User talk:Philcha/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Chicken soup for the editor's soul

Hi Philcha. I saw something somewhere about you not feeling well or something.

Here, have a bowl of chicken soup, on me:

Yum!

• • Ling.Nut 06:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's the type my mother made when I was sick - or any other time --Philcha (talk) 08:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Warcraft: Orcs & Humans

Glad to see it made GA! Congrats! And I hope you are feeling better. —mattisse (Talk) 23:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Mattise. Initially I started on Warcraft: Orcs & Humans simply as the predecessor of Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness, which is on my to-do list. But then I saw that Warcraft: O&H was the founder of the dominant franchise in 2 genres, and very interesting in its own right. --Philcha (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Master of Orion Article

I've added a new section of discussion regarding a unofficial patch made for Master of Orion in the Master of Orion article, since you are by far the best editor of the article would you mind taking a look and, if worthwhile, mentioning the patch on the article?

Thanks for the Attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.78.136.115 (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC re {{r}}

Thankyou for your message. I could see that the whole thing is being fuelled not so much by good faith, but by an agenda that involves subtle trouble-making that has the intended effect of raising the ante and creating an artificial crisis. I've been around a bit in life, and seen this in politics, organisations, society, and even some criminal fraternities. And in all of those cases, good faith was not forthcoming, but skulduggery certainly was. It's always 100% obvious when at least one party simply refuses to even acknowledge the other party's points, or if forced to contemplate the points, simply ups the ante. Nothing new about the behaviour of Homo Sapiens here, that isn't blindingly obvious when we study ourselves as an animal. Wotnow (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: I take it from this that you have not read, and do not want to read the information avaiable on this method, its compatability with other methods, and the completely voluntary use of it by any group of editors - i.e. if they don't want to use it, no one puts a metaphorical gun to their heads. This cannot be said about the behaviour of some editors, who do nothing but put guns to people's heads. Wotnow (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Caveat: Sorry, I'm thinking on my feet, not having intended to be drawn into this sort of argy bargy that Wikipedia is infamous for, and which research indicates is increasing (along with continued high turnover of experienced editors, and the question of financial sustainability). That of course is good for your own position, if your position is win at all costs. And I am certain you've not made an effort to read the information available. That's blatantly obvious.

Having said that, I will always concur with the act of raising reasonable questions, that others hadn't considered. If you had read the relevant material, you'd see that GyroMagician and I did exactly that, along with some input from Kudpung. GyroMagician was intrigued but wanted to see if another method achieved the desired goal. I predicted it would prove unwieldy for our purposes, but if others wanted to implement the alternative, of course I'd assist in whatever way I could. Eventually GyroMagician came to the same conclusion as me, so we went back to our original implementation of the list-defined references, which were originally signposted on 21 September 2009, following an earlier straw-poll, which the Signpost itself has a link to.

Now Kudpung was somewhat skeptical through all of this. His main concern was that he was quite good at finding information and chucking it between 'ref' tags, and he didn't want to become bogged down with some technique that used up his available time and detracted from the type of contribution he is good at making. We allayed his concerns on this. His concern of course would apply equally to any template at all, such as the 'citation' or 'Harvard' templates. And of course I concurred with him, because my own stance is that if an article can sustain different techniques and still read well, then no parties involved in that article have any need to force the other to change, nor any need to be concerned about being forced to change. This is called tolerance and collaboration, which I am the first to concede doesn't come easy. I also readily concede that while I have an extremely good track record in life itself, let alone Wikipedia, of tolerance and collaboration in very difficult situations, the good-faith efforts of people like me don't always seem helpful at first. Yet this itself points to THE single best indicator of good fatih. The willingness to concede a point where it is reasonable to do so. To do this however, one needs to have a desire to be reasonable, which I concede is not always easy to do.

Of course, if you had read the relevant information (which unfortunately you haven't), you'd know this already. Regards Wotnow (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wotnow's "the behaviour of some editors, who do nothing but put guns to people's heads" is a good description of Chienlist's persistent attempts to impose the use of {{r}} on Arthropod, attempts that Wotnow supports.

In Wotnow's rhetoric I could see only one point of practical, empiricical or logical significant, the list-defined references. However, that has nothing about {{r}} and in fact list-defined references is all about a way of using <ref> tags. All my objections at Talk:Arthropod and at the RFC Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Suspend_replacing_of_.3Cref.3E_by_.7B.7Br.7D.7D_in_citations have been about {{r}}. --Philcha (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I take your point on the list-defined references being about a way of using <ref> tags. I hadn't previously considered that the use of {{r}} was a problem, or caused any problems. That of course can just be lack of awareness on my part, and I acknowledge that.

I don't support the imposition of any style on anyone, as my user page clearly states. From my own interactions with Chienlit, and review of his efforts, I do think that he was acting in good faith, and making a genuine attempt to contribute to the development of Wikipedia and articles within Wikipedia. I don't have any doubts about that. I daresay the same can be said of yourself. I doubt that Chienlit had or has any desire to impose any style on anyone. Rather, Chienlit must have thought there was an over-reactiion to his initiative, with Chienlit's reaction to this then causing a further reaction. Common-or-garden positive feedback cycle found throughout nature. The question did occur to me though, as to whether the act of raising ante to get some higher authority to make some god-like decision, was an act of holding a gun to people's heads. Doesn't mean I'm right. But I've sure as hell seen it enough times in life. Part of the difficulty for me in observing and wading through this stuff, has been that whereas it looks to me like there has at least been an effort by Chienlit to acknowledge some of your points, I haven't seen you acknowledge any of Chienlit's points or discussions related to his points. Regards Wotnow (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I am by the way working through the discussion on the Village pump page, and learning as I go. The discussants that I am familiar with (which does not yet include you, but doubtless will at the end of the exercise) are all of good faith. I am genuinely convinced of Chienlit's good faith. And certainly of GyroMagician, who has shown nothing but a desire to get the best return for effort all round. I like for example his dialogue with Mr.Z-man, and Mr.Z-man's helpful replies. So if there are points you can reasonably acknowledge that would be helpful. Meantime, bear with me as I wrap my head around this thing. Regards Wotnow (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest all your further comments should be in public for the benefit of the community at at the RFC. --Philcha (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, copy of post to Chienlit:

I'm concern that Wotnow and Chienlit may be making the same mistake(s) with list-defined references as with {{r}}:

• You must not try to impose list-defined references or any other standard without prior discuss. If consensus is unclear, the default is the state before your change(s).
• I've known that some editors dislike list-defined references. My view, FWIW, is that list-defined references are a technique that may be useful in some refs in the same articles, but cumbersome for others.
• I think list-defined references has at least one pitfall, although I think it's less serious than the disadvantanges of {{r}}.

I have spent too much time on our previous discussion that I would have spent more productively and enjoyably on improving a couple of articles. I will not respond to your discussions in future, but may respond as I see appopriate to any attempts to impose techniques or standards without discussion by the WP community. --Philcha (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, copy of post to Stemonitis: --Philcha (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK the protected expires later today, while I'm away. There's a RFC in which the currently consensus is that impose of {{r}} without prior agree is unacceptable and further installation of {{r}} should suspendped.

In addition, Cheinlit's last revert has made a mess of the references so that the article no longer meets the GA criteria. I point this out, and Wotnow has conceded that the change to the references is incorrect.

The only efficient and reliable way to restore the refs to a usable state is to revert Cheinlit's last revert. However, there is a small risk that, before the correction, another editor may changes the article in a way that makes it impossible to revert Cheinlit's error. If that were happens, the only reliable way to correct Cheinlit's error would be revert any later changes that make it impossible to revert Cheinlit's error and then revert Cheinlit's error.

