User talk:Marskell/Archive 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Caseformars.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Caseformars.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 19:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Caseformars.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Caseformars.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA stuff

I am doing vampire with Spawny and Sirius currently, but got distracted with more than a few AfD debates and have been madly digging out old gaming magazines to stem a slew of RPG deletions....I'll have a look at WP:FAR soon. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] happy Mango season

'TIS MANGO SEASON....
Have a shlice of mango cheek...well, I am up to my armpits in the things. Yuletide means lots and lots of mangos, as well as turkey and ham and ice-cream and pressies. Were on special so I bought 3 crates for AU$20 and now I have both crispers in the refrigerator full and even with everyone eating two of the ##$@& things every mealtime... I am a bit mangoed out so I thought I'd spread the goodwill around....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Happy New Year

Hello Marskell, I hope you had a pleasant New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! Thanks for all your hard work in keeping the FA program running. Here's to another big year of quality prose! ~ Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The World Without Us

At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The World Without Us, you mentioned you were preparing some comments. Can you provide an update? or let me know if there is anything I can start working on. Thanks. --maclean 01:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Europa

Hello, Tim. May I ask you to look into Europa article, which is now a FA candidate? Tony requested it to be copy-edited by a person not familiar with the text. I fixed MOS breaches, but I am not such a great expert in English as you. Ruslik (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will remind you. Ruslik (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You may like this..

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/mammal articles by size...'nuff said. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Omnivore

Hello there. I noticed the citation needed tag you put on Omnivore, but I'm not sure if a ref for the human omnivore vs. herbivore debate exists, or is needed, since I'm not sure if we can do better than reliable refs for each side of the debate. Anyway, not sure what to do here. Care to chime in? Thanks. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 21:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Granted. Though I did change the sentence to specify that the debate is over the question of which diet is better suited or is healthier to humans, so as not to say there is a debate over whether humans can be considered omnivorous (since humans are obviously omnivorous as most humans eat both animals and plants). Though I don't know if it can be said that all humans are omnivorous without any explaination, since a large percentage of the world's population is not omnivorous, most of them in India. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 21:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I do think that the other parts are needed because it is widely accepted in the scientific community that a plant-based diet is actually healthier. I argree that humans are omnivores in the ability to digest meat, but the question is whether it is the best diet for human physiology. That's what the debate is over, and many members of the scientific community disagree. I like what you did to the sentence, however. It's good, though I did change one part a little. Do you still think it should be removed? Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 21:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] There you go....

Some nice person's put a snap on Yellow-throated Scrubwren which ya started, now multiply the text by 5 and you gotta DYK....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unnecessary???

Exactly What is unnecessary about a "current events" tag in regards to the top national--and international--news report about John McCain winning the New Hampshire Primary????. Doniphan (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for replying at my Talk Page, I've taken the proverbial "chill pill" and don't intend to edit John McCain anymore. After all, as I said after my first edit, I'm not a supporter of his candidacy, although I guess I would be if Ron Paul and Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee weren't in the race. ;) I was adding the info about Mccain's New Hampshire win solely out of journalistic considerations, but I accept your reminder that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news reporting service. Doniphan (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tim...

I would appreciate it if you did give Europa a once-over, just to keep the ghost of Tony off my back. Thanks. Hope it's not too much trouble. Serendipodous 20:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Workshop

Sure thing. No hurry; and I think your input is the best kind -- you believe the process needs to be improved, but you're not convinced. No point proceeding with the idea till we have that resolved, obviously. Later -- Mike Christie (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No examples. I think Karanacs is right; the nominator fixes things, often with help. Sometimes this leaves the nominator not wishing to return to FAC. See my post at the workshop; Rjgibb is an example. Mike Christie (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the more detailed response on my talk page. First let me say that I agree with all your points: I've not seen a FAC fail for MOS reasons alone; I believe MOS is important, and we must have FAs that comply with MOS -- it is not optional; and I don't want the hard work of Sandy, Tony and others denigrated. Your fourth point is a little more complicated, but I agree that content reviewing needs too improve, and that we should not de-emphasize style reviewing.
Rather than make an argument for the proposal I made on the WT:FAC page, let me see if I can persuade you of a couple of underlying points -- after all, disagreements about methods usually turn out to be disagreements about goals, at their root, so that's where we should be focusing.
So consider an FA writer on WP. You and I both know how to get FAs all the way through the process; we've dealt with copyediting and MOS as well as all the other issues. Are you and I good exemplars of what Wikipedia really wants? I'm not at all sure the answer is yes. Suppose that Wikipedia had a paid editorial staff and their job was to use their resources to maximize FA production (to full current FA standards), and do nothing else. What would they do? I know what I'd do; I'd go find a pool of articles that I thought were (a) near-FA, and (b) could be converted to FA without content knowledge.
Maybe no such pool exists (that's your point that there are no FA-pending-MOS-fixes articles). Could such a pool be created more easily than current FAs? I won't waste your time by detailing the rest of the argument, but I think you can see roughly where I'd go with this: there is discontent from some very talented writers with non-content review; we've got more content writers than we have stylistic writers; we need to scale; division of labour aids scaling. I don't have answers to every objection that could be raised to this approach, but I'd like to talk to you more about it -- you're simultaneously sceptical, reasonable, and practical about these issues. Mike Christie (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll wait to see your essay, and then let's talk again. I am starting to wonder if we could use some summary of this conversation to fire up the workshop for another round. I have some thoughts about your comments but I'll hold back, except to say that since I think we are already placing too high an expectation on FA writers -- they must cover all bases -- asking them to be the pool of gatekeepers for first-time FAs is both an additional burden on an overburdened group, and another barrier to nominators. I don't like either of those effects. I do understand the value of a mentor, and if mentoring happens it will surely add value, but I am not convinced we can legislate for it. Mike Christie (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aww gee... :-)

