User talk:MIckStephenson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the place to leave Wiki-related messages and any stuff about my gallery; if you leave a message here, I'll (mostly) reply to it here; if you want to leave a personal message, you can stick it on this page.

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

Contents 1 POTD notification 2 Nice pair of legs photos 3 WP:WINE newsletter 4 Crab photo 5 Smile! 6 Confusion - Oak (wine) 7 Cristal (champagne) 8 Hello! 9 ketogenic diet 10 Valued Pictures Proposal 11 Calling people liars 12 Vino de España

[edit] POTD notification

Hi Mick,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Notophthalmus viridescensPCCA20040816-3983A.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 13, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-02-13. howcheng {chat} 18:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nice pair of legs photos

Hi Mick - long time no see. Don't suppose you could comment on the photos currently on my user page? Cheers. FlagSteward (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:WINE newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue XI - February 21st, 2008

In this edition: News & Notes - Every American Viticultural Area now has an article! Keeping up with the B class wine articles and find out which start class article of top importance was viewed almost 43,000 times between Dec-Jan. Plus, find out which wine related Did you knows helped to dispel the myths around the Shiraz grape's origins and which Bordeaux wine chateau was a last minute addition to the Bordeaux Wine Official Classification of 1855-not without some controversy. Also, what wine articles have the most potential to reach Good article status? Wiki-Winos - Meet User:EvanProdromou! Evan who? Well let just say that another "wiki-wino" has come out the closet to say Hi and share what his project Vinismo can do to help Wikipedia's wine articles. Wiki wine articles on the Web - Guess which prominent wine personality thinks that Wikipedia is one of the best wine resources on the web? Also find out who thinks our Mission grape article is lacking and how our Plavac Mali article cleared up some confusion about the grape's relationship to Zinfandel. Plus, was Mick Jagger really singing about Sommeliers in the Stones' song Beast of Burden?

This newsletter is sent to those listed under Participants on the Wine Project page. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter please include Decline newsletter next to your name on the Participant list. If you have any Wikipedia wine related news, announcements or suggestions drop a note in the Comments/Suggestion area of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter.

[edit] Crab photo

I believe I have alleviated your concerns at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Dungeness crab face closeup.jpg. Regards, howcheng {chat} 17:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Smile!

-WarthogDemon 23:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion - Oak (wine)

Regarding my edit to Oak (wine) - I was referring to the fact that a "plank" of oak, when used in a barrel, keg or as an oak alternative wine additive is correctly called a "stave", hence the term "tank stave", a plank of oak added to a tank of wine. I haven't reverted your revert to my edit (I really don't like the whole edit-war thing!), however if you feel I have explained it well enough, go ahead and revert it back - if not, then I'm happy to leave it until someone comes up with a reference. Cheers, ABVS1936 (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - actually I am an Aussie (and a cooper...) so i'm not so sure about the origins of the "plank" terminology. The large pieces of oak that we produce for addition to steel tanks are called tank staves. Anyway, I'm happy to leave both terms in the article if you are - more info means a better article! ABVS1936 (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cristal (champagne)

Look again, he wasn't removing a source, he was expanding the quote. --Stlemur (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello!

Hello! Can you make a SVG version of this picture? [1]? I'm going to upload it for the article on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cream (talk • contribs) 22:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ketogenic diet

I've replied to your offer here. You are welcome to get in touch by mail if that helps. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 22:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Valued Pictures Proposal

Hi Mick,

Sorry, I'd gone away after dropping that comment re my VP proposal on FPC talk. Anyway, since you expressed an interest in my ideas, I've detailed my thoughts there. Not sure if it's the right direction or not. See Valued Pictures Proposal. Your input would be valued.

Cheers, --jjron (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Probably not a bad idea to take the discussion to the PPR talkpage (even though it's pretty low traffic). But probably more sense there than on my talkpage ;-).

Can I just pick up your numbered points. (1) I actually hadn't even really considered renaming PPR, at least not at this stage - do you think that's high priority, or necessary? (2) Keeping it simple is agreed; that was substantially my initial concept, and partly what I don't like about the Commons VI setup. Also I have gone further off the Certified Assessors concept (as you may have seen I also said on Muhammad's talkpage). As a compromise I was thinking of instead requiring nominator + 3 Supports from anyone, rather than nominator + 2 Supports from Certified Assessors. (3) I know you're pretty strong on tying it COM:VI, but there's lots I'm not happy about there; I think the 'watered down' FP criteria I suggested in the proposal were a pretty good starting point, perhaps to be refined over time (one example that springs to mind is something like 'the image must have been in its article for at least one month' (or maybe even 3 months); in other words it has to have proved its value). And even Slaunger ended up agreeing that the proposal as put wasn't really out of line with the Commons project when you got down to it. I'm not entirely sure about their concept of scopes; I don't mind it, but as they use it on Commons it's confusing - it would actually probably be clearer here in that you could say only 1 VP per article; but not sure about that.

