User talk:Indubitably/Archive 4

Cherry Impact Event Award


I had to laugh too! I must be one hell of a shock-absorber though: I think the rest of WP:WPM are blissfully ignorant of the impact that awaits them and have disengaged completely from the GA process. I hope they will engage again soon, and more constructively. Meanwhile, after archiving a few of the old reviews, we both seem to have bitten the bullet (or cherry?) that is anabolic steroid. I fixed a fair amount of your "nit-pick-fest" before and after your thorough review, and addressed some of the redundancy issues. There are also places where a body-building webpage is used as a tertiary source and the material in the article is at best a paraphrase. Wikipedia can do better than that. I've fixed one or two instances, but there is more to do! Hope you are having a nice weekend! Geometry guy 22:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. Our complementary modi operandi at GA/R remind me of the effectiveness of the most famous police interrogation technique: I think we can make a good team for whipping articles into shape or getting them to reveal their crimes... :-) Geometry guy 23:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

User page
How's this? :) Sebi  &#91; talk &#93; 07:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style (abbreviations)
I've reverted some of your changes to road articles, mainly because the state abbreviation is used to conserve space in the infobox. Lots of times, a state with a long name (example Washington) will clutter it up if mentioned a lot (example: Seattle, Washington  Tacoma, Washington). Also keep in mind that the MOS and its associated supplements are not rigid laws, but principles that editors have found work well in most circumstances. Thanks, ( [ →] zel zany  - fish) 18:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see the reply and other replies on my talk page. Thanks, ( [ →] zel  zany  - fish) 19:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Harassment
I'm more than happy to track down any accounts you feel are harassing you? User:Librun didn't do much else, but if you have other examples I'll watch their activity. --Steve (Stephen)talk 03:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

East Carolina University GA
Hello Ms Love, Well I think it is about time to nominate East Carolina University for GA status. I am asking if you could please read through it once more before I give it the nom. Then, if it becomes a GA, ill just have to work to get it a A-class than FA:D. One more thing. What is going on with my userpage? On the bottom half everything is crammed together, what gives? Once again, thank you  P G  Pirate 


 * I've left a review on your talk page as well as a link to my previous review now in archive from my page, which I think you may have missed previously. Regards, Lara  Love  T / C  05:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Im sorry about that, I misread/it didnt process the previous things you mentioned. Im sorry about that.  I will correct it all, Thanx  P  G  Pirate  18:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

EyeSerene
Hey there Lara, EyeSerene asked me to take a look at his first GA review. It was on Operation Gibraltar. He wanted an experienced set of eyes to give his review a second glance. Unfortunately, I've come down with a case of Bronchitis and haven't been able to think straight... 18 hours of sleep per day. So I was wondering if you could take a look at his review and the article in question? Thanks, Balloonman 03:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I'll do it in a few minutes. Lara  Love  T / C  03:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

07:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)07:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Anabolic Steroid GA review
You should probably remove Anabolic Steroid from the GA review. The nominator has decided it is GA material, the people who supported delisting it from GA it have changed their votes. I think it should be removed from review.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 06:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see where there has been but one recommendation, and the retractment of that recommendation is followed by a whole list of GA disqualifiers, which makes the decision to recommend it keep GA confusing to me. Regardless, it does not currently meet the criteria for processing. I've looked over the article and began a review, but I've not yet completed it. However, the article does not meet the criteria in my opinion. A list of whys should be posted tomorrow afternoon or night, providing my internet stays up. And as far as my forthcoming recommendation and argument go, I expect a level of respect for the time and effort I put into this review. I won't be bullied or disrespected with regards to the quality of my review or my knowledge of the criteria. And my recommendation will not change until issues have been addressed and the article is brought up to standard. Lara  Love  T / C  06:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

See: [] [] [] In addition to my recommendation.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, well, that's still not enough recommendations to process, even including the recommendation that supports delisting which you did not include above. As far as the nomination being withdrawn, that only leads to archiving when the article clearly has been improved and brought back up to standard, although, in this case, it doesn't appear the article ever actually met GA standards. With that in mind, were this discussion to be archived now as "no consensus" or "oppose delisting", I would keep a watchful eye on it and, if improvements were not made in a couple of weeks or so, I'd delist it myself. Also, having looked over the discussion, the nomination has not been withdrawn. It appears as if Adam delisted the article without giving this process a chance to run its course and thus reverted those edits. That may or may not actually be the case, regardless, the discussion is not ready to be archived.