But really I haven't done much yet; just re-arranged things and flagged a few missing citations. I tend to leave a lot of wreckage wherever I go, because I don't use the preview function much (always afraid of edit conflicts)

Triton has been known to have a lower average temp than Pluto for some time; Triton is closer to the Sun, but it is far brighter than Pluto, so reflects more light back into space. However, Eris might give it a run for its money.Serendipodous 22:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thread

(My own comments redacted after being reverted by SlimVirgin.) "I'll put up more evidence rather than answering questions." The question you were avoiding in that sentence was: "how is it that you ignored clear and recent personal attacks against Sandy and others on Zeraeph's talk page at the time that you unblocked her?" It's a rephrasal of something that has been asked repeatedly on the arb case.

Slim, you know from your own inbox that I'm not unwilling to talk to you. And I would like to still. But you have not answered this question. Not in the least. It is (literally, not just emphatically) unbelievable that you would have unblocked that editor with noticing the attacks she had posted on her own talk. Do you have an answer? Marskell (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Marskell, please post anything for me about the case on one of the ArbCom pages. I will see it eventually. I find this case sickening, and I mean that literally. I actually feel nauseous about it, because of the bad faith, the personal attacks, the toxicity, people who have no involvement in it involving themselves, the complete lack of humanity, and you unable to post from any POV except Sandy's, to your great discredit. And all this fuss because of what? Because someone not thinking straight called Sandy a stalker? Marskell, I've been called a thousand times worse than that. I've had a whole website devoted to calling me names. Where were you when that was happening? Please don't answer. It was rhetorical. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Slim, as you know, you don't own your talk page. User talk can cut through meandering threads to get at the locus of a one-to-one debate, which is why I posted to yours. Re your last post to me, I'll note that the idea that I have been uncritical of Sandy is not true. Ditto Ceoil, who I criticized in my evidence but might also be seen as a friend. I tried to be careful in properly assigning blame where it was due, in evidence presentation.
Anyhow, you did not answer the question: "how is it that you ignored clear and recent personal attacks against Sandy and others on Zeraeph's talk page at the time that you unblocked her?" I'm thinking that you do not have an answer to this, given that you've dodged the question so much. Archive away, if you want to dodge again. But it's a legitimate question. Your refusal to answer is to your discredit. Marskell (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Otter phylogeny

Hey Marskell, so sorry about the above.

Here's something nicer to think about: My sooper sekrit detective methods have told me that you might be interested in the paper "Koepfli, K.-P; Wayne, R.K. (December 1998). "Phylogenetic relationships of otters (Carnivora: Mustelidae) based on mitochondrial cytochrome b sequences". Journal of Zoology 246 (4): 401-416. ". I have the full-text. If you want it, drop me a line and I'll email it to you. Best, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 04:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox notes

Interesting. I think the growth in FAs is probably linearly related to the growth in Wikipedia itself. Splitting out the FAR and FAC activity seems sensible; I'd think that once we pass every pre-modern-standards FA (that needs it) through FAR, the FAR demotion rate will drop significantly. You'd be in a better position than me to guess when that will happen.

I submit that those numbers also support my contention that we need some automation/assembly-line thinking if we're going to significantly increase the ratio of FAs to articles. Can you tell me what the graph looks like of FAs per 1000 articles? I think I saw a graph like that somewhere, don't remember where. Anyway, if we're going to be the encyclopedia we want to be, we need that ratio (FA/1000A) to be increasing at a rate that puts us over 10% FAs inside, say, ten or fifteen years. I doubt our current progress will achieve that.

