User talk:Elonka/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 5 |
Archive 6
| Archive 7 →

Contents

 ?

Hello. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

wikEd

Hi Elonka, I just saw your edit to the wikEd page. Actually, the logo should be visible on top of every page, so there might be a program bug or an incompatibility with another script. In order to help me fix that, please could you tell me which browser and which version you are using. Thanks, Cacycle 21:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it's Firefox/1.5.0.9 . I'm still poking around all the various options, but so far it looks really useful, and I'm very much looking forward to playing with it! One thing that's already come up, that I'm not sure if it does or not... Is there way to promote/demote text, like indenting or de-indenting a talkpage message? Thanks, Elonka 21:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is the indented list button. Still no logo at the very top of the page, close to the logout link? Cacycle 22:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that's what I was looking for, thanks.  :) I assumed that it only dealt with bulleted lists, not entire paragraphs. Is there a way to get it to *de*indent, too? And no, still no logo in normal mode -- it shows up only when I'm in the edit screen. --Elonka 22:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
There is an error in your monobook.js that causes JavaScript to stop before reaching the wikEd installation. It's probably a recent change of the html source code of the pages that crashes addEditSection0. I would suggest to remove or update that program. You can check the Error console under Tools for such errors. Cacycle 00:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Offensive editors

Hello, Elonka. Just recently looked over some of Izzy Dot comments towards you (from time-to-time, I read up on troublesome Wikipedia editors). He's being blocked was well deserved, I find such behaviour unproductive & insulting. Just giving you my support. GoodDay 23:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. GoodDay 20:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Article history template

Hi, Elonka - I was hoping I could interest you in deleting User:Elonka/Work1 now that you've installed it - it's showing up in the FFA category, and I'm having a heck of a time tracking the work on FFAs, with all the templates we've installed. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. :) --Elonka 19:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Elonka - it wasn't a big deal, but it was one more thing taking up my limited brain space when I tried to sync the list and the category :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As requested

Template:WikiProjectBanners. I'll be using talk:Jogaila for the prototyping. Raul654 18:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Elonka. Thanks for the heads up. •CHILLDOUBT• 20:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

RE:

Are you kidding? Have you looked at how much time has been wasted on this subject. The thing is a crime against wikipedia ... forcing so many wiki users to waste so many endless hours going over the same points for so little real purpose. That's ignoring all the enmity generated. You're honestly looking forward to repeating this? Now, don't gemme wrong, I'm convinced Jogaila is the best name ... but, for all the waste ... I'd be happy to see Piotrus' current proposal go through and end all the misery. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry about it

I have no problems with WP:COI inre my revert. I do not need to become further involved as I am on the periphery of the edit regime. I am Recent Change Patrol type editor and do not get involved unless I deem my involvement necessary, i.e., going to one of the admin boards. If you are the subject of the article, my advice to you would be to let the editors who have protected your article or contributed to it, do the reverts so as to avoid conflict of interest considerations. Ronbo76 21:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I haven't touched it in many months. --Elonka 21:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


Mediation offer

Thanks for your offer to mediate in the Juice Plus extract/concentrate "debate". You may have noticed that I have (reluctantly) given up on that one. It annoys me still, but there it is. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough that it was about semantics, not science, scientific consensus, who used which word first etc etc. Whatever.

I am still concerned about (1) the ownership issue wrt that article and (2) the evident determination of several people to portray a product as negatively as the rules will allow. NPOV is being breached all the time and no-one can (be bothered to?) enforce it. e.g. I don't understand why it was necessary to restore the controversial subheading re Criticism, but hey ho! It would be a dull world if everyone agreed on everything all the time. TraceyR 00:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your words of encouragement on my talk page :-) I shall certainly stick around, but spend much less time checking the activities on the Juice Plus article and more on less controversial subjects! TraceyR 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jogaila.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 16:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Deletion review

I'll go ahead and relist that one-several of the "keep" arguments were "speedy keep" ones based on invalid reasoning, the article had never been AfD'd before, so I think there is a DRV case to be made. I'm also going to list the unilaterally undone speedies, I was hoping that Rebecca would at least be willing to discuss the matter with the admins that performed the speedies, but it doesn't appear that's going to happen. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 20:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Knights Templar

Hiya, I'm getting the ball rolling on a push towards FA status on the Knights Templar article. Steps will be:

  • Requesting a review of its status from the Military History WikiProject (I submitted this one a few minutes ago)
  • Peer Review
  • Good Article nomination
  • (assuming the above go well) Featured Article nomination

