User talk:Josiah Rowe/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 →

This archive covers discussion from January and February of 2007.


Contents

Dalek FARC

And a happy new year to you as well. I honestly don't know what they're het up about, and it's getting to the point where I think they just don't like an article based on a science fiction series as an FA. I think you've done an excellent job addressing their concerns, and if they want to remove the FA status, frankly, it's their loss. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Josiah — I doubt having another member of the DW WikiProject go over the article will satisfy anybody's concerns, but I'll happily take a look at it later to see if there's anything I can suggest / change.Angmering 07:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've had a look and I really don't think there's anything much needs doing — the Popular Culture section perhaps needs some more citing, but text-wise I think the article is in pretty good shape. Angmering 21:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Fanwank

Re: Fanwank, that was not nonsense. It is logically identical. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.91.235.10 (talk • contribs) 02:38, January 16, 2007 (UTC)

Foreign programs on first-run syndication

See Category talk:First-run syndicated television programs to continue discussion. Thanks. MrBlondNYC 05:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Browser crashing

If I'm doing a major edit, I always find it helps my peace of mind to copy the text across to Word every so often, and keep it saved in case of a browser / computer error. Angmering 07:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Safari really crashes quite rarely, so this was the first time I'd had that problem — but I'll take your advice in future! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Dalek

I noticed you've put some work into this since the last comments at its featured article review. Are you able to do more? Can those cite requests at least get done? Keep us informed on the FAR; it's way over time. Marskell 12:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Image on Yasmin Paige

Thanks Josiah for the warning, I appreciate it. Its been awhile since I last contributed a lot of edits, though I have sporadically edited due to school. Also, if you notice, I also added a picture box. I personally have subscribed to a Fair use policy, somewhat due to my background in psychology (current working on my MA in Community Social Psychology, APA style and fair use in research and prsentations are common, guess actually they are somewhat common in research into a lot of the disciplines, hard and soft). Anyway, I digress. But thanks for the warning, its comforting that some things never change here and you can step away and come back and get back into it fairly easy.--Azathar (talk • contribs)15:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Dalek FAR

A relatively new user (approx 2 months) decided to learn how to delist articles, and removed it from FAr without discussion. I have contacted a ferw people already about this. Please see my talk page for more details. Jeffpw 20:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated the review, reverting all of the closures. So consider it still open. A fellow was being a bit too bold. Marskell 12:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for the Barnstar, Josiah — you're far too kind! I enjoy researching that sort of thing, so it was quote fun to do really. :-) Angmering 23:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I am almost tempted to suggest that some people will keep finding problems with Dalek no matter what's done with it, and would keep on doing so even if we summoned up the spirit of George Orwell to tidy up the prose for us, simply because it's a science-fiction article. Which I could more than understand were it full of cruft, but I think the behind-the-scenes and cultural impact sections transcend that. It's no Spoo, for goodness sake.
What I don't understand is, if one editor simply keeps objecting to an article on the grounds of the prose, does it automatically still get removed? (Which would seem rather staggeringly unfair to me). Or do we go into a great long tedious debate about the artistic merits of various types of prose? The whole thing confuses me, which is why I haven't really gotten involved in the debate over there.
In the meantime, something will need to be done about Doctor Who and Doctor Who missing episodes soon, as they're under-cited, chronically so in the latter case (entirely my fault). I doubt Sydney Newman will survive a determined assault, either, sadly, as I'm rather pleased with that one. Angmering 23:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd just found that one remaining tag myself, actually. I think the Complete Seventh Doctor is actually one of the few reference materials I *do* have to hand here in Norwich, so I shall go see if I can dig it out. Angmering 00:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have learned that Andrew Morgan was barred from working on the show again because the serial went £13,000 over-budget, and best of all that there is (or was in 1988) a "BBC armoury" (how fantastic is that?), but I'm afraid the Archive Extra has no mention of the dummy Daleks. Could be worth re-watching the DVD production notes, or checking Shannon's website. Angmering 00:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Shame, but I suppose it's hardly a major issue. Just a pity neither of us has the Seventh Doctor Handbook or the original archive from the 1993 Summer Special to hand. Angmering 10:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions

The case is now closed and the results have been posted at the link above.

