User talk:Marskell/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Multiple FAR nominations per day 2 Plutonian honour 3 REcentism 4 I think you might be confused... 5 JPD's RfA 6 Jaguar FAC and other stuff 7 wow 8 Fucking blocks 9 Jaguar FAC 10 pussycat 11 Hey Tim 12 Ta 13 Some talk 14 Sigh 15 FA delisting 16 Award 17 Unblocked 18 Unblock again 19 Marskell, I need you 20 Re: Good articles 21 Tintin 22 Thatcher131 RfA 23 Re: astronomy fora 24 Astrology 25 Anti-Canadianism 26 Anti-Americanism 27 What are you doing? 28 Hey Marskell 29 Tweaked jaguar distribution 30 reprint 31 Secondary sources 32 Mars and GA/FA 33 Re:Jaguar etymology 34 Carver 35 Unblock 36 Lacking citations list

[edit] Multiple FAR nominations per day

Thank you for letting me know :) It has been duly noted. EuroSong ^talk 20:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plutonian honour

Granted, it is possible that Plutonians may not care what we puny Earthlings think of them. However, their culture is so alien to ours- by definition- that we cannot rule out the possibility that it may be a matter of Plutonian honour that all civilizations recognize their homeworld as a full-fledged planet. Unfortunately, a lot of space snowmen might be very upset with us right now. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] REcentism

Hi. Irwin is receiveing 300,000 views per day ath the moment: I think it would be best if the template, which new users will find confusing and offputting, was left for another time. The Land 22:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think you might be confused...

I do use edit summaries alot, at least alot more than most people. Probably not as much as old members or Admins, but i do use them. I believe i was pretty clear in my edits summaries. dposse 23:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JPD's RfA

Thanks, Marskell, for your support at my RfA, which finished with a tally of 94/1/0. I hope I live up to the confidence you have shown in me in my activities as an administrator. JPD (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jaguar FAC and other stuff

Hey Marskell can I suggest that all footnotes in the Jaguar article go after the punctuation. This is the style recommended in WP:FN.

Also I was away for the weekend which is why FARs were not closed. I am back and I will keep an eye on FAR as always. Joelito (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wow

i cant believe u wrote that essay on insulting vandals....may i suggest finding a hobby?

[edit] Fucking blocks

unblock|195.229.242.88 blocked by User:DVD R W, vandalism, 24 hrs. Do these have to be 24 hrs? Why the hell does this keep happening?

Unblocked. Your ISP seems to use a proxy server which means that blocks of others using that same proxy can impact you, as described under the "Innocent?" section of the block message. Thanks --pgk 21:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jaguar FAC

I am more than sympathetic as to difficulties regarding refs - my current FAC had over 50 and was still described as being underreferenced. I will try and devote some time to helping but I'm stretched at teh moment with ongoing stuff, the Artic Tern peer review, my current FAC and real life limitations. We'll see. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• I saw on Tonys page that you are currently sans library, I can probably get you pdfs for most recent articles (as long as my library has them). Just email me a list and I can email back the articles.--Peta 02:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Google books and books you can read on amazon are another way to go. here's a ref to the former range of jaguars in the Carolinas [1] Google Scholar is in some ways limited I have found - a good trick is to find one article and check out the back for interesting references they used. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on getting Jaguar up to FA status. Joelito (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pussycat

Thanks for your message, Tim. I'll try to copy-edit the article over the weekend. Tony 13:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Tim

