User talk:Scartol/Archives/2008/May

Backlog at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user

No problem. I distributed this to about 160 people, so there should be plenty of adopters to go around. Cheers, xenocidic (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review request for Facebook

Hi, if you have time could you please take a look at Facebook and post any suggestions you may have at Wikipedia:Peer review/Facebook/archive3? I'd like to get it to WP:FAC soon but first I'd like a copyedit from people who are not involved with the article, and if you have any content suggestions such as what to keep or remove, I would also appreciate that. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Preity Zinta on FAC

Hello Scartol!

Someone has referred me to you. And now, I turn to you and ask for help on the above-mentioned article. The article is now having its second FAC, but editors say it is not written brilliantly. Could you please help copyediting it a bit in order to make the prose flow well, as well as general word use? I really need your help.

Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey sorry. It's just that "transformed the image of Hindi film heroines." - sounds a bit too much and I'm afraid to see another critical response from Tony. And I don't really know if that is correct. I have no problem changing it back, but does it really mean the same? As per the source, she was credited with bringing a new image, it wasn't introduced as a fact. What do you think. I'll add it back if you want. I just wanted to implement Tony's comment, combining it with your new wording. Please tell me if it's not well written. I'll change it immediatelly.

I remember one editor was reverting it back to this: "has been credited with changing the image of Hindi film heroine." - as it is written in the source; that was my fear. I don't know if "this work has transformed the image of Hindi film heroines" is correct. The matter was that she was credited and described with/as bringing something different. Also, I thought "subsequent" was needed there, instead of "later" which was repeated several times.

I didn't want to piss you off. It was really not my intention. I'm sorry for that. I promise to always consult you first, unless there is some accuracy, as you requested to fix some. Making this article a FA has been my biggest dream on Wikipedia for almost a year and a half now. Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, if there's something you want to copyedit and are unsure about, or something that you are not familiar with, please ask me, and I'll explain it to you. Again, please forgive me if my edits made you feel that you had wasted your time. I'm enormously impressed by your brilliant work on Wikipedia. My best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your copyedits. I hope now Tony reacts well ;) Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Noether

Feel free to revert or change back anything. I'm no expert in math or physics and it's highly likely I'm not going to understand it as well as you (or, apparently, even recognize the delineation between them). It won't hurt my feelings if you revert anything or everything I do! Karanacs (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Help wanted for Tibet during the Ming Dynasty

Hello Eric, my name's Eric (lol), but you can call me Pericles. Nice to meet you (your user name is familiar though, I think you've looked at some of my articles before, check my user page). I recently put Tibet during the Ming Dynasty up for featured article status. On the FAC page it has been suggested to me that I look to WP:1FAPQ#Project resources for seasoned help in copyediting. Well, your name was on the list, so I thought, what the heck, I'll request help from a veteran user. First of all, I'd say that the article's weakest point is poor organization in regards to the large "Inheritance, reappointments, and titles" sub-section, which a few editors and I have haphazardly slopped together. I was wondering if you could provide input on how to better organize that sub-section, or even how to split it into different and more manageable sub-sections. Also, many more suggestions from you on different matters pertaining to the article are very welcome. Thanks.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Peric! Hah, that's a funny combination you have there; I just hope others don't start calling me that, oh no! Lol. It's ok if you can't have a look at the article for a while, I'll just look to another for advice on this. In a month's time, hopefully the article will have improved by then, but if not, you're more than welcome to offer your critique and edit where necessary. Peace.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Banquo

I've checked several libraries and can't seem to find the book you've recommended. However, I don't think a GA nom should fail simply because one book wasn't looked through. Therefore, I think the article is ready for the copyedit you offered and a new nomination. Wrad (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I did find another source for that section, though. Wrad (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What early tongue so sweet saluteth me?

