User talk:Lazulilasher/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Congratulations!

Just saw Ernest Shackleton was promoted to FA! Congratlations to you and Finetooth! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And don't forget yourself. It was a real collaborative effort. I don't know what to spend my time doing now...haha....Lazulilasher (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations from me too! I was going to add my support tonight, now that I finally have a couple of minutes free, but I guess it wasn't needed! Well done! And now onto your next article! --Slp1 (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you don't waste time  ;-) --Slp1 (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been away from the Internet most of the day but was delighted to discover this evening that Ernest had made it. It was a great pleasure to work on it with you, and I plan to be around if something else comes up. I had been looking at John Franklin before working on Ernest and thinking about a proposal on its talk page to split off the Franklin Expedition material and make a new page of it. If that interests you, you might look at the John Franklin talk page to see what's been happening. I'm no more of an expert on Franklin than on Shackleton, but I've read two or three accounts of the expedition and have a basic understanding of what happened. Finetooth (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, sure, let's do it. I've taken a look at the article and I agree, it could be split per summary style. The expedition itself, in my opinion, deserves it's own article (similar to the Endurance/Nimrod expeditions). I remember seeing a NOVA special on this guy. Today I'm heading over to the library to get some books, so I'll try and pick up some info on Franklin. I'm also eyeing up Roald Amundsen as well. Let's put a suggestion on Franklin's talk page, and if there's consensus then we'll make the new article. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) I happened to notice there was a new Irish FA (actually 2 new FAs) in today's Ireland WikiProject's assessment statistics and had to go search what they are. We did not even know it was on

FAC. Please let the WikiProject Ireland know if it goes on the main page. Cheers and well done. ww2censor (talk

) 06:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Will let you know if Ernest goes to the main page. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

French questions

I was wondering if I could pick the French part of your brain on two obscure questions, both related to

Neuilly (only place her parents could meet, for reasons not entirely clear). Question 1 - is the French word for toll booth open to larger structures (toll house, for example?) Question 2 - it is not clear which Neuilly is meant - does Neuilly-sur-Seine

make sense?

Unrelated third question - did you fix the map issue in the Metro infoboxes? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well....poste de péage is the French term for "toll booth" -- and it's also the only one which I know. Toll booth/Toll house are listed as synonyms in English, although you and I both know that is not entirely true, but most likely the case. I could interpret poste de péage as any range of sizes--from booth to house. Also, as I wasn't sure, I asked a native speaker who confirmed that poste de péage is the sole word (English is remarkable for its complex, large, rich, and specific lexicon.)

Thanks very much. I speak German well and also have noted that where German will have one word, English usually has two and may have three or four (not that there aren't exceptions or the reverse). I also found pictures at

toll house of a toll house from that era and it looks large enough to "meet" in. Ruhrfisch _><>°^°

16:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Neuilly. Well, there's also Neuilly-sur-Marne in the eastern banlieues, which concievably Mary W. could have been travelling to as well. However, to my ears at least, when one says "Neuilly", I think of Neuilly-sur-Seine as historically it was referred to as merely Neuilly, with the "sur-Seine" added to disambiguate between Neuilly-sur-Marne, sur-Seine, and the 4,000 other Neuillys. Also, there is the Pont de Neuilly (not the Pont de Neuilly-sur-Seine) which enters M. Nicolas Sarkozy's old mayoral district. Question though: why in the world did they go to France if France was at war?

Great, it seemed like the right one from the article. Imlay (father) went on business and as some sort of diplomatic representative of the US (he was an American). Wollstonecraft went as she had just broken up with someone and she had written a book on the sort of ideals Revolutionary France seemed to be putting into practice. I think they were both there before the Reign of Terror started. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The infobox is the bane of my existence. I asked at the help desk and someone looked at it, but was unable to fix it. I'm going to post now at the

WP:VPA

.

