Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:57, 15 December 2007

Archives
Nov 2005 – Dec 2006 Jan 2007 -

DYK update

Hi Petey,
I've updated DYK as you asked, but I don't have the time to inform the article creators and nominators. Could you do that? Below, I've pasted the relevant info. - Mgm| 21:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure; all done. --EncycloPetey 22:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Credits

• Railroads in Omaha - Freechild (talk · contribs)
• Emily Benn - !! (talk · contribs)
• St. Demetrios Greek Orthodox Church (Seattle) - Jmabel (talk · contribs)
• partition of Belgium - K a r n a (talk · contribs)
• Antoni Julian Nowowiejski - Piotrus (talk · contribs)
• Harry Newbould - Oldelpaso (talk · contribs)
• E. C. Hazard and Company - Skb8721 (talk · contribs), 24 Sept

Credit templates

• Article talk page: ({{dyktalk}}) {{dyktalk|14 January|2025}} (check if small style templates in use, if so add small=yes parm)
• Article creator's talk page: ({{UpdatedDYK}}) {{subst:UpdatedDYK|14 January|2025|Article name}} --~~~~
• Nominator's talk page: ({{UpdatedDYKNom}}) {{subst:UpdatedDYKNom|14 January|2025|Article name}} --~~~~

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Betalain, was selected for DYK!

On September 30, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Betalain, 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.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 06:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 1 October, 2007, a fact from the article The Lady of the Lake (poem), which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, D_arkF_alls 06:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK October 1

Did you know? was updated. On 1 October, 2007, a fact from the article Early editions of the Hebrew Bible, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Andrew c  17:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

On 1 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trowulan, 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.

--Andrew c  17:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 2 October, 2007, a fact from the article Lost in Beijing, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, D_arkF_alls 01:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

Did you know? was updated. On 2 October, 2007, a fact from the article War in Abkhazia (1998), which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3  15:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

request for assistance

Hi - pardon me, but I have made an error in creating an article, Freedmen's Savings Bank. The actual name is "Freedman's Savings Bank" - is it a problem? Is it possible to remedy this problem. Thanks, K a r n a 22:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I have moved the article to the correct title. --EncycloPetey 02:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! Now I understand that "move" function - wasn't sure and didn't want to screw up using it. Thanks again, K a r n a 02:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoforest DYK nom

Thanks for the DYK nomination for pseudoforest! I hope you don't mind that I suggested tweaking it a little. I had already been thinking of nominating it myself, but your nom spurred me to work harder at making my prose readable. —David Eppstein 04:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad to be a force for article improvement :) I used to read Martin Gardner's articles on Topology and have dabbled in it a bit ever since, though I've never had a formal course (sigh). Most of my college mathematics was limited to analysis and statistics. --EncycloPetey 05:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK nom

Did you know? was updated. On 3 October, 2007, a fact from the article Diamond (gemstone), which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 19:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

On 4 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ingram de Ketenis , 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  01:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Plant evo devo

Hi EncycloPetey...Nice to know you will be involved too with this project. If you've looked the creation time, I created this project just today, and still is very much in the discussion phase. There has been a suggestion that we generate a taskforce on plant evo-devo rather than as a separate project. What is your opinion? Also, I propose the users start mentioning their area of expertise, or atleast, the area they are most comfortable with, so that coordination between each other becomes easier. What do you say? Gauravm1312 02:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be better to work as a sub-project rather than as a task force. I think that in part because evo-devo overlaps with a few other independent projects such as MCB. --EncycloPetey 12:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK updating

Thanks for starting the next update (which is now overdue). I noticed that you included three that were related to the United States. I'm not sure if you follow WT:DYK, but there has been a lot of criticism about over-Americanization of DYK, and I wanted to warn you to be cautious about that. (No more than two per country is the usual rule of thumb.) I realize most of the oldest entries are American, which makes it harder, so we may have to use three. Rigadoun (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I had noticed that, but had also noticed that nearly all of the soon-to-expire nominations were from the US as well. (If you want the list of nominations I add to Template talk:Did you know, you'll see that almost none of them deal with the US, precisely because I want to keep potential listings as topically and regionally varied as possible.

In putting together the Next Update, I deliberately left space for additional nominations, and would not at all have been surprised or upset if someone had moved a nomination back from the Next Update to the Talk page. DYK selection is a community process, and I simply wanted to have as much as possible started on the Next Update to lessen the work others would need to do. Thanks for the advice! --EncycloPetey 21:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Re expired noms at DYK

Generally it's been my feeling that one-day expired nominations can be included, as the supply of decent articles varies substantially from day to day, so that backlogs of usable items are common. Moreover, often problems are only noticed at the last minute, meaning that good-faith efforts to fix the articles result in an article that becomes usable only when technically expired. Could you possibly join the discussion at the talk page about this? Regards, Espresso Addict 14:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Which talk page? I could not find the discussion. Also note that the currently scheduled update is blocked by our school site, so whatever is on the next update could block schools from access to the main page if it's put up. --EncycloPetey 15:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know -- generally a good page to watch if you update here regularly, as it's where changes to the rules are discussed. I didn't understand what you meant by "blocked by our school site", I'm afraid -- could you explain? Espresso Addict 15:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

My guess with the blocking is Ivo's recent edit summaries (the talk page may be blocked for that reason too). There isn't anything objectionable on the next update template, so if that's the reason, it won't be a factor for the main page. Rigadoun (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Espresso Addict updated the main page. Can you check to make sure you can see it? I can't think why it would be blocked. Rigadoun (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As Rigadoun suggested, the problem looks to have been the expletives in the edit summary, so I'm hoping that all should be well. Shout if there's a problem! Cheers, Espresso Addict 16:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

Did you know? was updated. On 5 October, 2007, a fact from the article Literature of Egypt, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3  23:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Mimicry, et al.

