User talk:Peter Isotalo/Archive 5

Hmmm, seems you are not too happy right now. Anyhow, if it's any consolation, I've been reflecting on your position regarding date wikilinks, and I think you're probably right, they are worse than useless. Anytime you want to bring the matter up on a policy page, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page and I will support you. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Swedish language has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. –panda (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This was a pointless revert as it was changed to meet FA status. See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Swedish language and SandyGeorge's comment: "the text is replete with external jumps that need to be removed". If you'd like to contest the removal of external jumps from the text, please discuss it first in the FAR. I would encourage you to revert your changes and to help work towards FA status than to do the opposite. –panda (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's only as pointless as the change itself (which as a recommendation, not a requirement). The only thing it does is to add an extra link to click.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please take it up in the FAR then. The original request to change the external jumps was made by SandyGeorgia in the article on 30 November 2007. –panda (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandy is welcome to have an opinion on the matter, but I believe she's mistaken in this case. Making these links into footnotes does not make the article better.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, please take it up in the FAR then. –panda (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I encourage you to bring up the issue yourself if you consider it urgent.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to roll up my sleeves and try to do something about bug 4582 since I'm a software developer by trade and I'm getting sick of the endless debate :) In the mean time, it might be best to just let the MoS and links be, and put our energies into other stuff. My opinion is that having the dates linked for a little while longer won't really hurt the articles and if walking away for now can reduce conflicts it's probably worthwhile, I hope you can agree. henrik•talk 07:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No - as usual no decent info on the commons file. The prominent keys suggest he is a senior figure. One probably could track it down through a BL theme search, but the context may not give much enlightenment as to exactly what he is doing. I suppose it could as easily be beer in fact. It very likely comes from a monastic manuscript. Johnbod (talk) 08:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look at it sometime next week as I have to start packing up my apartment to move this weekend as I am going back to NY because I have finished my classes for my Master's degree. Once I get settled in I will take a look at it.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I took a break today and began entering some information, when I get a chance in the next week or so, I will go through and write summaries for other regions of Europe cookery as well.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I should have been sending my term papers to you for copy editing this past year lol. Thanks for the help, my grammar isn't always the best as I hate proofreading.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, who can be bothered with all that grammar nonsense. :-) I think you're on your way to becoming quite the WikiDragon.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peter. I just saw on the Vasa talk page that the article is being promoted to FA. Congratulations to you and Henrik and all of the others who contributed. I fell in love with the Vasa article the first time I saw it. As one of the lead authors, you are to be especially commended. Finetooth (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It's nice to finally see the star on that article.

-Peter ^Isotalo 08:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on a successful FAC. It was a very well-written article, and I was hard-pressed to find even the few things I mentioned! Karanacs (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a deficiency in people that review the Food and Drink articles. I suppose I should perhaps consider reviewing articles as amongst the people here, (if I may be so humble) you, I and probably a handful of people are actually familiar with the proper content. My problem is I think I probably expect too much as I often find people arguing with my rating articles at a Start and not a B, let alone not giving people a GA rating. Maybe we should try to get something together at the Food and Drink project for people willing to do GA and FA reviews, what do you think?--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 07:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I'd be up for it. Considering that there's not exactly a great volume of contributions to cuisine-related articles, I would certainly be intersted. I'd just like to stress that I'm a somewhat sporadic editor and that my knowledge of the topic is very patchy and nowhere near what you've achieved. What I know is based on readings of a few select works, reasonably good overall knowledge of history and some common sense. But since there seems to be a rather obvious lack of punters, I guess I'm still reasonably qualified for the task.

Don't despair about your Thirteen Colonies article, btw. Unless someone beats me to it, I'll be reviewing it within a week or so.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well part of my point was seeing that yours has been up since my birthday (Dec. 10th) so I was going to do a review of it. Like I said though, I forsee myself being very critical of content and less so of other issues so I think I need to read through some other things to make sure I cover everything else. I think cuisine is an entity in and of itself as we have been finding out with creating these articles. My thesis is actually on creating a modern sociological template to define cuisines (using some work from a couple exisiting sociologists and a historian and a bit of my own arrogance on cuisine) and then defining a particular cuisine which I'm keeping to myself (offline) for now as I plan to have it published as a book hopefully next year (with other people copy editing haha, j/k) I'll put some info. in the next newsletter about getting article reviewers together.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I take your point, quite agree that it's one of the most common forms of recreational drug use, and by no means should the info be removed if it can't be sourced. However, do you not think the article would benefit from a link to something with hard numbers in, so that someone wanting to know e.g. how much more common than other forms it is could find that data?

On the harder drugs, I'm not sure that heroin and crack cocaine use is "usually limited to socially marginalised groups" - indeed, I'm not completely sure what is meant by it, e.g. how are they marginalised? Intuitively it might be more correct to say that a large number of heroin/crack users become socially marginalised by their drug use, but that's not quite the same thing. My issue here was a cause-and-effect one.