If you could give me a few specific examples (links to articles where it does not work as it it is supposed to) I will ask User:VerruckteDan who is much more knowledgable on templates than I. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great. Here's my personal favorite:

Châtelet (Paris Métro). I'm sure that there are more. I think it happens when the "Accesses" text is longer than 280px or so. Lazulilasher (talk

) 16:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I fixed

Bourse (Paris Métro) using a <br> to force the Accesses line of text that was too long to split (at least on my computer). The other two have the larger boxes in them which is the problem (the boxes are too wide). I will ask Dan later (have to run IRL now) Ruhrfisch _><>°^°

17:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I asked Dan who will take a look at it soon (although he is busy for the next several days) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I was screwing around on Google Map just now...and I also notice that the Pont de Neuilly connects to the Boulevard de Neuilly--indicating that historically this was the Neuilly. AH...Also, the name was changed from Neuily to Neuilly-sur-Seine in 1897. So, at the time of Imlay's conception....Neuilly-sur-Seine was known as Neuilly. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks again! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Franklin Expedition

I posted a note on the John Franklin talk page offering our services in developing a separate Franklin Expedition page if the editors of the Franklin biography page can reach consensus about splitting. How does one split a page? This is something I will need to learn quickly if they say "yes". Or perhaps you have done it and already know. Finetooth (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think all that we need to do is create the page

Franklin Expedition (or something more specific....will have to check out the beloved MOS) and then copy the extensive details already in the article. The hard part will be writing the summary to remain in the Franklin article itself. On another note, the article is reasonably well-sourced. Ideally I'd like to see some references from different sources, but there seems to be a reasonable amount of info on Google Books that we can source reliably. Lazulilasher (talk

) 16:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Notre Dame

I spent ages reading right through that ref. and found no mention of the fact that the bridge is built on the oldest bridge site in Paris. If you can give me a page number, maybe that would help. Gatoclass (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied on user talk page. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Huggle

Hi, I was wondering if I could get a copy of Huggle? It says that updates go out via email. Thanks for your help, it looks like a neat tool. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Special:Emailuser/Gurch – Gurch 17:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Triple Crown

WP:FA. Cirt (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Ernest Shackleton - well-written and meticulously sourced, nice job. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk

Thanks for the kind words on the Shackleton article. It was a lot of fun to work on, and many collaborated. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not vandalism what I wrote; it's true. The article says prominently that the newspaper does not publish pictures of women. 168.122.85.179 (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ya, it seems like it's true. I was concerned about the edit you made a minute before which said: "don't read it; it's bad for you!!!". However, you might be right--although it was already noted within the article, as you said. If you were making a genuine contribution then please accept my apologies. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think you meant Hamodia. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, given that it was already in the article (which I didn't see) then I wasn't making a genuine contribution, and hence no apology is needed. You are right that the suspicious circumstances surrounding my edit, along with the fact that I am an unregistered user, were enough to raise eyebrows. However, I wonder why you have interest in this Jewish American newspaper's article, you being a seemingly francophone user and all. 168.122.85.179 (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, truth be told, I don't have an interest in the newspaper. I merely ran across your edit in a program which filters recent changes (look here). I assumed incorrectly. Your edit wasn't vandalism. Probably not the best place to put the text, but it wasn't vandalism. Again, I'll be around if you need anything else. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

On 1 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pont Notre-Dame, 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 _><>°^° 05:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

J'ai bien reçu votre réponse.
Pour 'slope': en Français pente. (J'ai fait le calcul moi-même, je suis professeur de Maths)
Je regarderai volontiers, à l'occasion, les articles que vous me signalez. Je travaille moi-même sur tout ce qui concerne le sud-est de la France, en particulier les chemins de fer et tramways (Lyon, Marseille, etc.).
Nous aurons donc l'occasion d'échanger à nouveau. A bientôt,
Fr.Latreille -- 82.229.4.29 (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lazulilasher. Thanks for your feedback, it is much appreciated. I do know that the intermediary cafearabica is not reliable, but as BoogaLouie had asserted that he'd verified it against the original WSJ article I assumed good faith. The main scope of the dispute revolves around how a certain passage is being used to forward a criticism (or suggest impropriety) that the cited article itself does not articulate. The details of can be found in the first section of the

On 2 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Petit Pont, 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 .

