User talk:Lincher/Archive 3

Andrés Nocioni review

Sorry, I misunderstood the when possible bit. I thought that it was whene there is a possibility to add, do it, as a specification because it is impossible to add fotos into articles of abstract things (surely nobody's going to ask an illustration for "hope" or "health").
I regret any possible harm I may have cused, and will have more caution in the future. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 20:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Beautiful People

Could you take another look at The Beautiful People? It currently has an editor working on it, and the introduction has especially been tightened. What GA criteria concerns still remain? I'm just wondering. LuciferMorgan 10:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I share your views also. I wish to find references for those two sections, so hopefully I will. LuciferMorgan 12:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illus

Hello. Would you be so kind to tell me why you think Illus deserves a "Start-class" lever in quality?--BlaiseMuhaddib 22:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chopra

I tried fixing it as good as I could! Thanks for reviewing by the way. --Deenoe 22:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continued expanding... I checked on the 1st link... The forum has been closed so no info can be found here, and last link, I think I took all the "meat" I could find.. I'll check a bit later though cause unfortunatly I'm slightly busy these days. Also if there's anything else, tell Samir also. He contributed alot to the article and he could possibly help. --Deenoe 23:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating me. I will work on the article some more as well. -- Samir धर्म 01:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technomancer Press review

Lincher! Thank you SO much for your fail. The feedback was incredible, and the article looks TONS better as a result. I've done a major revision based on your criteria, and I'd love to have you take another look at it when you have time. I'm going to wait a couple days before renominating it, though, to give you a chance to see if you think it is worthy. Thanks again. Is there anything I can do for you? Archer904 23:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dotonbori Review

Thanks for the feedback on the Dotonbori review! I am going to work really hard to make those improvements, and get it up to GA status.

One question, you failed it on "Broad in coverage," but provided no explanation for this. In the other failed categories, you gave really good advice on how to fix it, but I have no idea why it isn't considered broad. I threw everything in there I could think of! Thanks for the further help. MightyAtom 04:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you are still checking the talk page for Dotonbori, so I am responding here as well.

Nobody lives there. It is a single street, between two bridges, that can be walked in about 10/15 minutes. It is filled with restaurants, which are famous for their mechanical billboards, and that is all. The only thing notable about Dontonbori is the attractions. There is nothing else. But it is one of the main tourists attractions of Osaka, possibly the main tourist attraction. Perhaps this was not made clear? MightyAtom 14:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McFly Review

Taking your advice, I removed the "Filmography" and "Personnel" sections. I also improved the "Awards" section slightly (Is it okay-ish now?). I was wondering if you had any ideas on how to improve the lead section? Thank you! --Stacey 20:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Joseph Review

Thanks for your input. I can fix the image rationales, and fix stability if I leave it alone for a while and stop tweaking (seems neverending) as all edits were done by me. But I did have a question about the tone issue and wondered if you agreed, maybe a second opinion? The tag was added just hours before your review. I just thought I'd ask because I'm at a loss on how to rewrite - just have references to go by and I've included everything. I can spell and punctuate, but words are not my forte. Any suggestions when you have time? Thanks so much. Cricket02 03:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lincher, I really appreciate your time and effort in helping me improve this article. It really helps a lot and I will work on it.

Note: About including the professional reviews in a paragraph like "Reception of his music", very early on in the writing of this article I included comments by reviewers, and the article was tagged for NPOV and blatant vanity article, and hence it was rewritten taking those comments out. So that's why I opted to just list the reviews in that way. I've not found a negative review for contrast, so now I'm afraid of delving too deeply into that area for fear of NPOV. On the same token, early on I tried to discuss the type of music on each album, etc., again, NPOV. In taking all that out it seems a little boring. So I guess that's why I'm at a loss right now, stuck between a rock and a hard place. But I will work on your suggestions and sentence structures. And thanks for being so kind, this newcomer's been bitten before. :) I'll be in touch. Cricket02 18:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hippocrates GA Review

Hello! You recently failed Hippocrates as a GA candidate and made some suggestions to its talk page. I, an editor of the article, have responded to some suggestions and fixed others. Would you please see the talk page so that we may work together to make it a Good Article? Thanks. -- Rmrfstar 10:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging images for removal

It is the totally the uploader's (newbie or not) responsibility to provide the all information necessary required when uploading a picture. The info required is listed on the upload page. The removal notification on the uploader's page points them in the right direction to understand and fix the issue. My signature is on each tag. If anyone asks, I gladly help them in fixing their image description pages to meet the requirements.