  • It is the responsibility of the administrators and other responsible parties to close extended policy discussions they are involved in, such as this dispute. Closing consists of announcing the decision at the locations of the discussion and briefly explaining the basis for closing it in the way it is being closed; further, to change any policy pages, guidelines or naming conventions to conform with the decision; and finally, to enforce the decision with respect to recalcitrant users who violate the decision, after reminding them and warning them.
  • Given the existence of some uncertainty regarding how to determine if there is consensus in a particular case, no remedy is proposed concerning those who violated the consensus in this matter for past violations of policy.
  • Izzy Dot's editing privileges are suspended for a period of 14 days.

For the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109Talk 04:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so to bring this to a proper end... do you want to start the entry at WP:LAME or shall I?  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you can take care of that (although I fully support the addition)! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Josiah

OK. I Got It. Thanks. King Lopez 11:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Good articles

Hey i saw you make an edit i have a question do mods only do this? how does this process work? Nareklm 08:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah i see, thanks for helping me out, ill try to do some :) Nareklm 08:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

Thanks for the heads up. Although I personally disagree with cites being used in the lead section, it isn't something I would use to object an article's FA status so don't worry. Good luck with the Dalek FARC. Doctor Who, Tardis and the list of missing episodes will probably be FAR'd sometime soon - thought I should just say that so you can inform the Project members of the importance of inline citations. LuciferMorgan 08:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Police box

Hey Josiah,

I have had a look, it all seems good. You certainly have nailed those references, every fact that needs a citation has been cited, which is very good. You have covered the points that I can think of, I'm not an expert on the subject though so you might want to leave a message on the WP:LE main talk page asking for another users opinion also. Try looking at the criteria on WP:WIAGA too, and if you are satisfied, good ahead and nominate it for Good Article status. SGGH 13:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Dalek Question

Yeah the word "classic" I was questioning. Within articles, all things opinionated must be backed up with citations - when I read the word "classic" I thought one was saying that was the definitive Doctor Who, which would be original research without a cite. To buy yourself more time on FAR, tell them I only very recently put up a few more cite requests, and I'll back this.LuciferMorgan 00:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry about the FAR, but it looks like one of the two FAR directors has decided that the "Culture" section falls below standard and has called for a close. He didn't say whether the close was to keep or remove status, but judging by his preceding comment I'm guessing he means remove. If he does, I hope you'll work on the articles faults and renominate for FA status. LuciferMorgan 14:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Nth Doctor

Hi! To tell the truth I only put Virgin Publishing that's the name explicitly mentioned on the website. Sorry that I made the mistake. --GracieLizzie 01:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

^_^ thanks! Not only had I seen someone talking about it on a blog recently, I recalled it being discussed on OG and how many people found the production art odd. Took me a while to remember the site it was talked about on, I had an inkling it was an official site but I was pretty sure it wasn't the BBC or Sci-Fi channel one, then I remembered Nelvana is Canadian. --GracieLizzie 01:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dalek FAR

Hi - just wanted to say good job on all the work you've been doing on the featured article review, and sorry that you seem to be (mostly) going it alone. I've really wanted to chip in, but real life stubbornly refuses to acknowledge my need for wiki-time (plus, I own very few reference materials). I hope I can be of more help on citing the other featured articles. --Brian Olsen 06:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

its - it's - its - Sheesh ! Thanks for fixing :-) Scary, huh? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to say congratulations! Give the man a Jaffa Cake! Angmering 00:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The Sixties

Hi Josiah. I was wondering if you could help me out with something quickly. I'm currently working on getting Quatermass and the Pit up to scratch as a Featured Article so it can hopefully avoid ending up on FAR, and there's a quote I want to use in a new "Reception and influence" section of the article from the book Doctor Who — The Sixties, which I don't have with me up here, but I seem to recall from something during your work on Dalek that you do have a copy of?