Interested in working together again? :) --Elonka 09:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I'll try to take a crack at it on Monday. :) --Loremaster 20:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmm... It seems to me that the only thing which is needed needed is a comprehensive citing of sources and deleting of material that isn't. The problem is that I haven't or won't have time to read the sources in question in order to be able to help you. Sorry. :( --Loremaster 00:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Re; Tag Removal

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I've now deleted the article. —Pilotguy push to talk 22:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Bering Strait (band)

Elonka, thanks for the cleanup you've done. The article looks very organized now. However, the phrase "Some of the band's members were orphans of scientists who had died from the results of the Chernobyl disaster" is misleading and incorrect. There is only one member who lost a parent to Chernobyl, and her mother still lives. She would definitely not refer to herself an "orphan". I hope you don't mind that I have edited that reference. Again, thanks for your work! Civ2ru 18:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, it's best to be accurate about such things.  :) I was working from the info in the 60 Minutes segment, but if they (or I) got something wrong, definitely fix it! --Elonka 18:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Boston Archdiocesan Choir School

Boston Archdiocesan Choir School, which you prodded, has been undeleted per user request. Best, Mackensen (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Cyrillic Projector

Hi Elonka,

Thanks for adding the image to the Cyrillic Projector article!

Are you folks expecting to get hit with this storm tonight and tomorrow?

Bob and Tom told everyone to go out and by bread and milk (maybe to make bread pudding?!? :-)

Take care and be safe!

Larry Lmcelhiney 18:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism warnings on User talk:Pleclech -- 2nd opinion and feedback wanted

Elonka, you left User:Pleclech a kind note a few weeks ago about his work on various financial articles. Afterwards, he got slapped with vandalism warnings from two different editors, VivekVish and Netsumdisc. I came across his page a day or two ago while going through some article edit histories (he turned out not to be the spammer I was looking for). In the process, I looked at these warnings -- both seemed inappropriate, with the VivekVish's bordering on bad faith. I felt bad for Pleclech so I noted my opinions on the talk page for Pleclech and on the talk pages for VivekVish and Netsumdisc

Now VivekVish has taken strong exception to my comments. If you get a chance, can you take a look at the first of those warnings and see if I've called this incorrectly? I don't want to come back swinging if I'm off-base.

Thanks --and if you're busy, I certainly understand. --A. B. (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at Pleclech's edits to the Robert D. Arnott page? I believe that some form of vandalism warning is due for the mention of "The final line of this reference is "ADVERTIZEMENT"." in the middle of an article. Given that such an edit appears to degrade the article and one of its sources, I believe that it is in bad faith and that a {{Blatantvandal}} template was in order.
I am not Robert Arnott. I am an independent financial consultant who has a strong background in financial theory and specifically stock indexing. I was going to add articles on Eugene Fama and Kenneth French, who have made the biggest contributions to stock indexing since its initial creation by demonstrating the superior performance of small cap-value stocks, but there were already solid articles on them. Robert Arnott took it a step further with fundamental indexing. That is why I wrote articles on him, his idea, and his company. I believe that all of the articles were excellently sourced. There was admittedly some material already on the Robert Arnott page before I arrived. I did not make many changes to it. Perhaps it needs to be changed or sourced. I will look more into it.
I do not have too much interest outside of finance, specifically equity indexing. If further developments are published in the field, I will gladly make some more contributions to Wikipedia, but I do not see why it should be a prerequisite for me to make edits outside of my sphere of expertise in an attempt to gain credibility within the Wikipedia community. Unfortunately, equity indexing is a small (but important) field despite the $3 trillion being investing in index products. It is extremely difficult to make innovations to it, and therefore, it is hard to find new articles to write about it.
The following will also be added to the Talk page for Robert D. Arnott:
Here are some claims to notability:
Mentions that he published several important articles and was made editor of the Financial Analyst Journal
Mentions that Rob Arnott has joined the 'Financial Analyst Journal' Advisory Council
Mentions that "He has published more than 70 articles in the Harvard Business Review and academic journals. He has won five Graham and Dodd Scrolls or Awards from the CFA Institute, two Bernstein-Fabozzi/Jacobs-Levy awards from the Journal of Portfolio Management and Institutional Investor and, in 2005, two William F. Sharpe Indexing Achievement Awards for 'Best Index-related Research Paper' and 'Most Innovative Benchmark Index.' He is also a visiting professor of finance at UCLA, editorial board member of three journals including the Journal of Portfolio Management, and product advisory board member of the Chicago Board Options Exchange and two other exchanges."
I cannot see how it is not NPOV. Can you point out specific sentences? I must admittedly make choices when discussing his notable research but it would be ridiculous if I just included everything or nothing he researched in an attempt to be more neutral. VivekVish 23:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I have read your comments and will review my edits and ensure that everything is sourced from outside. However, I did make a strong attempt to include both sides of the argument in Fundamentally based indexes as you can see from the Criticisms section. I also included many sources--much more than for the average article of a similar length. I am less able to add criticisms to the Research part of the Robert D. Arnott page, since there were rarely subsequent articles trying to refute the ideas mentioned there. I will make my sourcing edits over the course of this week. I will inform you of them in case you would like to review the changes.
With regards to the User:Pleclech's edits, in particular "The final line of this reference is 'ADVERTIZEMENT'." am I correct in saying that you do not believe that his edits constituted blatant vandalism? I am bothered by this. I can't see how this can be construed as a simple editorial dispute. He used absurd phrasing (using "in the journal he edits" repeatedly and "which claims to be pending publication in the Journal of Investing" when the study has already been published in that journal--in Spring 2001) as well as misspelling and all caps for something that is clearly not an acronym "ADVERTIZEMENT"? If blatant vandalism is not in store, then some for of vandalism warning seems justified. Please tell me your thoughts. VivekVish 00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Very well. I will remove the warning from Plechlech's page. Thank you for the clarification. VivekVish 00:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words. I will add a userpage soon. VivekVish 01:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, thanks for your help, wisdom and tact. --A. B. (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations to Robert D. Arnott

