User talk:TCO

<- to stop this bot barking on this talk page ->

Possibly unfree File:Stover at Yale book cover image.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Stover at Yale book cover image.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --B (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Editing

If you want to, dive right in! You might want to start someplace like WP:GAN If you read the reviews at WP:FAC, they can get rather technical about the Manual of Style (MOS) so that might not be a good place to start. By the way, I think the newer the FA (check the promotion date in article history on the article talk page) the better the writing.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Which comment are you replying to? Was all over the place last night. Knowing what I said, will help me put your remark in context. TCO (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably this one. -Atmoz (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I just wasn't sure if he was encouraging me to copyedit passed articles, or copyedit in general, or join a "group", or do some peer reviewing. I r slow.  :) TCO (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I made an article, take a look!

See Amanar. Give me some feedback and upgrades (to help become a power user)!TCO (talk)

Suggestion

Why not start an archive for your talk page? People are going to get entirely the wrong idea when they come here and see all the blocks.

What are you interested in writing about?

responses

1. I don't like archives and if anything want to go in the opposite direction and pull a lot of old content out, that was wiped while I was banned. Will have to collate it with new stuff. And a couple bad remarks of mine were rightfully deleted, so have to not bring those back. I'd rather keep the bans and such, but have them in chronological order rather than as a page header. It's a bit of a project and low priority, but I agree looks pretty bad, right now!

2. Mostly interested in gymnastics right now. Could change quickly though. That project seems dead.

TCO (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikiprojects are overrated, I avoid them. Just learn to do your own thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

And again. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 01:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Painted Turtle

Thank you so much for picking up the copy-edit...I thought nobody would come! XD NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No sweat. What did the comment about technical matters mean in the request (wikitechnical or biological). Anyhow, I will proof the whole thing and then back in your hot little hands!  ;) TCO (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ha...replied there. Thanks again.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Gymnastics Notability

Hello, I think you may have misinterpreted the guidelines. Please see my response on the WP:NSPORT talk page. And I tried to get the gymnastics project involved in it as well but there was no response from that dead project. My response is basically on the lines of all the people you mentioned are notable and the guideline covers all of them as well. --MATThematical (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey. Hope I am not coming across as argumentative. Head is a little frazzled from working on Painted turtle. I'm well up for the mission of controlling BLP creep. It just seems like that list thrown up there is a little too strict. For one thing, could look at cycling or skating for comparators. Plus, I think wiki may have a blind spot for the actual notability since the kind of people who follow the sport don't tend to write stuff up on wiki (although they do use the Internet and google and would read a wiki bio). Anyhoo...back to my turtle. No hard feelings, man! TCO (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TCO. You have new messages at NYMFan69-86's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Another cool turtle Loggerhead sea turtle. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that is definitely a cool one. Like how it has a picture of what it eats and then what eats it. TCO (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If I ask how to do wikisomething, will my talk page stalkers, come and answer (testing 1, 2, 3)

How much do people edit wikipages completely off line (like using MS Word)? It seems like it is a lot easier to scan pages and cut and paste text, at least if doing an initial composition. Would think for spellchecking and word counting could be helpful also.

That said, refs have to be done with wiki and once they are in, I guess you are stuck. But it is really a hassle always going from edit mode to view mode, rather than having a WYSIWYG interface. Also, the way all the code for refs is in the paragraph, instead of down with the references (total eyesore)!

Just want to know if there is some easier way, or tricks I'm missing.

P.s. This is also to test whether it is more useful to ask questions on my userpage or off at an appropriate page. Would figure the latter, but just testing. Managing the watchlists is also a hassle.

TCO (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Or is the Village Pump a good place? TCO (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Some editing tools to look through. If you use Firefox it has an American spellchecker built in. WikEd is aiming at WYSIWYG editing, but I find it slows the page editing loading down a lot.

At WP:PUMP you can learn places to get assistance. WP:HELPDESK as given by WP:PUMP is a good place to ask editing related question.

PS can I setup talk page archiving on this page, it could do with some. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, no archive. I'm going to straighten out the page manually, but it is a project. Hate archives.

