User talk:Ceranthor/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Irresistible (Jessica Simpson song)

Hello Ceranthor! I have nominated the above article for a FA. Please leave your comments on it here. Thank you. – Novice7 (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Typically this sort of comment would be a request for commentary, not a command, but I like your approach, so... I'll get to it asap. ceranthor 19:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, did I do something wrong?? Sorry, but I'm not sure if I did this in a neutral way. Thanks. – Novice7 (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You did it neutrally, just a bit aggressively... ;) ceranthor 23:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry again. It's my first FA, and I was no nervous when posting the message. I didn't want the delegates to think I was canvassing. Thanks :) – Novice7 (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Calabozos

Hi, long time no speak. Hope you and yours are well and happy. Seeing as how you mentioned the article on your userpage I had a quick read through and left a query on Talk:Calabozos. I might of course be wrong, one year of studying Geology before many current Geology teachers were born doesn't exactly qualify me as a pundit. TTFN ϢereSpielChequers 00:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm great! And thanks for pointing out my mistake. ceranthor 03:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:UAA

Could you explain why you declined Xmanager? If you do a Google search, you'll find out that it is a PC tool. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 03:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

We do not block people simply because their names match tools. We block them for promoting them. As far as I can tell, Xmanager did not promote the tool at all, and therefore did not need to be blocked. This is standard practice at UAA. ceranthor 03:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Umm then could you explain how he didn't promote the tool? -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 03:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

He didn't make any edits promoting the tool, create any articles about the tool, or edit anything related to the tool, as far as I can tell. ceranthor 03:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see it now with both the reports that you declined. Thanks for the info. :) -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 03:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I'm happy to have another UAA editor on board. I seem to remember you from before, have you been away from UAA for a while? ceranthor 03:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh haha. I just take breaks sometimes from my editing, hahahaha. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 03:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Civility

When will it be appropriate for me to serve a personal attack warning or going to a notice board, for calling me an 'obtuse jerk' ? or should I respond to it directly on my RfA? I'm not sure that a 'crat will discount such abuse. --Kudpung (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite enough to be considered a personal attack. Unfortunately, there's not much we can do, since the oppose !votes are mainly based on those diffs from a year ago, on Orlady's diffs, or personal opinion of your temperament. I think at this point it would be best to just sit it out and hope that you will make it through, and if not, then you can take a break and try again in a few months. Don't worry, it took me three tries before I passed. I know how it feels. ceranthor 13:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh just do your best to ignore what they say if it hurts too much. People at RfA love to load up on one particular flaw. It's one of the reasons hardly anyone goes for the mop anymore: they just load up on one thing, and hold it to be worth as much as everything else. ResMar 18:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Cleveland

Added that section on geological setting-take a look =) ResMar 18:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. ceranthor 19:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, here's the nom, and thanks for offering your help =) ResMar 03:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 February newsletter

So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions) (first, with 487 points) and Hurricanehink (submissions) (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. Casliber (submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to Jarry1250 (submissions) for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to Stone (submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.

Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Ceran! I'm not sending thankspam, to everyone, but I would like to personally thank you for having not only co-nominated me and for all your support, but for having badgered me into this for months. I didn't pass with the flying colours of you prognosis, but what matters is that I passed, and that without your encouragement it would never have happened at all. I know now what sheer hell you went through on your own previous ordeals to get the tools, and particularly all that nasty stuff about ages. What I learned on this RfA will also go towards my continued mentoring other young editors, and continuing to participate in the campaign to make RfA a more appealing prospect for editors of all ages who also need the tools. I look forward to working closely together with you as a fellow admin. Again, my heartfelt thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations. It's been one heck of a run and I'm extremely proud. ceranthor 13:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ceranthor. You have new messages at Pontificalibus's talk page.
Message added 00:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Volcanoes metatemplate?

I'm trying to, posibly, put togethor a template to organize that confused mess that volcano info is. I've made a draft in my sandbox. Feel free to add anything or edit it as appropriate (read: fix it up and we can use it as a scaffold). ResMar 05:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've no knowledge whatsoever of coding really so I can't help much. It looks nice so far though. ceranthor 21:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Interested

I saw you work with earthquake articles and I wanted to ask if your interested In getting 2009 Bhutan earthquake and 2010 Baja California earthquake to GA? Spongie555 (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm interested in most earthquakes! I'd love to find some time to help you get these articles to GA. ceranthor 00:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Lost Energy

I replied to my talk page, and am not quite sure how this conversation works as far as talk pages and Wikipedia, but I'm going to assume you don't watch all user pages you comment on.

From what I understand from the guidelines for speedy deletion, things that are obvious spam or marketing material should be attributed to the speedy deletion template. That is what I did, but apparently erred. I would love to know how the Lost Energy article is anything but that, however, seeing as it contains nothing more than marketing information and product comparisons from a single company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shade00a00 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Earthquake project

Hello Ceranthor: I am new to Wikipedia and stumbled on the earthquake project, learning that you have started it. I have entered my name into the list of participants in this project and would like to help. However, I see trouble brewing. The page on "Earthquake Prediction" reads like an article in a Boulevard Newspaper, not like explanations in an encyclopedia. I hope this assessment does not offend you, it is factual. As the heading of this article states, references are missing. I added about 2 dozen scientific references, and corrected some wrong statements in the first few paragraphs during the last couple of days. This was possible without major surgery.