Re: your great idea at plants. You might be interested in this recent news story http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/05/2052512.htm. I left the title off, it was a bit rude. The complexity of the relationships is mind boggling. Cheers, Cygnis insignis 04:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew about the phenomenon in the Araceae but hadn't previously seen a cycad example. --EncycloPetey 06:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It was interesting that heat to flipped the signal back and forth. I'm looking forward to the article. Regards, Cygnis insignis 06:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Additions and/or Information

I am currently trying to write a 'wiki' page on Agroecosystem Analysis. I would truely value any input you may have towards the subject. Please feel free to pass on the topic to anyone you know who might have an interest in agroecosystems. I am completely new to this format and am learning as I go. Thanks for your time!

Sorry, but that's not a subject I've ever studied. --EncycloPetey 23:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 8 October, 2007, a fact from the article bluestripe snapper, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 00:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

Did you know? was updated. On 8 October, 2007, a fact from the article Michelsberg culture , which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3  16:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

plant cell membrane

becouse the file you gave me was a png it ended being easier to create a new one than editing the one you gave me. if you need anything changed let me know -LadyofHats 17:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 12 October, 2007, a fact from the article Mechanisms and processes of evolution, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman 04:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Utica (203 BC)

On 13 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Utica (203 BC), 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.

--GeeJo ⁄_(c) • 21:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ziggy Pig and Silly Seal

On 14 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ziggy Pig and Silly Seal, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ⁄_(c) • 09:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Gamma ray burst progenitors

Did you know? was updated. On 14 October, 2007, a fact from the article Gamma ray burst progenitors, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ⁄_(c) • 16:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Seed diagram

hi, i couldnt find another image from the Cornus sericea seed. i didnt want to make a direct copy so i was looking for other seeds diagrams wich may contain what you were looking for. from those i made 2 diagrams:

I do not know weather this are the ones you need, or if it "must" be the same kind of seed you mention. Please let me know.-LadyofHats 18:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• • here is the avocado seed, i hope i got the parts right. if you have any changes let me know -LadyofHats 14:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

ok it is changed-LadyofHats 15:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Redundant information in Taxoboxes

How is a conservation status relevant to an organism that became extinct 400 million years ago? By the same token, is it necessary to include a cross, which is understood by a small proportion of the readership, when the "fossil range" makes it clear that the genus is not extant? For the division, I could follow the argument, but it seems redundant as is. Taxoboxes rapidly become cluttered and including redundant information seems a step in the wrong direction.

Verisimilus T 14:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. You might be interested in discussion on the tree of life talk page; this edit removes redundant information which does not alter the formatting - I imagine that is what you refer to.

All the best, Verisimilus T 16:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

Did you know? was updated. On 24 October, 2007, a fact from the article Origins of Falkland Islanders, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3  16:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

On 24 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Colombian folklore , 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  16:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

On 24 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Haplomitriopsida, 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  16:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

RE - I can't believe you're bothering to read this...

That comment let's people know where they stand right away. I like it!

I came here because of the liverwort article, which I enjoyed.

I have seen liverwort growing in an old greenhouse. Can you tell me, is deliberate culture of liverworts practical? Thanks, Wanderer57 20:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide GAC

Hi there, just a note to let you know that if you had any questions about the article I'm not going to be editing as much as normal over the next few days so I might not respond immediately. Tim Vickers 21:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that this article has been marked "under review" by you for over a week. Might I suggest that you either decide to pass, fail or put on hold the articles or remove the "under review" notice so that others may review the article? Cheers, CP 21:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been making thorough notes and requesting advice on how to proceed. Now that I have the advice, I'll be posting the review today. --EncycloPetey 21:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Procaryote

hoy, i was wondering if you have a more acurate source for a new diagram of a procaryote cell, i was left rather unconfortable with the idea of the old one not being complete or acurate enough.. do you have anything i could use?-LadyofHats 10:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

GA review of Marsileaceae‎

I'm sorry, but the article has failed GA review. I have left constructive comments on the talk page, and I wish you and the other contributors well in your efforts to improve this article. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any assistance whatsoever. Have a wiki day! Mmoyer 03:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw your reponse on my talk page, and am doing a bit of research. I want to make a thoughtful, constructive reply, but have been a bit short on time the past day or two. I expect to respond in another day or two as my schedule permits. Thanks for your patience! Mmoyer 17:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added some comments only (no vote) to the discussion for the appeal to explain my thought process. I readily admit that this is only my fifth GA review, so I will learn more by reading others opinions on this matter. Please be patient with me. My only intent is to "do the right thing". Thanks! Mmoyer 23:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Novels COTM

Thanks for doing the switchover for this very helpful work. :: Kevinalewis : /_(Desk) 09:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		I, BorgQueen, award this barnstar to User:EncycloPetey for the tireless work on scientific articles. Please keep up the good work. 06:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I agree with your view on WP:ACID. We need to change the system. BorgQueen 06:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Monosolenium distribution map

I just added a new one, with the updated information, to the page. Cheers, heyjude. 02:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. As long as I have distribution data, I can make a map from it. Just let me know which articles need maps. Cheers, heyjude. 19:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin?

