User talk:Jeffpw/Archive 3

Underage additions
Thanks for your support on that one- in restrospect I way a little slow in noticing the extent of the problem (I hadn't checked the image caption). I've now got an account on Commons so I can easily post to their Admin noticeboard if it happens in future. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 19:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Thank you for your helpful advice on the Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia article. On royalty and nobility articles the titles usually become very extensive, as you probably know. I cant seem to find the information on how to shorten a highlighted name. (For example: shortening Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia to just Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna.) Do you know how? Thanks. -- AJ24 21:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand now, thanks very much for the help. -- AJ24 21:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeff
I want to tell you again that your kindness is appreciated. If only this were the rule instead of the exception. The climate here is not one for anyone unfamiliar or inexperienced. The world is already far too hostile and chilly, and to find it here is very disheartening indeed and not something I or my family expected when we signed on. The best of luck to you and continue, perhaps you will make a difference. I will visit this site, however I will not be contributing again.Broadwaydad 12:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Broadwaydad 14:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you don't want me to reply to your messages, simply don't post one on my talk page, but don't fire a closure shot on my talk page, fire it on your own. However, I think the Civility tag I put on your talk page covered the issue very well, in particular this point:


 * Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors. KP Botany 15:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

ARYAN818
Only those admins who have Check User privileges can look at logged in users' IP addresses. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

help needed on Daniel Rodriguez
Jeff, if you have time it would be appreciated if you could come and assist. I am truly afraid to sign in and reveal my identity, as past repercussions have been very unpleasant. I won't do it again. but this well written article, is now being bombarded with more warnings then even earlier. Everything seems to be verified and footnoted, and they continue to insist that this is not the case. I hope you can bring some sense of sanity back.Daniel Rodriguez article.


 * I wasn't treating the new Users with disrespect. I was being as courteous as possible. I've said this before: I was the one who brought this to Mr. ChrisGriswold after my edits on the Daniel Rodriguez article were being undone. MrDarcy and KP Botany then got involved afterwards. Acalamari 00:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh...I wasn't accusing you of accusing me about being disrespectful. I am not offended by anything you said. All I said was that I wasn't disrespectful to the Users. Anyway, I believe this problem has been sorted out, so there's I don't see any reason to go on about it. Acalamari 16:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case...join the club. Everyone ranging from myself, Mr. ChrisGriswold, MrDarcy, and KP Botany have had their edits undone. It now seems that you are the newest member to that list. It was because of my edits getting undone that I contacted Mr. ChrisGriswold. As for 8 sockpuppets...I didn't realize it was that many. Also, about the sources, I thought that the page was now a mess of notes all over the page, and as I said, some of things on the article were sourced more than one, or even two times. Acalamari 03:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

barnstars and question.
What I'm trying to do is put them all in an autocollapsible table. Unfortunately, that won't work however I try to do it from scratch, so I'm waiting until I see it on another userpage (where I got the idea originally) so I can snaffle the code. Thank you for thinking of me though, it is very kind.

Now you've decided to stay, want to sign up to something on the portal rota? :D Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Invite to Nursing wikiproject
 Hello, this is an invitation to join WikiProject Nursing.

You may be interested in joining WikiProject Nursing. This WikiProject aims to improve the standard of all aritcles relating to Nursing, which includes articles which directly relate to the Nursing profession, including its history, the duties and activities of nurses, their role in the general field of medicine, and all related articles.

You can help by:
 * Creating new articles.
 * Expanding stubs.
 * Adding photographs.
 * Referencing articles.
 * Research topics.
 * Anything else really...

