User talk:Mahanga/archive2

Welcome to my discussion page. -- Gflores. Click here to leave me a new message

Archives
archive1 (Sept. 2, 2004 - Jan. 16, 2006)
archive2 (Jan. 16, 2006 - Feb. 11, 2006)

Replacing Stars with Text

Gflores, your knowledge is needed, at WP:ALBUMS. There is currently a disscussion here to convert all of the star graphics in infoboxes to text, and we are wondering on how to progress forward. Your comment on this plan would be useful, and if you think it's something good to do, can your bot do it? Nooby_god | Talk 22:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for your support despite that one flaw you noted. It was actually a pretty bad reference just as far as the actual material went, so I re-worded the sentence and re-ref'd it. I realize you already voted support, and thank you, but I figured I'd let you know. Staxringold 23:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

I wanted to give this to you earlier when it looked like you would finish the entire list yourself but held off until the list was closer to completion. Now it looks like you have moved on to bigger and better things but you still deserve this barnstar for the incredible work you have done. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

While I doubt your contributions about album information would be have been deleted, after all just because something is a stub is not reason enough for it's removal. All the albums were noteworthy for one reason or another with verifiable information available at allmusic. Nonetheless I understand why you have moved to other projects and you don't need to justify it. Change is good. All the best --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

My Featured Article

Thank you so much, and thanks for your vote! I included a thank you on the talk page as well! :) RadioKirk talk to me 19:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

A question for you

I added today three items to the list of portable apps that you started a while ago. I have doubts about my additions and gave the reason in the discussion page. Would you mind taking a look and giving some feed back? Thanks. Vale, Lcgarcia 22:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Cantinflas

Nice work!--Rockero420 00:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I've seen several, but my favorite is el Bolero de Raquel (el Bolero de Ravel). It's based on the composer's work, at least phonetically, and Cantinflas definitely deservad a greater article. I'm glad my contributions were conserved, but I'm even gladder that the maestro had a much better article. 8)--Rockero420 04:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

