User talk:Agne27/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Thanks! 2 Indonesia GA 3 Creation-evolution controversy 4 I started writing articles 5 Citation tag 6 Anne Hathaway (actress) 7 George Tweedy 8 Faux pas 8.1 France (subsection) 8.2 Australia and New Zealand (subsection) 8.3 US 8.4 Champion 9 Luminiferous aether 10 RfB With A Smile :) 11 Talk:History of Solidarity 12 Peer reviews 13 Another request for review 14 Homophony 15 "Spam" 16 Citations missing template on talk? 17 My RFA! 18 Colbert GA 19 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster 20 Comment? 21 Consensus 22 Rebate (marketing) 23 Robert Tilton 24 RFC, requesting your endorsement 25 Disambiguations 26 Indonesia collaboration

[edit] Thanks!

Agne - thanks for the moral support! dryguy 01:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indonesia GA

Thank you Agne, your help is much appreciated. We have put the article on WP:PR and many reviewers said copy-editing is the best step (and is the next step) to reach GA, we'd be flattered if it can reach FA. So currently, many good editors, which I believe are native English speakers are copy editing the article. Thanks again -- Imoeng 07:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creation-evolution controversy

See my reply on that talk page. While I agree that certain sections need better sourcing, the article is in fact stable aside from occasional problems with massive POV pushers who wander in every now and again. Furthermore, the article as it stands is NPOV if you actually read what NPOV says about undue weight and pseudoscience. Finally, I am curious- in any other discussion on Wiki such as *XfDs it is generally considered inappropriate for people involved in the discussions to make the final decisions, is that not the case with the GA system? JoshuaZ 03:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I replied on the talk page. Other reviewers expressed concerns on WP:GA/R about various elements of the GA criteria that the article did not pass. Also, in the GA process a single reviewer can de-list an article. As for NPOV, the issue has nothing to do with undue weight because NPOV is not BPOV. NPOV is, as the guideline states, As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. In addition to the examples, I pointed out on the talk page there are many areas where the article takes an open opposition categorizing things as "attacks" and "accusations" instead of a more NPOV worded "disagreement" or "contentions" and so forth. Agne 04:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking at the examples now. In any event, I'm still curious whether the GA process normally lets anyone delist like that after they have given their opinion. Is that standard practice? JoshuaZ 04:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

A conflict of interest would be if I had any involvement with the actual article in editing it, which I have not. Expressing an opinion on WP:GA/R doesn't remove consideration for de-listing as the vast majority of the articles that end up getting de-listed are normally done by a reviewer who has either brought the article up for review or has voiced an opinion on it's merits. Agne 04:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, and you don't consider that to be a conflict at all? Now I see why the GA process seems to be so broken, and I thought AfD had problems. JoshuaZ 04:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

As I noted in WP:GA/R and on the talk page, the article had issues in all 6 of the GA criteria (3 of which were independently brought up by 3 different editors (other then me) on WP:GA/R). If it was a matter of a single criteria and my single self being the only one that object, then you may have a case for a conflict in absence of consensus. However, that is clearly not the case. Agne 04:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

So where was the decision made, and by whom? I only see your "review" on the article talk page, I see no discussion about the merits of this discussion. Guettarda 11:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

As the GA system allows, any editor can de-list an article. It's part of the unbeaucratic nature of the program. But if you are talking about the comment regarding other editors' concerns those can be found at WP:GA/R Agne 11:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

So in other words a random anon could delist every GA that exists? I see. In other words, GA status only means "hasn't been removed yet"? A GA could be delisted as a GA and promoted to an FA in the same day? Sounds like a system in desperate need to revision if it is to have any meaning. It's highly amusing that a system that is hideously bureaucratic in terms of listing, has no requirements for delisting. Guettarda 12:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually articles that get promoted to FA are de-listed of sorts in that their promotions moves them off the lists since they've acheived greater status. :) While far from perfect, the GA system attempts to adapt to the dynamic nature of the wiki where an article's quality can change due to the influx of editorial change. The system also adapts to the project wide strive to enhance the overall quality of Wikipedia--as Jimbo himself is urging the editors to strive for instead of quantity. So they goal is not necessary to have as many articles with the GA tag as possible but to work to have good quality articles attached to the tag. Hence the reason that it is easy to de-list. But note that de-listing doesn't prevent an article from being able to be listed again. It just means that there are some concerns that need to be addressed. Agne 18:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I started writing articles

