User:Easchiff/Archive1
This page is an archive of User:Easchiff's talk page topics prior to 2009.
Mark Lombardi
[edit]Hoi: I noticed some good edits to Mark Lombardi, one of my favorite artists. Out of curiosity, do you have any particular interest in him or were you simply improving an unfortunately neglected article? --Gwern (contribs) 04:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I am quite interested in Lombardi. I stumbled onto his work at Pierogi in Fall, 2001, and talked to Joe Amrhein there. I was peripherally involved in bringing his exhibit to Syracuse University, and I had the honor of meeting some of his family then. I think the article could use a little work, but for now I just wanted people who stumbled onto it to be able to get a quick impression of his art. Apparently, book covers are "fair use" as far as copyright law goes.EAS 14:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, that's pretty neat: I'm afraid I only stumbled lately onto him through a NY Times article, but you were actually involved and met the various personages! I must say, I do envy you, as what is only a book and a few articles and obituaries for me is living breathing reality and memories for you. Out of curiosity, do you happen to know what happened to Lombardi's papers? (There were a few details with regard to the World Finance Corporation I haven't managed to track down).
- As for fair use, yeah, book covers in this context especially would definitely satisfy fair use. In this case, it not only illustrates the book, but also his artwork. --Gwern (contribs) 03:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Barilla
[edit]Hi Easchiff,
You proposed deleting Barilla. That probably won't pose any problems. However, proposed deletion usually takes five days. If a page move is noncontroversial, you can request speedy deletion and get things done more quickly if you like. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion has more information (see General Criteria #6).
Best regards,
Fg2 08:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Fg2 - Thanks very much for the help; I haven't proposed a deletion previously, and wanted to be careful about protocol. I think I'll go ahead and wait a few more days. Although this deletion shouldn't be controversial, I haven't explicitly contacted the people who created the original article (basically a stub) that I moved to Barilla Group.EAS 10:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Chordariales
[edit]The Phaeophyceae page is not a complete article, but just a list of orders and brief information. As such, all orders should be left in, unless and until a complete article with a discussion of molecular taxonomic revisions is included. Please put Chordariales back in, as the latest research showing it is paraphyletic is not wholely resolved--or if it is include this note. KP Botany 23:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sure; I'm certainly not expert on the taxonomy of algae. Is there an article explaining the issues here? I was presuming that AlgaeBase was authoritative. (All this because kelp didn't originally refer to any particular type of seaweed at all...)EAS 00:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- AlgaeBase is a superb resource, however it is not taxonomically authorative for current algal phylogenies, and it doesn't explain who/what it used as the authority for its choice of taxa, and sometimes it mixes systems, and it leans heavily towards some of the controversial taxonomies (which are probably right, imo, but it's not about that). I am writing up the brown algae using textbooks and what on-line resources I can find, but have reached a slump on it. Please feel free to do anything and everything you can, as you have done, by adding information from and the reference to AlgaeBase on all articles. If you can get some pictures, that would be great also. I believe that Chordariales has been reduced to a family and subsumed, along with one of the other orders into a third order. However, for now, I would like it left so that there are links to all the orders, so I can find them when I do a move. Also, for now, until there is a firm taxonomic discussion it should be left as is. I am writing up the taxonomy from Lee, and some journal articles. If you're interested I will post links to some of the articles that are on the web, but not all of the ones I am using are. Still, if you can find articles on the orders, in general, their introductory and discussion content should be sufficient for Wikipedia articles. Let me know what you need.KP Botany 03:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I may try to locate pictures for some of the species (originally characterized as Fucus) that were burned to make kelp (the form of soda ash). You may want to look at the Fucales article, where I also made some changes in the taxobox based on AlgaeBase. There seemed to be a list of genera there that were given as subdivisions of an order. Sure looked wrong to me, but I think you'd know better. Incidentally, I have some curiosity about the biochemistry of these species. It's anomalous for land plants to have a high concentration of sodium in their cells, but I gather that this isn't true for algae. I've written what I know about land plants in the Salsola soda article I've been working on. Cheers EAS 03:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I would like to restart the WikiProject on protists (Wikipedia:WikiProject Prokaryotes and protists) as these articles really need some work. Yes, the biochemistry is interesting. I'm reading up on the fucoids right now. They're rather complex organisms, not quite so easy to dismiss as some seem to think. I'll look at your articles, and yes, soda ash images would be great. I'm going to throw a photograph of some ice cream on the Rhodophyta page, I swear. KP Botany 17:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You marked up the image Image:GreenLakesSPap04.jpg, I think because it didn't appear that anything linked to it.
