User talk:Bunchofgrapes/Archive 1

— Object —
01	Peter Isotalo
— Support —
01	172
02	Proto
03	Bwithh
04	Journalist
05	Bunchofgrapes
06	nixie
07	Bishonen
08	Ganymead
09	Spangineer
10	DanKeshet
11	Anagnorisis
12	maclean25
13	Borisblue
14	Ambi
15	Silence
16	Saravask

Archive Page - You probably shouldn't edit this.

Welcome!

Hello, Bunchofgrapes/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Merovingian (t) (c) 00:24, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Frisbetarian[edit]

Hi. Your low return of Google hits for Frisbetarian is a result of the author's spelling error, not lack of notability. "Frisbeetarianism" gets 17,100 Google hits. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 12:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are exactly right; I've changed my vote to Rename. Thanks! Bunchofgrapes 14:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion reform/Proposals/Speedy delete for pages with no citations[edit]

I've commented on your proposal. While it does look good from a researcher's perspective, I don't think it's that good for the encyclopedia's organic growth; you might want to look at my comments there and see if you can get some other users' suggestions also. I do think that the encyclopedia should have more citations/ext links/etc., but I think that should be part of the growth process of an article; to most of the editors here, creating a new article is often just laying the groundwork, and then the other editors help build it up. --Idont Havaname 19:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ice-9[edit]

You are welcome. A google search on Ice-9 + metaphor turns up that link as one of the first few. I had actually found it before, when i was doing the first re-write, but failed to include a link. I should have. 17:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Phatmass[edit]

If you look at the Google search results for phatmass, there are actually only 71 unique hits. Since that seemed to be what you based your vote on, I though you might want reconsider. --Icelight 17:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles[edit]

Because of the complexity of the vote at the above AfD, I have attempted to break down the individual votes on the AfD talk page. If I have misunderstood your vote with respect to any of these, please correct it. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 12:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Flourished"[edit]

The word "flourished" (or abbrev "fl.") is used when we really really don't have any concrete info about the life of a person. Oftentimes it means there is only one or two dateable references in the person's works, and so for instance Flavius Caper's actual lifespan might not intersect the 2nd century by more than a couple years, or not at all. So instead of long and complicated caveats about possible lifespans, we say "flourished". This can sometimes be used with a year, so if an author says "I myself saw the eruption of Vesuvius" but we have no further info, we say "flourished ca 79 AD". Stan 18:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wasabi[edit]

That article looks immeasurably better after you edited it. Nice job! Joyous (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Moran[edit]

Thanks couldnt settle down to figure out how to correct typo. I also uploaded a photo at Commons but it doesnt show up as newly uploaded...Kyle Andrew Brown 04:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: Just a thanks[edit]

I've replied here. --Blackcap | talk 18:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Found Discuss[edit]

I look at those homepages and mess up thinking they look like talk. Thanks for reminding me, I do know better. That pic problem, is I uploaded to WikiCommons but they did not display. So I uploaded in Wikipedia which is the secondary choice. Last night the pic displayed, but today using Mozilla it does not, but if I click on it I go to the page saved....Thanks for the category work, I havent got involved in that yet...Kyle Andrew Brown 20:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Opentask most requested[edit]

Ah, replied on Template talk:Opentask. -- Beland 13:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about Spice Girls article[edit]

Since you peer reviewed my request, I would like to ask you a few questions.

For a long time I have been searching for sources that claim the Spice Girls as the biggest-selling girl group in the world. Believe it or not, this search has come up unsuccessful, even on numerous fansites.
Geri Halliwell was extremely shocked about Playboy publishing nude photographs of her. I've also found this search quite difficult, as there is no particular source that actually describes her anger—I only heard this news on the television back when the Spice Girls were, the only thing people wanted to socialize about. Is it possible for something to slide without a reference?
Finally, I can't reword the part in the "The beginning" section. I understand what you mean by it sounding like someone was living with the five girls, but it's difficult to fix the sentence.

Could you help me with these three issues? --64.231.64.133 13:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had forgotten to sign in. --Winnermario 13:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on User talk:Winnermario —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

I just wanted to say thank you for your support of my admin nomination. I look forward to the time when our Wikipedia paths, blended in amity, cross once again. —Wayward ^Talk 05:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese[edit]

I striked my objection so it should pass soon... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Black pepper[edit]

Hi 'Grapes - I'd put it at the start on the general principle that an article about X should start with a definition of what X is, before what it does, or what it is used for. Whether the articles should be split I'm less sure, but it is a possibility; personally, I don't think the page is so long that it needs splitting (coffee and Coffea are both much longer pages). It doesn't throw up the "This page is xx kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size" warning. Maybe if/when the article does get long enough for that to happen it could be split. If that happens, the obvious page for the botanical details would be its scientific name Piper nigrum (currently a redirect) - MPF 10:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bounty Board[edit]