I am not going to take the time to research and fix an image I have no interest in. I will delete the image as it either has no use on Wikipedia or is infringement of copyright.

"Be bold" and "don't be evil" are not rules. "Be Bold" is a guideline and "Don't be evil" is a poorly written essay. Wikipedia Policies are what should be followed and what Administrators enforce. -Nv8200p talk 17:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gonzalez

I have...misigivings over the article you just passed. I'm not stalking you or anything crazy like that, but i've been following page updates as they come in over the criteria 2b mess and just checking things out, but this article here only has three references, only one of which is applied to a particular part of the article, the other appearing to only be a tribute concerning his death, and the third may just be a single broad source covering the topic. Are you sure this is well-referenced? :/ Homestarmy 01:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ok then..... Homestarmy 01:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Storm 98 review

I went back and re-did those sections of North American ice storm of 1998. Feel free to add new comments. CrazyC83 03:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's All Coming Back to Me Now

Hello. Thank you for the comments you've made on this article. I hope I've corrected #3 -- annoyingly, these were adedd at the beginning of the week by a newbie. Your independent comments, though, have given an excuse to get rid of them (they destroyed the praised balance between the three versions). I do have a question, tho'... why have you failed it on 'images'? The JPS ^{talk to me} 13:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent... thanks for passing it. I've worked on this practically by myself, so I'm particularly chuffed :) The JPS ^{talk to me} 15:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Quote

Hello, Lincher, I'm writing a print article on the Wikipedia Good Article Process, and wanted to ask a couple questions to an experienced Good Article reviewer. Specifically, how does your review style differ from other reviewers? I noticed in the Technomancer Press review, you mentioned that you thought the lead was a little too long, but for others it would be "just right." What other stylistic differences do you have? Also, I noticed that you don't review the oldest article first. What is your selection criteria? For example, what attracted you to the article I mentioned a moment ago? Thanks for your time. 216.254.14.172 06:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

I don't know if you are still there but I will answer here ... maybe you should consider registering just for the matter.

How does your review style differ from other reviewers?
My review style changed over the course of the GA reviewing process. I started when the project needed reviewers to decide if an article was a good one or not, for it was only a slap-a-tag on the article/pat-in-the-back kind of process before people started reviewing the articles for real. I cannot really compare my reviewing with others but what I can say is that when it comes to evaluating the article, I open a tab (I use Opera or Firefox) with the article's page, a tab with the talk page of the article and a tab with the criteria which will be copied to a notepad to crosscheck the criterion 1-by-1. First, I go for the easy stuff ... images, lead section, references and then read the article at least 2-3 times and give my idea the most objectively I could.

One thing that differenciate me from the others is the analysis of criteria 2b which is, the citation of its sources using inline citations is required;, but it changed over the time and for that matter, I try to stick to the idea that if the sentence is fawlty, it needs a citation or re-wording. If it has a blatant point of view, a hint of original research or doesn't conform to the verifiability of wikipedia's guideline, I will ask for a citation or re-wording in order to remove such assumptions.

Another thing that can make my style different is that I try to give enough comments to let editors know they have this and that to improve in order to get it closer to the featured article status.

I noticed in the Technomancer Press review, you mentioned that you thought the lead was a little too long, but for others it would be "just right."

I like clean cut leads or leads that say everything in the shortest way. If the article has only a few sections, it might not need a long lead section for it is there to summarize the article but not to dive into the subject right away, if I may say. And so, to go with that idea, I rarely think that adding a quote in the lead is appropriate but if the editor wants one, he may. I also think that if you can do it shorter and say everything without loosing the meaning of every lines of the lead section, go for it.

As for the Technomancer Press review, the lead section was too long, already bringing the reader into the core of the subject and almost copying some section to put it in the lead section which was inappropriate. So it is not a matter of length in this case but a matter of purpose.

What other stylistic differences do you have?

Continuing on length issues, one thing I might ask editors is to shorten one section or another in order to balance the sections more evenly. There will also be times when I feel the editors will have taken too many words to express ideas, will have too much prose for their article and will ask the article to be axed/cut down in order to remove the superfluous text that is not related to the article.