To avoid this risk, it would be helpful if you would revert Cheinlit last revert before the protection expires. --Philcha (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Peer review: Naomi Clark

Thank you for your review. I remedied certain things you pointed out, and took issue with/questioned others. Could you address these matters again? Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I had to leave for a while. I'll be back soon. --Philcha (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Take your time. -- James26 (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've read through your latest suggestions and attempted to remedy the issues (I also left messages on the PR page). The article is in better shape now because of your observations. Thanks again. -- James26 (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Mammal

"The first fully terrestrial vertebrates were amniotes. Like amphibians, they have lungs and limbs. Amniotes' eggs, however, have internal membranes which allow the developing embryo to breathe but keep water in. Hence amniotes can lay eggs on dry land, while amphibians generally need to lay their eggs in water." Is the subject the "first fully terrestrial vertebrates" or currently extant ones? The transition from one to the other seems to be missing. Hardyplants (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Both, I'm afraid. The originals of amniotes are uncertain, and the earliest fossils are based on skeletal anatomy, as the internal membranes don't fossil (see Evolutionary_history_of_life#Land_vertebrates and citations). The division between synapsids and sauropids appeared at least 313 MYA (Evolutionary_history_of_life#Dinosaurs.2C_birds_and_mammals). Since their modern members' internal membranes are identical, either the synapsids and sauropids had the same internal membranes from the start or they show exceptional convergent evolution. In other words, those internal membranes has been the difference between amniotes and amphibians for at least 313 MYA. --Philcha (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. To me it seems that the paragraph needs an explanation that bridges the two ends, but its not a pressing issue. It would be exceptional convergent organ development if that unlikely event happened, not unheard of though in biological systems. Thanks. Hardyplants (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

Hello Philcha. Thank you for your recent efforts to mediate in the best interests of Wikipedia and its Users. Your efforts were noticed by me, and greatly appreciated. I have awarded you the anti-flame barnstar! Best regards. Dolphin51 (talk) 07:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Geoduck in Mollusca

I assure you, vandalism was not my intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.54.238 (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for showing my mistake :-) ---Philcha (talk) 06:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Frog

Hi Philcha. The featured article review for frog has moved to the FARC stage (i.e. keep/remove stage). Could you revisit to see what's left to be done? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Dabomb87, I've said "delist" - is that the stage you mean? --Philcha (talk) 06:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I meant – I wasn't sure if the article had been edited to address your concerns or not. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict?

Hi, I think we had some kind of weird edit conflict at MoS talk. In response, I moved your comment, as it had ended up in an unrelated section of the page. I see you've added it a second time, so I've undone your edit. Trust you're happy with that! PL290 (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Philcha (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

HBATSC

You've thoroughly confused me there, because that's how I would have responded if there wasn't a message at the bottom saying "- - - - Please place non-review comments below this line - - - - - - - - - - - -". Please explain. I don't suppose it matters, but its very much like me to mess things up like that. LOL cheers Kitchen roll (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah I get you. Right shall I add them to GA review section? I'm not going to try and explain myself, it'll take too long! Cheers Kitchen roll (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Think I sorted the problem. I accidentally added a  Done template to the issues I've ammended, forgetting about your comment at the top. I don't see the point in me removing them, but just so you know. Cheers Kitchen roll (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Regarding your warning

Hi!

Just to let you know that your warning was (in my opinion) a bit of an overkill. For one thing, I had already warned the editor just prior to you adding your warning. I appreciate that your stance on vandalism is probably a lot tougher than mine, but doubling up on warnings is a bit much.

I noticed that your warning did go into a lot more detail than mine, as mine was warning against just the deletion section. In fact, it was just the deletion section of her edits that I reverted. The section about Dobby is still in the article. So if you don't want it in there, I would suggest you remove it, rather than just berating a newbie about why they shouldn't have added it in the first place. Stephen! ^Coming... 22:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for warning me that I'd add a 2nd warning about the vandalism. IMO the standard warnings are not clear, I misunderstand as I was tired and stressed at the time, and a vandal would be as likely to misunderstand the standard warning. I've removed my warning, but added a note under the one you added.

I've removed the Dobby para, thanks for reminding me. Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Chamber_of_Secrets/GA1 put a lot of work into defining why items were included / excluded in the Plot Summary. As edit summaries are always tight, I thought "rm unwanted para, see Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Chamber_of_Secrets/GA1" was clear enough, and I'm surprised that you see it as biting. IMO it would have been unfriendly to remove the Dobby para but not explain.

I remember somewhere that the typical editor gives up after about 3 years, as he/she spends more time on hassle (vandalism, answers the same question the Nth time, etc.) than on what he/she signing up to. I'm not giving up after 3.5 years, but some days I can understand why some do. Do you know of any a PERREN/FAQ that can be fixed at the top of a Talk page, i.e. always the top section and never removed by archiving bots such as MiszaBot. It would be great to fixed a PERREN/FAQ at the top of Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Chamber_of_Secrets. --Philcha (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The explanation about the Dobby section wasn't what I considered biting, it was the adding the sign and "if you continue vandalising you will be blocked" (or words to that effect) after my warning that I considered a bit bitey. But as you say, if you missed my warning, I see that it wasn't your intention. I appreciate you removing that bit of it.

I'm not familiar with the Perren/FAQ, I'm afraid. It might be an idea to have a word with the Mizabot creator to find out how things can be stopped from being archived.

I would suggest that it might be an idea to add a hidden comment to the top of the plot summary to draw people's attention to what shouldn't be added. Stephen! ^Coming... 16:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The good old low-tech fix - how did I forget HTML comments :-) --Philcha (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's an even lower-tech fix. Just don't put a date stamp in the thread (i.e., don't sign your posting) and it won't be archived. Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

How low can you go? --Philcha (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Use Tippex on your monitor so it will always hide out the bits you don't want to see. Stephen! ^Coming... 11:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Conserve Tippex and electricity - switch off the monitor. --Philcha (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Megalodon article reassessment pending

Hello Philcha,

Hope your condition has improved by now. Your reassessment of the Megalodon article is still pending to date. The article have been vastly improved by me. Kindly share your thoughts.--LeGenD (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Harry Potter notices

Please reconsider. Put it in an editnotice or something if you have to, but don't put a big ugly template at the top of the page to address such a minor issue. --Onorem♠Dil 16:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, please note that the banner you're using is being accompanied by another that says that it belongs on the talk page. Please use something other than the project banner if you're going to insist the notice stays. --Onorem♠Dil 16:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not a minor issue. A banner is needed more on the articles than the talk pages, because the articles are where the incorrect changes of title are done. If you think this is a minor issue, perhaps you would volunteer for a month to revert all incorrect changes of title - which includes the taxoboxes. --Philcha (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) on how to make this as neat as possible, but no response to far. --Philcha (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the history for the past month on Harry Potter and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, I'm not seeing the big problem. Between the two articles, I see that the title was changed one time. Do you know of any other articles that have notices like this on them? --Onorem♠Dil 17:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've seen times when there been changes at least one a week. And that was only for the articles about the 1st and 2nd books - i.e omitting changes in infoboxes and in Harry Potter --Philcha (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments at sfn

I'm puzzled by your recent comments at Template talk:Sfn#Current status? (1, 2) which don't seem to be relevant to the thread. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

There have been discussions in Template talk:Sfn about Sfn not working with older browsers. My comments at Template talk:Sfn#Current status? are the results of my research about what browsers and versions have measurable market share. Most are upgraded quickly, and the version before the current one generally worked with sfn. The big problem is IE, as IE 6 still has a large market share and testing old versions of IE is difficult. --Philcha (talk)