Greetings. You've recently been involved with working on get articles up to featured status, so I wanted to let you know about a new page, Wikipedia:Bounty board. People have put up monetary bounties for certain articles reaching featured status - if the article makes it, the bounty lister donates the stated amount of money to the Wikimedia Foundation. So you can work on making articles featured, and donate other people's money at the same time. If this sounds interesting, I hope you stop by. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Waterfall Gully[edit]

I've noted your current objection to it's featured article nomination, and made changes to the article in the hope to accomodate your qualms with it. Would you mind having another look and offering further advice? - michaelg 07:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFA[edit]

Hi, Its OK there's no need to apologise, I think everyone on that page is rather sick of it all. I can't be so hypocritical to say I won't be glad to see the back of him. His threats of rubbishing wikipedia are sad, but anyone reading them the internet (if anyone does read them) have only to refer back here, where Tony's temper is not a pretty sight - is it?. Throwing poor old Ambi out of his own separate group. Taking back the Bach music - well - the world's full of intelligent people able to form their own opinion.

Tony's personal attacks on me, don't worry me too much either - "Lazy", my wife tells me that twice daily. "Snide" well that hurt a bit, I always say exactly what I think. which is why the debacle started, the lengthy and public attack at RFA (not FAC) on my writing ..well it's his opinion for all the good it did him. "Drumming up support against him on user pages", I don't think I've mentioned the subject on any page I've not been a regular visitor for ages, or to people who were not already involved - even then I wasn't saying oppose Tony.

If Tony is upset, then I blame those who nominated him, after such a short period for not making him aware of what could possibly be in store, at the end of the day it's not a vote, but a debate to reach concessis. And a debate means airing opinions and views however unpalatable they may happen to be - to a candidate who has, lets remember this, volunteered to be there.

I don't regret reverting Sicilian Baroque, I had spent nearly eight constant hours, with edit conflicts until I used "in-use" trying to make his changes work, he was still messaging me, as I saved chunks with an in-use tag, wanting to revert changes, he could just not take a subtle hint, so it had to be a big hint, well yes it was more of a sledge-hammer. But the end result has been to show this side of Tony, which I had begun to sense, before he had further powers. This has all been very painful to all concerned, but at the end of the day has it all been worth it - I suppose so. Regards Giano | talk 10:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That anon over in Talk:Coffee[edit]

Please don't think I took it like that. I really think you've been doing a better job of handling him than I have. I have a bad habit of letting my irritation show sometimes, when a softer approach would be more successful.

I have no idea what he wants. It's always possble he's just some random troll who stumbled onto the site. I've run into a few like that on various other websites recently. They all sound the same, so I keep feeling as if I'm dealing with the same person over and over again, which explains my irritation. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese edit[edit]

I'm afraid I don't. In fact, it was an original thought of my own, occurring to me as I contemplated my son's "cheesy" smile in pictures. I've seen a website or two in which the smelly cheese theory is proposed, but it seems to me that they're guessing as much as I am. --Tisco 01:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conceded that my theory is only common-sense speculation, with no scholarly backing, but is the smelly theory any different? The answer may be yes, but I'm interested in it. All I find on Google is some guy who may or may not know what he's talking about, and admits that the answer is uncertain. If I wrote a non-Wikipedia page of my own with my theory, would it no longer be unpublished research? I won't try to revert, but I'm curious. --Tisco 05:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. --Tisco 00:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ATLAS[edit]

Sorry -- all I had was that blog post. I should have checked it out more throughly before adding the info to the article; thank you for looking more closely. Yours, Sdedeo 01:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shoe polish[edit]

Hi Bunchofgrapes (Bunch? BOG? :) )Thanks for your comments on the FAC for shoe polish, and for the copyediting, as I'm no good with all those mdashes and nbsps. Please take another look as I have rejigged as per your comments (and if you have any suggesiton for the image status, please help, I'm stuck). If you feel you can now change your vote, that would rock my world. Thanks! Proto t c 11:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh. I need to explain things like this better. The site specifically states 'The Design Technology Department has been created in order to provide free educational materials', but then cautions narrative text remains copyright. I see that as allowing use of the image ... wrong? And as for the other photo, I think promotional posters are fair use. I will check. Proto t c 16:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix up the Bart image. I see your point on the image of the can. I'll try and find a better image. Might have to borrow a camera. Proto t c 09:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! After figuring out I actually can send images to my email account from my camera phone, I've taken a photo myself. And I had another one sent to me via MMS, too. So I think the concerns are dealt with ... I hope! Proto t c 10:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would have removed it myself this morning anyway ... thanks! Proto t c 10:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-western"[edit]

hi there, thanks for the question I mean the phrase as shorthand for non-Euro-American, and referring to the phrase "The West", which I understand to mean the advanced industrial countries and modern cultures of Europe and North America, and possibly Australia and New Zealand. So a Native American tribe, I would probably call non-western (this is my college cultural anthropology classes rearing their ugly head). The modern cultures of Latin America is a bit of gray zone, I agree, but like South Africa, it is less economically developed. Perhaps I should write Euro-American or non-Western instead. Bwithh 23:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

incidentally, here's a little article arguing that Latin America is definitely Western (though the writer means in a cultural sense, I think): article Bwithh 23:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

I, Wayward, award **Bunchofgrapes** this Barnstar of Life for his outstanding efforts in helping to bring Cheese to Featured Article status.