before footnoting was popular [or even done] and am vaguely thinking about going back and trying to figure out how to insert them in old articles. More realistic is using them in the future. So . . ... what is a good, simple -i'm a luddite - primer for how to use them ? Carptrash 06:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well footnoting is only one style of in-line citations that is appropriate under WP:CITE, though admittedly it is one of the more user-friendly from a verification point of view. As for a simple primer, I'm not sure which direction you would like me to go with that. I think it starts with the type of sources and references you use to begin with. Ideally I recommend using sources that allow you to reference and cite an entire paragraph (or at least couple sentences) with a single cite at the end of the last sentence. As for how specific the cite can be, page numbers are ideal but for cites covering several details you can branch out to incorporate a range of page number or an entire chapter. (Note: I tend to be more liberal in this regard. There are some reviewers, especially FA reviewers that tend to want just specific page number). Is that what you were looking for? Agne 06:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the wikilink that you have given me should be what i need. Most of my articles include a list of references that I've used, they are just not broken down into "this fact came from this book or article" and i think that any new articles need to have that sort of . . ... percision. Anyway, thanks for your input. Carptrash 14:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation tag

Hi, please be careful with that nag tag at the top of articles, it destroys the articles credibility when it is the first thing the readers see and clutters up the article space. Most of these articles were written years ago by Wikipedia authors before inline citations were commonly used (or even widely available) and the likelihood of the same authors being around is low. That does not mean they are bad articles though. Most have a references section citing the works used for the article. It is more constructive to create a Notes section, add the <references/> tag, and put the citation nag-tag there. -- Stbalbach 12:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea. Thanks for taking the time to suggest that. I will do that going forward. :) Agne 22:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anne Hathaway (actress)

Hi! You reviewed this article for GA status and I think I've remedied most of your concerns (but not all yet). Could you check the ongoing process at the article's talk page? Never Mystic (tc) 16:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm positive I've cleared up all your concerns now. The only problem is that I cannot find any information regarding her philanthropy online and there's relatively little in now-older magazines and newspapers (up to a single paragraph). I'm not sure whether you'll permit it to GA status because of a lack of personal life material, but Hathaway has not been involved in any high-profile relationships and the media tends to ignore her most of the time (whether that's a good or bad thing is entirely your call). If you have any concerns, please write them on the talk page. Never Mystic (tc) 21:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've succesfully addressed all your concerns and I think the article is now certainly plausible for GA status. If you want me to further the philanthropy portion of Personal Life, you're welcome to tell me. Never Mystic (tc) 22:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think what was added is sufficient for GA passing now. But I encourage you to keep an eye out for more expansion in the future. (Especially if you want to eventually go for FA) Agne 12:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Tweedy

Hi Agne, I do not own such a book so I'm without help pertaining to what came out of that but I can assure you that it will be tough to find more information on the internet as I have tried doing it myself after trying to review such a small article. Lincher 00:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I found a ref (that isn't available anymore except by caching the google server) which I am extirping stuff from ... will expand the article and you tell me what I have to do more. Lincher 00:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I like it and plus ... I hate seeing GA fail. I lend a hand to help if users need it. I have trouble bringing articles to FA status because when the subject is too big, it is overwhelming for me so I concentrate on reviewing and helping and creating GA articles. Lincher 00:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I got trouble working with tables, can you make one for the article?

