in articles, I notice that their being grounded in actual encyclopedic edits gives them a lot of power, and they're then able to defeat the behavior issue. I tried to tell Badagnani this, but he rejected it as "confusing" or "bad advice." - GTBacchus( talk) 13:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
As an editor who has taken an interest in Badagnani in the past, you might be interested in the discussion at WP:ANI#Edit warring, if anyone cares. If you're gonna help the guy, this might be a good time to do it. - GTBacchus( talk) 15:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for undertaking the review of the above article, I almost thought it would never get reviewed!!!!!! I will take care of any problems with it as quick as I find out about them.-- Will C 09:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not a sock puppet of Truthbody, please check our IPs and see for yourself. Thank you. -- Truthsayer62 ( talk) 07:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the review so far. Aptery gial 12:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
OK. I'm in Australia, by the way. It's long past day now. :) Aptery gial 14:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know (you are probably watching it anyway), but I've gone through the article and made the changes you suggested. C'est fini, je crois. Aptery gial 10:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Viriditas, I have looked around on Wikipedia but cannot find the answer to this -- do you happen to know if one can edit one's own user talk page to remove any warnings, discussions in progress and so on, or not? I always assumed the discussions had to stay there or perhaps be archived, but now I am not sure. Where is one supposed to have editorial discussions (or disputes) with other editors? Is it always on the article in question? In which case, what is the user talk page for? Thanks for any help you can give me. ( Truthbody ( talk) 02:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC))
Look sharp; Mattisse took up Loihi. Res Mar 20:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi and thank you for the note. I'm not sure if you are aware of this and this, which resulted in a range block. The notes on User talk:EmilEikS provide the rest of the history.
At this point, I don't know what else to do about the situation. User:Jayvdb said the next step is opening an arbitration case. If it comes to that, I'd be happy to provide information regarding my interactions with the user(s). Thanks, momoricks (make my day) 07:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
In return I would like to apologise to you. I think I boxed you into a corner, as I have done recently with other people over copyvios. I've decided my over zealous approach is not the right way to go (that is, zealously combating other people for being over zealous). The copyvio problem bothers me. I recently offended twice myself in unwitting ways, and was treated in, what I think, was totally inappropriate ways. So now I have some commitment to improving Wikipedia procedures in this area. It is a really important area, and I understand why, given the lack of appropriate Wikipedia procedures, you felt you could only act in a peremptorily way. Maybe we were both barging into that situation with a different focus, you focused on getting the copyvio cleaned up, and me focused on wanting it cleaned up in a spacious way – and both of us getting over intense because of a lack of sensible backup procedures. And I could see that you were actually trying to help Nihil novi tidy it up, but I wasn't going to bloody well acknowledge that so long as you kept repeating I was mistaken :). Of course I'm happy to work with you on Ricketts. I'm not sure there is a lot more to do, though perhaps the three of us could have a go at working it up to a GA? -- Geronimo20 ( talk) 10:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I kinda rushed that section when I was adding info from The Cinema of Robert Zemeckis. I forgot to cite it. Thanks once again. Wildroot ( talk) 02:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I ran Copyscape over Loihi Seamount (nice job, bye the way). It gives a clean bill of health (for online sources only).
The only hiccup was a real estate site which has on this page the following passage,
"The Big Island of Hawaii has it's own undersea mount, Lo'ihi, which in 1996, was rocked by the first ever directly observed eruption of an active underwater volcano in Hawai. The eruption was preceded by a swarm of 4,070 earthquakes, the largest of any Hawaiian volcanic eruptions. A total of 4 to 5 square miles of the summit was altered; one section, Pele's Vents, collapsed entirely upon itself, and formed the renamed Pele's Pit."
This can be compared with the following passage added by Resident Mario on the 8th March,
"In 1996 Loihi was rocked by a large eruption, the first ever recored of an active eruption by an underwater volcano in Hawaii. The eruption was preceded by an earthquake swarm measuring 4000 hits, the largest of any Hawaiian volcanic eruptions. A total of 4 to 5 square miles of the summit was altered; one section, called :Pele's Vents", collapsed entirely upon itself, and formed the renamed "Pele's Pit.""