One other point, just to demonstrate that I am basely competitive. I think you miscounted HurricaneHink's contributions: according to Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2007 he has only eleven in 2007. I know this because a while back someone asked a similar question on WT:FAC, and I did an Excel sort of the data then and discovered I was in the lead. I think I still am, though Awadewit is close. (At least I didn't respond to this note of yours!) Of course, it may be that Hink does have 18 in 2007 and the data on that list page are wrong. Mike Christie (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The solar system articles are a good case to look at. Consider pre-assembly-line industrialization: a group of workers took a single artefact through from start to finish. That's how the solar system articles are done. We're looking for order of magnitude productivity improvements; isn't the analogy quite direct?
I personally believe WikiProjects are the way to implement management of the content piece of the assembly line, but that's not critical to the idea that an assembly line is necessary. I also think MoS should be pulled out as a separate expertise, for all the same reasons. That doesn't denigrate it or make it less important; it makes it a specialization, which is a prerequisite for productivity improvements. Mike Christie (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
More later on restarting a workshop discussion. In the meantime, since you asked, here is a list of everyone with at least 3 FAs in 2007. Sorry about the ugly formatting:

Mike Christie 17 Awadewit 14 Hurricanehink 11 DrKiernan 10 Yomangani 10 Casliber 9 Serendipodous 9 17Drew 8 Nishkid64 8 Ceoil 7 David Fuchs 7 Dineshkannambadi 7 Epbr123 7 RJH 7 TimVickers 7 Blnguyen 6 ChrisTheDude 6 Cla68 6 CloudNine 6 PericlesofAthens 6 Dweller 5 heyjude 5 Ibaranoff24 5 M3tal H3ad 5 Marskell 5 Shudde 5 WesleyDodds 5 Woody 5 Alasdair 4 Angmering 4 Cas Liber 4 Cirt 4 DCGeist 4 Deckiller 4 Giano 4 J. Spencer 4 Jackyd101 4 JayHenry 4 Karanacs 4 LuciferMorgan 4 NSR77 4 Qp10qp 4 Rlevse 4 Scartol 4 The Rambling Man 4 Acdixon 3 Alientraveller 3 BillDeanCarter 3 Bookworm857158367 3 BQZip01 3 Brandt Luke Zorn 3 Carre 3 Dihydrogen Monoxide 3 Dmoon1 3 Geuiwogbil 3 Guyinblack25 3 Lenin and McCarthy 3 Ling.Nut 3 michael 3 Paaerduag 3 Scorpion 3 SGGH 3 Sheep81 3 Sjones23 3 Teemu08 3 The Land 3 TomStar81 3 TonyTheTiger 3

My personal goal is two a month, and I'm just about at that level now (my first FA in 2007 was promoted at the end of April). Anyway, more later. Mike Christie (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I pasted the table from Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2007 into Excel as text, and then did some sorting and a few other manipulations. That table (and the 2006, 2005 etc. analogues) are the basis for WP:WBFAN, I gather. If you search the 2007 page for "Casliber" you'll find 9 instances. I think the list I give is probably an accurate representation of the data on that page; whether that page itself has the accurate dates I couldn't tell you. Perhaps the 2007 page shows nomination dates, but ArticleHistory shows promotion dates? If so, Hink may well have 18. Mike Christie (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Just checked again, and that page is indeed based on nomination date. If you want to use promotion date to get a list, it would be best to get a bot to do it, though it wouldn't be too hard to check the start and end. If you want to use nomination date, we'll have to wait till everything nominated in December is promoted or archived -- I think there are still dozens from December waiting. Mike Christie (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am stealing time on a phone line on a very slow dialup at someone's house ... guys, don't forget the FAR saves ... we'd have a lot less FAs if not for Yomangani, Dr Kiernan, Ceoil, Qp10qp, Marskell, Cas liber and quite a few others (sorry, can't look up the citations list right now) ... full credit where credit due, and when you add those in, it makes a difference. I'm proud of the folk who work both ends, but they get no credit at the FAR end of things. Don't forget to look over the citations page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your input requested

You are more of an expert than I with regards to the goings on at WP:FAR. Can you please weigh in at Wikipedia:Featured article review/A Tale of a Tub regarding two issues: (1) - People expressing a "Keep" sentiment way too early in the process, contrary to what's stated at WP:FAR "In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "remove"." and also (2) - Your thoughts on what I have laid out as numerous WP:OR violations in the article's present state. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

