User talk:Gzkn/January 2007

Intrusive thoughts
I like the Intrusive thoughts article — don't ask me why. Rintrah 07:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * hmmmm ... I didn't know of its existence - now I do. It's quite a mess, even inaccurate. I'll dig out some books specifically on the topic and try to clean it up for accuracy, and then you ce marvels will have to clean up my prose :-)   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I just had a closer look at it, and I don't think there is a single correct statement in the entire article - it will take more time than I thought. I still plan to work on it over the next few days, as I find time.  I'll take it out of use for a complete rewrite, and then will appreciate a new ce. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I got far enough that I felt I could remove the expand tag. I still have to find updated information on cognitive behavioral therapy (sources I have are outdated), and write descriptions of 3 types: inappropriate aggressive thoughts, inappropriate sexual thoughts, and blasphemous religious thoughts. But the basics are mostly there now. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, amazing job Sandy! Gzkn 08:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm done - sick of that topic - you all can do anything you want now in terms of copyediting - thanks for getting me into that :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Tamil people
Oh ok. I thought the version with "|" was preferred. Thanks for telling me they are the same. | A ndonic O  Talk 01:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am Back...
What should I do now, that now I am back? Asher Heimermann 05:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

hello!
I re-did the Scout Taylor-Compton article. I am sorry if her mother objects, but the event did happen. I put a link to IMDB to back it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.14.93 (talk • contribs) Gzkn 06:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In da Streetsz Musik
Thanks for your message. I suppose that I could say that, just as "db:bio" doesn't mean just "bio", so "it's not a bio" doesn't mean just "it's not a bio". The point is that it's a record label, and looking at other articles on record labels, none of them asserts the significance of the subject (any more than do articles on U.S. villages, geographical features, etc.). The fact that it exists, and that it really does release recordings is surely sufficient grounds for its being here.

I suppose that what we really need is a guideline linking the length of an article to its significance. It would be silly to have a long article on this label and a short one on EMI. Still, I can't see why this article shouldn't exist. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I interrupt, but I dont think there should be anything definite linking importance to size. First any attempt will hurt the lack of consensus surrounding the importance of a subject. Second, the encyclopedic importance of a subject is simpy how much there is to say about it. While there are endless things to say about EMI, that would probably justify several articles, there probably isn't that much to say about most small labels. This is what should naturally limit thesize of these articles: a long one is sure to be full of non-notable trivia, to be deleted on sight. However, this should not prevent small articles on small subjects from existing, if only to assert that there is nothing more to say about it.--SidiLemine 13:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please review this article Jason Mizell
I can't believe some of the stuff on this article's page. I saw it as the result of your edit of another page. Ronbo76 11:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not the expert either but. ..
I was reading another article that had some spelling errors and questionable claims in it. User talk:Mel Etitis cleared my tags like he did with yours on this article Black Child. Doesn't seem right for someone to clear tags without appropriate action. Ronbo76 11:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You added wikify; what you seem to have meant was that there were spelling errors and dubious claims. First, one or two minor errors (even if they exist, and I couldn't see them here) don't justify a template (just make the corrections), and certainly not "wikify"; secondly, the same applies to questions of fact, though here the point is also that you don't add a string of fact templates to every item in a list; if you have reason to doubt what's there, or think that it's insufficently sourced, then add the unreferenced template to the end of the article.  I did explain most of this to you on your Talk page, but you seem unwilling to accept it. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Australian artist-run initiatives
Hello! The unreferenced template goes to the end of an article, preferably in a "references" section; see Template messages/Sources of articles. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Floating box
Hello, Gzkn. Due to my set-up, I switch between three computers during most days of editing. The one I happen to be using now is slightly older and is running an old copy of Windows2000. It may be this computer that caused the display issue, but I saw one of your boxes at the top of this page floating over and partially obscuring some of the related text. I tweaked it so that the box displays above the text instead. If that caused it to look odd to you, please feel free to revert. I just wanted to let you know I had tweaked the code. Happy editing! SWAdair | Talk 10:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Please leave the comment alone about gliding action.
It is from a book. Anyway, opinions are welcome on Wikipedia as long as they are not presented as fact. Please leave this alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodstock2010 (talk • contribs) Gzkn 13:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

