User talk:Marskell/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Thanks :-)

Thank you very much for the cookie. I'm trying to recover from the recent trials and tribulations, then I'll be back to normal posting. I'll take a look at ATT today, but I think we can move ahead based on what I saw when I last checked. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubai Festival City

Hello,

the content was as follows:

Dubai Festival City is a large residential, business and entertainment development in the city of Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Touted as a "city-within-a-city", Festival City is the Middle East's largest mixed-use development: all elements for work, living, and leisure will be contained within the project. Once completed Festival City will comprise a series of residential communities, numerous hotels, malls, a golf course and other entertainment sites, and a full suite of public services, including schools.

Festival City was begun in 2003, under the auspices of the Al-Futtaim Group, and total development time is estimated at 12 years. The project spans 3.8 kilometres of water frontage on the eastern bank of Dubai Creek and is 2 kilometers from Dubai International Airport.

As of Date (20 August 2006) the facilities that are opened to the Public are :- 1) IKEA, Hyper Panda, Plug-inns 2) Automotive Market (Toyota, Jeep, Honda, etc) 3) Deira International School 4) Al Badia Golf Course 5) Toyota Showroom 6) Honda showroom 7) Lexus Showroom


See also

which did not assert notability, and which reads like a tourism-guide. Do you want a copy in your userspace? Regards. Lectonar 13:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding; I won't fight over something like this, and I won't take this to Afd either. Happy editing. Lectonar 13:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political epithets

Having launched Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political epithets in late 2005, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political epithets (2). It's interesting how it shows a change in the attitude of the community toward dreck. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sly

Since the FARC seems quieted down, I'll just let you know that I just need to give it another quick pass and then I'd say it's passable. — Deckiller 04:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Kakapo it is :) We're the last line of defense, it seems. — Deckiller 11:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Kakapo might need a bit of prose work still, mainly in the second main section on. I'm seeing a lot of redundancies that will be difficult to remove, stylistic inconsistencies (serial comma and english/american styles, etc. It looks like everyone has already done a lot of work though, which is good. I'll do what I can. — Deckiller 12:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm still concerned about Kakapo, as is reflected in the editors notes on the article. Maybe it's been my lack of sleep and spending too much time on Wikipedia. I dunno. — Deckiller 14:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA Counter bot stalled

It's been stalled for several days—you may want to keep an eye on it over the next two weeks: User talk:Jmax-bot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what is the plan with the FA and FFA counter bots? Im getting frustrated trying to keep the tally while traveling, and I already made one mistake. Message here. Counts now at Template:FFA number and Template:FA number SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

I would've nominated you, but I already thought you were one! We need more AfD closers who actually edit and review articles :). — Deckiller 14:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:1FAPQ

Fantastic!!!!! I've actually been trying to do this for a while now, see User:Ta bu shi da yu/Focussing. I'm supporting your adminship largely on this and your work on FARC - I think you have the right stuff to be an admin. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1FAPQ

I just hope no-one ever misinterprets this in the, er, onomatopoeic sense here (second bullet from the bottom!) Good luck with your RfA, it all looks good --Steve (Slf67) talk 08:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comet

Hey. I might be overcompensating because it's a science article; can you make sure I'm not? — Deckiller 01:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kakapo

A bit surprised you closed it while the article still has citation needed tags, but I'm happy with it. I'll keep trying to find the sources. — Indon (reply) — 13:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Got it. I'm dealing with the first issue. Thanks. — Indon (reply) — 13:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restoration Literature - opening Pandora's Box

I may have made a mistake, but I suggested it be moved to FARC. The way I see it is this: on Wikipedia, we have to standardize sweeping issues. I feel that parentheticals need to be changed to footnotes, like a lot of the FAR reviewers. The article also needs a copy-edit to weed out minor redundancies. You had pretty much the only edit this article has had during FAR, so that was my reasoning. Pandora's box? — Deckiller 12:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAR/FARCs

Hey; I have a question. Would it be okay if I act bold when necessary and delist/move FAR/FARCs if you or Joel are not on? — Deckiller 22:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

We've decided before it's best not to head down the slippery slope (the pattern being the FA director at FAC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations on Your RFA

