Ar 1, Ar 2, Ar 3, Ar 4, Ar 5

Archive from December 2007 to February 2008

On 24 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Clifford Last, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Nicely done article! Keep up the great work. --Royalbroil 03:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Julia: I've responded to your note on the WP:CIV talk page here. I agree with you that his rant about psychics didn't belong on the Reference desk page. However, some folks get touchy when you tell them something like that. There are ways to approach such things. One is to respond to something he has said that you agree with and then say "but I don't think that this discussion belongs here..." Sunray (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your question about removing material from a page. My view is that it is generally not a good idea. There are exceptions: For example personal attacks can be removed and there is even a template for that: (Personal attack removed) I've used it a couple of times and it can have a good effect, but it can also make the other editor even madder. The important thing, I think, is to have a consensus of other editors for anything of that nature. BTW, there is a standing consensus that one may remove offensive material from their own talk pages (though, here again, I would do this sparingly). There is also a broad consensus that one can remove material from talk pages that has nothing to do with the article at hand. With respect to the reference desk, I would tend not to remove material. It is automatically archived regularly, so it's no big deal. So there's my (perhaps overlong) answer to your question. As to my giving advice on conflict issues. I have considerable conflict resolution experience in the real world and am interested in its adaptation to the virtual world. WP:CIV and WP:AGF are very interesting policies in that regard. Sunray (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Julia! I'm taking the Category:Gay artists off of Clifford Last. Unfortunately, being gay is still considered a "controversial" subject, so we can't label someone as gay unless there's a reliable source that says so. Your addition of the IMDB info a hint in a movie doesn't qualify as a reliable source, but if you can find a different source that says so, please feel free to add the info and cat back in! Thanks, and happy editing! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cliff at last — Hi, yes I guess that's so. Currently his notability is via his mother and being a rebel sculptor in a conservative minor state in Australia. Not the sharpest profile to be had. Something may yet turn up, who knows? Cheers Julia Rossi (talk) 08:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome, and thanks for the barnstar. No I don't mind that you put it directly on my user page. Some people are anal about other people editing their user page, but I'm not. As for the working man's barnstar, I'd actually forgotten to put that one on my user page. And then it got moved to my archive, so I never remembered. Thanks for reminding me. --Dycedarg ж 16:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing a poem in French about a man waiting for someone in a cafe. All I recall of it is that the poem is blank verse, with a few short words to a line. It's repetitive and builds on the last action along the lines of the person goes to a cafe, enters the cafe and orders a cup of coffee, puts sugar in the cofee, stirs the coffee with a spoon, and ... until it rains and he cries ( not quite sure here). Anyway I can't find it anywhere and wonder if anyone knows the poem or poet or a poet of this style? Julia Rossi (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Déjeuner du matin

          – Jacques Prévert
(moved to user page)
– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 03:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's so swift and so cool, so many thanks to you Noetica, brilliant one : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De rien, Julia!

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 03:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can listen to the song here. Oda Mari (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's mad! Thanks Oda Mari. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there - I am the performer and improviser in that song (I put it up for a Chinese website student's about Prevert initially) - do please give me credit by linking to my website: www.dwsolo.com Thanks

Dwsolo (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Response on Dwsolo user page along the lines happy to acknowledge : ) but unsure of adding external link in case it's promo. The link takes you there anyway. : /--Julia Rossi (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, Julia. I notice you have changed the position of one of my answers (this is the topic I am talking about). I have undone your action. The reasons for that are multiple (see this, for instance). In a nutshell, the edit completely changed the meaning of my answer.

I have been around the RD's for a while by now, and this is the very first time I see one answer moved from place in this way. Is there an additional guideline to the one I mentioned above? If it exists, please let me know. In any case, in the present issue, just moving the answer will destroy the very meaning of its inclusion. I'd rather have it completely deleted. Greetings, Pallida  Mors 21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I just deleted my answer under consideration. Pallida  Mors 00:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pallida Mors, appreciate your communication. I changed it to read in sequence because your insertion dislocated my own reply, and it's good wikettiquette to put the latest post at the end of each section. Even if you add your reply wa-ay down the line, people can and do follow your contribution, so no worries – just add on as you go. Enjoy your (very long I hope) stay on wikipedia. : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Stupid of me. I should have just left it where you put it, adding a short reference if I considered it necessary. I didn't think of the fact that my reply destroyed the meaning of your own (predated) answer! Sorry for that. And thank you for your patience. Pallida  Mors 18:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It's a pleasure to work something through with a thoughtful editor. Take the plunge anytime.Julia Rossi (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, after some investigation, I appended a comment regarding the discussion on the terms. Best regards, Pallida  Mors 21:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...your help at the Science Ref Desk today. Much appreciated! Adrian M. H. 13:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you might be a smidge on the diminutive side, but I notice from one of your answers elsewhere that you are quite the botany goddess, so that should make up for it. :-) —Steve Summit (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		For your great work here at the ref desks, I award you *cue fanfare* the prestigious Ref Desk Barnstar! bibliomaniac15 03:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beezer, chillax wit dat aight?--74.138.83.10 (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sori, ment ta b, s'aight n cool fo sho. ; )) Julia Rossi (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha, word--74.138.83.10 (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tuki Brando, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congrats! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You are very welcome, but the real thanks go to you for making the article in the first place - keep up the good work! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a suprise! I was reading some of your interesting comments re: the concept of cetacean tool usage, and clicked on your user name. And found that you are a fellow Aussie! What a buzz. Myles325a (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for working on this article, just a note though, when you want to change the article class "be bold" and change it, don't just remove the setting. You could have just added the "Start" class which is next in sequence and you are quite right it now warrants. Thanks again. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't spotted the rating comments so I have updated those. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Start" rating has been given due to the article having only one substantive reference and that is to itself. Wikipedia takes great store by WP:Verifiability and third part references and in-line citations to avoid accusations of Original research. Hope that helps. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is "plot summary OR" question is moot. Some say it is, others think that is just silly. I find myself with some sympathies each way. The aim as always is WP:Verifiability and the plot is there to be read and checked. But it is however primary, so you pays your money and takes your choice. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must add that your work on this article is a very "Good catch". I hadn't spotted the inappropriate summary elements that crept in from a IP address only contributor. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you are cordially invited to join the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books often referred to as "Novels". We make no length distinction so all narrative prose fiction is of interest. This includes Novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories. Articles about the works themselves and the forms and genres.