FA candidate

Here is a book you may want to check out: Pilcher, Jeffrey M., Cantinflas and the chaos of Mexican modernity. Wilmington, Del.: Scholarly Resources, c2001. ISBN 0842027696 or ISBN 0842027718. There is also a chapter dedicated to Cantinflas and Tin-Tan in Mexico’s cinema : a century of film and filmmakers edited by Joanne Hershfield and David R. Maciel. ISBN 0842026819 and ISBN 0842026827I prefer book sources over internet sources, and I wouldn't be surprised if other editors did too, although I don't know what actual Wikipedia policy is. If you can't find the first one, I'll check it out from my library and commit to helping out. PAZ,--Rockero420 22:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I read the chapter on Cantinflas and Tin-Tán yesterday. It was amazing (except for the uneasy translation). I laughed and cried. There is a lot of good info there, too. And did you know that Cantinflas wrote a book? I believe it is a novel version of his film "Su Excelencia." We'll have to add this stuff to the article. I couldn't get my hands on the Pilcher text but now I definitely want to help get this article to FA status. There is enough criticism and film analysis to have a solid, well-sourced, and interesting article. PAZ, --Rockero420 18:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah there was stuff in the Monsiváis essay (the chapter of Mexico's cinema) that wasn't in the article yet, and I actually got the Pilcher book today. So I'll see what I can do this weekend. Thx for the invite.--Rockero420 02:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Imona try putting a director column in the table, just revert it if it doesn't work out.--Rockero420 06:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Screen shots are PD, but we can only use one per article. Movie posters are fair use, so that one should be fine, although I notice that the film advertised, Cantinflas en el Teatro, is not listed on his filmography. The book I have says the only film of his carpa days is Aguila o Sol, which also featured Medel, so I wonder if there aren't some other films of those days around somewhere. Anyways, things like non-PD or non-fair use images can impede an article from reaching FA status, so we may need to do something about that. The image from the infobox we can probably pass of as a publicity shot (also falling under fair use). We also need to get my citations/footnotes into line with yours. I tried not to mess with your system too much, but I did have to move some things around, so some changes may be necessary. Do you want me to tell you the names and page numbers of my citations, or do you want me to figure out how to put them in? Are we distinguishing between citations and footnotes? Between web sources and book sources? Do you know what standard practice for that is?--Rockero420 08:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Just got your message. I'll add the references in when I get home from work today. Glad you enjoyed the music. 8)--Rockero420 16:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What up. I couldn't quit figure out the reference system. The only one I've used (in Estela Ruiz) was endnotes, and I don't know if your system is different just because it's all web sources or what. So I decided to just put the references in using Chicago style, and hoping that you or someone else would be able to integrate then into the current format, but since I was citing quotations that I had formatted as blockquotes, it placed the parenthetical information on the next line down instead of right after the quote. So I just used the basic endnote style, but I doubt that it is a standard format. I had two main difficulties: Your citations are in footnotes, which are all web sources. The formatting is different than it is for citing book references. On the edit screen, they are not numbered. This seems to be a problem resulting from my lack of knowledge of citation formats and from the mixed Footnote/Reference organization. The second problem I had was that some of the quotes (which I'm afraid may now be overkill at this point) are quotes themselves. I tend to prefer citing the original source, which would entail digging up those books and finding the page numbers. I haven't done that yet, so in the meantime, I wanted to do something like "(Novo, quoted in Monsivais)". So far pretty much everything I've added is from that essay. I haven't even crackd the Pilcher yet. But it seems like we're pretty well on our way once we get some of these issues resolved. There's not much resistance yet. So see if you can integrate my citations, or maybe just point me to where I can figure out yours, and I'll try a crack at it. I'd like to avoid any major reorganizations (as far as refs and citations go), but if that's what it takes to get it to FA status, I'm willing to work with you on it.--Rockero420 07:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Que pasa G? I'll have to get the Novo book tomorrow at the lib and find that page number then. But talk about coincidences. I went to go visit my sister who just moved back from Colorado this weekend and she has pictures for me. One of them is of her sitting beside Cantinflas' star on the Walk of Fame. Crazy, huh? Which reminds me, we should probably put the date of when he got that star. But do you think we should upload it? I can crop her out if that's an issue. If we do have to take out one of the screenshots (and I say this because when you go to Wikipedia's upload page, under the PD section (which screenshots fall under), it says "only one per article"), it might be nice to have a backup. As far as breaking up the intro, I just got scolded for having "blcks of text" the other day, which one editor described as "boring". Personally, I don't see "blocks of text" as a particularly negative thing to be avoided. It seems like pandering to the lowest common denominator. After all, books are almost entirely "blocks of text". Does that make them boring? Apparently so to some people. I can see the need for it when paragraphs are thematically distinct, but in an intro, the focus is narrow: introduce the subject. But since it is Wikipedia policy (I looked it up), we should maybe try to oblige. Take a stab if you like, or I will see what I can do tomorrow. One final thing: during my last re-read, the paragraph on his influence on Chicano teatro was really bugging me. It just didn't seem concise. I don't remember if I wrote it or not, but if it were more fluid I think it'd improve our chances on getting it to FA. Paz, pues,--Rockero420 05:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

RuneWelsh has made some excellent comments. I think we ought to take the union stuff out of the personal life and film career sections and write a "sindicalismo" section. The story about the meeting with Avila Camacho is a pretty good one. Oh and do you think we can find a PD image of the Rivera mural? That would be awesome... I want to read the real Bio and do some clarifications, as well as trimming down the References section (some of those books aren't used as refs.) In the meantime, you may want to see what you can do with RW's criticisms. (Oh yeah I forgot to mention on the FA page that I have a definition for "peladito" too.)--Rockero420 07:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What up G. First, about the breaking off of the name section. I shouldn't really mind it, because it seems to go along with Wikipedia's (unwritten?) convention of "pandering to the lowest common denominator", which is to say, that the articles should forthrightly answer people's basic questions about certain subjects (in this case, a lot of people probably wonder how he got his name more than anything else), even when those answers don't fit into the article logically. I happen not to agree with the "policy", but this is a group collaboration, so compromise is necessary. But I am a big fan of the chronological narrative. I find that when a story is told chronologically, it makes the type of sense that appeals to the logical mind and it greatly reduces the chance that facts/aspects of the subject are repeated in the article.