Village Pump is the best place I know of for this kind of stuff. I've actually done some work in word, turned out to be worse than just using wiki to enter text. Have to deal with two problems rather than one (but whatever works for you).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice this. I think there are some actual offline emulators, but I'm not 100 percent certain. Poke around the web a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive Conclusion

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive! We have reached the end of our fourth backlog elimination drive. Thanks to all who participated. Stats GOCE November 2010 backlog elimination drive graphs 58 people signed up for this drive. Of these, 48 people participated in the drive. Although we did not eliminate the months we planned to (January, February, and March 2009; and August, September, and October 2010), we did reduce the backlog by 627 articles (11.2%), which was over our goal of 10%. 49 awards will go out to 33 of 48 participants. Check out the complete list of barnstar winners here. Barnstars If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you participated in the September 2010 backlog elimination drive, you may have earned roll-over words (more details can be found here). These roll-over words count as credit towards earning barnstars, except for leaderboard awards. We will be delivering these barnstars within the next couple of weeks. Our next drive is scheduled for January 2011. In the meantime, please consider helping out at the Wikification drive or any of the other places where help with backlogs is needed. Thank you for participating in the last 2010 backlog elimination drive! We look forward to seeing you in January! Your drive coordinators –The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions, S Masters (talk), and Diannaa (Talk)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 00:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

Regardless of what happens...

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Here it finally is! You deserve ten of these for your work on the Painted turtle. Whatever that article becomes, let it always be known that you worked tirelessly for weeks to make it better. Thank you TCO, NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Very cool. Was trying to get enought done for one from the GoC, but I didn't get enough done by month end to earn one (see post above). So, since you gave me one, I got one anyhow. That does remind me, I'm going to call it "done" over at GoC. Will still help you out, but I just think it has gone through the process enough to check the box, if you are cool with that? TCO (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Consider it done my friend. Content addition is the next priority for perhaps a run at FA. Prose and grammar are all spectacular thanks to your efforts.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

GA passed!

GA nominator passed the article! Feel free to display this userbox with pride:

This user helped promote Painted turtle to good article status.

--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh...well I was about to add some reallio trulio cool content (for a scientist and a casual reader) to the article. But since it is done. ;) TCO (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Just kidding. Great content and thanks for letting me join in, later!

You're leaving!? You don't want to try to push it through FA with me!?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll help. Let's rock! Got a few more polishes coming, but I think it can go in the FA process, now.TCO (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hold on sparky! Just a few more things I want to say...will do so over on the talk page.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please give me a couple of days to review it. The fact that it's been reviewed by a FAC regular will count in your favor at FAC. Well done by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar of teamwork for helping me get the 1907 Tiflis bank robbery article ready for the mainspace. I greatly appreciate all the help you gave me, and this is the least I could do to show my appreciation. Remember (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

p.s. The article has already been nominated (without prompting) as a good article by a Dr. Blofeld and is nominated as a DYK! Thanks again for all of your help!! Remember (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks man, but I didn't do much. I am very happy for you though. I knew everyone would love that. Something like that is a joy to read in an encyclopedia. Please come check out Painted turtle, place I've been hanging lately. Again, thank you so much for the very thoughtful barnstar!!

Every little bit counts. The turtle article is very impressive. I don't usually work on biology articles because I find them too intimidating and I am usually too busy with other articles. Anyways, thanks again for the help and for your compliments on the article. Remember (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

We have a lot of scientific content, but (perhaps because of that), I have been working hard to call a spade a spade. Scratch that...even call it a shovel. Biologists are really bad at just throwing out technical terms and wikilinking. Very, very often not needed. And very discouraging for the general reader who has to wade through a bristly thicket of vocabulary lesson. Why say spermatogenisis versus "make sperm"?!

DYK for 1907 Tiflis bank robbery

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You in?