Hi there, would you have any use for the admin tools? You seem very well-qualified if you wished to apply. Tim Vickers 22:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been on the fence about that, mostly since I'm an admin on Wiktionary (where the policies and procedures are very different). But sure, OK. Then I could help with the DYK updates. --EncycloPetey 22:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship. Tim Vickers 22:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a careful read through your contributions and write up a recommendation this evening. Tim Vickers 22:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessment help request

Would you be able to search through all the articles currently assessed for WP:PLANTS and determine which ones are actually redirects? I've been finding assessments on redirect pages, and this seems like cleanup that could be automated--moving the assessment to the target talk page, or removing it if the target already has an assessment template. I'd do this myself except that I have so idea how to go about doing such a search or automating the replacement. --EncycloPetey 16:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've found a few of those, too. I gave it some thought and couldn't come up with a way to locate WP:PLANTS article talk pages with article page redirects. I'm sure there's got to be a way, but I only use AWB with my bot, which I don't think can do that. We could ask over at WP:BOTREQ to see if anyone with more knowledge could help us. --Rkitko 02:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If you know whom to ask for help, and where to ask it, you already kow more about it than I do. I've never used a bot; all my editing is manual (or as manual as you can get while using a computer). --EncycloPetey 03:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Success! I'm letting BotanyBot crawl through the entire list of plant articles on a setting of "do not follow redirects" with instructions to make a dummy edit if the text "#REDIRECT

And going and going and going... 9,000 more articles to scan. I updated and moved the list to User talk:EncycloPetey/Redirects so it wouldn't clutter up your talk page here. The list should be completed shortly. Cheers, Rkitko 20:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

All done! :-) Let me know if you want some help correcting those. --Rkitko 05:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK: Agatha Christie: An Autobiography & Monosolenium

Did you know? was updated. On 10 November, 2007, a fact from the article Agatha Christie: An Autobiography, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai 07:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

On 10 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Monosolenium, 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.

--PFHLai 08:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks ...

...for reverting vandalism on my pageJackaranga 02:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

More than welcome. --EncycloPetey 06:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Pete, re Liguus ... I got a bit confused by the current hook, as my reading of the article was that it wasn't clear that the colour/collecting caused the extinction .. and I wasn't sure that I wanted to make collecting sound appealing. Be that as it may (as these are minor failings as the article is the truth, not so much the hook),... Im not an admin so cannot make the change... but I don't object to it. Vic aka Victuallers 16:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Further links

Hi there. I've linked the DYK item to some more articles as you suggested - all except the link to shell which I piped through to gastropod shell, see what you think - I've purged the changes through. Bobo. 16:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, sorry. I see the link now - I viewed the link on the page without looking at the page source. Hopefully the item is as you wish it to look now. Bobo. 16:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated note

And at the risk of putting a complete kibosh on your current 100% support rate, your Request for adminship is going rather well. Hopefully I'm not out of the realms of fortune to be wishing you premature congratulations on what I have witnessed from you in the past is going to be a very well-used set of tools - just a shame that this correction to the DYK column wasn't needed tomorrow, otherwise you could have done it yourself! What timing.

Congratulations. Bobo. 16:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Michigan trip

Hope I'm not too late, but I've been sick most of this past weekend and so haven't tried to do anything that involved too much thinking.

Could you photocopy some portions of the following article for me?

• Piippo, S. 1990. Annotated catalogue of Chinese Hepaticae and Anthocerotae. Journal of the Hattori Botanical Laboratory 68: 1-192.

The portions I'm interested in are:

1. Abstract
2. References cited
3. Maps at the outset (if any) that summarize geography covered in the article
4. The section on Marchantiales (if separated from other groups in the article); if not I'd be happy with the pages covering Monosolenium
5. The section on Anthocerotae

Thanks, --EncycloPetey 16:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, not too late! I decided to go today (Tuesday) instead and I checked my talk page once I got here. Your item has been copied! I just need to transform it into a pdf and you should receive it soon. Hope you feel better! --Rkitko 18:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

All ready to be mailed to you! E-mail me through the site with your e-mail address so I can send you the pdf. Cheers, --Rkitko 23:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Congrats

Welcome to the DYK team!! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! You are now an administrator! Secretlondon 01:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool! New toys. --EncycloPetey 01:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! If you have any questions just drop me a note on my talk page. Tim Vickers 22:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My congrats, too; I know you'll do well. :) I'll get back to Acetabularia soon as well; I've gotten a bunch of scientific papers from various places, which I'll digest once I have a moment to breathe. Back to enzymes! (huff, huff) Willow 00:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You'll do well. Just don't get too distracted from doing your awesome article-writing. bibliomaniac15 21:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 14 November, 2007, facts from the articles The Big Blowdown, and Nurses and Midwives Tribunal, which you recently nominated, were featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Covering of the Senne

No problem, I don't hold it against you. I moved the article into the namespace instead of copy-pasting. Is this proper form, or should I copy-paste next time? Also, in the case of an article which took so much work, it would probably be better to alert the author next time, though I realize this isn't always possible. Have a nice day! -Oreo Priest 17:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Favor

Hi EncycloPetey, you might have noticed that your nomination was one of several others I made over that last week, this was partly spurred by the threat of IPs being allowed to create new pages, but also has a more general objective. This other reason for this effort was that I have been a little disturbed by a growing attitude that admins are more than just editors with a few more buttons on their toolbars and are instead "senior editors" with greater authority. I decided that the best way of dealing with this idea was to greatly expand the pool of admins to include a wider diversity of the pool of editors.

