Jump to content

User talk:Dwarf Kirlston/Archive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anarchy

[edit]

heh

[edit]

haven't worked on anarchy in ages, mainly because the anarchists did their damndest to outnumber any non-anarchist editor on their pages. I'm surprised they even kept my contributions. I think the article still needs some work because it suffers from some original research-- for example, the responses to Pinker are not actually responses to Pinker, but just anarcho-primitivist views being repeated after Pinker states a historical fact. Anyways, thanks for the compliment, but I suggest you work on that article to maintain NPOV.--Urthogie (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Nations Parliamentary Assembly

[edit]
  • Objection I don't like it, it's got numerous style issues - a total of two pictures - really extremely lacking context in terms of what the UN has been- and seems POV'ed towards "global democracy activism"...
    "They have recently gained traction amidst increasing globalization, as national parliamentarians and citizens' groups use the Internet to organize activists and seek to counter the growing influence of unelected international bureaucracies." sounds heavily POV, it is unreferenced, it seems OR, -
    --Keerllston 13:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

[edit]

You're too kind! Tony (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Feet

[edit]

Thanks for your support in getting this article promoted to FA! Brad (talk) 09:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:China

[edit]

It sounds like you're thinking about the 'China' article differently from me. I'm not sure what you're saying is wrong with the system. We've been discussing how to fix the page since we have problems deciding what goes into the map and what goes into the article, problems writing a first sentence that matches the topic of the article, and problems with people dropping in to change the topic paragraph because it doesn't match what people expect the article to be about. All these problems relate to deciding where what a search for "China" should link to, what this articles name should be, and what the first sentence should then say. Those three decisions are linked and cannot be made in isolation. Readin (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USS Illinois

[edit]

I have attempted to improve the article, removing some sections and trying to copyedit others. Would you consider taking another look at the article? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Fountain FAC

[edit]

Would you reconsider your Crown Fountain FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The World Without Us

[edit]

Would you please check up on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The World Without Us. Not many reviewers there. --maclean 22:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything further I can do for the article? --maclean 00:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on FA status for Opera

[edit]

Nicely perservered, that looked like a long FA Candidacy! I hope to see more articles of that caliber in the future- Congratulations! --Kiyarrllston 01:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm happy about it too, especially since there are relatively few computing-related featured articles. I'm also thinking about how to get Opera Mini up to featured article quality. Do you have any suggestions? —Remember the dot (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for some feedback on Opera Mini
"It is offered free of charge, but requires that the mobile device be capable of running Java ME applications." not quite a "but" kind of relationship
They run Linux and "are massively parallel and massively redundant."[23] - at the very least linking to redundant and parallel - is massively a technical term as well?
"Opera Mini supports bi-directional text, meaning that it can display text in languages such as Arabic and Hebrew." - [as well as the left to right predominant in western civilization]?
History should start with Opera Mini's birth not with the relations it had with other browsers. - That's more context or background
I hope this helps - feel free to ask again. :D
--Kiyarrllston 23:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching merge proposals

[edit]

I'd say go forward with the merging. This has been a problematic issue for some time. Cheers.--Hu12 (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

[edit]

May this season bring you success, good times and happiness. Looking forward to working with you in the future.
Hαvεlok беседа мансарда 07:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Harvey

[edit]

I'm sorry I called you rude, that was quite rude itself and I withdraw it and apologise. I'm also sorry if I didn't respond adequately to your concerns, hopefully everything is better now. Thankyou for your participation in this FAC and I hope you have a Merry Christmas.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your contribution towards the FAC for the above article, it has now passed. Your attention here was (eventually!) gratefully recieved. Regards.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

life coaching

[edit]

Thank you, I wasn't sure if I was being too mean lol and would get told off!:) Merkinsmum 03:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your FAC points

[edit]

Thanks for the FAC points. I addressed them on the FAC page. By the way, that "Ugly Duchess" sure is ugly, and looks like a Ferengi! Cheers, Cirt (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Talk:Cunt

[edit]