Congratulations, Marskell. Use it for the good. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, Marskell. Use it for the good. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA (92/5/4) has passed and should end any minute. You're going to become an administrator today. Congrats and good luck. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 12:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, you're now an admin. Keep up the good work, and don't hesitate to ask questions if you're unsure. I'm confident you'll do well. - Taxman Talk 16:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: your enquiry. You use both liberally, especially the former, then the latter won't feel like it matters. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Congratulations - a well deserved success! LuciferMorgan 10:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It is about darn time. Good stuff. Proto ► 15:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Congratulations, and about a year overdue too. Well done, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, and sorry that my "proof" of your AfD experience ended up backfiring. :( Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please accept my congratulations too. Rockpocket 03:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Attribution

Not to further split your hair-splitting, but unless I'm missing something, this was your edit[1], and this is Robert A West's edit[2]. They are not identical, as Robert A. West's edit includes the need for independent sources; "Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as ... the article is primarily based on sources independent of the subject of the article." --Dragonfiend 02:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That "if no reliable sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" is a "radical departure" from V is what I was splitting hairs over; it seemed odd, as you were reacting to an intimation that wasn't in the sentence. The page already states "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge," which I fully agree with and which the generic statement above does not contradict. Robert's extra sentence has actually introduced a contradiction: a "self-published" source that is "independent of the subject of the article?" We rely on self-published sources that directly relate to the subject all the time on BLPs. Marskell 06:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
(Moving back, here for readability) I think if you take a look again you'll see that there's no reference to "a self-published source that is independent of the subject of the article" -- instead "Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as ... the article is primarily based on sources independent of the subject of the article." That is, no articles shoudl be based completely on self-published sources, which was what was in WP:V. Or am I missing something? --Dragonfiend 06:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you're suggesting, but "Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as ... the article is primarily based on sources independent of the subject of the article" can be read as a flat contradiction. We might have "other, independent, reliable sources are also used in the article" or "the existence and notability of the subject is confirmed by independent, reliable sources, and not by the questionable source(s)."
But I'm concerned about conflating articles themselves with pieces of information within them. If I've cited four pieces of information to reliable sources, does this justify citing a fifth with a self-published source? No: I either can or cannot use the self-published source for the specific info, regardless of how I've sourced other things. Marskell 07:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ann Arbor FAR - a question

I noticed that SandyGeorgia moved to have the article moved to FARC due to citation formatting concerns. However, I have recently corrected the formatting problems and responded to such on the FAR entry. Given that SandyGeorgia is traveling (though I left a message on her talk page, I believe that she will not respond immediately due to her travels), I was wondering if there is anything I should be aware of concerning FAR in such a situation (the last thing I want is for the article to be moved to FARC when the problem is corrected but the person who brought up the issue isn't around to respond). Thanks. PentawingTalk 21:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I feel that we are on the verge of moving a passable article to FARC, which essensially drags out the process and makes the backlog that much greater over the next several weeks. — Deckiller 21:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martian geography project proposed rename

Hi. It has been suggested that the project "Martian geography" be rename to "Mars" in order to increase its scope and increase its usefulness. If you have an opinion concering this, could you leave it on the talk page, or on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Space/Reorganisation? Thanks. Lunokhod 22:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action

Per this admin's request, I am notifying you of WP:RFAR action.

Even though I am not seeking the action against you, nonethheless, you are a party, and rules require that I notify you. Observe:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#GordonWatts

--GordonWatts 08:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pot, meet kettle

Not, "no." When an editor feels they've been misrepresented through elision, being pedantic doesn't work ("you're wrong about what you felt you wrote"?). No, sorry. I pointed out how you mis-represented my comment. That's all.

Given that you're misrepresenting what *I* said -- despite my pointing it out to you twice -- gassing on about pedantry is a bit rich. I even narrowed it down to the exact adjective and noun for you, but that doesn't have made a dent.
Follow this carefully: Gordon claims no one is complaining about his overly long Talk posts, saying that anyone who says so is "lying". I pulled up several quotes -- one of which happens to be yours -- directly refuting that. Period. Anything else you're reading into it is inside your head, not what's on the page. --Calton | Talk 22:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Calton, the correct response from the beginning was "sorry, I choose only the words that suited my point."
  • Which is, paraphrased, exactly what I said. Trying to hang an argument on that is pretty much a non-starter.
  • I did not dispute that my post criticized his talk posts; I pointed out that including "I deliberately stopped editing..." but dropping "with[out] malice..." placed that criticism in the wrong light.
  • Your point of view -- which I don't share -- and completely irrelevant, especially in its very narrow context: the whole point of elision is to leave out the extraneous.
  • But admission does not appear a part of your vocabularly, so carry on and ignore me
  • Admitting when I'm wrong when I'm not or agreeing that I said something that I didn't isn't part of my ethos, not vocabularly: using the word "vocabulary" to mean what it doesn't seems somewhat ironic, don't you think? Perhaps "vocabulary" isn't a strong part of yours, then -- or were trying to skirt around something you can't say directly? --Calton | Talk 06:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pandora's Box continued

