User talk:ArthurWeasley/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello, ArthurWeasley, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Hi thanks for the additions to aikido. If you do anymore biographies of aikido guys could you add them to the List of aikidoka. That's the easist way for us to keep track of new entries. Regards Peter Rehse 07:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll do that. Thanks for the welcoming note and the tip. ArthurWeasley 17:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarf planet naming

See also another poll here: Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming.--Nixer 23:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Aikido

Sorry about that I went a way a while so the chance of it would be low. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). A couple of things: arts are not capitilized within a sentence unless part of a name. Yoshinkan Aikido is correct, Aikido is not. Same for shodo, judo. Japanese words have no s in plural. Dojos should be dojo, shihans should be shihan. Oh yeah and they prefer to avoid titles. Anyway, sorry about the edit clash - I'll not touch them until the following day if I see something new. Cheers Peter Rehse 05:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

By the by Ueshiba's son has been quoted that his father had no post-war uchideshi and according to one Aikikai shihan I talked it can get like a kindergarten with these ex-students arguing about who was and who was not uchideshi. Abe was a student of Tanaka (no doubt) and eventually became a direct student of Ueshiba. He for sure did not imediately become uchideshi even in the looser sense although you could say it was a unique situation with Ueshiba staying at Abe's home. That's just for information sake.Peter Rehse 06:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arthur - thanks for finding the Toyoda article. I had to flag it as a copyright violation and besides there is just way too much information there. Someone else commeted on that on the Talk page. Could you do a slash and burn on it and reduce it to something from which an original article can grow. Unadressed copyright problems are usually deleted. Cheers Peter Rehse 00:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just my way of passing the buck. If its still in need Monday I'll do it myself - also not high on my priority. I look at the length of the Tomiki article, Ueshiba K., even O-Sensei and then compare it to .... one wonders. By the by - where, what and how long have your trained. Inquiring minds want to know (not that it would change anything)Peter Rehse 02:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad about the injury - so far I've avoided the chronic (knock on wood). I noticed about the Toyoda article and since he did a cut and paste from their website I brutally put a copyright tag (the most evil in the Wikipedia arsenal). No room for the lazy.Peter Rehse 06:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

adding them all?

Are you planning to add each genus of everything, or each extinct genus, or what? Don't get me wong, I like elephants, even the fossil ones. DGG 05:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you wrote on my page, you like fossils; I believe the usual estimate is there are ~250,000 known fossils;

are you doing them all, or just the genera? If you do genera only, that would be what? 50,000? I guess 50,000 is a practical number. At 10 a day, that's about 15 years--faster if you share the work. Much less if you only do the vertebrates.

If you were adding all species, the estimate of known living species is about 2 million. May estimated the true number of living species would be 10 or 20 times that.

(these ae total counts.) Because of the immense number of insects, the number of animals in each case might be ~80% of each number.DGG 17:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gomphotheres

Thanks for improving the Gomphothere article! I've always loved those creatures, and I've found so little information on them. North America's native elephants. Keep up the good work! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"RVV"

Please do not use the term "Revert vandalism" in an edit summary if you simply disagree with the user's edits. In this case, you can say "revert POV", but "revert vandalism" is offensive. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur articles

Hey Arthur!

I noticed you've been doing a bit of work on dinosaur articles. That's cool. You may even wish to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs as we've got plenty of work to do for interested (and willing!) editors. Happy editing! Firsfron of Ronchester 01:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neat! Hope to see you around the talk page sometime. :) Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 02:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I notice you've been working a lot on the Stegosaurus article. the current plan is to get that article up to Featured Article status. If you can think of anything the article is still missing, feel free to add it. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 00:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks pretty good to me thanks to all your edits. When do you want to proposed it as a featured article? ArthurWeasley 17:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Arthur!