As you have shown an interest in The Inheritors we thought you might like to take an interest in this well established WikiProject.

We look forward to welcoming you to the project! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is even an Australian task force - special interest group if interested. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

check out the main Novels WikiProject link and then look down the navigation template on the right. You should find a Members page and further down the Australian and other task forces. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are seeking things to do have a look round the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels#Work_to_be_done section or some of the links on the announcements banner near the top of the main page. Any questions just ask. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I have placed an npov tag on the Attunement (Reiki) article, which you have edited recently. While we should certainly report the theory of the process, Wikipedia cannot actually assert that it works as advertised, as very few if any secondary sources attest that. If you look through the archives at Talk:Reiki you'll see that we have been discussing this issue for years already. Regards, --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your note. I did read the talk pages but the article still needed wikifying and expanding. If it is "not done" to fix up and expand topics that are in the common field of information, with third person so-called accredited accounts in print and on the net, does that mean other paranormal type contents have to go too? (Y'know, Aura (paranormal), Qi and the rest.) If it's been debated for years, that shouldn't discount it from being edited and expanded in the meantime. If it is contentious, leave me out of it. I edited for improving wiki and in good faith. I have no personal stake here and I just hate to walk into yet another minefield. Really a bit sick of this kind of thing on the pedia. Cheers Julia Rossi (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a ps by the way, the look and scope of the article before wikifying etc was to give a really awkward impression with so much repetition, non-encyc language, pov and loads of capitalisation, και ου γινωσκω, it was hard to pass up. : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite all right, no harm done, I wanted to leave you an explanatory note only because you had edited there recently. I think (or I hope, I suppose) that there is a neutral way to report that kind of subject that isn't offensive to either practitioners or sceptics, but we'll see. My approach is just to apply policies on attribution and stay away from qualitative arguments. There are lots of subjective, theoretical minefields of articles hovered over by WP:SPA editors who become incensed at any suggestion of objectivity. Strangely enough, I've been accused of being both pro- and anti- reiki (or any number of like subjects) as a result of just wanting a readable, verifiable article. Still I believe we can safely say what has been said (as long as we cite who said what) on any subject. I've adopted your "if it is contentious, leave me out of it" strategy more than once when things became too much. A tactic of both Graham Chapman's King Arthur and taijiquan's pushing hands that works wonderfully well when all else fails, or even before... Cheers! --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Yes, it is a good idea to source things as clearly as possible, and to point out when especially contentious articles aren't. We should be able to quote our sources on talk pages as well. Neutrally wording articles is a bit of an art, the academic passive voice is what I aspire to. Some articles on Wikipedia are great examples of this, others, not so much. Especially with a controversial subject, it is helpful to rely on precedent, the WP:ARBCOM decisions (Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions) on similar articles will ease your way if you can use them. There is a to-do just wrapped up with the arbcom right now over the homeopathy and other "alternative medicine" articles (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2) which may be interesting for you to look through. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eric Mjöberg, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations. · AndonicO ^Hail! 01:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. · AndonicO ^Hail! 01:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Julia - refs fixed, no probs. Cheers, Maias (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot --11:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How sweet of you - thank you very much. I can hardly wait to click on the link :) Best wishes, --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the link. Here's a cyber-rose for you:

@-`-,-`-,-

Lasts forever and saves on interflora costs from Austria to Australia (no kangaroos here!). --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by your contribution to the "sexiest picture" thread, I need to get myself some lederhosen! Believe it or not you do still see men dressed like that over here. The beer and pretzels are very tasty, too. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julia thank u for answering my astrology questions... i apreciate it a lot.

how come in your profile it doesnt say anything about your liking of astrology though?

On 21 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Casuarina Tree, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just read this example of a Russian saying in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s The First Circle: ‘A woman marries for meat, a man for soup’, meaning, as he explains, that a woman marries for financial security, and a man for the domestic comforts. Neat, isn’t it, if a bit dated. Myles325a (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of my Russian saying A woman marries for meat, a man for soup, you asked "Was this for me?" Well, I don't know. How good is your soup? And don't come back with any racy one-liners. Myles325a (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would either put it up best you can and let me know where it is an I will have a look at it. The key will be to select the option in the "licensing" option for "Book cover" and then the "Fair Use Rationale" for which there is a std template which I will add with some of the information you have put in the message to me. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dropping by! About your question, you might want to read the The Breath of Fresh Air section where she said in an interview that her family and she were few kilometers away from the chemical plant and because they were located in the upwind, they miraculously were unharmed. Could you get clarified on this? Mspraveen (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for answering my question at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Unidentified bathroom fly or moth. For years, every time I see one of these critters, I have wondered what they are and where they come from. I have followed your suggestion and added my photo to the bathroom fly article. =Axlq 17:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On February 29, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having no birthdate or year listed is not a problem at all. Just add the person to the Category:Year of birth missing (living people). See Red Farmer for an example of a person who avoids answering the question of birthdate or year. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy (serious and written in stone) says:

Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known living persons where the dates have been widely published, but editors should exercise caution with less notable people. With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth.

Royalbroil 03:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]