User talk:Esuzu/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Nobel Prize

You recently nominated the above article for peer review, but you did not follow the proper procedure and the nomination was not opened. Please follow the steps shown at the top of the WP:Peer Review page, under "Nomination Procedure". Another issue is whether a PR nomination for this article is premature at this stage - maybe the article needs to develop a little further, first. I see that you are trying to build up interest at the moment; perhaps you should wait to see if your efforts bring any results. PR is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work," not as an early step in article development. Brianboulton (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You asked me (as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors) for help with copy-editing the above article. I'm afraid that as I only joined the Guild today I am not nearly experienced enough to tackle this important task. I see that you have already placed a request for help on the Guild's Project Page so hopefully someone more suited to the task will respond shortly. If this does not happen then might I suggest researching the User Pages of copy editors further down the list of Guild members and selecting one who shows good evidence of experience in this type and length of article. I've even tidied up the chronological sequence of members to help you. Good luck! Inspeximus (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that I've got quite a few projects of my own going on at the moment :(. May I suggest contacting the people who did all the Nobel Prize Winners lists? They got them to a very high standard, and are probably more familiar with the subject than me. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good idea :) Cheers! --Esuzu 01:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


Talkback

re: your message

Hi Esuzu, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 talk 22:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied on my talk as well [1]radek (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Prize

Talkback

I'd be honoured to help you with the Nobel Prize article. I'll work on it within the next 24 hours. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 22:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Great with more help! Looking forward to see your changes :) --Esuzu 23:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll get to it shortly. Oreo Priest talk 14:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Really nice of you :) Looking forward to see what needs changing. --Esuzu 14:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm pleased to note from the activity on the Nobel Prize article and from the responses above that you already have quite a few "pairs of eyes" assisting you. As I am somewhat involved in other projects, I feel that I can leave the Nobel Prize article in capable hands. Davshul (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like things are well underway, so I think I'll leave it to those already involved. Oreo Priest talk 16:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks anyway! :) --Esuzu 19:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Your contributed article, 2009 Nobel Prize

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, 2009 Nobel Prize. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - List_of_Nobel_laureates. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at List_of_Nobel_laureates - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Falcon8765 (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. Falcon8765 (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Prize Edits

Hey Esuzu, I have done as much as I can with the Nobel Prize article at this time. Looks like a few others are doing a good job editing it, so hopefully you can get it up to good article status or better. Good luck AIRcorn (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

2009 Nobel Prize

Please see my comments at Talk:Nobel Prize/GA1. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr (converse) 04:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Prize GA review

I should have introduced myself as your GA reviewer. Have patience, but I have posted some things for you to work on in the mean time.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. I'll look into them as fast as I can. --Esuzu 10:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Nobel Prize (on my talkpage)

Sorry I haven't answered but I have been inactive lately. I will look at it now, and see if I can be useful somehow. / Fred-J 18:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, grammar and formality -- which the GA finds to important, probably because it is so easy to remark on them -- are not areas I am good at. :)
Fred-J 09:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

re: your message

Hi Esuzu, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 talk 17:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Prize at WP:FAC

Nobel Prize is eligible for immediate nomination at WP:FAC. I have done my best to make improvements toward that aspiration. You would either need to seek a WP:PR or make a direct attempt at FAC. I don't have much further advice for the article. I encourage an attempt.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

barnstar

Thanks! To the extent that my time permits, I'll keep trying to work on the article and hopefully it can get FA status.radek (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

A thank you from me too. You have done a great job on this article and deserve most of the credit. AIRcorn (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Nobel Prize edit

Hi Esuzu, I've responded at Talk:Nobel Prize. Next time you see an edit like that, check the number of bytes removed or added to the page, which is found just before the editor's username or IP address in your watchlist. In the case of my edit, this number was -6, indicating that I only removed 6 bytes (or characters) from the page. Therefore I could not have removed much text. Also, when you want to make a new comment on someone's talk page, it's easier to use the new section tab just next to the "edit this page" link. Graham87 00:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've also fixed a spelling error on your user page. Hope you don't mind. Graham87 00:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Haha, no of course not. I usually don't notice them so I'm happy other people do it instead. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

2000 Nobel Chemistry prize

The following monograph is available online at [2]. About as good as it gets wikiwise: A senior researcher complaining specifically about the 2000 Chemistry Nobel's misallocation of discovery credit in a Springer-Verlag monograph.

