User talk:Circeus/feb-apr2007

Additions to Burr

Why did you add redlinked personal names to Burr? If an anon had done the same, I would have reverted, since without either an article or a reference, there is no way to know whether the person is notable. Are you planning articles for these people?--Curtis Clark 14:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's good to know these people have articles elsewhere. It would be great if you could translate the fr.wikipedia articles; I did that for Heinrich Johann Nepomuk von Crantz when a link to the French article appeared in List of botanists by author abbreviation, but my knowledge of French is poor.--Curtis Clark 05:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Space Shuttle Challenger disaster

Thanks for drawing my attention to the issue, and for helping to keep an eye on the article (it takes several pairs of eyes!). Several things have happened to the "Rogers Commission" section recently. A little bit before the article was featured, someone added most of the "Rooted in History" section, which went into detail about the backround of the O-rings and the decision to launch. While this information was valuable, the major editors of the article (including myself) decided that the article really needed to be cut down and that it would be more appropriate to start a new subarticle on the Space Shuttle Challenger launch decision. So today I removed most of that section and moved it to the new article, where it can form a base for further work.

I'm not sure whether it's the "Rooted in History" section or my new shortened version that seems POV to you. There are arguments, I guess, that both of them are! Let me know which it is, and we can discuss it more fully.

Hope I've managed to be somewhat clear. It's a complicated article with a complicated editing history, so it can be difficult to get your head around it. MLilburne 16:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I take your point about the possibility of undue weight on the role of Richard Feynman. I did wonder about the header myself, but to be honest I put it in to separate the one block quote from the other (when in direct conjunction they looked a bit odd). Two paragraphs might be a bit much, but most people will know and wonder about Feynman's role in the committee, so on balance I think it's justifiable. Still, feel free to suggest or make any improvements that you can think of. I'm far from certain exactly where the balance should lie. MLilburne 19:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Veemonanddavis.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Veemonanddavis.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Marching fishes.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Marching fishes.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Gomamon 02.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gomamon 02.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Kjarr dispute

Hi Circeus, thanks for your note. I haven't followed up the suggestion of stalking as I'm limited to use of an internet cafe at present! But I think what this is about is a fair disagreement between two (or more) people who have a real interest in the correct statement of facts about the Kjarr issue. That, at least, is as far as I'm interested in the matter, because if there is anything else personal going on then I hope admins will spot it and respond appropriately, and its not my business. My feeling about Kjarr is that it must surely be possible to make a statement that three different theories or explanations of the name exist, and to reference those theories. If they can't be referenced (and it seems they can) then they shouldn't be in wikipedia. If they can, then they should. The quotations which follow in Berig's article (I mean the article which he largely compiled, I don't mean to imply ownership) do seem to point to a Caesar interpretation, though not necessarily to Julius Caesar. There sis no harm in placing a sentence at the beginning in the disputed section to show that the quotations which follow tend to reinfoce that interpretation. Clearly Dusis shares Berig's opinion about this and just wants it stated without prejudice that there are three theories. That seems to me to be fair. You know how impossible it is to express irony over a computer message. Dusis perhaps comes across a little crisp and Berig a little emotional. I think the discussion should be restricted entirely to the question of how this article is to express its facts in accordance with Wikipedia protocol and that an agreement should be negotiated. It would be helpful if Dusis (if he hasn't done so already) could formulate a simple expression of his preferred way of expressing the matter. This could then be offered up to Berig (outside the article itself) and he could comment on it. If and when they can agree on it it shoudl replace whatever is now there and have their combined support, i.e. they should agree that neither of them will alter that section again without mentioning or consulting with the other. Hopefully that will form a pattern of negotiation by which participants and editors (and these two pareticularly, if they have other disagreements) can reach an accommodation without having an edit war. Hope this is of some use. I'm just a newbie, but I have enjoyed Berig's contributions and his assistance on my work and would like him to remain with us! I don't know much about Dusis but would like to read some of his/her contributions if they exist. The protection you imposed upset Berig because he felt that he had referenced his passage and you were protecting a version from which his properly-referenced statement was deleted. His response in that sense was understandable. Please excuse typos in this message, the cafe is charging by the minute. Dr Steven Plunkett 15:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

TfD syntax

I don't mean to be picky, but when closing TfDs, the {{subst:tfd top}} comes on the line below the section subheader. This is different from AfD, which is why a lot of admins make the same mistake. Either way, thanks a lot for helping to close TfDs. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 18:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Heraldic Authority Review