Secondly, I know someone said on the talkpage that "no piece of information is too trivial for Wikipedia". I tend to disagree. The song by the punk band is not about Cantinflas; it just mentions him. If there were a trivia section, it might belong there, but since there isn't, I don't think it enhances the article at all. Oh and I had subsectioned the part about Yo Colón because it was a theatrical run, and didn't really fit into under the "film career" heading. We might have to work something out about that.

I haven't made much progress in the Pilcher bio yet, but already I can tell that much is missing. For example: The difference/overlap/conflation between Moreno and Cantinflas, (negative) criticism (there was plenty), and his interpretation of the masculine gender role (not the typical macho, etc). And I think more elaborate comparisons/contrasts between him, Groucho, and Chaplin are warranted. What did you think of the star shot? Like I said, I wouldn't mind trimming it down or removing it, unless the community likes it. And what did you think about RuneWelsh's comments? Well, I'm back to work. Stay up.--Rockero420 23:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and hello!

Howdy; thanks for being the first person to write on my talk page. That was neat to receive. Wesmills 21:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Call for help

Now what's that story about the boy who called wolf?  :). Thanks for letting me know about it though --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Patriots

Just a quick question...do you feel that balance for the Patriots article should be attained by trimming the Belichick Era section, or expanding the other ones? Deckiller 19:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

-=Nods=-, it doesn't need to be noted, especially becuase there is already mention of the drop kick. Deckiller 19:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I removed that wikilink. Thanks for the review! Deckiller 22:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed that second paragraph entirely, since the information is covered in the article. Do you feel that the lead should be larger? Deckiller 22:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's so hard to write lead sections for these types of articles. I've seen some FA ones with 1-2 paragraph leads, and others with like 5. I don't think it will matter too much in the long run. Deckiller 23:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Computer science

Hi!

I noticed that you put a comment on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Computer science about the need to improve the quality of the Computer science article, as well as CS articles in general. Not surprisingly, you're not the only one who has those views. If you're interested, you're more than welcome to join the discussions about how to achieve those goals over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science. We could definitely use some more project participants to help us get CS articles up to a level approaching the math ones. --Allan McInnes 20:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

FA status

Hey, do you think I should start a FA vote for the Patriots article this weekend? Deckiller 22:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

-=nods=- The only gaping hole I see is the lead, which is one of my achilles' heals. Deckiller 23:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I was bored, so I decided to fix up some minor errors and start the FAC debate. That way, if there's objections, I can fix them while sitting around doing nothing ^_^ Deckiller 20:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

WP CS

Since you've started making edits to the WP CS project page (BTW, thank you for your additions) I've gone ahead and added your name to the list of participants. If this is a problem, feel free to remove it again. --Allan McInnes 20:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Gflores,

Just wanted to say thanks for helping out on Work via WikiProjects, I really appreciate a third person sharing the load. Cheers, Walkerma 07:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I've posted a full response about a "to do" list on the subproject talk page. Cheers, Walkerma 08:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That's great! That's an awful lot of work, I know. If I were you, I wouldn't contact any other groups for a couple of weeks at least, because you may (hopefully) have an avalanche of articles coming in. If the lists are short (<20 articles) I think it's good to list the assessments on our page so we can review them all at once without having to click around a lot (esp. as those talk pages get archived). We can do that with the Pokemon list, I think "exemplary" = A and "good" = B at a quick glance. With the video games list, it's too much to transfer over, so just link it. Walkerma 20:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