I also feel that a section such as the Trivia section is inappropriate and unencyclopedic. I wouldn't imagine reading a Britannica article with a trivia section, it wouldn't sound right.

I try not to add tags on the article like the {{fact}}, {{NPOV}}, {{wikify}} and so on. What I will do is take excerpts from the original text and say this and that about it.

One last little point on that, I want every layman to be able to read the articles and so, if an article is too technical, I might refuse to grant the good article status for that sole purpose. It has been mentioned before that wikipedia attracts experts that already know the fundamentals and they don't have to find that on such technical articles but I feel that there is a need in a world like ours to bring important/useful subjects to the layman and I vow for that.

Also, I noticed that you don't review the oldest article first. What is your selection criteria?

I, normally try to review the oldest articles and what I mean by that is taking the article #1 of a certain section. I know that some sections get reviewed faster than others but I sometimes go at random and other times go where I may be helpful in giving a review.

For example, what attracted you to the article I mentioned a moment ago?

I went at random to that article when I reviewed it the first time, and it had sit there for awhile and was probably #1 of its section at that time. But when it came back to the good article candicacy page, since I was in contact not too long ago (and I had watchlisted the page), I knew the article was coming back to the good article project and I took the leisure to evaluate it.

Just to extend the way I reviewed this article, I made requests that were easy to correct but wouldn't be made if no editor was watching the article and so I failed the GA on its second nomination. After some modifications, the editor contacted me and requested more comments, a re-review and to let him know if he should apply to the GA process. I answered yes after giving him more pointers. When I finally promoted the article to GA status, I knew the work had been done by looking at the history and also had seen that this article has to be short and sweet for it is a new project, the Technomancer Press I mean, and it doesn't have much information to give yet.

I hope I answered correctly to your questions and I also hope that you have enough material to write the print article. If you feel I haven't given enough information or need to ask more questions feel free to request them on my talk page and I will answer back as I will be on wikipedia for a long period today. Lincher 12:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Your answers were great, thank you. In your own words (I've seen the GA criteria), could you either explain what makes the Technomancer Press article a Good Article, and contrast it with another article in the same industry? Maybe Palladium Books or Wizards of the Coast? Some of my readers are going to be hearing about Wikipedia for the first time, others who are generally familiar with Wikipedia are going to be learning about Good Articles for the first time. I mention larger, more experienced companies as examples to contrast with, because I like the angle that an article doesn't have to be about a world-renowned historical figure, multinational corporation, or lofty concept in order to qualify as a Good Article, and actually, there may be more distinguished figures, corporations, or concepts with inferior (i.e. non-GA quality) articles covering them. I hope you don't mind me making Technomancer Press into a case study, but it was a relatively short article (which my readers are more likely to read) that you've approved recently. Thank you again for all your time and help. 216.254.14.172 02:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question on my talk page, you can answer there. I wasn't sure if you were watching it or not. 216.254.14.172 03:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I am writing the article for Polymancer Magazine. You did a great job with the contrast. The only part of my question that wasn't answered was "In your own words (I've seen the GA criteria), could you explain what makes the Technomancer Press article a Good Article...?" I think that's all I need to put the article together. You've been very gracious, and I appreciate it very much! Would you like to be listed as "Lincher" or your actual name printed in the article? 216.254.14.172 03:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunkern review

Can I just ask about the review, there's a few points I'd like to go over -

It has a Characteristics section, which is the same as Biology. Appearance is merged into the intro, per WP:PAC/S
Technically, the absymall isn't that POV because if you look at the Smogon ref, it shows the stats of a Sunkern, and they're all the darkest red at the lowest possible mark. But I do agree with the possible POV.
Thirdly, as stated in the intro, the name Sunkern refers to both individual specimens, and the whole species, does that cleanup up the tense confusion? There may still be one or two mix ups.