However, the real estate site was updated on the 20th March, and precisely mirrors later tweaks that had been added to the WP passage, so I don't see there is any problem. Regards -- Geronimo20 ( talk) 04:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding prose quality; I sat down with the article for an hour to fine line it, like I said. plus, you've worked on it and Mattaise scanned it for the GA nom. I got Michael Devore to agree to work on the prose, too. Regarding external resources; hmm, many of them are rather old. this is nice though. Res Mar 14:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Mount St. Helens is only just longer then Loihi. Res Mar 17:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
In a few days I'll be back to solicit your help in creating a new article on Deborah Digges. Chag Sameach : ) -- MPerel 00:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, am i right in thinking you added the merge tags to these articles? I couldn't find a merge discussion, so created a section on it from the "discus" link. If you support merging, can you add something there? (too often i merge things then get complaints that it wasn't consensus, even with no opposition given). Yob Mod 12:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the in-depth GAC review at Crab Bowl. A lot of times, people don't seem to look at GACs very closely, so I appreciate your thoroughness. Strikehold ( talk) 03:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
[1] Res Mar 22:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Your user page is brought up here. Ikip ( talk) 04:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you give some input on Talk:Kapaau, Hawaii#Okina in name? Maybe I misunderstand the guidelines, or maybe the other guy does, but we are deadlocked. - J JMesserly ( talk) 05:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
(undent) Thanks for the info. My guess is that Treo and IE mobile apps are accessing [ Mobile Wikipedia]. Surprize, surprize, the "nihau nihau" text is there too- so the problem with the body text not that the browsers aren dropping the ʻOkina, it is that we (mobile.wikipedia) are not even sending it. But we sometimes do send it. See the article on okina- mobile wp is sending the okina if it is in the title, and kendal for one will not diplay the unicode for it. This theory that wp mobile is messing up the body text is just conjecture- do you want me to update Hawaii talk with this speculation? This would suggest that we need to make a request to mobile wp to substitute an apostrophe for okina rather than strip the character from the body text. Fixing okina in the article title I imagine would be much more difficult. - J JMesserly ( talk) 07:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The dynamic IPs (I think in the same range) began showing up about a week ago at a handful of articles, usually using longish edit summaries that show familiarity with WP, take a legalistic and fairly aggressive tone, and accompany removals of text or references. Often the IPs would begin operating once a day had come to a conclusion and various editors at the pages in question had already "used up" their two reversions for the day. I wouldn't guess who is doing this, but what I do know is that it's wrong. Badagnani ( talk) 17:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I saw that were wondering if the two pictures you posted of the correct classification ( File:Apis mellifera wailea maui hawaii 01.jpg and File:Xylocopa wailea maui hawaii.jpg), hopefuly no one already told you, but the first one is probavly correct, but the carpener bee one is more likely Xylocopa violacea. Bugboy52.4 ( talk) 21:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey V, I've been too busy lately to do much Wikipedia-ing, but just thought I'd let you know that I slightly changed my username to Arjuna909. I don't know how such a change appears on articles, talk pages etc, so just thought I'd let you know in case it's not easy to find me. I'll be back with more editing one of these days -- for now it's just minor rvvs etc. Cheers, Arjuna ( talk) 03:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Aloha! You can adjust the size of the picture thats not controlled by the box. As for the non alignment I have no idea how that happened as it was fine the other day. Not sure about empty parameters if you copy and paste the paramters from Taylor Knox for instance they should all be like that. I've asked someone to correct the alignment anyway. You just have to ensure you copy all the paramters and don't leave any out this is why is shows up with {{ }}. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh I seem to have fixed the alignment anyway. I only got around to adding a few. If you are unhappy with the image size just reduce the px in the box manually. E.g Kelly Slater. There are hundreds of surfers missing from here though, sometime I'll get around to adding more! Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
You mean the gap at the top of the page before the text begins. Mmm I dunno about that, I'm not a template expert believe it or not. I'll ask. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
What's going on between you and Caspian blue, Viriditas? I'm back online after a week, and I see a major grassfire going where there was only a severe threat of one before. What happened? - GTBacchus( talk) 15:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The best — and I've seen this three or four times :) — is when one of them creeps right to the edge of the roof, almost starts to lower himself to the feeder, then thinks better of it, changes his mind, and goes back! If they can learn to adapt.... then dammit, so can Wikipedians. To think that I'd have my faith restored by rodents. - GTBacchus( talk) 03:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