SUNY College at Old Westbury
Hello,

I saw your tag regarding Suny Old Westbury about it being an advertisment. Since alot of it is stated as fact and per the different wikipedia articles I have seen on other colleges, I have to disagree with the article being written as an advertisment, however, I do believe it was written from a NPOV standpoint. So I am changing your tag from Advertisement to NPOV. Because I feel that it is more appropriate. Feel free to respond if you disagree with this. Mystify85JEC 19:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

obama
hi - I'll do what I can to help to improve the piece too, but do you think "pitiful" is a fair assessment? Tvoz | talk 03:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly note. It came at a time when some fellow editors were a bit upset with me. Barack Obama's is a fun article to work on. Steve Dufour 04:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * happens to the best of us! Tvoz | talk 04:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the new lead is a good improvement. Part of the problem with the rest of the article is that it is indeed a lot of dry material - if we think we need to have every bill he's proposed or joined with - I am not 100% sure that we do need it all, but on the other hand I am not in favor of removing factual information just because I might find it dull. The references, I think, are above reproach and we do keep a careful eye on them.  So, I thought "pitiful" was going a bit  too far.  As for stability - having the semi-prot, in my opinion is what saves this from becoming a constant battle against targeted vandalism, and until today the changes have slowed down considerably or at least that's how it feels. One other thing - In these days of identity theft concerns, etc., I don't feel totally comfortable with his signature being added to the infobox, nor do I think it has any real encyclopedic value - what do you think?  Tvoz | talk 04:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll look around about the signature - not a big deal, just makes me a little uncomfortable and seems gratuitous anyway. The legislative stuff kind of sounds like someone is trying to build a resume for a fairly new senator in terms of his future plans, but as I said I hesitate to remove factual, referenced material. It's not POV or unencyclopedic - it's just kind of boring.  I'm too tired now, but I'll take a look and see if I think I can spruce it up a bit. It does amaze me from the other side how people will come on and addd something that more or less says "I don't really know where the guy stands on this issue, but I think it's important".  I actually had to laugh at that last round.  Tvoz | talk 05:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

what if it wasnt
im still researching info for it and ive been tied up. All though it lacks information i do not think it should be deleted. if somebody wants to look up info on it wikipedia is going to be the first place to come to mind, but lo! it doesnt have anything on it. (thats what happened to me) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allatropic (talk • contribs) Gzkn 00:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ta
Thanks for getting that, but I have to report it wasn't quite what I was after. Still, thanks. Steve block Talk 17:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be the first time Mr Campbell has put one over on me, but I don't think he's doing it this time. It's certainly a curious one.  Januszczak was the art critic for the Guardian back then so I guess he did have a lot of stuff in the paper at that time.  Campbell did mention it was an exhibition review and his art was in the show, so maybe I'll do a little bit more digging as that might narrow it down.  I know Campbell was a guest at the Swiss festival in Sierre, maybe that might be the exhibition?  I don't know how the library works, would a search on Sierre and Januszczak turn anything up?  Might be 1986 rather than 1984, too.  But I'm just guessing.  I'll keep thinking.  Thanks anyway. Steve block Talk 21:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Second possibility might be an exhibition in the Royal College of Art cafeteria, organised by Casper Williams. Still, thanks for trying. Steve block Talk 21:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
It's nice to know I get one day off from cleaning up after the 58.84.xx.xx vandal. That vandal is here on a daily basis, full details here. One Night In Hackney 14:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Monty Hall objections
Hi - Can you take a look at Monty Hall problem and indicate (strikeout) the objections that have now been addressed from your list of random problems at Featured article review/Monty Hall problem? Is there anything from this list or your initial list of issues that has not been addressed? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

