Jump to content

User talk:Spangineer/archive08

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive. Do not post responses here; rather, copy the section to the current talk page and comment there.

This archive page includes discussions that occurred approximately between the dates 2006-08-03 and 2006-10-05.

Archives: 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20

The Spelling of the Pilgrim's Progress

[edit]

There is more of a difference between Bunyan's lifetime editions and the corrected ones that came after. I know what you mean about "s's" that look like "f's". I think it might be helpful like you suggested to have two texts here: 1) with Bunyan's spelling and punctuation and 2) with the corrected received text.--Drboisclair 04:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your comments on my Wikisource talk page, please see.--Drboisclair 17:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your 2a feedback

[edit]

Hi there

I've ony just realised that you left what looks like excellent feedback on the discussion page. Thank you; it's nearly 3am, so I'll read it tomorrow! Tony 16:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

[edit]

Hi, could I aks you to read through G. Ledyard Stebbins, an article that I have on FAC at the moment - and let me know if you think there is anything I could do to make the aricle more clear? Thanks.--Peta 00:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit

[edit]

Hi, Tony dropped your name in the FAC discussion of Oceanic whitetip shark as an "excellent" copyeditor, and I was wondering if you could spare a few minutes to cast your eye over the article. I can't see the wood for the trees anymore. Cheers, Yomangani 15:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need some admin help/advice

[edit]

Sorry to bother you but I need some help. A joker(or 2 or 3) have decided to make a circus out of the Baddeck, Nova Scotia article. They keep re-adding nonsense about Ninja's inhabiting the area. As you can see by the talk page[1] there are a couple of IP's: User:74.106.47.166 and User:142.227.134.70 plus Username sockpuppets: User:MedievalScholar, User:Themalcolm and User:CrystalConscious who are all trying to support and maintain the hoax. There may also be another sockpuppet user: User:Appealing6, who has appeared and added hoax content to the Inverness County, Nova Scotia article which IP:74.106.47.166 also frequents.(I reported that user to AIV today but it was quashed for lack of evidence???) I have rv'd and edit war'd enough with these clowns enough. I can't breach 3RR just to re-route their little circus. What's my best approach...besides asking you for help? Thanks. cheers and take care! Anger22 20:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! Cheers and take care! Anger22 11:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Hi, well..I don't know exactly what to say. I just want you to take into account my condition as a new user in wikipedia. I understood the struggle of adding images without no license. Therefore, I will be grateful if you add some ones to my new articles. Greetings, (Gustavo86)--85.50.96.162 02:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Question

[edit]

Well, I haven't bothered going through your contributions; but just based on the ones you indicated, I can't see any reason why I wouldn't support you.

Perhaps I was overly brief in using "per SlimVirgin" as an explanation; my concern was largely limited to the second part of her statement. I see nothing wrong with (almost) any level of criticism—even pedantic criticism—on FAC; certainly I've seen my share, both as a nominator and as a reviewer. What I do find unacceptable—to the point of denying someone adminship over it—is rampant assumption of bad faith coupled with a complete lack of understanding as to the nature of "the rules" in Wikipedia. Kirill Lokshin 11:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

[edit]

Based on the comments you showed me in the FAC diffs, I would not oppose you if you were nominated for adminship. Based on what I've seen, you're an excellent editor and I'll be happy to support... To be honest, I do not know enough about the style guidelines to really comment on your comments in the diffs posted on my page. I changed my vote to "oppose" on Ambuj Saxena's nomination for adminship not because of interpretation of style guidelines, but rather the bad impression he left on SlimVirgin, one of Wikipedia's best known and most repected editors. Again, to be honest, I haven't really investigated the matter, and I'm taking SlimVirgin at her word. 172 | Talk 01:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

I had no problems with your diffs. Some were a little harsh, but I don't have a major problem with that. What bothers me about Ambuj.Saxena is the objecting based on extremely minor issues such as date-linking, and the way he went about the issue- I was disappointed by his reaction before and after the event. Things like date-linking could have been fixed by Ambuj.Saxena in the time it took him/her to write an objection based on them. While your objections don't go to content like many, they're not so minor, and might be reverted if you tried to implement them without discussion. The little I've seen of your work otherwise makes me confident that you're a good admin outside of FAC as well. Let me know if you have any other questions. Ral315 (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a Thank you card!