More generally, was that the sort of contribution you were after? Nmg20 (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved and replied to here Peter ^Isotalo 15:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter, thanks for the kind words. If you haven't noticed already I replied to your concerns about size with the economy section in the FAC (the economy section has been trimmed down).--Miyokan (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! :-) I'd like to participate more actively in improving the article, but I simply have too much on my task list as it is. That's why I refrained from voicing an outright objection (let alone one of those needlessly bombastic "strong opposes").

Peter ^Isotalo 15:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter January 2008
--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Finland-swedish.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Vuo (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I was wondering if you could do a little review for that article, for prose formatting and overall general tips for improvement, thanks--The Dominator (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello,
You are a volunteered listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers for language and literature, but as you are also familiar with Stockholm and its history, I'd be glad if you could have a look at the article Vädersolstavlan I just nominated for peer reviewing.
Thanks
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As you were a contributor in the last TFD, I am letting you know that {{Maintained}} is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the TFD. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-30 17:48Z

Why is it ok for you to put an entry in a discussion that simply reads "Delete per Kicking222" but when I do something similar you criticise me for "voting". That is hypocirsy.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably because I did it about a year and a half ago when I still was under the impression that deletion requests were votes. I'm a bit surprised you wasted time trying to dig up potential dirt in my past contributions instead of simply providing a valid argument of your own.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Peter, I was wondering if you could help me out a little. I am at a loss for properly phrasing my recommendations to another user on some edits to the article Cuisine of the United States. Although I appreciate "some" of the help, much of it seems very nonconstructive in my opinion. I am one person though and would like another experienced editors opinion on the subject. So if you get the time please check it out.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter, if you have the time I think the article on Nahuatl which I have nominated for a pre-FA peerreview might be right up your ballpark, I know you have interested yourself in Nahuatl related topics in the past. I would certainly appreciate any comments and suggestions you have that might lead me to improve the content, style and grammar of the article. Thanks beforehand. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Vermiform, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Vermiform. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Peter, I've just asked for peer review on the article cannon, and seeing that you've volunteered to review military articles, I thought you may be interested in providing suggestions. I would really appreciate your help (as would the others working on the article), but please feel free to ignore this spam message if it's not feasible or if you don't want to. (I'm asking several military-oriented peer reviewers for their opinions.) Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Man, you're getting a lot of these. Rongorongo as well, if you're up to it. Common, whatcha need a life for anyway? kwami (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have made a proposal that no peer review request be archived without some response. To aid in this, there is a new list of PR requests at least one week old that have had no repsonses beyond a semi-automated peer review. This list is at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog.

There are just over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, so I figure if each of these volunteers reviewed just one or two PR requests without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog (as there have been 2 or 3 such unanswered requests a day on average).

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 _><>°^° 00:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

PS This is for when you return from your break - enjoy!

Dear Peter Isotalo,

As I know, you made all the recordings for the IPA sound samples. I noticed - and Kwami agreed - that the sound sample for Palatal lateral approximant [ʎ] was wrong, as it was just a [j] in your recording. But correctly it should be a palatal L, like in the Russian word "lyublyu". Could you please re-record it the correct way? Thank you very much in advance. Regards from Hungary. --Mex^talk 18:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Peter Isotalo, You don't know me, but I noticed your work in some FAs on languages and linguistics and wondered if you might like to weigh in on an RfC that I initiated earlier this week. I fear that the discussion there has degenerated. I'm aware that you might not know anything specific about the language concerned (which I don't either), but the content issue is more general. I've tried to explain this more precisely in my statement (at the expense of using too many words which I hope you don't find too off-putting). Needless to say, if you do decide to say something, I don't expect you to say anything in support of my position, only to provide you best opinion. Request for comment: When does the literary tradition in a language begin? Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your comment at Celery. Please see Custard-apple and Annona reticulata, both about the same plant, and split into two separate articles without consensus. Badagnani (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Would you mind adding the IPA to Linus Torvalds? (Or have I already asked you this?) Thanks, kwami (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd almost forgotten that you'd put in a request, so I was both surprised and elated to see it there this morning. :-) It'll be interesting to see how many have read it in a few days. It makes me want to start a new FA-project, bringing Vasa up to a pretty decent article in collaboration with you has been one of my more enjoyable experiences here at wikipedia. henrik•talk 06:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's fun seeing one's work being featured fer sure! Personally I've been rather poorly motivated for Wikipedia work right now, and I'm rather busy with school. I'm kinda hoping to take on smoking this summer, though. If you need help with a future project, do let me know.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In regards to this, I added the {{fact}} tag before Dwaipayanc had added the appropriate citations. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter June 2008