For more information, see the project page, and if you have any questions you can leave them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nursing and someone will get back to you.  &mdash; Rod talk 19:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Médecins Sans Frontières or Doctors Without Borders?
Hi Jeff. Noting one of your userboxes, wondered if you're interested in this: Talk:Médecins Sans Frontières. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 01:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Pet Shop Boys FAC
I replied to your comment on my talk page. Shimeru 10:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Rodriguez PR
Well, it got peer-reviewed already. However, I wish you had waited, and would wait if you request PR on the Chelsea Opera Company until the articles stabilize as Leah/Bob tends to go in and do extensive edits after every edit. There are a small dedicated group of folks who do PRs, FACs, GARs, and the like, but it's a lot of work, and I feel that oftentimes a little waiting would have made it easier all around--in this case, I'm afraid that requesting a PR will lead to reversions and someone else being attacked. KP Botany 16:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * While I don't think the PR will create any new problems, I do understand why you would be concerned, given the article's history of edit wars, etc. If you'd like to pull it from PR, I don't have any objections. If you do, however, can we agree to reinstate it for PR in a week, as you suggested on the PR page? Jeffpw 16:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, if Leah/Bob can let it breathe for a week without doing a dozen changes twice a day, then I think risking running it through PR is a good idea as you and other editors did a good job with it. I can see why you don't have time for the Chelsea Opera Company article weighing the amount of work versus the amount of reverting necessary to maintain the work--both could have been much easier to clean up.  I appreciate that you managed to stay with the DR article this long and make it functional for Wikipedia.   20:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Marriage
Jeff, with respect this one's still miles away from ArbCom. They are highly unlikely to accept the case if mediation hasn't been attempted first. I would suggest mediation is the next option should TalkPage discussions break down again. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 05:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeff, my TalkPage is now listed in Category:Limited geographic scope, which is true but somewhat off-putting. I am going to try a little informal mediating. If (and you may well be right, when) that breaksdown I'll list it at WP:MEDCAB. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 05:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have attempted to redraft a version of the Marriage introduction myself. It can be found at User:WJBscribe/Drafts. Let me know what you think. Also, I've translated the intro from the French Wiki marriage article and posted it at Talk:Marriage. It doesn't really help but is interestingly different. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 08:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

FAC archives
Hey, Jeff, thanks so much for all the work you've been doing at FAC. Someone just untangled New York City which was a trainwreck - see here. It's probably best to leave all the old facfailed on the talk page until an article passes - maybe that will help stop these driveby repeat nominations from people who don't seem to have even read the old failed noms, or to realize how to do it - I think having all the old noms there may make it more clear that we DO have archives. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ernest Emerson
Thank you for the warning, but I have not vandalized that article. I removed blatant advertising, which is legitimate editing. Please see the edit summaries for my edits. Thank you for your time. Cheers, Sam 20:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sam, as far as several of us can tell, notability has been established. I hope you're discussing your text removals on the talk page, which I plan to review later.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Didn't notice that article had neem nominated for GA review.  It never even occured to me that it was possible.  Sam 20:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * GA Review was at the top of the talk page for a good reason. Is it a good policy to delete 7,000 words from an article without so much as reviewing discussion? --Mike Searson 20:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jeff
Hi Jeff, Thanks for your comment, I appreciate it. No, I don't leave Wikipedia at all and nothing discouraged me about Wiki or the project, that's personnal problems and I just feel like I'm not of any help in the work on the LBGT (and others ones) project. In fact, if you see, I didn't do anything since I was there, looks like I was just a name on the list and nothing else LOL So I decide to leave and I'll be back later you know, when I'll be ready for the work ;-) Thanks again and, by the way, it took me a bit of time to understand the "pratical joke" lol but it's funny. DaliJim xxx

Rodriguez add
Ok Jeff, I think I got that information and footnote added correctly on Daniel Rodriguez page, but I'm not sure about the order of events. If it's best to leave as is, or put his retirement in between the two Monaco related events, in proper order? If you have time, please take a look and advise best direction. Thanks Bob 03:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I think I fixed it, when it dawned on me that the retirement came before either of the Monaco events. OnwardBob 15:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

An apology
Hi, Jeff- I hope my comment in relation to the possible medals Dev was considering on the LGBT project talk page didn't offend you too much. I wasn't really advocating the use of that medal though I see that my comment reads that way. What I really meant was that irony was all that design had going for it- in the sense that I have always liked the idea of taking symbols used by oppressors and turning them against their original negative purposes. But I certainly don't support its use. My comment immediately suggests a more appropriate medal (the gay games one- if a free pic were available). I was editing late and didn't really appreciate how my comment would read to someone coming to it fresh. Again, my apologies. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 03:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Gay icon
Please can you direct your concerns as to the deletion of this article to its nominator, Knowpedia. He began the process but didn't complete it - all I did was to finish it off for him. I have no opinion (as yet) on the article itself. Tevildo 15:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A Reply
Sure.