I figure it's about time I started calling you by your first name :-); anyway, I note from the history section of PlanetHab that you seem to have fallen out of editing your signature article. As it seems fairly stable, I think you're pretty safe. My signature article, on the other hand, is a different matter. I can't understand why, as hardly a scrap of information has been changed, but since the introduction of the new definition it seems to have degenerated from a balanced, well-argued piece into a complete mess. I don't really know how to fix it; some have noted that, since the new definition incorporates many of the issues this article discussed, the article now reads like an attack on the new definition with none of its positive points mentioned. But while I agree (in principle anyway) with the definition on aesthetic grounds, I cannot explain the scientific rationale behind "clearing the neighborhood." I think I need to look more into dynamic physicists and their conception of planets. What do you think? Serendipodous 16:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; should have got back to you sooner; I just didn't want to respond until I'd dealt with some of the issues you raised. I got rid of that added paragraph in the "Clearing the Neighorhood" section, since it was essentially original research; the remaining ending paragraph I have gone over with other editors, checking its ORness, and apparently it passes muster. I have sent a PM to the guy who wrote most of the "Sphericity" section, (we post on another board) but I have no idea if he'll get back to me. I don't have nearly enough knowledge about math to find the right sources for it. I'm planning to go to the British Library soon to find English translations of Huygens's and Cassini's work to see if I can source the unsourced paragraphs in the first section. As for the introduction, I'm afraid I still disagree. Given the fact that pretty much everyone editing the planet article except me seems to be trashing the IAU's definition and doing everything they can to undermine it, it seems silly to treat the definition as gospel in an article about the ambiguities raised by defining planet. As regards merging: no, I don't really think I want to. Yes, I'm disappointed that the "fake" article got all the news thunder when the definition was announced, but a) adding it would double the DoP article's length, and it's already considered too long b) much of its information is already out of date and therefore irrelevant and c) it's a tedious read anyway. Serendipodous 13:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ta

Thanks for the words at the Tintin FARC. Yeah, the words in the criticism section were POV, that's why I had it next on the list, those were holdovers from the old article. Feel free to point out any grammar errors, and I'm going to keep at this article, I think the sub-articles need tying together better too, maybe then they might be worthy of FA status. Steve block Talk 21:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Exasperation, yes. I don't mind the copyediting, I know my prose isn't brilliant and any help and criticisms there are accepted, especially when offered constructively. I have no formal education, I'm a school of lifer, so grammar is never going to be my strongest point, although I can spell somewhat. :) Anything which changes the meaning to the point it needs fixing I will fix, but it has looked okay so far. I noted the points I found unhelpful at the review, along with the reasons why. Steve block Talk 14:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some talk

I am glad that you are convinced this place is worthwhile. What's even better is getting outside recognition for your efforts. I have yet to receive such recognition but one of my FAs got mentioned in the Wall Street Journal.

Fauna of Puerto Rico will go on FAC as soon as I find someone to copyedit the article. Joelito (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sigh

Could you please copy the message that you see when blocked here please. Especially your IP address.--Konstable 12:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked the IP.--Konstable 12:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA delisting

Thank you for your kind words. I've somewhat resigned my self to the issue. I actually understand the inline citation thing. It's the accusations that the article is not comprehensive enough. I have looked into it, and the article Liberal Party (Utah) is more comprehensive than most books on Utah history. It appears that nowadays FAs need to provide a sense of Nirvana to readers and perform three verifiable miracles.. Ah well.

—JonMoore 14:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Award

Thanks for the Working Man's Barnstar. It feels good to be appreciated. I haven't been editing lately because I was out of town (I do that a lot) and then found a nice book. Thunderball lost its feature status? really? After some reflection, I will probably move on to some other area of Wikipedia but I will keep an eye on FAR for articles where I think I can help. Some of the reviews up there are sad. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Liberal Party (Utah) is pathetic - it has been there almost a month and has not received any intelligent reviews, just accusations. They say not comprehensive (and that it is short but that is not a criteria) but cannot say what is missing, they say "doesn't meet criterion 2a" but provide no examples (or edits) of how or why, they say "no inline citations" but do not say where they would be appropriate (as per the criteria), just accusations. How does this help the encyclopedia? Same with Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bishōjo game. FAR should be more than paper-shuffling but many reviews pass by with little or no edits to the actual article. Maintain 20:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

hmmm, well, thinking maybe it wasn't clear where cites were needed, I went in to pull out some sample sentences that should be cited, and realized almost the entire article needs inlines. It's painfully obvious and it would be cruel to fill the article with cite tags, or to list every single sentence that is uncited: there are just too many. But I guess getting tossed around for reviews is part of FAC and FAR, and one has to have a thick skin :-) Sandy 01:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblocked

I've unblocked the IP. Hope you can edit again. By the way, if you went up for adminship, I wouldn't have to do this, as I'm sure you'd pass. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 20:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock again