Dear Scartol,

I was about to fall asleep tonight, but I couldn't rest until I'd let you know that I haven't forgotten you and Emmy. I've been reading diligently about her work, and I think I'm beginning to understand it (at least up to 1926), but I'm still struggling with how to explain it in a simple way— which probably means that I don't really understand it yet. ;) Anyway, I got to crash now...zzzzz Willow (talk) 05:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your nice note on my Talk page! :) I've done some more work on Emmy, including clarifying invariant theory and Galois theory, but I need to read up and think a bit before I can add more. My personal goal is to understand the titles of her publications enough that I can classify them in that last column. Meanwhile, maybe we could tempt some of the real mathematicians into contributing to either article? ;) Willow (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Mounseer Nongtongpaw

If you have time, would you mind reviewing Mounseer Nongtongpaw at GAC? It's an odd article. The poem is only important because it was once thought to have been written by Mary Shelley. Awadewit (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

PNC Park

Hey, PNC Park just achieved GA status. Thanks again for the peer review, couldn't have done it without you! Blackngold29 04:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Lambert

Saw your comment at Willow's page and noticed that Louis wasn't at FAC, so I added him. Then it occurred to me that you might have left him off on purpose! If you did so... apologies!! I'll help deal with any unwelcome opposes. Sorry, but good luck! (I'm so envious that you can work on multiple projects at once. I'm definitely not that clever ;) --JayHenry (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, it was a bit of a bogus offer. I sort of doubt that any of your work is going to draw any serious opposition. I knew I'd be getting off easy! Only 96 left for that Balzac FT now, right? --JayHenry (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Missing image Image:La Comédie humaine 02.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:La Comédie humaine 02.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:La Comédie humaine 02.jpg is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:La Comédie humaine 02.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sanskrit translation

I took a look at the image link you showed me. It's interesting, but there is one major problem with it being referred to as a Sanskrit text - it's not written in a Sanskrit script! :-) Unfortunately, I cannot read the text for this reason, but I will say that the writing resembles a more Arabic script and not a Devanagari or similar Sanskrit script. As for the translation, I wouldn't doubt that there is a Sanskrit text whose meaning is close to the translation you gave me - it's just that it probably isn't this one. I'm sorry that I couldn't verify the translation for you, but I recommend that you find someone who is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing systems, and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab world to see if the translation is close to the meaning of an Arabic or related language text. Cheers! --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Creatures of Impulse

Hi! User:Awadewit recommended asking you to copyedit this article before FAC, and, while I did see your sign saying you aren't accepting requests, would you know anyone who might be willing? Thanks! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Meerkat Manor#Meercat Manor.23National Variations

Hi, sorry for intruding but it has been suggested that you might help resolve a very minor point of English grammar. If you have time I would appreciate it. Abtract (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Gilberto Gil

Per Wackymacs (talk · contribs)'s recommendation to get copy editors (I found you on the PR volunteers list), I was wondering if you might be able to take a look at Gilberto Gil and do some copy editing, as it failed its recent FAC due to concerns with prose quality. If possible, drop me a line. Thanks, --Kakofonous (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit help

Hello Scartol. I am looking for someone to copyedit Textual criticism, which I am working on toward FA status. Interested? Drop me a line if so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Trade a peer review for a GA review?

La Peau de chagrin for either Maurice (Shelley) or Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men? Awadewit (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

My first

My first happy choc donut! Thanks so much Scartol, it's a good article...  : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Mwahaha, too late! The code is out there! Armageddon or... change the code -- = ))

Louis Lambert (novel)

Hi Scartol: Congratulations on the FA status—well done! MeegsC | Talk 06:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review help

Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your thoughtful comments. PR requests get put on the backlog list after three days with no reply. Lately I have been getting to them after about 5-6 days with no response (I do the oldest ones first). The main difference with PR versus GAN and FAC is that PR requests are removed after two weeks with no response, while GAN and FAC stay there until they get a response. I think some comments are more helpful than zero comments or just one comment (see Wikipedia:Peer review/May 2007 for how things used to be - about 1/4 got no repsonse at all and another 1/4 got maybe a sentence or two). I also find that about half of the requests are for articles that are nowhere near ready even for GA, so just saying expand the lead, add refs and make them consistent, pointing out areas for expansion, and problems with images is useful. I also note that almost every FAC article comes through PR and many GAN one do too, so improvements in PR make hopefully better articles and less work for GA and FA reviewers. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The FA-Team

Hi. There has been some discussion of how to improve the FA-Team's functioning. It's be grand if you could comment on the new suggested structure, and perhaps also look at our current proposals. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Le peau de chagrin

Resolved. I looked at it more closely and realized the heds refer to titled works. So I just italicized them per MoS and common convention. Daniel Case (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

La Peau de chagrin

On 31 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article La Peau de chagrin, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)