I was speaking specifically about the "In Entertainment" section, though I suspect it could apply to the others. What I meant was, attempting to list the names of gay icons within the article might be somewhat misguided for a number of reasons. First, it's not pretty - a bulleted list further down the page might make more sense. Second, relatedly, the sheer number of gay icons, including those which have yet to be added, makes a prose list like the current one even less attractive. Such a list can never hope to be complete; indeed, perhaps someday there will be a "List of gay icons" article. But third, lists like this always reflect the editor's personal taste in people. The article almost got deleted for that before. Once a list gets past three or four "examples", it seems to tend to degenerate into an argument (or even edit wars) over whether or not x gay icon belongs in the list, regardless of whether or not it's verifiable. Some people use some dubious "sources" to prove their claim, others just keep adding names after they have been repeatedly deleted. I love this article and hope it stays, but either the list should be given less prominence, or it should be significantly shortened, to avoid becoming a list of three editors' favorite singers and actors. Not that I'm saying anybody has done this, I'm just saying that simply giving a reference link which most people won't click on isn't necessarily establishing whether or not they belong in the list. Thor Rudebeck 17:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment on AfD
Hopefully your pleased with the speedy keep result of the AfD. In my opinion there was never any realistic chance of it being deleted. I think Tevildo errered in listing it when the original nominator had nowhere stated a reason for the AfD but am sure he acted in good faith. He was only trying to help sort out the procedure of AfD nomination and has accepted it was overzealous on his part at Doc glasgow's talkpage.

As a separate point, I'd advise against messaging users likely to vote keep when an article you are editing comes up for AfD. I'm pretty sure Satyr, Coelacan, Dev and I all check the AfD listings at the LGBT Wikiproject Noticeboard (I read every AfD nom that is made) and AfDs have to last 5 days before deletion can occur. There has been a feeling lately that such postings are an attempt at vote-stacking and disrupt the AfD process. This has been enshrined in the shiny new guideline- WP:CANVAS. No harm done here but I'd be cautious in future. Everyone who voted in the AfD (except koweja) was someone you had messaged knowing they would be sympathetic and I think Gay icon would have had more of a mandate if the wider community had voted to keep it. I think you should have trusted the AfD process more- the article really was safe :).