{.{unblock|Block by User:Kylu. "Open proxy, as per Kelly Martin on IRC." IP address is 213.42.2.11. Again I'd like to know the exact status of the proxies in use where I'm at.}} Marskell 09:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I unblocked the IP. Note that it is from the same range as yesterday's IP: 213.42.2.21 that Ann unblocked. There are others from that range that are blocked as well. Maybe Kelly Martin can help on the proxy issue, or if it is safe to unblock that range. NoSeptember 10:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marskell, I need you

I'm in the middle of a rather tedious edit war on definition of planet's discussion page and I really could use some backup. Of course, if you agree with the guy, I'm willing to back down. Serendipodous 16:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Good articles

I'm not sure how successful it would be, given that there will always be a group of people (whose articles tend to get mauled by any formal process, I suspect) that will go off and create "Decent articles" or whatnot just to have a nice pat-on-the-back setup.

Having said that, one way to give the GA idea some meaning would be to roll it in as a generic A-Class review process. In other words, when an article were considered for promotion:

• If there is an applicable WikiProject with its own review process, it would be directed there.
• Otherwise, it would go through a centralized review.

This would have the advantage of removing the competition between the two systems, and also ensuring that articles not claimed by any WikiProject can still be shoehorned into the rating system. Conversely, only articles for which there is no relevant WikiProject review would go through the main GA process, reducing the load and allowing it to scale more gracefully.

(Obviously some standardization of terminology would be good. We could settle on either "GA" or "A-Class" as a common label, and the raw {{GA}} template could be reworded to copy the standard assessment banners. Instead of giving a WikiProject, however, it would say something like "This article has been assessed as GA-Class by the miscellaneous GA assessment group".) Kirill Lokshin 20:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tintin

Thanks for your kind words (although Steve block has to claim the lion's share of the credit). If you are interested, I've been working to try and save England expects that every man will do his duty today - a copyedit or a comment in the FAR wouldn't go amiss (the length has cropped up as an issue, but personally, I don't see this a valid reason for demotion). Cheers, Yomangani^talk 02:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thatcher131 RfA

Tim—Don't you think the project is huge enough to allow specialisation? I wonder whether you'll consider supporting, since most admins end up specialising anyway. He's good (and so many admins end up being bossy/abusive themselves). I'm saying this even though—as you know—I hate the admin promotion system and think that "promotion" is a step down for those who make an intellectual contribution. Tony 02:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: astronomy fora

Well, I post on an astronomy forum. It's the joint forum for two separate websites: "Bad Astronomy" and "Universe Today". Used to be rather snipish, but it's calmed down a lot since they've merged. You can check it out here. Serendipodous 07:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astrology

Hey Marskell, I am rather strenously disagreeing with you on astrology, but it isn't personal. Thanks for support on the FAR stuff. I'm trying to figure out how cats are "supposed" to work, and when I found that the guidelines were quite different than I thought, I'm trying to work through the implications of that. Wikipedia seems to acknowledge 4 basic levels of popularity 1) lack of significant dissent 2) majority view 3) significant minority 4) insignificant minority, and this gives us policies and guidelines for writing in the various cases. Do you agree so far? I had thought that the standard for cat inclusion was #3, any significant minority can add a cat, but it now looks like it is #1. Do you think it should be #2 instead? Do you agree it is #1 usually, but think that the guideline doesn't apply here? Is there something else going on I'm not getting? Bmorton3 15:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Rats, now we disagree about substantive and important issues. You say the NPOV: Pseudoscience policy "obviously gives primacy to majority scientific opinion and suggests that it ought to be brought to bear over-and-above the dissent of non-science opinion (i.e., the scientific view is held as more important than total consensus in adding content)"

The policy says "If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly."

I read that as saying that describing non-scientific viewpoints is part of our job (where they are significant), and that the scientific viewpoint gets no primacy, except that our job is to "represent the majority view as the majority view and the minority view as the minority view" and that is true of ALL NPOV cases, not just science vs pseudoscience. This does not at all say that the scientific point of view trumps consensus in any way. Indeed look a paragraph later

"A minority of Wikipedians feels so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience."

Perhaps you are in that minority, but that position isn't policy at all, and it is unfair to assume that the SPOV gets any kind of trump power other than our normal rule of treating the majority view as the majority view.