Actually, the article Green Lakes State Park does link to it. I have no idea why this doesn't show up when one checks with "What links here." Possibly some slight formatting problem in the Green Lakes State Park article?EAS 23:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, actually, I marked it to be transwikied to Wikimedia Commons, because it's been released under the GFDL. I mispelled the permission template, but I have since fixed that. Bastiq▼e demandez 13:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Salsola kali
[edit]Hi. I just noticed that you've redirected Salsola kali to Salsola tragus. They are different species according to the integrated taxonomic information service. The taxonomic serial number for Salsola kali is 20655 . The taxonomic serial number for Salsola tragus is 520950. Perhaps the confusion occurs because some subspecies of Salsola tragus have been misidentified as subspecies of Salsola kali. Presuming I'm correct about this, could you fix this up, please?EAS 18:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. The Australian Plant Names Index contains a simplified output service[1] and a full output service.[2] The simplified output service states that Salsola kali is now Salsola tragus. But the process by which it extracts simplified output must be flawed, as the full output merely states that Salsola kali was misapplied to Salsola tragus in the Australian Plant Census.[3] I don't have time to tackle it right now, but I'll sort it out tonight or tomorrow at the latest. Thanks for letting me know. Hesperian 02:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, that's fixed. I didn't actually redirect S. kali to S. tragus previously - I moved the S. kali article to S. tragus, and the redirect was created automatically. I have now moved the article back to its original location at S. kali, and deleted the redirect from S. tragus. This means we no longer have an article on S. tragus, but that is better than having an article full of incorrect information predicated on the notion that it is the same plant as S. kali. Hesperian 01:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Good work
[edit]Nice job on Glasswort. KP Botany 21:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of which,
|
On July 24, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Glasswort, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you for the compliment! Easchiff 09:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Islais creek
[edit]Thanks. You are welcomed to improve the article if you want. As of now, I am the only one working on the article. I created it primarily because I tried to research the creek on Wikipedia and can't find anything about it. Chris! ct 19:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
DYK: Martin A. Pomerantz
[edit]|
|
On 4 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Martin A. Pomerantz, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--PFHLai 11:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Drinking Alone
[edit]Ok sure, no problem. I think the version has various translations anyways. Intranetusa (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey. You've been doing some fantastic work on the Verna Fields article. Probably not far from GA. When you think it's as good as you can get it, list it at WP:GAN. The JPStalk to me 21:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits on this new article! The New York Times obit that you added as a reference was great, but I think their count of films that O'Steen edited for Mike Nichols isn't correct, as you'll see in the filmography. I mention it because I was thinking of using this tidbit as the hook for a "Did you know" submission. Cheers - Easchiff 02:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Funny that you mention it, but I had submitted a DYK nomination for O'Steen, mentioning his collaborations with Nichols as part of the hook. I tried to find a source that had the number of films he had done for Nichols as 12, but all I could find was the mention in the NYTimes obit of nine. I'm glad I was able to help expand the article. Thanks for all your work on getting it started. Alansohn (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Sam O'Steen DYK
[edit]|
|
On 15 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sam O'Steen, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--BorgQueen (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
re: Verna Fields
[edit]Hi, Easchiff, I'm glad my comments and suggestions were helpful and I'm pleased to see how the article is slowly but surely shaping up -- please take your time! I'm not going to fail the article if it takes more time than the usual week, so don't worry. Just let me know if you need more time so I know that you are still working. You make a very good case for the inclusion of the director(s), and I can definitely see the collaboration between editor and director as an important and notable bond, so feel free to discard that comment. I am, however, concerned with the writing becoming clunky and bogged down with too much info. People tend to describe films in list formatting, which is not only difficult to read but a sight for sore eyes: "He worked on the film Whatever (1998, directed by so-and-so) and then the film Yadda Yadda (2000, directed by so-and-so)". I have higher standards than most, so I can be quite picky about monotonous phrasing. I trust that you can find a way around this issue with a little tweaking here and there. See if you can work the directors into the prose itself instead of consistently using parenthetical asides. "The director, so-and-so, said of Fields...", "Fields worked closely with so-and-so, the director, to ensure..." etc. That way you have variation, which makes for far more intriguing writing.