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Turtles--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. I need to start being a little more judicious with my time, though. Maybe help y'all where I add highest value. I have some commercial work (or really a proposal to write) so need to stop wiki-goofing for a while. I will get you this capture section and then turn over a list of tasks I meant to do, but never got to, today. Then I need to stay away for a while. will leave a note on it. Hopefully, you can still cut me a piece of the star, though!  ;)

If there is a way, that I can help that is more advisory rather than getting into the details of each grammar debate, or doing heavy content research, would do that. You saw how I rewrote that page and I can advise on similar. Obviously doing the real work is what matters though. And what I respected of you, getting the page going with all the content. There are a gazillion people on wiki who would rather advise on how to use the tools, than grab a hammer and start building houses!  ;)TCO (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you did phenomenal work. If you think there even should be this project, you can sing your name and say you support.  :-)

You got it, baby. Will go over and say so! I think the key thing with a project is the kind of critical mass. Certainly the topic is important enough. The main thing is will there be someone or preferably someones who will really work on it. (For instance, Gymnastics is a dead project.) If you think Wikiherp is a good project, would stay associated with it and be a subproject, so that you can keep critical mass. You could also try to just be efficient and limit the project scope you are going to do. Maybe just make the project around straightening out the tangle of taxonomy and just making "wikidecisions" since the taxonomy externally itself is kinda all over the map anyhow, and you end up needing to "make calls". Or just call out some turtle specific issues wrt quality. but otherwise, stay pretty tight with wikiherp and let them manage the article rating and all that. Not trying to hold you back, if you are all revved up to make a huge infrastructure and rate articles. Just a consideration.TCO (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Wild idea, but I noticed that you had some AP class experience and said the turtles were good AP class projects. you might coordinate and try to get more classes to work on turtle articles. I remember the teacher saying how much he wished they had done terrapin instead of gravebat. Also there are some juicy ones like snapping turtle, etc. left for classes to work on. And certainly they are "core", high hit count articles that benefit wiki and readers. Not just obscure (although that's fine too!)TCO (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I set a few things in motion, thanks for all the help!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Content creation barnstar

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		For your outstanding effort, resourcefulness and research for content creation for the painted turtle article. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, man!12:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed my horrid grammar in the above, feel free to correct. Thankfully your grammar is better then mine. ;-) Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

We're cool, man!

I was just reading a grammar book in the bathtub last night (Harcourt Brace, from back when I was in high school.) Actually pretty good book. I remember "losing it" and paying for it on purpose at the end of 12th grade. Read all kinds of things to check, not just with grammar, but also writing. Wish I had learned that stuff better at the time, but maybe it is not too late. Anyhow, fell asleep and water-logged the book. It is now hanging up to dry.

And I really won't be going through the article with that book. But I will maybe try to learn from it, for work I do in real life. TCO (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and the diamondback terrapin is found in the keys, not just the mainland of Florida. Couldn't help myself, had to check. But I am not going to add the edit.

Your contributed article, Capture of painted turtles

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Capture of painted turtles. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painted_turtle#Capture. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painted_turtle#Capture - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Slayer (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It is an intentional subpage of a longer article. Both the talk pages (and the page it came from) discuss this. Per directions on your template, speedie is unacceptable. If you want to read the actual pages and discuss content and how to work this feel fine. However, this is a normal change to a too long article, to create a summary and then an article.TCO (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

refbegin

it basically makes the references smaller, but you need to end it by adding a refend otherwise it makes the whole of the rest of the article small Tom B (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Good change. Is there some way to get rid of the brackets? I am using to seeing brackets in academic work, only when the refs are not superscripted. Given we are superscripted (and even blue), the brackets seem like clutter.TCO (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's anyway to remove it, unless you change MediaWiki:Cite reference link, which would require enormous consensus. Part of the reason is to further differentiate refs from superscripted numbers like ² (squared) or ³ (cubed), though the refs are blue. Some other languages like Spanish do it without brackets. Goodvac (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm extensively published in science and most technical journals seem to get by fine without the concern wrt math superscripts. There is also the blue to fall back on. No biggie though.

Talkback

Hello, TCO. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada Roads.
Message added 21:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

In use

I wouldn't recommend the {{inuse}} now the article is at FAC. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 3.(e) "its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process." Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 05:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Will do.TCO (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Honest, I was so done, and then when they pushed me on the copyright issue, I kept doing google search after google search. And I always find stuff (even tangential as with the webbed foot), when I do that. Anyhow, will just be responsive from now on. I don't want to blow things for you guys. TCO (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, reviewers are looking for stability. It's okay though, the Bog changed so incredibly much from the beginning to the end of the review. We won't get grilled for including a few things.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, making changes it likely fine, but the in use template says about a major expansion is in progress. I think it could raise an eyebrow. Also some reviewers like to make adjustments to the article that they discover and having a template saying they can't is not likely to helpful to them. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 05:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I get it. And the article is really not in danger of much edit conflicts anyhow. Template tool, back in toolbox.  :)TCO (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay friend.  :-) Now for reviewers...--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Dab/EL