Canadian Heraldic Authority has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Eva ^bd 21:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. They are appreciated.--Eva ^bd 22:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing katakana on the Agumon article

In this edit that you made to the Agumon article, you replaced all the katakana for the pictures of Agumon's other forms with "?????". If you didn't do it on purpose, then it's probably something to do with your computer not displaying the Japanese letters correctly. But please do be careful in future. --`/aksha 04:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Defender barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I am awarding you this in acknowledgment of your many proofreads, good edits, and vandal reverts that have benefitted my work and (I must assume) the work of countless others. Merci beaucoup! House of Scandal 14:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Say whatever you'd like...

...it's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but I am curious as to what outright false statements you think I've made. I have an agenda and my opinions and I don't hesitate in sharing them, but I try to stay honest, and I'm rather stunned at the accusation. Could you give me an idea of what you're getting at? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ihsan Abdel Quddous

Hi there Girard, I just wanted to thank you for adding the persondata metadata in the Ihsan Abdel Quddous article. By the way, in your archives above, I guess the last one should be Jan 2007. :) Have a good day. - Anas ^Talk? 12:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from California Gold Rush

Thanks for your clean-up on the refs in the Main page FA California Gold Rush. Are you planning to continue with the "Further Reading" refs? NorCalHistory 17:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ryan Leaf

I'll find a way to fix the Ryan Leaf article this weekend, has I only had time to check my watchlist and do some np patrol via my T-Mobile Sidekick and I'm rarely online in my computer nowadays as my mom is ill and also alot of schoolwork lately. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Athletic Bilbao problems

There are various people fighting over an issue in the talk page, yet neither has ended the feud with arbitration. I thought the issue had died, but it has come back again and I am going to guess that only one side would participate in an arbitration, since the other side is a collection of non-account users. How'z the issue supposed to be resolved? I can only see another series of edit wars breaking out without some intermediatory action. Thanks for your time.--Tiresais 20:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem comes with conflicting acceptable sources. The club was formed from the merget of two other clubs. One of the former clubs won a cup in 1902, and so the debate is over whether the cub is attributable to Athletico or not. Official sources claim they won it and they didn't win it; the club site does but the league site doesn't. Rather than a matter of verifictation, it's a matter of which sources should be taken... Hence the never-ending argument. Thanks for your time --Tiresais 00:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Band templates again

Among the latest "innovations" people have come up with for the band templates: using Template:Click to insert band logos as links. (I don't even know the state of whether that's considered depreciated or not.) Also, in other cases people clearly don't even know what the code does; I guess it helps style adherence in one sense, but now what's happening is that they end up inserting non-existent interwiki links into their templates.

Also, now and then somebody either copy-and-pastes or substitutes a template into anywhere from ten to twenty articles.

So I guess I'm wondering if you're still interested in completing those guidelines. (Entirely understandable if you aren't.) –Unint 20:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about being unclear. With Template:Click you have instances like Template:Korn where they've replaced the name at the top with the logo. Will deal with those instances where I can find them. (Actually, one of these days I'm hoping to establish a firm guideline on using band logos in the name field of the musicians infobox as well; your thoughts on that would be helpful.)

With the interwiki links, I meant that links to nonexistent templates at the foreign wikis end up getting created as a result of, presumably, people using search-and-replace on existing templates to make new ones. –Unint 21:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, more specific issue with the band logos: in many cases, "logos" are used for bands that have never had a consistent logo, per se. Instead, somebody just cuts out a graphic design only ever used on one album cover and sticks it up there. (Now and then this even spreads to articles about things that can't possibly have logos to begin with, but that's another issue.) Is it fair use to isolate elements from a fair-use design like that, especially when it is not necessarily an integral representatation of the subject? (I actually look through every album cover to determine if it counts as a logo or not, although I wonder if even that has a legal basis at all.)

Also, I just removed Image:Title.gif from a template. It's a bit problematic, as three completely different logos have been uploaded at this generic title, and as you can see it has inherited some very nonsensical image information from previous versions. (Presumably I could just tag it properly, but I do wonder why people keep uploading to this filename.) –Unint 21:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Going over WP:FU and WP:LOGO again, I interpret this as along the lines of the famous "rose on the album cover" example: it is not fair use to crop out a graphic design from an album cover just to illustrate the band's name. I also interpret from WP:LOGO that it's common sense that the logo should actually be associated with the subject.