That article is not well written, but I do try to add images to food-related articles when I can. Recipes should not be included in Wikipedia articles (as our guidelines state), although an article on a specific dish should obviously indicate, in a general manner, a dish's ingredients and basic manner of preparation: what is it made of, and is it baked, boiled, fried, etc.? The fact that I didn't fix that article is simply indicative of the fact that I was primarily concerned, at that moment, with adding an image (and, if you check my image upload log, you'll see that I often do this), not in improving the article in any other way. Badagnani ( talk) 17:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I just don't understand the above. I suppose I just went ahead and added an image, didn't use an edit summary because I was in a hurry and the edit was self-explanatory; is there confusion about what I did (add an image) that a click to see the diff didn't indicate clearly? Badagnani ( talk) 06:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I see, I didn't remove the "photo needed" tag at Discussion. Clearly I should have, but I guess no one is perfect, and that's why we check on and help one another. Thanks for noticing; you could have gone ahead and removed that tag if you had noticed that I'd forgotten to. Badagnani ( talk) 06:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I see your question: assessing articles is one thing I've never learned how to do. I enjoy starting articles, adding content, references, and images, etc. but have never figured out how to assess, leaving that to editors who have more of an aptitude for that aspect of editing. Badagnani ( talk) 17:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Viriditas - the stub-sorting project does have a manual of style - WP:STUB, supplemented by WP:WSS/NG. I pointed Roux to WP:STUB and to the proper forum to discuss any changes he thought worth bringing up for discussion - sadly, he wasn't interested in going there. Grutness... wha? 21:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant one who can't hear, not death I'll fix it, thanks! Bugboy52.4 ( talk) 13:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
" Internet homicide" has commenced at Talk:Internet_homicide#Name. ↜Just me, here, now … 20:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Greetings,
I took a look at your suggestions and some are not half bad, lol. Check out my suggestions as well. My fear is that if we were to implement some of your suggestions it could cause for articles to become so broad, that they are not really going to be a resource for anyone.
Cleaning up the articles is a good idea, but moving some content into a vacuum helps no one trying to find information.
Moving information about medical cannabis into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_medical_status_of_cannabis would be the wrong move. That article is way too broad to be a resource for anyone. It is fine to conform with the standards set forth by this community, but one must also take into account the potential to diffuse information so much, that it become worthless to everybody.
Let us start a formal talk about how to improve this article, and make it more of a resource for the whole world.
Thanks for your time,
-- The Pot Snob ( talk) 19:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
-Responded Res Mar 00:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I see the corelation; I'm a WP:SEAMOUNT guy and you're a WP:HAWAII guy. Res Mar 00:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I am touchy re check user after receiving a whole load of spurious accusations against me for my work on the pedophile articles, though I also do see check user as an invasion of privacy, something becoming much more relevant as the internet evolves technically (lest just say I am a tv loving Englishman living abroad). I do appreciate that before I came along you were the only experienced wikipedia user debating this issue and thus with a far better perception of what is not appropriate on cannabis articles, which by their nature attract passionate individuals on the subject. I have to say the word sockpuppet had passed through my mind before you had mentioned it. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
See here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.0.4.224 ( talk) 15:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Issue 29 - March 2009
| |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 17:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
This might interest you. Still gathering members! Sorry about spamming you, Res Mar 21:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Replied. Res Mar 23:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Viriditas, at this time i don't have the energy to engage in this discussion to the degree it deserves. I would probably only be repeating what i have already said, other then "where" on the page new Obama updates would go. It could be a new section altogether, as we have had so little to say in the past 8 years, it makes sense that there is no section for this already. Sarah Katherine 18:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind, i answered you on the talk page, in the "new policies" section. Sarah Katherine 20:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I so appreciate your time and open-mindedness. Would you feel comfortable with posting your ideas from my talk page onto the main talk page? The reason is, i unfortunately cannot spend any more time on this due to my work schedule picking up here... but if we laid out these ideas, any of the editors on the page could come in and we could work collectively, which is the brilliant idea behind Wikipedia anyway! Again, thank you for your efforts on this topic and trying to keep everything NPOV and high in quality. Sarah Katherine 18:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I will go ahead and paste your suggestions to the main talk page, i'm sure since it's easily accessed info anyway, that you won't mind. Mahalo. Sarah Katherine 20:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Is your "childish" comment here not a personal attack? Sarah sko1221 talk 04:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Purpose it to bring the articles to GT, it's a long-term thing. Perhaps even FT, if possible. The group was designed like TomStar81's "Iowa Class battleship" workgroup; to get a certin specific group of articels, in my case the Volcanoes of "Big Island", to GT, and in the long-term possibly FT. What it is not is a WikiProject or task force, who have hundreds or thousands of articles under their juristiction. Res Mar 18:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I have appreciated your input to the People's Park article. I appreciate also the sense of contribution that Apostle12 and Dlabtot have added. In having read the recent comments on the Talk:People's Park page, I propose a "breathing space" before editing comments or responding to Talk on the Talk page.