The quote is from Derrick Sherwin and appears on a left-hand page with a black-and-white photo of Peter Bryant on it, somewhere near the end of the book. It goes something like:

"I was influenced by the old Quatermass serials — the writer, Nigel Kneale, was my neighbour at the time! — and I managed to dig a couple of episodes of The Quatermass Experiment out of the archives. We were rolling about laughing at them as the production was so terrible! But what they were aiming for — and what they succeeded in doing with Quatermass and the Pit — was to get a bit of reality into it, and that's what we were after."

It's something like that anyway, it's been a few years since I last read it. I was wondering if there was any chance you'd possibly be able to look up the exact quote and the page number for me? It'd be a great help, as I want a little bit in that section about how Quatermass and the Pit came to influence Doctor Who.

Cheers! Angmering 20:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks Josiah! Most kind. :-) Much to my own surprise my recent work on The Quatermass Experiment while that's been on FARC looks as if it might possibly save it, so I feel reasonably optimistic about The Pit. Angmering 21:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

TSJ

You suggested some links be culled from the article, I've gone ahead and done this, removed the interviews/spam link and left the "Shannon O'Sullivan", that seems to have be on most of the universe articles so I left it in place. Hope this helps! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Look This Is Our Viewpoint

We don't see global warming as a major problem. It is a hoax and we do think that Wikipedia is pushing the limits on government censorship especially on articles pertaining on global warming. We think in order to comply with federal standards, anything that is on global warming should be edited and reviewed. We feel that some articles on global warming should not say stuff that is quite damaging to the American population. This is a friendly notice from the federal government. 72.69.213.21, February 2, 2006 1:56 (UTC)

Thank you for adding your humour to Wikipedia, but the articles are meant to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Some readers looking for a serious article might not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write whatever you want (as long as it's not offensive). You might also want to check out Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh so you think this is laughing matter? The idea of global warming is a hoax. We take this very seriously on the matter on what should be said and what should not be said. The articles on global warming is not a laughing matter. If you don't cease and desist, will we do searches on Wikipedia servers in the United States without any warrants. This is another friendly notice from the federal government.72.69.213.21, February 2, 2006 2:12 (UTC)
Listen, if you're complaining about the current administration's attitude towards science (and, for that matter, civil rights), you're preaching to the choir. But the joke's getting old. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank You Much

I just wanted to thank you for fixing my user-page after it was struck by a vandal. I appreciate it very much. Smoove Z 06:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who FAs

Hi, Sandy. Thanks for your help during the Dalek FAR — sorry it dragged out as long as it did.

I'd like to get the Doctor Who WikiProject to work together on improving the citations on our other featured articles (Doctor Who, TARDIS, Doctor Who missing episodes and Sydney Newman), but I think our energies would be best spent working on one at a time. Early discussion suggested that members would like to work on Doctor Who first, but I remember you mentioning that you were considering putting Doctor Who missing episodes on FAR after Dalek was finished. Are you still planning to do that? LuciferMorgan suggested that he'd be willing to let us work on our FAs in a more relaxed atmosphere than the FAR produces — how do you feel about that? Which article do you think we need to work on most/first? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't say I was going to put it at FAR - I said it's on the list of articles lacking citations that will eventually need to come to FAR, and anyone else could do it at any time. I think it's the one you most need to work on, but I personally have no plans to FAR any of them any time soon, hope you'll be able to work at your own pace, but we can't control if someone else FARs them. Perhaps put a message on the talk pages that the Project is aware of the need for citations and plans to address it soon? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


My apologies that we got off on the wrong foot earlier in the process, though I'd like to state that my comments during FAR didn't stem from me retaliating at you - there was another editor whom I won't name, though let's just say his comments very much didn't get on my right side.

I think we can agree that maintaining and improving the quality of Wikipedia's featured articles is something in all our interests. If you take a look at promotions from 2 years ago, and compare them to say a newer FA, maybe even Dalek, doesn't it feel a little annoying that you had to work so much harder for that star? Every time an old FA is defeatured or brought to standard, I feel the respect of FA slowly creep up.

Definitely, the criteria is much more stringent now. Take User:Lord Emsworth for example - he's had more FAs (59) than any other Wikipedian, but so far 18 have been removed. Indeed, 2 of his FAs are at FAR as we speak. Don't worry about thinking I was being much more stringent with standards as concerns Dalek - you're probably not the first nor the last to think that of me. FAC interprets criteria much more stringently, as does FAR. I respect anyone who's gained an FA in recent times since it's much of a feat.

