User talk:Hey jude, don't let me down/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Hey jude, don't let me down, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 ask your question there. Again, welcome!  Academic Challenger 03:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Bullfighting in Spain

If you think a section should be put BACK, please discuss it on the talk page. Famico666 16:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Orangutan

Hey Jude, welcome and thanks for repairing that vandalism. Glad to have you helping out, we always need folks to revert vandalism. Let me know by leaving me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or want to discuss anything, I'm glad to help. Peace, delldot | talk 23:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

Thanks for helping out with vandalfighting -- since it tends to be a thankless task. Given your username, perhaps you'd be interested in the Beatles project? Raymond Arritt 19:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Swallow

I rated the article for you, and as a bonus left some comments on the talk page. Let me know if I can help you with article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikibirds Peer Review of Fauna of Scotland

Many thanks - I'm pleased to hear there are no glaring errors. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the GA front too. I have completed the rest of the list as best I could and alerted User:Nehrams2020. Ben MacDui (Talk) 12:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jude

Hey Jude, do I know you? Dan Gilles (Λυδαcιτγ), 00:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Sheila. You seem to be pretty experienced, but here's a couple of suggestions:

1. Check out Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser, which makes repetitive tasks like adding templates to talk pages much quicker. Also, try experimenting with user scripts, which you can add to User:Hey jude, don't let me down/monobook.js. Popups is a particularly useful script for both using and editing Wikipedia.
2. Always fill in the edit summary field, unless you are making a minor edit, in which case you should mark it as such.

Ask me if you have any other questions. By the way, did you know that Will has an account, AstoVidatu (talk · contribs)? He hasn't used it in a while, though. Λυδαcιτγ 17:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

References

When adding refs to articles that are web sites try to format them like this

• BirdLife International (2007) Long-distance Godwit sets new record Retrieved 14 April 2007.

Rather than just adding the url. Giving the access date allows people to find the reference even if the website goes (at a caching site), and it looks neater. Also, pleasse don't be offended if I change some references to journal articles or book chapters; these are prefered (and easier to defend) in the the Featured Article Candidates process. Cheers! Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Commas or parentheses for scientific name in opening sentence and elsewhere

(Now that was a long header wasn't it?) There's a debate here about commas versus parentheses for scientific names for organisms (well in this case birds). I'm not sure whether this has been raised elsewhere but would be good to establish once and for all here and could apply as MOS across all biology articles. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

American Goldfinch to FA

I noticed you started editing this one again - how many of these did you get to? Many are worthwhile (I may have done one or two). Circeus is pretty thorough so may be worth a tilt at FA soon.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I prefer singular but not strongly. Will have a look again later. Conservation is good as tehre are issues around feeding etc...and good in these PC times..:) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's doable. If people do have opposing points they should be able to be remedied within 7 days. The main questions should arise over prose issues. All the images are ok, and teh refs are formatted so I'd say go for it.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm a bit concerened that there is a slight overreliance on weblinks rather than journal articles, so I'm going to go through and cite in a few places using them and add a little more info. I won't say anything on the FAC until I've finished. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Red-tailed Hawk

I notice that you have done a lot of good work on this, but I wonder if you you are able to sort out the discrepancies between the measurements in the introduction (para 2) and the Description section.

It's normal practice to describe the nominate form, in this case jamaicensis, and then give differences from that for each subspecies. In this case there are two different sets of measurements, but its not clear whether they are for the nominate jamaicensis, US ssp calurus or neither. Any thoughts? Jimfbleak 16:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There ya go

The Featured Article Star For your work on getting American Goldfinch featured. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The Colbert Report

Good job sourcing those two sections. I hope the additional data helps the article succeed in its FAC. Thanks. The Clawed One 04:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have any ideas for the other characters, sorry. As for the set, absolutely. Any trimming down of that section would be appreciated. The set design should be noted, but not as much as it is currently. The Clawed One 04:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good. The only characters that should be noted are the major recurring ones. And good work on the set cutback.

The only major problem with the article is that if it does make FA status, Colbert will have a field day. But his egomania aside, it's just a matter of little cleanups here and there. The Clawed One 04:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an interesting thing. As a viewer, I find his repeated urging to vandalize Wikipedia hilarious. As a Wikipedean, it's annoying. The Clawed One 05:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Coffee

Hi, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing Coffee for GA-status according to the criteria. You can check out some of my other reviews by looking at the chronological list on my userpage. As we speak I'm just finishing up another review and reading the article. Don't hesitate to get back to me with any comments or questions you might have, VanTucky ^(talk) 20:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Coffee

The article Coffee you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Coffee for eventual comments about the article. Well done!VanTucky ^(talk) 22:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Red-tailed Hawk

The article Red-tailed Hawk you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Red-tailed Hawk for eventual comments about the article. Well done!Neil916 (Talk) 06:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Bald Eagle

Ping me when you are all done, I'll make another copy edit pass. Good work so far. -Ravedave 02:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Saucerottia

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Saucerottia, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://creationwiki.org/Hummingbird_taxonomy. 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 02:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Bird genera

Hi. It's great that you're taking on all these bird genera! A minor thing: when you remove genera from the to-do list, could you also update the number left to go?

