User talk:Elucidate/Archives/2008/October

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Elucidate/Archives/2008, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Haha!

Great! I was a bit confused at first... haha! By the by, usually new users don't talk like this ;) Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Rose, did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. adding irrelevant javascript JoJan (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit to rose

(From:User_talk:JoJan#Edit_to_rose)

Hi there JoJan. I see you have recently reverted one of my edits, namely to the article Rose, as vandalism. I appreciate the speed of your edit: great job. However, the edit was not unconstructive. If you look carefully at my edit, you will see that in it I had identified the variety of rose illustrated by one of the images in the botany section. Unfortunately, my browser occasionally malfunctions while I am editing this wiki, and as a result, randomly inserts javascript into the page. It appears to be taking code from my monobook.js, and pasting it onto pages I edit. I have thankfully fixed the problem, which I believe was associated with the automated peer reviewer I use. I have removed the code from my monobook, as it does not appear to be compatible with Google Chrome. Thank you for your concern: I have now re-edited article Rose, without any problems. If you have anymore concerns, please notify me. Also recall our policies on newcomers, namely WP:BITE and WP:AGF. As you are an admin, I am sure you are familiar with them. Good day, Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} _{Ici pour humor} 16:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No harm intended. I couldn't figure out what this javascript was doing in this article. That's why I added "irrelevant javascript" at my message. This was a boilerplate template from Twinkle, which does not handle such a strange situation (therefore the mentioning of 'vandalism'). As to the image: Roses 'Lowell Thomas' are yellow and not pink. So I reverted it as well. And now I see now that you have replaced it with a featured picture candidate. Good job ! JoJan (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Help

I'm always pleased to get help with DYK. Obviously it leads to mistakes but we also overcheck each others work. Putting a note on the other persons talk page is nice, but its not essential. Thx from the wiki. Oh and we need another load filling now? Victuallers (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I meant that at the time of my previous note the next DYK template was empty and overdue. We needed another load of DYK noms loading. Tasks that helpers can get involved with are "doing the credits", "loading new noms into the next DYK tempate" and checking prospective articles. No sweat. Thanks anyway. Credits will again need doing in a few hours. If you put a watch on the templates then you will see when a load has been made. Victuallers (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect DYK credit

It's not Gangsta's Paradise (song) that's DYK; it's List of awards and nominations received by Coolio. Gary King (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

All sorted. Thanks for the notification. Elucidate ^{(parlez à moi)} Ici pour humor 22:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK

I think we have a minor problem. You have I think handed out the credits before the article is on the main page. Our rules are that we do it after ..... I'll fix it. Don't worry. Victuallers (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Almost immediately .... I see that a load is about to take place Victuallers (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Good plan, for a start only choose ones with a tick, oldest first. You will get to know the rules. Articles must be <5 days old > 1500 characters of text and be true and inline referenced. If you do 1 or 2 now then I'll take a look.. 11:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK ... you only need to put the image title in the template (see the change I made)... protecting it is seen as a later task. You will need to remove the hooks from where you copied them from or they could get chosen twice. Nice to see you are are perservering. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome (at the bottom of the DYK suggestion list is a link to a bot that finds articles that might be nominatable) 12:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Art Deco

Thanks for adding more meat to the Influences section you started at Art Deco. Sorry for deleting the bit about Restoration but by itself it didn't help the reader to understand the arc of influence from unstated 19th century styles to 20th century Art Deco. I like your later expansion very much. Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus on Milkweed Hybrid 2800px.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 05:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Re Valued Picture proposal

Hi Elucidate,

I ended up putting the VP idea on ice for a few reasons. One was that I was trying to get it up and started at about the same time as the VI project on Commons (separately) got started, and I thought we didn't we need to be competing with each other on implementation. The Commons one seems to be going OK atm, so haven't pursued the one here. I also saw a lot of work for myself, and to be honest I often don't have that much time to spend on Wiki due to 'real world' commitments. Having said which I am not opposed to the project getting up and running here and would contribute when available, but I'm not sure that it's really necessary at this time.

There was actually quite a bit of development, possibly more than you realise. Refer to User:Jjron/VP Trial, User:Jjron/VP Trial 2 (a different incarnation based on other user's comments), and Wikipedia_talk:Picture_peer_review#Valued_Pictures_Proposal (as well as the discussion on the FP talk page that MER-C linked to). There's also a bit of discussion of it on my userpage (and other people's, especially Muhammad's), largely to do with whether or not to get it going since June, so you can look back through that if you want.

BTW, just wondering, for a new user you seem to be pretty au fait with the processes here. Are you an 'old-timer' from Commons or another language Wikipedia? --jjron (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries, seems we're thinking along similar lines then. If you decide to try going ahead with a VP project, you're welcome to 'borrow' whatever you like of what I've done. If I (or someone else) decides to pursue it, I'll drop you a note. Good luck with the dog work. --jjron (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)