By the way great improvements to the article- it looks so much better :). WJBscribe (WJB talk) 22:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I know you were pissed off and understand that. I don't think you were trying to votestack but I am worried about moves afoot to stop AfDs even being listed on WikiProject pages. And I thought I'd mention WP:CANVAS because its new this year and editors are not generally aware of it. To reiterate the page looks great- no one is ever going to get it deleted... :-) WJBscribe (WJB talk) 22:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Rodriguez
Thanks. Yes, I'm crabby, but since all I ever get is excuses why something was ignored, I have no ideas left on how to communicate to Bob. The article is well-written, but needs an outside peer review, and the subject is the perfect sort of minor biography that Wikipedia can excel in, and that deserves the wider audience it can gain through a successful GA candidacy and ratings in Wiki projects--which it won't get with a dozen edits a day. Anyway, thanks for handling it, AGAIN, better than I did. KP Botany 18:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Mainpage date
Jeff, are you still looking for easy time-filling tasks? See this on Raul's talk page - it's really easy, fast, about once a week (templating the talk pages of upcoming articles Raul has chosen to appear on the main page, which ties in with your other FA talk page template/cleanup work). You might want to offer, although I hope SmthManley changes his mind (so take it slow). If you're interested, I can explain, so Raul won't have to be bothered. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sandy. I left a note on both their talkpages. Jeffpw 21:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That was a very nice note you left for SmthManley, Jeff; hopefully he will see it and it will be of comfort to him, regardless of whether he stays or goes.
 * If you take up the task, here are the pieces you need to know:
 * Raul indicates upcoming Today's Featured articles here (this month's example):
 * Today's featured article/January 2007
 * SmthManley was manually adding the "date to come" template to each talk page.
 * On the specified date, the SchutzBot goes through and changes the template, and also bolds the article at WP:FA See this example from today's FA:
 * SmthManley Mainpage date to come
 * Later, Schutzbot alters the template, after article appears on Mainpage.
 * Looking through SmthManley's contribs will give you an idea of how he marked his edits. Visiting FA talk pages will give you another chance to see how the various templates are doing. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sandy. I will be watching Raul's talk page, to see if he needs me to do it, and am happy to take it on as a task. Jeffpw 21:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement... but, i don't think I'll be back, or if I am it won't be for a while... maybe if shit remains the same with my aviation articles, but definitately not if tyrants go ahead and destroy the guidelines the aviation group and i created three freaking years ago... anyway, pretty much just put the next empty template on your watchlist and when it gets filled in go to the article's talk page and add the template, place it below the featured article tag, and make sure to fix any dab pages as sometimes Raul654 just wikilinks the main term without realizing it may lead to another article and that specific article may need some brackets, thus, the main link will head to another article or it's dab page, then you go ahead and add to it, make sure it's in American date format. I usually add This article will appear on the main page as "Today's Featured Article" on January 20, 2007. to the edit summary for the courtesy of those waiting for this article to get featured, this format allows for the edit summary to come out with any date prefference for anal people and links directly to the template so they can view what it will look like, it's really all a lot easier than it seems. Raul usually puts 6 or 7 at a time, so after ur done with the first one, unwatch it and click archive, it will take you to the main list and you can then continue on down to each one he has placed, afterwards just watch the next empty one and repeat... I really enjoyed doing this, and I hope you will too.  Goodbye, and thanks for caring. --  SmthManly  / ManlyTalk  / ManlyContribs  04:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, this is still at a technical stage, and I don't know when it will be implemented, but you should be aware that a new, multi-template is in the works, to consolidate all FAC/FAR/peer review/mainpage dates into one template. I think every page would be converted via bot before it would be used - just to be sure you're following Dr pda, as well as the talk pages at WP:FA and WP:FAC. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually lost internet access at home until tomorrow afternoon, I'm doing this from work here, so go ahead and add them in for me until i return, i will let you know once I'm back up and running at home, thanks! -- SmthManly  / ManlyTalk  / ManlyContribs  18:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Jeff, my internet connection is back now, so I can resume my regular activity, thanks for your help! -- SmthManly  / ManlyTalk  / ManlyContribs  02:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

vandalproof "test"
"Inappropriate" is a kinder word than I'd use. I've already begun pursuing the matter with a VP abuse report at User talk:AmiDaniel/VP/Abuse; if, in another twelve hours or so, the report is going stale and unanswered, I'm going to make a note of it at AN/I. — coe l acan t a lk  — 18:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That user also weighed in at Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln (2nd nomination) with a vote of delete, poorly argued. So, umm, I'm feeling inspired. Are there any viable citations that would allow Abe Lincoln to be added to gay icon? =P — coe l acan t a lk  — 18:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Blatant abuse" is what I call it. How dare he nominate an article for deletion to see if the tools work? WJBscribe (WJB talk) 18:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a serious response. I was worried that it would be glossed over. Thanks for the barnstar, Jeff. =) And see gay icon now. I think that's a clear enough ref: "Gay Icons in US History ... Abraham Lincoln" is pretty unambiguous. — coe l acan t a lk  — 20:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