Peace, rkmlai ( talk) 23:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
In addition to violating WP:TALK, your repeated removal of my talk page comments is in violation of the three revert rule. I am placing a notice on WP:AN/EW. Dlabtot ( talk) 23:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
"In the case of V838 Monocerotis, the light echo produced was unprecedented and is well documented in images taken by the Hubble Space Telescope." I put the fact tag on V838 Monocerotis thinking the reference could link to those Hubble Space Telescope images the sentence is referring to. The unprecedented bit is OK as you clarified, so thanks. Pomona17 ( talk) 10:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I thought you might like to update the page on Ed Ricketts to include the sea slug named after him, Catriona rickettsi. Also, many great references here: http://slugsite.us/bow/nudwk400.htm
Best, Maya —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maya43 ( talk • contribs) 23:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I added the "warning" because a number of people, who have participated in the AFDs and edit-warred over the page, have complained that the "casual reader" could be taken unawares and believe it's an article. Regardless of the merits, I thought it best to add the box to dispel such criticism. Since you removed it, I thought you should be aware the lack of a warning will be pointed out, I'm sure, again in the future. -- C S ( talk) 08:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Gatoclass ( talk) 11:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I've partially remixed the article so that it made more sense, added a table, more refs, a bit of other stuff, and generally tacked the issues you've raised, although there are still some on my agenda. Res Mar 23:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Gosh you're right, we probably need fair use. The problem is that the photo itself is supposed to be PD, but the site its on is not, presenting a problem. I had a similar problem with this image for the article Ferdinandea. I was sorted out by more copyright-knowlegable users at WP:VPP. The problem is that faithful representations of work that is Public Domain, regardless of source, are also Public Domain. I'm worried this isn't PD. Oh well, the article desn't lose much in that resppect anyway. Res Mar 19:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I think I've fixed the lead well enough, as that seems to be the outstanding problem at the moment. Res Mar 19:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Just like you said, I've sent it for GA. I've also started the "FeMO" section, but it's a bit of a stub. The problem I've hit is that I can only locate the logs for the 2008 expedition. Res Mar 18:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the accolade, the train is a great ride in a wonderful location--I'm really glad this helped the wiki project hawaii. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobtalbot61 ( talk • contribs) 06:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
No prob, thanks for the fix. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 16:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and refactored your comments per my request. I hope we can move on.
I've started a discussion to try to get everyone working from common ground, WP:LIST. We'll probably need to discuss list inclusion criteria, list maintainability, and similar lists separately, but it's a start. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
[1]. Badagnani ( talk) 19:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be well versed with volcanology and geography in general. Are you interested in article building, by any chance, or do you prefer gnome work? Ceran thor 19:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
You've got a different perspective on this situation that I do; perhaps I can learn from you. I know that there are three or four editors who have been reverting some of Badagnani's edits, and I've had some rather strange interactions with Badagnani. He wants me to help him, but only if I'm willing to play policeman, and spank the other editors. I won't do that, of course, but you argue that they should be admonished for opening an RfC.