I just made a rather long comment on Rest. Lit.; hopefully, it will cause people to see both sides of the picture and perhaps influence that editing group that things are changing. — Deckiller 01:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't even read it; do you suggest I don't? — Deckiller 22:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It didn't even phase me; I won't respond, because I think others will see its "true color". — Deckiller 22:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a note: I'll type up specifics when I can. I read the article on the plane, and compared it with the academic source I have access to; it sounds like the people who are defending the lack of attribution may not have read other sources, and are overwilling to take uncited Wiki statements at face value. I'm dealing with slow and limited internet access, complicated by ongoing power outages due to an icestorm. I'll do what I can if I ever get good access, but I won't be able to stay online much longer today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Marskell, how are you doing? :)

Just ringing in to say that I've just gone over the Definition of planet in the hopes of getting its gold star back. I was wondering what you thought. Any new articles you've been working on? Serendipodous 20:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That darn count

Makes me nuts - there was no need to create that extra layer of work, when the process was working fine before. With my limited access, I could be wrong, but I think you removed Ridge Route without taking it out of FA, adding it to FFA, decreasing the count of FAs, and increasing the count of FFAs. (Four articles that need to be edited since the counts have been separated to other files.) If I had decent internet access, I'd start screaming that the bot should either be fixed, or the count should be added back to the original articles where they started. I no longer know what the counts are. 16:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I updated Template:FFA number and Template:FA number for Ridge Route; since I'm losing track, I hope the count is correct. Since this bot isn't working, these numbers have to be manually updated in these separate files, which is crazy. Gimmetrow suggested (on my talk page) that the two numbers could be combined into one page; hopefully we can nail down this issue once I'm home. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep; that's why I was complaining when the darn thing was initiated; now we've ended up right where I feared we'd end up. We now have *more* pages to update when an article is defeatured, and more pages to keep track of. Unless Gimme can combine the two numbers into one template, or unless Rual or Banyan Tree plan on finding someone to fix the bot, we should go back to the old way. Need to get Gimme, Raul, and Banyan Tree to advise. Have to go soon; that's all I can do this morning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Margin of error

I think this article is still some way short of meeting all the FA criteria (especially 1a and 1b, but also marginal on 2-4). I've added some more detail on the review page about what I feel is substandard. I'm afraid I won't have much time to work on it over the next week, though. -- Avenue 15:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:BLP courtesy deletion

Do you have any interest in helping to write this? Yes, another one. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your FA push

I promise to finish taking a look at that article this weekend. I promise :) — Deckiller 14:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, looks like I broke that promise :( I've been around less the last few days, mostly due to IRL issues, but I swear I'll get to it as soon as possible. — Deckiller 20:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish reader wanted

Hi there. I came across your name in the es-en translation category and was wondering if you could spare some time to help with a Spanish source. I need someone to read over this. Shouldn't take too long. If interested, the payment is one barnstar. Marskell 17:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you need read? This leads (indirectly) to a 40-odd-page booklet, which is more than I will take on for someone else's project. If you just need certain passages translated, I'll take it on. (If someone has cited it, presumably they've cited particular pages, right?) For starters, though, here's the information on the "card":
Title The holy city of Caral-Supe at the dawn of civilization in Peru
Author Shady Solís, Ruth Martha
Published Lima: UNMSM, Fondo Editorial, 1997
Description 42, [4] pages: illlustrate, maps; 22 cm.
Note Bibliography: p. 38-42
Theme Indigenous people of South America - Peru - Supe; Valle del Río (literally "River Valley", but presumably a placename) - Antiquities; Excavations (Archeology) - Peru - Supe; Valle del Río Supe, Valle del Río - Antiquities
(Please answer on my user talk page.) - Jmabel | Talk 20:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I've now done the equivalent of a long abstract on my user talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 08:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't around to help; I read over what was on Jmabel's page - does that do it? If you need specific passages translated, pls send them my way - that was really easy stuff. I'm shoveling sugar over here trying to catch up, but will do everything I can if you still need help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I can also help, Marksell. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