And an even more minor thing: I've been noticing that people have been leaving the blue links on the list for a day or two, so I've been doing that too. Maybe the reason is to let someone else check, before the red link disappears, that there was no mix-up. Anyway, I didn't do this last night because I should never have put Climacteris on the list and I wanted to get it the heck out of there, but you might consider it. —JerryFriedman 16:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Labrador Retriever

Hiya,

I notice you're sorting out the cites on this article. Thanks much for that - its a job that needs doing and I'm relaly glad to find someone helping with it this way. Much definitely appreciated!

I'm a bit concerned though that a few edits have removed relevant information or places where double citing was appropriate. I'd like to doible check that and check it's for the best. Can you look at Talk:Labrador Retriever and let's see if we can reach a view on them :)

Many thanks for the hard work on these first and foremost!

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I have asked some questions on Talk:American Goldfinch. Could you please have a look at it or alert someone else who has the knowledge? Kind regards! --62.88.128.21 11:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Murray cod

Thanks for your help with the page. After spending so much time on it in the last couple of days it gets to the point where I cannot see the wood for the trees and I appreciate someone with fresh eyes checking it out for those little typos etc. Nick Thorne ^talk 20:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will not get much time to work on the page for a few days, so don't think I'm ignoring your comments once they are on the talk page. I will address any ussues as soon as possible. Nick Thorne ^talk 21:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have made the majority of your suggested edits, and made comments on the article talk page about the two or three I disagree on. (mainly English grammar about the use of a comma before the word "and". I know from reading a recent book about punctuation that this useage is common in the US, but I follow a more English style for punctuation and I don't like that use of commas at all. <grin>

I will see what I can do about adding additional in line references (as you say, these can be additional instances of existing references), however, often this can be very time consuming, so please understand if it takes me a couple of days to get the work done. Thanks again for your efforts in reviewing the article. Nick Thorne ^talk 14:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Aquarium section

I have placed a comment on the Murray cod talk page about the aquarium section. If I cannot find suitable references for this section I will edit the section down to the information I do have available that is refenced.Nick Thorne ^talk 05:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's done

I have finished working through the issues you raised, When you have the time, I would appreciate it if you can review the article. Nick Thorne ^talk 01:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for all your help with getting the Murray cod page up to GA standard by providing such a thorough review, I realy appreciate it! Nick Thorne ^talk 11:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Coffee for FA

Just wanted to tell you I jotted down my suggestions on improving the article to FA status. Cheers! --Gimlei ^{(talk to me)} 15:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Williams College

The article Williams College you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Williams College for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Noetic Sage 22:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Peregrine Falcon map

The new map still doesn't provide a source. -Ravedave 05:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long, What has been added to the image page is what I was looking for: "self-made; compiled from Handbook of the Birds of the World, Birds of the Western Palearctic, Birds of the Western Palearctic Concise Edition, Atlas of European Breeding Birds, Birds of North America, Birds of China, Birds of Japan, BirdLife International Datasheet." -Ravedave 20:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Coffee

Hey there, I'm glad you're keeping such a close eye on the coffee article and doing such a good job with it. I reverted an edit that you made and I wanted you to know why. There's an urban legend that coffee is the world's "second most traded commodity after oil." This has been stated in historical books and scientific articles, and it gave me a huge headache when I was doing my graduate thesis, as I spend days trying to track down an original source for it. I finally was able to trace it back to a CIA fact book from the late 1980's, when coffee was much more important in world trade than it is now (and when other commodities were comparatively less important). I have found ample evidence that the statement is no longer true -- and in fact, was only true for the one year covered by that fact book -- mostly by working in the UN Food and Agriculture Organization database (unfortunately, I've been unable to find a recent ranking of all commodities that includes non-agricultural products like oil).

When I first started editing Wikipedia, the "second to oil" myth was scattered (without references) all over the site. I've put the FAO data in the coffee article as a sourced statement about coffee's true place in recent world trade, both in anticipation of later attempts to add the unverifiable "second to oil" statement back in, and in the expectation that some others may be visiting the page with previous exposure to that myth. It's widespread enough that I think it's notable enough to have in the article. And just saying "among the world's top legal agricultural exports" doesn't really debunk that statement in the way that "among the top fifteen" does, and I think it's important to note that it's the top export for only 12 countries.

I'm not committed to having it in the lead, however, I just want to make sure it's on the page somewhere. Ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Margareta (talk • contribs) 16:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1