  • Thanks. Could you make some sort of comment at Wikipedia:Featured article review/A Tale of a Tub? You are correct it's getting a bit heated, and at times the focus of the discussion is shifting to me, as opposed to a discussion/debate about the issues I brought up in the initial FAR nom, and a discussion over in-line cites/WP:OR issues and other topics that are worthy of discussion at WP:FAR. Cirt (talk) 08:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC).
    • Thank you, your comment is most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC).
      • I have laid out my specific points about WP:OR violations within the article in detail, and yet only one user Haukurth (talk · contribs), specifically responded to any of these points. Respectfully, I defer to your judgment and that of Joelr31 (talk · contribs) for the rest of the FAR proceedings. My points were already made in detail at the top of the FAR - the rest seems to be, unfortunately, just a generalized debate over things that should instead be discussed at the talk pages of either WP:OR, WP:RS, or WP:V. Cirt (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Can you please help at Wikipedia:Featured article review/A Tale of a Tub? There are one or two editors so far that have actually responded to the specific points that I raised - but other comments are attempting to divert the discussion from WP:OR in the article itself - to an ad hominem overgeneralization and outright negation of all of my comments as a whole! Cirt (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC).
    • Thanks for your comment. What makes you think that all of the "enormous gang-up on the nominator" is driven by off-site chatter? Cirt (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC).
      • Thanks for your comments, and your conduct overall. I guess I won't ever be taking anything to WP:FAR ever again. At least, not for a while. Your comment, (and your prior comments) and comments from Ceoil (talk · contribs) summed up my experience pretty well. Cirt (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Whoarewehuntington.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Whoarewehuntington.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not a Good Day to Die

I saw the question you posed to Swatjester, and would like to offer my aid. I own a copy of Naylor's Not a Good Day to Die, and I'd be willing to provide information from it.--LWF (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ganymede

I vote for co-nom. I going to expand the section about atmosphere today. Ruslik (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I just finished three sections: Composition, Atmosphere and Ionosphere and Magnetosphere. I think they are resonably comprehensive now. Can you read them and make a copy-edit if necessary? Please tell me if you find that the meaning is not clear. I will try to improve Internal structure and Origin and evolution sections in the next week. Ruslik (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article review/Macintosh

Still some things to improve, but it's definitely not a remove in my opinion. BuddingJournalist 20:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, no problem about the rollback. It looks like the user's been MIA recently anyway, so it probably doesn't matter. Should the subpages be blanked and the FAR template on the talk pages of those articles be removed? Thanks for the kind words! BuddingJournalist 21:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and blanked the subpages and removed the FAR template from the talk pages. BuddingJournalist 19:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Would you mind taking a look at an article, Le Paradis massacre for me? I'm a new editor, and I was wondering if you might have any suggestions for it, and whether it could ever be a FA? No worries if you're too busy. Kind Regards, Mattyness (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Apologies

re:this - You're absolutely right, and I take full responsibility for the problem. I've been an absentee landlord where FAR is concerned, having turned over the day-to-day running of it to you and Joel (both of whom do a wonderful job) and when a trainwreck like that occurs it's my responsibility to take the bull by the horns. Raul654 (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

I've watchlisted both of the pages you linked, and I'll take a look at the Music article FAR when I get a chance. If WP:FAR is the main page for new FARs, I will watchlist that as well, and try to check periodically for lit/history/movies/music articles I might be able to help with. However, since I do focus mostly on writing content, I don't know how much real help I'm going to be. I feel like I've spent an inordinate amount of time thinking/writing about the Tub FAR as it is. I know that the "nuts-and-bolts" namespace side of the project needs attention too, but I've just found content creation to be more rewarding (and less stressful!) than the namespace work. I will try to drop by from time to time, though, so thanks for the note. Regards, -- Bellwether BC 18:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Adminship

I'm flattered, but I'm not too interested in adminship at the moment. The tools probably wouldn't be much use to me since I don't do much that would require "the mop". Thanks though! BuddingJournalist 20:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I've got rollback. Much more efficient than popups revert. :) BuddingJournalist 17:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ganymede's atmosphere

Voyager found nothing, i.e. it found no evidence that the light of a star changed when it passed near Ganymede. It only determined the upper limit—2.5 ×10-5 μBar. The HST later detected an atmosphere close to this upper limit. Why Voyager found nothing, but HST found something? Actually Voyager obsevered occultation of a star in the wavelength range 90-170 nm, which was not sensitive enough to the presence of such a thin atmosphere. Wavelengths shorther than 90 nm, where such an atmosphere could have been easily revealed, are blocked by the interstellar hydrogen. HST (STIS), which is much more sensitive instrument than Voyager's UVS (ultaviolet spectrometer), observed emissions of the atomic oxygen. Voyager (UVS) also tried to observe oxygen emissions but failed due to interference from the Jovian magnetosphere—noise was too high. Ruslik (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As to the sodium, because they found nothing I think it is appropriate to say 'nothing'. I also think that the abstact of ref [47] is not well written. It may wrongly convey an impression that they detected sodium. In fact they found no features of Na in the spectra of Ganymede. The number they cite is only the upper limit. The real amount of sodium may be much lower. Ruslik (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Withdraw?