Why not post a comment to the RFC, and say as much? That would send a message of encouragement to Badagnani, I have no doubt, and if your comment attracts a lot of support, that will send a clear message to the antagonists. I might be inclined to support - I'd have to see what you write first. Anyway, I appreciate your input. Take care. - GTBacchus( talk) 03:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you at least tell me about a good edit of Badagnani's that they've been edit warring over? The only examples I've been given were disputes over pretty questionable edits. I can't tell someone to stop removing commercial links to non-notable products. How could I do that? If you could just point me in a direction where I can get some traction, that would also be very helpful. - GTBacchus( talk) 14:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I hope no one is offended if I contribute here. I've been trying to find ways to work with Badagnani for almost two months now. During that time I've seen him add references from Google books. While these are rarely the type of sources needed for GA articles, they're fine for the poorly-sourced articles where the many disputes have occurred. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Ronz, please put the stick down and step away from the horse. The RFC is over there. I don't agree with your POV. My concern on this issue has always been one thing: hounding and edit warring by editors engaged in content disputes and the complicity of administators who either take sides or ignore bad behavior. That's it. Viriditas ( talk) 00:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
If I were aware of any edits being reverted that amounted to anything, then I'd be much more inclined to listen to your point of view, Viriditas. You stated above that "this has nothing to do with good or bad edits". However, reverting spam is not "hounding"; it's good work.
Since you seem unwilling to help me find any reversions that are actually wrongful, I'm having a hard time seeing your point of view. I'm an admin who would be inclined to support Badagnani, if he showed any side to me other that what I've seen so far. My experience with the editor is that he is absolutely dead-set against any collaboration in which he is not held to be 100% right, and that he will attempt to lawyer any decision with which he disagrees to the death.
I really wish someone would bring some good edits of his to my attention, so I could have a reason to ask these guys to stop hounding him. The fact that nobody is showing me these examples leads me to believe that they don't exist. You could be of assistance in this matter Viriditas. You have, right now, the chance to get an administrator to take this editor's side. All I require is proof that good work is being reverted. This should be easy to find, right? - GTBacchus( talk) 04:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
[2]. Badagnani ( talk) 04:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
[3]. Badagnani ( talk) 04:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Because after the 20 or 30 messages I've posted to that admin, requesting assistance with the very trying campaign of wikihounding I have been subjected to each day for the past two weeks, I am not convinced that he is even-handed. It has to do with this policy issue:
“ | With the evidence of blatant, coordinated hounding, egregious edit warring, and incivility, it's clear that the 1,633 administrators don't find it necessary or important to enforce policy and guidelines. When you've got this many administrators and not one willing to step in and stop this kind of behavior, there's a problem. | ” |
Badagnani ( talk) 15:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't lose content disputes, and I don't get Wikihounded, despite making controversial edits. Why are you so stubbornly unwilling to learn from me?
If you are only willing to delay your demand for justice, then you will reap bountiful rewards. Want to keep refusing my offer? Got a better plan? - GTBacchus( talk) 18:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
That is very kind of you; I hope you understand, though, that you've been confusing me with your last few messages to me. Badagnani ( talk) 22:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I notice that you've taken it upon yourself to add even more heat to the Badagnani situation. Can I ask why you think what this fire needs is gasoline? - GTBacchus( talk) 01:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh... haven't you been around here long enough to know about gasoline? I'm very puzzled by that... - GTBacchus( talk) 02:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Look, I'm sorry.
You know I've been trying to help mediate this ongoing dispute involving a handful of editors. I've observed what I've observed, and I'e developed some opinions. I'm still learning. I'm also talking with different people, and trying to convince people talking about edits more, and about each other less. This is what I know, and it seems to work, at least some of the time.
Your input has puzzled me from the start, and then Caspian blue dropped those links off on my page, and I looked at them. What I saw seemed to me to be rather unhelpful. That's not the point - I can be right or wrong about that. Either way, it's clear I didn't look very carefully, but reacted rashly instead. Bad idea.
I was already upset because an editor was repeatedly restoring warnings to Badagnani's talk page, and I pointed out to him that reposting comments that someone delete from their own page is out of bounds. I may not have done it in the best way; like I say, I was upset. This is why posting while upset is discouraged.
I managed to get a bunch of tabs open, and I started getting the order of events mixed up, and as part of that, I became convinced that you were - right then - goading Eugene2x. I now see that nothing like that was the case, and that I was off by days. It wasn't the only mistake I made right about then. Maybe it was one of those things that comes in threes.