Re: Title of 1st Harry Potter book

Would you would volunteer for a month to revert all incorrect changes of title to ... Sorceror's Stone - which includes the taxoboxes of all the articles on the books, plus Harry Potter? If you want to volunteer for the task, I suggest you show not expect others to do it, and you should support a banner that discourages incorrect changes. --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Having a large banner (and an equally large message complaining that said banner should be on the talk page) on the top of an article that isn't even the article whose title is in contention seems pointless, and distracting to readers. Especially when the article whose title is in contention lacks said banner. This is precisely the sort of thing that edit notices are for, and even then I fail to see the need for it on that article. Gurch (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you do to the work of reverting the changes to ... Sorceror's Stone. If not, how do you justify expecting others to the work. Or are you happy for the article to get showing the incorrect title? --Philcha (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I have never even edited Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, that is neither here nor there. Gurch (talk) 09:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

But you're and Onorem (example) making it difficult for others to edited the all Harry Potter articles. Without a banner on the articles, editors with more enthusianism than knowledge will editing in the incorrect title - and I won't spending time correct the errors, and my watchlist suggests I've done of this in the past.--Philcha (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That's what edit notices are for. Gurch (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What are edit notices helpful in minimising the work involved in maintaining articles? By the time edit notices appears, the incorrect edits have already occurred. You have persistently avoid the need to minimise incorrect edits before these waste time. --Philcha (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you aware of what an edit notice actually is? It's the message that appears at the top of the screen when you edit a page, but not when you view it. It's pretty hard to miss it when you're editing a page that has one, so I don't see how "the incorrect edits have already occurred" by the time it appears. Gurch (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

IMO Wikipedia:Editnotice does not look useful. Perhaps you could show how it works in an article - then you can revert the edit notice and then show here the reverted version as a history item. --Philcha (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

In what way is it not useful? Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, which, as you'll know if you've ever edited it, already has an edit notice, which can be found here. That is what produces the "this article is written in British English" notice that appears when the article is edited, but not when it is viewed. It would be trivial to add a notice about the correct naming conventions to that template. Gurch (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So why did you not suggest an edit notice 3 days?

See the first comment I made on this page, "This is precisely the sort of thing that edit notices are for". Gurch (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that an ordinary editor like me can't create or edit an edit notice on an article. I reserve judgement about the time and results. --Philcha (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Reach Out to the Truth has also objected to a banner on articles, but not proposed a method of minising incorrect title of 1st Harry Potter. --Philcha (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the edit notice as request. It was in discussion at Talk:Harry Potter. I'm going to add this banner here and there when I revert a change to Sorcerer's. If you need to add an edit notice, please feel free to ask me on my talk page. Have a good day! --Stroppolo^talk 13:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Stroppolo. We need edit notices or templates or whatever on the articles, because Randy in Boise won't read Talk pages first. And the edit notices or whatever must be placed on all the articles, as all have the title of the first novel (in the infobox!) and all must be written in British English. I've proposed at Template_talk:Editnotices/Page/Harry_Potter_and_the_Philosopher's_Stone a edit notice designed to be clear that there 2 important issues. --Philcha (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

We can't add those banners "on" the articles. It must only be added on Talk page : and I agree that it does not help as few will read talk page before editing. This is why Edit Notices exist. Look here : Template:Editnotices/Page/Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone . This will appear on Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone every time someone clicks Edit (try it, you will see : Go on Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, click Edit). If someone misses it, it will be because they are here to vandalize or simply too stubborn to read. The British English notice appears in the edit notice of all the movies and books article. I will soon proceed and add the Philosopher's/Sorcerer's notice on those same articles. After that, I will continue adding some of them on other Harry Potter related article. If you need one of those edit-notice (or any other) added ASAP on an article, please ask on my talk page. Also, please use talkback template on my talk page if you answer here... I may forget to check your talk page. --Stroppolo^talk 19:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Stroppolo, thanks for showing me how Edit Notices work.

What did you think of Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, which has the 2 points in 1 edit notice, makes it clear that there 2 issues, and has additional examples of British and US English. --Philcha (talk) 07:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

EditNotices are usually created out of a template. This template was user for the actual edit notice. The 2 banners I've used have been "approved" by other contributors. I feel that your proposition is almost the same as what I've put in place. I used 2 different "banner" because one can be used without the other, it is then more versatile. I also used some images, which is more eye-catching. All the necessary information are there. While good, your proposition is too heavy. If there is too much text, people won't read it(in my opinion). Although, if you wish to change those templates, please discuss it at Talk:Harry_Potter#Edit_page_notice_for_Harry_Potter_related_articles? so that those involved in the first discussion can contribute and give their opinion. --Stroppolo^talk 13:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to abord an other subject : Using the example "colour" is already done, and adding more example would only clutter the template. But, there is a link to common differences in British and american english in the edit notice. --Stroppolo^talk 13:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Brachiopod

Well, congratulations for tackling this article. I see it's up for review at GA. It may get tough treatment, so I thought i would drop by and make some suggestions (i'm not going to do the review, but the backlog elimination drive underway, it's likely to be reviewed very soon).

• The lead is loooooooong, too long. It is also a bit too technical. Wikilinks are good (and i added one myself), but they are not enough to help a lay reader through text like "In all species the lophophore is supported by cartilage and by a hydrostatic skeleton, and some articulate brachiopods also have a calcareous brachidium." A what? And a what? Try and either re-write the lead in particular using simpler language or more explanations; or take some of this detail out altogether (see next point)
• In terms of simplifying the lead, it may contain excessive morphological detail. It also appears to outline some of the scientific debate too much - detail that should be kept for the body text. For example, I think this is body text material: "However, since the 1990s this view has been criticized, mainly because some members of the protostomes, another super-phylum, have deuterostome-like features and therefore these features are not clear evidence that brachiopods are among or very close to the deuterostomes. Since 1988 analyses based on molecular phylogeny have placed brachiopods among the Lophotrochozoa, a protostome super-phylum that includes molluscs, annelids and flatworms. Combined studies, published since 1998 and using both molecular and morphological data, have split between placing brachiopods among the protostomes or the deuterostomes." It needs simplification. The reader can get the detail later.
• The lead has this one wierd little factoid at the end that seems out of place: "One brachiopod species may be a measure of environmental conditions around an oil terminal being built in Russia on the shore of the Sea of Japan"
• At the other end of the article: "The phoronids feed with a lophophore, burrow or encrust on surfaces, and build three-layered tubes make of polysaccharide, possibly chitin, mixed with particles with seabed material. Traditionally they have been regarded as a separate phylum, but increasingly detailed molecular phylogeny studies between 1997 and 2000 have concluded that phoronids are a sub-group of brachiopods. However, an analysis in 2005 concluded that phoronids are a sub-group of bryzoans." If studies "have concluded" then it makes no sense to have a subsequent study reaching a completely different conclusion. "Have concluded" sounds definite and settled.
• The ecology section seems very brief in contrast to the detailed description.

Just a few thoughts. Best wishes, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Brachiopod

Hi Pilcha, Brachiopod is listed at WP:GAN, but there is no nomination template on the talk page. Is it withdrawn or is it ready for review? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, I have undertaken a preliminary review which you can see at Talk:Brachiopod/GA1. I have placed the nomination on hold. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Philcha, sorry to hear that you are not well! Been pretty busy here since... well, about as long as I can remember! Just got my first manuscript accepted so things might ease off soon. (Well, at least as soon as I finish putting together my proposal for what to do with the rest of my PhD!) Molluscs and mineralization are all the vogue at the moment, although working out the fine details is still a little tricky... at least the spring is starting to reach us, which lifts the gloom a little. In haste, and with wishes of a quick recovery, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

File:SnowballGeography.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SnowballGeography.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Organising details for cited books

(Starts with copy of discussion at Sasata's talk --Philcha (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Sasata, last year at Talk:Annelid/GA1 you commented "It seems fairly ridiculous, for example, to give the full details including ISBN for the Ruppert et al (2004) book 16 times", and I'm trying to work out a scheme for myself. Variations I've seen in "my" articles:

• Book by 1 author / team (Ruppert et al) but need to cite different chapters and often sections within these.
• Book by 1 editor, chapters by separate authors, e.g. Rouse in Anderson at Annelid.
• Book by 1 editor, chapter by separate author, separate sections within this - e.g. Hinde's chapter in Anderson has sections on different phyla (Cnidaria and Ctenophora.
• Book used only once (so far). The obvious options are: use the simply way (ref & citation in 1 package); or go for inconsistency at the cost of using the more complex way up front.