<Waving hi to Jossi> ... Also consider Enano275 (talk · contribs) (tell him I sent you), and Anagnorisis (talk · contribs) if you have more than a few of us can handle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll read it over the weekend; I still have some major catching up to do - things that have to be done on weekdays. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Missing word ?? "This is out of keeping archaeological theory, which suggests that ... " Also, see my two edits regarding consistency of dates in refs; let me know if you want to make all dates in one format—if not, the other format will need to be wikilinked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Should this be hyphenated? "... builders would have hauled the material to sites by-hand. " Also, shicra is used before it's defined. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assistance and advise

The Heavy metal FAR has created a dispute that is getting very unpleasant. In the last two hours user Deathrocker has violated WP:3RR x 6, WP:OWN, WP:NPA, which I can live with, but I'm now being stalked [3], which I can't. Your openion would be much appreciated. Ceoil 23:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ceoil's claims are unfounded. My reverts on heavy metal music was in regards to an anonymous IP who was commiting simple vandalism whilst I was working on the article; in simple vandalism it states that reverting such edits do not count against a total. The anon was vandalisng a former featured article, and an article which has a long concensus.
Also, Ceoil violated WP:NPA by claiming I was "stalking" him, by fixing tags on uploads, including sound clips and images, which have no rationale or sources (this is stated as essential or the image is in violation of Wikipedia policy). I also pointed out to him that WP:STALK states specifically, "This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason." - Deathrocker 23:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Bad faith motivation. Ceoil 23:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

My motivation, is to have images and sound clips on Wikipedia with correct tags, so the project does not get into legal trouble. (via hosting unfree media) I was advised to follow this policy at all times, and to fix images as per admin Yamla and AbuBadali. - Deathrocker 00:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Marskell - Thanks, I take the points you posted on my talk. Ceoil 14:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Change of heart. per comments. Ceoil 18:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
This is very tedious, and its a pity so many editors haver been drawn into such a minor spat. But the incident is reflective of a larger pattern of behaviour, which has included the stalking and intimidation of many editors. I have tactic agreement from other editors that the issue needs to be resolved, thats were I'm going. I'm sorry I dragged you into this, but respc. your openion. Ceoil 19:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Marskell; I have avoided the user and gone on to fix other image tags around Wiki instead (including some of my own) unrelated to him, since your message.

However, Ceoil hasn't left well enough alone, and has continued to hound me with incoherent messages and odd behaviour.[4][5][6]... I left a message on his page, urging that he take your advise of only contacting to discuss content and to leave me alone.[7]

But he persisted, even threatening me, proclaiming "See you in court"[8], such a threat is a banable offense and is in violation of core Wikipedia values Wikipedia:No legal threats. His behaviour is getting rather worrying. When all I am interested in is improving Wikipedia's articles. - Deathrocker 20:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"See you in court" was a requestforcomment promise. I'm not impessesd by your edit history, and your reaction towards me to date is pathetic. I have already cited your multiple abuses of policy. Its about time someone stood up to you. Ceoil 20:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Both of you cease posting here. I will respond shortly. Marskell 20:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
If I see other editors being bullied I'll call it again. But I take your points otherwise.Ceoil 21:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.. I'll bear it in mind; as I said, I have gone on to fix different images now and other projects. The user is the one who keeps coming to me (hopefully will now disist). As you said though, with me been baited.. it does make it difficult not to reply, but if I'm pestered further, I'll give you a little note instead. Thanks again. - Deathrocker 21:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I don't understand. It was archived after I replied to it (as I do with all messages). - Deathrocker 21:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your hard work and good sense on Wikipedia:Attribution, for keeping the faith, and for making it happen. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Congrats from me as well. Merging these was a great example that things can be improved in Wikipedia, if there is the will, the patience and the perseverance needed, and that despite differences, collaborative editing is possible. Kudos!. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

V, NOR, and don't forget RS. It was redirected a few days ago with agreement. So it's done. :-) Also, I don't know whether you noticed, but the thing at the bottom of the edit window has been changed too: it says "Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source," and it goes to WP:A.