If you're willing, I'd still like to compare notes with you, I'm sure. This is not the place for that, though. I'm only posting now to say that I was not posting judiciously last night, and I'm sorry for barfing on your talk page. - GTBacchus( talk) 19:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking of brushing up Hawaii hotspot and sending it to GA while Loihi sits in the backlog. I've also de-redlinked Cross Seamount (in DYK right now), and decided to shot for an FA for Loihi...just as soon as I finish cleaning up Marine Protected Area. Can you give me some guidance? Res Mar 16:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned a comment you made about AJL's edits to William M. Connelley's main space article. I didn't mention your name specifically but I thought you might want to know. OlYeller Talktome 01:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I followed your 'lead' on the Domino article and moved the screenwriter's quote from the introduction to the screenplay section. I agree that it's silly and probably should not be there at all, but for those that disagree it certainly fits better in the latter section.
Cheers--- Williamsburgland ( talk) 07:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, let's. I'd just like to keep it in one place. It's nice you're on when I am for once :) Res Mar 00:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't the request for page protection that was disruptive, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Hopiakuta. MBisanz talk 01:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I replied there. My Internet was down yesterday, or I would have replied sooner. I'm now just about to check in at Talk:List of liqueurs. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
From the one editor's perspective, he's editing perfectly within policy, and his edits are very positive, and add value to the articles. So, from that perspective, he's clearly being hounded, unreasonably and unfairly. From the group's perspective however, it's no more "hounding" than cleaning up after a vandal is "hounding".
I'm not going to presume to say which perspective is the "right" one, or even precisely what that would mean. I feel that the best thing to do is to ask more people, and try to get a feel for what the community thinks - inclusionists and deletionists, eventualists and... whatever the dual of those are. That's what I'm doing, posting at various talk pages. (I know how I feel personally, but I'm not important, compared with a broad consensus of Wikipedians. As an admin, I serve the encyclopedia and the community, not the other way around.)
I think that the one editor is not sufficiently taking into account that the group of editors are acting based on their good-faith understanding of our rules and norms. I think the group has been insensitive to the fact that the one editor is a long-time contributor, who will very naturally be upset if he's dealt with as a common vandal. On the other hand, I'm very sympathetic to their actions, because if we're trying to keep spam out, then we're trying to keep it out now, and not just eventually. I think that it's very fair to say that the standard is to copy removed material to the talk page, and re-add it bit by bit as consensus guides us. The idea that the material should be re-instated wholesale, and only removed on a link-by-link basis seems wrong to me.
I'm interested in what you think of this description of the situation. Whether or not you choose to respond, thanks for listening. I hope I haven't bored you. - GTBacchus( talk) 00:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
My understanding of behavior at Wikipedia is that, ultimately, this is an encyclopedia, and not a court of law. Whenever I've seen someone try to prosecute a dispute totally in terms of behavior, it hasn't gone well. When I see someone restrict themselves to arguments about edits in articles, I notice that their being grounded in actual encyclopedic edits gives them a lot of power, and they're then able to defeat the behavior issue. I tried to tell Badagnani this, but he rejected it as "confusing" or "bad advice." - GTBacchus( talk) 13:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
As an editor who has taken an interest in Badagnani in the past, you might be interested in the discussion at WP:ANI#Edit warring, if anyone cares. If you're gonna help the guy, this might be a good time to do it. - GTBacchus( talk) 15:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for undertaking the review of the above article, I almost thought it would never get reviewed!!!!!! I will take care of any problems with it as quick as I find out about them.-- Will C 09:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not a sock puppet of Truthbody, please check our IPs and see for yourself. Thank you. -- Truthsayer62 ( talk) 07:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the review so far. Aptery gial 12:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
OK. I'm in Australia, by the way. It's long past day now. :) Aptery gial 14:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know (you are probably watching it anyway), but I've gone through the article and made the changes you suggested. C'est fini, je crois. Aptery gial 10:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Viriditas, I have looked around on Wikipedia but cannot find the answer to this -- do you happen to know if one can edit one's own user talk page to remove any warnings, discussions in progress and so on, or not? I always assumed the discussions had to stay there or perhaps be archived, but now I am not sure. Where is one supposed to have editorial discussions (or disputes) with other editors? Is it always on the article in question? In which case, what is the user talk page for? Thanks for any help you can give me. ( Truthbody ( talk) 02:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC))
Look sharp; Mattisse took up Loihi. Res Mar 20:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi and thank you for the note. I'm not sure if you are aware of this and this, which resulted in a range block. The notes on User talk:EmilEikS provide the rest of the history.