Again CATS require MORE than a majority to sustain them. You are welcome to think that WP:GL is badly flawed, I think a lot of guidelines are badly flawed too, but they are still the guidelines that "all users should follow" whether you agree with them or not! I suspect that Intelligent Design should not be categorized as pseudoscience, but should still be presented as pseudoscience on its page (with annotations). This would not be a "serious error in the presentation of accurate information" because categories have nothing to do with presenting accurate information! Presenting accurate information happens on the pages, and there you can call IDT pseudoscience (if you can cite an appropriate source, which wouldn't be hard). Presenting accurate information is all about citing reliable sources. Categories are all about categorizing information, not presenting it, and you can't annotate them, so you couldn't strive for accuracy in any case. It looks to me like you are confusing the job of pages and categorization (which is fair because categorization is far from clear), confusing categories with presenting accurate information, but most importantly, imputing the SPOV with far more policy pull than it really has, and this last is the one that scares me. Our job is to represent the sum of human knowledge as best we can, even when it is repugnant to us, and to present the majority positions as majority, while presenting significant minority positions as such. Pretending the majority position is on par with its minority opposers, is giving undue weight to minority views, pretending the majority view, even a scientific majority view, does not have significant minority opposer when it does is giving undue weight to the majority. If you think SPOV trumps consensus, then you seem to be departing from NPOV and from policy to me, although perhaps what you mean is just that a POV "consensus" doesn't really count as a consensus, which I agree with. Again, I am not trying to impute bad faith to you, it just seems that now we have a substantive disagreement on what the policy pull of SPOV really is. Bmorton3 19:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Your right in that "where we part company is that cats should be more circumspect that the body." You ask why? 2 reasons. Reason #1, because the guideline for categories requires a remarkably high standard for category inclusion "self-evident and uncontroversial" which is a MUCH higher standard than the standard for putting anything in the body. You may not like that guideline. I'm not certain if I do. But that IS the guideline. Somewhere some group of wikipedians agreed on it strongly enough to make it a guideline. If you disagree strongly enough, take it up on that page. Goodness knows my attempts to change stupid guidelines have been futile. Perhaps you feel that because of things like WP:IAR, you can discount guidelines you disagree with, but not policies. If so we part company there. Cats should be vastly more circumspect than bodies (even than leads!), because that is what the frickin' guidelines say. Reason #2) We cannot annotate cats. We can afford to put controversial but verifiable claims in the body of an article because we have a mechanism for citing evidence for our controversial but verifiable claim. No such mechanism exists for cats, so we ought to be more circumspect about cat inclusion (although perhaps not as much more circumspect as the current guidelines require) because we have no mechanism for presenting our evidence that our cat inclusion is verifiable. Presenting the majority opinion as majority opinion DOES apply to both the body and the categories, it is just that this guideline requires far more than a majority position for inclusion in a category, much like other WP decisions that require strong super-majorities (see Wikipedia:Consensus. If we have half a dozen cats that astrologers agree with why not one that scientists agree with given that it is the majority position? Good question. Because the astrologer cats seem self-evident and non-controversial, even to scientists. Do you as an astrology non-believer agree that astrology is a form or folklore, part of the history of astronomy, or an article containing unsourced statements? You can disagree with astrology completely and still concede those. Is is aiming at divination? sure. These aren't science vs astrology issues. If they were, if a pro-astrology person added it to the category "psychological theories" you'd be free to remove it and argue that that is a controversial categorization. Bmorton3 16:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The fringe topics worry is a fair one, but frankly it happens all the time, and is part of the volunteer nature of Wikipedia. The RPG articles are all by RPG fans, the philosophy articles by people with interest in philosophy. When a page is hig profile or crosses disciplinary lines, or is being assessed for FA or something, maybe someone other than a volunteer fan will look at it. Maybe. Most stuff on WP, fringe or otherwise is left in the hands of "believers" and that is as true of a math, or entomology page as of a page like Astrology. If that is your worry cope, or focus on FA and such (as you seem to have done). Bmorton3 16:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I follow your "termed" distinction. We have three questions is X "termed" Y? Should X be categorized as Y? IS X in fact Y? Last question is OR, and beyond our scope. But people and things get termed things all the time that aren't fair categorizations. Take an example I'm working on Gnosticism is considered a heresy, by most Christian thinkers. It is certainly "termed" one by its opponents. But it doesn't self-describe as one (or there is no evidence that it does). So would it be fair to add it to the category "heresy"? Its certainly the majority position, with a small minority dissent. Should we categorize Mormonism as "pseudochristianity"? It's the majority position, and I could certainly cite evidence that it had been termed as such by its opponents. Astrology has been called a "pseudoscience" by its opponents, we agree. The claim has been denied by its supporters. Most American's don't have the foggiest clue what a pseudoscience is, and don't use the term one way or the other (I assert without having good evidence, but I bet evidence of 12-grade performance on standardized tests exists for this question). Mainstream science considers Astrology pseudoscience, slam-dunk - we agree. The disputation of adherents of a given topic CAN be used, as per guidelines, (ie it isn't a loophole) to prevent critical categorization (but not to remove verifiable criticisms from a body where they can be annotated). Indeed categorization SHOULDNT BE CRITICAL. Here we disagree. Honestly I don't care much about Astrology, its just a good test case of the issues, where it isn't as emotional as some other critical categorizations issues would be. Bmorton3 16:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah we seem to have gotten to pure disagreement. Thank you for your imput. Bmorton3 15:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Canadianism

