User talk:Moonbug
Zeitgeist
[edit]thank you for your support on the Afd for Zeitgeist. — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Editing Eleazar Ben Killir
[edit]Thank you for contacting me regarding the Eleazar Ben Killir article you created. I tend to post comments on my own talk page and I invite you to read them there. —Roman Spinner (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Poetry Roll Call
[edit]WikiProject Poetry is having a revival and we are trying to determine who is still active in the project. If you are, please answer this roll call by placing an *asterisk* next to your name on the list of participants here. Thanks, Wrad 01:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Moonbug!
| You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity
The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented. |
|
You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Spencer Herbert
[edit]We'd certainly welcome content that goes into greater depth about his political views — but that should be done by adding original content that summarizes them, not just by cutting and pasting long passages from Hansard. A paragraph or two explaining the kinds of issues he's spoken about in the legislature, and thus putting them into context, would be an excellent addition to the article, if you're able to add it, but just listing quotes doesn't really add much to the encyclopedia. (If you need an example, look at the way Cheri DiNovo's article handles the $10 minimum wage campaign.) Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Railgate: Complexity and volume
[edit]Hi Moonbug, thanks for your expansions of the Ledge Raids article....I've been meaning to "have a go" at the latest updates but between real life and distractions elsewhere in wiki-life, and also some previous experience with rescuing the article I've shied away from it...my bad, but I"m, as I've felt, too POV to have taken it on fairly (I'm a net-friend of BC Mary's, for one thing....). Even beyond this last week's revelations there's lots that's missing - the triple-whammy ministerial resignations (Clark, Collins and Plant), the Kevin de Bruckyere connection, the hounding of Victoria Chief Constable Paul Battershill, Oppal's comments in regard to the case which contradict his claim he can say nothing, Paul Nettleton's account of early proceedings in caucus re the sale, the delaying tactics in the courtroom and the unusual actions/proceedings of hte special prosecutor....and now all this. It is a bit overwhelming isn't it? It makes it and has made it all the more difficult that the "reliable sources" haven't been all that reliable and much actual news has been reported only in blogspace. I know you're only part way through your expansion so will not muddy the puddle in the article itself until you're done, and I hope the food and drink you had included a good stiff one, you'll need it. Among other things "out there" is the notion that some of the released material may include faked documents, meant to throw off the trail, and that there are still pages where the details are blanked out. The criticisms of CIBC World Markets's behaviour, the statements buy Ferroequus and BNSF and the CPR about unfair process....even with all that I'm only scratching the surface of the very deep pond, and who knows what else is in those documents. When last there was a lot of activity on this article, there was some debate about what to call it, and I rather expect there should be again, as it's not just about the Legislature Raids and the case arising from that ("Basi-Virk"), it's about much more that reaches beyond the payments involving omniTRAX and the spur line, or the money laundering charges etc. Where I'm going with this ramble is to suggest that the Kinsella Affair is very much its own topic, perhaps that can just be Patrick Kinsella but then WP:BLP limitations come into play; the Sale of BC Rail Scandal is somewhat bigger than the Basi-Virk trial and was only revealed by the investigation into the omniTRAX payments, although it hasn't been dubbed that by the recalcitrant press - Tieleman has coined the term Railgate, which has gotten some legs, maybe it's the best title to use for the "central article" (though the details of the Raids and their immediate aftermath can still be a separate article). The Basi-Virk trial itself is a different article topic than the Ledge Raids per se, and at this point who knows what else will tur nup in the way of "NPOV forks"....Anyway again thanks for taking this on, "you're a braver wikipedian than I, Gunga Din", to paraphrase Kipling. I've made some minor changes/additions to the Gordon Campbell article and also to BC Rail, there's quite a bit of outdated stuff hidden in the CN article (see Talk:Canadian National Railway for my comments about that), and before this is over we're going to need a few new bios, I'd say. One thing I did want to suggest, and I don't know where to take it up, is that BC Mary needs an article (I'm semi-COI so can't start it) as a now-highly-notable blogger, often cited in the mainstream press (not just Tieleman), but that given her inclusion of columns by Robin Matthews and others, she constitutes a formal reliable source for the entire history of the scandal, at least insofar as reporting ongoing events; to some degree even her POV opinions are noteworthy in teh same way those of an op-ed columnist can be....especially insofar as regards the "cone of silence" most of the major media have maintained on the case. I'll leave off now, just wanted to raise some issues, especially that last bit, as there's much that Robin Matthews has reported on that nobody in teh mainstream press has touched, even though he's been one of the only in-court observers when the media themselves were looking for something else to cover....thanks again, I'll do what I can with cites and tweaks, and be prepared for an edit war, I'm sure it's coming....Skookum1 (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Poetry collaboration
[edit]
--Midnightdreary (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Sedumdivergens nass.JPG
[edit]A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sedumdivergens nass.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hello, I happened to see your inquiry about the image policy, in response to the above. This is a page I believe you were interested in seeing WP:ICTIC. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
re:Jobs
[edit]The page is a leftover from the day where lists of fictional/video game concepts were allowed, even if the topic of the list itself (terms, job classes, etc) did not receive significant coverage in reliable sources. This has changed in recent years. Because we're a general interest encyclopedia, the only way we could justify having a comprehensive list of job classes anymore would be to find lots of reviews mentioning final fantasy jobs, articles about the job classes, developers interviews about the design, and so on. If not, then we'll actually need to redirect the article to final fantasy gameplay, and maybe mention some of the common job classes in passing in that article. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 01:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Ichthus: January 2012
[edit] |
ICHTHUS |
| January 2012 |
In this issue...