Conducting Polymers, A New Era in Electrochemistry 10.1007/978-3-540-75930-0_8 György Inzelt

8. Historical Background (Or: There Is Nothing New Under the Sun) Abstract "The Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2000, was awarded to Heeger, MacDiarmid and Shirakawa "for the discovery and development of electrically conductive polymers." However, there were several forerunners to these distinguished chemists. The most important representatives of the family of electrically conductive polymers, polyaniline and polypyrrole, were already being prepared by chemical or electrochemical oxidation in the nineteenth century. In fact, the discovery of polyacetylene in the 1970s—which had no practical importance but helped to arouse the interest of researchers and the public alike—was another episode in the history of conducting polymers. The story of polyaniline is described here in detail."

This chapter describes examples of highly-conductive polyanilines well before Heeger et al's rediscovery of high conduction in an oxidized, iodine-doped, polyacetylene. Note this is with specific reference to the miss-assignment of discovery credit to Heeger et al in the 2000 Nobel Prize. Thus, Dr Inzelt's chapter title .. ..There is nothing new under the Sun... Again, because the Nobel citation can be so easily falsified simply by showing the prior papers, the 2000 Chemistry Prize is arguably the cleanest example of such missignment. That is, there are not the usual subjective complications such as who did what and how important was it? Which is why it is a good example to incorporate into the article. Nobody can really argue that the Noble citation is correct or argue that we ought to defer to the opinion of the Nobel committee, who almost certainly had no knowledge of this "prior art". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nucleophilic (talk • contribs) 17:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Answering on the talk page. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar!

The Swedish Barnstar of National Merit
For your outstanding work on the Nobel Prize article! Väldigt bra jobbat! :) Theleftorium 19:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
this WikiAward was given to Esuzu by Theleftorium on 19:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Vilken ära! Tack så mycket Theleftorium!

Assistance request

I currently have IRL issues that prevent me from doing a lot with the Nobel Prize article, BUT I will be happy to skim it over in the next few hours and see what I find. I recommend User:BQZip01/FA_Tips for issues and how to fix them.

Additionally, here's a quick glance via a semi-automated peer review program:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