1.0 periodic collaboration

Hi, you asked about a collaboration of the month for the Wikipedia version 1.0 team. My attention span isn't that long. What would you think of doing one every week? Do you think we'd get other people? Thanks. Maurreen [[User_talk:Maurreen|(talk)]] 07:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you have some good comments. I started a rudimentary Core Topics COTW at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTW. We can see how it goes. Thanks. Maurreen [[User_talk:Maurreen|(talk)]] 03:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Contact with Sj, direction of the 1.0 project

Hi,

Thanks a lot for contacting all of the WP1.0 people about the new COTW. Just wanted to let you know that I contacted User:Sj here, he may know how the tree idea could be made (a) prettier and (b) more efficient, if necessary by introducing some new code. BTW, he's one of the main organisers of this year's Wikimania, and also he & are are working together on a panel about wikis in academia. Regarding the direction of the project, that is of course up to us, though as a brief summary I would say something like:

1. Find suitable articles (Criteria: quality, and importance of topic) in level 1 (core topics), level 2 and at least level 3.
2. Organise the articles in a meaningful way
3. Fill in any important gaps in level 1 and maybe 2 if we can
4. Get the publication issues sorted (Print, CD, DVD, or all three, what software to use with it, etc.)
5. Issue an alpha test (V0.5?), get feedback
6. Issue a beta test (V0.8?), get feedback
7. Issue V1.0

I think that if we can get people motivated, including people like yourself who are willing to consider it a major part of the Wikiwork, we can get to 0.5, maybe even 0.8, before the end of the year. Once WikiSort comes on line (supposedly any day now, but they've been saying that for weeks), we may start to get deluged with user assessments. I think we're getting well into #1, and we need to start working on #2 and #3 (the new COTW of course helps with the latter). In fact 1, 2 and 3 are all interrelated - when we organise a subject area we may then need to start tracking down certain sets of articles. If Sj or someone else can get a nice version of the tree, or we come up with some better alternative, then I think that would greatly help with #2. Do you see the project differently? Please elaborate. Busy in the lab today, 3 students working away so I'd better get on. Cheers, Walkerma 17:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Creating a good tree could be a useful microproject in itself. I would start by researching what kinds of trees other information-organization projects have taken on. We need a Meta-1.0 project which addresses

1. Some definition of the scope of the total body of work
2. Criteria for evaluating the completeness of a 'mesh' of the available content (separately in breadth and depth)
3. Some order-of-magnitude estimate of the branching # and depth of a good tree (start small, then grow in both dimensions)
4. A simple notion of ways to link tree nodes together (conceptual symlinks, or just associations between reltaed nodes)

Examples of projects with similar ambitions : EB's Propaedia, classification schemas (each miserable in its own way, but each worth learning from), ...

+sj + 07:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello again - sorry, for some strange reason I missed clicking on your link to this page. I like it a lot. BTW, I don't think you are capable of rambling, unlike yours truly...., there I go again! I think you & I are pretty much in agreement on how things should go, we should take our ideas to the main project talk page for discussion. I think the main project page is a mess - it was written at a time when nothing was happening, and we were trying to get something going. We couldn't even debate things like the size in a meaningful way. Now things are moving, and so things like a road map and a projected size should go on there, once we agree. Meanwhile, Sj has made some great points that we probably need to discuss. Walkerma 16:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

...

i was just trying to help Jakken 02:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

And by the way how did you figure that out? Jakken 03:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You dont get it do you? Jakken 03:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

every major change or edit i have ever done has been copyed and pasted and i deserve to be banned for it and now you are going to have to delete many thing i have ever done. and if you are wondering why i told you it is because someone should know. Jakken 03:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks! Now, time to go do some more edits... —Slicing (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Student_Linguistics_in_IIT_Kharagpur

I am working with a friend to get a table of contents set up for the article: Student_Linguistics_in_IIT_Kharagpur and it isn't working. Can you help us set this up? TIA. Arundhati_bakshi 20:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the assistance. :) And for letting me know where the helpme tag should go.