The two edits you cite are the ones whom were directed at the other editor. To be honest, apart from you, the other Doctor Who editors did kinda annoy me because I felt they voted Keep, and you were the only one who actually got the article, with help from Sandy etc., back to FA status. I suppose I should read AGF, though part of me is most likely to always annoy other Wikipedians. There is actually two or three paragraphs on the FAR page all about FAR - can they help the Doctor Who Wikiproject members? If they have any questions about FAR, tell them to leave a message on the FAR talk page - someone will respond.

At the moment, 75% of articles go through FAR without being saved, much without even any interest. At the moment, I'm trying to get in dialogue with those who have multiple FAs and have made efforts to improve their article to standards. Angmering is one of these people thus far, and I'm pleased to say he's firing on all cylinders.

The last paragraph in your message on my talk page suggests you think I'm going to put the articles at FAR, or else. It isn't like that really, and I don't have intentions of nominating any Doctor Who related FAs any time soon. It's possible other people may nominate them for FAR though, but we could perhaps persuade the FAR people to dissuade people from this. I think if the article can be improved without the FAR process though, this is best (so yes, I still feel that way). I would suggest working on the flagship FA first - this attracts more viewers, and if I had to predict which article would be targeted first it'll be this one. Having said that, Doctor Who missing episodes is at [[1]], but I'd suggest Doctor Who first. In terms of citations, the missing episodes article one needs the most work, though I'd predict seeing Doctor Who at FAR first. Sounds like Doctor Who to me - it's the Project's main article, so is more important. If you wish for me to to comment and review the article a la FAR on the article's talk page I'm willing to do so - I'd also suggest inviting some FAR reviewers over for a browse, especially Sandy. If not busy, Sandy will go over the article with a fine toothcomb and pick out a load of deficiencies - she's a much better reviewer than I.

With the missing episodes, it's most likely you'll be using the restoration team website I'm assuming - that's a cool site btw. The listy "Popular culture" section in TARDIS is like waving a rag at a bull - people will seize on it straight away. I find the best way to delist it and have some order to it is to arrange the info via different media - eg. film mentions, parody mentions, TV mentions, music mentions - it makes the article more accessible, definitely an FA criteria. I'd leave Sydney Newman until last. If there's anything you can improve on that one, I'd suggest collaborating with Angmering who nominated the article originally. If there's anything else you need to talk about, feel free to message. LuciferMorgan 18:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't ask me to review articles until the articles are almost done - I'm swamped, and will be traveling most of Feb, March :-) I'm quite dismayed at the lack of participation of active reviewers at FAR, and feel that too much burden is already on me to actually review articles at FAR when editors are asking for help. I wish someone else was actually reading the articles and giving feedback - lonely out here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, Sandy — I won't add to your workload. Thanks for the time you gave to Dalek. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
In case anyone was wondering, I wasn't referring (above) to any of our active reviewers, rather people who complain on the talk page at FAR about the process, without actually ever trying to help articles improve. Thanks, Josiah! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I agree, especially those who FAR nominate and aren't anywhere to be seen afterwards. LuciferMorgan 22:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


Help with a spammer

I thought I'd pass along to you that the IP address 67.168.142.201 is using Wikipedia to advertise for some non-notable game review website. S/he has added what appears to be hundreds of links to that site, and I thought you might want to check to make sure all of these edits have been reverted. I know I'm passing the buck, but I didn't feel up to checking all of them. And, I'm not an admin, so it seems only fair that you get more responsibility.  :) Chicken Wing 04:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