I went through the article and I corrected all I could find. Don't think there are any left. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 22:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know but I feel there is enough images already? More would only make it harder to read perhaps? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 11:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Update: Added two videos. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 14:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I think all of these issues have been addressed. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 11:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
Fixed. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 22:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I think everything that can be done has been done here. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 22:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
Removed the Will quote. I want to remove the math secton but I need more comments on the talk page before I can act. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 22:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: meter (A) (British: metre), fibre (B) (American: fiber), organise (B) (American: organize), recognise (B) (American: recognize), realise (B) (American: realize), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), travelled (B) (American: traveled), ageing (B) (American: aging), grey (B) (American: gray), sceptic (B) (American: skeptic).
Changed the words I could find to British English that wasn't that already. Think this is addressed now. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 22:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
    I have checked it against Tony1's and your guide and I have fixed all the problems I could see. I'm sure there are more though, prose that could be improved and such, but I do not notice it. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 23:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, — BQZip01 — talk 19:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Big things:
  • overlinked (ex: who doesn't know what a will is?)
    Have checked the article twice now for more of these but I think I have found most of them. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 13:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • awkward links (ex: linking part of the king's name?)
Think these problems are fixed if I understood you correctly. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 11:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • picture captions (ex: one in a section is a sentence fragment and the other is a full sentence)
    Rewritten most of the image captions. I also added two videos of Nobel Prize announcements. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 13:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • picture groupings (ex: 5 on one row and 1 in the next in a gallery)
    I could remove one more picture in the Recent Laureates section but is it necessary? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 13:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • the same reference being used in consecutive sentences (no need to rehash it, just put it at the end of the sentence block)
Addressed. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Address these and the aforementioned problems (easy to do by next week) and I will be happy to co-nominate this for FA status! — BQZip01 — talk 01:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  1. You can just respond here and I'll catch it. No need to hit up my talk page (not saying you can't...).
  2. The images I was talking about were at the end of the "Recent Laureates" section. On my screen at home, it shows the first people, but shows the last person on the next line. Experiment with different zooms. Honestly though, that many pictures really isn't necessary. Just pick one or two and add the others into the text later on. Just my 2 cents.
    Is that even possible? I thought the multi images template wouldn't change its shape however your explorer window is. Strange. I removed the Obama image but I am unsure with the others. I mean, one of the most important things in the Nobel Prize is the winners so it would be legitimate to have those pictures there, wouldn't it? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 10:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
    Hmm. This seems to be a problem with the template (largely related to what zoom you are using in your browser). I'll see what I can do with regards to filing a bug report to get that fixed. In any case, there is nothing you can do about it. — BQZip01 — talk 09:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    Wow, first bug I have encountered in Wikipedia! Great, thanks. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 09:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  3. Additionally, you have President Obama in the article twice. That kind of emphasis is going to cause problems. I'd cut one image or the other.
    Probably. His picture in Recent Laureates is removed. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 10:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
— BQZip01 — talk 18:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I still think you have problems with links. Who doesn't know what the United States is? You should link the first instance of each term and not subsequent terms (i.e. Nobel Committee).
Ah, I thought that belonged to the group "overlinked". I'm going to do a thorough check of all links later today. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 09:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Some of the grammar is awkward and could stand to be improved. I will be glad to help and tweak it over the next few days.
That would be great. I have done some improvements already but I have worked so long on the article I have stared myself blind on its grammar. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 09:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
As I said before, I see no reason that we can't nominate this by next week. — BQZip01 — talk 09:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
That would be very nice indeed. Looking forward to co-nominate this with you. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 13:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I have removed the math section now since nobody seemed to care about it. I have one more thing that I don't really know if it is good enough to keep on the main page. It is the last paragraph on the "Overlooked achievements" section about 2000 prize in chemistry. Do you have any opinions on this?
  • I think it is fine and, if anyone in the FA process thinks it should go, it can certainly be removed easily enough. I don't thin kwe need two images of the medal and the graph in the center section seems awkward. I will look at the grammar later this week, but be advised I have a few Wiki-issues and real-life issues (work and a death in the family) that are taking a lot of my time right now. I will do what I can to address that this week and submit NLT Friday for FA. Does that work for you? — BQZip01 — talk 20:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
First of all, my condolences. Secondly, I will look into the images tomorrow, they can easily be removed. Your plan works great for me, however, do not feel pressured if you need more time just say so. If not we can submit it friday. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 20:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, you seem rather busy? Will you still have time for this? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 16:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, kinda busy right now. I'll be available sometime after the first of the month (don't know exactly when yet...) — BQZip01 — talk 22:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway

Hi! Thanks for your comments to the FAC for Ernest Hemingway. When you have the time, have a look to see whether the changes I've made satisfy your comments. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Linnaeus