Hey, sorry, I use a lot of jargon since I generally plow through 20 FACs at once. I check Dabs and ELs using the links in the box in the upper right corner of the specific FAC page- i.e. for you it was Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Painted turtle/archive1. The five links are for tools that show who edited the article when, how many edits each person did (to see if the nominator has done any work on it), what dabs there are, what the external links look like, and if there is alt text for the images. As alt text isn't a requirement at the moment and nominations by people who haven't touched the article are easily spotted, I just check dabs and ELs.

Dab is a link to a Disambiguation page- such as Flower (disambiguation). In general you shouldn't be linking to them without a reason, and should instead link to the specific article you wanted. The Dab checker also shows circular links, which is what you had. I don't check which link it was for Dabs, preferring to leave it up to the nominator to know what they meant to link to instead of guessing, and as such I don't look where in the article the dab/circular link actually was. EL is indeed external links, as you guessed- the tool linked to in that box shows the status of each link. (good, 404 not found, 403 forbidden, journal subscription required, timed out, etc.) I generally fix links that redirect as a personal quirk, so that if they ever move the page again the link doesn't end up broken, but I don't think it's a requirement. For broken links I just tell the nominator, like I did with you, as you know what it was supposed to be.

Checking your articles with those tools is a good idea before nominating- it's nothing to oppose over, really, but its a bit of cleanup that should be done for any FA, especially the broken links. I don't think most people use the tools, though, so don't worry about it. I'm just picky. --PresN 03:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we were pretty clean. Am just an advocate of fixing everything we can think of before a review. So will use tools next time (unless they are really techie, in which case still get someone to run them for me). On the links, I actually went through and checked every link manually, did the hidden comments for section links, tried to go to the most desirable page (sometimes a better article might be on a slightly higher or lower level of taxonomy for a predator for instance). Added hidden comments to explain in our article, so they don't change back, tried to fix any redirects, etc. I was even doing piped links for uppercase and lowercase, but a bot came in and changed that all! I agree we should link to the current article name, one less thing to break (less links in the chain). Plus don't have that ugly little red in corner to look like we effed up.TCO (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Question

What did they have to do here to get this image to stay?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I would leave it alone unless someone challenges it. I think the usage is fair use. Even if the people here have not justified it that way, within the project, I feel morally comfortable that they are not "stealing" from the sign designer, which is the key thing from a liability and morality perspective. So I would just let it go, man. If someone hassles you, put in a fair use request. Could be a good test case. I'm not talking about doing stuff that is on the line, but a picture of a sign to me is very clear fair use and we should be a little more aggressive about fighting for that sort of thing. WRT our article, I just didn't think it wise to push it with the reviewers although I feel it is fair use (would pass a suit, no problem, is not stealing).TCO (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I wish I had brought it up before, didn't think about that picture until just now. But I'll let it go. We'll take the high road.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what you were trying to do. USe that sign to back us up? They won't care and will just go after that other guy. Or you were trying to make other people obey what we do? Or just trying to do the right thing regardless? It's a grey area. I think it's allowable, but some don't. I would just not borrow trouble. Read the village pump and you can see all the discussion on the sign that I've had all over the project. I don't want to push it more here at review though. Yeah, we lose a chip of the Hope diamond but are still a rock star.TCO (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't want that image removed, maybe just thought the author knew something we didn't (...than again, maybe not). Perhaps after FAC it can be brought back up; also seemed to be an asset to Conservation of painted turtles.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The loggerhead image is in South Carolina, US. I was going to say it's the difference in Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama but on closer inspection Commons:Template:FoP-Canada and Commons:Template:FoP-US and associated US clause/Canadian clause say similar things. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright has really gotten out of hand. That is my personal political stance. I'm not saying script kiddies should be allowed to steal from musicians. But when you can't make pretty different derivative use for commentary, that's an issue. I actually think fair use would cover all this stuff just fine. (The real legal fair use, not what wiki has as a policy.) Try sueing the New York Times over them running a photo like that.TCO (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth I agree with you. Several times I've thought the Wikipedia fair use interpretation quite harsh. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleted some sections