League App - Gls Cup A - G Total App - Gls

1932-33 9 0 1 0 10 0

1933-34 12 0 1 0 13 0

1934-35 42 0 1 0 43 0

1935-36 41 0 6 0 47 0

1936-37 42 0 4 0 46 0

1937-38 40 0 2 0 42 0

1938-39 38 0 6 0 44 0

1939-40 3 0 0 0 3 0

WW2

1946-47 39 0 3 0 42 0

1947-48 36 0 1 0 37 0

1948-49 15 0 0 0 15 0

1949-50 1 0 0 0 1 0

‘Retired’

1951-52 24 0 0 0 24 0

1952-53 8 0 0 0 8 0

Total 347 (+3) 0 25 0 372 (+3) 0

Lincher 00:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL, actually I suck at any type of coding-including Wiki and table coding. I do think the Football project club has quite a few tablemakers and I'm sure they will be willing to lend a hand. As an FYI, I probably won't be quick to respond for a couple hours. I'm trying to save List of faux pas from deletion with a rewrite. Agne 00:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Tell me if you need help with it ... I will lend a hand just give me a section to work on. Lincher 01:03, 10

October 2006 (UTC)

With the faux pas list? Sure, if you like. Right now I am reorganizing the country list (so don't edit the page for another 10-20 minutes) but if you want to start some researching-the list for France is kinda long. Ideally I would like to get to the point where anything that is not sourced will be just deleted. I think we will also need to rewrite what there to remove the first-person instruction manual tone-the "you should/you should not". Appreciate the help! Agne 01:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

When you have time, would you mind to re-review the article and let me know your thoughts and also if there are more things to change to tell me. Lincher 11:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It probably slipped through but I had requested you re-review this article and let me know what are your thoughts on it so I can improve or have GA status. Thanks. Lincher 00:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I did miss that request. I'm sorry. :( However, I did look at the article and I think you and Bedders did a great job in expanding the article on a subject that is hard to find info for. I would probably pass it now but for impartiality I would recommend renominating it and letting a second set of eyes take a look. Agne 00:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faux pas

Here I have added comments ... striked some that aren't right and tried to find the most sources I could. Good luck, Lincher 02:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Would you mind adding them to the article? With the separate sections now we should avoid any edit conflict. And honestly, I say just delete the ones who strike if there isn't a ref to be found. If it's true and someone wants it in there, they'll add the needed ref. Thank you so much for the help. You are a doll! Agne 02:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. I'm off to bed, good luck with the rest. You are truly undertaking a huge task and I wish you the best ;) Lincher 03:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australia and New Zealand (subsection)

I've revised my opinion and altered my vote on the request for deletion talk page accordingly. Peter1968 08:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US

I would seriously recommend that the US section be put back. It may need to be cleaned up, but removing the section altogether makes this list appear like a list for Americans only (when they travel abroad). Err, to be frank, I am not really keen on keeping the whole thing in any case, but if it does serve a useful purpose in Wikipedia, then let it serve everyone, including non-Americans. RelHistBuff 11:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the US section is that despite several hours of attempts, I couldn't find any reliable sources detail any US-specific faux pas. I have no problem with having such a section but hopefully someone can get around the brick wall that I ran into. Agne 11:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

How about keeping the section with a few "seeds", i.e., real obvious stuff with {{fact}} tags. When I first came across the list, I was rather shocked that the US section was missing. As a non-American, I can mention the most useful ones are the tipping tip and the eye-contact one. The latter is especially unknown outside the US. RelHistBuff 12:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I can favor that. Would you be willing to add them in? I'm wrestling with the "sleep demons" and trying to drag myself to bed. :)Agne 12:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, night. It's the afternoon here. RelHistBuff 12:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Agne, did you forget this page? You promised you would go through it. Punkmorten 14:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I did go through it and I dedicated 8+ hours of edit work and 60+ sources. The intent of all my effort my to demonstrate the merit that having such a list gives and that it needs edit work not deletion. The article is not perfect but with real life and other Wikipedia interest, I can not dedicate the time and effort to bring it up to "Featured List" status all by myself. I also don't hold ownership over the article so other editors are free to contribute. Agne 06:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Champion

You are doing a bloody great job. I just wanted to point out this which gives a tidy (and conistant) way to diplay the links. Looks very professional! - brenneman ^{L} 10:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luminiferous aether

Hi Agnes, I saw your comment on the Talk page and I think that inline citations is a good idea as it enables readers to see both a full reference list at the bottom of the article as well as which references were used for which statements.