All Blacks copy-edit
Hi, I was wondering if you could finish giving All Blacks a copy-edit? The FAC process is stalling a bit because of prose issues. I'd really appreciate your help because it's very hard for me to do this myself, having edited the article so much. Thanks. - Shudda   talk  07:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for doing that. I know you must get a little sick of copy-edit requests! I have addressed the specific things you mentioned. Could you please check what I've done? As well, could you give me more specific details on the sections of the article that need more work on prose. You said at the beginning, did you mean the lead? I'd really appreciate any feedback. Thanks. - Shudda   talk  22:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Radcliffe
Shh.... let's not tell anyone else... see how many more people fall for it :-) Mad Jack 19:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Jennings
Sure, I'll help out; however, I'm thinking about taking a break from developing my copyediting skills to work on a few anticruft projects. &mdash; Deckill e r 02:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry, I think I need a break from copyediting for a couple days :) I'll get to it this weekend though. &mdash; Deckill e r 03:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Back on...
I am back here for a day or two. From now on, I'll let you know next time... Asher Heimermann 03:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Jennings
It looks quite well written; I edited the top, and found a few overly informal terms, though. Tony 11:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

AutoPR
I have to teach myself the Order of operations.. anyway, it was a mistake on my part. Oddly enough, it has been wrong for quite a while, and nobody (not even me) has noticed. Thanks for the feedback, AZ t 00:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin-Madison
On 24 December 2006, I put up the UW-Madison article for Featured Article. It failed miserably, due in part to the fact that I had almost no idea what the criteria were for FA. I have now made considerable revisions to the article. You had originally opposed FA status at Featured article candidates/University of Wisconsin-Madison/archive1. Would you please consider looking over the article over again, and tell me how you would vote this time if it were put up for FA again? University of Wisconsin-Madison Thanks! – Lordmontu  (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Second Life
Im thinking of running SL for FA again. Its been sourced and expanded thanks to the joint effort of some good wikipedians. Please can you comment. frummer 11:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit
Should be largely done, lumped into Jan, but it's relatively small. (Of course SmackBot will date any undated tags in the future.)

What do you think to the same for the templates: expand, verify, fact? Rich Farmbrough, 22:27 11 January 2007 (GMT).

Barack Obama FAR
FYI. --HailFire 18:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thnaks!
Thank you for bringing Lamest Edit Wars to my attention! Have you looked at Unusual articles? Rintrah 09:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Obama
Another user got to that.

Glad the article is back up to speed, but I can only imagine that it will be a difficult page to manage as time goes on... Marskell 10:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

utilisilise
Good idea! Tony 15:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

brilliant!
Thanks - I knew there had to be one and just didn't have a chance to look for it. Tvoz | talk 05:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