Looking down the page of the article, I see some serious shortcomings, which I do not want to touch without your guidance.

Please tell me how we can proceed with major changes but treading gently.

Please tell me who are other experts on earthquakes in Wikipedia (I know Kafka and have contacted him for help).

Maxwyss (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss

Real time loss estimates after earthquakes

Hello again: I have put together a draft for an article on real time loss estimates after earthquakes, and would like it to be included in the Earthquake Project.

By mistake, I have nominated it for speedy delivery (the reason was that I could not figure out how to edit-correct the first paragraph, and thinking this way I could start over). In the meantime, I know how to correct the first paragraph and have finished the article. However, the article lingers on the waiting list of deletion, without action.

Could you please look at this case? Thank you for considering to sort this out. Maxwyss (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss

The article looks quite good. It needs adjusting to the Wikipedia style of writing, as I saw Mikenorton pointed out on your talk page, but I think it's a fascinating article and one that's worthy of inclusion as its own article. Glad to see a geophysicist who wants to help! Thanks, and keep up the good work! ;) ceranthor 12:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouragement. In response to Mikenorton, I have changed the titles with question marks. What is the next step?Maxwyss (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss

WikiCup 2011 March newsletter

We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is Hurricanehink (submissions) with 231 points, who leads Pool H. Piotrus (submissions) (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring.

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Earthquake Portal

I noticed errors, inaccuracies, and uninformative text in the two introductory paragraphs of the earthquake portal, but cannot edit them. Chris.urs-o has corrected one error, so far. Would it be possible that I send you an email with a file that contains new proposed paragraphs and the old paragraphs with explanations for the need of changes in color?User:Mikenorton, User:Vsmith, User:Dougweller and User: Chris.urs-o ;)MaxWyss (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss

Chris.urs-o has told me how to edit the portal page, so I have done it. The following is an attempt to explain the reasons for the changes. (I don't know how to get color on this page, so I set my comments in italics).

An earthquake is the result of a sudden release of energy in the Earth's crust (not only the crust) that creates seismic waves. Earthquakes are detected with a (not just one) seismometer. The moment magnitude of an earthquake is conventionally reported, or the related and mostly obsolete Richter magnitude (There is no definition of “Richter magnitude”. There are about 6 ways to estimate magnitude from different types of waves, all should come up with the same number but they usually don’t. I think these details should be explained elsewhere, not in the lead.) , with magnitude 3 or lower earthquakes being mostly imperceptible (not quite true: in Switzerland a 100 million Frank project was abandoned because M3 events were strongly felt by the population) and magnitude 7 causing serious damage over large areas. Intensity of shaking is measured on the modified Mercalli scale (should give more info here to show the difference to magnitude, something many news reporter do not know).

At the Earth's surface, earthquakes manifest themselves by a shaking and sometimes displacement of the ground. When a large earthquake epicenter (the epicenter is not large or small; it’s a point) is located offshore, the seabed sometimes suffers sufficient displacement (we should specify that it is uplift that is responsible, horizontal displacements generate virtually no tsunami) to cause a tsunami. The shaking in earthquakes can also trigger landslides and occasionally volcanic activity.

Seismology (from the Greek seismos(σεισμός) = earthquake and λόγος,logos = knowledge ) is the scientific study of earthquakes and the propagation of elastic waves through the Earth. The field also includes studies of earthquake effects, such as tsunamis as well as diverse seismic sources such as (this phrase appears also in the line above, which sounds awkward; get rid of it) volcanic, tectonic, oceanic, atmospheric (I have never heard of oceanic and atmospheric sources of earthquakes. This should be deleted), and artificial processes (such as explosions). A related field that uses geology to infer information regarding past earthquakes is paleoseismology. A recording of earth motion as a function of time is called a seismogram. (That belongs up with the “seismograph”, delete it here)

I hope these explanations help.User:Mikenorton, User:Vsmith, User:Dougweller and User: Chris.urs-o ;)MaxWyss (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss

Hello, Ceranthor. You have new messages at Justlettersandnumbers's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

re: Astrurian

You recently deleted the redirect at Astrurian, citing the speedy-criterion R3. I had to restore that page because of its age. The "recently created" clause of criterion R3 applies to redirects created within the last few minutes, days at most. As a redirect that's 6 months old and gets a steady trickle of hits, it no longer qualified under R3. If you feel strongly that it's an inappropriate redirect, we can nominate it to RfD. As a typo of a variant name, the plausibility of the redirect is open to debate. Thanks for your understanding. Rossami (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't spend any more of your useful time on this; I was just trying to tidy up, it's really not important. On a general note, I do wonder if making mis-spellings always lead straight to the article is not somewhat diseducative, though. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I deleted the article after declining the speedy out of good faith. My mistake. ceranthor 02:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ceranthor. You have new messages at JDDJS's talk page.
Message added 18:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

responded.