advice
Looks like User:Oden, the user that messed with me this past weekend... and at the worst possible moment considering all the tension i had from the thing i fixed in my life earlier today, has decided to leave due to problems he's been having with several users, and i guess reflecting back on it all, Sunday I was pretty pissed off at life already to have someone threaten to remove half my contributions, insult me, and then place an NPA tag on my talk page when called him crazy for trying to remove half my contributions, either way, I want to come back, but now I feel childish and stupid... maybe i should take a wikibreak, but i need some advice, and really i don't know anyone else on here too well, since u kinda know the situation... well, any advice? ... reply on my talk page if you can. -- SmthManly  / ManlyTalk  / ManlyContribs  21:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Really, who else was dissapointed... that kinda makes me feel good??? -- SmthManly  / ManlyTalk  / ManlyContribs  21:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Me :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I will stay just for the FA Stuff, since I guess it needs to be done, and to watch columbine high school massacre, because who else knows more about that article than me, ...but, it'll just be reverting crap on CHSM and adding the tag, I just... today i fixed a really, really, really huge problem in my life... at 11:20 AM Eastern US Time, it was overwith for good, and now i'm stuck with a debt and a lot of cleaning up to do with my life, so, not knowing what was going to happen today was making me tense and angry and, i still need a break, but I can't leave this place, it was one of the last places I had where I still felt good back when this problem was still around, so I'll take a small wikibreak... how can I officially join the FA Cabal though... I sort of do it informally. -- SmthManly  / ManlyTalk  / ManlyContribs  21:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nick Drake redux
Thanks anyway Jeff, I wasn't sure myself what the correct procedure was. + Ceoil 23:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry we got crossed up, as my computer hung when I was on my way to explain. I like this way better, Jeff, because it avoids having a facfailed tag on a withdrawn nom which had Support, and it leaves the nom page set up for next time (which I'm thinking is a direction we should ultimately head with all facfailed, but we need to wait until the new template is sorted out.  Let me know if you don't like it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

need advice
Hi Jeff,

I'm trying to take the highroad with that pest doesn't seem to be working, can you offer some advice? Thanks. --Mike Searson 10:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Something very strange
Yeah that's fine. Good luck with FAR. LuciferMorgan 18:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're a lifesaver, Jeff - there's a template in the userbox on my userpage (not talk page), that should make it easier to leave the messages. I usually indent them with two colons on the FAR, so they don't interfere with the text.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

FAR comments
I know, it was on the to-do list, which I was hoping to tackle before now. Thanks for the help out though! Dark jedi requiem 21:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

B movie
Thanks very much for your note. The concept I've been weighing is to create three new articles: B movies (Hollywood Golden Age); B movies (The 1950s); and B movies (Exploitation era and after) and shifting the relevant sections there to begin with. I can see (I think) reducing the information in B movie by about a third--it will lose some of its juice, but it won't be severely undermined. Cut more than that, and I think you start losing the historical threads that tie all the periods together in various ways--something hard to recover by visiting the offspring articles. Any thoughts you have would be appreciated. At the moment, specifically, Jayzel has suggested entirely eliminating the C/Z/psychotronic movie sections at the bottom, creating new articles for each. How helpful (or not) did you find those sections in the context of the B movie article?—DCGeist 22:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

fair use
No problem, Jeff. =) I'm happy to play with pretty pictures all day. Your talk page is on my watchlist, so if you want to stay out of the ruckus over on my cess pool talk page, reply here. — coe l acan t a lk  — 11:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Youre just making friends all over Wikipedia today, and receiving lots of festive new quotes for your user page! :-) Jeffpw 11:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm in a great mood at the moment. This one is too much fun. And I think you're right... "Use of terms like "don't give two figs" and speaking of a man's personal beliefs as "superstitions" violates WP:CIVIL." might be have to go on my list. Figs! He's upset about figs! It's never boring. — coe l acan t a lk  — 11:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hah. I'm not sure yet if I'll keep the Knowpedia quote. I kind of felt a little twinge of guilt about that one; as it was totally not my intention to elicit that response. I'm not in the business of making people regret posting at Wikipedia. However, I'm not going to take it down at the moment, because I have a bit of a suspicion that it's not the end of that story. I'll see how it continues to pan out. The Xiner quote is actually pretty funny; that is a good editor whom I get along with. It was a note of frustration, concerning something we had both witnessed go down. But it came out sounding like a mafia threat, so I had to keep it. — coe l acan t a lk  — 11:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

