User talk:Dana boomer/Archive 12

WikiCup 2012 August newsletter
The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:
 * 1) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
 * 2) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
 * 3) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
 * 4) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
 * 5) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
 * 6) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
 * 7) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
 * 8) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.

However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle:, , , , , , and. We hope to see you all next year.

On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

GAN Cabbage
Hi,

I've reviewed your GAN at Talk:Cabbage/GA1. I apologize in advance if the review is confusing, but I did have difficulty figuring out the article. It seemed inconsistent in places and some of the terms were confusing to me. Please feel free to ask me about anything in the review that is unclear to you.

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * hey! Haven't forgotten Cabbage, just been really busy and too distracted. Your replies to my comments there are reasonable. I'll get to it this weekend. Sorry! MathewTownsend (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem! I'm still working on a few of the comments, so you don't need to be in any big hurry. Dana boomer (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a few very minor comments and its good to go! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

FAR
…seems pretty stale. Most of the FARC section hasn't moved in weeks now. How much more stale do things need to get before those articles are de-featured? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Online Ambassador
Hi Dana boomer! Are you interested in being the Online Ambassador for any classes this term? We've got a few classes that are looking for ambassador right now (Canada, US), so if you're up for helping any, please do! Let me know if you have any questions, or if you'd like me to pick a course for you.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Appaloosa TFAR
I was surprised to find this was never a TFA. I know you, Montanabw, and others love horses and I have a big fondness for Appys, the lead pic is wonderful, and I think this would make a fine TFA, so I have nom'd it for Oct 5. Pumpkin Sky  talk  02:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)
Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.

If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Update for: WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)
Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Precious

 * Enjoy the ride, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gerda! Dana boomer (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 September newsletter


We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. currently leads, followed by, and. However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.

It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!

The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - October 2012
Delivered October 3, 2012 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter any longer, please remove your name from this list. → Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 05:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Your article
Sorry you didn't like my tweaks of the captions, and I'll stay out of it from here on, but that reviewer's comment about a "guideline" that breed names don't belong in image captions is just bullshit and makes for clunky-sounding captions. I understand if you don't want any conflict, and will respect if don't want to fight about it, but it's obviously something the reviewer just misinterpreted; look at our previous FAs for, among other things, Appaloosa, which will be TFA on Friday. I think you are a dear and good human being, and I suppose you must choose your battles, but I for one don't want to fight this issue elsewhere, not in a TFA on Friday nor the next time I have an article up for GA. (Similarly, I loathe the people who want us to add stupid things like "the horse's dam, or mommy and his sire, or daddy..." it's just stupid stuff.) But if you want to just do it to avoid drama with the reviewer, I won't push it on this article. Still, "modern example of the breed" is clunky, nonetheless. ;-)  Montanabw (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)  Follow up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Captions has nothing that says you can't put the subject of the article into a caption; it says not to wikilink it, and that in an infobox it's not really needed, if you have nothing more to add (in your case, though, "Stallion" is relevant).   Montanabw (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * MBW, have a word with Dana :/ Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure why she needs to "have a word" with me - I'm simply following guidelines. Also, Montana, since Cwm... (can't spell his full name without looking it up) couldn't come up with a guideline, I'm going to do some more work on the captions (adding back in the breed name in at least one spot), as soon as we work out the ref issues. As you say, mainly just avoiding drama, but I've had this non-guideline come up before...not sure where people are getting the suggestion from... To your followup, that's the way that I was reading MOS:Captions, but figured maybe I was missing something. Dana boomer (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm still in a mildly pissy mood today, so I'm just going to comment below and suggest we drop the sfn spat for now. I'll let Dana deal with Cwm, who I think is a troll; I'll give Dana credit for wanting to see the good in people, even when undeserved.  I like both you guys, and so just behave and AGF, OK?    Montanabw (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * ah, an apt section heading:

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Br'er, please revert yourself. You are making significant changes to reference formatting without discussion, which is completely unacceptable. I'm sorry that you think WP:CITEVAR is "BS" (per your e-mail), but it is a guideline - either get it changed or follow it. I see no place that says to add those stupid little quotation marks to the ref names - they're annoying. However, I've ignored it where you've added it in other articles without discussion, because I didn't want to make a fuss. However, you've now progressed to changing citation formats without discussion, which is beyond where I can sit back and not say anything. Again, please revert yourself and refrain from making significant changes to ref formatting in a recently passed FA (or any article, for that matter), without discussion. Dana boomer (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Br'er, on this one, I think we need to let the refs stay as is. I know sfn is the wave of the future, much as I find it difficult to change and harder to read, but citevar is ok by the wikigods for now, so no sense derailing an FA over a citation format discussion.  I was OK with your changes at Appaloosa because I know it's going TFA, which is dramah land even on a slow day, and I also reviewed your swap and saw no errors. But on this, in the middle of an FA review, it's very time-consuming to do that sort of accuracy check and review, and with other people after you about other, often silly issues, it's just a time sink that is not needed in the heat of the moment.  So let's back off for now and discuss sfn after we have the FA review; I don't see it as an issue that derails the nomination, so let's wait.   Montanabw (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ultimately, CITEVAR is the guiding thing here, and changing from a perfectly fine citation system to your preferred version again after you've been reverted is edit warring... plain and simple. Strongly suggest you revert yourself and do the perfectly fine fixes minus the sfn changes. I have to run out, but I'm with Dana on this one... you're tilting at windmills and that usually leads to trouble. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like Br'er's last sfn at least kept everything looking the same in most respects, and the cleanup within the full citations is good, but Br'er, for the sake of peace, let's keep format for now.  I still don't fully understand why sfn is all the rage, precisely, but it seems there IS some logical reason for it.  (though the editing window template doesn't do it yet, so I can see why we are slow to change if the wikigods haven't)  I am willing to have that discussion and to move toward using it in the future, but as someone who doesn't really get how to use mass automation rules, to tackle this stuff manually is very daunting.  My  understanding. Br'er, is that you can use tools to swap in sfn in just a few seconds, if we revert for now, discuss and get a more solid understanding of the process, it's not that tough to redo it later, though if we do it by hand it will take time.   I also don't get the harv parameter, either, by the way.  Personally, my view is that if I do the ref my way and someone else with tools does a syntax change that doesn't alter what the reader sees, I'm not going to kick about it, but I may still manually keyboard in things my way and let other people "fix" them if I don't really understand the structure of the syntax.  I'm not a programmer in the least.  Montanabw (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Re:Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident FAR
Maybe I need some time to be familar with EnWiki. Thanks for your reminding. But when could I put the FAR template?--A20120312 (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Indian history FARs
Hi Dana, I've been looking through a few articles and whilst Chola dynasty has a few tags, it's probably one of the better ones! Western Ganga Dynasty is a bigger problem as the article does not rely on mainstream sources at all, unlike the Chola dynasty one where use of outdated or fringe sources is in the minority. A bigger problem here is the level of synth in it. While the Chola one deviates from key sources (Stein / Kulke / U Singh / Thapar et al) on occasion, some of the others hardly ever find commonality with them. Our article on the main source doesn't give me any confidence either. There's a cluster of these FAs related to Western Ganga (I think around ten when I counted -- Chalukya, Hoysala, Mysore etc) and they all have this problem. How do you suggest we go about this? cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  14:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll ask Fowler and RegentsPark (he identified the seriousness of the WG mess, apparently everything online is just a mirror!) to take a look and participate in this conversation. I'll do that at my talk page (and copy my post above) so that it's centralized, hopefully you can watchlist it. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  15:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Note to Nikkimaria
Raul 654 has not edited since August. He is the FA director. I left a message with Nikkimania and also want you to look at it. It is about the President Obama FAR. It's way, way past the 2-3 week time frame and, according to the instructions, should be moved to step 3. I would anticipate a careful re-write of several months/weeks which would bring the article back to FA status. Please look at Nikkimaria and approve the 3rd FA review status. Thank you.