Since you have now passed the selection, could you in turn select and nominate some people you trust - I'd suggest aiming for about three over the next month or so. Of those who are selected, could you ask them in turn to select and nominate three candidates. Such a chain of trust should result, over time, in a greatly enlarged pool of admins and thus provide a simple and effective way of spreading the responsibility - perhaps to the point where becoming an admin is seen as normal and expected, rather than a major achievement. I hope you'll be able to help me with this. Thank you. Tim Vickers 22:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's an understandable position, and one supported by POLICY, so I'll see whom I can find. I'm sure it would help if more people had the keys to the broom closet. --EncycloPetey 22:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be great, I looked through the apparently endless discussions on how to improve RfA, but they didn't seem to be heading anywhere - the simplest way of achieving our goals seemed for us to just nominate more people. Tim Vickers 22:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A bit of help

Could you give a look to my last image the Image:Flagellum base diagram.svg.i had troubles finding good sources and i am not sure i got everything right -LadyofHats 20:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I will be busy for a few days, but will reply shortly. You obviously did a lot of work on the diagram, as usual. --EncycloPetey 03:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverted links to informational sites

Don't understand why you have reverted links to external sites which were added this evening (eg, tracking, orchids, ferns etc). All links were to non-commercial sites. The sites do not sell anything. They are purely informational in nature. They do have ads, which help to pay hosting costs. Have read guidelines for creating links to external sites and the links seem to be in line with this. The external sites have plenty of relevant supplementary information of value to visitors to Misplaced Pages. Please enlighten me. There must be something I am not understanding. Thank you very much!

The sites were a series of systematically added spam-links added to commercial websites selling products. Please see item #6 Misplaced Pages:External_links#Links normally to be avoided. The site being linked is mostly adspace. --EncycloPetey 05:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, you do need to take a much closer look at those websites. The Home Pages of those sites do not have a lot of info, as they are portals to the rest of each site, gateways to the extensive information behind it. They are most definitely not commercial sites with "mostly ad space". They do not exist for the purpose of placing ads. They are not commercial sites. They are packed with information, purely for the information's sake. Those sites were created and are maintained purely for the sharing of information, for the love of it, over many years. Truly a labour of love. Without any expectation of monetary return. (Hmmm, similar to Misplaced Pages?) The sole purpose of the ads is to offset hosting costs. The sites are not vehicles for ads. That is not their purpose. Having read "Misplaced Pages:External_links#Links normally to be avoided" the only possible criteria that could be used against these sites is #6, "Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising". And IF these sites come under that, well that is indeed a first in the many years that they have been online!! Normally the response to the sites is one of gratitude for sharing the information. I do undertand the concept of controlling spammers, as I have to deal with large number sof them on a daily basis in forums I administer. Spamming, I respectuflly submit, is most definitely not happening here, in my opinion. Perhaps the effort I am making in this inquiry is an indication of the sincerety of these claims? Thank you for taking the time to read my remarks.

Even without the ads, the various .com sites were not appropriate to the pages where they were added. (see #14 in the link above) A page about ferns in the Canadian province of Ontario is an inappropriate link for an encyclopedia article about all ferns of the world that have existed throughout all of time. Likewise for other similar link placements. Misplaced Pages is not a link catalog to the internet; it is an encyclopedia.

If you are sincere in your effort, why did you wait until after the block to respond to postings requesting that you cease your spamming? --EncycloPetey 06:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

About your RfA

Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! Acalamari 02:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You're are very welcome! I'm very pleased to hear of your success! Enjoy the tools. :-) Lradrama 15:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on your new sysop bit. Thanks for your good work here. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 21:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

hey

can you please unblock so i can add more well produced enteries? the raccoon from wiktionary thank you please inform that semperblotto does not like me as he calls me a vandal

That's not my call, and as I said it's only for 24 hours. There are ways to use that time productively towards new entries even without being able to edit. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

hey

this is urgent i got blocked by semperblotto why? the raccoon from wiktionary? maybe you could inform when i'am getting unblocked? --Alaop (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you were blocked for 24 hours for hasty contributions that required a lot of cleanup. Usually that means you need to look around at how pages are formatted during the block time. Wiktionary block policies are very different from Misplaced Pages policy, because the data structure is very, very important. Wiktionary is also very short-handed on monitoring new contributors, so blocks are more likely to happen there than on WP.