FA template
Glad you find it useful, but I think the credit should go to Dr pda - I only created a very early prototype (the less exciting FARC notification message for interested parties is mine though ;) ) Cheers, Yomangani talk 11:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
I've recently gotten into all of the maintenence projects, and I was learning how to properly delist an FA. Anyway, thanks. Diez2 18:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Question
How do I remove the star in the corner of the main page of the article? Diez2 18:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

FAR Question
This bloke who's removed the articles I am also unfamiliar with. The question you've asked on my page I can't really answer, though I think User:Marskell will be able to. I think it'd be best to message him on the issue. LuciferMorgan 19:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The reply you had is bit of a concern - nobody is meant to learn how to delist, but to do it based on consensus. Most of the articles he removed would've been removed soon, but the Dalek article isn't as clear cut as the rest - some others may dispute the removal. Another editor called User:Joelr31 also is part of the FARC removal process - he may be able to help, so inform him of the situation and that you've also messaged Marskell. If there's fault being committed they'll likely pursue justice, and they're better equipped with the process than me and you. LuciferMorgan 20:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've left a message for the editor concerned. I suggest if any more are closed like this then the changes are just reverted, as I'm not sure that even now all the necessary steps have been carried out (WP:FFA hasn't been updated for example) and it looks like the Dalek FARC was cut off part way through the process. I'll leave it to Marskell as to whether to reinstate any of the FARCs that have been closed. Yomangani talk 22:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review of Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan
Hi Jeff. I noticed that you have at least one FA article under your belt, and I thought I might interest you in looking at Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan. I would really appreciate if you would take the time to read the article and provide your comments at the article's peer review page. Kind regards Cimm[talk] 02:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Closing FARs
Raul agreed to whitelist Joel and I on the FA bot, which I take as an unofficial acknowledgement that we should be the ones closing. Plus, informally, everybody knows us there as the two who do it. No idea where Diez came from. Marskell 12:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Panavision
I also noticed you'd put in some work on this article. Think you'll be up for anymore help there?

Also, I should've said thank you previously for watching out for procedure on FAR; you've done some great helping out there recently. Marskell 19:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Great. If you haven't already, put a hold or wait comment or something like that on the FAR and explain that you think you can tackle it soon. Cheers, Marskell 19:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your patience. Of course, I've just arrived back and run straight into a fever! But on the bright side, that should leave me with a lot of free time, so hopefully we can clean a lot more up within the next two days. Many thanks again, Girolamo Savonarola 23:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note and warning. I'm very new to the whole FAR process and am, candidly, finding it rather aggressive - but I suppose that's important to maintain FA quality. I appreciate the extraordinary work you've done on the article - it's been work I've been meaning to do for months and haven't had the opportunity. I responded on the FAR page and did a 1st pass at copy-editing the article, but it does need more. I will return more this week. LACameraman 10:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Oakland Cemetery FAR
Same reason I nominated Central processing unit. I wholly disagree with the interpretation of WP:V that is in vogue as regards featured articles right now. I feel that requiring inline citations for every third sentence is simply ridiculous and have no intention of doubling the length of my articles for the sake of a big list of citations that certain folks will loudly insist upon but nobody will actually bother to check in detail. In short, I think that the hobbits who lurk around the FA process have taken a major turn towards "form over substance" in the past six months, and I don't want to have anything to do with FAs until such a time that the citation mania cools off a bit. Put another way, I see the FA process and article badge as a joke right now, and I wanted to nominate my FAs for de-listing before someone else got around to it. -- mattb

Already done.
Already there. Didn't know about Coel though, you might want to add that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't know if you noticed, but Knowpedia has got at your archives. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning my user page, Jeff, and for making the ANI note. That Knowpedia quote is definitely staying now. What a delightful individual. I can't even figure out what was up with moving his archives into your space. Maybe he thought you'd like to keep them for sentimental value. — coe l acan t a lk  — 02:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jeff, you're a really great bloke. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Jakew's actions
The guy's not going away. I'm hoping to negotiate significant changes to the Circumcision topic. If you have any interest in helping, I promise it will be enlightening and very beneficial to (especially) neonates.

