User talk:Scartol/Archives/2007/September
|
| 2007 |
| 2008 |
| 2009 |
| 2010 |
| 2011
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec edit |
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Scartol. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Automated peer reviewer
Sure, next time when submitting a peer review, just add anywhere on the peer review page the comment <!--No User:AndyZ/peerreviewer-->, and the article will be skipped. I believe that advice given from actual editors takes far greater precedence than automated ones; unfortunately, the peer reviewing process has been considered dead by many people, so I came up with the idea of the automated suggestions as a starting point while human advice comes.
The first message means that terms like January or Tuesday or a year alone in a sentence shouldn't be linked unless the term provides context (there used to be a bit of controversy about that, but I'm returning from an extended wikibreak so I'm not sure anymore), but that the second message means that a full date like May 16, 1799 should be linked. Neither pieces of advice have much consequence though. Cheers, AZ t 21:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
DYK
|
On 2 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article company union, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Carabinieri 17:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
HdB
Thanks for the HdB review. I was hoping to get away with just minor repairs, but I will defer to your experience and find myself some more sources. As for a link to a review indicating the value of a source I do have – where does such a thing go? (I assume not in the article itself?)
Also, with regard to the list of works – is the problem that there are so many works, or just that the subheads take up so much of the TOC? I can fix the latter with changing subheads to simple bold type. Cheers. — Scartol · Talk 12:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- When you create the nomination at WP:FAC, the nomination page would be the place to mention source quality. As for the list of Balzac's works, you could leave them in the article with bold type instead of subheads, and I don't think it'd be a problem. Basically your preference. If you made a separate bibliography page you could list all the works instead of "Selected Works from the Comedie" but since that'd be a lot of redlinks, perhaps the way it is right now is ideal. Like I said, it's a really great article and I think it will most likely attain the FA star. If you haven't done so already, it might be good to read some old FACs about biographies to prepare yourself for the environment of FAC. In particular, some people will say oppose when all they really want are fairly minor changes (I didn't know this when I first went through FAC and I thought I was failing!), but once some tweaks are made they'll usually change to support. --JayHenry 17:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- I can't thank you enough for reminding me of my proximity to the UW Madison libraries. Today I checked out eight good books about Balzac, realism, and naturalism. (They gave me a card since I'm a HS teacher in the area.) Next stop: FAC! — Scartol · Talk 03:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Great news! The additional sources will make it much smoother sailing! Hopefully you'll find some good tidbits in there too. I'm so jealous they let you get a card. My alma mater won't... I sometimes use the library for my real job too, and I just have to sit there for a couple hours and read stuff! Had to last Friday afternoon while college freshmen bobbed in and out of the lobby on orientation tours. Good luck with the new sources. Cheers! --JayHenry 06:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Re:Signpost
So, should I update the article I wrote? Will there be time before the Signpost goes to "press"? Love, Neranei (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. As the deadline was yesterday, I don't think I have enough time. Thanks! Love, Neranei (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the compliment on my userpage, it is sort of an amalgam of code I found in various places (mostly Phaedriel's userpage), but I'll see what I can do. If not, I recommend you ask Ariel or Phaedriel; they're both really good at HTML. Love, Neranei (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I've made the gap a bit smaller by moving the "leave a message" thing to the "about me" box, I can't think of anything else. All I can recommend is to go to Ariel or Phaedriel, they will probably be able to help you. By the way, Phaedriel is just back from Wikibreak, so Ariel may be more able to help. I'm really sorry that that's all I can do! Love, Neranei (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Feminism talk
Uh, you are welcome. Actually I am grateful as I usually get endless grief when I make such statements. Alas, I have yet to figure out a way to atract a more diverse group of editors with more diverse knolwedge to Wikipedia, and I know that griping about it won't change anything. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Did you know...