As for BLP, it's a good idea, though I'd prefer to see a dedicated BLP team. I wouldn't be keen to move BLP, because it's so widely used now. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could you please take a quick look?

There's a discussion at the Zodiac article about whether a external source used as a reference may be reused as an external link. An uninvolved set of eyes would be extremely helpful, as this page has seen some extremely tendentious editing. Thanks. Jeffpw 21:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Koufax

Hi; I definitely think it's passable enough. — Deckiller 15:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Likely to be challenged

We could add something to the FAQ about the man on the Clapham omnibus if you like, but I'd prefer not to get into it in the policy itself. What we're really saying is "use your common sense," which is what the man on the Clapham omnibus/reasonable man/man in the street (never woman, it seems) is all about. Do you feel something should be added to the policy itself? SlimVirgin (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with SM on this. The FAQ needs our attention to provide examples, rather than add more wording to the policy itself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
SV's latest idea is to add wording about "common sense"; if there's anything that some of the rhetoric and huffing and puffing on FAR shows it's that you can't legislate common sense. (I'm also wondering what SV will have us do with all the truly horrific old FAs, since she doesn't believe in FAR?) Anyway, seems that people are attempting to make rules around a few bad behaviors, and you know what they say about bad case law. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder

I left you a question a while back, here; I lost track of it during my travel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm plowing back through my talk page, and realized I never thanked you for the flower, or told you how much I appreciated it. It was a rough time. Best, and thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

There are only two items on WP:WIAFA that are policy; some of our WIAFA requirements aren't even guidelines, so length—which is a guideline—should not be less important that anything else mentioned at WIAFA.

  • 1a, well written (not policy, not even a guideline)
  • 1b, comprehensive (not policy, not even a guideline)
  • 1c, factually accurate (policy, albeit weaker by the day)
  • 1d, neutral (policy, albeit rare on Wiki)
  • 1e, stable (not policy, not a guideline)
  • 2 MOS (not policy - guideline)
  • 2a lead (not policy - guideline)
  • 2b headings (not policy - guideline)
  • 2c TOC (not policy - guideline)
  • 3 images (not policy)
  • 4 length (not policy - guideline)