Here's four recent instances:

1. Jakew packs the intro with info covered properly in the cite, and twice in the body of the topic, before being covered again in it's own main section. See 2 below for link.

2. Jakew removes critical statements from the Australasian Med Assoc. Statement on Circumcision Here’s the original source

3. Jakew removes a critical sentence from a paragraph. Here's a discussion with the original source, see number 10..28I_reply_indented.29].

4. He forces me to place the resulting paragraph way away here .TipPt 15:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * PS...I'm looking for the misrepresented revert ... where he reverted to materal he represented as someone elses, but was actually his. I thought I brought it to the attention of the discussion, but I can't find it ... If I didn't make it a new subject I may not be able to find it.TipPt 16:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson (band)
Sadly the person who originally nominated this article for FA (the user with a redirect) has today nominated their talk page and userpage for deletion. I sincerely hope I haven't inadvertently persuaded them to leave Wikipedia. LuciferMorgan 19:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah I did warn him about the FAR possibility of the article way back in October. I'm definitely a fan of the band, but the article attracts a whole ton of anon editors with crufty edits so it'd be hard to properly edit. Additionally, it'd take a lot of time to work as it's rife with inline citation problems. People dislike FAR as it takes away their FA stars, or puts their articles in danger of having their star removed - that's the main reason.


 * I wouldn't worry about coming on strong to Voyager, it didn't bother me. All I can say really is watch how you word things on FAR, otherwise you'll get embroiled in arguments with people. I've had a few on FAR in my time, and it can drain your view on Wikipedia in general and make you feel glum - isn't worth the hassle. They'll quote Wikipedia etc. to annoy you - WP:CIVIL is a favourite of theirs to give you a link to - and they assure to giving the link in "good faith". LuciferMorgan 20:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If someone keeps adding info about Manson's sixth studio album give me a bell and I'll find cites for it - the info an anon placed there, albeit unsourced, is correct. LuciferMorgan 21:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Dannii Minogue FAC
Thanks! I'm glad that you like the article. I have expanded the intro a bit by adding another section about her personal life and the causes that she supports. -- Underneath-it-All 21:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments
Please accept my apologies. I've never known anyone to take offence before. SteveO 22:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Flag of South Africa FAR
Ah, I see I was a bit too hasty in the process. Thanks for letting me know about the protocol! McMillin24 contribstalk 22:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Topics.
Can I ask you to knock out a Portal Topics section then? I think I just need a kickstart. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've started the ball rolling at Template:LGBT topics. Thought I'd start off by coming up with headings and organising articles under them... WJBscribe -WJB talk- 14:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * :-) Mmm, I guess we're just trying to include the key articles on the most important headings. I'm erring on the side of too many rather than too few (we can always remove the ones that don't seem important enough later). We certainly can't include every article we've tagged! As to the other thing, don't worry about it- I just hope your getting better.
 * On an unrelated point. Trouble may be brewing at Talk:Homophobia. It started as a fairly childish attempt to have the article renamed Misohomo, which was claimed to be the entymologically preferable term. I was pretty sure it'd get shot down in flames so didn't think much of it. Now a couple of users seem to be agreeing that the term Homophobia is somehow in itseld POV (!?!?) and there are suggestions that the article should be renamed anti-homosexualism or Opposition to homosexuality. You might want to glance at the discussion if you have a second. WJBscribe -WJB talk- 15:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jennings FAC
I think you're entirely right to object on those grounds. I tried looking up the reference for the sentence that I'd questioned, and hit the same LexisNexis registration page (the really ridiculous part is that my university actually *has* a subscription, but it came up anyway!). It's a serious problem for verifiability, and on reflection I'll add my objection to yours. MLilburne 14:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Christ Illusion
Hi Jeff, I'm just wondering if you could give this article a look? I wish to nominate it for FAC sometime soon. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 15:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hiya mate, did you manage to give the article a good look? I appreciate any feedback you may have. Take care. LuciferMorgan 14:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I appreciate the feedback, and agree with some of the comments. There were two I couldn't understand though (this isn't me disagreeing, this is me saying I need clarification of what is being said);