Just to make things more difficult for myself :-(

• I dislike showing only page numbers up front. They could make the editor's job very easy, but: they hide the info about about chapters, sections and (in compilations) author; this also makes it difficult to readers to use different editions, a hazard of libraries.
• I'd like to link from the ref to the biblio details, as at Warcraft: Orcs & Humans or Dragon's Egg, but also with highlight of the biblio details.

Many ideas? --Philcha (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Philcha. User Visionholder has wrestled with exactly these issues (see here for initial discussion], and has figured out a solution using anchors and templates. I don't understand the details completely, but check out Lemur evolutionary history or Lemur to see if you like the results. Sasata (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

My approach is to use a shortened version in the note, e.g. Author, A "Chapter title", in Editor, Book, pp. x-y. etc. See for example Greenlandic language, notes #31 and 79. Circéus (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've produced test pages at User:Philcha/Sandbox/Reference methods/Harvard and User:Philcha/Sandbox/Reference methods/List-defined references to try out some options. I thought:

• I like the way e.g. Lemur handles books that are divided into chapters / contributions. Of course I've only just seen this, and it's easy be enthusiastic - are there any limitations or disadvantages I need to consider? -Philcha (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

My approach does use another template and may slow down page loading times. To me, the way it helps readers find the sources makes it worth the few extra seconds, but that's just my opinion. As you've noted, complex sources such as these require extra work such as this, otherwise there needs to be a lot of redundancy. Otherwise, I haven't had any problems. In fact, I plan to standardize all lemur articles on this citation style, or maybe a stripped down version if complex book references aren't used. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• At User:Philcha/Sandbox/Reference methods/Harvard I couldn't get Jenner 2006 to link to the bibliography in "References", although User:Philcha/Sandbox/Reference methods/List-defined references did the same job easily enough. My mistake, or a limitation of Harvard reference. --Philcha (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to "|ref=harv" in the reference in the References section. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• My impression is that Harvard reference is fiddly comparing simply cites. For e.g.: it's simply another set of templates to use; I had to add year= to my cites. What does Harvard reference offer that other approaches don't? By the way, I'd only use harvnb, as I don't want automatic credits in the main text. --Philcha (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't look at the various types of templates and citations. I saw an example somewhere that linked the note to the reference below, figured out how to use it, and put it to use. Yes, it's another template, and it may slow down page loading times, especially for large pages like Lemur. I think I used the harvard references because it simplified my first attempts at this approach. I had found a straight way to do the linking from the notes, but it was too complicated for novice editors to figure out. The harvard reference template simplified the code and did the exact same thing, making it much easier to follow. Other than that, all you had to do was add "|ref=harv" to the full citation. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• I found what I think is a simple way in List-defined references to do the job done by the Harv template that produces CITEREF. I just use wiki markup to produce an internal link, e.g. [[#biblioHinde2001CtenophoraInAnderson|Anderson, "Invertebrate Zoology"]], and find this easy for divided into chapters / contributions. Comments? --Philcha (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, that may have been the method I originally used when I tried to establish those links from the notes to the references. If it works and you're comfortable with it, feel free to use it. I prefer simplified templates to make things easier for future editors, if possible and practical. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• At List-defined references, I've only included into the list refs that are used several times in the text, e.g. "RFB location 1" 1-10. But I've left in the main text refs that are used only, e.g. "Giere "Tentaculata" in "Meiobenthology"". For example if I need to correct a cite that's used many times, I know the details are in the list; but if the cite is used only once, it's easy to find in the main text. Have I missed any disadvantages? --Philcha (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I like to keep my references together and organized. I also dislike cluttering the text with multiple lines of citation text. It just makes editing easier. This, like most of what we're discussing, can come down to personal preference. For now, there is no right or wrong way, as long as it works and is easy for the reader to use. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

HBATSC

Please don't edit the talk page at the mo. I'm realy stressed out. I've already lost all the work I'd put into the HBATSC article earlier because of an edit conflict - I'd been editing the page on and off for about 2 hours so I didn't notice the message at the top of the talk page. Kitchen roll (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

How I structured the article before with reviews in the composition section was correct, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Article body. Kitchen roll (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The option for "concept albums" and "singer-writers" seems to have separate parts on "Publishing" or a sub-section, covering the creation", and "Reception" or a sub-section, covering how it good it was (in opion of critics). --Philcha (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"Include a paragraph on each song, describing its critical reception and relevance to the article as a whole. This may be more appropriate for concept albums, however loose, or albums written by people known for their songwriting." Definately refers to a section like the "composition" section on HBATSC, therefore the critical reviews in this section should remain, making most of what you've criticised about this section in your review redundant, wasting a lot of your time and my own. This would clearly make it 100% in my eyes for a GA review. Also can you please read through the Wikipedia:wikiproject albums page and other GA articles that are similar before you criticise the structure of the article, because it complies to the criteria given at WPAlbums. The peer reviewer of the article, User:I.M.S., didn't criticise the structure at all, and I rate his/her opinion highly, due to the amount and quality of work he/she's put into music articles. I.M.S also said the article would do very well at GA per how it looked after their review. This set asside however I appreciate the amount of work you've put into reviewing the article and am grateful that you've so far helped me make the wording better and more concise. Thankyou Kitchen roll (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I decided to look at recent GAs about albums, i.e. listed as GAs since Aug 2008, when WP:WIAGA last has a major upgrade.

• Animals (album) has one comment about the quality of a song, and is in "Concept", which is not one of the WP:ALBUMS sections.
• The Beacon Street Collection has no comment about the quality of a song, so is not an example of what happens in practice. Some of the sections seem different from the WP:ALBUMS standard.
• Black Cherry (Goldfrapp album) has no comment about the quality of a song, so is not an example of what happens in practice. The article has sections "Chart performance and sales" and "Charts".
• The review of Black Holes and Revelations is a bad joke, so that article is no precedent.
• Boom Box (album) is a compilation of 4 existing albums.
• In By Your Side (The Black Crowes album), "Critical reception" appears to have comments about the quality of songs. No infobox about reviews.

