User talk:Samsara/Archive06

FPC Candidate (Siberian tiger)

I just wanted to thank you for your idea to add the Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Siberian Tiger image to the stretching article. I hadn't thought to put it there, and I think that it has a better home now. So thanks. --Tewy 01:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Redshift FAC

Your objection was addressed and fixed. Please come an comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Redshift. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 13:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Kernel (computer science) FAC

Your concerns have been addressed. I would appreciate further comment of yours. Thanks, Candamir 22:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto for Concerto delle donne. Cheers, Mak (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Microsoft issue has also been fixed, and some other issues as well. Candamir 21:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Jim Crow

This is a mess. Jim Crow was originally a disambig. Then User:Ewlyahoocom moved the content to Jim Crow (disambiguation) and changed Jim Crow to a redirect to Jim Crow laws. Now you've turned Jim Crow back into a disambig, so we have two Jim Crow disambig pages (with different content). Can you clean this up? —Chowbok 00:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Paste one into the other, place a redirect and you're done. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

ultramarine

thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

haha

Nice fictional tool ;) pschemp | talk 00:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC) er, I meant to say thanks for fixing the refs. amazing what non-existent code can do these day. pschemp | talk 01:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog's RFA

Thanks for not doubting my...non-sockpuppetness on Guinnog's RFA. Thanks, Republitarian 01:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Names

I've answered on AN/I. Tyrenius 20:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Danny Yee AfD

It'll get kept (at least no consensus; though I prefer a solid "keep" to be explicit), so it doesn't really matter. But the information I added about Slashdot wasn't just that Yee had "been slashdotted": it was that he has been syndicated as a writer for Slashdot. I.e. it's not that /. editors have a story that mentions: "You can go read a review over there"; rather, the review is the article hosted on /.'s homepage itself. Combined with his numerous mentions in print (I only describe a few representative ones, but follow the Google books link in the article to see a bunch more), I think it's a slam-dunk on notability. LotLE×talk 16:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Amphibians of Australia

Hey Samsara,

I have been helping out on the Amphibians of Australia article. You were the main contributor to the peer review, would you be able to have a look through it and see what else is missing. I have had writers block on this article for weeks now. :) Thanks --liquidGhoul 07:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog's RfA

Hi Samsara, I saw your comment on Guinnog's RfA. I'm sorry you feel I mispoke in adding my comment about Republitarian. We generally feel that RfA is a discussion not a vote, so it is important that people are around for that. If you feel it was an inappropriate comment, I welcome you to say so to me, but it feels unfair to punish the candidate for a mistake made by the nominator. Thanks, Gwernol 17:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (62/18/3). I will go very carefully at first, trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools, and will begin by re-reading all the high-quality feedback I received during the process, not least from those who opposed me. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! Guinnog 14:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)}

Thanks

Hey, thanks for promoting the articles of the planets in the Gliese 876 system to good article status and your comment regarding featured article status. I'm currently taking the approach of trying to get lots of exoplanet-related articles to good article status, since that seems a more achievable standard in this area, where a lot of articles need work (there's quite a lot of very short one-sentence-and-an-infobox style articles in this area even for some of the most well-known systems). It would definitely be a good thing to get one or two to featured status though. Chaos syndrome 18:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hate Speech

Thanks for your message, it did rather lift the spirits! Giano | talk 19:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

SCOTM

You voted for Human genome and this article is now the current Science Collaboration of the Month! Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article.

NCurse _work 05:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Theory notability guideline

Hey, I thought you might be interested in a draft guideline for theory notability. Cheers. Pete.Hurd 17:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

FA nomination for Enzyme

Hi there. I nominated Enzyme for Featured article a while ago. As you are a Wikipedian who contributes to scientific articles, I would appreciate your feedback on this nomination. Thanks! TimVickers 17:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Programming language disambig.

