User talk:False Prophet/Archive 1

Your edits to Recycling

I reverted your change of {{TOCright}} to {{TOCcenter}} at Recycling, since it made an utter mess of the article on my browser — at first I mistook it for vandalism. I do agree that the floats on that article need cleaning up, but I don't think your solution quite accomplished it. Sorry. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

GA review

Hello False Prophet - thanks for putting your trust in me! I read the rule you mentioned and I also read the comments of the others at the GA review. Here are my thoughts:

1. Firstly, a disclaimer: while I am in fact an admin, though I don't spend too much time on GA to know those particular policies and customs in intimate detail. We have too many policies and little niches for anyone to know all the customs, I think.
2. I am very certain you did what you think is best, and I think your statement is very defensible under a reading of the GA rules - therefore, I hope you are not worried too much about anyone complaining about your actions.
3. I read the rules as well as the comments being made on the GA review. I tend to agree with the comments there that this rule #5 is really trying to prevent articles that have ongoing edit wars and massive content changes from making it to GA. If the issue is that the article tends to be in "state A", then gets vandalized, then gets put back to "state A" or something very similar to "state A", then I don't think that would be a reason to automatically fail it.
4. If on the other hand, people are arguing about whether criticisms should get included or not, whether the article is balanced or not, then that would be grounds to fail, I think.
5. There is argument on the Talk page about whether the criticisms section is representative or not - this is concerning changes within the past 24 hours - that is a clue to instability for sure, though I wouldn't say it is definitive.
6. Over the past 7 days - there have been approximately 200 edits. Here is how much the article has changed in that time:[1] Is that stable? I'm not sure what the precedent is because again I don't spend that much time on GA.
7. It is interesting to note that the semi-protection of the article was not in place 7 days ago. Therefore, your suggestion to take it off for a few days and see what happens may be a good suggestion. Johntex\^talk 20:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: recent iTunes edits

Check this out - Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers):

Dates containing a month and a day

---

If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should normally be linked in order to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format.

Just FYI. HTH. —Tokek 05:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Please be careful with your edits

This edit broke an external link. [2] AlistairMcMillan 18:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Talk:ITunes

Please don't edit other users' comments, even if it is to fix something. It's considered rude. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Actuary

I am not going to pass or fail this GA nominations, but please see WP:CITE and use only one form of citation, it gets hard to see what is referencfed and what isn't. It would be prefered if you used the HTML embedded text format on as explained of WP:Cite. Thanks False Prophet 03:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look, you will see that the embeddes option is not used for citations, but for a footnote. All citations are in-line format, which is preferred according to WP:GA and WP:FA. -- Avi 04:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Monobook tool

Hi,

I am glad to see that you now have the 'dates' and 'units' tabs in the monobook tool. Note that you still have to check that the suggested edits are reasonable. Please feel free to use both tabs in article categories that interest you. After you have tried them out in perhaps 10 to 20 articles each, please let me know what you think about them. There are quite a few of us using it now.

Regards bobblewik 11:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Peer review for Actuary article

Hi, FP. Now that Actuary has been considered one of Wikipedia's good articles, I would like to see it develop or improve, if and as necessary, to become a candidate for featured article status. Therefore, and advice, suggestions, or statements that you think it is ready for featured article candidacy would be appreciated on the peer review page here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Actuary/archive1. Thank you. -- Avi 20:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

FIFA World Rankings overview vs. FIFA.com overview

I took the liberty of moving this to your userspace (User:False Prophet/FIFA World Rankings overview vs. FIFA.com overview) since it isn't an article in itself. Oldelpaso 19:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

FIFA World Rankings

I am far from happy with you right now, obviously put to little thought into being so trigger happy with the bloody templates. I am going to remove that fat blob on the article, because it is an innapropriate template for this situation. This has happened before, I was new, I didn't know the rules, I thought if I just messed about with the words a little it didn't count as copyright, didn't you look on the talk page!? or my talk page!? before you went about cheucking tempaltes alover every bloddy thing you saw., copyrighted text was supposedly removed, just because somebody left some behind, isn't my fault. So basically, sort it out boy. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know, been there done that, got the t-shirt. It got left from a previous version which another user supposedley removed all the copyvio from all right! Philc _T^E_C^I 20:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well what happens now, am I allowed to re-write the offending section, or do I have to wat for something to happen? Philc _T^E_C^I 12:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Its already been peer reviewed. Does it need to again. Philc _T^E_C^I 14:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't argue with anyone on the peer review. Only someone people making incorrect statements on the FA. Philc _T^E_C^I 14:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Er, I only just got your message, I just re-wrote it, I left the copy-vio tag up though, I think it's more appropriate that you remove it when you are satisfied, asyou highlighted the problem. Philc _T^E_C^I 14:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, sorry for any offence I may have caused in my intial response(s). Philc _T^E_C^I 15:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Will the FAC objections be withdrawn? Philc _T^E_C^I 15:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Actuary: featured article candidate

Hello, False Prophet. As you were kind enough to weigh in on the articles peer review, I would request you leave a comment (support, oppose, or neutral) on the article's candidacy page here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Actuary. Thank you. -- Avi 21:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Help?

Will you consider commenting on some AfD nominations and merge-delete propositions that I believe are an attempt to drive off a good editor? (OK, she's my wife. But she's exhausted by this fight; her articles are written in good faith and this editor is making a mockery of WP.)

• Table of books of Judeo-Christian Scripture
• Lost books of the Old Testament
• Lost Book of the Covenant
• Lost Book of Jasher
• Lost Book of Enoch

Thank you! --JuanFiguroa 03:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue IV - June 2006
Project news Three new task forces have been started: Ancient Near East, Australian military history, and Maritime warfare. New infoboxes for military awards and weapons are nearing completion; any comments on the proposed designs would be extremely welcome! A system of article importance ratings has been introduced to accompany the existing article quality ratings. Help with rating articles would highly appreciated!	From the Coordinators Five months ago, as we were in the midst of coordinator elections, Loopy commented that "I don't think it's unrealistic to imagine this project as one of the most prominent and effective ones around in say, a year's time." Since then: We have grown from just under a hundred members to nearly 300, and appear to be the second largest WikiProject (lagging, curiously enough, behind WP:COMICS). From one small task force, we have grown to include seventeen. Instead of a hand-made worklist of a few hundred articles, we now have one that is quickly approaching 10,000, and forms nearly a third of the overall 1.0 worklist effort. I'd say—without any unrealistic optimism—that we're well on our way to fulfilling those expectations! Kirill Lokshin, Lead Coordinator
Current proposals and discussions A discussion about the use of operational names in articles has started. Discussion continues about the role of "good articles" in the assessment process.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

—ERcheck (talk) @ 11:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)