User talk:Edge3/Archive 2

Phillips Exeter Academy Library/GA1
Hi Edge3. Thanks for taking on this project! I am completely tied up until tomorrow, so I had time for only a brief glance at your suggestions today, but they look helpful. This is my first GA, so I might need some guidance about the best way to operate. It looks like standard procedure would be to post comments and suggested rewording beneath each bullet item on Talk:Phillips Exeter Academy Library/GA1, right? Is it best to get full agreement on changes to be made to a particular section and then post all those changes in a single edit? More tomorrow. Bilpen (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Edge3, thanks so much for all your help on this project. You are a great person to work with on a first GAN!


 * I understand the rules better now, so the next time I go for a GAN it should be less work for everyone. I also now have a better chance of getting things right the first time.  Some types of problems will always be there, however.  It's astonishing how I can sometimes repeatedly look right at a problem and not see it until someone else points it out, which is why it is necessary to have a procedure like the one we just completed.


 * If I can impose on you a little more, I have a specific question. I recently created a short article on one of Louis Kahn's fairly minor buildings, the Fred E. and Elaine Cox Clever House.  It won't ever reach Good Article status (no photo, not much information is available, etc), but it raises an interesting question.   Most of what I placed in that article comes from the Buttiker book, but not necessarily from its text, which is sparse.  Instead much of it is based on what I observed in the floor plan, section drawing and photos that are in Buttiker' book.  I even estimated the height of the roof structure from his scale drawing of the building.  Everything in the article is therefore verifiable from a reputable source, but parts of it are verifiable only indirectly from images, not directly from text.  Does this approach meet Wikipedia standards for verifiability?  If not, would it meet standards to say something like, "According to a scale drawing of the building, the roof structure is about 18 feet (5.5 m) high at its highest point"?  Even that would be awkward for the third and fourth paragraphs, which currently are a mix of information from text and from photos and drawings.  I suppose this situation applies more to articles on architecture than just about anything else, so maybe I should be addressing this question to the "WikiProject Architecture" discussion page?


 * Anyway, thanks again for all your help. Bilpen (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clear and detailed answer. Bilpen (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Unblock please!

 * I'll just copy and paste: "You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address. This is because someone using this internet address or shared proxy server was blocked. The ability of all users on this IP address to edit pages has been automatically suspended to prevent abuse by the blocked party. Innocent users are sometimes caught in an autoblock. It may be the case that you have done nothing wrong." Edge3 (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You no longer have to worry about my autoblock, since I am now in a different location. Thanks for your efforts, though! Edge3 (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive


On behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, we would like to take the time and thank you for your contributions made as part of the March 2011 Good articles backlog elimination drive. Awards and barnstars will go out shortly for those who have reviewed a certain number of articles.

During the backlog drive, in the month of March 2011,
 * 522 GA nominations were undertaken.
 * 423 GA nominations passed.
 * 72 GA nominations failed.
 * 27 GA nominations were on hold.

We started the GA backlog elimination drive with 378 GA nominations remaining, with 291 that were not reviewed at all. By 2:00, April 1, 2011, the backlog was at 171 GA nominations, with 100 that were left unreviewed.

At the start of the drive, the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 101 days (Andrei Kirilenko (politician), at 20 November 2010, reviewed and passed 1 March 2011); at the end of the drive the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 39 days (Gery Chico, at 24 February 2011, still yet to be reviewed as of this posting).

While we did not achieve the objective of getting the backlog of outstanding GA nominations down to below 50, we reduced the GA backlog by over half. The GA reviews also seemed to be of a higher quality and have consistently led, to say the least, to marginal improvements to those articles (although there were significant improvements to many, even on the some of the nominations that were failed).

If you would like to comment on the drive itself and maybe even make suggestions on how to improve the next one, please make a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011. Another GA backlog elimination drive is being planned for later this year, tentatively for September or October 2011. Also, if you have any comments or remarks on how to improve the Good article process in general, WikiProject Good articles can always use some feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles.

Again, on behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, thank you for making the March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive a success.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 21:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

FLC
Hi Edge3. Thanks for your comments for this list. I was wondering if you could check the list again, since I think your concerns have been adressed. Cheers. Jaespinoza (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi again, I think that now all the concerns have been resolved. Thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge
I agree with your edit regarding the monarchy, but not your reason given in the edit summary. The page, Monarchy of the United Kingdom, refers to all realms and provinces therein, not to just England. I like the sentence as it stands, but there was no call for your edit summary, including exclamation point. Thanks for supporting Wikipedia, sincerely. AlaskaMike (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Wikipedia is a living, evolving entity. I would never expect my edits to be the last word on anything, especially a topic with so much interest to the world as the Uk's newest duchess. I was a little surprised at the wording and tone of your edit summary, but as they say its all good. There is nothing wrong with being vigorous! :) Thanks for your many contributions! AlaskaMike (talk) 07:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