There's a lot of things I'm going to have to figure out before I can do anything about the templates; right now I can't even distinguish good vs. bad template code. I think I'll leave the issue for another day. –Unint 22:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Iguanodon

Father Ted says, "Dat Iguanodon's a feckin' wowrk of airt!!"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)

Hello, Circeus;

The members of WP:Dinosaurs appreciated the work you did on the Triceratops FAC, and we were wondering if you'd give Iguanodon a look at some point. We're in the copyedit phase of this much longer article, and we thought it would be a good idea to get some other eyes to read it. I would particularly appreciate it, since I wrote a great deal of the article, and I know all too well the advice about being too close to something to see its flaws. My concerns are detail (as in too much) and redundancy from section to section, which I think may be useful to some extent in a long article, but for which I'm looking for the fine line. Any thoughts you have would be welcome.

Thank you very much for your time! J. Spencer 03:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That was a lot! Thanks for the fine-toothed comb. I left a few clarifications in specific sections, but the comments are all helpful. I'll start in on them this evening. J. Spencer 23:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Firs and I have gone through most of the suggestions; the bibliography suggestions will take a bit more time than one night. J. Spencer 04:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Circeus,

Thank you so much for creating the Changing-image-of-Iguanodon.jpg image! You know, we hadn't even considered doing something like that. Thanks also for your many suggestions for improving the text, and the edits you have made. Your work is greatly appreciated. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 01:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of the ref formatting, and for the montage! Per your suggestion, I put in a simple cladogram. J. Spencer 21:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

		The WikiProject:Dinosaurs Barnstar
		Here's something in gratitude for your work on the Featured Articles Triceratops and especially Iguanodon, particularly your numerous helpful suggestions (and going out of your way to convert the reference style!). J. Spencer 17:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you like that? Firs had the same idea at the same time! Anyway, I copied his formatting to make it fit better. J. Spencer 17:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Cite episode thanks

WikiThanks

Thanks for adding the {{{began}}} and {{{ended}}} fields to {{cite episode}}. It will come in handy for Doctor Who articles (see the citations at Dalek to see how I had to work around this before). I've added the fields to the template's documentation, but I'm not sure whether what I wrote is technically accurate — do the "began" and "ended" fields replace "airdate"? I can't imagine why you'd want to use all three, but I don't want the documentation to be misleading or incorrect. I'd appreciate it if you'd check it out to make sure that what's written there is an accurate reflection of what the template now does.

Anyway, thanks a lot for adding the fields. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Gaston Lagaffe

I'll try to look for it tonight, but the sentence you rightly set in comment in the Gaston Lagaffe article (about the band they play in) rang a bell with me: I believe there is one joke where you can see them play, and the "drumkit" of one of them had a name set on it (like many real bands do). It may be atrick of my imagination, but I'll try to check it. It's stil debatable whether it's worth mentioning of course... Anyway, just a little chat from another Gaston fan, not really a serious issue :-) Fram 16:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Aggasiz statue

The image was in Louis Agassiz but someone reverted it. The one that is now in the image might have copyright problems though. It is clearly from here which states "These images may not be reproduced or used for any purpose without permission." I'm not sure what to do about this one. I don't really want to revert it back because it'll probably get put back again. Readro 01:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to make sure, because Stanford University seem to claim copyright on it. Readro 01:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

reads.

[1]

Please visit this website and read it. Then go and read User: Tsuba Wings's user page. Then, you should go to bed and sleep, for you will have had a huge migrain. Also, please leave me a message, and I will tell you the importance of this website. Thanks.

PS do you like spicy food? Why?

Weird Wetland 02:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

List of premature obituaries

Thanks for your comments & changes to this article. I have now amended the date links as requested. Ben Finn 11:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

List of counties in Kentucky

Tompw has corrected the issue you raised with the images in List of counties in Kentucky. Would you now be willing to support it for featured list or are there other issues that need to be addressed? Acdixon 14:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Advice requested