Hi Esuzu, I saw your post about the Linnaeus article, and I'd love to help. This article is something I've had on my to-do list for some time, as I've linked his name in 1000's of fungal taxon articles I've made, and felt it only fair that someday I should work on his article too! I have access to a big library, online access to JSTOR and other useful scholarly databases, and some FAC experience. I don't, however, know a word of Swedish, so a lot of potential biographical information is "hidden" from me... so I think this would be a great collaboration! Let me know of your plans for moving forward on this article. Sasata (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm happy to hear that! It's great to work with somebody who has previous FA experience since I am so far rather inexperienced in that area. I speak Swedish so we do "overlap" well. So far I have mostly worked with the Biography section which is nearly complete. At the moment I am working on a sub-page, Apostles of Linnaeus, that will become implemented into the Apostles section in the Linnaeus article. I am also thinking of adding a section about his private life.
I have not worked very much on the more botanical/zoological sections like "Linnaean taxonomy" and "Major publications". Those is the sections that have gotten least attention. That and checking the different botanical/zoological jargon in the article. You seem quite decent on those subject perhaps you would like to start with those sections? Those are my thoughts so far and I'd be happy to hear yours. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 14:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like a great way to start. I will read through and copyedit the article tonight, and start collecting sources to expand the taxonomy and publications sections. Will bring up any issues on the talk page. Sasata (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Great! If you are looking for sources I think this [3] might have something on the taxonomy. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 22:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Carolus Linnaeus

Hello Esuzu. I wanted to let you know that I would be willing to help with the editing of the Linnaeus article. I think vital topics like this should be featured as soon as possible. Cheers, Intelligentsium 17:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I am glad you would like to help. There is much to do. The Biography is nearly finished, it only needs some additional copyediting and fixing. The Apostles section will be finished in a day or so as soon as the subpage is done. Sasata said he would start working on the taxonomy and publications sections. So except that there is the "Philosophical Views" and "Posthumous honors" that both needs work. But I am sure Sasata needs help with the taxanomy and publications. I am not sure how we should organise ourselves. What do you want to do? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 18:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I've started to review the Biography section. There are a few parts that could be reworded or improved. I might be able to get a bit of work into the other sections that need improvement, but I can't really help with sourcing at the moment. I probably won't be able to get to the library until next week, if then. Intelligentsium 18:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Well, reviewing and copy-editing is much needed as well! After I have written the Apostles section that will probably need some copy-editing aswell (my work normally does :) ). Most of the sources used already are available on googlebooks by the way.Esuzu (talk • contribs) 18:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Linneaus Apostles

Hi. I just started a major copyedit of this article for you. Please take a look and let me know what you think. I would like to suggest that you adopt the page title: "Linneaus' apostles" rather than "Apostles of Linneaus" as this is a more recognised nomenclature. I have also had to change a few minor instances of confusion which I will need you to fact check. Please see the notes on the talk page. As I am relatively new as a Wikipedia copywriter, please forgive any errors or blunders. I genuinely aim only to be helpful. FYI: I am a professional copywriter with a lot of editing experience in the scientific sector and lived in Uppsala for more than eight years!

--SciHound (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Great! Thank you very much SciHound! :) Esuzu (talk • contribs) 22:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation bias FAC

Hi Esuzu, I've responded to your request about the bibliography here. Could you follow up with your reaction? Much appreciated, MartinPoulter (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! MartinPoulter (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Re. your message

Just a quick note for now, to say that a) I've got your message, b) I understand the problem, c) I sympathize, d) I will do my best to help you resolve it as soon as I have the time - which may be several days, but I do always get to things.

All I ask is that if the situation changes - you get other help or it is resolved - let me know.