I felt so bad looking at this page with its miles of unblock tags from 1.5 years ago at the top when every time I see you around the wiki you're trying super-hard to learn and follow every rule while writing important articles (and well) so I took the liberty of deleting the offending sections. (I saw that you don't like archives). If you don't like it feel free to hit the revert button, but I didn't want other editors to get the wrong impression of you. --PresN 08:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Shake your manly hand! :)TCO (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If you keep trying to finish the encyclopedia, someone's going to block you... -Atmoz (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Turning in my testicles wasn't enough to keep me safe? TCO (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Man, what'd you do!?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Used hyphens instead of n-dashes. Let this be a lesson to you. :) (And try to keep plausible deniability, so if I go down again you don't get caught in the dragnet.) Nah...I just like to tease and am pretty good at it. But I promised not to anymore. It's all cool. This place is so dramatic, but let it die.TCO (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha...and sorry, it's dead [*lips sealed].--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I love that turtle picture, I saw you use it on Talk:Humble Indie Bundle as well. --PresN 21:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks man. I got it when one of my colleagues was kind of pushing on a factoid (webbed feet) that I thought was out of nowhere, and I was irked at it. But I just decided to look and then got the RS for webbed feet AND this pic AND a better idea on how to organize thoughts on picta article (some stray factoids of interest for understanding the turtle, but not nesc. different from others). Good things happen when I fire up the Google searches.

And yeah...you can check the file history, I use it all over the place. If you watch me for a while, will see that I have some cute tricks, but they repeat after a while.  :) TCO (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikidog

What a cute puppy!

Seaphoto^Talk has given you a doggy! Doggies promote Wikilove and hopefully this one has made your day much better. Spread WikiLove by placing a doggy on other user's talk pages by adding {{subst:Doggy}} to their talk page. Happy editing!

That was a great comment at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Mossad_shark_and_Zionist_vulture. Enjoy your dog, but watch him. Closely. Seaphoto^Talk 22:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks man. Dogs rock!TCO (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Turtle Racing

Replied on my talk page; I can't promise Featured Article but I'd love to help! Qrsdogg (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding Autosign

Hope you don't mind, I'm adding {{YesAutosign}} because you forget to sign your talk page posts often. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite OK, but can you make it so it doesn't send me those nag notices (please)? IOW fix the goofs but not send me a bonk on the head notice.  :)TCO (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sinebot is well behaved and bonk feature free. ;-) Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It's spanking me. And edit conflicting me.  :(TCO (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. I read the bot page and that is undocumented. :( It has also never happened to me despite not signing at various time. I'll had the bot exclude from your user page. Hopefully that is shut it up it's barking at you ever again. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

:)

		The Original Barnstar
		For your dedication and all your great work on Wilmer Tanner [CharlieEchoTango] 10:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

right back atcha translator! Thanks, mon ami!TCO (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply waiting for you