I have added citations to the Robert D. Arnott page and have removed external links as per Pleclech's previous edits. Any help with rewording would be greatly appreciated. I do not currently see any instances of NPOV violations. VivekVish 01:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the help. At some later point, I will find independent sources for the information in the lead so his own biography need not be cited. VivekVish 01:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Rycerz zakonu templariuszy

Knight of order of templar. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 12:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Knights Templar

Looks pretty good; I'd suggest adding their headquarters (through the "garrison" field), though. Kirill Lokshin 04:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi there :) I'm kinda new to wikipedia. One of my first edits was about the Templars and it was removed by you Here (at the bottom under Legends). It's no big deal, but I was curious why you took it out? I am always trying learn more about procedure and stuff. Thanks. <3 Captain Barrett 00:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The Atlantic Paranormal Society

There were huge battles at this page almost a year ago. Fans kept sticking lots of fan cruft (junk) onto it. I suppose it could use some sources. The membership list was taken from TAPS website membership roster. Also, Google search "Ghost Hunters SciFi" and the hits will assure you TAPS are notable. And the COI, well, I don't know who started the page. My impression is they are long gone. --- LuckyLouie 17:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Good to meet you, :-). You know, one article that could currently use the help of experienced Wikipedians is Electronic voice phenomenon. Basically, the issue at hand is, "Is EVP a cultural, or scientific phenomenon?". Some editors want to portray it as strictly science. Others argue that it has no credibility as science, therefore any article should be mainly focused on cultural references. --- LuckyLouie 17:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

EVP

Elonka, the article has been on the verge of crisis for a couple of months. I have no doubt mediation will be needed to stabilize the article. As you can see from the Talk page template, WikiProject Paranormal and Wikiproject Rational Skepticism are at odds here. Here are just a few of the concerns with the present article that a number of pro-paranormal editors appear unwilling to address:

  • Since EVP uses the term "phenomenon" we need to deal with phenomena. All phenomena by definition are in the purview of science so it is absolutely vital that we make it clear that this "phenomena" has never been empirically determined as anamolous or otherwise. The easiest way to do this is to keep the point that there is a lack of peer review literature and existence of null results.
  • The rejection by the scientific and skeptical community (not just "some) of the paranormal is a verifiable fact and an important point to emphasize for readers.
  • The supernatural is totally unobservable which means that it is not a verifiable phenomenon. That means that we need to describe the communities who do believe in this.
  • The sources used to describe the mechanism for EVP definitions are only reliable in terms of their mechanistic beliefs (spirits in the fifth dimension). Since they are not recording engineers, they can't determine when a "source" for sound is there or not.
  • Claiming that "some" dispute EVP is weasely. The notable people who dispute EVP are scientists and skeptics.
  • The connection to pseudoscience needs to be upfront since this is a hallmark of paranormal investigations.