List of Benet Academy alumni FLC
The couple of comments I left a while back were the only ones I had. The reason I haven't left a support is because I'm a director and may end up closing the FLC in the near-future.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 16:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Some lists have been promoted with two supports, but most of the time I personally like to see three or more supports and actionable comments resolved, and I think The Rambling Man shares that view.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 02:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Congrats!
Congrats on the Benet FLC! The list looks terrific and you navigated the FLC process quite well. I've never followed an FLC nom before, so thanks for the education, too. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It was fun. :) Hopefully we'll get lucky when we get the main Benet article through FAC again. Edge3 (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Boris Johnson GA
Hi, thanks for the second opinion. I'm happy if you want to do a more in-depth review of this. It has several issues and could do with someone giving it a thorough analysis. I did also think of putting it up for a copy edit as that would solve some of the problem sentences, but I already have three in the queue so will have to wait for that. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional comments. I'm happy to drop a note to the user about the article as I see I've overlooked that, and hopefully he can address some of the issues raised. A quick question as I've not done this before. With a second opinion is it me who has to close the review or do you do that? Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'll do it now. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's beginning to look like this was a drive-by nomination as the user has made few edits to it, and he's nominated other articles under similar circumstances. I've opened a peer review now though so hopefully someone can give it an in-depth analysis. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They could be along the same lines, I guess, though I'm hoping whoever does it will go into more detail with a section by section review. Glad to see the article's been changed already as it needed to be done. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ling Woo
Ling Woo, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIR corn (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Oxford College GAN
I realize that you must be busy, but do you have any further comments on the pending GAN? --haha169 (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, so sorry to keep you waiting. I'll add comments soon. Edge3 (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback from Technical 13
Technical 13 (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

FilAm
Thanks for reviewing the GAN of the Filipino American article. It looks like a lot of the issues were structure and not keeping to scope; hopefully in the future you can help me in getting it up to GA requirements. The Demographics of Filipino Americans article is actually a spin-off due to the article meeting WP:LIMIT, and a summary was left in its place. I have changed jobs recently and am working on promoting the Edward Soriano article to GA, and will be working to get the Larry Itliong article to GA as well after I can get it past WP:DYK (unfortunately, I will be unable to get the WP:FOUR as I did not start it). Perhaps in the future you can help WP:WPAA in promoting other articles?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem! I'd be happy to help WP:WPAA with other articles! Edge3 (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

GA nomination of President of India and Capital punishment
This articles are good article nominees nominated by me.It would be of great help if you review the articles.Thanks a lot! Suri 100 (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

GA Nom for John J. Millner
Howdy- I wanted to let you know that I am taking on the review for John J. Millner to become a GA. You can find my review here. Have a good one. PrairieKid (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Howdy again- Are you planning on making improvements to the article? If not, I will have to fail it. PrairieKid (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

BLP
Hi, could you go back to and clarify how you feel about other options? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Following policy is more important than dividing the community?
Re:, I see that you state that you support dividing the community in favor of policy (which ironically would appear to be contrary to the policies WP:IAR, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:POINT ;-). That said, perhaps those policies are wrong, or may not apply; Could you explain your reasoning a bit? --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Kim Bruning. My comment was intended to thank CaseyPenk for initiating the RM debate and subsequent threads on WT:Article titles. In fact, I was actually praising Casey for defending WP:Consensus. I was actually quite moved by how the move request was phrased: "Note that my move request is not a comment on what the page should eventually be called (I personally believe Chelsea is the proper title), but rather a recognition of the short-term term need to follow policy." Casey wanted to maintain the status quo, but chose to file the move request anyway to give the community to have a discussion, however contentious.
 * I do not support dividing the community, but sadly that often comes with any controversial situation. As you note, perhaps there is a bit of irony in the consensus-building process. Consensus, by definition, should reflect the collective will of the community, but when we try to reach a consensus, we necessarily consider the competing arguments. In many cases this prompts the participants to pick sides, but at the end of the debate we recognize that we have to come together and accept the consensus.
 * I hope this answers your question! Edge3 (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Integrity means that your actions are in line with your beliefs. Wikipedia is a consensus based system
 * In a rules based system, and if your integrity is based on following-of-rules; the correct and integer thing to do would indeed be to initiate a procedure, even if this might lead to an undesirable outcome.
 * In a consensus based system, you initiate a procedure to alter an outcome away from the current status quo. If you agree with the status quo, then initiating a procedure which could lead to a different outcome is not the integer thing to do (because you now risk an outcome that is not in line with your beliefs, where there is no need to do so)
 * I'm not saying that User:CaseyPenk lacks integrity, mind you, just that I suspect that perhaps their behavior was designed for the wrong system in this case.
 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A very thoughtful way to put it; I hadn't considered it that way before. I would say, though, that Wikipedia is a mix of the two. We, at the most fundamental level, are consensus-based. However we impose rules upon ourselves (through consensus) and must therefore be bound by them. It's similar to politics in the real world. At the most fundamental level you have anarchy; technically you can do whatever you wish in whichever fashion you please, to whomever and wherever you desire. But pure anarchy is clearly unacceptable to many; that's why we organized political bodies and other organized forms of social structure. We wanted (and still want to) mitigate anarchy. Governments, and their associated rules, can be seen as mediators between the desire of the masses and the policies that guide our actions. Very much like representative democracy. So, while Wikipedia is not formally a representative democracy, it shares some meaningful similarities in that the many agree to be governed by the few. We hope that they represent us well but we may very well disagree some or most of the time. In which case, it's time for new representatives. More to the point, if you disagree with the rules by which you are bound I strongly suggest that you contest them and attempt to gain consensus. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the thoughtfully worded and kind-hearted barnstar. I hope for Wikipedia to create policies the right way (they're always open for discussion) and apply them appropriately. If there's a mismatch it deserves to be sorted out in a calm deliberation. You seem attentive to and appreciative of policy.

The process can at times be wearying and confusing for both sides, so your friendly attitude makes the atmosphere more congenial. I am sure you apply a similarly welcoming attitude in the discussions in which you participate.

Let me also note my affection for UChicago.. it would probably be my favorite if I had to choose (who needs sports anyways). Cheers. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)