[edit]

AOL

[edit]

Hey, could you lift your AFK message when you have the chance? Thanks. — Deckiller 03:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your question

[edit]

Have you ever Opposed an article for FA status based solely on the fact that it didn't use an optional template, or used date formats you didn't like and could have fixed in the time it took to complain about them, while refusing to comment on the actual content in any way? Have you then accused one of the authors of making "sweeping change to rules" to help ensure their article made FA status, even though that author had, in fact, made extremely minor changes to guidelines after the article had already made FA status? Because if you haven't done that, then I don't see how the examples you give are even remotely similar; I thought that was obvious to you when you posted the comment on my Talk: page in the first place. If I've misjudged your question, I apologize. Jayjg (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the second diff I posted, I tell Raul of all people that {{cite web}} should be used, and in the first, I could be seen as quite rude ("unbelievably", "frightening", "I know of 5 kilobyte articles that are better referenced than this"). In the third diff, I require that someone change something that I added to the MoS (perhaps just as "optional"—the relative location of citations and punctuation). Some might also think that I stomped out of a nomination in the fourth diff. I wasn't sure how much of everyone's objections were related to the accusation of changing the style guide vs. the tone and banality of the objection. I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear enough that I was asking an honest question and not attacking your vote. When I first noticed that the nom had failed I was rather shocked, and my intial responses were perhaps overdone, but I was genuinely concerned that my actions and similar actions of other editors were not accepted on FAC. I see now that that is not the case (as per the three above responses to my question and ongoing discussion with others). Sorry for the trouble. --Spangineeres (háblame) 03:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Apologies

[edit]

I have been rude...and i am sorry. All the Best.

Philosophy Project

[edit]

Hello Spangineer, and congrats on the "Shotgun House" FA! There is a philosophy wikiproject. It has well over a hundred members, but less than thirty did anything during the month of April, and only a handful of those have worked on any philosophy stuff since the beginning of May. The project page has has only 8 small changes since the beginning of May. Part of that is academics being gone for the summer, but part is probably the vast turn-over rate of people getting excited with the potential of Wiki-Philosophy, and then getting frustrated with the realities. Bmorton3 13:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah your page just rotates the FAs as they come up my mistake. If the standard for FA isn't "professional copy-editing" do you think it is "excellent copyediting"? Is it "competent copy-editing?" "Adequate?" I still don't see anything in the FA criteria about copy-editing, or exactly what the standard is supposed to be. I'm not trying to accuse Tony of voting inappropriately, I'm trying to express desire for clarification for exactly what they standard is supposed to be. I've read prose that is compelling even brilliant when it has terrible copy-editing, and as I understand it, that SHOULD be an FA even now, even if it could be improved by copy-editing, but that doesn't seem to be the practice from anyone involved. What do you think the copy-editing standard should be? Bmorton3 17:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putnam pic

[edit]

I was just wondering if you had actually emailed Prof. Putnam or not. I almost feel guilty for some reason, sitting here with this great photo that Putnam personally emailed me, but which I cannot use. On the other hand, I don't want to mail him again if you have. Let me know if you haven't, so I can go ahead and mail another letter today, with all the rigamarole about Community Commons or GFDL, and get this sort of fixation off my mind. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putnam image

[edit]

Hi SP, did you make any headway with the Putnam image situation? I recall you were going to undertake to explain what a creative commons licence was, and the importance thereof. ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I hope it works out. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyWikiBiz discussion

[edit]

Please join the new discussion at: "Paid to edit" dialogue -- MyWikiBiz 05:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gilwell Park

[edit]

I've now addressed each of your concerns. Please advise if you have additional ones and review your vote if appropriate. Thank you for your help with the article. Rlevse 23:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your new FA

[edit]

Hey, congratulations. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 07:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Would you please have a look at the CC image copyright question question posed at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Wiki.2FCC_Image_Copyright_Questions and chime in on the correct answer? Thanks -- Frothy 15:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Thanks again for making the effort to provide comments and feedback on the US housing bubble article. As summarized at the page Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Response_to_objections_raised_above, I believe that all the objections and issues raised have been addressed. Would you please have a look and consider supporting this for "featured article" status? Especially given the (unfortunate) recent news (see, e.g., today's New York Times "most-emailed" Op-Ed "Housing Gets Ugly" here), this would be an especially timely featured article, and help "Wiki" live up to its speedy name. Frothy 02:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented your suggestions and responded to your comments here. Would you mind having a look? Thanks —Frothy 22:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edits and comments. Please have another look. Frothy 19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spangineer, would you consider changing your position now that your concerns have been addressed? Frothy 16:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An FAC