So, we naturally (and commonsensically) insist upon well-written, comprehensive and stable—which aren't even guidelines much less policy—there's no reason not to give equal weight to a guideline. Perhaps it matters to me because I'm so often a victim of a lousy, slow dialup connection, and I know how difficult it is to access or work on long Wiki pages from a slow connection. I will continue to hold #4 to the same weight as the other requirements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand Fair Use, so whether it's policy or guideline is still Greek to me. The core of what I'm getting at is that two important but relatively subjective elements of WIAFA (prose, comprehensive) are held as gospel, while core objective guideline issues (see list above) are, quite simply, not even taken into consideration by most reviewers, and held as less important. FAs do provide guidance for other editors, and guidelines should be held to at least the same standard as 1a and 1b. On almost every review, it's me who's reviewing for those items, while other reviewers seem to be reading for "I like it". So slap me for being an engineer who believes in division of labor; prose can be best reviewed by someone better at it than I, and those who complain so vocally about the fact that at least someone is reviewing for the basics might consider being glad that, well someone is. I read an article after the basics are in place; no point in expending effort on prose based on unreliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
oops, forgot your second paragraph. How is NPOV a "rare" policy? It's like special ed law in the United States; it only works if you hire an advocate or an attorney to make it work. To enforce NPOV on controversial articles, you usually have to end up at ArbCom, and even with an ArbCom ruling, there's little enforcement ability. An editor who doesn't want to spend their life on it is well-advised to give up and walk away from controversial articles; in fact, you gave me advice similar to that once, and I followed it. Jayjg also gave me similar advice. The burden to enforce neutrality is placed on editors, and is too high. I forgot to add other core "values" of Wiki that are as under-enforced as NPOV; civility and no personal attacks. The interesting thing about Wiki is that certain editors can be more uncivil than the most raging flame war on Usenet, but in ways that slide on Wiki. And how is ATT getting weaker by the day? Two recent examples can be found on FAR. When a vocal minority succeeds in weakening the core, that may eventually affect the controversial, POV articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't offended by the phrase in the FAQ—I just felt like I should weigh in while I could, because of all my travel. I do keep online "stuff" in perspective, and am very clear on why I'm here and what the real danger is (and it's sure not on math, literature, Mash or Pokemon articles, so we should make sure policies aren't defined around vocal editors and issues that come up on those kinds of articles, causing a weakening in policies that will trickle down to articles on topics that do affect real people's lives, health, longevity, misery index and well-being when Wikipedia becomes a very effective and easily-manipuated part of propaganda machines). When I queried a family member about a topic he studies, he responded with disdain that I was even asking, basically saying why would he rely on information on "whack-a-pedia" rather than from his textooks or professors, particularly when sources aren't even cited in the Wiki article? "Whack-a-pedia" will continue to suffer from that public perception unless highest-quality sources are used and cited, IMO. Serious people won't rely on Wiki info for academic topics, but the propaganda machine for other topics will continue unabated. Every time policies are weakened for a math, Pokemon or literature article, the propaganda machines may eventually benefit the most. Some editors don't seem to have ever ventured outside of their realm of expertise, and might not consider all of Wiki's effect on real people. Some topics have little impact on real people, like the ones I know who are at risk of disappearance, death, imprisonment, or just a gradual increase in misery as their lives descend into poverty and deprivation of basic freedoms. Anyway, back on topic—prob is, I'm not in a position to help with the FAQ, since I have to travel again at the end of this week, I have to take care with where I get involved this week (and do my taxes), and my talk page is already filling up, but there is a ton I would add if I had time, and I just don't think it's possible to cover it all without risking complete instruction creep. I understand the problem about footnotes; it seems to me that those who have the issue with citing have made their complaints known loudly and clearly to those who count footnotes or fact-bomb articles (ad nauseum, in fact), so we don't need another policyFAQ/guideline/page, when there has been a complete lack of common sense on several sides and from a very small minority of editors. By the way, I tried to do some repair work on Adam Gilchrist, so it's a little less bad now (still problematic, but not as bad as Paul McCartney was when it came to FAC), but I don't see nearly as much long-term danger to Wikipedia from overciting as I do from underciting and a gradual weakening of reliability of sources (another recent FAR comes to mind there, where you and I both bowed to consensus regarding a blog). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
First, I don't think we're in any danger of the problem at Adam Gilchrist becoming typical or even vaguely representative of featured or any other articles; the overciting at Paul McCartney was roundly shouted down when it came to FAC, (but I am wondering why no one had pounced on the Gilchrist review as of the last time I checked). Further, I don't think it's so much a matter of overciting as indicative of poor article organization (although certainly citing that someone plays cricket is overciting :-). Second, whenever a discussion comes to it will cause people to leave Wikipedia, I can only smile at the stretch. Not biting at that argument, as I see no basis for it whatsoever. I think it overstates the case by quite a broad margin. I'm curious how/why you've come to this conclusion? What will cause me to leave Wikipedia is the rampant incivility, arrogance, and failure to work well with others, and I suspect that holds true for most editors worth anything to the Project (unless the rampant POV and bias get me first :-). It is fairly appalling that some editors hold in utter disdain the nuts and bolts work that is required to keep Wiki going. I may have said it before, but Wiki makes Usenet look tame; at least fights on Usenet are real, and fair, and not based on what admin will defend a given editor's incivility and personal attacks. I just read a review I had missed on FAR because of my travel, and it was out of control. Kirill stepped in with reasoned logic, but it makes me wonder if it's not time to simply start removing some of the non-review review comments to the talk pages. No, the risk of imprisonment, death, disappearance that I referred to is not a BLP issue; I guess if you've not had friends and relatives at risk, you might not get it, nor may many editors of math, Pokemon, or literature articles. No, Restoration Literature is not even a gnat on my radar screen right now, and it is not breaking FAR; my concerns are not and never will be with articles that don't affect real people's real lives in any way, rather a small group of vocal editors dictating policies that may eventually effect articles that do impact real people. (By the way, almost half of the featured articles that may still have citation problems come from only ten sources, two of which are Brilliant Prose and Lord Emsworth—follow the numbers, and you know why there is such a mountain being made out of a molehill.) Anyway, you didn't answer my statement that "Whackapedia" will never gain credibility if articles aren't based on and cited to solid, reliable sources. Gilchrist is not typical, and to focus on that article is a strawman. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry for asking you to jump through hoops (i.e.; read between lines); I'll just leave it at the message I was trying to convey, which is some articles do have the potential to affect lives, others don't, since I don't want to go into more detail. "We" (you and me) don't advocate; others may, and may be on Wiki specifically for propaganda purposes—and Wiki lends itself to such. [9] My point being NPOV policies don't work, and strengthening reliability of sources might help lead to less bias in some articles. I actually don't know why Gzkn left, and since he was such a great and helpful editor, that is one that troubles me. I know many more who've given up and left because of rudeness and bias. I recall that absurd requests were being made of him on Peter Jennings, but it seemed to me that they were all talking past each other about something that could have been easily solved (I never got an answer as to why he thought the Lexis-Nexis versions of news sources would be different than published versions, and I always thought that had an easy solution). Anyway, generally I just don't believe there's as much danger of either good editors leaving or the encyclopedia being harmed by good citation as there is from the rampant rudeness, arrogance, incivility, and failure to enforce NPOV (which can be helped by strongly disallowing sources like blogs, etcetera). We have a couple of editors screaming about citations on articles that won't make or break Wiki, FAR, the articles themselves, or real life; I hope we don't let that affect the rest. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: I added my comments to the talk page, but again regret that I'll be mostly out of action for two weeks, recalling that same happened on evolution of WP:ATT and by the time I could get involved, I could never catch up on the discussion. I don't enjoy policy discussions, but I should have weighed in on that one. I do believe the subtle shift from verifiable text in an encyclopedia anyone can edit to claiming attributability without necessarily showing it will weaken Wikipedia and open up the sorts of loopholes we're already seeing ("you're not an expert, so you have no right to ask for attribution", but I want to know where to find the darn text that backs it up, because there's no reason I should believe an encyclopedia anyone can edit unlesss it shows me where to find the text). I didn't weigh in enough on the ATT discussion, so I'll live with it. As to "appeal to emotion", it wasn't—it's a plea for a sense of perspective on articles. For some editors to fuss over articles that aren't affecting anyone's life makes no sense to me, and to write guidelines around exceptions makes even less sense to me. We're substantially agreeing on this: "As for strawmen, Adam Gilchrist is no more a strawman than picking two out of the two hundred FARs that have gone through and claiming standards have weakened." Neither Gilchrist, nor four FARs (my examples of weakening standards don't only include only two that didn't get cited; we've also yielded on length and reliable sources on two others) will make or break FAR, Wiki, or those articles. Fine, consensus rules, and if there are consequences down the road, consensus will change. When we start seeing more than .2% of articles that are too large to read, people will start complaining; the pendelum swings; in the meantime, I wouldn't personally be proud of being one of the .2 percenters. My overriding concern is that we not write guidelines around a fuss over nothing, because we may create loopholes that may bite us in the behind down the road. My prediction is that ATT will do that; you can tell me I'm wrong if it doesn't, in which case I'll be relieved to be wrong :-) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FFA bot counter

