Talk for Aeons'

Welcome!

Hello, Aeons, and

to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

]

Category

Hello there,

I just wanted to let you know that your recent addition to

]

Hi - this template covers all topics for all nations in Africa, as stated in the linked information, so changing a link to point to information on public holidays in Mauritius is no good for all the other topics. The answer is to make

]

Francoise Durr article

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a

]

Will do

probably in the next few days. Cheers! Dfrg.msc 08:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I not use that style? Alatari 05:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk page. [1] Ǣ0ƞS 05:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found it on Intel page. Yes that is much better and my referencing skills do need work. You even found the PDF product timeline and added it. Thanks.
In diaologue to recruit oldcomputers.com to contribute an Intellec article to Wiki. They don't even have the earliest 2 machines the SIM-4 and SIM-8. Very expensive machines hence not catagorizing as persona computers. Alatari 05:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have a note. I agree that articles should have citations, it is good for verifiability, etc. However, I don't agree with putting ugly citation boxes on top of reasonably complete and well written articles, they distracting to me. I have a suggestion. Would you consider putting the requests for citation at the bottom of articles, where there references section should be? That would be more constructive in my view.

I wonder what you think. You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that per Template:Unreferenced, this template should be placed only on articles having no references whatsoever, otherwise another template should be used (and again, hopefully at the bottom of the article). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objection to putting the tag at the bottom of the article (In the Notes section itself will be ok), as long as people see it and the article gets improved. It will (and must) be removed when the article achieves the state required. Ǣ0ƞS 19:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope you will consider putting that ugly box at the bottom in the future. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on User talk:Oleg Alexandrov. [2] Ǣ0ƞS 20:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit I see that the link to the reviewed version is actually for the article on Stylidium. Since you apparently tagged that article just minutes before, I'm assuming it was just a copy-n-paste error. Since you probably know better which version was reviewed, would you mind adding the correct oldid to the template in Talk:NATO? --Pekaje 11:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Error on my part. Apparently someone else made the necessary correction. Thanks for pointing it out. Going through long article histories is a demanding task. I'll try to be more careful next time. Ǣ0ƞS 18:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly understand that. Backlogs everywhere, these days. I was thinking of using a scripted API query to get the timestamps for when an article was added to the GA category (to narrow down the time-frame), but either talk page vandalism or the topic-bot have unfortunately made this virtually useless. A bot could still do it, but now the effort of writing the code exceeds the effort of doing it by hand. Manual labor it is! :-) --Pekaje 17:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, manual labor it is. Doing it manually would be less of a problem if there were better tools. Is there a way to break up and/or filter the 'Edit history' of articles by year or by month? I think then it will be less tedious. Is there also a way to make partial substitutions in templates? It will then be easier to add dates to templates since as soon as the template is saved, the timestamps can also be saved alongside (A bit like user signatures, but still keeping some of the dynamic features of non-subst templates) since most editors don't bother to fill in additional fields. Traceability is also improved. Ǣ0ƞS 08:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way that I know of to break up the history by month in the regular interface. It is possible with the API calls, and I did consider scripting a simple parser that looked for when {{GA}} was added, possibly with a binary search algorithm, to prevent excessive load on the servers. However, I found that it was a bit more complicated than that, as the appropriate oldid to add is for when it was last assessed to be GA-class. For instance, Spider was first marked GA some time in 2005, but it was probably re-assessed by the various projects that later came in and rated it. In that case the latest officially reviewed version is about a year later. IMO the template is actually missing a categorizing based on what month it was last assessed to be GA material. Once the oldid's are in place, this is easy to add with a bot, and I think it is essential if we actually want the GA rating to mean something. Also, once all the oldid's are in place, I think it would be wise to rework the {{GA}} template to give a big fat red error message if someone adds it without specifying the oldid and the other stuff. --Pekaje 10:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I award ♥Love 16:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply ]

Thanks for the heads up. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you weren't aware, this is still going on. Possible sockpuppetry. I've stated my case on the article's talk page...can't do much else. ++Arx Fortis 05:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

placed on talk pages of all participants

I wanted to get a notion of the level of activity of people who are members of WikiProject Companies with respect to monitoring the WikiProject Talk page and participating in discussions of interest and/or responding to requests for input.

Could you please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies/Member information#2008 Quarter 1 (Jan-Mar): Talk page monitoring survey and adding yourself to one or more of the several groupings listed?

Thanks for your assistance.

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, excuse my newness to wikipedia. My contact is [email protected]. I want to put my site linked off the miracle fruit page, but i know it keeps getting deleted because it is a 'commercial' site. If i re-edited the page and made it a 'wikipedia landing page' without links to the product would that be acceptable? Thank you in advance.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdgasu (talk • contribs) 09:19, 22 June 2008

Replied on user's talk page.

Ǣ0ƞS 14:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

]