User talk:Nataev/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Nataev. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Azimjon Asqarov

Congrats on getting this to GA status on uz.wiki! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! It's basically a result of your work. Nataev (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Checking in

Greetings Nataev. Hope you are doing well (seem to busy anyway :) Just wanted to say hello! Dawnseeker2000 16:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! Haha, thanks for checking in! Doing just fine. A bit busy these days. How about you? "Long time no see!" :) Nataev (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm good, with the exception of a shakeup at work that's been a bit stressful, but it will turn out fine. When I see or hear news from your part of the world I am reminded of you and your work here. Take it easy, Dawnseeker2000 17:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, quakes are scary! Stay safe! It's nice to hear that in your mind I have somehow become a representative of my part of the world. Cheers! Nataev (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Türk Mitolojisi

İyi Günler Türk ve Akraba Halklar Mitlojisinde 500'ün üzerinde madde yazdım. Bunların 400 tanesini Azeri diline çevirdim. Şimdi İngilizceye ve mümkünse Rusçaya çevrilmesi gerektiğini düşünüyorum. Hatta Türkmence, Özbekçe, Kırgızca, Kazakça gibi başlıca akraba dillere bu ortak kültür unsurlarının tercüme edilmlesi bence bir zorunluluk, ama maalesef tek başıma elimden hiç bir şey gelmiyor. Ancak bu bahsettiğim dilleri ve Rusçayı hiç bilmiyorum. İngilizcem de pek iyi değil. Bana yardımcı olabilir misiniz. Veya yardımcı olabilecek kullanıcılara yönlendirebilir misiniz? En azından başlangıç için İngilizce'ye çevriye başlayabilirim böylece...

Çok teşekkür ederim. İsterseniz daha detaylı bilgi verebilirim. Türkçe sayfama da yazabilirsiniz.

Buzancar (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Merhaba! Size yardım etmeyi çok istıyorum. Ama şu sırada İnternet problemli olan yerdeyim. İyi bir İnternet ulaşımlı yere gittiğim zaman yardım edebilirim. Nataev ^talk 09:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Isfina

Hi. I've declined your speedy request as it's not a 'recent' redirect. That criterion only applies to things recently created, and that one is five years old. If you feel strongly about it, you can take it to WP:RFD. I think it's harmless and not worth the effort of RfD. Peridon (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, if you say so. Nataev ^talk 11:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The Matrix

Here's the peer review you're looking for: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/The_Matrix/archive2

Also check the to-do list on the page.

Things tagged with The Matrix Revisited 2001, and Godoski, Andrew. "Under The Influence: The Matrix" need to be rephrased. The material from filming section is mostly from The Matrix Revisited DVD. That need rephrasing too. You might find the vid here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJUQPvaeclY .

Lastly, please note that even though most citations are done with templates and most info filled in, two formats of citations are used. Short cite and long cite. The long ones are the ones you see most, but things from the same source like The Matrix Revisted, which is cited multiple times with only slight difference in chapter names/pages, use short citation. It brings you to the ref section and name the DVD. Clicking the link again will bring you to the true ref itself. Short cite works better with one source but multiple mentions. Long cite also works, though.

If you want to redo it to keep it uniform, I'm not complaining; please do. Both are valid types of citations, but if you have to pick, pick the long one. It's easier to just fill the info. The short cite requires a lot of technical micro. And by Wikipedia's guidelines, the first major contributor got to choose the citation format. Someone far back chose the long cite. Looking forward to working with you. Anthonydraco (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, Anthonydraco! This is most helpful. I'll take a look at the review. I think it will be better if we use only one type of citation. I will work on that later. For now I'm gonna focus on paraphrasing. Nataev ^talk 04:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Impressive work on getting rid of close paraphrasing. No more copy-paste bulks of it. However, as some editor raised concerns, this article rely too much on Godoski's reference (13 mentions) and The Matrix Revisited (about 100 mentions @_@). I regret to admit that I added most of those myself, esp The Matrix Revisited material. It was done out of desperation to flesh out thin sections. I'm hoping that you can help me slaughter it. It only requires decisive hand and mercilessness, which I can't find in me when it comes to the materials I added. >_<; Help me out. If I could do it, it would've been GA long time ago. Anthonydraco (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Anthonydraco. Ah, abridging is not going to be easy! I'll see what I can do. If you think the article relies too much on those two sources, I guess we can find some additional sources. That will probably take some time. On a different note, take a look at this edit where I replaced a short citation with a long one. Do you think this is better? If yes, I will try to change all of the short citations. Nataev ^talk 14:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

For efficiency, you should watch the To-do list as well. I'll watch it too, and when I find things that need to be done but couldn't be finished in one go, I'll add it there for you to pick up. You can do the same for me. I find that keep doing just one task hours straight tend to get boring. Maybe we can swap our works to get flavors. :) I've started cutting down bulks of quotes but I must go. Work tomorrow. :( Anthonydraco (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict, LOL.

Regarding the citation type, personally, I think you should seek third opinion. I'm not the best one to ask. I decided to add this sort of citation because it's suitable for same ref + multiple mentions + different page numbers. Others might be more reliable regarding this subject, I'm afraid. Anthonydraco (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll ask around about whether we should use a consistent referencing style. I'll take a look at the to-do list as well. Nataev ^talk 04:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)