WTF dude? Who's being hurt by the nom? Nobody. WP:OWN, okay? Nobody is going to be prejudiced against renomination, and this nom has already saved them the peer review. And who made you Clayoquot's advocat? It seems you're the discourteous one here. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've just read your diatribe at FAC, and let me make a few things clear to you:

  • You are not going to urge me to do something, and include a very poor lecture on common courtesy with it.
  • You are not going to reprimand me for your assessment of people's ability to read the edit history of the page being nominated. Not only are you pissing the fuck out of me, you are also putting everybody else beneath you, and that just sucks, let me be plain and honest about that.
  • I've been around for at least as long as you have, including at FAC, FARC, GAC, etc. If you want to stir up a conflict, I'm going to head it off with you. Is that understood?

I strongly suggest you withdraw your insults at FAC.

Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prague Spring

Hi, if you have time, I was wondering whether you could give the article a good copyedit and make a general assessment of the way it's written. It probably has its flaws, and it's not a very long article so it shouldn't take up that much of your time. If you can do that it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!--The Dominator (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So how long before you can do that? Because I wanted to be able to take it to GA review in the next couple of days.--The Dominator (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that was... impressive to say the least, great job! So do you think it will have a chance to pass GA? I've spent the past wiki-week looking for sources.--The Dominator (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it a bit too short for FA? I realize that there isn't an actual criteria for length, but its still a bit general, there are two sub-articles, Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia (1968) and Normalization (Czechoslovakia) but I'm still not sure if it's adequate. Thoughts?--The Dominator (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah that works.--The Dominator (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I realize that it neglects major facts, but it has a lot of articles related to it, so the info is on Wikipedia, just not in the Prague Spring article. I think the major area it neglects would be the background, and the reactions to the invasion, and the info is in these articles: Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, Ota Šik, Jan Palach, Normalization (Czechoslovakia), History of Czechoslovakia (1948–1989), Alexander Dubček, Antonín Novotný and Ludvík Svoboda among others. I would like to see the article get to GA status before I start expanding it, but I'll get to work on something in my sandbox.--The Dominator (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Added some info, look:[1]--The Dominator (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 FA noms

See Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations/2007. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What are we going to do with this list? We need to do something. Also, these are the folks I've identified who have three or more "FAR saves" during 2007 (some others high on the "save" list actually had more saves in 2006).

Ceoil

  1. Augusta, Lady Gregory
  2. George Moore (novelist)
  3. H.D.
  4. Heavy metal music
  5. Imagism
  6. Punk rock
  7. Representative peer
  8. Royal Assent
  9. William Butler Yeats

Dr Kiernan

  1. Charles II of England
  2. Coronation of the British monarch
  3. George I of Great Britain
  4. George IV of the United Kingdom
  5. George Moore (novelist)
  6. Privilege of Peerage

Deckiller

  1. Kakapo
  2. Sandy Koufax
  3. Sly & the Family Stone

Yomangani

  1. Anne of Great Britain
  2. Common scold
  3. Order of the Thistle

Mav has four in 2007, but they are FAs he authored, so he already "gets credit" so to speak at WBFAN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that list should go into the signpost for their 2007 year in review series. Ditto with the saves -- these people deserve credit. Think of being mentioned in the signpost as the Wikipedia equivalent of being Mentioned in Despatches Raul654 (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Dr pda, Cas liber, and Qp10qp also have two 2007 saves, but I may have missed other editors that also have two. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there are probably many editors involved in two or three saves, so if we list them, we risk leaving out someone that I missed. But I feel strongly about Ceoil and Dr Kiernan deserving some sort of mention for their contribution. How do we get this in the Signpost? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

{{Articlehistory}} was implemented in January 2007. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This is where it starts getting even vaguer to assign who 'saved' an article- I did alot to save schizophrenia but also several of us collaborated pretty equally in spurts on Humpback Whale, Blue Whale and Kakapo...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is tricky, since my list above only includes those from the citations list (that is, it doesn't include schizophrenia, asperger or autism - two for Eubulides). And I already thought of one who probably has two saves (Wesley Dodds). Do we all agree that Ceoil and Dr K probably have an unusual amount of "saves"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC) (yes - now lets go and choose something nice from the award page..)cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

...............ahaaaaaaa....Ceoil gets a one of these for punk rock...hehehe. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

WesleyDodds made significant contributions to 5 saves that I know of: Sex Pistols, Punk Rock, Heavy metal music , Hey Jude and Grunge music. Ceoil (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
There's the problem: I only pick up those that were on the citations list. Sex Pistols was 2006, and Hey Jude and Grunge music weren't on the citations review list. So I miss half. Method doesn't work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Mmm, we need a bot, or someone with a high tolerence for tedious work to sort this out! Ceoil (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Or, we could just say that Ceoil and DocK have gone above and beyond, and leave it at that :-) former high tolerance for tedious worker SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Screw you, Wesley Dodds! Ceoil (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I heard that. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ganymede again

Partially, it is already in the article (see the last sentence in the second paragraph in 'Composition'). As to the surface features, I think they belong to 'Surface features' section.