I think we can manage to do the list now after your help. Someone marked it for deletion anyway, so it may not last. But thanks for your help! I appreciate it.

Museums

Nice work on the museums reorganization. It clarifies a lot - especially what is missing. Hopefully some people will pick up on the to do list, too. Why did you choose this entry? Given your interests, it doesn't seem to fit? Also, are you really soliciting recommendations for Latin American music? Bruxism 03:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, you gave me too much to answer to.  :-( But you're right, museum should be unpgraded. About this Wikipedia 1.0 thing, I just looked over the List of basic topic lists and I'm stunned that critical theory, which is an analytical tool used by less than 1% of the people on the planet - and a relatively recent invention - is considered a basic topic, while folklore, which, like language, sex, cuisine is used by 100% of the world and has existed for millennia (and may comprise 99% of the literature in world history if one includes oral literature), is not. So, first question, where do I go to make this case? The talk page there? It should at the very least be one of the 1000. Second, about music, do you know Los Fabulosos Cadillacs? Third, about Jeopardy!, thanks; but I lost. Actually, right now I am more amazed I was able to put together a userbox on it. Curious to see if anyone discovers it. Bruxism 04:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. Let's see what happens. And please tell me what you think of Los Fabulosos Cadillacs. Also, for that matter, do you know Café Tacuba? Bruxism 04:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. Yeah, eclectic is right. Listening to them is like having a lesson in every rhythm of the Americas. Be sure to listen to "Matador" if you haven't already. I know what you mean also about Café Tacuba, it took me a lot longer to like them. Unfortunately, I don't understand the lyrics. :( Bruxism 00:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello and thanks

Thanks for the welcome. Good to hear from another BRPS graduate.

Qrk 05:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm Dan... I graduated in '04 and I was in your AP Spanish Class. Its a very tiny world, isn't it.

Qrk 05:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Odds & ends

Hi Gflores,

A few things:

1. You probably saw my "roadmap" posting on the 1.0 talk page, and like most people thought "I don't have time for that now." However your views are very important for the 1.0 project IMHO, I wouldn't want us to set any policy without your input. Basically I'm asking- (a) Should we go α -> β -> 1.0? (b) How big (#articles) should each stage be? (c) What besides articles goes in (lists, etc.) and (d) How do we get there?
2. With hindsight I should have asked you before I posted your roadmap (which I really like). I apologise if you meant to keep that tucked away.
3. "Are lists included?" seems to be a recurring question (see Cricket right above this, also here. Your answer to (c) above would help us to set this as policy- I think personally that lists need to be in, and I think Maurreen feels the same way.
4. You tagged "Science Pearls" as inactive, but this is a kind of umbrella project. Some of the sub-projects are very active, see for example the chem discussion page. Do you mind if I remove the inactive tag?

Thanks for all your hard work on Antarctica, I'm a bit sick this week so I'm being quite unproductive at the moment. Cheers, Walkerma 17:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, thanks for responding so quickly and for activating Science Pearls. There is a very well-argued method for validation done by TidyCat here. After we knock it around a bit to get the details right, we could probably add that on to our plans for WP1.0. Of course like the Stable Versions idea, it or something like it needs to get adopted....

Yes, by alpha etc. I was referring to the DVD or similar release, not individual articles. I think we are all a little confused about the goals, that's why this project has stalled in the past. My recent posting was in fact initiated by your request some weeks ago requesting a roadmap. But I try to remember that WE are Wikipedia, so the goals are what WE want them to be. What I want to do is to get some kind of consensus so we don't all pull in different directions. Once we get that consensus, we will need to just say, "This is what we plan to do" and get on with it. Fundamentally there seem to be two main views of 1.0; either a small selection of Core Topics Plus of good articles (FAs or at least A), or a German-style mass dump onto CC/DVD/paper. Quality or quantity first? Let's pick a roadmap then start driving! Cheers, Walkerma 22:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks for image help

Thanks for the quick response.