--Chef Tanner (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, i've created a temporary page in my userspace → User:Nk.sheridan/Sandbox/Crying if you want to go ahead and work on it then i'll do likewise. Thanks, Nk.sheridan   Talk 21:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Peter! The above article is mainly the work of User:Fut.Perf.. I just recently worked just a bit on it, but I would really like to see it going up all the way the project's evaluation climax. Unfortunately, I am not a specialist on the matter; I just studied it a bit throughout my life as an amateur, and as an amateur I am editing now! Knowing that you are en expert on linguistics, and having seen some of your contributions to linguistics-related articles, I would be grateful if you could have a look at the article, and offer your hindsight. Thanks in advance,--Yannismarou (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion WT:V#Definition of "challenged"? here to see the text i used. 208.43.120.114 (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey there Peter, as you made a comment on dog meat over at Korean cuisine and I know you to be an editor that enjoys the proper use of academic sourcing, I would like your opinion whether you agree with me or not on the issue, I just want to resolve it to relieve the pressure in my head. There is continued dispute over information on dog meat in the article and I would like a third party opinion. The issue is under the Pedigree discussion, thanks.--Chef Tanner (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. You would be interested in participating in the peer review of the Priory of Sion article? --Loremaster (talk) 11:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2008

--Chef Tanner (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello! :) I thought you might be interested in this. Check it out and add your name under "Participants" if your interested. Have a nice day and happy editing! --Grrrlriot (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of adding info to the Portal. I'll get back to you on some other stuff when I get back from my convention.--Chef Tanner (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Peter Isotalo I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions. Thank You, BCproject (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You said "we don't need categories for the individual wars that a certain type of unit has been in"

• Who are the "we"?
• Horse artillery is not a "unit" but a type of troops as per the category
• What do you base you assertion on? Categories are there to combine subjects that can be so combined per categorization

Can you point to the specific guideline that contradicts this categorisation?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have opened an ANI discussion about this editor at WP:ANI#Wikistalking. Please feel free to look at this post and comment as you feel is necessary. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 00:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, as I've stated several times it's most logical to have a single article on Korean vegetarian cuisine (as the article was titled until a few weeks ago until it was moved without consensus), that would consider the nation's ancient Buddhist vegetarian tradition, as well as the more modern expressions of such, as seen in modern vegetarian restaurants. It's not really logical to split this into two articles, although I do agree that there should be a Korean section in the Buddhist cuisine article that may overlap slightly. Badagnani (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding sources, certainly I provided some, and will be providing more, but he simply blanked several of them about 30 minutes ago, which I pointed out at Talk:Korean vegetarian cuisine, yet you didn't respond. See the diff I presented and you'll see that it's a highly unacceptable manner of editing at our project. Badagnani (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be devolving into an edit war, I have posted the following on their talk pages:

I am posting the same message at both Badagnani's and Caspian Blue's talk pages, ordered alphabetically.

Please refrain from becoming involved in another edit war. If you cannot agree on a solution then stop editing now and I will request a neutral third party peer review for you.

I hope this will work. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 01:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Or not. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

...know anyone interested in recent human rights issues? Wikipedia:Peer review/Anna Politkovskaya/archive1 tks Solenodon (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A Community forum has been set up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink/Article guidelines for the various Food and Drink projects to develop a set of Manual of Style guidelines for use in articles under the auspices of all the related Food and Drink WikiProjects and task forces. This would be similar to the MoS guidelines for biographies or legal articles.

Please feel free to comment.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

...wouldn't it be nice for readers to learn a new term while reading Austronesian languages? Just a thought. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 08:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The anon continues to remove sourced content with no discussion on Talk. Perhaps we should ask for semi-protection? --Macrakis (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please modify your proposal at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (cuisines) so that it looks more like a self-reliant suggestion for a guideline rather than argumentation for a certain viewpoint. I tried to rewrite it to be more descriptive myself, but I came to the conclusion that I had no idea how exactly what you had in mind for cuisines of cultures, time periods, etc. Could you also try not to give your own suggestion the most prominent position?

Peter ^Isotalo 12:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter. I have updated the proposed guideline from Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Article guidelines, which incorporates your suggestions.

There are various methods of writing articles, essays and guidelines - the most common one is a communal edit of the project page, with suggestions, debates, votes and discussions on the talkpage. That is the method I am most familiar with, and the one I have used on other guidelines I have taken part in. I am aware that sometimes an essay/guideline when starting out may have some discusion on the project page, but that soon gets moved to the talk page to allow the project page to develop properly. I moved the straw poll to the talkpage as that is the normal convention. SilkTork *^YES! 13:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm keying off the very first bullet point: "If possible, an article title is the subject of the first sentence of the article". The article name is "Breast", and so the subject of first sentence should match. As others have pointed out, the subject is "Breast" not "Breasts", a subtle yet distinct difference. I'd also point to WP:CON, your change doesn't appear to have that either. Dreadstar † 15:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean about "refers to", this should address that concern. Sorry, I was focused on the plurality issue... :) Dreadstar † 15:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Diacritics are a big war on Wikipedia and it has never been solved as there are enough people who argue for both sides that it is at a stale mate. The Ice Hockey project however came to a compromise to try and appease both sides. On North American articles we use no diacritics because teams don't recognize them. ie there are no diacritics on jerseys or official web sites etc. Whereas on International based pages like the olympics or world championships or euro teams we do use them. For what its worth I personally am pro-diacritics on all pages. However, we see massive edit wars on hockey pages over this issue, probably more so than any other subject. So its in my best interest to respect the current agreement. If you would like links to many of the past discussions I could probably find them. The actual decision as laid out is on the hockey project's format page. -Djsasso (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)