I've been attempting to overview and tidy up the geography cats which involve the places where people live. From the top level down to local neighbourhoods. There has been some overlapping and various mis-routings. It's been interesting looking at it all. However, there appear to be two useful ways of doing it - by region, and by size. And these can operate side by side quite usefully. The by region isn't a problem. But the by size has become difficult because User:Hmains wishes to use the term settlements to cover all sizes of communities, and has altered dictionary definitions [2] to fit his own understanding of the term - [3]. Community appears to be the term used most often to describe the places where people live, regardless of size. This is the definition of community - [4]. I did some sorting, placing the cat Human communities under Human geography. Human communities splitting into Urban geography and Rural geography. And those splitting into appropriate sized communities - cities, districts, neighbourhoods, villages, settlements, etc. Hmains has reverted much of my work, and insists on settlements being the term we should use - basing it on this decision, which was a declined proposal to rename Settlements by region to Populated places by region. What do you think? Is settlement an acceptable term for covering human communities ranging from well established cities down to refuge camps. Is Human community a viable alternative? Are there other choices (apart from populated places of course!)? I have started a discussion here and here, with the above wording, but no response as yet. I have left this message on the talk pages of active Geography Project members. And then on this page. I am a bit lost as the best place to discuss this issue. I don't want to delete or rename any category. And I don't want to get into a revert war. I'd like an open debate to reach sensible consensus. I'm now leaving this message on the pages of WikiProject Category members. Can you advise? SilkTork 19:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

Can you please redirect my ip address (user:213.7.48.114)) to my login name user:slogankid ? I need it just in case i can't/dont want to log in at sometime for some reason --Slogankid 06:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

MSU

I don't have the book either, so I can't verify. Maybe User:Pentawing has it, since he works on a lot of the Michigan articles? — Deckiller 13:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hall of Fame

Hi Circeus - I appreciated your interest in this new project, but I'm afraid that it has not generated enough interest, even at its listing with Wikipedia:WikiProject Council. I've also been busy of late and unable to devote time for this. I request your opinion on what to do - shall I just delete the page? (CSD G7). Rama's arrow 19:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Mayan languages

Most of your objections have been either addressed or contested - care to take another look? Thanks for the fine-toothed-comb. Talk:Mayan languages/Comments... --Homunq 23:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, go ahead and delete Linguistic overview of Mayan languages, and thanks for noticing. --Homunq 21:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What contradictions do you find in the Mayan glyph section? ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 11:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you have a different understaning of logosyllabic than most epigraphers. Mayan glyphs do indeed combine elements that are purely logographical with elements that are purely phonetic (syllabic) and a majority of signs that can be used in either way. This however has not deterred the vast majority of epigraphists writing about mayan writing since Yuri Knorosov from calling it logosyllabic. In my (and apparently their) understanidn of the word logosyllabic script this is any script that combines logograms with syllable signs. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

FLC response

Someone has tagged my list as FFLC on its talk page without closing the discussion page. I was wondering what you think of my response to your criticisms. I believe I have incorporated the National Archives overlap appropriately and have attempted to remove the spurious links, but don't entirely agree with your interest in removing them. Let me know what you think. TonyTheTiger 21:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		For all your work on Iguanodon, which has reached Featured status. Thank you for your comments and suggestions, and thank you for greatly improving the article. Your edits are greatly appreciated. We could not have done it without you. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 17:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Hall of Fame

Hi Circeus - I've re-activated the hall of fame project. Sorry for the confusion from my part, but I was busy with an ArbCom case. Recent events have proven the need for this project in my mind and I'll do more to promote it - e.g., link it up with the barnstars project. I need your input on what the next step should be - i.e., "Class of 2007." Cheers, Rama's arrow 14:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Languages of Guatemala

I have drawn a new version of the map you asked for at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve. Chabacano 20:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Frederick Scherger

Thanks for the compliment and your diligence with the refs. I tend to be a bit on the rudimentary side with them until I've got the content just so, so that saved me some work, and I threw in the author and chapter of the The Commanders and the chapter and volume of the Units of the RAAF as well. Cheers, Ian Rose 12:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessment for WP:PLANTS

Wow! Thanks for doing all of those! BotanyBot has to be supervised, so I'll probably have it crawl through some more categories tonight so you have more to assess. Thanks again! --Rkitko 01:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Technopark, Kerala

Thanks for your suggestions on improving the article. I have addressed most of them and replied to a couple of the concerns raised by you. Looking forward to your continuing guidance and support. --Ajaypp 06:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Plants article class