OK, tired of waiting for nothing to happen. I removed the bot counter [10] from WP:FFA, since it was only making for two articles that we have to edit rather than one (Template:FFA number and WP:FFA). Until the bot/a bot is fixed and running, we can continue to manually tally as we did in the past, by subtracting from the count at WP:FFA. I can't remove the bot count on FAs from WP:FA, because that's up to Raul654. So, we still have to manually update Template:FA number for removed FAs. Much work for nothing. I'll leave notes for Joel and Mark/Raul. (I updated for Joel's removal of Portuguese language.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A while back I added code to check the FA number template against the number of unique article-space non-shortcut links on WP:FA. So you don't really need to update the FA template, as long as it's not protected, and WP:FA gets edited before I run the bot. Gimmetrow 05:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
That's good news; but we were still in a position of needing to edit four articles (besides the archiving) to remove an FA: WP:FA, WP:FFA, Template:FFA number and Template:FA number. Since the GimmeBot can't change these numbers, we still have to do it right (?), even though the Bot will catch mistakes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The templates are not protected, there is no reason the bot can't edit them if they stay that way. FA number is coded. So to remove an FA you have to edit WP:FA and WP:FFA - which you would anyway. You don't have to update FA number as the bot will get it eventually. If you can get the FFA number taken off WP:FC, you could just keep track on the WP:FA page, and only have two to edit. Gimmetrow 07:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I didn't know it was at WP:FC <grrrr ... > I'm trying to recall whose idea it was to put these numbers all over the place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure what we're supposed to do now, and in case you haven't guessed, I'm quite frustrated about it. A while back, someone (not coincidentally, someone who didn't have to do the work) ad the idea to put the counts in separate articles that could be used everywhere, which created extra work for us. But, the proposal was that a bot would do the counting. A bot isn't doing the counting. When I removed the counter page from WP:FFA, I didn't realize the number was being used elsewhere (pointed out by Gimmetrow above), so I guess I'll have to put it back, and we have to continue to maintain the count in the separate article. If GimmeBot can keep track of those numbers, perhaps there's nothing to worry about? I'm not really clear what's next. But I'll put the counter back in WP:FFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an ugly solution, but you could treat the entire WP:FFA page as a template with all the content noincluded except the number. There would be a couple extra tags on the page, but you could edit the number directly on the WP:FFA page and it would be reflected elsewhere. Gimmetrow 16:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Gimmetrow; I suspect one of the problems that both Marskell and I are having is that we really "don't speak bot", so I don't follow everything or understand how to fix this except to continue manually tallying. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
There. Now just update the number on WP:FFA and it should get picked up elsewhere when pages get re-cached or purged. Hitting the purge link at WP:FC forces this. Gimmetrow 17:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Gimmetrow :-) Just to make sure we're all understanding, when an article is defeatured we add it to WP:FFA and simultaneously increment the count there (as we did before), but we still have to make two edits to FA; delete the article from WP:FA and decrease the count at Template:FA number. Is that correct? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
No, you don't need to edit Template:FA number. When the bot processes the next batch of FAC or FARs, it can update the template to match the number of articles listed at WP:FA. Or, WP:FA could be set up with the same hack and you could just update it by hand on the WP:FA page, like you used to do. This would arguably be best, because then the two templates could be protected and left alone, but they would still exist should a bot someday want to take over the task again. Gimmetrow 18:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems it would be most intuitive (i.e.; easier to remember) to do the same thing on both pages, FA and FFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This won't work if any other page transcludes WP:FA expecting a list of pages. Also trancluding a page to grab one number from it is somewhat odd. But let me know if you want WP:FA switched around too. Gimmetrow 19:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Raul/Mark indicated somewhere he's in the midst of his PhD presentation; maybe we can wait to hear from him. So, in the meantime, we edit FFA, manually change the number there, and do nothing to the count at FA, right? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys, if the extra templates are too much work, get rid of them. As far as I can see, absolutely no one is objecting to the discontinuation of the templates while the bot is down. I made a halfway edit so the templates can be edited (or discontinued) by non-admins, but, from what I can tell of this discussion, it's not enough. WP:BB. The only people who know what the load is are you, so make the changes that would make you happy. - BanyanTree 21:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion

As I understand it, Gimmetrow has fixed up WP:FA and WP:FFA so that we can add or subtract from the count directly in those articles (as we did before), and the number will be picked up from there in the other places it's used. I hope I've got that right :-) So now, when removing an FA, increment the tally at WP:FFA, and decrease the count at WP:FA, exactly as before this bot business came about—no more concern about the count templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia asked me to explain a change I just made in relation to this methodology. Basically, as originally implemented it worked by doing; 'noinclude' Lots of text '/noinclude' the number desired 'noinclude' Lots more text '/noinclude'... with everything between the 'noinclude' - '/noinclude' tags ignored when the page is transcluded, leaving only the number to appear. I changed that to; Lots of text 'onlyinclude' the number desired '/onlyinclude' Lots more text... which does exactly the same thing, ignoring everything EXCEPT the number. Just some minor housekeeping - methodology still works exactly the same. --CBD 16:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, CBD—just double-checking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Sandy, just so you know, as a follow-up from what Gimmetrow said above about doing away with the templates (or if it's attractive as an option for a while)... if the templates would be better off out of the way for a while, but you still want them kept in place on the pages where they lie now, should the system BOT recover it's operator or a new one be found, such can be accomplished in a matter of moments. Just redefine them as {{void}}, or several other techniques will do, like nesting their whole content inside a noinclude-/noinclude block, or just commenting them out with an HTML inline comment... essentially all are void of content, which is where the name of the data type (and template) comes from. Best! // FrankB 04:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Frank! <sound of what's left of my brain exploding>  :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And well done on "Barnard's Star"

A very consise and comprehensive article. Good work! Just out of curiosity. why is it your favourite star? Serendipodous 10:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)