With the above points in mind, if I remove the absymal, will you give it another looky? H ig hway ^Daytrippers 19:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you re-review? Cheers! H ig hway ^Daytrippers 21:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal Stadium GA review

Thanks for GA-reviewing Arsenal Stadium. I have made changes according to your recommendations at Talk:Arsenal Stadium - are these good enough to resolve the issues raised? If the image needs more detail in the FA rationale let me know, cheers. Qwghlm 10:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. La Salle Hall

Yes, i've found a different point of view for the opposition section only. It should've been added since last friday if it weren't for the typhoon that hit our country last thursday. I'll try to add the information tomorrow. --Mithril Cloud 12:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concerns. :) --Mithril Cloud 13:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for waiting, the information has been added. --Mithril Cloud 08:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cicero

Hey, I noticed a while ago that you had tagged Cicero as B-class withough a comment; I was wondering if you could put a little in there about some of your concerns. Thanks! UnDeadGoat 15:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flight 411

Hi Lincher, thanks for the review. I'll get cracking on it as soon as I can. I may ask you to review it again when I think your points have been addressed - I hope you don't mind. Thanks again. Crum375 02:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will. Crum375 12:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind taking another glance at it now? Thanks, Crum375 18:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the re-review and the passing score. I expanded the lead as you suggested - you may want to see if it's acceptable. Your review work is very much appreciated. Crum375 03:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, at least I now know that someone has read it ;^) But as you suggest, I will keep adding to it when possible. I do have a bunch of others; this one was kind of low on my own scale of 'personal GA'. To be honest, I am scared to have them reviewed as that could mean either rebuke for poor WP-manship or call for a lot more effort to fix, or combination thereof. But to stop being so lazy, since you are obviously not, here is another example, if you care: LANSA Flight 508 (I am not sure if you can review until someone else recommends it?). BTW, that article has a sister article LANSA Cuzco Crash that was my first GA. On 508 I am missing pictures - if you do get around to it I may need to dig up something (maybe from the NTSB report like on 411). And if you do like reviewing accident reports, I have another sample one for you: Eastern Air Lines Flight 212 (also currently pictureless). If you want a diversion from aviation and accidents, here is one of my earlier articles about recreational ski racing: NASTAR and it has a very cool picture. It is largely based on the NASTAR site, but required some serious research, including email correspondence with the founder (for pointers to historical info) and the current program director (for release on the picture) which was fun. Anyway, I am sure your plate is full, but you asked for it... Crum375 04:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got your message. Do you mean that I would need to nominate them formally on the GA candidate list for you to review (unless someone beats you to it)? I guess I can do that, if you are interested in principle. And as far as reviewing your work, wouldn't that create a conflict of interest if we review each other's work? Anyway, in case you are interested, here are two more of my accident articles (first from stub, second from scratch): Southern Airways Flight 242, Avjet Aspen Crash. Of course your comments alone would be useful, I guess, even if I went to another reviewer. Anyway, again thanks for all your effort. Crum375 04:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that peer review is vitally important. My concern is that if you review my articles and give me an 'A' and then I tell everyone how great a reviewer you are it may not sound so objective. It would be better, for example, if reviewers reviewed each other, although there too there is room for tit-for-tat. Ideally review should be done by uninvolved parties. But I can see that if you get no review that's bad too. Crum375 12:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lansa Flight 508

Hi Lincher, thanks for the new review. I'll get cracking on implementing your suggestions right away. Just one immediate note regarding the 'pressure' to forge ahead into the storms due to the holiday schedule, it is cited right next to the statement, from the Super70's Article:

"We received the following email from Rebecca Lyon who lost both of her parents on this flight: 'The LANSA flight was from Lima across the Andes to Pucallup. My husband whose brother Nathan was on the plane tells me the storm that came in was huge. As the turbulence increased for the airplane, the crew urged the pilot to return to Lima. Being Christmas Eve he decided to fly on so the passengers would be able to enjoy the holiday (flight recorded via my husband). Most of the passengers were Peruvian returning home from school.'"