Since it's only 24 hours, my suggestion is to use the time while you're blocked to look back at your list of contributions, and study how others modified your initial pages. That way, when the block ends, you'll have a much better idea of what the community is trying to achieve and produce better start entries. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Plant stubs

Hi :-) I saw all your work on the plant stubs recently. Thanks for creating those other two stub types and updating the BotanyBot subpage. Much appreciated. I also wanted to check in and see if you had grabbed the pdf file off my website. I don't want to keep it up there for long since it technically is breaking copyright - publishing on the internet - but, how else is one to send a large file like that? Hope all is well. Cheers, Rkitko 00:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Sorting plant stubs was where I got my real start on Misplaced Pages. I think I was the person who first proposed (and started) the initial subcategory stubs from {{plant-stub}} by taxon.

Yes, I have the Piippo article on my computer now, thanks. You can remove them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks again for all the additions you're making to the stub list. Do you think the page works better now that I sorted by taxonomy instead of alphabetically? And do you know of anything that could take the place of all the nbsps? It's the only way I could figure to make a visual indent. Cheers, Rkitko 04:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It is easier now to see super- and subcategories for sorting purposes, but you're right that the nbsp's make for awkward formatting. I can't think of anything simple as a fix. The only possible suggestion I can think of is a massive table organized along the line of the one I did for the Diversity section of the Plants article. Perhaps one with periodic sections interspersed that give the header? It would mean another massive restructuring of the page, though. But I'm not sure that would solve the indent problem unless you used a really clever implementation of colspan. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I doubt many people will be editing it, since it serves as reference. The stubs don't change all that often except in little growth spurts like the current one. The reason I started that template was for the purpose of easily seeing which categories needed split; I guess it worked! I think I've spent enough time on it already, so I'm not going to worry about the nbsps. Well, a quick trip to spend quality time repotting plants and then it's off to bed. G'night! Rkitko 05:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Importance

Do you know whether the importance ranking of Core is used only by the 1.0 assessment team (and realted teams) or whether it is general to all assessment projects? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. I know that we could change {{WikiProject Plants}} to understand the rating "core", but I don't know whether or not User:WP 1.0 bot would understand it and keep it logged. As it is, when something is changed from Start-class to List-class, for example, the bot treats it as if the template had been removed entirely, thus lists don't show up in our current article count. Not sure if that's by design or if the bot only recognizes the simple functions. I poked around a bit in the WP Assessment information but couldn't find anything. I was planning on updating our project template to include the link to the portal and some other minor changes. Do you want me to include a "core=yes" parameter with a category so we can track these core topics? Or would you rather it be in the importance function? Rkitko 17:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If it can be set as core=yes, then that might be a better solution. Odd that you can't find documentation either, though. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

We can always change it later, too. Next question would be if we want a notice like the "needs-taxobox" parameter. Something like: "This page has been identified as a core topic for WP:PLANTS" or something similar. And if so, choose a color for the background :-)

Well, that all depends on whether the "core" designation is reserved to the WP Assessment team, doesn't it? It's why I asked whether we can designate articles ourselves as such, or whether that would just lead to confusion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean now. Whether or not we can use the designation "core" for our articles when it's mostly just used to refer to core topics on the whole of Misplaced Pages. We might want to ask them about that before we go ahead with it. But I think if we make it clear these are the core topics of WikiProject Plants or Botany core topics, I think they'd be fine with it. Rkitko 18:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I was also planning on maybe changing the category for needs-photo to Category:Botany articles needing images to better represent all of the image requests in that category. SB Johnny and I discussed this a bit on WT:PLANTS, but we didn't really come to a conclusion or get other input. I would then take care of the 21 articles in Category:Misplaced Pages requested photographs of plants and turn it into a category redirect with instructions on how to use the needs-photo or needs-image parameter in the plants banner. I'd appreciate your thoughts on that. Cheers, Rkitko 18:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the new name better, or perhaps Category:Plant articles needing images to tie in with the name of the project WP:PLANTS. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and for the sake of consistency across those "needing" categories. We do have some non-plant articles in that category, mostly botanists. I could see it as an easy stretch, though. Rkitko 18:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The danger in using "botany" is that we attract fungus and algal protist listings as well. It's a trade-off either way. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, true. I hadn't thought about that. Category:Plant articles needing images it is, then! And I've worked it out in the template so that "needs-image=yes" and "needs-photo=yes" do the same thing so we won't need to change any of the existing assessments, but editors can choose to use needs-image in the future if they so wish. Rkitko 18:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Rosid stubs

My, these are a bit of a mess. I took a look around to see what families could be split from existing orders, and discovered that the problem is worse than that. Currently, the Rosales stub category includes all the Pittosporum stubs, but that genus is in the Apiales under APG II. The Malvales stub category includes many members of the Oxalidales. The Malpighiales includes lots of Cucurbitales. All of these seem to be the result of Polbot, so not only are the stubs wrong...the taxoboxes will be wrong as well. :P

I think a new {{Cucurbitales-stub}} and {{Oxalidales-stub}} will greatly reduce the size of some of the larger rosid stub categories, but it will involve hunting down the articles and fixing taxoboxes. I won't have much time for stub sorting the next couple of weeks, but have put in some notes, ideas, and suggestions on User:BotanyBot/Plant_stubs. And by the way, I don't think I ever properly thanked you for setting up that page. The Stub Sorting group used to keep track of the sizes of all the stub categories, but it just became too much work to maintain. I always thought it was a useful idea, so I'm glad to see it resurrected for the plant stubs, at least. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

PS - I think a {{Nepenthes-stub}} would be useful, yes? --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed the problems with Polbot's taxonomy as well. I believe Alai's bot was stub sorting based on information in the taxoboxes. If you point them out to me like above, I can have BotanyBot fix the taxobox and stub sort at 5 edits per minute so you don't have to take the time. There's still a bit of controversy over some of these taxonomic changes, but I trust you know higher taxonomy better than I. I still see a mixed bag in articles when it comes to Bombacaceae versus Malvaceae subfamily Bombacoideae.