[edit]

In case you've got some time to glance over it, I've got (video game music composer) Frank Klepacki sitting in FAC. I blew a tire from working on it seven or eight hours yesterday, so my strategic distance is toast. I'll probably do some kind of hardcopy or reference-less copyediting today, but I'm asking for assistance on a few talk pages just in case. Thanks for considering. --Zeality 15:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need Admin assistance

[edit]

I need some quick/easy admin assistance from you. A couple of weeks ago a Wiki-newbie that I was lending assistance to was SO appreciative that he nominated me(incorrectly) as an admin. I linked in and declined, thank the new user and explained to him why I "wasn't quite ripe" yet. I am just checking back through my talk page and I noticed the nom page was still active. Could you speedy delete it for me? It is right here. Someday(soon), maybe. But for now....I am content where I stand as far as Wikipedia goes. Thanks, Cheers and take care! Anger22 19:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC) ...(I said it was quick n easy)[reply]

Page move

[edit]

Hello, Spangineer: Could you be so kind to move the page Umayyad Conquest of Iberia to Umayyad conquest of Hispania, if you find it accurate? The reasons are listed in the Talk:Umayyad Conquest of Iberia under the title: Iberia? I don´t really know if non-administrators are admited to move pages. Thank you for advance, --Garcilaso 10:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, and explanations!. See you!--Garcilaso 11:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Fed. papers

[edit]

Yes, that is what I meant. The others need to be fixed as well, which I'll do soon. Thanks! Christopher Parham (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AML featured article review

[edit]

Hi - thanks for your comments on the acute myeloid leukemia FAC page. I've gone back and added more references for what seemed to be the most weakly supported parts of the article. Take another look at your convenience and see if I've managed to address your comment. Thanks again for taking the time to give your input. MastCell 23:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi, I put the link on because it is a relevant link to the article being discussed. It wasn't just a spam tactic, I was reading through the article and I thought it would useful to people reading it. If you look at the site you will see that it has a lot of extra information about dance and learning to dance as well as a database for dance schools in the UK. I don't see how that is not a useful link, we got linked from the BBC website recently due to the content of our website and the relevancy to an article on dance. I honestly thought it would be a useful addition.

Richard

[edit]

Hello again. The site does sell products but it is not a profitable site. We are interested in promoting the art of dancing. We have a database of dance schools in the UK so that people can search for places to learn to dance that we make no money out of. Are you saying that not one link from this site has any kind of commercial product for sale on it? I thought that it would be useful to people looking for somewhere to learn to dance which is why I entitled it as a school & information directory and not a place to buy products online. I can understand why you wouldn't spamming but we offer a free service to locate dance studios in the UK. Would it be better if I added a link to every dance studio instead?

I just clicked on the first link on that page and they have an online shop selling LOADS of products. I shall remove them under the same guidelines that you put forward for my link removal.

EDIT: Looks like I don't have that power - ah well.

Learntodance 22:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{User Pennsylvania}}

[edit]

I was clearing out Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Pennsylvania. I added this template to your page. Feel free to remove it, and thanks for understanding. --evrik 04:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi Spangineer - I request you to please see these comments by SandyGeorgia. She feels there is something intrinsically wrong with prose written by Indian FA editors. As you have participated in many India-related FACs, I would like to you what you think. If there is a real problem, I'd like your advice on solving it. Rama's arrow 18:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem With Another Administrator

[edit]