Talkback

Hello, Ceranthor. You have new messages at Neutralhomer's talk page.
Message added 04:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

responded.

Plagium article deletion

I totally disagree with the Plagium article deletion, that has been done while I was editing the article. If Wikipedia policy, is to avoid article referencing softwares, then I don't see why such commercial articles still exists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyscape http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnitin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarismscanner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammarly

Note that Plagium is also referenced with the above products for a long time in the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism_detection

So Plagium should also have its page.

The content of the Plagium article was very similar. If there's no way Plagium article to be restored, and eventually corrected, then these articles must be deleted according to the same policy. Thank you. Grossefatigue (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grossefatigue (talk • contribs) 00:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the article was recreated, but phrasing like "Quick Search is free-of-charge to use" and "The service (has undergone various improvements) and an increasing user base", are not neutral and so I deleted it. It is currently tagged again and I will let it sit for another admin to decide. ceranthor 01:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"Irresistible"

Hi Ceranthor! You might remember me :) I've nominated the above song article for an FA (third nom). If you're free, could you go through it? Your comments are always welcome. Thank you. Novice7 (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Novice! I'll try to review it ASAP. ceranthor 04:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ceranthor. I'm a bit scared.. Am I violating WP:CANVASS? Novice7 (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

No, you're not. Also, I posted my review. Hope it ends up passing! ceranthor 15:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I'll take a look at your article :) Novice7 (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Ceranthor. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 05:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not really interested. ceranthor 02:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Ceranthor/Archive 20 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 02:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :D ceranthor 02:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

A year ago? Seriously? Wow, time passes... cheers, Awickert (talk) 05:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations ;D --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Adele

Someone's moved "Adele" to "Adele (name)" without discussion, could you revert this poorly thought move please? I've listed it on "Requested moves‎" also. John Cengiz talk 03:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it's being sorted out on it's own. Journalist is an experienced admin and I'm afraid from lack of time I'm going to defer to his judgment. Sorry I can't be of more assistance on the matter. ceranthor 22:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 April newsletter

Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber (submissions), who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.

This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to Hurricanehink (submissions) and Nergaal (submissions) who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to Candlewicke (submissions) (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!

Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 19:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Review done

I've finished the review for Calabozos. Also, do you mind doing a review of Slow loris if you have time? The review is getting a little stale, and we've got 2 supports (0 opposes) so far. Thanks. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to review it tonight. ceranthor 21:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to say thanks for supporting the Atlantic Coast Conference football championships featured topic. Have a good one! JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! ceranthor 12:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Shekar Ramanuja Sidarth

Hello. Back in 2008, you contributed to a deletion discussion for this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. R. Sidarth. I believe he is still non-notable and have renominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shekar Ramanuja Sidarth (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. I don't remember the discussion whatsoever, which worries me. ceranthor 12:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I posted my input; I think an article on the incident might be appropriate. ceranthor 13:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Overdue

		The Featured Article Medal
		Ceranthor, something to add to the trophy cabinet. This appears to be overdue. MrMedal (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! ceranthor 00:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

feedback

Hi Ceran. If you have a moment, I would appreciate your feedback on this. Thanks.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It's very neat and a great guide. I love that it links to other advice pages. A well-written essay, too... I like it. How long have you been preparing this? ceranthor 18:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Not long. I did a first quick sandbox draft on 20 April, had a couple of very short stabs at it on 25 April, and then finished it off yesterday. I've made some important changes since you saw it. Glad you like it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Feedback on the European Southern Observatory article

Dear Ceranthor,

I am writing regarding the recent submission of the article on the European Southern Observatory (ESO) for peer review. I have noticed you are an experienced Wikipedian with an interest solar system, planets and the like so I was wondering if you would be able to give a read through the article on ESO and let me know what should be improved for it to meet FA criteria.

Thanks in advance for your help, Barbara Ferreira (on behalf of Lars Lindberg Christensen, director of ESO's education and public outreach department.) Lars Lindberg Christensen (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want just a prose looksie, I'm totally up for it. But I'm a total armchair astronomer; I don't have any education or experience with the field. You might want to consult Serendipodous, Ruslik0, or Nergaal, who all have far more experience than I do. ceranthor 18:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey Ceranthor, thanks for writing. Most of the article is not technical; it is more about the organisation itself than about astronomy. I wrote to a wiki editor with experience in astronomy, as well as you, but I think it is ideal to also have a non-specialist looking at it. It would be great if you could give let us know what needs to be improved! Barbara (on behalf of Lars Lindberg Christensen (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC))

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Last year

Hey Ceranthor, it's been a year since Carcharoth, you, and me got David A. Johnston to Today's FA. I wanted to thank both of you for the great time that was. Awickert (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It was indeed. Don't think I forgot. I hope we all find the time to do something like that again... I'll see if there are any important anniversaries coming up next year. ceranthor 18:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Love to. I'll keep an eye out, but am swamped for the next 2 weeks and am fairly busy until mid-July. Though that doesn't seem to change... so just drop me a note if you have an idea. Awickert (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)