I think all the stubs you created are very useful. I created that user subpage to make it easier to see which stubs might need splitting. To my surprise you found it and ran away with it. So thank you - I would probably have spent a lot more time making decisions on where to split if you hadn't stepped in. I never knew WP:WSS had tracked stub category size. It does seem like a good idea, but their scope is much larger than the scope of this list. I could see how it could get overwhelming. Though certainly a bot could easily check daily and generate reports. Anyway, I digress. I wanted to ask you, though, since you were creating all those stubs. Do we still need to propose stub types at WP:WSS/P? I know Alai trusts me with stub creation, but I think if I decide to split anywhere, I'll probably take it to that group.

The WSS proposal procedure is much loser today than it was two years ago when I started. (And given my long history with that group I'd be surprised if Alai didn't trust me with stub creation as well). All the one's I've created would be speedied as following the pattern set down. However, if there were a genus stub to make, I'd definitely propose and wait first, in part because a genus name can look like other things (where a family or class will have an ending that sets it clearly apart). That's part of the prposal rationale -- to keep ambiguous names out of the mix, and as well to make sure they get listed on the official list (which I've been very careful to keep as up-to-date as I can, even for those stubs I wasn't responsible for).

As for using a bot to fix the Polbot mistakes, I'm not sure how that would work. What information would I need to supply? For the Oxalidales and Cucurbitales, a list of pages could take almost as long to assemble as it would to edit them by hand, given the scattered nature of the stubs in question. I'm not fluent in the genera of rosids, so I have to look up the family info each time to see where APG II put it; the rosids and asterids changed around a lot from earlier systems. But, it is nice to know there's a stub-sorting bot. If I had known about it before, I wouldn't have had to sort the Algae stubs by hand. Almost all the green algae stubs were added by WillowW who used a reasonably good source with very good skill, so the taxonomy is mostly current (though I found two or three oddities that had to be fixed). The bot could certainly tag the Nepenthes and Polygonaceae stubs, as they have correct taxobox information (well, except for the division which is "Tracheophyta" in all the Polbot additions of flowering plants). --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the rationale involved in WP:WSS. Makes perfect sense. You don't need to create a list. All you'd need to do is alert me to something like the above - that a particular genus/family/order is in a shambles from Polbot and needs sorting - and I'll go to it. See diff for one of BotanyBot's contributions. I had to create a couple family categories under Cucurbitales and had to sort a couple things by hand, but the category Begonia was entirely Polbot's work, so it was easy to make BotanyBot take care of it. Category:Cucurbitales stubs should be fully populated by now. Rkitko 16:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Category:Cucurbitales stubs isn't fully populated. For instance, I found Anisophyllea‎ wasn't in there after the bot run. Did you run it just through the Category:Rosid stubs or through Category:Rosales stubs as well? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, oops. I missed that one. I had the page open and was going to take care of that one manually but my browser decided to quit on me and I forgot to reopen that page and change it. I'll double check in the other stub categories, but I think I've got them all. Rkitko 16:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the bot handles longer lists better. The more hands-on material requires individual attention. Thanks for the additional tasks :-) I'll get right on it. Cheers, Rkitko 17:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And yes, I agree that a Nepenthes-stub template would be useful. There are a few still lurking out there that wouldn't be classified as stubs anymore, so that I might have to do those by hand. Thanks again for all your work on this! Cheers, Rkitko 15:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Brunellia - stub as {{Oxalidales-stub}}
• Cecropia - stub as {{Rosales-stub}}, fix taxobox order as well
• Tropaeolum - stub as {{Brassicales-stub}}, fix taxobox order as well

All done. Let me know if you've got any other tasks for the bot. Rkitko 18:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The Ficus should all be stubbed as {{Moraceae-stub}}, and the taxobox div/class/order fixed as well. The Pittosporum stubs should all be {{Apiales-stub}}.--EncycloPetey (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Done! Rkitko 18:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Japanese citrus

There is a DRV discussion here related to the Japanese citrus category that may benefit from your input in view of your contributions to the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Plants. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 20:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Mechanisms and processes of evolution

