User talk:Marskell/Archive 12
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] "recognized professional expert"
I think you are right. It is the entire phrase that allows professional to be misunderstood. It can be read as a recognized expert who is professional which can be easily misinterpreted. A "recognized professional" alone is not nearly as problamatic.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] My RFA!
 |
Marskell, 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 complimentary words on my RFA! --plange 21:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC) |  |
[edit] Barnard's Star
Congrats on getting Barnard's Star to FA status. Joelito (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Me too. Well deserved. JMcC 16:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:One featured article per quarter
Hi Marskell,
I added a section to the above in which users (like me) can list themselves as "resources" to those working on FACs. I am thinking of copy-editing, source acquisition, and who knows what else. The additions are based on some of the talk page comments (e.g. badlydrawnjeff), though now that I look again, I see that you may not be such a fan of the idea. My rationale is that if FAC authors need help, they need it at a certain time: there's no point in someone like me picking a random moment, unrequested, to copy-edit an article, for example. I see my additions as a complement to the purpose of the page, and I added a q/a regarding why these resources don't "duplicate peer review". Anyway, it's your baby, and if you don't like it, or it doesn't work, feel free to axe. (If it doesn't work, I'll axe. :-) –Outriggr § 04:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Science" citation guidelines
From the old discussion at WP:CITE, it appears that a few of the math/physics folks are calling this a guideline without broad exposure or consensus: Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. At a minimum, it doesn't apply to *all* fields of science, so is misnamed. Sandy (Talk) 14:09, 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] RfA front matter
Repeating the word "bad" is not an argument. It is not a reason to do anything and you are not going to convince anyone with it. —Centrx→talk • 19:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Multiple noms
Since I leave the notifications on the talk pages, I can't help notice that four Emsworth articles have been nommed in 3 weeks: House of Lords Oct 8, Mary I of England Oct 20, Order of the Garter Oct 26, and Hereditary peer Oct 28. This is a fast pace, and issues have been raised on the FARs. I'm not sure there's anything we can do, but I wanted to be sure you had a look at the comments on the FARs. Sandy (Talk) 04:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- I thought you were busy; just want to make sure you have a look as soon as you're free. Sandy (Talk) 14:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] disruptive discussions at FAR
Tim—I wonder whether these persistent interruptions to the review process might be moved en masse to the talk page. Tony 13:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pope Pious
Well, his initial improvements after my "remove" vote are ok for my current "neutral" vote. But since some of the parts I indicated are not yet citated, I cannot vote "keep". So, it is up to you (I think!)!--Yannismarou 19:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sure that eventually this article will very soon be Ok. A problem I noticed is that somebody added some [citation needed] tags which, in any case, are ugly for FAs. It'd be better if savidan takes care of them, because we close the article.--Yannismarou 19:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
"Dogma defined dogmatically"? How else would it be defined? savidan(talk) (e@) 22:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] TS - thanks
Thanks for the note, Tim -- not to worry -- I was also traveling when your last FAC came up. (By the way, more travel starting tomorrow - sporadic, limited internet access ... ) Sandy (Talk) 01:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] your note
Hi Marskell. I appreciated your note and the fact that you (and Sandy) took the time to suggest I reconsider. Now that I've gotten over my little episode, I'll be hanging around in some capacity. Cheers, –Outriggr § 03:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unblock
You should be able to edit now. Tom Harrison Talk 15:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Peer review
Hey again Tim. I've just put Nick Drake up for peer review, and tought it might be worth brazenly asking for your comments ;) There are some remaining weak areas in the copy, I'm working on those; my main concerns here are the tone of the article (perhalps too stiff?) and also (possible) over use of direct quotes - should some be paraphrased rather than simply reproduced - I'm not sure if the project has a preference or if theres a guideline on this. These and other concerns, I suppose.
Congratulations and nice work on Barnard's Star BTY - Coil00 23:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- There's no rush with this one, and I'm happy to fix myself any prose or structural issues that you might spot. Have been reading through Tony's style guide for the last few weeks, and following FAC & FAR, but its sometimes easy to overlook obvious weaknesses if you get too close to an article. Thanks - Coil00 22:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] See WP:ATT talk
See my posts on the talk page. I see your version as less limited. I want to tighten the exceptions (i.e. make sure they are exceptions). I think we both want the same thing. It's just (just!) a question of finding the words. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ATT
I don't want to muddy the water over there by adding to the reams of comments, but your last suggestion looks terrible to me. I don't like listing the subject areas where it may/may not not be used - that's reintroducing the pop-culture exception by the back door (which I'm sure isn't what you are intending). For example, obscure subjects are just as likely to exist in history as they are in crafts, so why should be permissible to use a "dodgy" reference in an obscure craft article and not in an obscure history article? Plot summaries could be equally difficult to find for old media - often scholarly works deal with specific aspects of a book or an author's work rather than giving a summary of the action; find me a plot summary for Dumas' Corsican Brothers for instance. Also "the information should not be added" would be better as "the information should not be included", otherwise it is saying it is permissible to leave it in there if somebody else added it. Cheers, Yomanganitalk 10:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- I guessed that is what you were going for, but the addition of the example subject areas seemed to be harping back to the "unreliable sources may be used in pop-culture but not in literature" type phrasing. (I've retired from commenting on it as there were too many threads on the same subject going in different directions and I didn't think I was being particularly helpful by basically parroting a rephrased version of what you were saying). Yomanganitalk 11:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Polish-Soviet War
Work has stalled? Marskell 07:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- I should have better phrased it by saying that the original author's understanding of the work still needed seems to have stalled. If you're taking it over, perhaps the work will get done now - I'm still concerned about the length and, as you noted, "a great deal of repetition and over-explanation", and the need to better summarize the article. If you're on it, I can strike my remove if you'd like. Sandy (Talk) 22:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: Given a serious personal issue, I will be editing little or not at all for a while. I will likely not respond to talk, but my e-mail is enabled and I will respond to it. Marskell 07:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Safe return
I hope you have a safe return soon and that all is well. When you're back, you might want to review this again. Sandy (Talk) 15:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Opinions
I seem to share a lot of the same opinions with you. I think you would find it interesting to see my talk page. [1] Asteroidz R not planetz 19:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dear Tim,
My best thoughts are with you at this time. May you find peace and solace, Sandy (Talk) 22:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
That is a very moving poem; I'm sorry for your loss. Best wishes, Tom Harrison Talk 22:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I want to say the same thing. I missed the note on your talk page on 17 of this month (must have been busy), but have just seen the update to your user page. Sympathy and blessings. We'll be glad to see you back editing when you feel ready. AnnH ♫ 22:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Marskell. Thinking of you. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I wish you all the best Marskell. Email me if ever you wanna talk to someone. LuciferMorgan 02:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for your loss Tim. We may not know each other personally but you have been in my thoughts. Email when you can. Joelito (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to hear this; my best wishes, Tim. Tony 03:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm very sorry to hear of this. I'll be keeping you in my thoughts. SuMadre 06:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
An extremely beautiful poem. I wish you all the best. --andreasegde 18:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to hear of your loss, Tim. –Outriggr § 00:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome back
Hope everything is OK. Yomanganitalk 14:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Nice to c u back! Tony 14:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You were certainly missed. Sandy (Talk) 03:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Welcome back. Nice to read a familiar person's words. LuciferMorgan 03:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