-- LuckyLouie 19:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll second everything Louie said. There's some serious POV pushing going on, and ignoring of WP policies, and the EVP proponents there have managed to round up enough numbers to revert any edits they don't like. I think best case scenario would be if the article got enough outside input to get consensus for fixing the POV, but failing that (which seems to have happened so far) it may have to go to some kind of dispute resolution. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Circusandmagicfan

Thanks for the comments on my first article. I've followed your suggestion and added some information to my user page - it's pretty minimal but then I'm a minimal kind of guy. Mark aka. Circusandmagicfan 20:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

EVP talk

Fantastic! I love that "article milestones" template! Very cool! Dreadlocke ☥ 21:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! I share the same view. Glad to have your involvement in this issue! Dreadlocke ☥ 21:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Magic WikiProject

The Magic WikiProject looks to me as if it needs a bit of project planning to get it better structured and focused (which is not in any way a criticism of the contributors). I made a few contributions on the discussion page but as I was going along more and more questions were cropping up in my head. I have two main questions here.

  • Is there / do you have a list of contributors that are currently active and interested? (as opposed to past contributors no longeractive)?
  • Is there any way, other than the discussion page, for getting people's minds together en mass to consider the structure of the topic?

Circusandmagicfan 12:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Circusandmagicfan

video games

Well, I'm kind of in the game development community as well. And what I've seen is a massive shift away from platforms and onto cross-platform development. So many, many games are computer games, video games, and electronic games all at the same time. The CfD people seem to believe that one term can encompass these categories, and I'm inclined to agree. Video game seems the best to most, though I probably would have chosen electronic games. Let's see how it takes for a while, and then if there's problems, maybe that's a possible solution. (As a side note, given our common work subjects, I'm surprised we haven't met or worked on anything together.)--Mike Selinker 18:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

In the CfD, I noted specifically that Electronic game would likely be a super-catagory. BcRIPster 20:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Juice Plus.gif

I don't want to mark this image for speedy deletion on sight because I know you are working on the article...but it could be easily replaced with a free-er (a.k.a. not taken from a website, but a photo taken by a user) image. Do you have any Juice Plus packaging to do that with? If not, I -might- be able to do it this weekend. --Iamunknown 06:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it would actually be "free" because it would be focusing on the trademarked packaging. But I might be able to do something this weekend. --Iamunknown 06:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Commons ID

For the record, yes, I am commons:User:Elonka. --Elonka 07:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: Flashes Before Your Eyes

I'm sorry, there has been a terrible misunderstanding here. I have been without the internet since November and I visited the Flashes Before Your Eyes page at the library. I had probably forgotten to close the page and somebody has made edits under my name. I would never just randomly remove trivia. Sorry for any inconvenience caused.

Anyway, Elonka, I've changed my password so they shouldn't be able to access it again. I think you know I would never be so stupid as to delete trivia without consensus and I'm pretty sure that I'm quite civil :D SergeantBolt (t,c) 12:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Computer and Video Games

The discussions were in the talk pages of WikiProject Computer and video games, tho by now they're probably somewhere in its archives. My involvement with the games people has just been to the extent that they intersect with stub sorting, so al I can do is lead you in the general correct direction. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Usual practice is to leave a CFD discussion alone once it's been closed. Might be worth invoking WP:IAR to add something there as long as you make it clear that the pointer was left after the CFD was closed. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a fan

I love your new user picture, expecially the computer setup in the background! If I didn't know better, I'd say you're a geek too...  :-) - NDCompuGeek 03:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

you are hot —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.22.124.60 (talk • contribs) 05:03, March 3, 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy talk 03:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay i did it..

Lets see how long before it goes to AfD. :( Conifer High School EnsRedShirt 11:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Knights Templar

(copied from Kirill Lokshin's talkpage) Hello, if you have a moment, could you please take another look at the article? I've attempted to address most of the concerns from the peer review, except perhaps for the request to just plain make the article longer.  :) I'm curious though what you think of the current level of citation?