Best,  Chzz  ►  15:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I checked back on this today - I couldn't actually find the RFC. Has it bee resolved? If not, let me know, and I will take a look. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  02:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey, it has not been resolved at all. No comment from the RFC has come even though I added the template to Wikipedia:Peer review/Nobel Prize/archive2. If you could take a look that would be great! Esuzu (talk • contribs) 14:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Right; one problem is, you have requested for comment in the middle of a lengthy peer-review. Although you have tried to state the case succinctly, it drifts off the actual point, and blends in with the rest of the peer-review.
Therefore, would it be possible to write a new, short summary, in a new section, on the talk page of the live article - just something like "I think we should add THIS for THESE REASONS". Then asking others for support/oppose i === subsections === or something, and keep comments in a separate place, lower down. Let's try and get a short, clear consensus. I also suggest asking on any appropriate related project-group talk pages.
If you do this, I think you should also re-list it on RFC - remove the old one, and list this instead. I'm wondering if people have just disregarded it because it is in an archive.
Please let me know your thoughts, and what you decide to do.  Chzz  ►  23:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Hm, that might actually be the reason why nobody has commented. I have done as you suggested, started anew on the Talk:Nobel Prize#Conductive polymers controversy. Hopefully that will get a clear consensus. Added the RFC and removed it from the peer review page as well. Thank you for your help so far! Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Excellent stuff...I just wish I'd had the chance to look earlier. it would seem to be eliciting responses already. It is so nice and clear now, evem I myself might be able to add my thoughts - and I will try and poke a few others in the general direction too (in a neutral manner; I don't know if they will oppose or support, but the more the merrier when it comes to consensus-building). Cheers,  Chzz  ►  23:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it do seem to work. More comments would be great, thank you! Esuzu (talk • contribs) 08:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The process seems to be working; I see the comments after the consensus discussion, and that's fine - but the actual consensus seems very clear. I won't bother replying to the invalid allegations re. inappropriate requests for help in forming consensus - no point. I think this is pretty much resolved now, or at least will be, following a few more comments etc. Let me know if any more is needed from me. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  17:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I started replying but as you say there is probably no point. I'll give it a few more days and see if more comments will come. If not, the consensus should be very clear. You have been very helpful, thank you very much! Esuzu (talk • contribs) 20:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Apostles of Linnaeus

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations Esuzu! --SciHound (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! :) Esuzu (talk • contribs) 14:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

History of botany

I'll tackle each item in turn and tick it when it is done. Thanks for your help. Granitethighs 23:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Nobel Prize

I'll try and perform a copyedit; I've got very limited time at the moment (got's to find a job and housing for the summer) but I'll try to help when I can. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

i've been ill for over a year and just got your message. Do you still need help? •Jim62sch•dissera! 17:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd love some help if possible! Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed response - I'm trying to hyper-multi-task and making a mess of it. I'll check out the page in a bit. •Jim62sch•dissera! 10:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
No problem! I know far too well how that is myself. Thanks :) Esuzu (talk • contribs) 13:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Esuzu for the co-operation and compliments. The barnstar made my day. ;) MartinPoulter (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify the following about the new section:

"More than 42 Swedish writers" is vague and precise at the same time. How many is it?

It is a direct quote from the source which says "Over 42". The source does not specify more than that. We can at least be sure it is no less than 42 persons. It feels wrong to change it to "About 42" since that is even more vague. We could perhaps just use 42?

"anticipated that Leo Tolstoy would gain the first Nobel Prize in Literature" What does this mean exactly? Did they advocate that Tolstoy should receive the prize, or did they merely predict he would win it?

They predicted that he would win. They didn't advocate it until after

"with the Chemistry Prize, the Academy "was chiefly faced with with merely deciding the order in which these scientists should be awarded" - which scientists? I don't mean names, but are the scientists they were talking about all outstanding chemists?

Yes they were talking about the chemists. I clarified by adding [chemists] in the quote after "scientists." Is that clear enough?

"The Norwegian Nobel Committee had included famous members to [give the Nobel Peace Prize credibility]. Among others Jørgen Løvland, Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson and Johannes Steen" - are these three people included in the famous members mentioned in the previous sentence?

Yes. Reworded and clarified the sentence slightly. I hope it is ok now.

"received 20 nominations, eleven of which contained the name Jacobus van't Hoff" - does "contained the name" just mean that these were 11 nominations for van 't Hoff?

Yes, that was a bit unclear. I clarified.

Further question: in what year did the Medicine Prize become the Physiology or Medicine Prize?

From the beginning to my knowledge. I had forgot the add the "Physiology" part to it. Thanks for noticing.