The separate Notes section would be a good idea if there were a lot of calculations in the article. Currently there is only three short notes - 2,26,44. Ruslik (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant the density increases to the center of Ganymede and that the relative (to the average density) increase is the largest among solid bodies in the Solar System. For comparison: in the Earth av.den.=5.5 g/cm3, core denstiy=8 g/cm3 and relative increase=8/5.5; in the Ganymede av.den.=1.93 g/cm3, core density=6 g/cm3, relative increase 6/1.93. However I think this sentence can be removed.

I searched the History but could not find anything like "while Ganymede's ocean is sandwiched between layers of ice, Europa's is in direct contact with hypdrothermal vents, lowering the probability of life on the former". I actually preserved the last two sentences in 'Internal structure' but they are different.

I share you concern about thickness of the prose and I am trying to keep the article as short as possible. However some things require lengthy explanations. I think after the major writing is finished it will be possible to remove some insignificant facts. Ruslik (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S.

Besides I do not think that you the junior partner. Without your copy-edits I would be unable to make the article briliant. Ruslik (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Er, sorry

No, I didn't realize you were volunteering. Sorry about that. I guess I was projecting from what my own behaviour would have been; I might suggest something but know I don't have time for it. (Actually the facilitator role on the workshop is a bit like that.)

Anyway, the main thing was to make sure we had enough people, and we do, so if you're on board too that's only to the good. I have to run to a meeting now, but I'll post again afterwards. Sorry about the misunderstanding. Mike Christie (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. Marskell (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LEAD

As you can probably tell, I am a big fan of WP:LEAD too, and so I must express my gratitude to you for holding to a canonical line. This really works.

Nice....- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, CBM and I are watching it, among others, so I don't think anyone's going to go 3RR. I hope we can stabilize it at your version until there is clear talk page consensus for any changes.

By the way, in the midst of all this reverted stuff, I really liked CBM's small change. Although, I could imagine this might be a step on the way to diluting the canonical wording. Geometry guy 21:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. In view of the above thread, I've added you to the FA-Team list! This is just a joke in my user space, but it also provides a list of people who are keen to help out with this kind of activity, which might prove to be useful. Feel free to edit it or ignore it :-)

[edit] Palazzo Pitti

Marskell, can you doublecheck this? I may have missed someting. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked at Macintosh; almost there, but needs a bit of elbow grease still from the main editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Triton

I've done as much as I can, but I have no idea if what I have done is any good. This whole thing's been a bit above my head. Even so, there are still plenty of facts I can't cite. Even with all necessary citations, I don't see it reaching FA. Serendipodous 01:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Music of the US FAR

Don't worry Tim. I was going to close at keep also. Joelito (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA team volunteering

Another post, with a little more time -- I just wanted to apologize again. I can see now, rereading the sequence, that you were intending to be part of any volunteer group; "I could be on a team that..." is pretty clear. So I hope you'll forgive me for moving a little too fast there.

Anyway, it looks, sadly, as if Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries is moribund. Over 24 hours and no response to the note; I doubt we will turn up a team of four or five interested editors there. I guess we should leave it a few days to be quite sure, and if there's no response, try to identify another project to suggest the idea to.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not moribund, but the project clearly isn't interested. I think moving on to the next wikiproject would be a good idea. Geometry guy 22:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Musa Qala

That was the first FA I've worked on. Perhaps if, as you say, you may fancy working on something smaller. take a look at the Battle of Magdala. I stuck my nose into that on the 8th November 2007 for info, about my old regiments history and ended up editing it, plus inserting a few photo's from my archive collection. At least there will be no battling over unfolding battle event facts and media reports. :0) Richard Harvey (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Science

Science gives a partial free access to anybody who registers with Science (see[2]). Research Articles, which are at least 1 year old and published after 1996, are usually available. Some Reports are also available. Detailed access chart is here [3].

In addition there are free references. It means, if have access to an article, go to reflist. If you see a Free Ref in it you can download that article even if you normally don't have access to it. Ruslik (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mil Hist Project