John Rolfe

Hi, Dan. I moved John Rolfe (English Settler) to John Rolfe (English settler), in keeping with [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Lowercase second and subsequent words in titles. I think the links you fixed should still be fine, per Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken, but it might have been good to discuss the page title before the move; personally, I wonder if John Rolfe (Virginia colonist) might have been better, since he's known for his role in the early history of Virginia, not for being English. Maybe I'll bring it up on the article's talk page. Anyway, if you're still going through John Rolfe links, you may as well make them to (English settler) instead of (English Settler). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I should have caught that one. I'm not too bothered about the exact title, I just went by the intro to the main article wich reads "John Rolfe (c. 1585 – 1622) was one of the early English settlers of North America" - it seems that is his main claim to notability. Perhaps "John Rofle (English settler of North America)" but that seems to be getting abit unweildy. I always be bold and ask questions later I'm afraid or I find nothing gets done :-) - PocklingtonDan 08:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Golf cart on wheels

I saw you removed this user Golf cart on wheels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) from AIV. I suspect it was a request for a username block, given WoW's trademark; although, a message stating so would have been nice. Nonetheless, I blocked the account with {{username}}, however AGFing I didn't AO/ACB it. Just thought you should know :) Daniel.Bryant 09:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

doctor who titels

thx --I.W 11:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah. i needed the 2006 one. the runaway bride. can u get that for me as i don't know how to gwt things from tvark, and u seemed to be able to. thx--I.W 12:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
is it possible to transfer the video from Real Player to Windows Moive Maker, i just whant to edit it by cutting out the bits before the titels and the bit after it (and possibly replace Billie Pipier's name with my name.) for my school project. if no is there any thing i could use to edit it. thx--I.W 19:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:ITN removal

Actually, there were three sports-related items to begin with, so removing one was certainly a plus. -- tariqabjotu 04:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Cheers Josiah. :-) I am quite pleased with that article now I have to admit, especially as to begin with I doubted there'd be enough sources to keep it at FA level. The side effect is that it's set me off wanting to improve all the other Quatermass related articles now! I look at most of them and think "Blimey, who wrote this rubbish?" T'was of course, in most cases, me two years ago... Angmering 23:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Chris Rowe

On the Chris Rowe article,I am busy at CNN, I will get back to you within the day.

WikieZach| talk 14:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist

in reply to this. yes but i hardly check my watchlist, and asking people to notify me on my user talkpage is easier as when they do so , a tag comes up saying "you have a new message" but when you put it in the watchlist, you don't get the tag. thx. p.s if some one replies on a subtalk page, does the tag come up.--I.W 20:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

Okay, thanks... it was just annoying me on the template! And while I was on the whatlinkshere page I changed a few more... but yeah, that's just a personal gripe. Thanks! :) ~ZytheTalk to me! 21:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Contribs by User:Brocketologist

Alright, thanks for looking into it tho. I've been scouring the new pages list tonight and wasn't sure what constitutes that type of block. I was also leaning towards a review of Darxstarr, but I assume it was a fan of the band who only took a minute to report about each band member. Again, thanks for looking into it. MrMacMan 07:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Query re: DWO

Hi Josiah. The page for Dr Who Online appears to have resurfaced, however the date of your posting on the creator's user page (18:50, 14 February 2007) and the date of the page's first edit entry (14:37, 15 February 2007) suggest that this may be a third re-creation of this page. I'm not familiar with the speed of deletions at Wikipedia so I thought I'd ask you for clarification here. Also, there is a standard deletion notice on the page with the reason given as "cruft" - I have searched through WP's pages in an effort to find what this word might mean, but haven't found anything. I assume the page ought to be on the speedy deletion list, but again, in case I'm wrong here, I thought I'd flag it up to you as someone more familiar with these areas in case I'm misreading Wikipedia's practices. --The Missing Hour 18:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Nigel Kneale

Hi Josiah. Quick favour to ask — I was wondering, if you had the time, whether you could have a look over the Nigel Kneale article at some point? I've just put it up for PR, with the aim of eventually running it as an FAC. I thought that as a science-fiction related but non-Doctor Who article, it might be one you'd enjoy reviewing as you might be vaguely interested in it but can be completely objective about it as you haven't worked on it. Just thought I'd ask, anyway, as I always value your opinion. Thanks. Angmering 21:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Josiah. Enjoy the theatre! Angmering 00:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Josiah! Most kind, as always, and you make good points about things that need changing / improving. I shall try and get onto those later today and give you a ping to see what you think. Thanks again! Angmering 09:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I've added a quote from Kim Newman about the adaptation double-standard, but I've removed the Beasts comment as there's no specific review or criticism mentioned in either of Murray's works, he just sort of makes it as a general observation in the DVD booklet. To be honest, I knew I was stretching a bit there; I was concerned that there wasn't enough criticism of Kneale in the article, to balance out the praise, and I was worried people might think the article was too biased. Angmering 12:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

You're welcome. Will 00:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Orfan? Orfen orfen orfen!