By the way, I wasn't aware that this would be the first GA about a film editor; very interesting and good on you. It's great to see lesser known fields being given such attention here on Wikipedia. The fact that this is article in particular is about a woman in a man's field is certainly not lost on me either. :) María (habla conmigo) 13:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Congratulations! Good work. The JPStalk to me 21:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, congrats! And thank you for the kind words regarding Emily Dickinson. It was a pleasure reviewing such an interesting article and I'm glad you spent so much time with its improvement. I'm especially pleased that an article dedicated to an Oscar winner was promoted to GA status just in time for this year's Oscar ceremony. :) Take care! María (habla conmigo) 17:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Jaws 2
[edit]Hello. A weeks ago you said that you had some info about Fields and Jaws 2. I'd be interested in the details of these. I'm thinking about getting Jaws 2 up to FA status. The JPStalk to me 14:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Credits in photo captions
[edit]Because you have voiced your opinion on such matters in the past, I thought you would like to know that consensus is trying to be reached on this issue at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Photograph_attribution_in_image_captions. (Mind meal (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC))
My pleasure. If I ever get round to it, I've also formulated a cunning plan to use the templates listing every Best Picture, Best Actor, etc, to generate the smaller templates by year-range (if that makes sense). Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
William Francis Gray Swann
[edit]I have corrected this page now. The City Guilds of London Institute i mentioned was a mistake due to copy editing, I merely intended to add the fact that he also attended King's College London. I removed the date of graduation initially because I did not have a date for when he was at king's, but I have now reinstated the fact that he graduated from the Royal College of Science in 1905. Hope this clears things up. Jamesmh2006 (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I have looked for a reference however I have not been able to find one, thus I have removed this statement from the article. I can't quite remember what prompted me to make my initial edit back in January, but i'm fairly sure I must have read it somewhere. Anyway thanks for spotting my mistake and i'll try to be a bit more careful in future. Jamesmh2006 (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words. I noted that there was another Peter Boyle, also in the Hollywood world to confuse the editors in wikilinks. I fixed a lot of wrong links. (Caiaffa (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC))
- I'm guessing that you discovered that the "What links here" link in the toolbox on the left hand side of the page is useful for this! I also use the "gadget" (see "my preferences") called "navigation popups" to quickly check for incorrect links. Unfortunately, most people who enter the "infobox" for their film articles neglect to include the film's editor there. Editing is the "invisible art". Cheers Easchiff(talk) 19:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Tecticornia pergranulata
[edit]- Thanks for the note. Yes, I'm not sure about the image identification, but then I'm not confident when it comes to the identification of glassworts. I've dropped a note on Peripitus's talk page Melburnian (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Easchiff. I'll not revert your edit, but please do it. City of Men is a Fernando Meirelles' TV serie, not the Paulo Morelli's film [4]. Best Regards. Caiaffa (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again, I've made a stub for the film, City of Men (film). But as my english isn't the best of the word, if you can help a little I'll really appreciate. Thanks. Caiaffa (talk) 07:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Brent White, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0924544. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Kay Ryan article & WebCite
[edit]hello. i reformatted the citations because they were of non-standard construction. as far as the webcite references, there's no need to include redundant links for the same text unless the main source goes dead. hope this this explains it. cheers. --emerson7 22:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing such a super job on the Kay Ryan page, which will now gain more visibility with her latest appointment as poet laureate. I was interested to learn about webcite, also.----Beth Wellington (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Was on a wiki-break or would have answered you sooner. Hope things are going well. I responded to Emerson re webcite here: User_talk:Emerson7#Kay_Ryan--Beth Wellington (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Fact templates
[edit]The date syntax is: {{Fact|any other arguments|date=August 2008}}, but if you leave the date off it will be added by a WP:BOT. Rich Farmbrough, 13:50 14 August 2008 (GMT).
Image:Pancakebay01PJM.JPG
[edit]Hi Easchiff: Thanks for your note, I went to the article for "American beach grass" that you added, and saw with interest that someone else has also uploaded a pic of Pancake Bay! I can't confirm if that's what it is, but from looking at the pictures in the article it seems plausible to me. Go ahead and edit the photo description if you like; if you don't I likely will. Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)