 * My best recommendation is that the discussion continue and you and other custodians take the issues to heart and address them. Otherwise, you may be bringing your own nomination to GA/R for a review of delisting. I fear the latter is more probable after looking over links in the article history... and that's unfortunate. The article has great potential and, obviously, you want it to be FA, but you seem completely unwilling to make the necessary changes to achieve that. While I appreciate your confidence in the article, you've been told on multiple occasions by multiple editors that there are several issues that need to be addressed. You disregard and argue against these recommendations, then move on to the next process or just try again and hope no one notices the article hasn't changed. My review should be up soon. Regards, Lara  Love  T / C  15:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Review 2nd opinion
Hi Lara. Thank you for your comments - my preference is to correct stuff as I find it anyway, so it's good to know that minor copyedits don't invalidate a simultaneous review. I'll ce per your advice... and remember to look at the page in edit view as well next time (to catch those ref templates!). I really appreciate you taking the time to do this - thanks again! EyeSereneTALK 12:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks from me as well... I didn't want his review to become stale as it awaited my getting over whatever I had.Balloonman 01:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

TPON
I've attempted to fix some of the problems you found with The Power of Nightmares. I did, however, leave at least one usage of the term "America" rather than "United States" as it seemed a bit awkward. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 02:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Freemasonry GA Review
Looking forward to comments on this. I have found, however, that the majority of issues arise because people don't know the subject and assume certain types of sources exist which do not (which was the root of the majority of what Meekrob had to say). I also just got a comment on the talk that the introduction the article was vague plus a vagueintro tag (again from a user who hasn't been active since the tagging), when the first line says "Freemasonry is a fraternal organisation". Same user also "couldn't believe the article was ever FAC" (and frankly, what it looked like as FA years ago was lousy!) without lookig at said FA version. Now would I be off-base in saying that there are people on WP who are just here to stir up trouble with assessments and haven't a clue as to what they're doing, or is it my imagination? In short, how do you fix a "problem" (or even decide it exists) when nobody can articulate the problem? MSJapan 22:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Grand Lodge and Grand Orient aren't interchangeable titles. It's either one or the other, though they refer to the same level of body, so I'm going to change that back. MSJapan 18:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I don't completely understand the subject, which is where the article should come in handy. However, and unfortunately, the article does not adequately explain everything. I've started the review, which I've saved to my draft page until I can complete it. There may be suggestions from me that are "wrong" because I don't fully understand the content, but just point those out to me. If I'm misinterpreting something, that's an indicator that the article may need clarification in certain areas. Lara  Love  T / C  18:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Lara... This is exactly where we need someone like you ... someone who doesn't know a lot about the subject. Beyond the "This sounds POV" or the "are there no non-masonic sources for this?" type of comments that Meekrob gave us, we need to know when something is confusing or unclear in what we wrote.  Please feel free to suggest changes or to ask us to clarify things. Blueboar 19:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wonderful. I can't express how great it is to encounter that kind of attitude toward a GA/R review, albeit a more detailed review than GA requires (I can't help it). It will be my pleasure to help you guys improve this article. And when we're done, it'll be way beyond GA quality. Regards, Lara  Love  T / C  04:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say we would accept your suggestions and changes :>) ... Seriously, Freemasonry is a very complex thing, and is often very difficult to explain. We try to be clear, but sometimes we don't quite achieve that. One problem is that you can't make all that many definitive statements about the organization... what is true in one jurisdiction is not true in another. There are areas where the article is somewhat vague... because the organization itself is vague in those areas.  If you have a question, just drop us a line on the talk page and we will be happy to try to explain. Blueboar 12:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) If you can't explain something in the article because the organization is vague about it, explain that in the article. It shouldn't be too difficult to successfully explain the topic in as much detail as possible, even if that means explaining why you can't explain something. Does that make sense? The point of the article isn't to educate the readers in every aspect of Freemasonry. It should give them an adequate understanding of the topic without eluding to things which will just leave them confused. Possibly obvious misconceptions (like that it would be a group reserved only for operational masons) should be clearly explained. As well as any other misconceptions that could be gathered from the article. They'll come up as I go through it completely. Lara Love  T / C  13:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Freemasonry
As it's a pretty universal concept in both the US and the UK, then the article should remain in whatever convention it was created with. The important thing is that it's consistent throughout the article. Neil  ╦  13:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive
A new elimination drive of the backlog at Good article candidates  will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :GAReview underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 23:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Jim Henson
Hi, nice job on the Jim Henson clean-ups! —scarecroe 04:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm doing the GA review which will be posted momentarily. Lara  Love  T / C  05:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the VC
To help you get started, I've posted a template to help keep track of lessons. We should have a new one on there soon.