At this point, I don't know what else to do about the situation. User:Jayvdb said the next step is opening an arbitration case. If it comes to that, I'd be happy to provide information regarding my interactions with the user(s). Thanks, momoricks (make my day) 07:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
In return I would like to apologise to you. I think I boxed you into a corner, as I have done recently with other people over copyvios. I've decided my over zealous approach is not the right way to go (that is, zealously combating other people for being over zealous). The copyvio problem bothers me. I recently offended twice myself in unwitting ways, and was treated in, what I think, was totally inappropriate ways. So now I have some commitment to improving Wikipedia procedures in this area. It is a really important area, and I understand why, given the lack of appropriate Wikipedia procedures, you felt you could only act in a peremptorily way. Maybe we were both barging into that situation with a different focus, you focused on getting the copyvio cleaned up, and me focused on wanting it cleaned up in a spacious way – and both of us getting over intense because of a lack of sensible backup procedures. And I could see that you were actually trying to help Nihil novi tidy it up, but I wasn't going to bloody well acknowledge that so long as you kept repeating I was mistaken :). Of course I'm happy to work with you on Ricketts. I'm not sure there is a lot more to do, though perhaps the three of us could have a go at working it up to a GA? -- Geronimo20 ( talk) 10:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I kinda rushed that section when I was adding info from The Cinema of Robert Zemeckis. I forgot to cite it. Thanks once again. Wildroot ( talk) 02:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I ran Copyscape over Loihi Seamount (nice job, bye the way). It gives a clean bill of health (for online sources only).
The only hiccup was a real estate site which has on this page the following passage,
"The Big Island of Hawaii has it's own undersea mount, Lo'ihi, which in 1996, was rocked by the first ever directly observed eruption of an active underwater volcano in Hawai. The eruption was preceded by a swarm of 4,070 earthquakes, the largest of any Hawaiian volcanic eruptions. A total of 4 to 5 square miles of the summit was altered; one section, Pele's Vents, collapsed entirely upon itself, and formed the renamed Pele's Pit."
This can be compared with the following passage added by Resident Mario on the 8th March,
"In 1996 Loihi was rocked by a large eruption, the first ever recored of an active eruption by an underwater volcano in Hawaii. The eruption was preceded by an earthquake swarm measuring 4000 hits, the largest of any Hawaiian volcanic eruptions. A total of 4 to 5 square miles of the summit was altered; one section, called :Pele's Vents", collapsed entirely upon itself, and formed the renamed "Pele's Pit.""
However, the real estate site was updated on the 20th March, and precisely mirrors later tweaks that had been added to the WP passage, so I don't see there is any problem. Regards -- Geronimo20 ( talk) 04:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding prose quality; I sat down with the article for an hour to fine line it, like I said. plus, you've worked on it and Mattaise scanned it for the GA nom. I got Michael Devore to agree to work on the prose, too. Regarding external resources; hmm, many of them are rather old. this is nice though. Res Mar 14:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Mount St. Helens is only just longer then Loihi. Res Mar 17:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
In a few days I'll be back to solicit your help in creating a new article on Deborah Digges. Chag Sameach : ) -- MPerel 00:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, am i right in thinking you added the merge tags to these articles? I couldn't find a merge discussion, so created a section on it from the "discus" link. If you support merging, can you add something there? (too often i merge things then get complaints that it wasn't consensus, even with no opposition given). Yob Mod 12:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the in-depth GAC review at Crab Bowl. A lot of times, people don't seem to look at GACs very closely, so I appreciate your thoroughness. Strikehold ( talk) 03:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
[1] Res Mar 22:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Your user page is brought up here. Ikip ( talk) 04:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you give some input on Talk:Kapaau, Hawaii#Okina in name? Maybe I misunderstand the guidelines, or maybe the other guy does, but we are deadlocked. - J JMesserly ( talk) 05:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