Hi there, and a Happy New Year! Now that we have a bit of a breathing space on the article I have set out some proposals, on which your comments would be welcome. That doesn't mean, unfortunately, that random editors won't come along and stick in unencyclopedic stuff, but if we can keep it semi-pp'd (which, perhaps should have been done a while ago), it would at least mean that we can go for GA, if not FA. Either, to me, would be an important move, because it would demonstrate that it is possible to construct an article on WP that although dealing with a controversial topic, can do so encyclopedically. To me, that is the acid test of an article on WP, and if that can be achieved, so can anything else; your work there already has been most constructive, and I hope you can spare the time to look over the article when you can spare the time. Please feel free to comment. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: The "Ugly Duchess" must surely be Maria Maultasch ("pocket-mouth"), prototype for Lewis Carroll's "Duchess" in the "Pig and Pepper" episode? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

[edit]

I took your suggestion to heart on the FAC discussion page for Ming Dynasty, and deleted the excessive wording in that sentence. Anything else in the article that strikes you as being unneccessary?--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there number 2

[edit]

Dude! That ugly duchess on this talk page scares me every time I look at it! God! Get rid of that thing! (Lol.) It's grotesque...yet strangely beautiful in a Renaissance way.

Well, now I know the origins of your user name, and I have to say I'm glad I know, because I like knowing the history behind funky user names (if you don't mind me calling yours funky-sounding). My own user name isn't much of a brain-buster; I should have come up with something more unique, but oh well, I guess I'm content with the one I got.

Your edits to Three Kingdoms were essential! I haven't touched that article much, but by the looks of it, I think it needs more attention.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alice in Chains

[edit]

I'm sorry, I don't know what you are talking about "Per Comprehensivness and Organization: Lacks Section on Public Reception/Critical Reception." There is an Influence and style section, which covers critical reception, and I have never scene a Reception in a band articles, only in album articles. Recently featured articles do not have this sort of section you mention. EX: Tool (band), Motorhead, Nine Inch Nails and plently of older articles too. And the reason I don't use edit summary often is that I edit the page in mass, and don't really have time to use it, when I am hust going to edit two seconds later too. Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 21:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The FAC was re-started. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 23:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you take another look at the article? It has improved vastly. Also could you re-comment on the FAC? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 20:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please take another look. Skeletor2112 and I worked on it just this last day and I truley belive everything you wanted has been taken care of. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 01:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left a reply. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 01:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dido. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 01:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: help

[edit]

There is no context for your example. I cannot interpret what only one snippet of text means without the context. What does it refer to? Is this on an article? María (habla conmigo) 13:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't even recognize it. It's been so long since I've read Two Cities.
I don't think the passage is ambiguous at all. "For good or for evil" refers to the motivation of the noisy authorites' insistence of the reception of the period. The superlative degree of comparison refers to all of what was listed before, i.e. best, worst, spring of hope, winter of despair. Neither is correct because it's all exaggerated depending on what side the authority is on. All of what Dickens ever wrote is wordy in the extreme (the man was paid by the word, after all). Here's a summation of the paragraph: Such is the case today, the most vocal authorities of the time, whether for good or ill will, wished the period to be seen by differing exaggerated modes of expression.
Is this being discussed somewhere on Wikipedia? María (habla conmigo) 15:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No prob! María (habla conmigo) 01:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Chaser's War on Everything

[edit]

I've replied to your (rather entertaining!) comments here. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Film

[edit]

Thank you for your comment on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Golden Film. I tried to solve the problem. – Ilse@ 12:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead(II) nitrate

[edit]

Hi Kyarr, I have responded on the (first) issue you brought forward on the lead(II) nitrate FAC page. I would your appreciate your feedback on that, either by striking out the Oppose or pointing out the addressable rationale why you wouldn't, as is defined in the FAC procedure. Wim van Dorst (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC). I[reply]

NPOV on Armenian Forgeries

[edit]

Please use the Talk:Armenian Forgeries Talk page on the Armenian Forgeries article to explain why you are disputing its NPOV...thanks! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well -- now its all gone...so someone decided the NPOV dispute was correct, I guess...my point was simply that when you dispute the NPOV of a page, you should leave a comment on the discussion page explaining why... Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checking back in for Birmingham campaign

[edit]

I appreciate the comments you left for the FAC Birmingham campaign. I hope I was able to meet your objections to your satisfaction. I'm contacting you here to invite you to revisit the article. I do not want it failed due to lack of response. Thank you again. --Moni3 (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping by to say someone from the League of Copy Editors has whipped the article into shape. Thank you again for your comments, and for helping to make it an excellent article. --Moni3 (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your objection has been addressed

[edit]

Your single objection has been fully addressed in the Emma Watson FAC, so unless you have other objections, you could remove your opposition now. Cheers, Melty girl (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Svenonius FAC

[edit]

Thanks very much for your comments on the Ian Svneonius FAC. I was wondering if there's anything I could do further to gain your support. I only ask because the FAC has been going on for more than a month now, and although the article's received 2 support votes, there have been many other reviewers who have given their advice, which I've addressed, and then disappeared. If you don't feel the article warrants your support, that's fine, but I would at least like the opportunity to address any further objections you might have. Either way, thanks for your help so far. Drewcifer (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your further comments. I've responded on the FAC page. Drewcifer (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hard spaces again

[edit]

Progress, yes?