--

Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for supporting my RfA, I totally wasn't expecting to get so much support, it was a really pleasant surprise. Melesse (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Melesse (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Many thanks for reviewing and doing the magnificent copyediting on this article. I've tweaked a couple of your edits and will check them again as you do them. It's really helpful to have a fresh pair of eyes go over the article like this - thanks! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha....thanks much for the kind words, I was going to note in the review that I'd attempted to do a copy edit, but would like it if you could review my edits for accuracy (as I'm nowhere near an expert!). Also, I'd like to apologize that the review has been so delayed. I should be done with it in about an hour. The article is very good, btw. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review: I've taken all the comments on board, made changes as requested and summarised these on the talk page. Most things were straightforward, the only problem being the copyediting: when you've written something and pored over it many times it's hard to step back and see possible improvements after a while! But I've made a few cuts for clarity and hopefully it's ready for another look. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Lazulilasher! I made quick scan of the

Hey there. It's been awhile! What are you working on lately? Thanks for looking at that article -- it's always great to have a fresh set of eyes. Well, my interpretation of the italicization thing is that if a word is foreign and not in general use, then it should be italicized. So, this would lead us to italicize pieds-noirs but not faux pas. I THINK this is correct :) Regardless, you are right, usage should be consistent. So, I'll change them all to italics. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my late reply, I've actually been working on Khalil al-Wazir and Palestinian cuisine. I've been working on the latter for about a year though. Anyhow, I haven't been as active these past two weeks as I was before (I have to read 1984 (Orwell) and do a research project on it... zzz), but I'm addicted to Wikipedia so I'll edit a good amount of articles a day. I've decided to do daily checks on the pied-noir article to find any misspelling, MoS problem, etc., and of course revert any vandalism (although the article seems pretty calm). Happy editing! --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lazulilasher, Yes, I'm not sure the Franklin editors are acting as a group, but at least a couple of them want the expedition to go away so they can concentrate on the rest of Franklin's life. Do you know how to split off the expedition stuff and start a new page with it? I've started pages from scratch, but I've never lifted material from an existing page to start a new page. I suppose a link has to be added to the old page to connect to the new one, and I'm not sure what else. Finetooth (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, let's do it :) I'm going to Barnes and Noble right now, and hopefully I'll be able to pick up a book on Franklin, which should help in the editing. I'm sure we can find other sources in Google Books/Scholar (I remember from our last drive with Shackleton that the reviewers didn't really like website sources at all). As far as splitting the page is concerned, I imagine that the easiest is to just create the new page and then copy & paste from the old. However, I'm not really a Wiki tech expert....maybe we should ask Ruhrfisch what he thinks before we make anything. He seems to know more about that type of thing? Lazulilasher (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha. Before you replied, I went online to my library branch and put holds on a bunch of Franklin Expedition books. I've read a couple of them before, one about John Rae's trip to the north edge of Canada, and one about Owen Beattie's scientific study of the physical remains of some of the Franklin crew. I might end up buying a couple books too, depending on which ones prove most useful for our purposes. Meanwhile, I'll poke around the Wikipedia catacombs to see if I can find a guide to page-splitting. Finetooth (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Summary_style#Always_mention_in_the_edit_summary_when_splitting ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruhrfisch (talk • contribs) 22:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Amazing. I zoomed away into cyberspace and found

WP:SUMMARY. This leads me to believe that I'm on the right track. I hope my latest note on the Franklin talk page will elicit a positive response. If we get no response, I think we would be more-or-less safe to plunge boldly ahead without seeming rude. Shall we give the other editors a few more days? Meanwhile, we can be thinking about how to write the summary for the biography page. Finetooth (talk

) 23:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Yes, I agree. Let's wait a day or two and see if any objections are raised -- maybe the editors don't have the page on their watchlist? If not, then we can start to move the content over. I think are most difficult task will be writing the summary that will remain in the main article. I went to get a book on Franklin, but I had to place it on order. Oh well. Looking forward to working with the article.