OK, might look at putting a summary of this stuff, the stuff I've discussed with Muhammad, and what came out of the FP talkpage discussion up at PPR talk in the next few days (I'm pretty busy atm so maybe not till the weekend). I'll drop you a note. --jjron (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The redirect/renaming just makes things easier to manage. The overall aim is to promote Valued Pictures; a spinoff is a boost up to FPC, as it has ever been at PPR. The peer review side is almost an incidental process; it's all about FPC-ability. You get a (better) peer review at FPC anyway, which has always detracted from the professed aim of PPR. I'd been thinking of proposing a rename of PPR for a while, as its pre-FPC role is paradoxically not very well observed. A redirect would seems to me to relaunch the whole crooked circus with a real purpose. --mikaul^talk 17:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW. I just went and had a look at the COM:VI stuff again today. It really doesn't look to be attracting much traffic; there's a few noms and a tiny handful of voters. QI makes sense for Commons, but I struggle with VI having much meaning there. I go back to what I (and several others) said in the discussion, that VP/VI really makes a lot more sense on the 'pedia. This is another reason why I don't want to tie a project here too strongly to the Commons setup, as I'm not convinced it will thrive there, and perhaps not even survive (but a flow on from us, as Slaunger suggested, may really help them out). --jjron (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply here cos it makes it easier to follow. Couldn't agree more about the poor reception at COM:VI, and agree with your analysis in general. It seems to me the hard work has been done there, and we could do worse than summarise and improvise on the main criteria they've developed there. "Scope" has less meaning here, I agree, but everything else seems fairly relevant. There's always a chance that COM:VI will take off and, unless there are other incompatible elements, "moving on" from where they left off would mean porting stuff there from here (and other WP projects) would be fairly seamless. There's a chance here to avoid the COM:FP/WP:FP dichotomy we're lumbered with now, and allow commons to be the image depository it was set up to be.
I'm busy myself or I'd set up that discussion today. There's no harm in ironing out some basics on our talk pages, makes the proposal more credible if the obvious stuff is already dealt with. A few minutes here & there is all I can manage ATM anyway. --mikaul^talk 17:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, have rushed ahead and made some developments; hope I haven't gone in too recklessly :-). I'm very busy as well, and will be over the next month and a half, so don't really have a lot more to spend on it. There is a trial version at User:Jjron/VP Trial. I have put up a discussion at PPR talk - Wikipedia_talk:Picture_peer_review#Valued_Pictures_Proposal for comments. Will have to watch the response. --jjron (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw this thread by coincidence. Always interesting to read ones own opinions referred to elsewhere. I think you are treating me fairly though, so I am all heads up ;-) Just a quick remark on the activity at commons:COM:VI. Yes, the activity is low, but we also have not gone on-air yet. There are some plans of coordinated promotion when this happens as the project is not that well known among Commons users also. And, yes recently the roll-out has also been depressingly slow. I and others have been side-tracked by what I consider a disruptive users who wanted to merge all nomination templates (FP, QI, POTD, POTY, VI) into one single template without seeking consensus first. That has caused a lot of mess and the FP templates are a still a mess there... I hope now to be able to get back on track with COM:VI. However, the prolonged test review phase is also interesting and some good points have been raised which have lead to some adjustments in the guidelines, and the discussions continue. Cheers, -- Slaunger (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Calling people liars

Don't ever suggest I'm a liar again. Totally uncalled for and you know it. (Mind meal (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

Just wanted to say I'm seeing you inject a lot of common sense into discussions like the one referenced above. It's good to see there are still people fighting to keep this great resource sane. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vino de España

Hola Mikaul. Te informo de que he empezado el artículo Vino de España en la wikipedia en español traduciendo tu artículo de la wiki en inglés, por si te interesa colaborar. También, el Anexo:Vinos de España está actualizado. Saludos Té y kriptonita —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.146.127 (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)