New peer review of Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan
Hi Gzkn. You come highly recommended by User:Yannismarou! Yannis reviewed the Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan article in an earlier peer review, and after I exhausted his suggestions, he recommended that I solicit your feedback. I would really appreciate if you would take the time to read the article and provide your comments at the article's current peer review page. Kind regards Cimm[talk] 00:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Gzkn, I just wanted to thank you for the valuable feedback you provided on the Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan article. After reviewing your comments and those of other reviewers, I have updated the article. If you have a moment to take another look, any additional thoughts would be much appreciated! Thanks again Cimm[talk] 02:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again Gzkn! I thought I would let you know that I have just nominated the Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan article as a Featured Article candidate. The feedback and encouragement from you and the other reviewers is what motivated the nomination. Thank you again for all your support! Cimm[talk] 23:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Jennings FAC
If you'd like, I would be happy to help you with the reference problem. I can at least ferret out the NYTimes and Wash. post links. However, I understand if you'd rather do it yourself (edit conflicts). And just so you know, my comments about the refs come out of my own experience with an article I wrote that was made FA. Shortly after it was Featured, Sandy messaged me and implied it would go to review if I did not properly wikify the references. The refs were solid (and even clickable), but were not properly formatted. FAR better to clear this stuff up now, than be faced with losing the featured status later. Jeffpw 10:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And to give you a heads up: consensus seems to have changed about references in the lead (see Wikipedia talk:Lead section for further details) and now refs are also needed there, too. Apparently the policy never changed, but somebody's interpretation of that policy did. To be on the safe sifde, you might want to add a few to major assertions in the lead, even if they are duplicated in the body. Jeffpw 10:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not being an expert on that area of policy, I'm not willing to say the fair use rationales are 100% bulletproof. However they seem pretty solid to me. Best regards. Mark83 10:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll get the Washington Post and New York times ones done today. That's a start, anyway. I'd do more, but don't have the page numbers fro the article. And as to the lead, I wouldn't worry about it right now. I started a discussion on FAC talk, and there is disagreement and no consensus as yet. Jeffpw 13:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoa - first, Jeff, to clear up a misunderstanding above - what you stated isn't correct. The problem on your FA wasn't wikifying of references or URLs: the problem was that full bibliographic info wasn't given for the references and the sources simply weren't locatable at all, because full info wasn't given (you might want to go back and refresh your memory). If a newspaper reference has an author (where provided), title, newspaper, and date, it's WP:V - the URL link is a courtesy. Many of yours didn't even have article titles. I agree that it would be a courtesty to provide URLs that work rather than the for-pay ones when they are available, but I don't think it's grounds for an Object. The hard-print biblio info is given - the sources are verifiable. I haven't had time to read Gzkn's article, but I did look at the refs, and they are verifiable. Gzkn, how about providing URLs for the easy ones, like NYT, Wash. Post, etc? As soon as I catch up, I'll weigh in on the FAC - the Objects are ungrounded, the article is verifiable. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree, Sandy. The refs in the Jennings article, while perhaps giving the info needed to veryify, take you to a subscription page for LexisNexis, which doesn't help to verify at all. I have changed many of the refs now, to lead to the archived articles at the Post. This gives a summary of the article, and all other info about it. The reader then has a choice whether to purchase the article or not. But at least the article is verified as a source. That was my objection, and I think that's a valid point. As to your objections to the Baker article of mine, while the refs did not have information typed out, they were clickable and took the reader to the information. That was what I meant by solid. By the way, I have now worked my way through all the Post references on the left hand side, and will continue the rest of them later. Jeffpw 16:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We have very different memories of the problems with the links on your FAs - many of them were incomplete and had no link - they were not verifiable at all. On 1c, a book reference with a page number isn't verifiable online:  being verifiable online isn't part of verifiability.  They are courtesty links.  Newspaper articles - when including full biblio info - do not need a URL - it's a courtesy.  I think we agree on the solution (provide working URLs where possible), but I definitely don't concur that this is grounds for objection.  Unfortunately, it has gotten Gzkn's FAC off on the wrong foot.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You got me wondering, so I doublechecked. Here is the last version of the Baker article before I mentioned the problem.  Refs do not have either links or full biblio info - look at them beginning with number 11 - newspaper articles need at least an article title so one can find them in a library, and they did not have links.  A detailed listing of the problems is also given on the article's talk page.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep working on this article. You've done a good job and need to take it the last mile.  It's a pretty important one.-BiancaOfHell 07:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Monty Hall Problem
Hey, GzKN. You nominated this one at FAR; wondering what you think of all the work on the the review? I am considering closing it without the FARC period. Marskell 20:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I posted a long list of concerns today - because I added them above, along with my old comments, Marskell might not have seen them. I'd like to get it closed, too - waiting to hear from the math editors on my latest list, which hopefully won't take long.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wood Badge
I am the main writer of a GA called Wood Badge. I'd like to get it to FA but before that would appreciate the input of fine copyeditors such as yourself. I'd truly appreciate it. Rlevse 12:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors participation drive!
Dear League member,

We've started a participation drive for the remainder of February. If you can, please help clear the backlog by adopting the following goals each week:
 * Select an article to copy-edit from the backlog. After your copy-edit, list the article in the articles ready for final proofread section.
 * Select a different article to proofread from the articles ready for final proofread section.

Thanks for your help! Rintrah 16:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)