User talk:OhanaUnited/Archive 14
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:OhanaUnited. 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 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
Re: Portal link off the main page
Thank you for the heads up. Cirt (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
korean editor kuebie is preparing a vote to change name to a korean one, and canvassing korean editors, vote no on name change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.158.150 (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding RfA
Regarding your comment here, I decided I'm ready. Would you be interested in nominating or co-nominating me? Cheers, Enigma msg 21:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Update: Click here if you're inclined to add a co-nomination. Enigmamsg 02:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Much appreciated. I took the liberty of changing a few minor points (the tenses and I didn't want to imply that I did all the SSP work on my own). I hope you don't mind. Enigmamsg 03:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- My sincere apologies for getting you involved in this mess. If you want to withdraw your nomination, I completely understand. Enigmamsg 17:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Understood. Well, needless to say, I feel really bad about getting other people involved in a mess that was created by my own sheer stupidity. If I can ever try to make it up to you by helping you with something, please do let me know. Regards, Enigmamsg 18:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
POTD notification
Hi OhanaUnited,
Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Titan globe.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 10, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-01-10. howcheng {chat} 05:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Flagged Revs
Hi,
I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for closing the discussion and making the various changes to the associated pages. Looks like WP:FPR has two pretty old discussions that could use closing. Cirt (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Heads up
See this. Not sure if we should update Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Co-directors - thoughts?
Also, can you look into closing Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Greater Manchester ? I closed a few lately and will probably close Portal:United Nations soon as well.
Thank you, Cirt (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- That seems prudent to me - could you do that? I am sorta newer than you in the position. Cirt (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agree completely. Cirt (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yeah, about WP:PPREV - ideally that shouldn't just be up to us, but to the other reviewers listed at the top of Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates. Also, nominators should get in the habit of posting a notice at talk pages of relevant WikiProjects related to that portal, that would get some more responses as well. Cirt (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agree completely. Cirt (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Sustainability
Hi OhanaUnited - haven't contacted you for a while. I've been enjoying all your music (including How can you tell I'm Irish?). Anyway - to get to the point. We are going really well on the Sustainability re-edit. At present we are up to the "Implementing sustainability" bit. This consists of two sections, "Managing the environment" then another on "Managing consumption". As a student of Environmental Science I thought you might be able to cast your eye over these two sections and give us a bit of feedback: it would help us enormously towards drawing this work to a close. Many thanks ... and how do you develop perfect pitch? Granitethighs (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikimedia Canada
Hey, OhanaUnited. If you're still interested in WMC I think we should all have a meeting among interested wikimedians to see if there is enough drive to get Wikimedia Canada up and running. I've therefore been bold and tentatively scheduled a meeting, with the date and forum type still open to change. Check out meta:Wikimedia_Canada/Meetings/2009-02-04 and it's talk page to discuss how we should organize a chat and what date is best. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thank you
| My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in on the RFA--I will do everything I can to uphold the policies of this site, and try to make it a better place. All the comments, questions, and in particular the opposes I plan to work on and learn from, so that I can hopefully always do the right thing with the huge trust given to me. rootology (C)(T) 08:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |  |
Hi, you seem to be one of the go-to-guys for portals. They're a new arena for me- having never worked on one before, I've spent the last few days creating Portal:Fungi from scratch, and I'm fairly pleased with it. I have submitted it to peer review here, and I was hoping I could get some advice from portal regulars as to what is now needed to bring it to featured status. If you're busy, that's fine- is there someone else you could reccomend to give it a look over? J Milburn (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for your thoughts. Sadly, there are no featured images here of anything relating to fungi on the English Wikipedia, but there are certainly enough high quality images that I can nominate via the portal's nomination method. Also, that's all of the FAs/GAs- I do have one on GAN now, and we have another that is very close to FA status at the moment, so hopefully some more should arrive shortly. I was wondering how I could publicise the portal a little? Am I free to post {{portal}} on all fungi pages? I know the scouting portal is well advertised, but I know others aren't so much... J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Right, so any articles that are used at the portal are fair game for the template? That's good. I'm finding some featured pictures on other Wikipedias and adding them to the portal, as you reccomended. Turns out we had one too, I just hadn't noticed it. Thanks again for your help. J Milburn (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. Whilst I take your point about possible confusion, WP:SPI already has a division of templates into general templates and CU only templates (basically, templates that imply certainty are restricted to CU, while templates that merely place a case along the spectrum of uncertainty are for more general use. {{inconclusive}} is one of the general templates. In the particular case that you raise, I do feel that I used the template with a very adequate written explanation. Had I simply used the template alone, I would more readily accept that there was an issue.
