Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:41, 19 January 2010

If you leave me a message, I will respond here so please: add this page to your watchlist or request that I use the {{Talkback}} template on your user talk page.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Barnstar

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Contributor Barnstar Thanks for your help in getting Interstate 70 in Colorado to Featured Article status. Dave (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC))

Signature

Hi there, I was just wondering how you made your signature with the box and links to your talk and contributions, and in a different font. How do you type in the format for the signature, and are you supposed to check the box in your preferences? Thanks, Kevinmon (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Look at the source code (edit this page) for my signature, then go to Special:Preferences, paste the markup into your Signature box and change it to suit your needs. The codes are HTML, including the colors. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 01:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, now I understand how to change it! Check out my new one: Kevinmon•talk•trib 06:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A tip for you is to use not , because forces a line break in the sig. be creative though don't just steal from Ergo r.r ResMar 18:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii hotspot FAC?

I'm going to start up another FAC attempt. Given the size of the article I think there'll be a lot to work on. I'm currently straddling between one thing and the next with no particular direction, so about time to wrap this one up.

Looking at the article again today I go and, oh boy, gee it's certainly been improved! Wd :) I'm gonna need your help on the FAC. Yah know, co-nom stuff :).

As for the issues with getting people to review it, I've found what I think is the best but most-work method. That is to review other FACs and leave a note "please check mine too." It worked with Loihi, it should work with Hawaii hotspot. Cheers, ResMar 18:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Sweet. I took the liberty of listing myself as a co-nom on the FAC page, and we might ask GeoWriter if he would like to join. He made some pretty good edits. I see a lot of changes since the last time I've read the entire article. The okinas have returned, much to my dismay, but whatever. It still looks good tho, I've been keeping an eye on it. Hope it passes this time. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been like totall offline for a bit already. But I finally found some work to do. Finishing this is priority, but also Kohala GAN, and I've found two articles with enough stuff on them for a GA. Sweet ^^ ResMar 20:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

ISS FAC4.

Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of International Space Station, or who has contributed to the article recently, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in the current Featured Article Candidacy with any suggestions you have for article improvements (and being bold and making those changes), whether or not you feel any issues you have previously raised have been dealt with, and, ultimately, if you believe the article meets the Featured Article guidelines. This is the fourth FAC for this article, and it'd be great to have it pass. Many thanks in advance, Colds7ream (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii Hotspots

I know I promised a review of this article months ago. My apologies, my work schedule is crazy right now. I'd complain, but with the economy in its current state, I'm just grateful to still be employed. Anyways, I am a man of my word, just slow sometimes. I've started a review of this article in a sandbox page User:Davemeistermoab/sandbox. It's about half finished. Of course I'll move this to a permanent place when I've finished it. I'm not exactly an English major, but I try; take or leave the feedback for what it's worth. I figure I can either copy this to the talk page, or you could re-nominate it for FAC, and I could past the feedback there as the first review. I'm game either way. I am enjoying the article, and will finish the review when I can. Dave (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's cool. I've learned more about Hawaiian volcanism than I ever wanted to know. Its pretty interesting and I think it would make a good article for the front page. Its sad that its failed twice, but you know how that goes. Thanks for the help. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 01:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey why you not tell me about this? Tisk tisk Ergo :) Anyway, I came here to discuss the possible splitting of the big table part of the article into its own list (List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain, or added into the Hawaiian–Emperor seamount chain article. It's hoarding too much bandwith if you ask me, and besides with an appropriatly written lead, it could pass FL. What do you think? ResMar 12:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That is perfect. Split the list, make it a FL, and that should make HH more manageable. I say go for it. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to wait a moment first. ResMar 21:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok I finally did it. Split off and left a summary on Hawaiia hotspot. Moved the whole table to the list spot and wrote a really long lead. I wrote it from memory, have to get to attaching refs now...As for the FL, I think I'll try it, however it probably will fail on the grounds that it is too selective; there is no true indicator for what not to include and what to inclue, and the article skips over hundreds of completely obscure bodies, for whoom making a bluelink for all would be too time-consuming. ResMar 16:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Something else...I nomed Kohala (mountain) over a month ago at GAN, but looking over it again, I think maybe it has issues with completeness...waht do you think? ResMar 17:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I read the article, what is missing? --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll tell you what's missing, a copyedit! Can you help me there? :) ResMar 00:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have to give it more than just a quick scan, it might take me a while. It looked good enough on my first read not to fix anything, but I'm sure I can dig something up. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Nomed: Hawaii hotspot, list. ResMar 02:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I finished my review, and copied it to the FAC nomination page. My apologies it took so long. Good Luck!!!Dave (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii photographs

Hi. I noticed your photographs of Diamond Head. Do you live near that area? If so, could you take a photograph of a particular location if I give you the address? There's a particular article related to that area that I'm working on that needs a pic. Lemme know. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! Nightscream (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hah, I wish! Actually, I live in Arkansas, so I can't help you. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Misplaced Pages Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Misplaced Pages in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii hotspot

Hi there. I'm currently keeping my foot in the door for Hawaii Hotspot at FAC, though I'm inclined to let it close if there isn't broader interest in keeping this edition of the FAC open. I haven't heard much of anything from ResMar, so I'd like to know if you have any thoughts on whether it should be left open or closed. If it is closed, I will continue to work on the science and support you in re-opening it. Awickert (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume your issue is the quality of the sources. As a supporter of this article, I would disagree, as the article relies upon the highest quality free sources on the internet. To ask writers to spend their own money just to research an article is, IMO, ridiculous. I think the article is balanced and factually accurate. All science involves eternally evolving theories and the facts today will be tomorrow's fairy tales. This article is about as good as it gets, and although any article may never achieve perfection, I think this article comes close. If you think it needs more time for minor improvements, then by all means support it. But if you think it needs a major overhaul, then I suppose you would suggest it be closed. Either way, I would love to see this article on the front page. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 22:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's not the quality of the sources so much as the correctness of the content; in this sense, it's somewhere between tweaks and overhaul (quite a bit is good, quite a bit is introductory-textbook-level incorrect). I completely agree about the journal $$$ blah, which is why in my initial comments on the article (and reiterated thereafter), I volunteered to give ResMar any journal article he would like (the offer goes out to you as well... just send me an email and I'll give you what you ask for). As a side-note that I mentioned on ResMar's talk, one of the online mantleplumes.org articles was written by someone who is notable for believing that mantle plumes don't exist(!), and the article is in direct opposition to quite a bit of other research... that's to say, it's a circus, and it's hard to make out up and down sometimes.

Anyway, what I'm doing right now is going through section-by-section and changing things (and re-sourcing them if necessary, since I can). But it's a slow go by myself.

As I said above, whether this time or another time, I'll do what I can to take care of the factual issues and help you to push it through FAC. Awickert (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)