Hi, the defination of genetic drift and mutuation has been copied from the article evolution, which is currently a featured article (recently featured). you might wish to raise the issue there also. i will try my best to re-write this whole article. Sushant gupta 14:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have made an adjustment to that page; it had the definition and cause reversed. --EncycloPetey 14:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

are there any more technical problems in the article or is there anything else i can add in order to make this article a GA. thanks, Sushant gupta 10:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

firstly congrats you are now an admin, also can you please re-reviw the page. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It still has many, many problems. One problem is that the first section (not the introduction) seems wholly out of place. It is a summary of what evolution is, which should be in the evolution article, not this sub-article. The article still does not explain what is meant by an "evolutionary mechanism" or and "evolutionary process" and does not clarify what difference (if any) exists between them. Much of the text is written for a advanced college class in the subject, and does not make the material accessible to the general public. The structuring is also bad, with 14 independent sections; I have made an attempt to group some of them logically but the super-headers will require a few sentences each to summarize and introduce the underlying sections. It still needs a lot of work. Why not ask for help from the folks at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Evolutionary biology? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

since you stood up for reviewing this page i thought of discussing this whole article with you since you are knowledgable and a responsible wikipedian and an admin also. anyway, mechanisms includes selection, gene flow, genitic drift and mutuation and processes includes adaptation, speciation and co-evolution (these are outcome). you are also talking about the first section; i think it is of immense importance. you said that the page should be accessible to all; so it (the section) would provide them a general background about evolutionary mechanisms. articles here on wikipedia should have more technicality. if this article doesn't serve much purpose for any layman then i can brief them in general on the page Introduction to evolution. hopefully my points might be satisfactory to you. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of being satisfactory to me. you are trying to get the article pushed through to "Good Article" status, and I am advising you on the criteria they will be using. A general article that is too technical is not likely to be granted GA status. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

who said so; i mean i haven't read this criteria anywhere. is it a new criteria for GA's recently introduced. i didn't knew about it. what about FA's. anyway thanks a lot for updating me. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It is criterion #1 on "What is a Good Article?" : which part says that prose should be readable and jargon should be explained. Perhaps you should read the criteria. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

i know what 1) criteria is. it is not mentioned that technicality is the prob. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. You have to follow the links to the relevant policy on jargon. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Stub sorting, volume 3

No problem. I'll get right on that tomorrow, or depending when I get home tonight. I decided to take a small trip down to Cincinnati for a half-weekend for some sight-seeing and photography. I'll let you know when it's complete. Cheers, Rkitko 13:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Cariniana, Couratari, Eschweilera, Gustavia (genus), and Lecythis Done. And re: adminship, I appreciate the thought. I think the tools could be useful in some cases and I wouldn't mind helping clear backlogs where needed. Thanks! Rkitko 15:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks as always! --EncycloPetey 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help! Cheers, Rkitko 02:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

IPA

Hi,

Please revert any IPA redirects you think are inappropriate, or let me know if there's a particular category of article you object to changing. Readers have been complaining for years that the IPA is inaccessible, but I'm only trying to do this in cases where all the reader needs is help with a few symbols, such as 'the following chart uses symbols from the IPA'. That's the vast majority of cases, but I can't spend much time with any one article, so I've probably redirected the link where I shouldn't have. kwami 07:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

NAD+

Thanks! That's good to hear. All the best Tim Vickers 18:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement with this. I worked on it a bit more and just nominated it for FAC. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Novels Collaboration of the Month

You supported Sons and Lovers, which has been selected as the Novels WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Month. Please help improve this article towards featured article standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinalewis (talk • contribs) 10:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Transhumanist RfA & Uncivility

Second time I've been accused of being uncivil in this RfA. I'm probably not helping TH at this point, but I think people (you and others) are pushing too hard to get perfection in a candidate, and using 'civility' as a way to throw off criticism of your opposition. In my view, long-term constructive editors with no history of vandalism or other abuse should enjoy the presumption of trustworthiness - and the trustworthiness of a user in the eyes of the community is what we are here to determine. Not 'is this user too wordy' or 'I disagree with the admin school and oppose because user participates'. Particularly not because someone failed to answer your optional question, or answered correctly but not in exactly the precise manner you were hoping for - many of these difficult questions with many answers are traps, intentionally or not. I won't be apologizing for criticizing your oppose, and I don't agree that my criticism has been uncivil. Avruch 21:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not bring your POV to my talk page. I am allowed to vote on my own and am capable of making a decision for myself. If you disagree, that's fine, but please do not accuse me of things just because I don't think the same way you do or vote the way you want. It is not my responsibility to explain to you how you are misinterpreting what I've said. Again, please do not bring your POV on a vote to my talk page. If you did not come here to apologize, then you have no reason for coming here. Your vote is your business, not mine. --EncycloPetey 22:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

1) Your talk page doesn't belong to you. 2) You asked for an apology. I explained why one would not be forthcoming. 3) You accused me of being mean spirited and uncivil. I explained why I disagreed. 4) Your vote, and all comments on RfAs and other community processes, are open to discussion by everyone. If you don't want your reasoning to be examined, don't vote. Avruch 23:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

To quote WP:CIVIL: "For some people, it may be crucial to receive an apology from those who have offended them. For this reason, a sincere apology is often the key to the resolution of a conflict: an apology is a symbol of forgiveness. An apology is very much recommended when one person's perceived incivility has offended another."