 * July 25 sentence needs format fix foe the footnote. the release date was pushed back to July 25[9](


 * ''Reasons for this were that they disliked the band's name, which they felt referred to a murderer, also taking offense to the antichrist and skull logo adorning the bench artwork. I don't think this is a run-on sentence, but it feels like one.


 * Lastly, if you could expand the Lyrical themes, and also combine and expand on the controversy in Mumbai, it might improve the article. I felt analysis was a bit lacking, but perhaps you couldn't find enough sources (a big problem with pop culture).


 * The first two I need clarified. The last one as concerns analysis I don't really understand - do you mean criticism and appraisal from music critics as concerns the lyrics?

Thanks for your time and take care. LuciferMorgan 15:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: long-running
Thank you, sir, for those kind words! This place needs a bit of humour every now and then, and I'm just trying to do my part. Incidentally, my punctuational mania and associated caustic remarks are inspired in no small part by the brilliant Eats, Shoots & Leaves (the book, not the article). Excerpt available here.

I hope the WoW comments will lead to some improvement of the article. I don't play the game, so I shouldn't care less, but seeing what could be an interesting article being reduced to a ridiculous dumping ground of fancruft just irks me to no end. Let's see what the hordes (stampeding or not) come up with. Cheers. --Plek 20:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Comet Hyakutake
Thank you for letting me know. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 23:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

FAR
I didn't submit it - I merely added a comment. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Anne_of_Great_Britain&diff=prev&oldid=102374626. { Slash -|- Talk } 01:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

FAR template
Check out User:Jeffpw/FARNotice. Your very own user template! Oh boy. =) { Slash -|- Talk } 01:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter Jennings FAC
Hi Jeff. I have some questions about your objections here and how to proceed with the refs. Cheers, Gzkn 05:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * RE:your offer: That'd be most helpful! Thanks so much! I think I'm going to end up converting the refs to cite news format. About the lead section: given that many of us at FAC think that the lead should be a stand-alone summary, and that it should generally be free of citations if everything else is well-sourced in the body, I'm not sure if consensus would go against us. I think I'll hold off and let the lead be for now... Gzkn 13:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Obama
Hi Jeff. Per another user's request I was about to close the Obama page and noticed you'd done it. I don't want to violate WP:OWN or WP:BITE with FAR, but I feel if we've decided two people are going to close, we should stick with two people closing. You'll notice the thread on this here. Marskell 09:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've hummed and hawed to myself over this a little bit. One concern that I have is that while the particular closure may be totally uncontroversial, as it was in this case, another third-party may notice it and think, "well, if Jeffpw is closing I suppose I can to." Then we might have a problem. Marskell 09:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

far protocols
Actually, I did message Emsworth (see my FAR post, right above yours) and Wikiproject Scotland's message board. But, I didn't make the notation in the FAR post (as you did) who I messaged. I'm sorry for missing that bit of protocol. JRP 14:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal
I've simply been cutting and pasting, since that's what we do to put them there, I figured it was OK there. is it even possible to use the move function without screwing up the entire page?

Regarding bios, I'd rather you didn't use a biography, and got Satyr to put Alan as his next one instead, but the selected article is your selection, so I won't change it if you decide otherwise.

Do you think with WJB's awesome topics template we should portal review now? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Socrates
I didn't look at the article, I copied it from my book "Love, Sex, and Tragedy: Why Classics matters", which quoted Plato's symposium. Basically, Socrates was a well-known pederast, both then and now (just put "Socrates homosexual" into Google) and if his article doesn't reflect that we'd better correct it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)