I have two questions:

- First of all, a section was put on the Talk page because it was too much a collection of quotes. Thus I intend to reinsert it with some quotes in the main article, and others in footnotes. And somehow the references should be included too. Can you give me a link to the "How to" of the right formatting?

- Secondly, for verifiability one should sometimes link to a verifiable source without necessarily wanting to include that fact verification in the list of presumably reliable sources for the subject. For example we could include in the Holocaust article a link to a statement that according to Holocaust deniers people's hair was cut for health reasons, but we would not want to include a reference to such an unreliable and in some places unlawful publication in the Holocaust references section. In my sandbox I thus ended up with (on another subject), Such criticisms and research activities have also been coined "anti-relativity"^[21][1]

Obviously that will work, with both purely inline verifiers as well as references to notable published articles, but it looks ugly. Your advice (or of someone else of your crowd) would be helpful. Harald88 19:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

PS I will be away coming weekend; thus no hurry! Moreover, the second question no doubt will be of interest to others. Harald88 19:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Replied on article talk page. Agne 08:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I now also replied; the second question isn't solved (BTW it doesn't really matter for that the aether article). Harald88 22:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Agne, surprisingly my questions are effectively answere below, by Joke!

I find his advice [2] very useful. In order to avoid confusion, he might consider to rename it "tutorial". Harald88 21:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Doh! Oh I'm sorry. I didn't see your note from the 17th. Again, I'm sorry that I missed that. I am glad that Joke's guideline helped though. I just feel bad that I missed this. Agne 07:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for caring! :-)) Harald88 21:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfB With A Smile :)

[edit] Talk:History of Solidarity

Do you think the density of references is ok now? I'd like to take this article to FAC soon.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is "density" of reference but rather the question of whether or not it passes WP:V. I will take a look at it and see how it goes. Agne 08:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments; you may want to vote in the FAC.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer reviews

Hi Agne27. I've always been impressed by your detailled reviews on the GA project. If/when you have time, there are two articles that is under peer review and I would appreciate your input. First is Joseph W. Tkach which is written by me and the other is Finnish Civil War where I helped out the original authors. Thanks. RelHistBuff 21:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. I replied on both. Agne 12:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another request for review

Hi Agne, how are you? So, the guys have expanded this article, Religion in Indonesia, and is now is being copy edited. Since you are the best reviewer we have ever had, could you please make some general/specific comments about the article? Thank you so very much -- Imoeng 01:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way I have put it for Peer review. Cheers -- Imoeng 01:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Replied on the Peer Review page. Agne 12:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homophony

Just letting you know that adressed most of the faults you found in the article, and I put it back up for GA nomination. One thing I haven't done with the article is expanded its history in liturgical music, but I'll get to that at some point, maybe this weekend. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The article has improved quite a bit. For impartiality, I won't be the one to re-review but I wish you the best with whomever you may get. Agne 13:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Spam"

I take strong exception to your edit summary stating that I added "spam" to Wikipedia. I simply added an informative article about Malbec. Rigid adherence to WP rules is one thing, putting down another editor's contributions is another. Badagnani 07:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if you took offense but blogs are consider spam. I made the same mistake myself in my early wine page writing days and I was reverted for the same reason. I lived and learn from it and was more aware of WP:EL and WP:RS after that. However, I can see how someone would be uncomfortable with the word "Spam" and for that, again, I'm sorry. However, the blog link is still inappropriate. Agne 07:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations missing template on talk?

Hi Agne27,

Please consider placing the citations missing tag on the talk page of articles. It's a really big tag and it can detract from quite small articles when placed on the article page.

Cedars 10:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is the best option. I agree the tag is larger then ideal but those templates serve a purpose in the article. They are meant to be attention reminders to something that certainly needs attention. After discussing it with other editors, I see the benefit in keeping it in the appropriate section vs the top of the page but the tag is really worthless on the talk page. The easiest way to remove the tag is to replace it with the appropriate reference. :) Agne 10:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA!