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
Request for consensus for editing Template:Catholicism
[edit]
You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Catholicism#Edit_request_on_7_December_2012 to edit the list of Doctors of the Church to add John of Avila and Hildegard of Bingen and do this by embedding Template:Churchdoctor. I am messaging you because you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Saints --Jayarathina (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Language-population update project
[edit]Hi. The 18th edition of Ethnologue just came out, and if we divide up our language articles among us, it won't take long to update them. I would appreciate it if you could help out, even if it's just a few articles (5,000 articles is a lot for just me), but I won't be insulted if you delete this request.
A largely complete list of articles to be updated is at Category:Language articles citing Ethnologue 17. The priority articles are in Category:Language articles with old Ethnologue 17 speaker data. These are the 10% that have population figures at least 25 years old.
Probably 90% of the time, Ethnologue has not changed their figures between the 17th and 18th editions, so all we need to do is change "e17" to "e18" in the reference (ref) field of the language info box. That will change the citation for the artcle to the current edition. Please put the data in the proper fields, or the info box will flag it as needing editorial review. The other relevant fields are "speakers" (the number of native speakers in all countries), "date" (the date of the reference or census that Ethnologue uses, not the date of Ethnologue!), and sometimes "speakers2". Our convention has been to enter e.g. "1990 census" when a census is used, as other data can be much older than the publication date. Sometimes a citation elsewhere in the article depends on the e17 entry, in which case you will need to change "name=e17" to "name=e18" in the reference tag (assuming the 18th edition still supports the cited claim).
Remember, we want the *total* number of native speakers, which is often not the first figure given by Ethnologue. Sometimes the data is too incompatible to add together (e.g. a figure from the 1950s for one country, and a figure from 2006 for another), in which case it should be presented that way. That's one use for the "speakers2" field. If you're not sure, just ask, or skip that article.
Data should not be displayed with more than two, or at most three, significant figures. Sometimes it should be rounded off to just one significant figure, e.g. when some of the component data used by Ethnologue has been approximated with one figure (200,000, 3 million, etc.) and the other data has greater precision. For example, a figure of 200,000 for one country and 4,230 for another is really just 200,000 in total, as the 4,230 is within the margin of rounding off in the 200,000. If you want to retain the spurious precision of the number in Ethnologue, you might want to use the {{sigfig}} template. (First parameter in this template is for the data, second is for the number of figures to round it off to.)
Dates will often need to be a range of all the country data in the Ethnologue article. When entering the date range, I often ignore dates from countries that have only a few percent of the population, as often 10% or so of the population isn't even separately listed by Ethnologue and so is undated anyway.
If Ethnologue does not provide a date for the bulk of the population, just enter "no date" in the date field. But if the population figure is undated, and hasn't changed between the 17th & 18th editions of Ethnologue, please leave the ref field set to "e17", and maybe add a comment to keep it so that other editors don't change it. In cases like this, the edition of Ethnologue that the data first appeared in may be our only indication of how old it is. We still cite the 14th edition in a couple dozen articles, so our readers can see that the data is getting old.
The articles in the categories linked above are over 90% of the job. There are probably also articles that do not currently cite Ethnologue, but which we might want to update with the 18th edition. I'll need to generate another category to capture those, probably after most of the Ethnologue 17 citations are taken care of.
Jump in at the WP:LANG talk page if you have any comments or concerns. Thanks for any help you can give!