So in this mini-survey (!) only Animals (album) and By Your Side (The Black Crowes album). --Philcha (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The table with reviews was established late 2009, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 34. WPAlbums says the review of each song structure should be when the article is about "albums written by people known for their songwriting." Non of the GA articles you've listed above fit this criteria. Different structures have to be established according to the type of artist released the album. The closest good quality album ATM to HBATSC would be The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan, which is in the process of being improved by the Bob Dylan collaboration team by several experienced editors. Cheers Kitchen roll (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you reply here please, because I can't continue working on the article until I know where you stand on this. Cheers. Kitchen roll (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I've been ill. I'll put it on Hold for 2 weeks,as I think that will do the job. --Philcha (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Hope you get better soon. I think I've adressed all the issues the article had that IMO should have been corrected. The rest of the issues you've noted seem to be in contradiction with wikipedia:wikiproject albums. I understand that you probably don't want to go into detail with this at the moment, being unwell, so could we talk about this at a later date? Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please speed your review up. I'd like to get this out of the way. Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long - I'm still weak. I've updated Talk:His Band and the Street Choir/GA1:

• The article's text is OK.
• But 2 sources are now dead links, which may be serious. See Talk:His_Band_and_the_Street_Choir/GA1#Links_validity_check. --Philcha (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've found that sources are needed for Track listing, Personnel and Charts - sorry for not raised this before. --Philcha (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed you'd been editing other articles for the past couple of days, so thought you might have forgotten about this. I think I've delt with the problems. The only thing left is to sort out the harvnb referencing links, which seem right to me but obviously aren't because they don't work for referencing the Rolling Stone articles. Do you know how they work in this situation, because I'm stumped. Cheers Kitchen roll (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thanks for taking up the His Band and the Street Choir review and going through the article thoroughly, showing me in great detail what was needed to improve it, suggesting techniques, links and language style. This will not only help the article in question, but any other I choose to take to GA in the future. You deserve this! Kitchen roll (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverted edits

I'm curious to know why you reverted my good faith referenced issues on Arthropod. AshLin (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

IMO your edits have largely damaged rather than improved it, and some of your work has been careless. For example:

• You did not check the image, which you messed up. It was easy to see in red ink!
• Your edits about diversity and numbers:
  • have confused which number is about what
  • have only a promise of a citation, violates WP:V.
• your 1st attempt at pests and control and their side-effects used more space on the names of organisations and reports than on the real-world consequences.

Your 2nd attempt at pests and control and their side-effects is much better, but in the wrong place. I'm working on that.

In the plus side, you've made me think and IMO the damage from ticks and mites is significant, although a magnitude less than that from insects.

I assumed you were a new editor, and then found you registered 6 months before I did! I started assembling my set of techniques and tools in mid-2008, and I wish someone had given me this information on my first day, prefer as part of the welcome package. I guess you still feel the frustration that I did. I'm working on a side project to provide this information, and I'd be grateful if your comment at User talk:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors (Talk not created yet, you may be the first). Anything goes, so long as it gives editors the information they need - range of topics, structure and order, wording, everything. --Philcha (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. My problem today has been intermittent power supply and internet breakage connections. So I seem more sloppy than I probably am. I also like to work on issues when I can, sometimes I don't get enough time to follow through an edit to its logical conclusion. No matter, there has been some careless work, I accept that.

Thank you also for telling me about your Essay - its a very good thing that you have done. It indeed would have helped a lot of people if they came across this information earlier. Even though I can no longer claim to be a newbie, I'm sure one can always learn something new.

Well, as for the biodiversity species number is concerned, we already had a number for the described species (though I would look for a more authoritative reference than a popular web site). But the scientific world has made well-reasoned peer-reviewed estimates as to how many species there probably are; the reader should know that there is a huge amount of biodiversity that may vanish even before we get down to describing it.

BTW if you see the history carefully, you will find that the first time, I had added the information about the number of species, I had given the reference url in this form in the wikitext - <!-- url -->. I had planned to add a cited reference around that url later & mentioned so in the edit summary. So I assume you did not notice and reverted my edit. I was surprised when you reverted my well-referenced edit once again.

Why this information should cloud up the issue, I don't understand, a little bit of copyediting could put each fact in place and in context, if you felt that was needed. So I feel that this should have been copy-edited so that the facts stood out clearly and not unilaterally reverted my session's work.

If you feel the names and reports of organisations were more visible than information on real world consequences, fair enough - you could have edited it out or told me. I would have converted it into a suitable form.

The information I have added is well-referenced and appropriate. It is also in the correct section. You are free of course to improve on my edits. Arthropods, of whom a large majority are insects, are major pests and have considerable economic significance. Our need to control them for various reasons has had huge impacts on biodiversity - Silent Spring & so much more has been written about that. The information deserves to be there.

As regards mites and other arthropods being economically significant, glad I could be of help.

Your unilateral revert seems out of character for a senior editor like you. Frankly, I'm confused. If this were a GA or FA, I would discuss edits on the talk page first. Since there were obvious deficiencies, I added the information directly. I was quite taken aback by the pest edit reversion. Keeping aside the image foul-up and the first lack of reference reversions which I am not contesting, why would you want to keep my "Pest" edits out of the article? I don't see how that has made the article worse.

Since I would like to add that information added to the article - please tell me what I need to do. Can I proceed with my edits or will you add that information yourself in a manner you feel comfortable with. As long as the information appears, I'm willing to leave it at that.

I would also like to take the opportunity to invite you to join WikiProject Arthropods as a proven defender of the top article of the WikiProject. :-)

I would appreciate your response on this issue so that I could help improve this article further. AshLin (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the "pest species" edits and I see you have improved the article further, great! Still would like to come to a common understanding over the "number of species " issue. AshLin (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out ref 100 in Arthropod after you added the new material on mites has a cite error tag. AshLin (talk) 09:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty with cite error tags is that you can't see them in previous view, only when you save and see the full article. I fixed that in a couple of minutes.

In section "Diversity" please add "your" estimate of species as a separate paragraph, with full citation. I will then restructured the section, and tell you when it's done and hope for your comments. --Philcha (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, WikiProject Arthropods is a good one, but my priorities are different. Any zoology WikiProject inevitably concentrates on species, it's weight of numbers. I'm working on phyla (it's a long story), and have got 10 plus 2 other higher taxa to GA. I guess I'd struggle as much with a species article as a species editor would struggle with a phylum article - we'd be using very sets of information. --Philcha (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Glad to know that someone is focussing on the higher taxa. Good look with that. Drop a line to me if you need help with GA of any kind, though a little illness causes my contribution to waver from time to time. AshLin (talk) 03:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I've re-structured "Diversity", what do you think? --Philcha (talk) 06:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. AshLin (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I've integrated your content at "Interaction with humans" about unintentionally eat arthropods. What do you think?

No observation.AshLin (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

But most of your cites in "Interaction with humans" are just URLs or are missing information. A reviewer would not pass this. If you want your content used, you need to do your chores, not try to dump this on others. --Philcha (talk) 06:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Chores

This comment of yours, I do not understand. Please clarify.

But most of your cites in "Interaction with humans" are just URLs or are missing information. A reviewer would not pass this. If you want your content used, you need to do your chores, not try to dump this on others.

I've expanded two references to make it easy for an editor to find related information. Is this what you meant? Are there any others you would like to comment one?

AshLin (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the cites you'd done. Can you please do the 2 URLs at codexalimentarius. --Philcha (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I've done them up in the "Additional References" section. Any other references you would like to comment on? AshLin (talk) 07:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry about the Manual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.138.109 (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Space Empires III

Please check the talk page. Eik Corell (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Village Pump proposals post

Hello, I saw your post on the village pump about refTools breaking in Vector. I have found the new toolbar extremely annoying as well, and have switched back to the old one by going to "Preferences --> Editing --> unchecking Enable Enhanced Editing Toolbar". This'll give you back your old toolbar - and refTools!!! Happy editing, Airplaneman ✈ 11:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Airplaneman, thanks for the info, and it works as advertised :-)

But I see that "Enable Enhanced Editing Toolbar" is described in "Beta" and is default to "on" - in others the developers have conscribed over 2M editors, without even telling them about it >-(

The developers should revert vector and test it probably, and then on use real volunteers for beta. Their performance so far has been both arrogant and incompetent >-(: --Philcha (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Lingulid_burrow_01.png

Thank you for uploading File:Lingulid_burrow_01.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Actinodiscus Photo

Thanks for accepting my Actinodiscus photo warmly to the page! Your rearrangement of the photos looks nice as well. Saxophlute (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User Guide

Hi, I've not had time to assimilate all you have to offer on your introduction to editing guidelines. I've seen enough to know that I will print hard copies for my students when I introduce the topic next year. Should I link my project to here User:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors or will the information be housed at a different - more formal location? I will get back with you on feed back as time permits. --JimmyButler (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

How, it's all go!

