User talk:Joelr31/Archive8

The Amphibians and Reptiles Portal (P:AAR)
--Melanochromis 06:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Netage?
Did you get an email from Netage today? I got a rather peculiar one that I replied to on his talk page. Personally, I don't advocate the use of email to further discussions about Wikipedia. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 00:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Carlos Arroyo image...
Just out of curiosity what do you mean by: the image will be deleted for "Not having a FUR for this article", as far as I know the FUR holds I took it from a image on Michael Jordan's article and that image has been there for some time, this one is clearly relevant since the event per se has become a iconic moment not to mention its historic nature. - 凶 20:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I was not saying it should stay in the Puerto Rico article, just questioning why you said it was getting deleted, but I understand your point I think it should only be in the Carlos Arroyo and National Basketball Team's pages. - 凶 20:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok then, Peace. - 凶 20:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Assessment template
Hi Joel: Thanks for fixing my efforts at listing the template on the WP:BIRD assessment page. I notice you're an assessor too -- do you have an idea whether redirect pages' talk pages should have the template on them?? MeegsC | Talk 21:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Spring Heeled Jack
I didn't bother attempting any work on it as there turned out to be an almost complete lack of reliable sources; there seems to be little contemporary coverage and the best analysis is from a single modern article, but unfortunately the author has edited this article and hence any information derived from their work is routinely challenged as POV and/or COI. Some work has been attempted, but it seems mostly to have been undone. The standard of writing is poor, whole sections are unreferenced, and the pop culture section has actually got worse during the FARC. Yomangani talk 22:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

GimmeBot
Ack—Gimmetrow's gone on break. I can handle manually all the steps involved in closing and converting the articlehistory on FARs and FARCs, but the volume on FAC will be too much. I've left notes for Raul654 and Marskell. Unless you all disagree, keep doing what you usually do, and I'll do the rest of the steps on the FARs manually. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Coqui.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Coqui.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bleh999 06:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy Constitution Day!
Happy Day of the Constitution! Happy editing! Yours sincerely,  Boricua  e  ddie  00:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Caguas flag.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Caguas flag.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Himasaram 23:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Rico
I received the following message in my talk page:

"Please help us with an user doing daily edits with different screenames on the PR main page template (adding 'chief of state'). The edits go against the wikipedia template established in consensus for PR. Please see past talk page as reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Puerto_Rico/Archive_01#Chief_of_State thank you for your help--Royptorico 23:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)"

After checking the history page I noticed the back and forth editing of the infobox. Then I started to think, how about if a template such as the one you created for "The Puerto Rican Immigration series" is created for the P.R. infobox? I think that the casual vandal will be discouraged he doesn't have the easy access that he has now. Something similar to a instead of how it is now. It is just an idea. What do you think? Tony the Marine 02:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