For starters, I think I will try to do something with the organization of the citations on the

Franklin Expedition for tidiness, or do you think we need to include the dates since Franklin was involved in a couple of other Arctic expeditions? I like short simple titles, so I'm leaning toward Franklin Expedition, but we would need to explain in the text that while this was his most well-known expedition, it was not the only one. Finetooth (talk

) 17:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I did a bunch on John Franklin this weekend and then wrote a summary to replace what we will whisk away to the new page. None of the editors of the existing page has said a word, and I think we can go ahead with the new page if you agree about its title and if you think my summary is OK. You can see it at User:Finetooth/Sandbox.—Finetooth (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And today (Monday) User:Clevelander96 has responded positively to my queries on the John Franklin talk page and has offered to help us. Finetooth (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by all means recruit Brian Boulton if you can. If you agree that

Franklin Expedition is the right title, I'll create the new page today. Finetooth (talk

) 17:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...I was thinking about that. Considering that he did more than one expedition, maybe it should be more specific? Or we could have a page about all of his expeditions? I'm not exactly positive about the best way to proceed....Lazulilasher (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>OK. I'll hold off for a while. I'll also ask Clevelander96 for an opinion. Finetooth (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If I may butt in. I'd take a tip from

Yomangani^talk

23:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...sounds fine to me. What do you think Finetooth? We'll start up whenever you're up for it.... Lazulilasher (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, my order for the Beardsley book "Deadly Winter" just came in. I'm going to go down to the shop and pick it up now. Let's get rolling with this thing! Well, I've noticed from the page history that you're already applying your magic to the article...but I'm ready to get started.... Lazulilasher (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I trust Yomangani's judgment, and I haven't heard from Clevelander96 or anyone else except you about the name. How about Franklin's Northwest Passage expedition of 1845–48? Finetooth (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I immediately changed my mind. Safer would be

Franklin's Northwest Passage expedition of 1845. It does not appear to be utterly certain that the expedition ended in 1848. When did the expedition end? When the ships got stuck in the ice? When the last member of the crew died? Besides, the article will have a lot of material about the searches for Franklin, and they may still be going on. Finetooth (talk

) 21:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Good call catching the "end" of the expedition. I would not have seen that. Go for it--it's got my complete support. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Super! I will create the page later today and let you know when I've got it up and running. I just picked up six Franklin books from the library. Yikes! Now I have to read them and take notes. Finetooth (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It's done. The red expedition link above has become a blue link. Finetooth (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Btw, I just picked up my Franklin book, it's "Deadly Winter" by Beardsley. So, I was thinking, would you think it best if we divided the workload, in other words, each of us focus on a particular period in his life? Of course, we could all edit everything, but I was thinking it would decrease the entry level reading? Let me know what you think. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>That sounds good except, um, I thought we were starting with the fatal expedition rather than the biography. We can do both, of course, and that would include the other periods of his life. All of the books I got today have to do with the end of his life and the subsequent searches. I don't have the Beardsley book. The six that I picked up today include Owen Beattie's Frozen in Time, Charles Francis Hall's Arctic Researches and Life Among the Esquimaux, Martin Sandler's Resolute, Leonard Guttridge's Ghosts of Cape Sabine, Scott Cookman's Iceblink, and Frederick Schwatka's The Long Arctic Search. I have not read any of these except Beattie's book. I've started in on Schwatka's book, which is thin and reads well so far. I don't know if it or any of the others except Beattie will produce much. I haven't read the Beardsley book. Why don't you see what delicious things you can find in it and go ahead and add them, and I'll do the same with Schwatka, and we can reconnoiter. Let's switch our discussion mainly to the new talk page, which I started with an entry a couple of hours ago. That way we won't fill up your talk page with my digressions. Finetooth (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