Agne, thank you so much for your support for my RfA. I passed with a vote tally of 61/0/1. I am honored that the consensus was to allow me the added privilege of the admin mop. I appreciate your support and kind words on my RFA! --plange 22:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colbert GA

Thanks for taking the time to review Stephen Colbert with regards to its GA status. I agree with most of the points you've made about the article -- some of them I've already been working on my my sandbox, including the expansion of the lead section, which you're welcome to peruse here if you'd like.

The only point I'd disagree with you on is the phrasing regarding Colbert's accent and his parents intellectualism. I'm not sure this is strictly redundacy. One sentence mentions Colbert's parents' intellectualism, and the other specifically refers to "intelligence". Intelligence and intellectualism are not the same thing. The sentence is there to link the two related concepts, and it's a link that's explictly drawn in in Colbert's interview with NPR, which is a reference for the article -- The argument advanced there is that Colbert's parents' attitudes about intelligence and intellectualism influenced him so much that he actually lost his accent because of it, which I think is relevant to his biography.

As for being slightly inflammatory, I've tried to emphasize that Colbert was a very young child when he dropped his accent. Unfortuantely, the source material we have to work with doesn't specify his exact age when this occured, but bear in mind we're most likely quoting the opinion of an impressionable five-year-old when we point out that Colbert thought he'd sound "more intelligent" by losing the accent. I don't think there's anything in the article that indicates we're endorsing that view.

Thanks again. -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 03:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The new lead in your sandbox looks good. Much better. As for the Southern accent comment, it just struck me as not needed and a tad offensive. But that is just an editorial disagreement. Its inclusion won't be pivotal to GA status. Agne 04:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay -- I've listed it as a GA candidate again. Thanks for the input! -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 08:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Space Shuttle Challenger disaster

I want to thank you for your very helpful comments on the article. I have made the changes that you suggested, and am resubmitting it to the list of GA candidates. MLilburne 15:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks really good. For impartiality, I won't be the one who reviews it but I would say that I'd probably pass it at this point. Agne 18:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand; I wasn't expecting that you would. Just thought you might like to know that your comments have really helped the article. MLilburne 19:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment?

Since you were involvned in previous discussions, you might want to look at how this came to considered a guideline without wider exposure: Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. Sandy (Talk) 14:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify that there seems to be a misunderstanding. I never meant to imply that this was a guideline that had the consensus of all of Wikipedia and I thought I had stated this clearly. Perhaps by using a banner at the top of the page that looks, at a glance, identical to the standard guideline banner I have caused some confusion. If so, I'm sorry. –Joke 15:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

Agne, your understanding of consensus is incorrect. If a group of people form a consensus on something, before other users are aware of the issue, that issue is re-opened when other users come to discuss. If there's no consensus with the new users, then there's no consensus!