JimmyButler, when it's good enough it should by moved to main space as an essay. When its really good, I hope it would part of the welcome for new editors. BTW NYMFan69-86 is doing a great job, especially spotting about gaps in my initial draft. --Philcha (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I also have User:Philcha#Tools, which I hope will help your students. I suggest you copy the toolbox, so that your and your students can update with their experience. --Philcha (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads-up on this, am a bit pressed for time to get to grips with it. Regarding the issue you raised about dealing with vandalism, in my experience many valuable new editors, even unregistered IPs, start by undoing vandalism. At one time I put together some standard advice to go with the usual welcome template, but can't find it just now. The principle was to check more than the last edit to see if there's been some earlier vandalism needing sorted, and to follow WP:VAND with particular emphasis on dealing rather differently with good faith edits. The good point you raise about avoiding reversion would relate to potential good faith edits rather than blatant vandalism, and works in that context. Will try to rethink this when time permits. . dave souza, talk 20:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

  OK, dave souza, I understand about "when time permits ..."! Distinguishing between potential good faith edits and blatant vandalism looks like the crux, and it seems you're suggesting a cautious approach. If you can create it, I'd be delighted. Thanks, --Philcha (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Philcha, a thank for your endlessly good contributions to chess articles of WikiProjects Chess. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Newbie advice

For your consideration with your essay. (User:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors)

?	Use common sense. Ultimately, assume good faith on the part of others, be bold in editing because perfection is not required. See Wikipedia:Editing policy for more information. Before starting a new article! - Notability is a concern that must be adhered to. See Wikipedia:Notability (music) for more information. Need help starting a new article? See Wikipedia:Article wizard it will help you through the process of submitting a new article to Wikipedia.
I.	Use references. This is an encyclopedia, so remember to include a ==References== section listing websites, newspapers, articles, books and other sources you used to write the article. New articles and statements added to existing articles may be deleted if unreferenced or referenced poorly. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Cite_sources and Wikipedia:References for more information.
II.	Use proper spelling and grammar. This is a very important aspect of an article. There is helpful guidelines in regards to styles. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music) for more information.
III.	Use footnotes. Take advantage of the footnote ability Wikipedia has, instead of including html links inside the context include them as footnotes. See Wikipedia:Footnotes on how to use them.
IV.	Write a good lead. Be sure to write a lead that concisely summarizes the entire article into one or two paragraphs, which make sense to someone who may know nothing about the subjects in question. See Wikipedia:Lead section for more information.
V.	Stay on topic. Many articles are criticized for length; sticking to the subject matter helps eliminate this. See Wikipedia:The perfect article for more information.
VI.	Keep it simple. Remember that the average reader should be able to comprehend the erudition. Although you should use a broad vocabulary of regular, non-technical terms, do not provide such a quantity of locutions as to impel those who aspire to derive serviceable information from the article to consult a dictionary.
VII.	Use images if possible. Images enhance articles greatly, but only use them when they are necessary, and ensure that their copyright status has been specified and we are allowed to use it on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Images

Saw above posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#Tips. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, SunCreator, thanks for the checklist. I think some are covered, and I'd like to know what you think, in case I've missed some aspect. And in others I have gaps and would be grateful for comments. One at a time:

• User:Philcha/Essays/Advice_for_new_Wikipedia_editors#Creating_new_articles tries to dealt with WP:Notability. What you you think? --Philcha (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It's covered, but the presentation in an essay form maybe should do with bullet points or otherwise ease of reading. This is the basic difference between the above list and the essay; the way it's presented. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I like bullet points more than most editors or reviewers do, but I think the main principle of this would-be essay is seeing the first steps of a newcomer coming through in the door. So I'd review/copyedit after the structure and content are stable. --Philcha (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• User:Philcha/Essays/Advice_for_new_Wikipedia_editors#Updating_existing_articles tries to cover the principles that make citations needed, and User:Philcha/Essays/Advice_for_new_Wikipedia_editors#Building_citations covers techniques and tools - except that I may switch from RefToolbar to Magnus' Reference generator], as the vector skin disabled RefToolbar and Magnus' Reference generator IMO has better facilities. --Philcha (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a simple citation generator, it's a bit advanced to get into this. The main point is to let newbies know that citations are required. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping Magnus' Reference generator is simple, as the alternative is the newcomer getting told off for using bare URLs in refs on even in the main text. Magnus' Reference generator produces a citation that can be pasted into a ref in the article very easily. The largest difficulty may be the need for a separate tab in the browser, but I think that can be explained with e.g. "Like with any technique, you have about it the first few times, but it soon becomes automatic." What do you think. --Philcha (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Spelling and grammar is a minefield. You have to decide whether to decide between US and Brit English - sometimes the topic decides (e.g. the Harry Potter novels use Brit), otherwise in an existing article follow the existing dialect, and in a new article that is not tied US and Brit English you decide. I almost joked that the issue needs a flowchart - then realised I might need to add one, but the alt text would be an improved of what I just wrote ("You have to decide whether to decide between ... not tied US and Brit English you decide"). Grammar can be worse, e.g. "we lack the French power of saying in one word his-or-her. There are three makeshifts: -- A, as anybody can see for himself or herself; B}, as anybody can see for themselves; & C, as anybody can see for himself. No-one who can help it chooses A; it is correct, & is sometimes necessary, but it is so clumsy as to be ridiculous except when explicitness is urgent. . . . B is the popular solution; it sets the literary man's teeth on edge & he exerts himself to give the same meaning in some entirely different way if he is not prepared, as he usually is, to risk C; but it should be recorded that the OED . . . refrains from any word of condemnation. C is here recommended. It involves the convention that where the matter of sex is not conspicuous or important heand his shall be allowed to represent a person instead of a man, or say a man (homo) instead of a man (vir). Whether that . . . is an arrogant demand on the part of male England, everyone must decide for himself (or for himself or herself, or for themselves)" at December 1983 issue of The Atlantic Monthly, Geoffrey Nunberg.