• Here. Cheers. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 05:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi. Very sweet of you to reply immediately. Here's a list of Gimme Danger's top edited articles: Buddhism, Tibet, Himalayas, Jane_S._Richardson, Dalai_Lama, Triangle, Bhutan, Punk_rock, Index_of_Benin-related_articles, 14th_Dalai_Lama. :) Best wishes Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 05:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not trying to bring the guy down, honest. P.s. Let's keep it at the RFA, for benefit of all. Cool topic and thanks for researching. have a few furhter comments there.TCO (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
      • :-) No problems. With Malleus on a warpath out there, I did not particularly wish a war of words to start by posting the articles there. Take care and best. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 05:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
        • People are funny. If you want to research the topic and present the info (can you summarize it better than lists of articles? I felt I still had to research it all), than it would help things. I flipped through the list of 11 and seriously was underwhelmed. I'm honest and open to changing opinion, but just suspect that I'm looking for "more" than what you do. Don't worry about Mall. Worry about should we set the bar for content creation at a foot of the ground or three feet or six. Capisce? (Be of good cheer, man.)TCO (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
          • I understand. Actually, to analyze the editor's contributions, one would have to go through every page of contributions to fully understand the relevance of the editor as an administrator. In general, my personal consideration for a good administrator is one who understands policies and guidelines, applies them well, and is well versed in content creation. Now, well versed by my standards is of course on a different scale from many excellent content creators like SandyGeorgia, Malleus, Wehwalt that we have. I personally don't believe a prospective administrator needs to have the most outstanding content contributions - in as much as the prospect needs to have outstanding quasi-admin contributions (like CSD, AfD, UAA, AIV etc). In essence, I appreciate your views as much as you, I think, appreciate mine :) It's been good to have had a chance to interact with you. Best wishes again and take care. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 05:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No sweat. I agree everyone does not need to be Wehwalt or Charles Matthews. We will never get enough like that. I do think some harder checking of the box, even just to experience it, is useful for the individual and the community and sends a needed message about content and prose, that will lead to improvement. Look at the average person who has gotten somthing to GA or FA. they're NOT some super-Wehwalt, but at least have been in the wars. The value is that as they apply policies and such, they have some real thought about how to make this place better (it is pretty bad in some aspects of quality and could really be upgraded in quality...not to perfection, but better). And this has nothing to do with not banning Malleus when he acts up or letting me be a troll or the like. You will still ahve some prima donnas that need to be disciplined. But even on that front, less. And again, that's really far from my concern. TCO (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

We're picking out turtle images (Portal talk:Turtles)

Over at SunCreator's new portal, we're picking out our six favorite turtle images. What do you think of mine? What are your favorites? We'll all talk it over and we need just six.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

combining cleaned Tanner pic

Howdy TCO! I think the correct protocol for this situation is to wait until the Featured Picture Nomination is concluded. Once it is over, if the cleaned-up version is promoted or neither version is promoted, you can switch out the images in each of the articles so that the cleaned version is used instead. If somehow the non-cleaned version wins, you'll need to leave that one in the articles. Either way, you should leave both versions as separate files on Commons (in case someone needs the original version for some reason). Hope that makes sense. Good luck! Kaldari (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Thanks man

No problem. I enjoy randomly coming across images and cleaning up their descriptions, especially after an image has been transferred from one of the projects to Commons. CommonsHelper is great, but it leaves a mess. Btw, I've also applied the same template to the cleaned-up image description, with proper attribution to the modifier. Thanks for pointing that out. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Question dos

Why isn't your name under "Nominator(s)" on the FAC review page any more?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mind the thorough go over, honest. Especially the refs, they should be gnat's ass perfect. Realio trulio. (I do think the templates lead to some of the issues, not just mechanics but also because we lose track of the output in a way that would not if doing it manually.) I wouldn't mind a ball-busting on the writing quality, either, if it was making us better. But I didn't get the sense that writing comments were. Really, had more a sense that there were some things wiki is not doing right. Also, very disappointed that the first couple of writing-contenct reviewers did not even respond to disagreement with the reviews. (I appreciate Sasata hanging in with us, despite some philosophical differences.) But, just not what I'm used to elsewhere in publication reviews, elsewhere, man.

Get the star. The thing should be "front page". It's good work and a lot more relevant than doing FAs on low Google hit count [i.e public not interested in] topics.) And you still got work out of me, even after taking my name off of the paper!  ;-) Oh...and keep the peace and keep the train moving forward. I don't mind my name not being on the nom (maybe it's seen as pique, but it's also wiki that might lose a little). Be of good cheer. (I would just not say anything about who the nom is and just let the article roll, man.)

P.s And this had nothing to do with my neuro condition (I think). Could be partially my personality, but don't think it was my mind. And I got a bunch of tests MRI, CAT, etc. that didn't show anything. I think it is something with the blood flow, but has gotten better last few days. Not the "big C" at least. TCO (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

TCO, use the advice and experience of Malleus who recommended putting your name back. Withdrawing because somebody hits on your baby being a pile of rubbish is part of the FAC process. Anyone can criticizes an article in anyway for any or no reason. That's some of reason to why FAC is difficult but ultimately more rewarding if it passes. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear it's not cancer. I also recommend putting your name back. You have edited that article more than anyone, you spent A TON of time on it, doing work in your sandbox, contacting people about images...come on, you deserve it. Don't let anyone's comments disgruntled you, truly. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. I still have reservations about the quality and method of article review and the readability of articles on Wiki versus real magazines. And that FA group seems a little clubby. But I'll put my name down. We'll sink or swim together.TCO (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That's the spirit friend. Everyone has their own idea about what the ideal article should look like. It's compromise and collaboration that makes each editor happy (or no editor happy).  :-P NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