Thanks in advance, MartinPoulter (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your comments! You are and have been very helpful. If you ever need help with something let me know and I will try my best. :) Esuzu (talk • contribs) 18:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the rapid feedback. This bit I still don't understand, about Dunant: "he had not been involved in peace activities the time before the prize was awarded. However due to that the prize was awarded for contributions in the previous year". At present this seems like a contradiction. Glad to help. Nice to have an FAC to work on that I'm not as emotionally involved with as Confirmation bias. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
They were probably surprised since he had not been doing much before the prize and thus was not very well know at the moment. Perhaps it can be changed to "However, the prize was awarded for contributions in the previous year..." Or is that still unclear? Perhaps remove it all together? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for giving me my first barnstar! I'm still improving the article. Davtra (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

Hi, I've been working hard on the article, and I'm hoping you'll give me more feedback, now that I've improved it. Thanks for your help so far! MacDaid (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm becoming bogged down in the article - to much editing and second guessing myself. I believe I have addressed all your concerns. Let me know if it needs further improvements. (I know you are busy with your Nobel Prize FAC.) Thanks! MacDaid (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have implemented some of your changes but have decided to stop. I disagree with many of your suggestions and I am losing interest in the article. The article was written out of genuine interest on my part, and now the focus is being changed. I cannot work on an article I don't like anymore. So go ahead and fail the article. I would rather work on it while I still like it. Thanks for your help. MacDaid (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
On second thought, I am going to ask for a second opinion before I do anymore work. Hope that is ok with you. Best wishes, MacDaid (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, if I can't get another opinion on the article, I request that you fail it please so I can start afresh with a new reviewer. Thanks! :) MacDaid (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Your requirements are far harsher that the GA criteria. I will never be able to write the article the way you want. Since you are fixed in your requirements, please fail the article. Or let me withdraw it Thanks! :) MacDaid (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I have removed all information sourced incorrectly per your request at GAR. Left are two quotes from Nobel.org. You need to be specific in telling me what is wrong with my prose. Since I am a writer, I am surprised that you feel I need to go the the Guild of Copy Editors for prose review. I was considering helping your Nobel Prize article with a good copy edit. Good thing I didn't!  :) MacDaid (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Apology

I'm sorry for my role in our disagreement and wish to apologize to you. It was the first time I had gone through a GA review, so I overreacted. I hope that if in the future we run into each other again, this will not carry over. Please forgive me. Warmest regards, MacDaid (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. But remember to always treat the people who help you (and even those who doesn't) with proper respect. That way more people will help you and keep on helping you. Thank you for the apology though, Esuzu (talk • contribs) 23:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Please do take into account these comments from GAN talk though: [4], [5]. This might help for reviews you do in the future. Best wishes, MacDaid (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

S

Hi!

In response to your question about the British Museum project - it is a loosely defined project with no signup page or list of rules. Basically, if you have an article (and Daniel Solander counts) that is directly relevant to the British Museum and is approved as a "Featured Article" in any Wikipedia language edition, then you can claim the prize (if you're among the first 5 people to do so). I can hopefully help put you in touch with people who know about Solander but that is a bit trickier than an article about an object because there is no one on staff at the BM employed to be an expert on former-staff... Neverthelss I'll try and help if I can. What would you like me to do? Witty Lama 23:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have become much more busier than I intended so I am afraid I will not be able to take this on at the moment. Thank you for your time and good luck! Esuzu (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Your test

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.137.162 (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Your !vote at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011

Hi. Could you clarify your !vote at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011? You !voted in the "support" section with the comment "Great addition to WP." The "support" section is for those who wish to have pending changes turned off (at least temporarily). By your comment "Great addition to WP", I'm guessing that this may not be your intention. Could you verify in which section you intended to !vote? Thanks. --B (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I obviously read that too quickly. Thanks. Will clarify when I have time. Esuzu (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Linnaeus being reviewed for GA status

Talk:Carl Linnaeus/GA1 I note that questions are being asked about the wording/content of the article and you are probably the best qualified to help answer them :) -- Limulus (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards and prizes

Please be advised of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards and prizes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review for Pope John Paul II

Hi Esuzu, I was wondering whether you'd be interested in this? Kind Regards -- Marek.69 talk 23:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Esuzu/Archive_4&oldid=1089863901"