This may not be the best possible source, but this is an old case and to my knowledge the claim is not controversial - it is the only one that explains the crew's decision. Anyway, let me work on it and I'll let you know when I think it's ready for another read. Thanks, Crum375 17:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand exactly what you mean about the expanding on the pressure issue, but my problem is that I don't feel that happy with the quality of the source: it would have been better if it came from a co-worker (LANSA employee) or family member who talked to the captain before the flight, for example. In this case, it's an email "from a woman who lost both her parents on the flight". Odds are very good it's accurate, but it wouldn't stand up in a court of law: it's email not hard copy, the woman is not a neutral observer, and even the web site itself is not beyond reproach. Because I had this dilemma with the source quality for this issue, I decided not to over emphasize it. In other accidents (see my Aspen Crash one for reference) where I feel the evidence is strong (and relevant), I use direct quotes in the text, etc. In this case I just use a generic statement that "there was evidence the crew decided to continue the flight despite the hazardous weather ahead, apparently due to pressures related to meeting the holiday schedule" - it's my way of saying, yes there was some evidence, I think it's fairly credible, but it's not absolutely beyond reproach. Anyway, that's my own private rationale and balance between what looks good and what is actually reliable; it's not blessed by a WP guideline but I just feel more comfortable doing it this way. Of course I'd be happy to hear your comments about it. Crum375 18:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying the source is so poor that it should be tossed out altogether. WP does not normally insist on totally unimpeachable sources, and we don't say that this actually was the real reason the flight pushed ahead - we just say "there was evidence that ...", and there was in fact such evidence. We don't quantify or qualify the evidence, so implicitly it would be 'medium'. If we were sure of the evidence, we would say, for instance: "The crew was pressured to complete the flight by management[1][2]". And WP does allow sources that are less than stellar in many situations. If this were a WP:BLP, and we were alleging improper conduct, then we would need excellent sources, but this is not the case here. Anyway, thanks for your feedback. Crum375 19:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Tweedy

I am willing to work with you on the GA status of this article. I was writing the review when you posted your note. :) I brought up a couple areas of expansion in different capacities (stats, WW II service, England Team qualify, etc). Is it possible to get more info in any of these areas? I am curious as to what more info might be in the book reference used in the article Agne 00:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we contact the editor who added the book reference (most likely he/she has it)? I know internet base sources are difficult for older players but I would be hesitant to give a GA pass based just on that because in reading the article, you are still left with an incomplete sense of the subject. I think there would be some non-soccer related sources about the WW II service. With as popular as soccer has always been in England, I would assume there would be some newspaper archives about the 1936 season that lead to Tweedy being selected over the other goalkeepers. Agne 00:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your last edit to the article. It looks very promising. Lincher, you are a tremendous asset to Wikipedia in many aspects. (editing, reviewing, etc). Thank you for all the time you put into the project. Agne 00:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prison Break

Hi. Could you take a look at the opening paragraph of Prison Break? I just finished rewriting it. Is this what you wanted? I'm not quite sure what to add. Also, about the trivia section, do they need to be incorporated into the article? Thank you. Regards, Ladida 11:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A. P. Hill

Done. If you strongly disagree with the class, I'm not opposed to it being changed. Erechtheus 15:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert Report

Thanks for your comments on The Colbert Report's GA candidacy. You said "Lead section way too short and off-track." -- Do you have any suggestions about what else should be included, and what is off-track about it? Thanks! Schi 19:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avjet Aspen Crash

Hi Lincher, I just wanted you to know I added this article myself to the GAC list. I am mentioning this to you because you may have already looked at it per my list above. I am still working on the LANSA Flight 508. I added the film reference per your suggestion, however I am having problems finding more significant data - it's 35 years ago, in a not-so-developed country, and there is not much online. But I'll keep at it anyway. Thanks, Crum375 20:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem edit(s)

Thank you for experimenting with the page List of people by name: Mo on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
--Jerzy•t 06:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you are reverting this edit as when these pages were invented, they were used to repertoriate all of WP's biographies and in such I was adding on in order to populate that page's What links here for the guy is notable but unrelated to any other page so this is a way to help that article being read by some other users. If I don't understand something just reply on my talk page as I do this in good faith and not to disrupt/make more work for you. Lincher 13:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was indeed a worthy goal : any bio (of a real person) that does not have some sort of deletion tag on it improves LoPbN by being correctly added to it. I redid this bio's entry, on the page where the other Mozart entries reside, between rv'g yr edit and editing yr talk page.
--Jerzy•t 19:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give you more insight on this, why didn't you revert such edit [1]? Lincher 13:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between the edit i reverted, and the one i am abt to lightly tweak is two-fold:

List of people by name: Mm-Mn lacks an {{Index only}} template and always has, while the page you edited has one, and carries the wording
this permanently short page (like others that should never include names...

in a comment and
This page is intended only to provide access to other pages. It does not, and is never intended to, include any content of its own.

in its rendered version -- both of which unaccountably failed to dissuade you.
Mm-Mn lacks lks to narrower-scoped pages such as
List of people by name: Mma,

List of people by name: Mna,

List of people by name: Mne,

and so on

(bcz the entries within Mm-Mn's scope are far from overloading the page)

while Mo has a lk to Mos-Moz

(bcz, as of mid-June 2004, the Mo page was an ungainly over-26k-byte one, 21 screens tall -- and if we had by then bitten the bullet and started using the page ToC for access to 1-screen-or-smaller sections, the ToC would have been nearly 2 screens high).