I've continued your inquiry at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Programming languages regarding the use of ( ) to disambiguate programming langauges. If you would weigh in, it would be appreciated. atanamir 21:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Human evolution fossils page move

Not sure if I agree completely with the move to Human fossils. Many of the fossils on the page are not Hominids much less Homo Sapiens. I know you probably understand this, but I want to be extra sure the common reader understands. It is a fine line we walk trying to teach people that, no this particular fossil may not be a direct ancestor but it is a close cousin to a direct ancestor and therefore important. I have tried to show this in the intro paragraph. If you still think it is better this way, I can try to add more to the intro to make it clearer. Nowimnthing 04:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. Hominin fossils doesn't really sound good either. I guess we will keep it as is for now, maybe someone can think up something better later. thanks. Nowimnthing 11:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Review

Hi, I've been working on the biography of Frank Macfarlane Burnet, I was hoping that you may have some constructive criticism. Thanks.--Peta 23:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

[1] --Guinnog 17:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Scientist Box

Check out [2]bunix 00:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Spellchecking

Hi there! Please refer to WP:POL, and you'll find out you're not actually writing a guideline, but a how-to or an essay. Neither of those needs any kind of officiality, and that is why I removed the proposed tag (which is for official policy and guidelines). Removal of the tag does not in any way mean that people must not discuss any more, I have no idea how you got that idea. Yours, >Radiant< 16:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

liquid hydrogen

The arguments where to keep it at its own and give it a go to expand it, so i am against the new proposal, in itself you are right, every hydrogen related article is related to hydrogen economy, but the whole range about hydrogen is 80 to 100 articles and we cant put them all into hydrogen economy.it has to wait until we have a hydrogen portal, and yes you can start one, reg. in the mean time we are working on Category:hydrogen and Wikipedia:WikiProject Hydrogen reg . Mion 00:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Samsara

Hey Samsara, thankyou so much for your Jedi support of my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. Your comment was perfectly timed as I was just starting to feel a little like I think you may have felt near the end of your RfA. So I really appreciated your comment and support. Thankyou. :) Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Lefty's RfA thanks

Hi, Samsara, and thanks for supporting me in my recent request for adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of 70/4/4. I hope I can live up to your expectations, and if there's ever anything you need, you know where to find me! --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for peer review of Enzyme kinetics

Hi Samsara. Any feedback on this article to help bring it towards FA status would be a great help. Peer Review. Thank you. TimVickers 18:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input on this article, if you have any more comments or suggestions, it is up for FA candidacy and the discussion page is here. Thank you. TimVickers 20:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I think I've reached a compromise with links in footnotes, but the main site linked in the External links section. Do you think this is an acceptable solution? TimVickers 01:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Len_H._Tower_Jr.&action=history

What don't you understand? - Lentower 08:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

For reasons, I haven't looked into, it took WP a long time for the redirect to take effect. This delay was not mentioned in the documentation, and was surprising as all other edits I have done on WP took effect immeadiately. I can conceive of several design flaws in the software that might cause this behaviour. Ends up that all syntaxes I tried as I tried to understand the bug work.. - Lentower 10:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: GFDL image?

I have heard Len say that almost all of his creative product is licensed under GPL, LGPL, or GFDL terms with very few exceptions (a magazine article, IIRC.) However, I have asked to be certain. I would phone but it's 2 a.m.

Think about it. What do you think the probability is that a cofounder of the FSF wouldn't GFDL his work? You are of course entitled to list the image for deletion by challenging my assumption. However, I would encourage at least a day or two of patience and good faith.

May I ask what your interest in removal of Len's article is? LossIsNotMore 09:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. "given that you profess to be a programmer"? My goodness! Whatever happened to WP:AGF?!? LossIsNotMore 09:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed by Len.[3] LossIsNotMore 09:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Woah that's certainly not a very fun AfD is it

Saw this ... [4] ... hang in there, chap. This AfD is apparently bringing out the worst in some of us. I was a bit frustrated, as I suspect you were too, that people kept missing the point, that what is wanted is good, reliable, verifiable sources for this chap's notability... instead it seemed to descend into an orgy of process wanking, hurled accusations and etc. etc. etc. You did a creditable job of keeping a cool head, all in all, I think. But what I think most important is that the article now actually has some good sources. (whcih is why I changed my comment to keep) If those advocating it be kept had actually added sources earlier, it would have been a lot less messy, eh? Sorry if that was a bit of a ramble... Take care, happy editing, hang in there. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)