I've raised this on WT:SPI, as If I'm wrong on this, we need to change this to a CU only template, which will need agreement there, and all those involved need to be aware. Mayalld (talk) 07:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
|
All Around Amazing Barnstar | |
| For being an indispensable asset to the Wikipedia community, for always doing good. Cheers! Eustress (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC) |
- I've admired your contributions for some time and was prompted to evaluate your service further after seeing your input at GA criteria talk. You do a lot for the community, so thank you! --Eustress (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you assess this article?
Hi OhanaUnited. I have much respect for your environmental work on Wikipedia, so I was wondering if you could lend your talents to give an assessment of Food waste in the United Kingdom. Barring one edit, the article has been entirely worked on by myself, so I'm in real need for some outside opinion to avoid bias in style and give some direction. The assessments for both Energy and Environment are forthcoming, so I would very much appreciate your outlook. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Look forward to the assessment. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- You probably forgot, but you said you were going to do an assessment of the article over the weekend. I understand that you must be very busy, so if you haven't got the time I won't mind. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the nice assessment, I'm particularly flattered/surprised that it could be a GAN. The Collection section has been left blank purely because I have very little knowledge of collection policies and the websites with such information are yet to appear in my searches (I think it's too basic, maybe even common sense..). Many thanks again. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Templates
Even we non-cross-wiki experienced editors can make sense out of parser templates every now and then 
. See Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations#.7B.7BCheckedpuppeteer.7D.7D -- Avi (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I replied to your hold in the review. Apterygial 23:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Article in GAN
After some further substantial edits, Food waste in the United Kingdom has been listed under Food & Drinks as a GAN. I'm unsure whether you would like personally to review the article, since Environment seems to be your forte, but I thought I should let you know regardless so you could track the progress if you wished. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- How's the review going? Sorry for being horribly impatient, but I'm quite excited; this could be my first GA and I've invested a lot of time into it. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I just wanted to know if you were getting on okay, but I'm probably being horribly overbearing and pushy so I'll just stop and let you get on. Sorry for that. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
FYI, the first account listed was never blocked. Cheers, Enigmamsg 07:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
GAN
Hi,
- You've put the GAN 'under review', but you haven't started the GAN discussion page - so the 'comments welcome', well, there's nowhere for folk to comment.
- From a quick look at the article, I'm concerned about NPOV balance. I'm not claiming there is OR or anything, just that almost all the substance is based on the WRAP stuff, supported by newspaper articles. Surely there are other scientific analyses. My concern is, the WRAP report does not appear to cite their sources; consequently, comments such as,
- "359,000 tonnes of potatoes per year are thrown away, 49% (177,400 tonnes) of which are untouched"
- ...makes me wonder - what does 'untouched' mean? Are they then used for animal food, perhaps?
- I hope these comments make sense; I'd just like to see a more balanced viewpoint, rather than stating the views of WRAP without comparing their findings with those of other research.