Yes, it's a minefield, just point people in the right direction is about the most you can do on this. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Producing the lead can be fairly easy in some articles but very difficult in "technical" articles - there's a conflict between brevity and avoid technical terms, and a big technical article may need more than 4 paragraphs. --Philcha (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A bit advanced for newbies. Some WP:GANs even fail this. The lead should summarizes the entire article is enough for a newbie. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Experienced editors can sometimes have disputes about whether an article stays on topic, and coverage and structure can make or break a candidate for GA or FA. As practical advice for newcomers I may suggest add content in place that looks reasonable, but for a GA or FA discuss the prospective addition at the Talk page and waiting for some responses - but what is there are no responses after a couple of weeks? -Philcha (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Stay on topic is pretty irrelevant to a newbie and not one that I observe happening much. If they go off topic is can easily be deleted. There is perhaps little return it mentioning this topic. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion, thanks. --Philcha (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• I totally support "keep it simple", and would add "aim for a bright 14-year old reader - which is also the point at which many adults' reading skill levels off". What do you think? --Philcha (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Aim at an educated reader, but who doesn't have the inclination of reading about every Wikipedia nuance. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to advice that newcomers should avoid images for the first year, as WP:IMAGE and all the other easily found pages are just rule-books, with no route to practical "cook-book" advice. You do know of any? --Philcha (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the first year is realistic. If your target includes WP:APBIO which I think it does, then images become an issue early on. One of the things that holds them up is the delay in getting suitable map images. I think the topic should be mentioned at a minimum. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've become more optimistic since looking at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria, which is almost a cookbook on non-free content rationales. I've seen a (very) few free-content zealots who try to disallow all rationales, and in my case I would inform them that they are bound the policy, not by their inclinations (e.g. POV), but that's too bold for a newcomer. Is there place where a a newcomer can get help/advice? --Philcha (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of anywhere for newbies to get advice on images. Perhaps you could ask User:NYMFan69-86 and see how he worked it out. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I know the answer, but I'll ask :-) --Philcha (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll respond here. At the start of my project, I was unsure (to say the least) at how to get a distribution map into an article (let alone how create said map and upload it to wikicommons). I took the bog turtle through GA without having a map, something I didn't even think of at the time. Another peer review followed the GA nomination where I learned about the graphics lab, which was when the current map was developed. Beyond that, I spoke with Malleus for advice on how to change to the image...he was a great help with this. For me, the other images were no problem: I checked wikicommons every now and again to see which new images of the bog turtle were free to use and, when I found one, I put it in. I think all that needs to be said to "newbies" (is that really what we're called!?) is that one must check the copyright status of current images and that to get new ones (particularly maps), he or she should consult an admin or the graphics lab (if they are unable to take and upload an image of it themselves).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been an interesting year. I had a majority of students who failed to rise up to the challenge; many simply did nothing. In my interviews to determine contributions and thus grades, the common explanation seemed to be linked to an intimidation factor. Essentially they felt out- matched by both those in the class that caught on quick and the community at large. They were afraid of being second guessed or humiliated. Of course - that may merely be an excuse for apathy. However, there can be confidence issues which go beyond the technical intimidation. Putting your self out there in such a public forum is much more imposing than cranking out a research paper that only the teacher may or may not read. The grade intimidation was not enough. Fear of the zero - did not trump the desire to avoid the spotlight. As the confidence grows - the number of effective edits increases - a pattern clearly demonstrated by the few that did step up. This issue is bigger than the articles - it is the essential transformation that will determine their ability to navigate college level academics. What to do with those that cringe when they hit the "save page" button will be the focus of my thoughts. Since your goal is to make Wikipedia more inviting and accessible, you may wish to chew on this problem as well, Cheers!--JimmyButler (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Speculative in Neomura

I do not want to get into a flame war with you, and send this in the best of good will.

In the article Neomura I removed the weasel word "speculative" which you reverted. I believe that "speculative" is an archetype of the Wikipedia definition of a weasel word—a pejorative adjective with no reference in the published literature (that I know of). If you do indeed know of such, then by all means post it. The one you did give fails to provide the word. You said, "if not 'speculative', need another adjective; note that the journal article is by Cavalier-Smith". The abstract for the article begins "Eukaryotes and archaebacteria form the clade neomura and are sisters, as shown decisively by genes fragmented only in archaebacteria and by many sequence trees. This sisterhood refutes all theories that eukaryotes originated by merging an archaebacterium and an a-proteobacterium, which also fail to account for numerous features shared specifically by eukaryotes and actinobacteria."

This is far from a "speculative" claim. A word search of the article does not find "speculative".

Nick Beeson (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"This sisterhood refutes all theories that eukaryotes originated by merging an archaebacterium and an a-proteobacterium" is an article by Cavalier-Smith himself! This requires comment. Right now I'm busy with something else. If you can find a good citation or 2, that would be good. If not, please remind me in a couple of days. --Philcha (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed he does, but the article you quote precedes the one I quote by two years, new information often refutes current theory and requires a replacement for it. The complete sentence you quote is "This sisterhood refutes all theories that eukaryotes originated by merging an archaebacterium and an alpha-proteobacterium, which also fail to account for numerous features shared specifically by eukaryotes and actinobacteria." The second half is most important to his point. He says specifically that his theory accounts for all the facts while previous theories do not.

If you are going to disagree with this, by all means do so. I would politely and respectfully request that you find a more recent published article for support. Google finds that the paper you quote is "Cited by 378 - Related articles" while the more recent paper I quote is "Cited by 73 - Related articles". And indeed you might start with Martin (2010).

I admit I am vastly ignorant on this topic. But I do recognize a weasel word when I see it and "seculative" is certainly one. Nick Beeson (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Martin (2010) is too new, there's been too little time for critiques by other scientists. In this field 2 years is probably good (in paleology I'd look for 5, as findin and analysing fossils is slow job). Do you know any papers about 2008? --Philcha (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggested Martin (2010) for the references at the end. These references should cover the period from the 2006 Cavalier-Smith paper to 2008 (and beyond) giving you ample sources to look for support for the "speculative" nature of Neomura.

I am mildly puzzled by this whole discussion. You are a Wiki editing god. I am just a dabbler by comparison. I edit "by the book", i.e. the guidelines you yourself write and edit. One of the guidelines is about weasel words, another is about the need for references and what constitutes a good source.

I believed that "speculative" was a clear weasel word. It casts doubt on the published result without reference, and it is totally non-specific as to what it means--why is Neomura speculative? Yet you are sure it is fine. Frankly I do not understand why.

The papers supporting Neomura come from impeccable refereed peer reviewed journals, were published over the last 23 years, and the author is clearly highly regarded and works for a world renowned university. I thought that I was supposed to support my edits with references. I thought it was up to others to correct my edits if they could support their changes with other references.

I want to emphasize that I write this all with the strongest assumption of good will on your part, and knowing I have only good will on my part.Nick Beeson (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"You are a Wiki editing god" is rather speculative itself. :-)

If "the author" is Cavalier-Smith, he has a reputation for getting most things right. If you could find a cite for "Neomura", I think we'd both be happy. --Philcha (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Roy of the Rovers

Thanks for taking a look at Roy. He's currently at FAR, and I'm battling to keep his bronze star. I had nothing to do with the article until very recently; trying to find citations for someone else's FA has been ... interesting. Malleus Fatuorum 16:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the difference is that you want to pass it, while I'm almost indifferent. I concluded independently that making FARs easier than GA reviewers misleads the readers and may demotivated nominators who must do more work at FAC than is done at FAR. --Philcha (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I do want it to pass, just like I'd want an article I nominated at FAC to pass, but I don't want to pass it, and I'm a bit surprised you think that I do. I won't be voting on whether or not it should be kept, for obvious reasons, but if there was a vote on it right now I'd say delist it. I've argued in the past that reviewers at FAR should use the same criteria they'd use at FAC, so I'm hardly likely to be pleading that Roy is a special case. I'll just continue to do what I can in the meantime, and let others decide if it's enough when the time comes. Malleus Fatuorum 17:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

IBM mainframe operating systems

I'm posting this because you solicited comments in VSE (operating system). I'm not sure about the general issue of comprehensive articles versus linked specialized articles, but I believe that it is important to keep the titles of articles in synchronization with their contents.

VSE is a family of operating systems starting with DOS/VSE, including VSE/AF, VSE/SP and VSE/ESA. Currently the article VSE (Operating system) is actually about the most recent member of the family, not the entire family. Unless there is someone able and willing to supply the missing pieces, I believe that it should be moved to a more specific name and the disambiguation fixed.

I'm currently writing several article on operting systems in the OS/360 family and software running on them. I'm keeping most of them on my user page for the time being, since they still need a lot of work, but I'm open to comments on how well or otherwise they fit in with planned restructuring.