I think 3 class should be added for lists: SL (Start/stub/incomplete lists), List (normal lists) and FL (featured list, such as List of basil cultivars). Putting lists (and we ave anumber of them) in article classes is weird. Circeus 15:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I was thinking about that the other day when I came across our that featured list. The assessment bot will, of course, miss those and won't report them on our assessment table, which is probably a good thing since we don't want to inflate the "FA" category with pages that aren't articles. I'll make Category:List plant pages with sub-cats: Category:FL-class plant lists and Category:SL-class plant lists. Lists that aren't featured or stubs will categorize into Category:List plant pages (I see no reason to create a Category:List-class plant lists unless you do. It seems a bit redundant.) Sound good? Thanks for bringing that up! --Rkitko 18:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "List-class lists" is pretty redundant XD.Circeus 18:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, all done! The "List" parameter already existed, but I had to create {{FL-Class}} and {{SL-Class}}. If it proves successful for us, we may want to see what WP 1.0 thinks about it. --Rkitko 18:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

More generic filenames

I can't seem to find a regular process for protecting generic filenames, so could you see as to whether Image:Sleeve.jpg and Image:Image-sleeve.jpg (might be more of a borderline case) should be protected as well? (Illustrations of actual shirt sleeves might be left a bit high and dry, but frankly our fashion coverage is abyssmal at the moment.) –Unint 04:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

re: V. thaspus in cultivation

Hi Circeus. I'm a bit buried right now with spring planting and wikibooks (writing chapters about the things I'm planting). In my region it's rarely cultivated because it tends to produce horrifying amounts of fertile seed (so those who plant it once rarely do so twice), and my guess would be that any sources on growing the stuff on purpose would be pretty obscure. I'll take a peek in Hortus Third sometime this week: I think in general it will be older garden books where you'll find information about growing this plant, since rampant self-seeders are rarely recommended these days. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 17:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:PLANTS project banner tagging

Great job with all that assessing! Just wanted to drop a little note, though, and let you know that any article with a {{Carnivorous Plants}} or {{WP Banksia}} template on the talk page has already been auto-assessed for WP:PLANTS, i.e. An article assessed Mid-importance for WP:CPS will automatically also list the article in Low-importance for WP:PLANTS. It will also take care of categorizing the articles by class into the two WikiProjects. Same thing goes for WP:BANKSIA of course. I had created an additional parameter to reduce confusion that these daughter projects assess the page for the parent project. Do you think I should implement that? See User talk:Rkitko/sandbox for the example. Thanks! --Rkitko ^(talk) 00:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and did you see the other parameters I added to {{WikiProject Plants}}? You can now use "attention=yes", "needs-photo=yes", and "needs-taxobox=yes" to indicate the needs of a specific article. --Rkitko ^(talk) 00:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I had sort-of suspected it, but not really noticed it until I was done with the GA stuff. Is the automatic downgrading of articles revertable? Because in a few case, we might want to have the same importanc. Circeus 12:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was worried about, too. I think this was just a quick fix. I'll discuss it with WP:BANKSIA and WP:CPS and see what they think about adding the "plants_importance=" parameter to the subproject banners to manually assess the pages so we can avoid the problem of an auto-assess that's incorrect for WP:PLANTS. --Rkitko ^(talk) 16:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblock User Sceptile

Dear Circeus, near the end of January you blocked Sceptile for continuously causing mayhem on some articles. He has told me he wishes to be unblocked and continue editing, on a more positivie form this time. However, he is still blocked. I ask if you can unblock him now please, with mine (and his) thanks. Also, I thought the rule was a person could only be blocked for a month if it is their first blocking, and I think time is well up. Thank you and please unblock him. Evilgidgit 16:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:WP:EPR#Response

Did you receive any reply? I started to write my own letter with request before noticing yours.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:FN

On WT:FN you referred to a one-man fight. Am I out of line on this? Gimmetrow 03:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Gimmetrow 04:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar

Thank you so much for leaving me a barnstar. I was feeling a bit wikidown today, but your barnstar fixed that right away. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"in" added to cite book template

Hi, I was wondering why you added the "in" text before the value of the editor variable in Template:cite book. I didn't see anything on the talk page. I have cited some books that have no author, just an editor, and they look very odd with "in" as the starting text for the line. Please see 1960 Winter Olympics for one example. Was that your intent? Thanks, Andrwsc 16:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I hadn't thought of using the author name for the editor - perhaps we should add something to the documentation to describe this situation (it can't be uncommon). Thanks, Andrwsc 16:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Zotero

reply. — Omegatron 01:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

And another reply. It's already partially supported! — Omegatron 15:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Fortune Theatre

Hi Circeus--Thank you! I used vol. 6 of Bentley for reference, but when I wrote the article I did not know how to do in-line citation on wikipedia. Actually, I'm still not that confident, but I'll see what I can do today. Jlittlet 16:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Triceratops