To the talk page it is, then! Lazulilasher (talk) 05:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in giving your opinion at

That's an excellent article. I wish I had known that someone was working on it! I would have volunteered to assist. Regardless, the editor did a fantastic job. Thanks for telling me! Lazulilasher (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

He's also got another one up at

Yomangani^talk

16:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow...who is this guy? What incredible work he's done already. I'm going to scan the Terra-Nova article again and see if I can find any MOS things to brush up (it seems like that's what people are noting on the FAC), but otherwise it looks like another support. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Lazu: will see you back in a couple of days at the PdF with a couple of changes & list of some of its "guests". Frania W. (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great Frania. I'll go and take a look at it in a few days. It's interesting how a seemingly small, inconsequential structure ends up spawning this much information! Lazulilasher (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Lazu: not having checked your talk page lately, I did not know you had read my note & replied to it. The couple of "days" have been running into "weeks" while I was occupied at something else & editing projects you either started or continued, i.e. Ponts de Paris (one at a time!), Rue du Bac. I also read the entire Pied-Noir article from very beginning w/all discussions & did not find any great changes to bring to it, maybe a few typos here & there. Rien de grave. Also left on its talk page some links related to the history/presence of Jews in N. Africa previous to French invasion in 1830, although I am sure you had already read them.

Our "favorite topic", and "seemingly small, inconsequential structure", has been worth looking into a bit deeper, as you will see, but I will check with you before bringing any change that could shock you (!) - bringing into it a few more ghosts while kicking out others. Frania W. (talk) 23:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

After reading a long ongoing debate at

Haha....ya, I did notice that our work got singled out for the debate. I think the general feeling was that the nbsp placed an undue burden on editors. Well, it should certainly save time. No worries. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The article

Congratulations from these quarters too. As it happens, my first GAN has been reviewed, and I'm in the midst of fixing. One of the reviewer's suggestions is an especially good one but requires more research. I've put a note at the Franklin Expedition page explaining that I'll be busy elsewhere for a couple of days, most likely. I suppose you've been busy too, and I hope you haven't given up on Franklin. He's just on ice for a while, right? Finetooth (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I wanted to apologize about that--I've been a little busy IRL. I'm definitely not giving up on Franklin. I also wanted to read up a bit more before I start hacking into the content, so as to avoid errors. I'll be around soon :) Lazulilasher (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I also wanted to congratulate you! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on Pied-noir! I bet its a relief to have it over with. Again great job! --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick, let's delete the front page!

slapped down if I do start being impossibly pompous. Thanks new admin school for me, before I dare do anything for real... Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lazulilasher. I was wondering (if/when you have time) if you could review Helena, here, against the FA criteria. If you could help out with copyediting that'd be great, and any other MOS issues you happen to spot. Thanks very much, PeterSymonds | talk 21:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'll take a look in the next few days. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Lazu: I took the liberty of editing French translation. Please check to see if you agree. Frania W. (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Lazu & Neddyseagoon: I know Neddyseagoon is going to check what I did to the last pont de Paris I reviewed: Pont des Arts, so I am taking the first step this time!

I changed a few "babioles" in every paragraph; however, there are a couple of changes you may not agree with.

Also, in History:

3rd paragraph: "à l'identique", translated by "identically" bothers me, but I cannot find what is at the tip of my tongue (or rather fingertips), so I left it. Since "à l'identique" is a quote from Louis Arretche, could it be left in French with "identical to the original" right after, or would this make the sentence too heavy ?

4th paragraph: in sentence describing artists being drawn to the passerelle ("drawing" & "drawn" separated by only six words) I changed "locale" by "studio en plein air", borrowing the expression from Claude Monet - expression that is also used in English. Again, this may be putting too much French in text.