How would you suggest showing the connection between American anti-Canadianism and Francophobia, that would seem like OR? Or do you not think that such a connection exists? Kevlar67 23:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Americanism

Sorry, we must have our wires crossed - I thought I was replying to two different users and didn't realise that the two paragraphs were one continuous point. Ignore my comments in reply.--Zleitzen 22:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What are you doing?

Why are you messing with my edits? The article Anti-Americanism is full of bias against our nation. Gotta put something in there that says it's not what we do. Trying to have a NPOV here. (LonghornJohnny 18:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Hey Marskell

Hey Marskell, thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. I really appreciate your support. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tweaked jaguar distribution

Hi, wondering where you got such accurate information on Jaguar present and former distribution. Looked everywhere and that was the best I could find! --Tommyknocker 12:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reprint

Just contact me by e-mail if you want a reprint of the article in question. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secondary sources

Lets see. There is always a tention between being up-to-date and the risk of performing original research. Yes, it is easy to get down to original research by quote mining, which happens a lot at wikipedia (especially humanities), and is one of my major frustrations. That is not the same as reviewing secondary sources. Science articles are secondary sources, the raw data that they analyse are the primary sources. It would have been original research if I had choosen one paper over another based on a specific reasoning, or when I selectively ommited important aspects. That is why I think it is still wise to mention the various subspecies, but with the mention that at current, these are not longer recognized among scientists. For lay people, it can be very hard to judge an scientific article on quality, and I in general would advise them to be a bit more conservative than the experts who judge those articles. Please take into consideration that WP:RS and WP:V are policies primarily directed at the heavy content disputes with lots of partisan POV pushing and historical revisionism (but are there are ignored anyway). If you go by your strategy, wikipedia is going to be outdated all the time in any field that is in heavy progress, such as the taxonomy in which molecular techniques are very very rapidly resolving many longstanding problems while many many considered resolved issues are revised. As such, it is almost essential to include the newer studies, as might be clear from the Jaguar and snow leopard example. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It is somewhat murky with primary/secondary. Some research studies are indeed nothing more than primary sources, but most sources we are dealing with are secondary AFAIAC. And I am afraid that you now have ended up in a crash course 'taxonomy, molecular phylogenetics and population genetics'.... :-) -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

At least he has been given the crash course by an expert. Joelito (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mars and GA/FA

Better worry about me, too, since I don't ever remember seeing it at FAC :-) I looked at your contrib history to see if you were MIA, saw that, thought it strange. Anyway, was looking for your opinion on Transit of Venus, since I have no way of knowing if it's comprehensive. Sandy 22:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Have to find some kind of award for Yomangani ... I'm not in favor of nudging them out quicker, rather finding a way to nudge the Projects into action so they never have to come to FAR. A couple of the medical ones are starting to show some progress now - recall that I notified the Medicine Project about its problematic FAs months ago. Sandy 23:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Expanding the subject heading to continue discussion of some new developments. First the good news. Current stats show that 1 in 4 of the FAs lacking inline citations have remained featured (17 brought to standard, 49 defeatured). Considering the age of some of the articles - and that many of them are abandoned - that seems like an exceptional success rate. Should we add that number to the stat table?