It may not be your intention, but your continuous reference to the unassailability of a "previous consensus" are intimidating people out of discussing. When we got a whole bunch of people to come in and say we disagreed with criterion 2b, the discussion was split basically 50-50—and yet you ignore that too. You seem to be acting as though you and those that agree with you own the pages. -- SCZenz 16:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The group of people discussing it happened to be the GA reviewers who actively donate their time to reviewing the articles. They are the ones who are actually using the criteria and they were quite aware of the month long discussion. Furthermore, editors who actively nominate GAC candidates were also made aware with a prominent banner on the GAC page directing them to the discussion and inviting their input. So again, all those actively involved in the GA project (and the ones most affected), were aware and participated in the discussion. This "whole bunch of people" you speak of is actually one group of people (The Physics/Math editors) who seem to be on their way towards developing their own citation requirement and review system. That is fine and they have every right to do that because there is no obligation for ANY ARTICLE to submit to GA requirement. GA reviewers are simply a bunch of volunteers who are donating their time to review articles and to try and make them better. If you disagree with our view on how articles can be considered "Well referenced" and "Verifiable" to any editor, that is fine. But the actions of this "whole bunch of people" (especially after their POV failed to sway the WP:CITE folks as well) seem to want to WP:OWN the GA project.Your insistence on inserting a 'dubious' tags in the face of previously garnered consensus smacks of ownership. Again, you are more then welcomed to open up a formal discussion and try to garner new consensus but please leave your POV out of the GA guideline. Agne 21:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I wrote this before I saw your attempt at compromise which I can work with. Reading the above, my tone was more agitated then it should have been and I'm striking out my above comment. I apologize for "typing in anger". Agne 21:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agne, you once again miss the fundamental point. You have a large number of people from a large variety of science projects (biology and chem also, not just math and physics (who incidentally aren't even one group many people only edit physics articles and many only edit math)) attempting to explain that due to a lack of consultation with them a set of standards were adopted that is inconvenient and disruptive to insist that articles have to satisfy GA. Your claim that "there is no obligation for ANY ARTICLE to submit to GA requirement" misses a number of points - 1) in order to get an article to FA it first needs to go through GA 2) GA is considered the standard for what a "good" article should look like- if we have a large number of editors disagreeing on that we have a problem 3) For RfAs many users look for how many FAs or GAs an editor has extensively helped with. Throwing out the science articles from GA consideration would make it much harder for science editors to become sysops. The notion that adding a tag due to disagreement "smacks of ownership" is simply ridiculous- if anything the ownership is coming from a small set of editors who seem to have gotten into their heads that they have the ability to decide what should constitute a good article in any topic regardless of whether they have any background in the area at all. JoshuaZ 21:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• There is no requirement for an article to get GA prior to FA, in fact a few FA regular have openingly scoffed at the GA banner on FAC candidates. That was in part to the lower quality standards that GA have had in the past and is a driving reason to improve our criteria and the level of quality the GA tag is attached to. But the fact remains that a large part of FA regulars currently ignore the GA tag. The same is true with RfA voters.
• Secondly, no one is throwing out the science articles from GA. Yes, they are free to develop their own citation guideline (which they apparently have) and their own review process but they are free to work within the GA criteria as well. The choice is completely theirs. In the last "citation-gate" discussion, there was clear annoyance on the science/math editors part that "laypeople" were asking for cites on what they considered "common and obvious". Well part of the GA review process is the fact that NON-EXPERTS will be reading the article (like an average reader) and reviewing it based on their non-expert view. If the editors do not want to make the article accessible to the "laypeople" for verification then going the path of in-project review (among experts) is probably best. But if their goal is to make articles more accessible to laypeople, then we welcome their participation in the GA review process. Agne 21:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

  You're still missing the point. GA regulars are not the sole authority on the GA criteria; every Wikipedian can participate. There is no consensus on criterion 2b among Wikipedians in general, as evidenced by many peoples' objections Your insistence that your old consensus still holds when so many have objected, and your idea that people who don't agree with you should go away and ignore GA, are not consistent with how Wikipedia works. -- SCZenz 06:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You know, this situation reminds me so much of the time that my ex-husband's church petitioned for a grant from the city to do some "habitat for humanity" type clean up work with our Youth group. After receiving the grant, we spent about 3 weeks with kids talking about what project they would like to do, we asked the church group for their thoughts and finally settled on fixing up a fence area near the highway, cleaning up trash and doing some landscaping. However, some city councilmen (who were curiously up for re-election) wanted us to do a project in one of the city trouble spots and be a photo op in a "urban renewal campaign" (clean up by the highway just wasn't sexy I suppose). Well you can probably guess whose "consensus" won out on that day? And 13 kids' parents didn't allow them to attend the clean up due to how dangerous of a area that we were working in. With due concern as well, since one our 8 years nearly picked up a needle she found on the ground.
I was certainly mad then. More mad then I could ever be at this situation but the similarities still make my eyes roll. You have a group of volunteers, donating their free time and energy to help make the Wikipedia project better. In a desire to not only make reviews more consistent, these volunteers spent over a month's working to consensus on what could make the project better. The volunteers sought input by those who actively were participating in project with a banner on the GAC nomination page. (Anyone who actively cared would undoubtably see the banner when either nominating or reviewing). All those who cared about the project and took an active interest in it help to form that consensus. Just like the kids and the church worked so hard to find the right spot to clean up that everyone would agree with.
But then an outside group, who had no interest in the matter apparently then (even though I know Math and Physics articles were nominated during that period), swooped in and wanting to put a trump card over that consensus. Just like how what the kids wanted didn't matter one bit to those councilmen, so to does the good faith consensus of the volunteers on the GA project apparently mean nothing. I suppose the councilmen wonder "Why should the kids' input count? They're only those ones doing the actual work". In the same way, I suppose there is little value in what the majority of GA reviewers think (the ones who would actually be using the GA criteria to help improve articles). Agne 21:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Agne, the project here is Wikipedia. I'm working on it, and so are you. So we both get a say in how "good articles" get tagged. If you want to form a club with special entry requirements (and yes, I'm counting "doing work on GA's" as a special entry requirement), you have to do it outside of Wikipedia. It's a page on Wikipedia, every Wikipedian who cares gets a say in shaping consensus on what it says. That's how it's always worked in my experience, and I think how it should work—ask around if you really think that other experienced editors will have a different view.