- Cheers, -- Chzz ► 14:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
User talk:Chzz -- Chzz ► 16:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. If you have a minute, could you do me a massive favour and take a look at Portal:Formula One, and let me know if there are any major issues at the PR? I'm considering merging selected article and selected race, to raise the numbers, but I'm not really sure. I've never done anything remotely like this before, so I'd love to know if I've gone in the right direction. Thanks a heap, Apterygial 08:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've replied to your points at the PR. Congratulations, by the way, on your day. :) Apterygial 09:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Done. I thought I'd go with two pictures which describe both sides of F1. Apterysock 01:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Happy OhanaUnited's Day!
 |
OhanaUnited has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, |
Thanks Ohana
Thanks a lot for a fantastic, informative article review whilst managing to put up with my nagging! The review that the largest obstacle towards GA is the MoS compliance (which unsurprisingly is something I'm not terribly good and complying to..), so I'll have a go at sorting that out. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've made a lot of minor edits per MoS (hopefully) on the article Food waste in the United Kingdom, as you requested in the review. I hope there's nothing obvious that the article is lacking or needs amending. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
re Featured portal sweep
Agreed on both points. Cirt (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
GA review of 243 Ida
Reyk and I have, I think, addressed the issues you brought up in your review. Can you take a look for any remaining problems in the article? Thank you for reviewing it. Wronkiew (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
GAN of Black Drongo
I have chipped in and helped, and think we have addressed everything. Can you let us know if we have still left something unaddressed and I will try to fix. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Mission accomplished
The uncategorized Good articles elimination drive, that I believe you spearheaded is complete. I did my 20 last night and this morning attempted to do a few more and the category is now empty! I don't know if you want to mark it "complete" or anything. Keep me in mind for similar projects. J04n (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The article has received a number of minor edits by myself and other users as per WP:MoS and WP:Overlinking, which should hopefully address the question of whether the article follows MoS guidelines. I won't make any further changes until you've had a chance to look over what has been done. Thanks in advance. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for passing the article Ohana. Very grateful for all your hard work on getting it through to this stage. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Can we calm down a bit on Sustainability article?
I have brought up several issues that I feel are important. I have not edited the article for a few days... and the comment you made on the talk page today I think was a bit much. Please take such disputes to requests for comment, requests for mediation, or requests for arbitration rather than the method of saying Unfortunately, skip is driving almost all of us crazy by his absurd reasoning and pushing personal POV since October 2008. (I am getting close to pulling my hairs out) Clearly, skip, the consensus here is that you are disruptive. Consider this as a final warning, after which we have no choice but to determine whether you should be blocked. This is your last chance, don't blow it.
Was that really the best way to comment or communicate with a fellow editor, on the talk page of an article? If you look at the article history you will see that I have made some good edits and multiple edits of reffing and citing information. I brought up an aspect of the editing on the talk page of a team member having linked his own book in the article. I felt this should have been brought up. Please calm down. skip sievert (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think you are way to personally involved in the team on the page... and also as a personal editing partner with members of the team (Sunray in particular) to make the statement you made, which I found personally insulting, demeaning and not appropriate. I have done a lot of grunt work on that article. My talk page also requests that conversations started elsewhere be done where started. I feel that you are baiting me with the last communication. Please stop. Please take such disputes if you feel they are disputes to requests for comment, requests for mediation, or requests for arbitration. skip sievert (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Disruption
I have had some difficulties with a particular editor, since he first asked for help here: [1]. But he obviously didn't like my suggestions for the Energy Accounting article and before long I was being accused of personal attacks [2]. I looked more closely at many of the articles in Category: Technocracy movement and found that there was much repetition across the articles [3] and that a pro-technocracy POV was being pushed [4]. I tried to help fix the situation but my edits were reverted [5] and tags removed [6]. The matter went to Wikiquette alerts but wasn't discussed fully. The editor in question has made 22 contributions to my talk page and I have tried to patiently respond, to little avail. I have found all of this quite disruptive to my normal article writing activities, but would still like to improve the Technocracy articles. My most recent attempt to do this was reverted here: [7]. Can