– Noetica♬♩ Talk 07:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: FAC and WP:Civil

[edit]

Hey Kiyarrllston, thanks for leaving a message on my talk page. I'm glad to see that other people in the Pilsudski FAC and related areas are interested in encouraging civility and collaboration. Topics covering Eastern European subjects, as you probably know, have long been plagued with poor behavior, and it's very difficult, oftentimes for me at least, to see how to help. Defending editors who have been jumped on inappropriately, especially when doing so with grace, is definitely one way to push the discussion in the right direction. If nothing else, I find that many times this causes the offending editor(s) to jump on me, which I think is good since I have a thick skin and it gets the irrelevant discussion off of the FAC page. Appropriately encouraging editors to not feed the trolls is another way to calm the situation down as well. It seems that a lot of times these discussions get heated because neither side takes a moment to think "is what I am about to post really necessary, or will it just further degrade the conversation?", and a cheerful nudge to a willing editor in that direction can go a long way, oftentimes. Although I haven't tried it yet, I think that a good way to head these situations off at the pass would be to encourage editors who post diatribes to FAC without really contributing much to the conversation to move that discussion to the relevant article's talk page. Keeping discussion at FAC focused would seem to minimize these situations at FAC, even if it will just likely move it to a talk page. Well, I hope I've given you some insight into how I try to cool down these situations. Let me know if you have any other questions or want to discuss further. Cheers! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your remark at Talk:Matthead

[edit]

Thanks for pointing out the archiving issue, it can be found here. I remember well that on the first Pilsudki FAC nomination, my remark was defended by you - or rather you opposed Piotrus' response to it. While I appreciated it, I did not follow up to this discussion and have chosen to remain mostly silent also in other matters, as virtually anything I write may be, or is, used against me, sooner, or months later. -- Matthead  DisOuß   20:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DBA

[edit]

The DBA is the dissemination of Behavior Analysis -- its a special interest group of the International Association for Behavior Analysis...we aim to represent our science accurately and correct any untrue representations. You can find out more at www.aboutbehavior.com Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia

[edit]

FAC comments

[edit]

Dwarf Kirlston, I was just reviewing the Emma Watson FAC, and saw that you had commented in four or five different places. I see that you often oppose, strike, later oppose again, strike, and later oppose again. This makes it very hard for me to keep up with where you stand on an article and how many reviews it has had; if you can keep all of your commentary together in one place, even when you change your mind, it would make my job easier. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you say and I will try to do so in the future. - Thanks for the heads up. ---Regarding why I did it: I have previously found it useful to start all over again, both with different objections and with a different attitude, as through I were a completely different reviewer. I thought this might be useful in that specific FAC as my previous oppose turned into a confrontation with my actions being referred to as "POV pushing". In other FAC's my previous objection had been crossed out long time previously. ---I also agree that I should put all my comments together. I think a step towards that would be defusing confrontations before they reach that level.


Thank you for contacting me on my user talk page. I hope you find my contributions to the FA process and to Wikipedia "good". I hope also that you will not fear that politeness is the opposite of civility, and will let me know where you believe I could improve.
Sincerely,
Kiyarrllston
[Message posted on 02:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)][reply]
Yes, starting over several times doesn't create a problem, but if you can keep it all together, it will help my simple mind :-) Reading through 50+ FACs at a time is harder than it looks. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is tough. - I believe you.
Methinks I have seen a glimmer of the difficulty of your job, when I attempted to comment on every FA Candidateship.
Please feel free to use my user talk page to contact me.
Regards,
Kiyarrllston
[Message posted at 03:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)]

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks dude; although I don't believe what i did is really a big deal. indopug (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of USS Illinois (BB-65)

[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, USS Illinois (BB-65), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Illinois (BB-65). Thank you. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dwarf_Kirlston/Archive&oldid=1138917992"