• You reverted to a vandalized version of the article. JuJube 17:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No prob. ^_^ JuJube 17:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

new plant article

thanks for the heads up on this new rare plant california article. i am not really familiar with the species, but i ve made a few obvious edits to contribute to cleanup. Anlace 22:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Van De Kamp

All done! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: tenses

See WP:TENSE and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Matthew 14:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I can only preclude you've failed to read them, otherwise you'd know the tag is perfectly appropriate, it's not my job to copy-edit the whole article for tenses, nor do I have the will to do it at present. Respectfully I expect you to revert your edit. Matthew 15:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

FairTax

I've tried to address most of the points you brought up. I left my comments on the FAC and hope you'll support. :-) Thank you for your review and time. Morphh ^(talk) 19:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

J. F. Hance

Thank you for drawing attention to my error. The Hance in question is undoubtedly H. F. Hance. I'd confused him with another botanist listed in Arnoldia (perhaps again in error). I shall write an article on H. F. (strange he has evaded listing under either 'Bot. with author abbrevaition' and 'Bot. stubs'). Regards Ptelea 09:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification needed

At Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of chemistry you asked for some fixes. I have made most of them, but I need clarification on a few points:

1. What do you mean by "trite"? What specific changes to the language of this paragraph would you like me to make?
2. The Manual of Style specifically states that pictures should be alternated between right align and left align. If I am to arrange my pictures in contravention of the Manual of Style, how do you propose I do this?
3. You state that you think the style of the entries needs fixing. Do you simply mean that the hyphens in each entry should be removed so it reads like a plain-text sentance?

All other changes you requested have been made, and if you could leave your reply to this at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of chemistry I would appreciate it. I have asked these questions there as well, and in the interest of keeping the conversation in one place, I could use your reply there. Thank you very much for your help in improving this article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

All of your requested changes at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of chemistry have been made. Could you please re-review the article, and if you see fit, support its promotion; or perhaps suggest more changes that would make it Feature worthy? Thanks again for all of your help! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

IfD discusions

Hi. You are receiving this message because you participated in the IfD discusion for either Image:42650801_planelong_ap416.jpg, Image:Adam_Air_Flight_172.jpg, or both. I felt you might be interested in participating in the discusion regarding two similar images that have recently been nominted for deletion, here and here. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I may be checking up on IfD now, too. I mean, from the shootdown article:

"The area is now being guarded from interference by Somali soldiers.[5]"

So, we have sourced, cited proof in the article that a buch of men with guns might be a minor hidrance to anyone wanting to grab a quick snap. Rediculous that the FU could be challenged here. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Smallville

I've made the requested changes, I was wondering if you could review the list again. Currently you are the only "opposed" and I'm hoping to get that final 4th "support" before the 10 days is up. I'd appreciate another look so that I can make any further changes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

reymon14

Why are you repeatedly deleting my article on the "Youtube celebrity" reymon14? There are several popular Youtube users who have articles about them.

Recommend Prottected Delete John Kiernan-Sear

That article has been reposted more times than I can count. Morenooso 00:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD A7?

What does CSD A7 mean? This was given as the reason why the article I created was destroyed. --Godtvisken 00:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Dombeya rotundifolia

Hi, could you tell me what has been happening at the above page? Thanks Paul venter 03:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

List of premature obituaries

Hi Jean-Sebastien - this list has come up as a FLC again here (having run out of time before getting enough Support votes last time). I'd appreciate any further comments or your Support vote again! Thanks Ben Finn 16:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

List of parishes in Louisiana

Thanks for you comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of parishes in Louisiana. I've dealt with most of the points you raise, but I'm still slightly confused about one of them. I'd be graetful if you could explain further at the nomination page. Tompw (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Village pump conversation regarding templates

See here this concerns several aspects of the WikiProject templates and their implementation. Quadzilla99 00:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

New England Patriots seasons redlinks fixed... Is it featureable yet?