Believe it or not, I am also keen to work on improving articles. I do think GA is a useful tool to help with this, although its focus on labelling and unlabelling things is part of what started this mess. The dispute is whether the citation requirement, as it stands, actually improves articles. You've mentioned that you think it will help make technical articles more accessible, and I have to admit I don't understand how that could be, and I would love to discuss it. But in order to move forward, we first need to agree that there is a dispute and that both of our opinions count. -- SCZenz 06:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I have over 1600 pages on my watchlist—I care about a lot of things on the wiki, but I sometimes have time only to skim the list and thus I often miss details until a dramatic issue arises. For you to judge whether I "actively cared" enough to have a voice in the criteria, based on whether I happened to check the GA page while the banner was up, strikes me as unfair. But when the criteria (which I had been unaware of) began to affect pages I was interested in, then I noticed and I stepped in and said I'd like them to be different, and so did some other people—and that's how Wikipedia works. All Wikipedia pages are dynamic, all are open to input from everyone, and none (except a few arbitration and arguably some administrator/bureaucrat pages) have a group with special authority to determine their contents. -- SCZenz 06:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is the Wikipedia project and consensus is formed and consensus can change. I have no problem with disagreements and different views. I never have. I whole heartedly encourage discussion. But there is a fundamental difference between disagreeing with a criteria and working to build a new consensus to change that criteria vs circumventing consensus to slap a "disputed" tag on the criteria. One avenue is a trademark of the Wikipedia Project, the other....well. Agne 06:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Saying something is disputed is standard procedure while it is, in fact, disputed. We slap various dispute tags on articles, whose appearence is much more important than policy guideline or WikiProject pages. I do not need a consensus merely to state there's a dispute; there need only be a dispute, an ongoing disagreement, to write that there is. I'm not proposing to change the actual criteria on the page without consensus, I'm only proposing to write that there's significant disagreement one of them. I fail to see how aknowledging on the page that a number of people disagree with its contents is "circumventing consensus." -- SCZenz 07:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

We're probably going to need to agree to disagree about your tactics. The purpose of a criteria is to have a measuring stick that reviewers can use objectively. Choosing to slap a disputed tag, instead of working towards a consensus to change the guideline does nothing to help the GA review process but rather mucks it up more so that it little to no value. In a project that already has difficulties with consistency, the very minimum expectations are now question marks. Therefore it is prudent to work for consensus to support a criteria. (Which the GA reviewers attempted to do). But then what is the value? Unless you manage to please everyone (to where no one can dispute it) there is no value in consensus. Agne 07:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't mean everyone supports it; but it does mean, at minimum, that most interested users support it. That is not currently the case, as far as I can tell, with criterion 2b. (Having a dispute exist does not require a new consensus to be built first!)