you help please? Johnfos (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sunray and Johnphos edit together on multiple articles as do other editors involved. It is pretty obvious that a group of editors are trying to make a lot of fuss over several edits that do not deserve the attention. I feel that you are baiting me with the last communications here. Please stop. Please take such disputes if you feel they are disputes to requests for comment, requests for mediation, or requests for arbitration and connect them to some element of an article. skip sievert (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- "Sunray and Johnphos edit together on multiple articles." Nonsense. Please do not make false accusations. Sunray (talk) 06:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sunray and Johnphos edit together on multiple articles as do other editors involved. It is pretty obvious that a group of editors are trying to make a lot of fuss over several edits that do not deserve the attention. I feel that you are baiting me with the last communications here. Please stop. Please take such disputes if you feel they are disputes to requests for comment, requests for mediation, or requests for arbitration and connect them to some element of an article. skip sievert (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note that my editing with user Johnphos has been problematic. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive59#User:Johnfos
- It is probably better not to flame matters any more aspects of this. Johnphos has reverted the Sustainability page in accordance with the team there. Lets just drop this. skip sievert (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Sustainability editing
I am pleased that you are willing to take this further and will support you however I can. This current round of continual allegations regarding neutrality, sourcing, conflict of interest, etc. leveled at various article editors all but stopped editing of the article in the midst of a peer review. He does not respect the consensus of the article editors nor the advice of outside reviewers. Here are examples of his failure to respect the views of others.
- RS Noticeboard: [8] Note this summary of the above discussion by TP and Skip's disagreement with the RS noticeboard editors. [9]
- COI Noticeboard: [10]
Let me know if there is anything else I can do to help. Sunray (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar!
|
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
| For your participation in the Spring 2009 GAN backlog elimination drive, in which you reviewed 5 articles, you are granted this barnstar! Great work! —The participants on the Spring 2009 GAN backlog elimination drive 21:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC) |
In addition, you may use the userbox located at User:Drilnoth/Userboxes/GAN backlog elimination drive to indicate your participation on your user page. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Too long to discuss
You stated that the items on my block log were too listed to be summarized. There were only five blocks. 1 was for "3RR" which was 4 "reverts" - 2 edits then 2 edits 23 hours later, on a section that had nothing to do with the section being edit warred. The next was by a CoI admin and a reprisal block for leading consensus against her friend and then an admitted CoI attempt to indef block me for false "legal threat" claims (I said I was going to report her to ArbCom for abusing her admin privileges and violating CoI. Then her and her friends trying to change the NLT page to claim that any threat placed anywhere would be grounds to indef block which I reverted twice (and was blocked, with her "reviewing" the block). SWATJester and thebainer upheld my interpretation of their changes as being wrong, and they violated consensus procedure in trying to change it in the first place. The Moreschi block had no basis behind it besides the fact that I provided sources over a content dispute and one of his friends didn't like that I didn't give in. His block was heavily controversial. Nandesuka, the last one, is a friend of mine and has worked with me after that block. He can talk to you about that experience if you want. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
GA sweeps medal
It's in my contribs. Check Malleus' talk page, for an example. لennavecia 14:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, seeing as you were the only person who commented on the peer review, I wondered if you may be interested in commenting at the above location. It's been open for over a week now, and no one has commented. Thanks J Milburn (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Re:Barnstar challenge
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
243 Ida FA nomination
Hey OhanaUnited, Wronkiew and I have just nominated this article for FA status. Since you reviewed it, I thought you might like to know. Reyk YO! 01:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Tom Sayle SPI
Hiya.. could you please reconsider the decline? There's more evidence, and as I just pointed out on the page, he's now following the standard pattern of demanding proof right before being outed as a sock. //roux 16:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
More Sustainability
Could you please check out the proposed content at [[11]] and comment on its appropriateness for Wikipedia - and if you think of anyone else who would be able to help out with an informed view that would be great too. The central problem is how to write about a modern view of sustainability as something that requires change on a large scale, without falling into the traps of being prosletysing, biased or political. Not an easy balancing act; I have done my best but can no doubt improve.--Travelplanner (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)