You noted that you were witholding your support vote until the redlink problem was fixed. I have created the articles for every individual season article for the Pats, and so now every link is now a bluelink. Can I count on your support at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/New England Patriots seasons/archive1? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Redlinks

You seemed to be quite expert with FLCs when I was working on List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry. Can you tell me how much redlinks detract from the viability of a WP:FLC. This week WP:CHICOTW is working on Chicago Landmark and I am wondering how important it is to spend time stubifying the redlinks. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 00:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Suppose we were to get up to about 60% creation with stubs like Washington Park Court District for the remaining articles. Is that stub sufficient? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 15:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thescelosaurus

Looks like I missed on this FAC. Too bad. Still giving it a good look, though, since it happens to be short (Copyediting short stuff is always easier!), and I spotted one problem I can't anything about: The ISBN for Dinosaurs of the Science Museum of Minnesota is incorrect. It's missing a digit, probably 0, but I can't find an independent ISBN to confirm. It's in WorldCat, but doesn't have an ISBN registered there. Circeus 15:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Circeus!

Thank you very much for your attention to detail; your copyedits are greatly appreciated, and we would have asked you to do several others, but we didn't want to annoy you with cloying requests. I'm assuming user:J. Spencer added the original citation, because he is originally from Minnesota and because he wrote nearly everything in that article. I've asked him for clarification on his talk page, since he's on Wikipedia nearly every day and it's probably not a problem for him to look up the ISBN if he still has the book (and knowing his fascination with Thescelosaurus, he probably does).

It's also interesting that you consider Wikipedia's article on Thescelosaurus short. It's the eighth longest dinosaur article, although considerably shorter than Iguanodon. What do you consider a short article? In comparison to many of our stub articles, it's positively huge. I'm just trying to get a feel for how long folks think a Featured Article should be; if Thescelosaurus is considered to be on the short side, perhaps we need to take that into consideration when we submit new FACs. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 17:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't mind looking at anything you want me to. Right now, original writing, expansion or rewrite is too complicated for me todo, but I always like copyediting the work of WP:DIGI, since, I guess, I never really lost my little kid's fascination with dino's (even though I never grew into an actual dino nerd. My nerdy fields are language and greek mythology.)

I'm finding Thescelosaurus much shorter than the mastodons that Triceratops and Iguanodon ere. In term of "content screenspace," it's nearly twice shorter than them. The space used by that cladogram (tsk tsk! I'd have hoped you people not to repeat the horror that was in Iguanodon...) and the references is for much there. The cladogram alone is 300 words of "article space". Circeus 17:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now thatI think of it, I think one of the reason I like these articles so much is that I really like taxonomic issues, and these articles tend to be very detailed o that front, compared to just about any TOL article in WP.Circeus 19:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Circeus,

Like you, I've never lost my childhood fascination with dinosaurs. If you'd like to copyedit, there are several articles which could use a good looking-over. I recently sent Styracosaurus to Scientific Peer Review, but there have been no comments yet, and it needs more than a rubber-stamping, I think. May I ask what the problem is with the cladogram in Iguanodon/Thescelosaurus? I don't understand. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Circeus,

I guess I don't really understand. No matter how a cladogram is included, it doesn't seem like it will be accessible to blind people. In other words, whether it appears as a wiki-coded diagram or as an actual picture, it won't be accessible to the blind. Nor will any picture. I guess I just don't understand what the objection is with a diagram or table, as our audience for the blind is probably terribly small, despite the audio/spoken versions of a few articles. JMHO, as always. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My regular supervisor wasn't in on Thursday, so I'll ask about the ISBN on Tuesday. Also, I kinda forgot about it. J. Spencer 22:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this chart closer to what you have in mind? J. Spencer 17:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Browns template

Wow, nice job on the Browns template. It looks a lot cleaner now (and looks cleaner than all the other templates at that). Thanks! Wlmaltby3 17:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

ISBN and classification

Hi, Circeus;

There must have been a printing error, because my copy of the book has a nine-digit ISBN exactly as I entered it, and someone else reports the same ISBN. If you'd like, I can take it off until I get it straightened out (I'm at the Museum regularly, and can ask).

On the classification: Hypsilophodontidae needs work, and is on my schedule. We recently found out about the clado-format I used in Thescelosaurus, which I think is a better option than an image because it can be easily edited by anyone, not just the developer of the image (this will eventually be a problem with the chart I made for Iguanodon. It is certainly a better option than the |--+-- style. The higher-level taxon pages have old listings and charts which need to be updated. In the case of Hypsilophodontidae, the listing actually corresponds to the chart except for the placement of Gasparinisaura, but is not as easy to read. The only new information to have come out is on Orcytodromeus, but it's only been in one paper so far, so I'm holding off on incorporating it (also because such melds stray into WP:OR territory). I should just copy and paste the Thesc chart. J. Spencer 21:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The publishing contact at the Museum told me that the book was accidentally given the same ISBN as Moving the Mountain, and the Library of Congress told them that they are to stay with what was originally printed. So, even though it is incorrect, it is "correct". J. Spencer 15:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