Also, though I'm going to continue to work on expansion, do you think the article currently meets GA status? If so, how would you recommend that I proceed? Do I need to get someone from MilHist to formally check off the items in the WikiProject talkpage banner? Or should I just nominate the article at WP:GA? Or what do you recommend? Thanks, Elonka 09:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't ask me about the level of citation; I'm likely to keep pushing at it until the article looks like this. ;-)
(But, more seriously, it's not bad; I'd try, as a rule of thumb, to have at least one citation in every paragraph, though, as "uncited paragraphs" is a common complaint at FAC.)
As for nominating the article for GA: feel free to just list it there; I suspect it probably meets the criteria (unless they've changed them again recently!). MILHIST doesn't generally interact much with the GA process—we have an internal review for the next level up—so there's no real procedure to follow from our end. Kirill Lokshin 18:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I've gone ahead and submitted it, thank you very much for your time, and also for updating the talkpage template.  :) I'm going to continue working on the article, with a focus on referencing and expansion. Then I guess the next step is to try for an A-class MilHist review? Or should I go through WP:PR or a WP:FAC first? I'm still a bit fuzzy on how the various review processes dovetail with each other. --Elonka 00:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:PR is basically a useless version of WP:MHPR; I wouldn't expect any useful input from it. Really, your next move would be a choice between the MILHIST A-Class review (followed, at some point, by a FAC), or just a FAC directly; which one you go with is up to you, but there's not that much benefit to doing an A-Class review unless you're intending to let the article sit for a long time before taking it to FAC (or not intending to go through FAC at all). Kirill Lokshin 00:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, that gives me more context. My longterm goal is definitely FA (we've been rumbling on the talkpage about requesting FA status on the article for over a year now). Coming in from the outside though, I couldn't tell if A-Class was meant as a stepping stone to FA, or more intended as recognition of really good articles that would probably never make FA status for some other reason. For example, I looked at the A-class example at the Project page, Operation Linebacker II, and I couldn't tell why it was chosen for A-Class as opposed to FA (or why it was only submitted for A-class, and never FA). Based on your response though, it looks like as far as the Knights Templar article is concerned, it's probably better to proceed on the FA track, rather than going for A-class first. --Elonka 20:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
A-Class is mostly intended as a form of FA-lite for articles that aren't being taken through the formal FAC (which is more effort than some people want to go through all the time). The only reason some articles are A-Class and not FAs is simply that their major authors haven't bothered with the latter process yet (other editors tending to consider it impolite to nominate an article they haven't worked on).
In your case, going straight to FAC does seem to be the better option. Kirill Lokshin 21:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
That's fascinating about the how the culture regards the nomination process. Intuitively, it's always seemed to me that it would be impolite to nominate an article that I had worked on, for COI reasons. Sort of like nominating my own book for a Pulitzer or something. I guess I need to get over that on Wikipedia though, and consider nominating more of my articles for GA status! --Elonka 21:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome!

Hi Elonka,

Thanks for the note. It actually took more time than I had bargained for to do all that. I'm hoping that other editors will import some of those discussions to that deletion-discussion page for schools (hint, hint!). I'll continue doing some myself, too, as time permits. Always great to get a thank-you, so thanks for that! Best wishes, Noroton 17:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Holy Grail and Knights Templar

Thanks for doing the re-write of the section on the Holy Grail for the Knights Templar article. Curiously, just this hour, I had delivered to me a new copy of Volume I of "Lancelot-Grail", which had gone missing after a trip to Southern California. Perhaps the Templars had been hiding the Grail from me? --Petercorless 23:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with defending the Knights from PoV attacks. I, for one, value a historically factual, and non-PoV article - and you've done some good work on achieving that. A quick search shows at least 3 organisations claiming to be the one true Templar organisation in the UK. I'll try to keep an eye on it, but there are some terribly persistent vandals out there. Kbthompson 01:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Tsk. I thought we had taken care of the Vandals back in the 6th Century... Thanks again, Elonka, and I'll see if I can burnish up some of the Arthurian articles. --Petercorless 05:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the 700th Anniversary would make for an awesome target for FA. We'd probably also want to have it prepped in September so it could be locked from editing for a bit to avoid vandalism. Those darned barbarians! --Petercorless 05:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Density

I just want to say--quite seriously--God bless you for opining of B movie, "I personally think the article is a bit over-cited" (and, of course, "I'm simply concerned that the expected 'citation density' for an FA is getting out of hand.") Having been involved in the FA process a few times now, I've learned to over-cite, for reasons abundantly clear. If you ever dare bring an article into the madness of FA with a reasonable, responsible, nondistracting level of citation and could use some support, don't hesitate to call on me. (Having reread the foregoing, I'm terrified to realize that being serious in this context of necessity comes out like a Kafka horror-joke.) Best, Dan.—DCGeist 05:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/l/o/User_talk%7EElonka_Archive_6_412f.html"