Conversation ended. Please do not escalate this to WP:HARASS. I have asked you to stay away and not bother me, and you have already chosen once to disregard my request. Instead, you have returned to fan the flames of incivility. Please do not return to my talk page and please leave me alone. --EncycloPetey 00:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello EncycloPetey. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

E-mail

Good morning! I tried your "E-mail this user" link and just got This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.. Do you have an alternative e-mail address you could swap in? That would tell us if it was a problem with the software or a problem with one specific e-mail address. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It seemed to send this time. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Did it work? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Bot help with Category:Malpighiales stubs

I've been sorting out the Salicaceae stubs, and now am updating taxonomy for all of Polbot's entries categorized in Category:Malpighiales stubs. I've come across two genera with many species that could use a bot fix. Neither genus is in the Malpighiales under APG II, so both the taxobox and stub need to be corrected for all the pages in the genera:

• Saurauia, which should be Ericales, and {{Ericales-stub}}
• Nasa (genus), which should be Cornales and {{asterid-stub}}

The latter also needs a genus page, and needs to have the genus link corrected. Right now, the genus for all these entries points to NASA via redirect. Should we use Nasa (genus), or commandeer Nasa from redirect to article, with a disambig link for the space agency? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll get right on those. I'd say we could reasonably commandeer the redir Nasa. The whatlinkshere page showed less than 50 links, quite a bit of those are the Polbot species pages. By the by, I was wondering if you could point me in the direction of resources for a list of species in a liverwort genus, Colura. IPNI failed me in that department and I only cobbled together a handful of species from JSTOR articles. Cheers, Rkitko 03:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

My goodness! I greatly appreciate all the info you just flung my way. It's a fantastic start. The genus is on my backburner for now - I just wanted to get a start on it and lay down a nice list. I'll certainly get around to expanding it soon. And with those refs you pointed me to, I'll have no problem!

"The major texts on bryophyte ecology don't seem to mention possible carnivory at all." Indeed, it appears as if it has only been mentioned in passing in a few rather obscure documents. The carnivorous plant researchers pick through those obscure references, though, and stumbled upon it when updating information on the protozoan-munching Genlisea. The ref given in the genus article is highly respected and the authors are all fantastic researchers in the little world of carnivorous plant research. I just thought it interesting that some liverworts have been accused of carnivory. Another genus, Pleurozia, was also identified as a possible carnivore. There was a study on a species from that genus as well, I just haven't been able to access a copy of it yet.

So thanks again for all that info! Oh, and BotanyBot finished its run, so those two genera should be complete. Cheers, Rkitko 05:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote on my RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of 41/0/1. Please accept a slice of panettone as an expression of my gratitude. Feel free to help yourself to some chocolate zabaglione as well. I am humbled by the trust placed in me to use the tools wisely. Cheers, Rkitko 20:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK - CFBS

Having seen your comment on the talk page, please have a look at the CFBS article now that I've finished adding the details of the rolling stock. Mjroots (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK comment

Sorry about jumping the gun. Dec 6 had no suitable hooks left. Dec 7 has some problem hooks but, you're right, there are a few suitable ones left. Maybe we should have ADYK (almost did you know) and not put it on the main page! Chergles (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK spamming

If you like, I can handle passing out the credits, so that you don't have to congratulate yourself ;) --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be great, EncycloPetey! Thanks! --PFHLai (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I had just gone to upload the image for the next update, but saw you'd already done it. I like that much better than logging on and finding it's been 10 hours since the last update, as occasionally happens. Congrats on yet more quality DYK help. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, EncycloPetey. So glad to have more than one person updating DYK. :-) Also, thanks for reloading DYKNU in advance. That's much easier than trying to update with DYKNU still empty. Double thanks for picking my noms. :-D Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A small note

Mama always told her children that, when gifted with a delightful trinket or somesuch, one must immediately despatch a note of thanks to the donor. So, Mr EncycloPetey, one is most grateful for the small colourful addition that you contributed to one's User Page in reference to the Mold cape. One tries one's best to make this world a better place, be it by one's contributions to this establishment, or simply by one's glittering presence, which shines a little light on the drab and dreary lives of those around.

Princess Venetia di Cannoli (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That is most gracious of you, thank you. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Best edit ever

I'm sorry to see that you took that off your user page. It was the singlemost memorable item the first time I visited your user page. I mention this because we just had what I would rate as Wiktionary's best edit ever. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That is truly amusing. Thanks for sharing! :-) Rkitko 14:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Next update

I don't mind that you removed this from Next Update, but just to let you know you forgot to add it back to the nominations page, T:TDYK. Cirt (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC).

Actually, I didn't forget... I lost my internet connection while I was moving it and just regained access. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone else ended up putting the nom back on the nom page, so no worries. Thanks for replying to me though. Cirt (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC).

DYK, Triple

Did you know? was updated. On 14 December, 2007, a fact from the article Gary Willard, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cirt (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you know? was updated. On 14 December, 2007, a fact from the article Eoörnis Pterovelox Gobiensis, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cirt (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you know? was updated. On 14 December, 2007, a fact from the article Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cirt (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well Done

		The 25 DYK Medal
		Congratulations! Here's a medal for you in appreciation of your hardwork in creating, expanding and nominating 25+ articles for DYK. Keep up the good work, EncycloPetey ... I understand there are quite a few notable topics who still need an article! --Victuallers (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you know that one other DYK contributor was so keen to get a medal that he stubbed his toe? Victuallers (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK overdue! Chergles (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Iapt.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Iapt.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

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 Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I am in the process of updating the article which will use this image. This is why it is orphaned. If the bot (and its user) will be patient, then the image soon will not be orphaned. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)