I understand that you're concerned that I want to put a dispute tag up and then leave it there forever, and I can see why you might think this, but I assure you this is not the case. I think it will have to remain for a little while, from my perspective at least, until the status of the Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines is clarified; if that can be agreed upon, then a simple addition of "where appropriate" (as proposed by User:Homestarmy) to criterion 2b will satisfy me. So the point is, I'd like to work toward a consensus, and in fact I am planning to—but I've been trying to get through the issue of whether I have the standing to dispute the criteria at all first. -- SCZenz 07:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the desire to work to consensus and do admit that puts my mind more at ease. I suppose we need to get into a discussion of what "where appropriate" means. If it's "In-line cites are required where appropriate" as a safeguard to some fringe reviewer asking for 3 cites for everyline then I would certainly support that addition. It seems a bit like common sense. Now (on the flip side) if it's meant to mean that if the editors of a page do not think that in-line cites are appropriate (because they don't look professional? or that the items needing cites are "common specialized knowledge") then they are not required, then I would have to disagree because that would violate WP:V. Agne 07:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I personally disagree with your interpretation of WP:V, and I think you're misunderstanding the physics and math writers' positon somewhat as well, but I think the debate on those points is premature. Our disagreement on those points illustrates why Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines has to have its status clarified before the WIAGA dispute can be fixed—your issue is with what that page (which aspires precisely to define "where appropriate" for physics, math, and probably chem articles) should say, not with proposed changes to criterion 2b. That being said, if you'd like me to discuss what "where appropriate" means in regard to scientifically undisputed (but not common) knowledge, I'm more than happy to start that conversation. -- SCZenz 07:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

We'll probably have that discussion but I can wait till the Scientific guideline is settled. Agne 08:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Since the scientific guideline seeks to clarify (rather than contradict) WP:V on these very issues, I'd like to invite you in the meantime to participate in the discussion there. -- SCZenz 08:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rebate (marketing)

I just removed a URL (diffs) that ended up in the middle of a word in one of your edits of November 8th. I suspect it was just a mis-click, but please check me. Hv 00:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Tilton

Hello, I am working on the Ted Haggard article and was doing some research on similar people and saw the review you did for the Robert Tilton article. I just had to drop by and say how impressed I was with your thoroughness. You do very good work and I learned by reading your criticism and commentary. Cheers :-) Mr Christopher 04:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC, requesting your endorsement

Hi - I've started Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BZ(Bruno Zollinger) to address BZ's conduct on Talk:The Lathe of Heaven and quite a few other talk pages. Please let me know if you are comfortable endorsing it (since you're one of the editors who has tried to resolve the most recent dispute) or if you feel it's overly broad or needs rewording. Thanks... ←Hob 05:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguations

Hi there, thanks for creating those disambiguations, but they seem to not follow the format we use entirely correctly. Can you please take a look at Wikipedia:Disambiguation before you create your next page? Also, please do not create disambiguations with only redlinked articles. Those tend to get deleted. Create the articles first, so the links will be blue from the get-go. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey I appreciate the note. The blue links before disambig is something I can certainly do. I'll take a look at the disambig format, but in all honesty, my priority is to get the wine grape articles and redirects set up so I'm not incline to spend too much time tidying up the disambig page. At this point I'm having faith in the good will of the wiki gnomes. :) But I'll see what I can do. Agne 09:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I'm not asking you to fix the old ones immediately, but it would be nice if you took a look and used the format for any additional pages you made. Once they're all up, please revisit them in case the Wikignomes are no strike. :) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indonesia collaboration

Hi Agne27/Archive 2! It's the last few days of the Garuda Indonesia collaboration. Please contribute!!!

Also, could you please vote for the next fortnight's collaboration? Please vote down the bottom of this page. The collab for the fortnight will be decided this Sunday 26th (or Monday at the latest). By the way, we could also chose Garuda Indonesia for another week.

So please visit and help choose the next article. Any questions/comments, please let me know. I'd love to hear from you particularly if you have any good suggestions! :-) --Merbabu 10:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)