|
|
On 12 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Puerto Rico general strike of 1998, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Allen3 talk 15:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the note about Ban Ki-moon! Not sure what I was thinking though... since he's a current public official I'm going to have to monitor him constantly to keep the article at featured quality... I should stick to historical figures! So when is Balzac heading over to FAC? --JayHenry 21:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- I was just reading User:Awadewit's page. I've been an admirer of her work for awhile now. Like you said at her talk... it's annoying to wait but it's way less stressful to make improvements now than during the FAC. Plus, you've already impressed WillowW and Awadewit who are good reviewers to have in your corner. It's in pretty great shape. I really like the way the Writing Style section is turning out. I wouldn't worry about it too much if I were you. --JayHenry 05:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
PR general strike
Gladly! Actually, putting years in front and correcting demonyms is something of a pet peeve of mine. ;) Very well-written article, BTW! —Nightstallion 23:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Cripple Creek miners' strike of 1894
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Cripple Creek miners' strike of 1894 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 2 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Pursey Talk | Contribs 03:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- No worries. It'll be the outer part of the two days though. I've got this thing called a 'women' who apparently wants some of my time at the moment... :) Pursey Talk | Contribs 03:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hey there. I've partially completed this review, but just had a long 12 hour day. So, your review should be up a few hours after I have a snooze tonight. I'd say around 12 hours from now. Cheers, thanks for patience. Pursey Talk | Contribs 08:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Review is now complete. Full details are available on the articles talk page. Pursey Talk | Contribs 11:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
FAC
With the Balzac FAC, did you still want to divide up the work? We could both work on it simultaneously or each person could be responsible for different aspects (you: research, major revisions (hopefully not!); me: prose and MOS). Let me know your preference. If you don't feel like you need or want my help, that's fine, too. Awadewit | talk 03:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Things are going well, I think. User:Qp10qp is one of those diamonds in the rough here. Awadewit | talk 04:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- And now we wait for people to drop by. Ho hum. Awadewit | talk 09:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow, this page its impresive, I read it when working with the project's assessment and was really surprised to find out it was created less than a week ago, I think the page is very close to Good Article Candidate standards, the only thing that might need a small expansion is the lead, but the rest is really impresive. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have a picture of the strike, when this happened I was very young (I'm curently 18) but perhaps some general images can be used, for example the PRTC logo or a photo of Pedro Roselló, that is what I have done in the past if images are hard to come by. The GAC backlog is quite big but it can be convenient, since it gives the users some time to work with the pages while they are nominated. I would like to know what is wrong with my User page, please send me a screenshot to see how I deal with it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- It might be the resolution, I will ask a friend of mine that's more fluent in this tech stuff than me to take a look, thanks for informing me of this. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Search me
Erk, my knowledge of anything tends to peter out round about 1630 (AD, I mean, not in the afternoon). I've never uploaded a modern picture, but I've got a horrid feeling you may not be able to use that one. :( I think it is possible to write a fair-use rationale if the article specifically refers to the image (if you do that, I'd advise making it low-res, so there's no chance the photographer will come after you). I should mention, though, that Wikipedia policy discourages (or tries to) fair-use images, since the principle here is to create totally free, unrestricted information. Maybe you need to ask an admin (rather than an ostrich-type like me): user:DrKiernan, I believe, has had to crack the image issue; and user:El_C is well-informed on modern-Israel-type articles (and is a good photographer himself, particularly of chipmunks), so it might be worth asking one of them. They are both good guys. Sorry not to have more of a clue.qp10qp 22:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thanks!
Hi, thanks for your nice comments :-) I'm glad you found my musings interesting... I'll be posting my thesis on WP when it's finished (late October) so feel free to check it out around that time!
thanks again, tamsin 07:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Recognition
I think you deserve this :)
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| For your excellent work on articles such as Cripple Creek. Well done :) Pursey Talk | Contribs 08:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC) |
Cheers. Well done on the recent GA Promotion, I look forward to looking over more of your work soon. Pursey Talk | Contribs 08:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hah. I'm the same way. I've been around for a while now and got my first about 2 days ago. :) Incidentally, the same barnstar I gave you :) You deserve it! Pursey Talk | Contribs 12:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Also, I've just passed Lowell girls. I'm focusing on History articles a bit at the moment, so I checked it out and did the review. Pursey Talk | Contribs 13:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey. Thanks for the GA Review. Though it is clear that I did, I didn't have the faintest recollection of nominating that article to GA. I'm currently away in foreign climes; if you gimme extra time, I'll be able to fix it when I return. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Achebe
Oh wow, this is so weird. I've been thinking for awhile that the Achebe article needs some improvements. (I thought it was weak for an author of his stature when I wrote a DYK on Dele Olojede.) So last night I created {{Achebe}} and made some stubs for some of his books. Then, I saw you editing it today, looked at your talk page, and realized you'd been planning the same thing! I never considered doing a huge amount of work on it, because... I hate his essay about Joseph Conrad, one of my favorite authors. I just think it's the worst literary criticism I've ever read. You planning to take Achebe to FA? --JayHenry 00:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I'll definitely let you take the lead on this project, I'm a bit busy (having just joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals and trying to get John Fowles up to snuff), but I might poke around a bit with Achebe and see if I can find a book or two to pitch in, if you wouldn't mind. I don't know nearly as much about Achebe as I should so I'd enjoy learning a bit more. Should be fun! --JayHenry 06:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Award
|
The Barnstar of High Culture | |
| Wikipedia thanks you for all of the hard work you lavished on the now-featured Honoré de Balzac. Your wonderfully readable article will inform millions! Awadewit | talk 02:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC) |
- Congrats! --JayHenry 06:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- My congratulations too! You can be really proud of your article. It was a privilege and a pleasure for me to learn from it; thank you! :) Willow 16:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Candide: request for personal review
Hello. At the recommendation of Awadewit, I read the article on Balzac which you recently brought to FA status, and which I admire greatly. I'm currently working on Candide myself... and it's up for GA status now. Would you, an expert in (French) literature, please review it? -- Rmrfstar 00:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Removing spaces in bibliography
Hello there. I notice you removed the spaces between items in the bibliography of Honoré de Balzac (which I've been working on for several weeks). I wonder why you prefer this; it makes it harder for me (and other users, I expect) to read. Cheers. – Scartol · Talk 14:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. I followed a WP:LOW (which in fact is guideline, not a policy) where list given in examples hasn't got additional spaces. Check also List of works by Joseph Priestley, a featured list of works, where there are no additional spaces. Visor 18:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
feel free to move this to userspace...
|
The Template Barnstar | |
| Awarded for the extremely useful {{GAList2}} template. VanTucky Talk 00:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
Re:Copyedit of Cleomenean War
Hey. Thanks for the offer it would be greatly arrpeciated. Kyriakos 02:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your ce it was great. Kyriakos 11:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)