Hi, thanks for the response. First, with the title, current consensus has it to keep it as two words, because it is the official title of the film. The title has been discussed in the talk archives of the article, and the latest FAC. With structure, it's just following the WP:MOSFILM style guide to keep it consistent. The themes section, it is a difficult one, yes, but with the length of the article, I am looking into creating a seperate article altogether which goes into further detail. It's an important section, but that issue wasn't really the focus of any of the FAC's. But let's see what we can do. I should probably put this article up at Peer review, where more people can comment on it from there. Thanks, --TÆRkast (Communicate) 18:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead and think through what you want to do and get some alternative thoughts. The title is not the biggest thing and I know title wars occupy way too much time on teh wiki. Although I was a little worried that it migh be a sign of kind of being a little pompous.

But forget the title, main issue is organization. I'm just saying my reaction as a reader was that the thing seemed to jump around. We talk about the film, then the sequel than back to the film. We talk about academic criticism (womjep issue and the nihilism) and then much later have conventional film critics. Some of the enonomics seems a little scattered (that's tricky, may not be able to consilidate all, but would look at it.) I don't know if this is a general issue of following the film template too closely or if it is just this film has less depth in terms of themes. I would consider not following that template, if it doesn't tell your story best. What's that worst that happens? It works and you pass FAC? My take is that the more you can have a "story" within an article the better. You still have to give all the info, but if you can make it flow better, people will enjoy it here. And the "story" here is "cheap film went on to become cult favorite" (not some professor opining on the ennui of early 70s political landscape.) Good luck, man.  ;-)TCO (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I will look into organization, after all, the themes were originally below the critical reception before the previous FAC. In terms of actual analysis, a lot of it is the same, and I don't know if it can be portrayed more objectively, or in more detail than that. I'll look into it, but I don't think it'd compromise the integrity of the article at FAC (I may be wrong, but as I said before, it wasn't an issue at FAC). Do you think the intro needs to be expanded? Comparing with other FACs it looks like it does. Thanks, and I'd really appreciate your help.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 19:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I really want the fifth FAC to be the last one. It seems everytime it's come close to passing, something's not quite right. Almost 3 years later, it's still not FA and I could use all the help I can get. Thanks,--TÆRkast (Communicate) 19:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel ya man!

The lead is not bad. You do have 4 paras allowed, so could add a bit more, or perhaps just use the "break" if there is a thought you want to split. First para seemed just a tad rough for me (and it should shine). I would probably completely cull the cast list (they're obscure names and you pretty much have to blue link them as names, but then you get one of those blue mashes that really slow the reader down. I think if you just say "rookie cast" or some words to that effect (like you have in the article) that's actually more relevant information than the list of names that no one has heard of. Plus they are all in the info box, a little to the right. I would do different if the names were recognizable or special somehow to the end result. Half a loaf would be to move them down to second lead para at least. They really are just kinda "details" that are getting too much prominence now. I think there was one sentence in the lead, middle of first para, that gave me a "huh" factor, because it had like three clauses in it and too many separate thoughts. That's an easy fix though.

Like I said, I think the way to deal with the themes is to finesse it a bit. You can leave the content, but move it down in promince, put it after the film critic stuff. It's just not strong enough to go in the front, plus in some ways it's really just another aspect of what the film critics said (violence against females and nihilism, are more sophisticated sure, but are followons from the thing being just...violent!)

I'm about 97% sure that this will make your article better for a reader, regardless of policy. But we'll get some clarity on the whole "follow the template" thing before I move all the furniture!