Note my disclaimer. I am not a US citizen and do not live or edit from the U.S. I am completely for a better Wikipedia and am not a Democrat, Republican, or Independent. Wawaxi (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As a FAR delegate, I don't think the article should ever have been brought to FAR, since the talk page discussion step was never exhausted. However, even after I quite clearly expressed that opinion on the talk page, the article was still brought to FAR. Due to this, I am going to leave a decision on what to do with the FAR up to Nikki (which I have already told her). If I were acting as a delegate, I would close the FAR as out of process and tell you all to go back to discussing on the talk page like you're supposed to do as a first step. If there are intractable content disputes, take them to a content noticeboard; if there are concerns about sources, take them to the reliable sources noticeboard. FAR is not the place for content disputes. Dana boomer (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, saw this on my watchlist but wanted to deal with the discussion first to avoid prejudicing myself - doesn't look like that made much difference! Anyways, as a head's up, Microsoft Security Essentials would seem to be an out-of-process nom because it was only promoted last month - I reviewed it at FAC and would rather leave it to you to decide whether it warrants removal or whether this is an IAR situation. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's about what I would have done, but I was already a little opinionated about it on the talk page, so thought I'd leave it to you. I'll take a look at MSE tonight (need to go cook dinner!). Also, there are two of my noms in the FAR section that you'll need to grab when they're ready - Gregorian chant and Barbara McClintock. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do. By the way, if you haven't seen it - sorry about that, but I was hoping to avoid having bias added to the process complaints. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Premature close of Microsoft Security Essentials FAR
I am writing to request that you undo your premature close of this review. The grounds for doing so was that it is only a recent promotion but that is the whole point: as I made clear it is my firm view should never have been promoted in the first instance. If I have to take it to more formal dispute resolution I will do so: I'm prepared to take it as far as Arbcomm if need be, but this is the appropriate forum in the first instance to attempt a relatively informal resolution. I note that during the brief period it was open the comments broke down into two threads: those that have been heavily involved in creating the article and those that opposed for precisely the reasons I nominated it for review. Surely that is worth proper reconsideration? Quantumsilverfish (talk) 07:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ArbCom doesn't deal with anything related to the featured article process. Believe me, I tried. --Rschen7754 07:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how attempting to get the article's FA status removed falls into the category of "relatively informal resolution". And, honestly, FAR is not set up to handle dispute resolution between two entrenched camps of editors - all that will most likely happen if the review is allowed to run is a close with "no consensus to delist" after several months of arguments. ArbCom doesn't rule on content disputes. Instead, I would suggest something like the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard or a WP:Request for comment. The last step in content-dispute resolution is WP:Requests for mediation. Also, I will note that on the talk page, prior to initiating the FAR, you were asked to give more specifics and the main editor indicated a willingness to work with you. Instead, you disappeared for over two weeks from the discussion, then reappeared and, without answering her request for specifics, nominated the article for FAR. This is not a proper adherence to the first step of the FAR process. Dana boomer (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I stated elsewhere I am often away with work on oil rigs and as such my contributions are frequently intermittent. When I came back I found needless abuse pointed in my direction and complete dismissal of my arguments.  As for escalation, there are other avenues apart from Arbcom and indeed a procedural objection.  Both you and Nikkimara derive authority from that delegated by Raul654 who is the one who actually has responsibility to the community.  I will be asking why Raul654 blocked review of Raul654's actions.  That is something Arbcomm can consider.


 * In any case, you will note this is not a content dispute, but a challenge of the decision to award FA status in the first place. My contention is that it never did meet any semblance of FA standard and thus the decision is in error. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No, you believe that the decision was in error, not at all the same thing. Malleus Fatuorum 13:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, it is my contention. The fact that there is no independent review process, and that attempts to review decisions can be blocked by the very set of users that made them in the first instance is surely a matter for Arbcomm.  If it passed that review that is ultimately too bad, but there must be a mechanism in place to mount that challenge. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC).
 * Quantum, you can take it to Arbcom if you really really want to – but I can tell you right now, they're not going to touch it. They don't believe it to be in their remit, and even if they did they would object that you haven't pursued other avenues of potential resolution. Furthermore, Raul didn't actively do anything in this case, as he's currently inactive; we're all volunteers and can choose if/when we contribute. Were I you, I would take Dana's suggestions, and if necessary revisit FAR in a few months if you've truly exhausted other means of having your concerns addressed (including engaging with discussion on talk). Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to take a look at if you don't believe us. --Rschen7754 public (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (stalker) As an originally quite critical reviewer on this article's first failed FA-nom any serious NPOV-violations would have been mentioned during the FA-process. The article has seen many improvements by experienced editors in the last review; even if it still has minor flaws (which is possible, neither the FA-process nor reviewers are perfect), another approach on the talk page with a detailed description of your arguments would be the better way. And as a final note, Dana Boomer, who had the final say on the FAR proceedings and decided to close the review, had no part in the last FA-nom - your allegation, that the FAR review was "blocked" by some group of involved reviewers, is simply wrong. GermanJoe (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 October newsletter
The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to, our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: (2007),  (2008),  (2009),  (2010) and  (2011). Our final standings were as follows:



Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.


 * The featured article award goes to, for four featured articles in the final round.
 * The good article award also goes to, for 19 good articles in the second round.
 * The list award goes to, for three featured lists in the final round.
 * The topic award goes to, for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
 * The did you know award goes to, for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
 * The news award goes to, for 10 in the news items in round 3.
 * The picture award goes to, for two featured pictures in round 2.
 * The reviewer award goes to both (14 reviews in round 1) and  (14 reviews in round 3).
 * Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to.

Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.

Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Short FAs
Hi Dana, I was wondering if you had any advice for taking short articles through FAC. Montanabw told me you had some experience doing this? Thanks so much! :) Best, Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 18:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Keilana! The shortest article I've ever taken through FA was 18.5 kb, which doesn't even make it one of the hundred shortest FAs by article length (see Featured articles/By length). However, my main advice with short articles is to make sure that there is as much information as is available on the subject in the article. I make sure to check WorldCat, Google Books, Google Scholar, a general-use journal article database and a thorough web search at the absolute minimum. Specialized databases, trade publications and other subject-specific documents can also have useful information. Some editors are really good at finding obscure publications on specific topics, so depending on what I'm writing about, I have a couple of editors that I will sometimes ask to conduct article/book searches. What is the article that you are considering taking to FAC? Dana boomer (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you so much for the advice! I'm thinking about nominating Ann Bishop (biologist) in a couple weeks; I need to raid my university library's biographical dictionary section first. Thanks again! Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 19:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a nice little article - if I have some extra time I'll try to read through it this weekend and let you know if any further comments/thoughts come to mind with regards to FAC. Have you asked some of the main biology editors to have a look and see if they have any comments? User:Sasata might be able to help - I know he's written science biography articles before (although I don't know if he's taken any through FAC), and he has access to quite a few science databases, IIRC. User:Casliber is another fantastic biology editor. Dana boomer (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Funny you mention that, Sasata actually did the GA review and all the extra sources he was able to find got incorporated with that. I'll give Cas a ping and see if he'd be willing to take a look too. Thank you again! Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 22:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The GAN Newsletter (November 2012)
---
 * }
 * Read this newsletter
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 November 2012
 * }

Brown
Hi Dana, am doing the cleanup for a PR submission and hopefully FAC for W.R. Brown. Can you pop over there are give us any feedback on what we still need to do there? Would be much appreciated! Thanks! Montanabw (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Carlson's patrol
I don't know much about FA's or the FAR process at all so I'm asking this here. Carlson's patrol was recently on the main page, but it's lead seems to be far too short. Is it too short or is that adequate for an FA? If not, is FAR the right process and/or should it be tagged with Lead too short? Ryan Vesey 22:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ryan. You are correct that the lead for that article is too short. Per WP:LEAD it should be three to four paragraphs. I would suggest first posting on the talk page. The user who nominated it for FAC (User:Cla68), is still active, so you might have some luck with a talk page post. If that doesn't get any response, the short lead tag would be a good next step. I'm not sure if a FAR is warranted for what is, in reality, a fairly minor issue, unless there are other problems with the article (I didn't see anything glaring, but I spent less than five minutes looking at the article). If it were me, and the talk page comment/tag didn't get a reply, I'd probably just write the lead myself. YMMV. Dana boomer (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

re your GAN Kerry Bog Pony
Hi,

I've reviewed your nomination and left a few comments at Talk:Kerry Bog Pony/GA1. Meanwhile it's on hold.

Very nice article. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have renominated the article for GA, Dana. Hope we get a better reviewer this time around. Sorry that my appearance seems to be what derailed it in the first place. Montanabw (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm going to fail the article and allow another reviewer to do it justice. I didn't realize when I signed up to review it that I risked dealing with Montanabw again, after the last experience with Large Black (pig). I think I've reviewed articles of yours where that didn't happen e.g. Cabbage. But now that I know it's a risk, I'm going to bow out. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, and I have replied on the review page. I fail to see the issue here that would lead to you failing the article, but that is obviously up to you. Montana has said nothing rude or even vaguely improper, so I'm confused as to the issue. Montana generally edits equine and livestock articles, so if you don't like working with her (as far as I know, she doesn't have a problem working with you), I'd suggest you stay away from reviewing those articles. Dana boomer (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to fail the article because I showed up, Mathew. In fact, this concerns me greatly.  You can withdraw as reviewer without failing the article.   Montanabw (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