See you at the next bridge. Frania W. (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I have seen that you use huggle by the fact that you have automatically updated the huggle white list(it does this when closing huggle). I was wondering if you would add the category [[Category:Wikipedians who use Huggle]] to your user page so that it fills out and we know who actually uses huggle. If you do not want to you do not have to. I am also sorry if i have already talked to you about this or you no longer use huggle but i sent it to everyone that has edited the page since mid January. I hope we can start to fill out this category. If you would like to reply to this message then please reply on my talk page as i will probably not check here again. Thanks. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Doing now....Lazulilasher (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't checked the Paris Metro Infoboxes lately, then I think you are in for a pleasant surprise. See User_talk:Edokter#Infobox_Paris_metro_question too. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(1) Have gone thru all "Pied-Noir" "Pieds-Noirs" to be found in article & done some editing. Please check & let me know if you agree.

(2) Need to discuss first paragraph with you. Frania W. (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish to nominate a page I worked very hard on for a feutured article. Aany edits that you could make would be extremely helpful! The page is Rose Venerini, Thanks 11341134a (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have made a

There are just over 100 names on the

If you would be able to help out with a review or two a month from the "no responses" backlog list that would be great (and much appreciated). Please discuss questions, comments, or ideas at the PR talk page and thanks in advance for your help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

PS Hope all is well - haven't seen you around lately

Welcome back! Glad you like the PR backlog idea. So far it has worked well - I do most of the archiving for PR and I have not archived a PR request made since Feb 22nd without a substantial response. Also the items are now listed on the backlog page at 3 days without a response (instead of at least a week originally). You are very welcome on the Paris Metro box problem - I just found someone that knew how to fix it. Congrats on the new job and good to see your username in my watchlist again, take care Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I, too, was wondering where you'd gone to, and I'm glad you're back. My adventures with Franklin went OK, and it was an interesting learning experience. The name of the article changed since the last time we talked about it, and it is Franklin's lost expedition and has been promoted to GA. I don't think I have the patience to try to take it further. The Franklin biography, now on its own page, is not in such good shape. I'm curious about F's adventures in Tasmania, which was a terrible place in those days if you were sent there as a convict. Finetooth (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ya, my apologies for missing all of that...why was Franklin painful? Sometimes taking the articles to GA/FA can be a rough experience....when we were doing Shackleton I just tried to tell myself that all comments were intended to help create the best encyclopedia possible, even though comments can be construed harshly.

Sorry for not being around for the ridge though...I got a new job and wanted to not fall into the trap I had in my old job--which was forget I wasn't actually getting paid to write articles about obscure Parisian bridges :) However, my new boss doesn't mind as much, so I'm coming back...hehe....

Any ideas of something to sink my teeth into? I feel lost (and it's only been one month--how quickly this encyclopedia changes!) Lazulilasher (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Franklin was complicated, and I was starting more-or-less from scratch. I had to read a lot and to try to absorb it and to sort out truth from untruth. When the experts disagree with one another, it can be hard to present their opposing views fairly without getting bogged down in detail. Anyway, you are right about keeping in mind the primary goal, which is to improve the encyclopedia. I have no doubt the Franklin project did exactly that. I'm glad to hear your new job is going well. Lately, I've been working on

Johnson Creek (Willamette River), which I put up for GA today and asked for a peer review with the idea of eventually taking the article to FAC. You mentioned doing something with Amundsen once. Have you looked into that possibility? Finetooth (talk

) 17:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I think we could do something with Amundsen. Also, do you have any interest in fixing up the Louvre article? I've been playing with it for, literally, months....but I think I need some momentum to help me. It really is an article that should be GA or FA, I think. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but do you mean

