User talk:LukeSurl/archive8
Re: Geum talbotianum draft[edit]
Hi LukeSurl, thanks for commenting on the new article. Perhaps the reason G. talbotianum doesn't appear on any Geum species list is because it is quit rare and only exits in remote locations high up on Tasmanian mountains, therefore not many people know about it? Another link where it can be found is at http://www.utas.edu.au/dicotkey/dicotkey/ROS/gGeum.htm. Regards, Bryan the lion (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Bryan the lion: Cool. I've accepted the draft, good work. Please help incorporate this new article into the encyclopedia by adding wikilinks to it on appropriate articles. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia :) --LukeSurl t c 10:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Deepa Topiwala (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Deepa Topiwala (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Magnes[edit]
Hi, I can't have made myself clear, so let me try a second time. Nobody doubts that one of the hundreds of stories gathered and randomly retailed by Pliny includes the piece of nonsense about Magnes the supposedly magnet-using shepherd. He tells many other such unproven stories. The question is, so what? We know, too, that that other random retailer of thousands of unreliable sources, Isidore, gleefully retailed the not-even-third-hand tale. No, what is required is an independent source attesting reliably to why this ridiculous tale is worth picking out of the morass as notably more significant than all the others. Pliny himself is not a source you can use for this purpose, and nor is Isidore. Since, however, Magnes already (inexplicably) has his own article, I'd have thought he was already covered considerably more than he deserves, and there's no need to spam him over all sorts of other articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Chiswick Chap, I'm just trying to build the web. A request came in at the Teahouse to create the article, and Fuhghettaboutit put together a nice article in response. Now this is a quite niche topic and clearly there's precious few mainspace articles that Magnes the shepherd can be reasonably linked to. The link from history of magnetism does the bare-minimum de-orphaning, but it's desirable to try and incorporate this article into the encyclopedia to more than the absolute minimum. The scattering of references to Magnes in ancient texts pretty much is the story here, so the obvious candidates are Naturalis Historia and Etymologiae.
- Considering that Magnes the shepherd is now an existing article, and it would almost certainly pass AfD (you are welcome to nominate), it is reasonable to make efforts to link to it from two or three pages. I contend that my concise edits to Naturalis Historia and Etymologiae added little clutter (especially to the rather sparse Etymologiae article, which could do with more content in the "The work" section), and provided links which a reader may well be interested to follow.
what is required is an independent source attesting reliably to why this ridiculous tale is worth picking out
: In-article references are required for verification of facts, and not to prove the notability of a subject of established notability to other editors.- In short, if you disagree with Magnes the shepherd's inclusion in Wikipedia you can propose the article for deletion. But if by the article's persistence the notability of the subject is established, it serves no purpose to exclude Wikilinks from the most closely-related articles.
- --LukeSurl t c 21:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- If I wanted to delete the article, I'd take it to AfD. But as I said above, I think the Magnes article quite sufficient coverage.
- "Building the web": I don't buy it. Every wikilink "builds the web", but not all are helpful. Every company, every new music track, every other thing tries to form a web of connections to draw traffic, and you're no different. Each new article scrabbles about desperately looking for hooks (so major articles get bombarded with attempted hooks to things that from their perspective are very minor). The teahouse request may have been well-meant; clever or ignorant; well-thought-out or simply silly, I won't hazard a guess. I can see exactly why the Magnes article wishes to bluelink to Pliny. But of the thousands, literally, of stories in Pliny, I am utterly unconvinced that Magnes is more than a piece of the most minor trivia to justify any sort of reverse link in the form of a mention in the NH article. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
BTW totally approve of day job as volcano scientist (didn't we call that vulcanologist?), guess there might be a connection there with curiosity about daft explanations of magnetism... all good stuff, obviously. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Liz Read! Talk! 21:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
A barnstar for you![edit]
|
The Civility Barnstar |
| Thank you! I was really impressed by the constructive and non-acrimonious tone and contributions from everyone involved in the recent AFD discussion on the Alliance of Women Directors article. What could have been—with the wrong editors involved—a very nasty debate, turned into a very positive discussion. Even editors who strongly felt that the article should be deleted worked hard to find sources and fix problems with it. This is the kind of positive collaboration people don't hear a lot about in Wikipedia-land and I'd like to recognize it. Carl Henderson (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification for April 13[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Offside (association football), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laws of the Game. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 24[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Goal-line technology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crossbar. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@LukeSurl: Can you explain why you removed the box at the bottom of the talk page for the article above? Thanks :) olowe2011 (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Olowe2011: That box was unclosed in the markup and - at least on my browser - was causing errors in the display of the page. You can reinsert a box if you like, I am unlikely to revisit this page. --LukeSurl t c 08:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm assuming in the discussion, you meant Australian PMs, not Austrian PMs. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome[edit]
Pleased to see the socially valuable work you're doing, as well as your editing. Tony (talk) 11:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Category:People diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder[edit]
Please reconsider my request to create Category:People diagnosed with dissociative disorder. Dissociative disorder is a broader concept than dissociative identity disorder, as reflected by the content of these two categories:
- Category:People diagnosed with dissociative disorder
- Category:People diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder
Although the category does not exist it has pre-existing content. I requested it be created so that it could be included in other still broader categories where it belongs. 67.0.98.166 (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have replied to you at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Category_request:_Category:People_with_dissociative_disorder. --LukeSurl t c 15:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Oberea tripunctata[edit]
Thanks for sorting out the boldness I placed on frass. I am new here, so no doubt, I will make mistakes. Thanks for sorting them outKardinalCypher (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Gender-neutral pronouns in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BethNaught[edit]
The candidate wishes to be referred to with a gender-neutral pronoun. Please rewrite your vote so none of the pronouns in your vote are gender-specific, as the candidate stated that they are uncomfortable revealing or discussing their gender. Esquivalience t 01:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks![edit]
If you moved Prince William Sound Community College to Prince William Sound College, thank you very much. YoPienso (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)