If you're still involved in the OS/360 and successors restructuring effort, you may find User:Chatul/References to be of use. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've move on to other projects - I was working on this in 2007, but no-one wanted to help, and I could not find citations I needed. If you have go, I wish you success. --Philcha (talk) 08:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Philcha/Sandbox/Staunton-Morphy

I deleted the page, but wasn't sure if you wanted to keep the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

And the Talk - sorry for not be clear. --Philcha (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem, it's deleted now. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Spiders and attitudes

If you don't know, just say so. No need to get rude. Why are you being rude when a simple question is asked? If I have problem ascertaining the answer to that question due to ambiguity in two separate articles, then perhaps others will to. Instead of a comment of "You need to read the article", either answer the question or direct me to who can. Or just don't say anything. As I have said, it is not very clear and I am not an uneducated person. speednat (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

One more note on the way you treated my question, and I will just refer to your page on discussions, where you state that if someone shows interest in a subject that is good and you try to be considerate. Again I ask why the rude response? speednat (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You say "I am not an uneducated person", i.e. you are educated. I've show you where to get the info. But I am not going the work for you. If you hope that I am going the work for you, this discussion is closed.--Philcha (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of this question was that there was a differing of information on two similar pages. I have read the articles and it is not clear. I guess I am not the only one having a hard time understanding what they are reading. Fortunately, for me, it is due to a poorly written article. I can only guess from your defensive nature that you had a lot to do with this article. I never asked "you" for any help. I asked anyone with a helpful nature, obviously not you. It is really sad that you felt the need to stick your nose in this situation when you had no intention of helping, only of insulting and degrading people. If people ask questions in my area of expertise, I am more than happy to answer even the most inept questions. Thank goodness, the majority of Wikipedians are like me and not like you or Wikipedia never would have been a successful endeavor. ----I did the research, why would I share it with you?---- Again, one final note. No need to respond to me, this is a rhetorical question. Do you know what is written on your page concerning helping people or was it just a generic form that you copied and pasted.

I wish you the best speednat (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Retouched time scale image

There are noticeable color errors in File:Geological time spiral - sharper.png; therefore, the original image should be used in articles. On the talk page, other editors asked how your retouched one is sharper. Please leave any responses here. Thanks. serioushat 06:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Extinctions

Phil, The only significant reference is ISC. Are you thinking the Maastrichtian Extinction needs reference? The rest is simple math on the ICS Geologic Time Scale. I have limited the discussion to include only the KT and Maastrichtian big dinosaur extinction. Simply, no remains to date have been found past the middle (perhaps early) Maastrichtian Stage. The issue is covered in Evolution on Planet Earth Rothschild and Lister, Academic Press 2003. Is that reference sufficient?

The ICS International Stratigraphic Chart Period dating includes a interleaved sixth period 417Ma interval between Holocene - Silurian (0-416), Oligocene - Ordovician (28-444), Maastrichtian [dinosaur extinction] - Cambrian (71*-488), and Jurassic - Vendian [Ediacaran-Varangian](146-563) end dates. Other pairs extend outside the Phanerozoic Eon into unconstrained Pre-Cambrian dating. The latest NASA-JPL-Caltech Spitzer Space Telescope (SST) data combined with earlier consensus mapping shows this SOL Galactic orbital 0.863 degrees/Ma (360/417Ma)-intercept pattern. Morbas (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You'd need a proper citation for book Evolution on Planet Earth - last1, first1, last2, first2, ...; publisher; year; isbn. url= if possible, and that would need accessdate. --Philcha (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Have NASA-JPL-Caltech produced anything, e.g. web page, on the consequences of the data. If so, that should be a source. --Philcha (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou many times, MOShaverMorbas (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk:75.65.237.47

Please lighten up. The edit was incorrect, but does not appear to be vandalism as it is defined here. For a first edit from an IP, that's an aggressive warning unless you have reason not to assume good faith. --Onorem♠Dil 05:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The IP ignored an edit note, e.g. is opionated and ignorant - could be a Randy in Boise. In addition this IP has wasted 5 minutes (nearly 10 now) that I could have used much better elsewhere. If the IP learns to think before writing, that's good. If he/she doesn't learn, good riddance. --Philcha (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring an edit note is not vandalism. It doesn't make a person opinionated and ignorant. A new editor without knowledge of how things work here might be trying to help by fixing the title of one of their favorite books/movies/whatever. Your user page says that you understand that most readers and editors of Wikipedia will be more familiar with US English. This reaction to a simple error doesn't back that statement up. --Onorem♠Dil 05:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand completely that you are right on all the technicalities. The name of the article (and anything that isn't there just to explain the discrepancy) should be Philosopher's...but that doesn't make everyone that changes it a vandal. Wikipedia won't break if a foreign title is displayed for a short while. I understand that keeping the original and correct name intact has been a long-term issue...but as frustrating as it is, each new editor (even those that mess it up) deserves good faith to be extended. --Onorem♠Dil 05:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems that we will not agree - in AGF. IMO AGF is not a one-way street, i.e. just 1 party can break AGF. However that's hypothetical, as we don't yet see how the IP behaves. --Philcha (talk) 06:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You might be interested in my project at User:Philcha/Essays/Advice_for_new_Wikipedia_editors - if so, please comment at User_talk:Philcha/Essays/Advice_for_new_Wikipedia_editors --Philcha (talk) 06:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I am going to chime in here as I also think that was too harsh. You need to abide by what you yourself has stated are your beliefs about wikipedia, on your page. The mentality of if you can't do things my way--- good riddance, is a poor way to represent seasoned users. I am not interjecting my opinion here to ruffle your feathers, only so that you will hopefully see, that other people believe you are acting a little on the irrational side. And if you do not like wasting 5 minutes on a new user's mistake, don't. There are hundreds if not thousands of other editors that will do it with a smile on their face and cheer in their typing. Again, no personal attack intended, just an observation. Smile more. speednat (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Mistaken warning to Qfl247

The edit that you warned Qfl247 for was actually by the IP 121.209.18.76, see this diff [1], so you might want to remove you comments on his talk page, thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I laughed pretty hard at the 'silly' edit you mentioned... Sometimes I don't know what people are thinking... (by the way, I am a strong proponent of no IP edits).

Yes, you have caught me on one of my biggest short-commings on wiki: bad citations. I typically only do a link or, a book, rarely even a page number. I NEED to get better at that, but as a WikiCyclops, I will be long to change... right now my obsession is going through my old field pics or samples, trying to find pages without good pictures, and matching the two. I will get better, and I'll have to check out your templates, because I do have a lot of geology texts that would be useful to have good citations here on Wikipedia. Qfl247 (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you can teach me to be more of a WikiCyclops - I should cut back to 1 "voluntary" activity plus the "involuntary" activities that demand my attention, e.g. Talk discussions.

I've found some IP editors very helpful. But I'll like to bring the hammer down on vandals - longer blocks, no cleaning the slate ("3 strikes ---"), etc. --Philcha (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Warcraft II

Hi Pilcha, I have closed this as a failed nomination as despite five reviewers looking at the article no closure has been achieved. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:R discussion

I know you've grown tired of the discussion, but I did offer a few comments and addressed some of your conerns on the template's talk page. I agree that for the cases in which you are getting frustrated, the template is probably being used improperly. (I'm guessing people are mixing reference styles within an article, which is bad ediqutte, in my opinion.) I also do not see the point of using the page number parameter. However, {{R}} works very well with LDR and I do not want it deleted for that reason. I've already saved 4Kb on Lemur using it, and I will probably save even more space on List of lemur species when I get around to switching it. The way I use the template should not cause problems for bots, either. Anyway, I'm just posting this summary here in case you are no longer watching the template talk page. We may not agree, but please understand that I value the template and have found a very good use for it. Best, – VisionHolder « talk » 18:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Visionholder, it's fine that you have a very good use for {{r}}. In "my own" articles I want nothing to do with {{r}} because it can be detached from the reference which it initially followed. I've spent over 2 hours on discussion and will not spend any more, as Gadget850 has been totally unhelpful. As a result I will not maintain "my" GA articles, but will just list them at the last time where {{r}} was not used. --Philcha (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. I wish there was something I could do to help. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)