Palais du Louvre, or one of the other options? Finetooth (talk

) 21:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant the main Louvre article. I've started referencing it, but I've only got so far (you can tell by reading the article, I've worked up until the point that the in-line references end). I think this would be a good project though, because it is a highly visible structure and the article could use some improvement. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>OK. I'll take a close look later today. Finetooth (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean about the article reading well for a ways and then not as well. I made a few minor copyediting changes yesterday, and I plan to go back today for another round. I don't have anything substantive to suggest at the moment. As with Franklin, I'm coming at this from a small information base. I set foot in the Louvre once. It's mighty impressive and not the sort of museum you can "do" in a single visit. Finetooth (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Great. I already see you digging into the text :) I'm adding new material and sources bit-by-bit. There's a plethora of material. Do you think I added too much to the section on the structure's history? Lazulilasher (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You didn't add too much to the History section. It's more interesting than some of the other sections. I'm pretty much finished with my low-level copyediting (fixing punctuation, adding conversion templates, adding the euro symbol, pouncing on misspellings and flipping them on their backs). I see problems with the bottom sections, which tend to degenerate into lists. For example, the list of directors seems oddly incomplete, though it may not be necessary to include such a list at all; the complete one might be truly dull reading. Maybe naming the first director and the current one would be enough or simply saying that the museum has had X directors in its history and that the current one is Y. The table of holdings is missing something. And so on. But those are the sections you haven't gotten to yet. How can I be of further help? Just let me know, and I'll try to accommodate. Finetooth (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(UNDENT #3) Glad you like the history section. It's honestly the part of the Louvre that fascinates me the most. I'm contemplating how we work with the bottom sections. I agree that the directors part seems a bit odd and out of place. I think it should be removed. Also, I was thinking that, maybe we create some sort of a seperate article about the Louvre's notable paintings and have more of a museum "overview" if you will. What do you think? Also, what do you think about removing some of the images? It seems a bit "gallery-ish"....let me know what you think...

ALSO! I'm going to move this discussion to the article's talk page so that other editors can join in the discussion if they happen to run into it...always looking for more colloborators! Lazulilasher (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Lazulilasher... I am brand new to Wikipedia and was trying to improve the appearance of our Company posting. Our logo appears broken and ragged - at least on my screen - and does not represent us well. When I tried to remove it, you reversed my revision. Is there any way to improve the quality of the graphic that appears? We would obviously prefer to have it, especially if it could be improved. Is this something you can help with? Mary Moore Corey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mary Moore Corey (talk • contribs) 19:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, no worries, I'll go take a look at it right now....Lazulilasher (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Lazulilasher, thanks for all the usefull ammendments you made to the Greeks article. Looking forward to more of your stuff. Keep up the good work. Thanks!Xenovatis (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied on user talk page. Lazulilasher (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Merci pour votre aide, notamment les references web.

Pas de probleme! Je suis la si vous avez un besoin de quelquechose! Lazulilasher (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you possibly help in reviewing Kfarsghab page: tone, content, copyediting? Best Regards youcroft (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied on User talk page Lazulilasher (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Lazulilasher! Its been a while since we've made contact. I have been working on the Palestinian village of Jifna (Roman Gophna and Biblical Ophni), and I think it may pass its GAN today or tomorrow... Hopefully ;). After I get it passed, I'm looking forward to working on Beirut; I saw it quickfailed its GA nomination, but with proper referencing, MoS and prose it should make it. You should help edit the article, since without your copyeditting, Bethlehem wouldn't have been GA-worthy. Hope to work with you soon, Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hehe...thanks for the kind words! Sure, we can do some work on Beirut. The user above who posted in French has demonstrated an interest in working on Lebanese articles, so perhaps we can recruit him as well for Beirut? Lazulilasher (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your very positive response. I'm so pleased you didn't take it as personal criticism! Now, just a thought but you might think about withdrawing the article while you work on it - as it's obviously going to take more than an hour or two to do - then re-submit it for FAC once it's all crisp and polished. The big advantage of this is that the withdrawal won't appear in the article's history. If you do go down this route, you need simply add "Withdrawn ~~~~" underneath the nomination statement on the article's FAC page. Anyhow, keep up the good work. The article has very great promise! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, I was adding to my reply as you made this post. So, I will go do that now. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

and...done! Lazulilasher (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) I've done the procedural stuff so that's all done and dusted. If you like, I can give the article a quick run through before the next nomination and see if anything jumps out. The more eyes the merrier, as they say ... Bonne chance et bon courage, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied on User talk page. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.