(undent) Thanks for the info. My guess is that Treo and IE mobile apps are accessing [ Mobile Wikipedia]. Surprize, surprize, the "nihau nihau" text is there too- so the problem with the body text not that the browsers aren dropping the ʻOkina, it is that we (mobile.wikipedia) are not even sending it. But we sometimes do send it. See the article on okina- mobile wp is sending the okina if it is in the title, and kendal for one will not diplay the unicode for it. This theory that wp mobile is messing up the body text is just conjecture- do you want me to update Hawaii talk with this speculation? This would suggest that we need to make a request to mobile wp to substitute an apostrophe for okina rather than strip the character from the body text. Fixing okina in the article title I imagine would be much more difficult. - J JMesserly ( talk) 07:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The dynamic IPs (I think in the same range) began showing up about a week ago at a handful of articles, usually using longish edit summaries that show familiarity with WP, take a legalistic and fairly aggressive tone, and accompany removals of text or references. Often the IPs would begin operating once a day had come to a conclusion and various editors at the pages in question had already "used up" their two reversions for the day. I wouldn't guess who is doing this, but what I do know is that it's wrong. Badagnani ( talk) 17:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I saw that were wondering if the two pictures you posted of the correct classification ( File:Apis mellifera wailea maui hawaii 01.jpg and File:Xylocopa wailea maui hawaii.jpg), hopefuly no one already told you, but the first one is probavly correct, but the carpener bee one is more likely Xylocopa violacea. Bugboy52.4 ( talk) 21:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey V, I've been too busy lately to do much Wikipedia-ing, but just thought I'd let you know that I slightly changed my username to Arjuna909. I don't know how such a change appears on articles, talk pages etc, so just thought I'd let you know in case it's not easy to find me. I'll be back with more editing one of these days -- for now it's just minor rvvs etc. Cheers, Arjuna ( talk) 03:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Aloha! You can adjust the size of the picture thats not controlled by the box. As for the non alignment I have no idea how that happened as it was fine the other day. Not sure about empty parameters if you copy and paste the paramters from Taylor Knox for instance they should all be like that. I've asked someone to correct the alignment anyway. You just have to ensure you copy all the paramters and don't leave any out this is why is shows up with {{ }}. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh I seem to have fixed the alignment anyway. I only got around to adding a few. If you are unhappy with the image size just reduce the px in the box manually. E.g Kelly Slater. There are hundreds of surfers missing from here though, sometime I'll get around to adding more! Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
You mean the gap at the top of the page before the text begins. Mmm I dunno about that, I'm not a template expert believe it or not. I'll ask. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
What's going on between you and Caspian blue, Viriditas? I'm back online after a week, and I see a major grassfire going where there was only a severe threat of one before. What happened? - GTBacchus( talk) 15:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The best — and I've seen this three or four times :) — is when one of them creeps right to the edge of the roof, almost starts to lower himself to the feeder, then thinks better of it, changes his mind, and goes back! If they can learn to adapt.... then dammit, so can Wikipedians. To think that I'd have my faith restored by rodents. - GTBacchus( talk) 03:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
That article is not well written, but I do try to add images to food-related articles when I can. Recipes should not be included in Wikipedia articles (as our guidelines state), although an article on a specific dish should obviously indicate, in a general manner, a dish's ingredients and basic manner of preparation: what is it made of, and is it baked, boiled, fried, etc.? The fact that I didn't fix that article is simply indicative of the fact that I was primarily concerned, at that moment, with adding an image (and, if you check my image upload log, you'll see that I often do this), not in improving the article in any other way. Badagnani ( talk) 17:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I just don't understand the above. I suppose I just went ahead and added an image, didn't use an edit summary because I was in a hurry and the edit was self-explanatory; is there confusion about what I did (add an image) that a click to see the diff didn't indicate clearly? Badagnani ( talk) 06:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I see, I didn't remove the "photo needed" tag at Discussion. Clearly I should have, but I guess no one is perfect, and that's why we check on and help one another. Thanks for noticing; you could have gone ahead and removed that tag if you had noticed that I'd forgotten to. Badagnani ( talk) 06:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I see your question: assessing articles is one thing I've never learned how to do. I enjoy starting articles, adding content, references, and images, etc. but have never figured out how to assess, leaving that to editors who have more of an aptitude for that aspect of editing. Badagnani ( talk) 17:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Viriditas - the stub-sorting project does have a manual of style - WP:STUB, supplemented by WP:WSS/NG. I pointed Roux to WP:STUB and to the proper forum to discuss any changes he thought worth bringing up for discussion - sadly, he wasn't interested in going there. Grutness... wha? 21:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant one who can't hear, not death I'll fix it, thanks! Bugboy52.4 ( talk) 13:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
" Internet homicide" has commenced at Talk:Internet_homicide#Name. ↜Just me, here, now … 20:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)