Hi Marskell! I see what you mean about research with no books! Your lack of a library in the area is a bit of a constraint, even in my rural area we have mobile lending libraries, who you can order any book through from the national Library chain, but you can only have it for a week or two. :) Although I do add bits of input to Mil Hist articles I haven't actually joined the project. This is mostly as I have a serious lack of time to spend on wiki these days and spend that monitoring articles I have worked on. I am currently involved in a long term voluntary (unpaid) project for a military Museum to digitise books, diaries, photo's and donated photo albums from old soldiers, or the relatives of those departed. My particular skill is images and film and I have digitised 30,000+ of them over the past 24 months alone, with many 10's of thousands still to do. Some I do are for people who are just interested in getting their own personal memories on show for the public, such as these for a charitable trust set up by a former WW2 British officer:- John Bearder War Diary, which for some odd reason starts at the bottom of a page and works upwards! Richard Harvey (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Its a combination of the two. Ones produced from photographers in regiments / units is eventually archived by those units after release by security / int Officers. Some media relating to units is received from other units and non military external sources. Where they are from external sources then those sources hold the copyright. When any film or photo is produced from any 'Crown' department it may be freely used by another 'Crown' department. If photographs and video film are produced by soldiers, who are not designated as unit photographers, using their own equipment then that media is their own property and subsequently they own the copyrights. I would estimate that of officially produced media less than 10% is released and when it is then it is subject to 50 years of copyright, before getting PD status, from the day of release. I have a private collection of film and images amounting to some 3TB on HDD's. For a while I have considered putting some historical film clips, which I have digitised into VOB and AVI files, onto Wikicommons. However to do so they need to be in Ogg format. Until I can locate a free open-source program, that works in MS Windows, to convert the video's, they will also remain unseen. Richard Harvey (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3-4 Months

I'm fine with basement-dwelling, though I am more mountain than basement orientated. You might direct your super powers towards Filiocht's Abbey Theatre, which I offer as a blood sacrifice to outriggr's memory (blood ans poems please that one). Its was on Sandy's hitlist, but I think is ok now. Thank you, oh mighty one. Ceoil (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Since you did ask "who beats Ezra in terms of knocking you over", it shifts, but at the moment Paul Durcan, Wordsworth, and am going through a big movement phase. Contrary? What can I say, tá me moody (you have noticed, I'm sure). Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAC comments

Marskell, I have made it clear that I will reduce my activity on WP, partly as a result of your comments, the latest of which, while on the surface including an apology, seems to attempt to fling the severest blow yet: "Samsara is not positioned to handle this nomination." [4]

You have apparently not listened to anything I have said and simply felt it necessary to make a token apology that would seem to settle matters. Well, I'm back, and I've read what you wrote, and I very strongly feel that I am fully able to handle an FAC nomination. If you have anything to add to your comments, I would very much like to hear it. To make matters completely clear to you once again:

  1. There are no guidelines as to who may nominate an article. There is nothing that stops anybody from co-nominating an article. We have established that you assumed bad faith, perhaps ignorant of the fact that I had begun to help with editing the article, and the fact that I have previously brought similar articles to FA status as a major contributor. If you wish to make a comment regarding to the information that you did not take into account, please do.
  2. I have made it clear that I will not reveal my credentials on WP, and I fully support treating editors equal regardless of academic background, or absence thereof. Therefore your challenge can best be described as malicious and poisonous to the spirit of Wikipedia. Again, if you wish to add any more context to your comments, please do!

We will settle this matter. Ball's in your park. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giant otter

What do you need?[5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Spouse says giant otter is a perro de agua (but he doesn't disagree with lobo del rio - no accents on my laptop), and a sea otter is an oso de agua. You could ask Joelito. By the way, which reminds me ... of the Hurrican FAR ... Titoxd (my other Spanish source) seems to have left Wiki, hasn't been back since Dec 13. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So far, I'm not finding much similar to the Cultural section from Sea otter. I'll keep looking. Will anything from Duplaix generate some search terms for me? For your consideration:

  • Mention of dynamiting in fishing issue: [6] Also, note in that report confusion over names.
  • Names: nutria gigante, perro del agua (Venezuela), lobo del río and others[7][8] (Londra in Bolivia needs to be checked out, I'm suspicious because of this.) Another list of names from the Spanish wiki that needs to be confirmed relative to naming confusion mentioned in IUCN report above:[9] It's important to include nutria because that's what they call the very common fur coats sold in Argentina. (No, I did not.)
  • Diane McTurk in Guyana, there's an e-mail address, she may have access to some folklore or cultural stories: [10][11][12][13][14][15]
  • Peruvian Shawi (indigenous) myth involving lobo del rio: will have to translate unless we can find it in English.[16]. Not certain it's worth following up, doesn't say much, and not very significant. It's a myth about a city of water, and the role each animal plays. Coincidente con los shawis, para el pueblo kichwa dentro del mundo del agua, dicen, existe una gran ciudad donde vive la madre del agua, Yaku runa, gente del agua, encargada de cuidar a los peces y animales. El tigre negro hace de guardián, el lobo del río y lagartos hacen las veces de canoas, mientras charapas y taricayas hacen de asiento.
  • From a Colombian study of indigenous communities, some cultural perceptions:[17][18] Tell me if you want more from this.
    • En general por lo que se expuso en los talleres y las entrevistas, las comunidades indígenas no tienen una buena percepción hacia la nutria gigante o perro de agua como es llamada en la zona. En todas las comunidades visitadas se ve a la especie como un problema el cual esta interfiriendo en la pesca y puede llegar a acabarla. Generally viewed as a nuisance among the village people studies because it interferes with fishing. En todas las comunidades a excepción de Sabanitas la primera solución que planteaban para el problema en los talleres, fue matar a todos los perros de agua, seguidamente al comentar la importancia en el ecosistema de la especie y contarles que era una especie que se encontraba en vía de extinción y que ya en muchas partes de su distribución inicial se había extinto, los pescadores estuvieron de acuerdo en que la mejor solución era mandar a todos los perros de agua que habitaban el río Inirida a los sitios que no había presencia de la especie, ya fuera otros departamentos del país o otros países. No mostraron ningún interés en que la especie siga existiendo en la zona, solo expusieron su interés por deshacerse de esta, en la figura 10 podemos notar un poco de la percepción de las comunidades hacia la especie, en el árbol del problema elaborado por los participantes al taller en la comunidad Yuri. Fisherman's first instinct was to kill them all, or to relocate them to other countries. If you want to use this, will translate more specifically. The same report says that fat from the Giant Otter is used to calm muscle pains and the fur is used to calm people who have some problem with a fish (need help translating that, because it makes no sense to me). Conclusion: La percepción que tienen las comunidades indígenas de la zona hacia la nutria gigante, es una amenaza para la especie. The perception that indigenous communitites in the area have towards the Giant Otter is a threat to the species.
      • Public awareness via children's coloring book undertaken in Peru:[19]
  • Information about Giant Otters in captivity, [20] a Bolivian freshwater protected area, [21] and a Peruvian preserve [22]
  • Weird bloggish site, mentions that some scientists believe that Loch ness is a giant sea otter: [23] Worth further investigation? Otros científicos, como el zoólogo alemán, conde Vojkffy, piensan que no se trataría de una foca sino de una nutria gigante. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Londra is in use in Boliva (don't ask for a cite!) and I think lobito del río sounds cuter than lobo del río (Oh look, I found a cite straight off after all [24]). Yomanganitalk 01:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Look who's here :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm still confused about the Londra: that site mentions Su parecido a la nutria, su conducta peculiar, su carisma y sus hábitos diurnos lo hacen uno de los seres más llamativos de la zona tropical. Is it a different beast from the nutria? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I assume nutria in that context means a generic otter (whichever is common in the region). Yomanganitalk 10:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Spanish wiki has nutria. It's lontra on Portugese. Marskell (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, nutria just means otter. I think in the doc Sandy was asking about they were just comparing the Giant otter to whichever otter species is common in Bolivia (Neotropical?). Yomanganitalk 10:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
What do ariraí and ariranha mean? (Spanish and Portugese, respectively, I think.) Marskell (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Alternative names for the Giant otter. I don't think it means anything in Spanish - looking at it I'd guess it is borrowed from Portuguese (like I know!). I like lobo gargantilla which seems to be used in Argentina at least - little-throated wolf. Yomanganitalk 10:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I've never seen those two terms used anywhere, so I'm not sure about using them. The others are all common; unless you find a source referring to arirai and ariranha, you might avoid them. Or ask Jossi or Joelito for another opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I'll work on the rest later today. TimVickers (talk · contribs) podcast is linked at the very bottom of his userpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been editing for five hours (since after breakfast), and still haven't made it to the Otter. Discouraged. Time for a break. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAC comments, trying again

That link you provided isn't a reply to anything I've said. Are you actually going to bother, or is a shrug all you have? I find that pretty poor, to be honest. Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vädersolstavlan

Hello,
You are a volunteered copyeditor listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and I'd be glad if you could have a look at the article Vädersolstavlan I just nominated for peer reviewing. My shortcomings in English most likely makes copyediting both necessary and easy.
Thanks
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advisory

Hi Marskell, the point of the "advised to follow" wording was to keep it in line with the policies and guidelines pages that says guidelines are advisory in nature -- which is what distinguishes them from policies. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 12:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Advisory is fine -- it's the word used elsewhere. I've left a comment on Template talk:Style-guideline. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 12:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Could we talk about it on that talk page, so that Tony can join in? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 12:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ganymede: things to do

I finished 'Origin and evolution' section. Thus only 'Surface features' section is left. However I think that the geology of Ganymede deserves a special article, which I am not ready to write now. Therefore I am going to expand this section only slightly without going into much details. After that only two things will remain: images (add, move or shuffle) and the lead, which should be updated to reflect the content of the article. I think the by the end of the next week the article will be finished. Ruslik (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A peek into the crystal ball...

Which of these versions do you think works best? Serendipodous 17:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phantom

That article has been up for over two months, and half of the sources I checked and rewrote were personal, hobby websites. Not encouraging. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)