User talk:Speciate

I understand.

Thanks for informing him of this, (and for, at second-hand, informing me of this.) I was just trying to express that I was disappointed and upset that this was the consensus on Wikipedia (or anywhere else). On similar issues, in the future, I hope that similar consensi will not exist. Still, sometimes I probably will be disappointed in this, and at those times I want to know about it. (Just as I am glad that I learned about the consensus that you described. If this consensus had to exist, then at least it is better for me to know about it.)

George Pelly-Bosela

       http://howwecanheal.blogspot.com

gpelly.bosela@gmail.com

GPelly-Bosela (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC) (U.K., Ireland, Iberian Peninsula, far West Africa, and nearby island, time)[reply]

Louis Slotin

I see Louis Slotin is at WP:FAC. Do you see a WP:CHIBOTCATS cat to put him in? I don't really see one.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:20070616 Chris Young visits Wrigley (4)-edit3.jpg

Should Image:20070616 Chris Young visits Wrigley (4)-edit3.jpg be a part of our project in your opinion. I am nominating it for WP:POTD at Template:POTD/2007-12-17.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been informed it is likely going to be used as POTD for Opening Day and to hold off on the nom.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have claimed it for the project however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOTD

Feel free to come vote at WP:LOTD. List of Chicago Landmarks is a candidate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Svenonius

I would like to claim Ian Svenonius, but it does not seem he did anything but emerge from his mother's womb here and the people who commandeer the article don't claim us.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. Speciate (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Meiji Period: Use of Japanese era name in identifying disastrous events

Would you consider making a contribution to an exchange of views at either of the following:

As you know, Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management came up with entirely reasonable guidelines for naming articles about earthquakes, fires, typhoons, etc. However, the <<year>><<place> <<event>> format leaves no opportunity for conventional nengō which have been used in Japan since the eighth century (701-1945) -- as in "the Great Fire of Meireki" (1657) or for "the Hōei eruption of Mount Fuji" (1707).

In a purely intellectual sense, I do look forward to discovering how this exchange of views will develop; but I also have an ulterior motive. I hope to learn something about how better to argue in favor of a non-standard exception to conventional, consensus-driven, and ordinarily helpful wiki-standards such as this one. In my view, there does need to be some modest variation in the conventional paradigms for historical terms which have evolved in non-Western cultures -- no less in Wikipedia than elsewhere. I'm persuaded that, at least in the context of Japanese history before the reign of Emperor Meiji (1868-1912), some non-standard variations seem essential; but I'm not sure how best to present my reasoning to those who don't already agree with me. I know these first steps are inevitably awkward; but there you have it.

The newly-created 1703 Genroku earthquake article pushed just the right buttons for me. Obviously, these are questions that I'd been pondering for some time; and this became a convenient opportunity to move forward in a process of building a new kind of evolving consensus. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline has been largely dismissed. The year in front naming convention is only useful for repeated events. Speciate (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I hope we haven't lost you. I have been talking with the city and the landmark website is suppose to be updated in January. You may notice it has no City Landmarks since mid 2003. Many have been added including the likes of Wrigley Field and teh Marshall Fields Building. We are going to have some work to do on List of Chicago Landmarks when the new info is posted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I check in from time to time. Speciate (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Top-importance Chicago articles

We are going to go through another round of consideration for Category:Top-importance Chicago articles. Last August your votes helped us decide our last round of promotions. Please consider the articles at WT:CHIASSESS and voice your opinion on whether they should be on the ballot near the end of January when we are considering our next round of promotions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PR

Have you seen tath many projects are starting their own peer reviews (see Related pages section at WP:PR and Category:WikiProject peer reviews). Should Chicago do so as well?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a need. I also suspect the "herding cats" problem will crop up. If I had time, I would suggest inter-project collaborations. Speciate (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well played

I enjoyed your pre-emptive redirect for Kathleen Casey-Kirschling. Coemgenus 20:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Speciate (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Circle Interchange

Can you provide a source for the paragraph you reverted? If none can be provided, the statement will need to be removed. Thank you. — master son^{T - C} 01:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refs provided. Speciate (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - and thanks also for renaming it - I've been meaning to myself - but never got around to it — master son^{T - C} 00:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem. Back when I first worked on the article, I couldn't find the refs I wanted. Speciate (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking

I'm sure that you have a cite for the change you made at Castle Lake (California)#Animal life because right now the source cited (UC-Davis) uses Blue Grouse (Dendragapus obscurus) and not Sooty Grouse (Dendragapus fuliginosus). Hence at this point, Sotty Grouse has no citation to support its presence in the article.

Just for my curiousity, how did you happen to know that the grouse found at Castle Lake is the Sooty Grouse (Dendragapus fuliginosus) and not the Blue Grouse (Dendragapus obscurus) named by the UC Davis source? Thanks for your clean-up, and I look forward to being able to add the source of the Sotty Grouse name to the article! NorCalHistory (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Dendragapus article, D. obscurus is two species, a coastal range species and a Rocky Mountain species. Blue Grouse is no more. Still, I will try to find you a source. Speciate (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thank you! I'll let the folks at UC-Davis know so that they can update their website to the more-current name of the grouse near Castle Lake. Thanks again! NorCalHistory (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

e-mail messages

Check'em... you have one from me. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 08:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chicago Landmarks

I am revising List of Chicago Landmarks for new designations since July 2003. You will see many redlinks that need articles if we want to retain WP:FL status. For details of the update that is underway see the talk page. Please help out and create some articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Hi. I don't know if you realise you're doing it, but you're marking all of your edits as minor edits. Most of them aren't what are considered minor edits, so it would be helpful if you could generally try to follow the protocol for marking edits. If you're in doubt, a "major edit" is always preferable. Thanks! JNSQ (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your edits this month to WZRD, Talk:Cat, Soxman and Illinois marked as minor don't match the Wikipedia description of a minor edit. The edits you didn't mark as minor were almost closer to that description, which might suggest that you do indeed unintentionally have minor edits turned on by default. JNSQ (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]