I want to make sure all the comments noted in the earlier nomination are addressed before we send Stegosaurus out again. I think we're really close. If you think of anything that could or should be added, please don't hesitate to do so. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making these edits, Arthur! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 03:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! I didn't even notice that. Alright, for now, I've moved all the 'diet' stuff that was in the skull section down to the diet section (it really never belonged in the skull section anyway). This does make the text a bit odd, as then the two scenarios aren't completely compatible, and I'll try to work on it in a couple of hours. again, thanks for your edits and the feedback. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 18:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

I, EWS23, hereby award **ArthurWeasley** the *Editor's Barnstar* for a particularly swift, efficient, and important reversion of J. K. Rowling, upholding our biographies of living people policy. [1] Keep up the good work! 04:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello ArthurWeasley! As the description of the Editor's Barnstar says, "Sometimes, text removal is the most effective editing." I noticed your reversion [2] of the J. K. Rowling page, and I felt that it was a particularly fine example of someone upholding our policy on biographies of living people. For this reason, it is my honor to award you this barnstar. Feel free to move/copy it to your user page to show it off. Keep up the good work, and let me know if there's anything I can do for you in the future. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 04:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. If I ever come across any muggle artifacts I need identifying, I'll be sure to send them your way. ;o) EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 04:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dravidosaurus

Hi Arthur,

You recently made this edit to Dravidosaurus, with the edit summary, "dravidosaurus is actually not considered a nomen dubium", and changed "a nomen dubium" to "questioned." But actually, that's what "nomen dubium" means: a doubtful name. According to this site (and others), Dravidosaurus is a nomen dubium. I've reverted your change for now... unless you know of new information?

Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 22:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your notes, Arthur. Sorry it took me so long to get back to you; I was busy nominating Stegosaurus for Featured Article. You can feel free to object or support, if you think it meets or does not meet Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. As for Brachypodosaurus, there's no hard and fast rule about when a stub is no longer a stub, except that it should be fairly complete before being considered a "non-stub". The article is currently 2.2 kb, and I guess I myself wouldn't remove the tag, but I do not object to people removing stub tags from articles that are at least fairly complete. What do you think? Happy editing! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 00:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalry award

I can only second Cas' comments. Thanks for all your help, Arthur, and thanks for working on all those dinosaur stubs! Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 20:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words and congratulations for the FA status of Stegosaurus. I am a relatively new user (since Aug 2006) but now am quite addicted to Wikipedia. What's next ? Cheers. ArthurWeasley 16:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you don't know about the dinosaur collaborations! Here's the deal. You can go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Dinosaur collaboration and vote for which dinosaur article(s) you'd like to see improved. You can vote for more than one. At the end of the voting, we work together to get the most popular article in good shape. You would be welcome to give your input there.

Since the voting always takes a while, you're of course free to work on whatever article you'd like. The dinosaur articles listed on the short list need a lot of work, as you know. Even adding a couple of sentences may improve them. Then there's our main page, where a lot of unfinished projects are still listed. And on the talk page, you can see various ideas that have been proposed, but no one has ever seriously worked on them. Or, if you prefer, and you're a good, detailed artist, you could illustrate some dinosaurs which don't currently have any pictures on Wikipedia and submit them to Image Review. There's a lot of other stuff that can be done, but that's a start. Feel free to jump in, Arthur! Happy editing! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 17:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diplodocus

Thanks. I was about to fix it myself when I was called away to address the vandalism on Stego. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 19:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Arthur!

Pages on the Main Page do not get protected or semi-protected, per Wikipedia:Semi-protection_policy#When_not_to_use_semi-protection; we just weather out the storm. In 12 hours or so, Stegosaurus will be off the main page anyway. I can semi-protect or protect any dinosaur page, so there is no need to formally request page protection on them if I'm on-line. There's been a lot of IP vandalism; if it could be done without violating the policy, I would definitely have already done it. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you about the images. You've done some really terrific ones, Arthur. You do really nice work. I've left comments on the dinosaur image page. Thanks again, Firsfron of Ronchester 21:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Arthur. I look forward to seeing them on the page! This is always really exciting. As far as I know, there's no wishlist (but one could be made!), but if you browse thru the List of dinosaurs, you will see many long articles with no reconstructions, often no images at all. You're doing a fantastic job, Arthur. Thank you. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any policy within the dino group about what should go in priority in the taxobox as an illustration: a picture of the skeleton or a reconstruction? ArthurWeasley 22:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no official priority, and personally, I like to mix it up a little. We want to avoid a "cookie cutter" effect, if possible. At the same time, the (subjectively) "best" image should go in the taxobox, as it's the image people will first see. Just go by what you think looks good. :) Happy editing! Firsfron of Ronchester 22:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]