The Transhumanist 21:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Lara  Love  T / C  03:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The Working Man's Womans Barnstar
Thank you! :) I appreciate that so much! Lara  Love  T / C  12:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:
Roger that, thanks for the heads up. Mouse Nightshirt | talk  12:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Jean Keene
We just finished going over the issues you brought up. Have another look! Wrad 23:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Maroon5 peer review
No, I didn't forget, I've just been busy with some other stuff, sorry. I'll try to go through the article this weekend. --Fritz S. (Talk) 09:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Akebono Taro
Thank you for taking the time to review the Akebono Taro article. I wonder if sumo wrestlers will be able to have articles that are GA quality because the amount of information is so limited in English. In any case, my question is about question 4a. You mentioned "Has there been no criticism of him?" I am curious about this because if you look at the talk page you can see there is one editor that wants to put in a lot of critical words about him, however, this editors attempted edits are not well sourced (in my opinion) well sourced (the source is from a tabloid weekly in Japan, which is closer to a blog than a news magazine) and go against wikipedia policy on criticism in biographies of living persons. Like I said before, maybe because of a lack of sources in English for sumo wrestlers, this is just not possible. This seems to be a fine line that is easy to cross but that needs to be thought about deeply due to the problems with Biography of Living People. If you have any examples of successful articles in this regard, or any advice, I would be happy to hear it. Thank you. XinJeisan 15:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Henson lead
Hey, I have done my best to create a lead for Jim Henson that summarizes the rest of the article. (It may be too long, though.) Do you think you could check it out and tell me if it needs fixing anywhere? Thanks, Hobbesy3 19:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC) I'll look over it in just a moment. Wikification of words in the lead and the article is appropriate. In longer articles, it's even appropriate to wikify in multiple sections. It all depends on the length of the article. In the case of this one, once in lead and once in article would be appropriate, as long as it's consistent. Lara Love 19:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Further note: My lead also has terms wikified that are then wikified again in the main article. I have seen this done in other articles and it makes sense to me (i.e., since the lead is essentially an abbrievated version of the main article, they are designed to function separately and so each is equipped with their own wikilinks.)  If this is not appropriate, please let me know. Hobbesy3 19:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Having not even read it, I can tell you it's too long. No more than 4 paragraphs. The article isn't even that long. Lara Love 19:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Power of Nightmares
I'm having trouble trying to figure out what you want done with The Power of Nightmares. How is the article written in "American English" besides how the words are spelled? I really don't see the distinctions outside that feature. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 02:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What category?
In case you missed it, I answered your question regarding Jean Keene. Giggy UCP 04:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: Jean Keene
The best place I can see is under world history: Historical Figures: Other. On one of my many reorganizations, I created the category for exactly this kind of person: a historical figure that otherwise defies categorization. How does that sound? --Jayron32| talk | contribs 04:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU
You are right about the live performances, because when "Makes Me Wonder" and "Harder To Breathe" are done on TV, he censors the cursing (I should've specified), which means that it does depend on the audience. Thanks for your input! =D Chick No.16 06:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry!! I'm kind of new. Thank you very much! =D Chick No.16 17:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

GA on Hold
I have added almost all that I have learned about the district since writing the original Historic Michigan Boulevard District article. The other thing I could do is write some text about the buildings in the district. I can't think of much more to add.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your first ref states "As the location of many significant cultural institutions, clubs, hotels, and prestigious office buildings, the district played a decisive role in the social, economic, and cultural history of the city." Possibly you could name some of these buildings and expand on how they effected the city socially, economically, and culturally. This, of course, would involve research into each of those buildings, although this may give you the opportunity to add to your list of written articles. Lara Love 22:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of these artifacts are referenced in the table at the bottom or the footnotes describing buildings not included. I will see what I may add.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Page Number for PDF files

 * From Wikipedia Help Desk

How to use page numbers for PDF files in references? in my case a single pdf file has been refreenced to multiple pages within, have different reference. Eg; line 1 has reference to pg 6 and again line 5 has reference to pg 10. Unlike havard style book reference how is it possible. Pls see Talk:Kaziranga National Park for seeing the question arised during GAC. Amartyabag  TALK2ME  05:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fancy meeting you here! ;) As the reviewer that left the recommendation, you would list the ref separately for each use, as opposed to naming it. The only difference would be the page specification. Does that make sense? I hope that's what you're asking. If not, drop a line on my talk page and I'll see what I can do to help. Lara Love 05:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I just counted how many redundant links would be created in this manner, its nearly 15, meaning increasing the page size, which we are trying to control. Is there no template as such in which we can just add the page number? Like after (a code which adds just the page number would do). Like [14], pp 22-23 I don't know the coding, but i think it wouldn't be hard to make. Amartyabag   TALK2ME  04:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there is an option to list references and notes separately. Basically you have a "Notes" section for inline citation. It would make reference to the source listed under the "References" section. Typically listed alphabetically by author name. It would be the full citation with all available information listed. In the notes section, for the inline citation, you would only reference the last name of the author and the page number(s). Let me know if that's unclear and I'll try to find an article that does this. Lara Love 05:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I found one. Chicken (game) uses this style of referencing. Is that what you're looking for? Lara <font color="FF1493">Love 05:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ya, i know that u mentioned, that can be done for books, the reference i have used is basically some reports in PDF format, some don't have authors, in that case how to use it. Kindly check the article Kaziranga, i have got a code, but that i think is not according to the rules, MOS, etc. Its still not recognised. Should this matter be taken to a higher level for discussion. Pls, comment in my talk page. <font color="#0082B8">Amartyabag <font color="#FF3333"> TALK2ME  11:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)