MTG sets

Hello! On Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates#Magic:_The_Gathering_sets, you wrote, "your 'date' fields in {{cite web}} needs to be properly linked so they don't show up as ISO dates". I initially thought you meant that you wanted me to unlink the dates, and then I did it on the article, but then I read your comment again, and I don't think that's what you meant. Sorry, but I'm confused. I'm not sure what you want me to do. I was looking at Template:Cite web and the examples given are along the lines of:

date=[[2006-03-31]] | accessdate=2006-07-06

which is what I think I'm doing. Could you clarify what it is that you want me to do? Did you want me to change it to something like:

date=[[March 31, 2006]] | accessdate=2006-07-06

or

date=March 31, 2006 | accessdate=2006-07-06

or

date=[[31 March 2006]] | accessdate=2006-07-06

or

date=31 March 2006 | accessdate=2006-07-06

or something else? If you could clear this up, that'd be great. Thanks. —Lowellian (reply) 01:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Bump. —Lowellian (reply) 18:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Article Grading

What do you think about this proposal 'class artical's ? Max ╦╩ 23:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Henri Bellechose

Oh wow. I suppose since I could only find one source for a biography, I got carried away, what with all the specific dates, etc. in the original. I usually find a way to make the article my own much more effectively. I apologize, I'm pretty embarrassed. What should I do now? Should I rewrite the article? Alekjds ^talk 04:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten the article and posted it accordingly at Henri Bellechose. I would greatly appreciate it if you could scan it and let me know if it fixes the problem. Thank you. Alekjds ^talk 04:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven

Thanks for your comments on the article. I've adopted some of your suggestions, and left a summary of the improvements, along with some responses, on the FLC page, mostly inserted into your comments. If you have the time, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at the responses, and glance at the article again, to see if you might reconsider your opposition. Thanks much, —Turangalila _talk 17:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Working towards a first fungal FA - Amanita phalloides

Hey Circeus, your eye for detail does my head in. I am working on Amanita phalloides but cna be a bit of a "near enough is good enough" slob. When you have time I would love it if you could give this a once over as you've been a great help on many of the dino FAs I've been involved with. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Great detective work! Here is an interesting link to an exhibition which also has a page of Vaillant's original description in French which I can't translate with my rudimentary knowledge (mycology is one field where lots has been done in other languages so I can't just find wverything in good old anglais.. [5]. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: I think a note on secretan would be great to note in the article, highlighting some of the issues in taxonomy and the race to name things and how precendence and invalid names work. Fungi are a mindbender, essentially we classify the thing on a fruiting body only. It would be like trying to classifiy a plant if the whole organism were invisible apart from the flowers and fruit. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, there's some french on the 2nd iamge down here, which I thought might be kind a fun. Its 1am here and I think I'm coming down with a cold (sniff). cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for that. I love funny old texts. Question is, will some/all/none of it be worth slotting into the text somehow........cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 20:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Update

Am wading through your points - all good ones. Did find ISBN but can't figure out where the dashes go. I have tried giving the lead an overhaul too. I am very tired and going to bed now. If you could get the ref for secretan would be much appreciated. I have tried fidning a ref for avoiding all amanitas and have had no luck. Still some places to check though. I have edited this article more than any other on wikipediacheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've got a friend making a map for the article. Could you get the ref for secretan. I'm going to have to hop off in a minute as wikipedia is v. unpopular in myt house (I'm in trouble...) :) cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem (back again for a minute) - I have been emailing Rdham Tuloss as I've taken photos of Amanita xanthocephala and will be asking him for help on a few other bits of knowledge over the next few days I guess...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 00:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: See this? cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 12:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar for beeing really thorough

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		given to Circeus for extremely through going over of FACs, especially dinos. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 05:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's one...

Want to see the original Okada picture? Look here. That girl on his side is me. We took that together while working on the set of the movie Siberian Express 5. I removed myself from the picture on order to use it on Wikipedia. What more do you want? Sorry if I have a crappy camera. It was cheap. I will try to find the others.

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k224/nekohakase/siberia2.jpg

Enjoy. Nekohakase 07:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Corvus or Category:Crows and Ravens?

Given your interest in bird classification, I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 27#Category:Crows and Ravens. Bencherlite 13:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)