HOORAY! The article has now been passed by ‎Cwmhiraeth! I already gave you a pony, so here is a different barnstar! Montanabw (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Fun for you
Dana, did you see British cavalry during the First World War is getting a lot of attention? Right up your alley if you want to peek at it. Montanabw (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Horse breed request
Hello Dana, and thanks for the Kerry bog pony ! I've another request, almost a challenge for a Wikipedian because sources are very rares : the Gypsy Vanner horse. One of my favorite breeds but finding some reliable sources is like finding a needle in a haystack ! I don't know why the breeds have all these names, why there's an irish stud-book and an english stud-book, how many horses there's around the world, etc. And, more surprisingly, the breed does not exist in the Encyclopedia of horse breeds by University of Oklahoma press (I have this book at home It's the only one from an univesity about horse breeds). Perhaps you know some english and irish wikipedian who can help about this breed ? --Tsaag Valren (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh Tsaag! You've hit our least favorite article (smile)!  We've avoided improving the en.wiki version because there is more romantic nonsense about the Gypsy Vanners than for unicorns and pegasus!  See our Gypsy Vanner horse for some links, at least, but the talk page has all the fights! (poop!)  But one reason you have problems is that people disagree on if there is one breed or several that look a lot alike; basically, it's a "Gypsy Vanner" in the USA, but in the British Isles and parts of Europe, it's a "coloured cob", "Irish Cob" "Gypsy cob", "Tinker horse" and so on... And U of Oklahoma press (author: Hendricks) is one of our weakest sources, too.  Here are some Google books with articles on Gypsy Vanners: this one is the best, this lists the breed registry standard, see also .   Montanabw (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! If I've understand there's very few reliable sources... --Tsaag Valren (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, most seem to want to push their POV and sell you one! I'd say the breed encyclopedias I listed above are a start for a small article, perhaps, but good luck with the politics! (smile)  Montanabw (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

DRN - Microsoft Security Essentials
Hi Dana boomer, while you are not directly named as "involved user", this DRN-notification [] is probably also of interest for you as FAR-delegate. GermanBot at work :).GermanJoe (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification! It looks like it's already been closed, and several people said basically what I would have, but it's nice to know and not need to comment rather than not knowing at all :) Dana boomer (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

CCI update
Making it official. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

WR Brown
Hi Dana, going to put WR Brown up for FA pretty soon, was wondering if you could be so kind as to pop over there and see if you notice any problems? Thanks! Montanabw (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. On a quick glace, it looks like it's in good shape. I'll try to remember to take a closer look later today. Dana boomer (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (December 2012)
---
 * }
 * Read this newsletter
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 December 2012
 * }

Popularity iz you!
Did you know this? This means you have earned this:

And can add your name to the list here: Centijimbos (It's a fun bunch, you should!)   Montanabw (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

CCI update
Finally seeing the number of CCIs going down, yay! -- Wizardman 22:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Make that two. MER-C 02:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

On a roll! MER-C 11:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Four now! Wizardman 23:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

--MER-C 10:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Kumudini College
Hi, could you please explain to me a bit about the process that takes over when a page has been flagged for copyright violations? As far as I can tell, there is no way that a willing editor is permitted to trim out the sentences that are copyright violations; the page seems to be destined for deletion. Thanks. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi! Because this page was a pure copyright violation (i.e., trimming out the copyrighted information would have left basically "Kumudini College is a women's college"), it needs to be completely rewritten, rather than trimmed. This is done by rewriting it in a dedicated subpage. To get to the dedicated subpage, look at the template on the article, at the subsection entitled "Can you help resolve this issue?". Click "show" (to the far right) in the third line down, which starts "Otherwise, you may write a new article...". Read the text that is revealed, then click the link in the second sentence (where it says "Follow this link...") to create a subpage to begin work. The fact that the subpage has been created will automatically show up on the page where copyright violations are listed, and so an administrator will see it immediately when they go to check the page. I hope this is enough to get you started, but please feel free to ask additional questions. Dana boomer (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you, I hadn't noticed the "show" link. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

copyright issue at Collateral damage
Hello Dana boomer, by sheer bad (or good) luck i stumbled upon a minor copyright problem on this article, where almost a complete section was copied from a non-free report (by an IP, probably not realizing the issue). I think i sorted it out (see article talk), but it would be great, if you could have a second look, when you got time (you seem to deal quite often with CCI-issues). Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi! Your removal of the information looks good, as does the note on the talk page. For future knowledge, you can use the template on the talk page (just add the source that was copied from in the "url=" field). It's a bit faster than typing stuff out by hand, and includes some good links pertaining to copyvio. Dana boomer (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for double-checking. Noted the template - there are lots of them, i don't know yet. GermanJoe (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 starting soon
Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn 19:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup!
Hello Dana boomer, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The competition begins at midnight UTC. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders: *The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page. *Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started the review in 2013.) We will be checking. *If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself. *Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens. *Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked. Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 18:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)