--Jerzy•t 19:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got nothing of what you said ... could you write a bit more clearly and with less abreviations in order to let me know what that jibberish (no offense ;) was?

What I think I understand is that this is a page that was split into several articles because it held too much bullet pointed items and was in itself unuseful for the user and the split gave enough material for multiple articles and that by doing that the resulting page is intended only to peruse through the system but not as a collecting information page anymore, is that right? Lincher 19:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of what you need to get is that

you should not have needed to be told all that, bcz the page you edited made it doubly clear, and you probably need to edit a little less boldly to avoid repetitions, and
while your English is admirable (and far, far, better than my German, let alone my Italian), using "repertoriate" in English is one of a number of signs that throwing around the word "gibberish" involves overconfidence on your part. Thanks,
--Jerzy•t 20:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't laughed at the way you wrote, I haven't tried in anyway to ridiculised you or anything, I just thought that the way you answered my sounded weird, I'm really sorry in having hurt you if I have in anyway for it was not my intent. I had forgotten the way gibberish was written and in order not to get a dictionary to repair my mistake I had placed it in italic with a smiley beside it. I wouldn't be trying to speak or write german for ich kann nichts auf deutsch, und du bist besser als ich. Sorry again if I have offended you in anyway. BTW, I speak French, learned English in primary school and had a class or 2 in german. Hope I can contribute to wikipedia with you more than having a rival/opponent in you. Cheers, Lincher 20:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, i'm not aware of feeling offended, and didn't intend to offend in return; my focus here was on eliminating ambiguity. E.g., i didn't want to give you false confidence that "gibberish", clearly solidly in your passive vocabulary, was completely in your active written vocabulary; i felt an obligation in using the word myself to be sure you caught the difference in spelling. (And by the way, that discussion piqued my curiosity, as to whether we spell "gibberish" that way bcz it came from Italian; apparently not -- Tho "gibbet", a word i've probably never heard pronounced, comes from Old French and has the soft-G sound, not the hard-G i expected. And i was surprised to see the dictionary connect "gibberish" with "to gibber" (which i've probably read once and never spoken), and to discover there is no word "to jibber". There's a moral in this: one shouldn't mock anyone for their English pronunciation or spelling, bcz the other edge of that sword is too sharp for doing so.)

And i'm afraid the ital & smiley went over my head; sorry about that.

That said, yes, my sentences are usually too long, and, whatever the reason, native speakers also complain about not following me -- a knowledge that undercut any potential for my taking offense.

I did look at your contribs briefly before writing to you, and realized you qualify more as a colleague rather than as a probable "drive-by-shooting editor". Maybe i owe you the accommodation now of asking (without the sarcasm the expression usually carries) what it was about

should never include names

or

does not, and is never intended to, include any content of its own

that you didn't understand. (I can't know that you had both in front of you, tho surely one or the other should have been hard to miss. That was what made me choose the template i left, for the tone of "you should know better than to ...": despite your contribs, i suspected a vanity or promotional choice of placement -- "get him an LoPbN page to himself".) But our discussion indicates you weren't reckless, let alone wantonly so. So can i help you see thru your original misunderstanding? (Is there in your view a design problem in the tree structure? In the messages on the index-only pages? Did you use the rectangular index at the top of LoPbN, and would presenting the hierarchical one first have avoided leading you into that pitfall?)

That's probably too long a response, out of fear of saying too little. Please ask a question that will help me respond to what will help you.
--Jerzy•t 21:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, you mean the near-word "jibberish", right? Au revoir, and please excuse the presumably missing diacritics.
--Jerzy•t 21:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Here's a pizza :P Pornography in the United States continues to evolve and seems to uphold its GA status. Thanks for promoting --Brand спойт 19:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

colbert.

i think you might be confused. I was talking about the picture of the eagle that is taken from the opening sequence of the colbert Report. dposse 22:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]