MYA or mya
Joel, is this your territory? Saludos, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Rico
I have asked you to look into the situation of the Puerto Rico infobox and you have not done so. Please do, since there seems to the usual revert wars going on. What is wrong Joel? You seem to totally ignore me when I send you a message, unless it is to chastize me for something. Let's continue to work together as in the past for the good of Wikipedia and Puerto Rican related issues. Tony the Marine 17:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. What I did is put a "temp protection" and started a discussion on the talk page to see if a civil discussion on the issue could be carried out. I stated that I will not mediate because I want to see if they as members of a community could work things out. Tony the Marine 20:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Belgium
Hi Joel. Would you mind closing the Belgium FAR? As I mention there, I think it's broadly within criteria but I want nothing more to do with the personalities involved and its best if someone else closed it. Thanks and I hope all is well. Marskell 14:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This looks like a bit of "sweeping things under the rug". Yes, the two personalities are tough to deal with, but unfortunately IMO their fighting has corrupted the article that was originally quite decent (the version that Tony copyedited for the FAC). --RelHistBuff 07:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (copied from RelHistBuff talk page for context) If you truly feel that these two people are disruptive to the article then the solution is not to defeatuure the article (attacking the symptom) but to ask for their bannishment for it (attacking the root cause). Joelito (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I was not asking to defeature the article because of two people fighting. I voted in the FAR to Remove because the article does not pass criterion 1a. Whether it was caused by the two fighting or for other reasons is not the point. The article is not one of our best because of 1a. The way you put it, it sounds like FA was retained because the people involved in FAR gets tired of watching the fight. In fact, the same thing appears to have happened in the older FAR. Should we not stay focussed on the criteria? Please explain this to me because it is a waste of time for me participating in FAR if I don't understand how this all works. --RelHistBuff 07:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, wait. For the older FAR I made 60 edits myself to improve the prose. I do feel it was within 1a, and because it hadn't changed much it still was when renominated. A bit of bad phraseology had been re-introduced ("For Islam, Belgium's concept of 'recognized religions' caused a tedious path to being treated in the manner of the Jewish and Protestant religions") but not enough to kill it's status. If any mistake was made, it was actually allowing a renomination so soon after the last one; I should've just stopped it and suggested WP:DR. The two involved editors are literally down to arguing over two word phrases that are completely obscure to the non-Belgian. (Don't know why the term "common heritage" offends, but apparently it does.) But I don't think anything's been swept under the rug. Just the opposite—we've given that article a load of exposure at FAR. And if it had been removed we'd be open to the more serious charge of allowing a single POV-pusher to strip an article's status. Remember that if a review is iffy the default is generally keep. Marskell 12:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation of the decision. I will remember your point about single POV-pushers potentially stripping the status. I guess if it had been several editors pushing for fixes (and not getting them), then it would have been possible for the article to be defeatured. I just thought that the changes brought in by those two had seriously damaged the article. I mentioned in the FAR about the incorrect use of "competence", but I also saw plenty of other examples of "Frenglish". I stopped editing when SomeHuman reverted one of them despite the fact that he is clearly not an anglophone. OK, lesson learned. --RelHistBuff 17:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Chiming in with my two cents; it would be a shame to lose your valued input, RelHist. In this particular case, it was broadly within range (IMO), albeit damaged.  If they don't work it out, it will be back in 3 months or so, at which time a clearer determination can be made; either they'll stop fighting and fix the article, or it will be damaged beyond help.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Time for my reply. I did not defeature the article becuase it did not seem that the prose had suffered greatly. No other concerns (Aside from NPOV) were raised. I deemed that the NPOV concern was raised by editors trying to push their own POV into the article thus I dismissed this claim. I took into your consideration your comments but as I have said I did not see either a consensus or a strong case for demotion for that particular criteria. Furthermore, I rarely de-feature an article for prose alone because I feel that it can usually be fixed by allowing more time in FAR. Hope that clears things up. Joelito (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Tito Trinidad
Thanks for the protection, I put in a request for a semi-protect, but at least this will prevent an unecessary edit war. You and I have contributed to many of the same articles before (my IP is dynamic), I just want to make sure that people respect referenced info. There were POV comments (for and against Tito) in the past, I've been okay with those being cleaned up, but deleting a whole referenced section is ridiculous. I know that protect are irrelative to your own view and was just to stop any warring, but thanks just the same. 74.230.196.42 00:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Amazona Vittata
Hey Joel are you still interested in raising Puerto Rican Amazon to FA? I will be task free for a while or at least until Miguel Cotto gets reviwed, anyways the parrot is a national symbol and it deserves a FA drive. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  07:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

FAR process
Hi. I noticed that you removed my FAR nomination of Architecture of Windows NT - I thought I had nominated this correctly as per the process on the FAR page, but your edit comment implies that I didn't; what did I do wrong? Cheers SP-KP 17:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, you're right - I deleted another nom - I was clearly not concentrating when I made that edit! On the subject of whether I should have nominated, I did read that articles that had been featured on the main page in the past three days were not eligible to be nominated, but there wasn't anything in the instructions about articles that are currently on the main page. I agree with your reasoning for excluding these too however. Your edit (and comment on my talk page) suggests that this is already the accepted approach - is that correct? If so, would you agree that it should be documented in the instructions? All the best. SP-KP 16:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the further reply. I've made the change to the instructions. SP-KP 20:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good; we used to have that, and someone fiddled with it. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:PuertoRicoproj
Joel we need to modify Template:PuertoRicoproj so it recognizes the "Cat" (Category) and "List" parameters since at the moment even after assessment its still adding them to Category:Unassessed Puerto Rico articles, the category should be empty since all of the articles within it have been assessed and properly tagged. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  06:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice, thanks. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  19:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving Benicio Del Toro to Benicio del Toro
Seeing as you're a participant in WikiProject Puerto Rico, I wish to invite you to participate in the survey at Talk:Benicio Del Toro on whether the article on Benicio del Toro should be moved from Benicio Del Toro to Benicio del Toro. Timeineurope 14:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!
I was working on Cyclura pinguis‎ today (among other articles). I spent 4 hours writing, lining up sources, etc. I hit submit and my DSL had gone down...lost everything! I left the house ready to dismember the next person I saw and left the article half screwed up. Thanks for fixing it. Now if I could get those 4 hours of my life back. Mike Searson 03:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Project template
Sorry to bother you again but the template is experiencing the same problem it had before with the "FL" (Featured List) classification, and its adding it as an unassessed article, I would be grateful if this can be fixed, thanks for your time. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  22:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Chat
I hope you're doing good, Joel. I'm here ask you a simple question: Do you think Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico is FA material? I know you have a lot of experience in that area, so I'm asking your sincere opinion. Also, Portal:Puerto Rico is up for featured status, so could you take a look? Take care. - Mtmelendez (Talk 14:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist Yomangani's articles
Joel, can you take the bird lists? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 12:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Rico RV
Thanks for this. It was getting out of control... :-) Happy editing! -- Ag ü  eybaná  16:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I second that, protecting the page until the disputes are resolved has been passing trough my mind for some time now, but with WP:GAPQ around I just couldn't convince myself to do it. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  16:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Joelito
Dear Joelito,