I think you deserve this for all your hard work on Cheese. Great job! —Wayward ^Talk 01:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

your Hugo Chavez FAC vote[edit]

I just finished merging, rebuilding, and eliminating all the one-paragraph sections in the article. The issue of one-paragraph sections was your very last remaining point of objection. The headings are not just commented out now — rather, they have now been deleted and will not be reintroduced later (so long as I'm around). I see now the benefits of a concise TOC. My appreciations. Would you be so kind as to take a moment to examine the article's headings/structure and judge again for yourself? Please remember to update/remove/change your comment/vote accordingly. I struck out all my reasoning with you, so there is no more need to respond to them. Many thanks. Saravask 11:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Planet hab[edit]

7 000 should be 7,000. Sorry, but isn't that the sort of minor crap you edit yourself when looking at an FA nom? Regarding second point, I have permission on an ESA pic which is actually better that I will use tomorrow; OK, I thought what's more fairuse than a wallpaper site? But you could view it as dodgy.

But I'm confused. There is no comment or dispute about content, coverage etc. Having done the comparison to other Science and Space FAs, Planetary habitability absolutely stacks up. Big Bang has no 1-to-1 ref system; it's very few links, link externally without corresponce in the ref section. Vote PH down on content or total lack of refs (which certainly isn't the case), sure, but not on easily correctable stuff that other FAs don't even match. Marskell 00:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we're probably editing on top of each other--just caught "don't want to step on your toes." I'm going to bed--still absolutely unconvinced about why this shouldn't be featured ;). Marskell 00:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just 24 hours but often the first 24 is the most important. If Peer Review worked properly a lot of the yip-yap on FAC wouldn't be needed. Unfortunately, PR gets little traffic and FAC winds up fulfilling its function. I should've done the ref numbering earlier but didn't know the syntax for keeping footnotes and main refs separate. I was frustrated by the other user repeatedly suggesting do x without pointing out how (until I finally prodded on their user page).

At any rate, the refs are now numbered and the pic has been replaced. The intro needs a re-jig and Proto raised some stylistic quibbles but otherwise I think your concerns have been addressed. Cheers, Marskell 16:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the time you put into this page Grapes. Marskell 10:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ChavezInputs issue[edit]

Hello. I believe it is OK now. I just inserted the contents of template:ChavezInputs and placed them directly (together with the call to the fair use image) into the Hugo Chavez article itself. I also blanked the contents of template:ChavezInputs. There are no image calls in any of the templates used in the articles now. Regards, Saravask 16:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Black Pepper edit[edit]

Hey, just to let you know, I left a response to your inquiry on my talk page! See ya around! *''Exeunt''* Ganymead [[User_talk:Ganymead|<sup><font color="green">Dialogue?</font></sup>]] 06:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Processed cheese[edit]

Gotcha. Sorry about the misunderstanding. Matt Yeager 20:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FAC suggestions[edit]

Salve, Bunchofgrapes!
I read your reaction to my comment on the FAC talk page. It was more than the Bob McEwen responses that has irritated me. But as you focus on it, I will note that I was unfortunately away from Wikipedia for several days and not able to respond. That said, one example of nothing but criticism is when Bob McEwen was a FAC in the past: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bob McEwen old. Plenty of criticism, little praise.

The peer review process doesn't work. For example, I give you two articles that were praised or received no objections, but lost at FAC:

I believe the process is broken because there is no consistency, thus my suggestions. PedanticallySpeaking 19:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hi. I just saw your nice remarks on my talk page (it was buried by many messages that came after it while I was gone, unfortunately). I really do appreciate it. I must say I deeply resent your suggestion that black pepper is an "easy topic" topic compared to Hugo Chavez. What nonsense! These things with the origins, trade wars, storage, shipping, spice mixing, pharmacology, anti-microbial and nutritive properties, and usages cooking are truly among the most complicated topics out there, infinitely more so than politics, with the usual same old story of exhibitionism and borderline megalomania. Spices are the epitome of gastronomic diversity, and mirror the ultimate human diversity. You should feel proud of yourself for your good work on Cheese and Black pepper. And the "easy" time you had with your two FACs are just the natural result of well-written articles. Again, congratulations.
Just as an FYI, I put a table of the final vote total to the side, if you are interested. Absolutely feel free to delete it after you're done with it. No need to respond to this posting. Thanks a bunch. Saravask 10:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]