Hello Spangineer. I am having a problem with an Administrator by the handle of FeloniousMonk. I have been working on the Francis Schaeffer article and have challenged Cberlet concerning a statment he made in the article, saying that Francis Schaeffer was the "godfather of Dominionism." First I asked for a cite. He gave me two. I then did a word search of both sources and neither uses the word "godfather" in relation to Schaeffer. Finally I got Chip to agree to allow me to change the sentence. I used an exact quote from Chip's book (one of the references given) saying that Schaeffer is "a pioneer in Dominionism." I also told him what I had done and I got no reply back. So I assumed that he agreed with the new quote. Then FeloniousMonk jumps in, says he doesn't agree with the change (even though Chip told me to go ahead), and he reverts back to the old "godfather" quote saying that more discussion needs to take place. I wrote that I was ready for more discussion. There has been no discussion yet. It's as if the only way I can get them to discuss the issue is to revert back to the quote that I thought Chip had allowed me to do. All the discussion is on the Discussion Page and on the History Page for the article. Your advice as to what I should do would be greatly appreciated. Looking forward to hearing from you :-) You were the first Administrator to welcome me to Wikipedia. That's why I'm writing to you :-) I'll watch for your reply here and on my personl talk page. --Awinger48 18:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spangineer. Thank you VERY much for fixing that one part of the Francis Schaeffer article. I hadn't even noticed that he had changed that too when he reverted back to the "godfather" sentence. I'll be more observant next time. Any ideas about what I should do with the lack of discussion/progress concerning the "godfather" sentence? Looking forward to your reply when you have time :-) --Awinger48 11:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In going through all user talk pages of those involved in the discussion I see that on the talk page for FeloniousMonk you have requested that he make some entries on the Francis Schaeffer discussion page. So now I guess I'll sit and wait. Thank you VERY much again :-) --Awinger48 12:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of arguing with him over his own statement I have added a counter statement of my own with two references and modified the sentence afterwards to be more accurate. Hope I did the right thing?? :-) --Awinger48 18:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi! Saw that you removed the link to the American Welding Society link on the electron beam welding page because the American Welding Society page doesn't provide information on this.

I should have been more specific with the links, but actually, AWS publishes the standard codes on electron beam welding (http://www.awspubs.com/advanced_search_result.php?keywords=electron+beam+welding&x=0&y=0)

and has published several technical articles on electron beam welding on the website. The search results are here:

http://www.aws.org/cgi-bin/swish.cgi?query=electron+beam

Actually, most of the peer reviewed articles on electron beam welding will be found on the AWS page. I'm concerned about using the more specific links since the first links to something that AWS is selling -- even if it's the code for electron beam welding -- and the second is a query page, but perhaps those can be substituted. I do think, however, that links to the organization that is providing the industry standard on electron beam welding would be useful -- and the technical articles provide a lot of info.

Cgregory42 17:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Cgregory42 17:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ProQuest

[edit]

Hi, I noticed your comment on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1933 Atlantic hurricane season about ProQuest and the NYT, I have felt uneasy about that FAC because of the low usage of press reports from the period. Is there a freely available service there, I mean as individual home user and not affliated thru an educational body? I skimmed the site, but could not see anything obvious. Thanks.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a way to get free access to ProQuest. However, most large libraries and university libraries will have access to it, or will have the actual microfilm. It could be quite a job, doing the research, but the material is definitely available and ought to be included in the article. --Spangineeres (háblame) 19:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks I guessed as much (unfortunately). I agree with your view on that article, I'd really like to see the offline research done. I can't really do much myself; I'm a Brit so access to US papers is tricky for me anyway...--Nilfanion (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was coming here to ask a similiar thing. I saw a few useful articles on LexisNexis, but what is our current style referencing those? We don't have a URL to give, so do we just format it as if it were a regular reference, without the URL parameter? Or do we indicate that we acquired the article via a subscription database? If we do, how do we do it? Titoxd(?!?) 03:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what the proper procedure is, but when I use ProQuest I just assume that the database is accurate and cite the article as if I had seen a hard copy. I feel this is justified especially for stuff in the Historical NYT database, since all the articles are scanned copies of what appeared in the newspaper. Probably the same can be assumed for other databases, but you could also just put a parenthetical note saying which database it came from. --Spangineeres (háblame) 05:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cimento.org

[edit]

Hi! A while ago, you blocked User:Cimento.org. He's back, and putting links to Cimento.org on the cement and Portland cement articles. A possible sockpuppet of his, User:Milton Cintra started with the Cimento.org posts a few days ago. I've reverted all the changes to date. User:Cimento.org also removed an AfD notice from Cement brazil.

However. I've checked the Cimento.org webpage, and it looks lots less spammy now than it did then. It's still in Portuguese, so I still can't really read it, but the previous times I'd seen the page it looked primarily like a promotional site, and now it looks more like a legit trade association, more like the Portland Cement Association, which provides a decent amount of technical information, but I can't really tell. Could you check out the site, or find someone who reads Portuguese to check it out, and see if it still qualifies as a spamlink for Wikipedia? If so, can you take some sort of action against User:Cimento.org and User:Milton Cintra?

Thanks, Argyriou 03:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spangineer/archive08&oldid=1235666661"