Next, the bad news. There's a big brouhaha from a few math/physics editors over citing requirements. In particular, the editor working for the Good articles WikiProject, who was putting out notifications of the need to improve GA citations, was blasted, which doesn't bode well for my role at FAR. The messenger was completely shot in the GA case, because of an effort to improve the GA reviews. It might help to lend support on this issue to GA: they're trying to do better, improve standards, and getting completely hammered, with some of them wanting to give up. Have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles, Wikipedia Talk:Good articles, and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ScienceApologist2. I don't know where this whole mess leaves my idea about notifying WikiProjects of FAs lacking inline citations, hoping the Projects would begin work on citing to avoid FAR, but it seems like I'd be putting my head on the chopping block. Ideas? Sandy 16:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Having witnessed the GA debacle that has unfolded over the last few days, as well as a disastrous recently-promoted GA that appeared on FAC this week, I understand much better now your position. It is quite discouraging, and witnessing what is being done to the editor who left (under the auspices of the Project) templates advising the need for better citations has really left me feeling like my head is on the block. There are certain elitist editors and Projects who truly believe their articles are above referencing requirements, and they will have me in their sights. Having a certain hot-headed Italian label FA/GA reviewers with a psychiatric diagnosis didn't help, either. I'll get my thick skin suit back on tomorrow :-) Sandy 21:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

While you're at Talk:FA, please see this. I'm almost ready to submit Tourette syndrome to FAC, but not if it's going to be categorized as "psychological". I've worked to hard to go backwards because Wiki is confused. Sandy 13:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Jaguar etymology

There are several references for Yaguar, sadly not many in English. The best I could do is this. For Spanish language references (verdadera fiera): [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. Hope this will be good enough. Mariano(t/c) 10:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why couldn't I do it myself, but here it goes:

In the related Guaraní language, Yaguareté means "true fierce"^[1].

I changed it a bit because the link doesn't specifically say what Yagua means, but the hole world.

The reference is from NGO for the conservation of the Yaguareté (as known in Argentina), so it can be considered midly serious.

Something else I would like to see changed in the article, when refering to the Tupi-Guaraní words, I believe Y should be used instead of the English spelling J. Also, Tupi language and Tupi-Guarani languages should be used when refering to the languages and not to the Tupi people. Take care, Mariano(t/c) 10:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I just thought you were trying to avoid an edit war or something since I was the one who added that part (I think). Good wiking, Mariano(t/c) 11:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in (I was looking for a well structured animal FA to base my rewrite of Platypus on). I changed the "true fierce" to "truly fierce", but on reflection it really means "the true fierce one" (as in "the [real one and only] fierce one"), so maybe "the real fierce one" is the best translation. It's quite awkward to retranslate it through a second language though...I'm probably not helping...I'll go away now.Yomangani^talk 17:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carver

See my reply on the George Washington Carver page. Greg Kuperberg 17:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock

{{unblock}}

Hi, Marskell. I've unblocked the IP, and have reblocked with "block anonymous users only", so you should be able to edit again. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 22:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed! Presumably that was in honour of me? ;-) AnnH ♫ 22:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lacking citations list

Marskell, I posted the medical articles lacking citations from our list to the Medicine FAR page. Michael Woodruff is completely cited, so I moved it down on the list a few days ago, after no one responded to my query on the talk page. Peta has mostly referenced Barbara McClintock, and although I'm not sure the level of inline citations would pass FAC today, it is well above the criteria used to develop the Lacking List: I see Peta just removed McClintock from the list (I redid her remove to add McClintock to the right category). Chagas disease is also almost completely referenced, enough to surpass the requirements used to develop the list, although possibly not enough to pass FAC today. So, two things:

1. What will be our criteria for removing articles that haven't gone through FAR from the Lacking citations list?
2. It seems that notifying the project in advance led to improvements in many articles: something to consider in the decision of whether to notify Projects.

Sandy 01:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)