User talk:Epolk/Archive November 2006

Images

Thanks for adding images to Barlow Road and Cape Arago Light! Katr67 19:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I am going through the Oregon Historic sites and looking for public domain images for them so there may be more on the way!

Epolk 19:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! I'm good at editing but not so good at navigating the whole image licensing thing. If you're interested in historic stuff you might want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. Katr67 19:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado elevations

Hi - I noticed this edit, and poking around a bit it seems the Arikaree River is actually the lowest point in Colorado. I've changed this back in the infobox (with a USGS reference). In addition, per Talk:Colorado, the numbers now don't match the numbers from List of U.S. states by elevation which I believe are from a 1929 USGS data set (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929). I don't know if the numbers from the NY Times Almanac are more recent (they could be), but given that they seem to have gotten the name of the lowest point incorrect I'm slighly suspect. Are you updating elevations for all states based on this book? Are you intending to make List of U.S. states by elevation match? I think I'd feel better about a USGS source. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source listed for the New York Times almanac is "U.S. Geological Survey, Elevations and Distances in the United States (2000)". That is a USGS source and it is 71 years newer than the current elevations listed on Wikipedia. I updated the source to a USGS site so there is no question of the primary source of info. I didn't know about the List of U.S. states by elevation so I will need to update that one as well.

The Arkansas River was my boo-boo. I was trying to read the tiny print while I was on the phone with someone so I misread it.

Epolk 04:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! BTW - the USGS site lists height in feet. Does the book have it in meters as well? The USGS lists Mt Elbert's height as 14433 feet, which I figure is 4399m. I don't actually know if the USGS measurements are actually in feet or meters (the site is a summary from some primary dataset I don't really know how to access), but there have been questions in the past about which number is "measured" and which is converted. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your edits to the state articles. Most of them are in quite a state of disrepair so any fact checking is appreciated. Also have you seen List of U.S. states by elevation? It appears that it doesn't agree with your source (ex: Colorado), having all the entries sourced would be excellent. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kudos. Once I finish with the individual states, I plan on hitting the U.S. States by elevation page. That will probably be in a couple of days. There are some other state features I will be checking on later but the elevations were the first thing I came across. Epolk 05:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Remember me a while back. Thanks for your contributions to the biological value of protein article. Great job. 67.150.246.87 05:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding an Edit on your Userpage

I just wanted to inform you that I have in fact altered a userbox on your userpage. The userbox involved is the last one under "Personal Stuff." I just changed "PST" (which can be Pacific, Pakistan, or Philippine Standard Time) to "Pacific Standard Time." Just wanted to let you know; I don't want to be accused for vandalism or anything of that nature. If you would like the old userbox, please tell me and I will revert it or you can just revert it yourself.

-- MaraNeo127 ^talk 03:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

File:Interlingual Barnstar.png		The Geography Barnstar
		Awarded to Epolk for contributions to Colorado-related articles. Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 04:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expert request sorting

Good sir, Wikipedia:WikiProject Expert Request Sorting needs you! Or, I should say, I do as everyone else who's name is associated with the project is absent. I've created the necessary subcategories and I need help going through Category:Articles needing expert attention and replacing the expert tag with one of the following:

{{Expert-portal|arts}} {{Expert-portal|people}} {{Expert-portal|geography}} {{Expert-portal|history}} {{Expert-portal|mathematics}} {{Expert-portal|science}} {{Expert-portal|society}} {{Expert-portal|technology}}

Up for a little sorting? --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 14:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:WERS, we should probably just be using the names of associated portals or wikiprojects. Take a look and lemme know what you think. --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 11:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ack!

Quick alert! Use caps when using the expert sorting! The way the template works, it looks for a portal and a wikiproject given the first parameter as a name. As such, the parameter needs to be capitalized. Just FYI. :) --Brad Beattie ^(talk) 17:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Tupi

Hi. I think you may have made some wrong corrections by mistake in the Old Tupi page. Gramatical is spelled with only one M in Portuguese. Unless it's some old spelling... Regards. FilipeS 18:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I didn't realize that was the case.

Epolk 19:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Area 51: The Alien Interview

Thanks for fixing typo and misspelled words for this article. Mount Molehill 22:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem!

Epolk 22:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typos

Cheers for fixing the typos in FIFA World Cup hat-tricks. If possible, could you also run AWB on Central Coast Mariners FC, given I haven't been able to get it to work recently and I'm sure I've added a lot of typos into that article :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 22:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2007 in spaceflight

I have removed the month headers that you added to this article. It was a good idea, however they did not really display too well, and were not in use on any similar articles. If you would like to, however, you may wish to discuss this at WP:LSY. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine if you guys don't want to use a monthly header. I think that the current display makes it very hard to find anythiny. It currently looks really cluttered but if your project thinks that organizing the content to be more user friendly is an "eyesore" than you can keep it the way it is.

Epolk 21:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean it like that. I was simply saying that it didn't look too good, and seeing as it wasn't used on any of the other 20-something articles, it should be removed to make them all the same. I, personally, do not think they look too good, but I will go along with a majority consensus if you would like to discuss the issue on the WikiProject talk page. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]