Would you agree with my take that the "story" of TCSM is that it was an ugly duckling (no budget, by unknown people) that struggled to get released, struggled to get past the censors, and then ended up making a lot of money, getting a lot of sequels, becoming a term that is on everyone's lips (even those like me who have never seen the film)? TCO (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I do agree with your take, it's become one of the most successful films of all time, after all. I want to flesh out the three lead paragraphs, but I think somebody else would do that better than I do. The themes section will probably be moving, per your suggestion, and some more cleaning up of the structure. It's a bit funny, because I want it to become FA, but then I wouldn't know what to do after that, where to go from there, because this article's been my main project for 3 years now.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 19:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me ask a few people that I respect (maybe Wehwalt, he has a play in there now, so he can advise on this template format thing and if he agrees with my take on the org). Maybe one way to keep it more your baby, would be if I just give you a murderous review and then you can do all the changes yourself. Otherwise if you let the baby in my hands, there will be all kinds of body parts moving around. (get it, haha, fits with the movie). Like on Painted turtle, I did a pretty major rewrite. They were cool with it and appreciated it, but personally I would hate it if someone did that to one of "my" articles. TCO (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, I would like to keep the general structure of it, and I would be more comfortable doing those changes. If you could list suggested changes and improvements to either peer review, or better for me would be my user page on Chain Saw. Thanks, --TÆRkast (Communicate) 20:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and you may also want to ask for input from Erik (talk · contribs) and Bignole (talk · contribs), while you're at it, because they've also been helping with the article. Regards, --TÆRkast (Communicate) 20:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll give it a readthrough and just a list of thoughts over at your user page. You can share it with those fellows. BTW, I (just now), read through the MOSFILM guide. It says right in there that if "themes" belongs better in crit reception, you can put it there. It does, for this film. Also, I see that they require you to put the cast in first para. But given the "who cares" natures of the actors, I would just call out the girl and Leatherface actor (in the lead) and have some comment about the rookie cast and all. That should cover you and actually gives more relevant info. Some other quick things I noticed (need to reread but just jotting down): seemed like you misuse the word post-production for commercial activities related to finding a distributor (not film editing as word is commonly used and as MOSFILM does); Also, I didn't see the rotten tomatoes and such (although might have missed it). TCO (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I added post-production as a result of a suggestion over the previous FAC, so that could be changed. Rotten Tomatoes is mentioned at the very bottom of the critical response subsection.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 20:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I'll see what I can do. Some of them I may not agree with, but I suppose I'll make a lot of changes nonetheless. Unfortunately, the problem with the film is that some of the information just isn't there. Take for example, the gross revenue, $30 million, that's all the sources say, there is literally no information on worldwide gross. The title isn't really the biggest problem at this stage. But again, thanks for the comments.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 12:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh and the bit about the innovations in the slasher film genre is the, in the cultural impact section, second paragraph.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 13:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

re:Request sideneck picture

Hi yes I can have a look at that and will probably add more to those available as well. Sorry for delay had no internet for a week, hence my absence. Faendalimas (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks man. We are going to pick six other species pics for now. When you come up with a sideneck pic, we will swap yours in. No pressure.  :-) TCO (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really such a great idea

Softly softly catchee monkey.

This rubbed me wrong too. I've never seen such a bold move made before. I still think it would be wise to give it more time TCO. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive news

Guild of Copy Editors January 2011 backlog elimination drive Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors January 2011 Backlog elimination drive! The drive is halfway over, so here are some mid-drive stats. Participation GOCE January 2011 backlog elimination drive progress graphs So far, 43 people have signed up for this drive. Of these, 25 have participated. If you signed up for the drive but haven't participated yet, it's not too late! Try to copy edit at least a few articles. Remember, if you have rollover words from the last drive, you will lose them if you do not participate in this drive. If you haven't signed up for the drive yet, you can sign up now. Progress report We have eliminated two months from the backlog – January and February 2009. One of our goals is to eliminate as many months as possible from the 2009 backlog. Please help us reduce the size of this part of the backlog if you haven't already. Another goal is to reduce the entire backlog by 10%, or by 515 articles. Currently, we have eliminated 375 articles from the queue, so if each participant copy edits four more articles, we will reach that goal. Thank you for participating in the January 2011 drive. We anticipate it will be another big success! Your drive coordinators –S Masters (talk), Diannaa (Talk), The UtahraptorTalk to me, and Tea with toast (Talk)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 21:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC).

Double sorry

Sorry twice! I just removed it without noticing you had replied. Do you want me to restore it? Oopsidaisy! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries.TCO (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)