Well, hardly ever... .. Orfen? ;) --Monotonehell 11:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Dear Josiah,

I noticed you have been immensely helpful in the past in improving various WP articles. I am considering nominating the OWU article in the near future but do not want to do so prematurely. The article has gone through a thorough copyediting, prose-checking and reference-checking. I see no major issues but I was wondering what you might suggest? I'd greatly appreciate your opinion! LaSaltarella 21:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate it very much! LaSaltarella 21:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Time Lord GA nomination

Hi Josiah. If you take a look at Time Lord, you'll see that it has been nominated for GA status, which would be great if we got it. However, the editor looking into this has said the following:

As standard of various Doctor Who articles, this article is well written and neutral. Problem: references. Rather than showing which episode something occured in in brackets, use it as an in-line citation and also write things like airdate and writers/directors. I'll keep you posted on more suggestions. Wiki-newbie 13:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I could probably do this myself, but I'm not quite sure what in-line citations are. Could you explain this to me, and how to do them, or perhaps you could look into it and do this yourself?

Regards, Smomo 18:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

cite episode

It's all okay to me. I did move the "documentation" on the talk page to its proper location though: we had two conflicting documentations.Circeus 17:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Dear Josiah,

Thank you so much for your comments! They are so helpful! I am looking forward to your thoughts on the rest of the article! Again, thanks for your time and help! LaSaltarella 03:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Dear Josiah,

Thank you once again! In the remaining days, I will follow the suggestions that you and user:Ruhrfisch left on my talk page. Thank you for your help and time! I will contact you again then I nominate the article! Hopefully, it will be a smooth process. Thanks again. LaSaltarella 17:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Brocket 99

Thanks for the comments on the Brocket 99 talk page. I don't know if they'll make much difference to this person, but two voices are always better than one. I've decided to sit low for awhile on this article to see if the editing nonsense will stop. Thanks again for your help. --Kmsiever 18:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

RE:USMC film list

You have commented on the AFD discussion for List of films featuring United States Marines, the discussion can be viewed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring United States Marines.

Following support for my suggestion, I have done a userspace rewrite of the article at User:Saberwyn/Films featuring the United States Marine Corps, with the rewritten article in the top half and the current article with annotations as to their inclusion or non-inclusion in the rewritten list.

I would like to request that you review the rewritten article, and if you think it is appropriate, amend your stance at the AFD discussion. -- saberwyn 11:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on Template talk:In the news

Don't take it so personally; I just wanted to probe the reasons you put it on ITN. --90.240.102.48 16:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't have any problem with your question. I did have a problem with your insinuation that my failure to respond was a deliberate tactic. For the record, I put the item up because I thought it was news of international interest. I have no particular agenda concerning Turkmenistan. As I said on the ITN talk page, my sole reason for mentioning the ICG's view of the election was that I thought that it would be a violation of NPOV to put "Berdimuhommedow was elected" without any qualifications about the nature of the "election". You may disagree — that's fine. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright, fine, I didn't really think you deliberately ignored my comments, but it happens all the bloody time simply because admins can afford to ignore them. I mean, I can't edit ITN, so who's ever going to care about/notice what I have to say, eh? As for Turkymen, elections happen all the time on ITN with "... is elected President of Country" and no contesting statement, even though many groups would disagree. So why should an exception be made for this one? Once again, I think your personal opinions are conflicting with your edits, and your attempts to avoid violating NPOV are in fact doing so. --90.240.102.48 09:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion is noted. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Your note re: Doctor Who

Josiah: thanks very much for the update - I appreciate it. Cheers! --Ckatzchatspy 17:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)