What "point of view" expression are you referring to?

All the best,

Hypathia 16:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Rican Spindalis
Hey Joel, it's been a while. This article is currently a GA nominee on hold. Seeing as you contributed most to the article, I was wondering if you could take a look at it and add certain citations and information as the reviewer mentioned. I'll try to address his/her concerns this week, but I thought you could do it much faster. Saludos. - Mtmelendez (Talk 18:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Puerto Rico
Ta-da... :) -  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtmelendez (talk • contribs) 10:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Invasion
Regarding, nothing, but you removed it saying it was a "POV", when it's just a common and correctly used term. -- Agüeybaná  23:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Presidential politics in Puerto Rico
I've inserted this information in the Politics of Puerto Rico page, as suggested by you. Thanks.Pr4ever 20:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Louis Riel and FAR
Added new references whenever a tag was added to article for reference needed for a fact or verifiable fact questioned was replaced with a more definitive fact from a better source. Thank you for your note, it is good to see that perhaps a FA can be worked on to maintain status and improve so much in the process as well! SriMesh | talk  04:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured List of the Day Experiment
There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

11/18/2007
After carefully analyzing the progression and development of Puerto Rico Wiki Page, WE have concluded that it has been a FLAGRANT project to UNDERMINE the EXPLOITATION of POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY by: with, but not limited to: The purpose of Wikepedia is to EDUCATE every GENERATION with FREE THOUGHT, KNOWLEDGE and INTELLIGENCE, not SPECULATION or POINT OF VIEWS COMING FROM SEVERAL POLITICAL PARTY FANATICS. The Past Version was Confusing, Polarizing, Partisan and full of Bafflement. This article should not be reverted as it is now being examined by other administrators. (Media Cop (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC))
 * User:Pr4ever
 * User:Joelr31
 * A False Portrayal and Impression of Puerto Rico
 * Distorted and Garbled Language Styles
 * No Insight about the Real Culture and Social Situation of Puerto Rico
 * No Enlightenment about the Education Status of Puerto Rico
 * Article Format Incertitude: Jumbled Structure and Disordered Composition
 * Unacceptable, Impetuous, Amateurish and Atrocious Article Hierarchy
 * Poor Copy Writing
 * Reversed Political Propaganda represented with the point of view of several individuals writing this article to vindicate and exonerate the point of views of other Wikipedians.

"Political squabbling"
I've included the following in the discussion page of the Puerto Rico article. I respect the work you do and don't think that my edits should be the object of a wholesale revert, as if done by a vandal.

I have undone the massive reverts done by Joelr31 because of alleged "political squabbling" and because it is a "summary article".

1-the "government type" is not a "self-governing Commonwealth". First, PR is not fully self-governing and "commonwealth" does not describe with any specificity what PR is. It is only the name given to the body politic. "Commonweath" is the name of four states, that are entirely different from the Queen of England's realm, also called a "Commonwealth". The phrase "Republican three-branch" is a very specific one-meaning-permitted description of the type of government in Puerto Rico.

2-population ranks-Puerto Rico is under United States sovereignty. Thus, it somewhat political to rank it in comparison to nations that are sovereign. However, fully respecting that view, I added the rankings in comparison to the other jurisdiction within the United States, not replaciong the world rankings. To eliminate one or the other could be considered "political squabbling". To respectfully retain both is not political squabbling.

3-I have previously explained and discussed why PR is "partially self-governing"

4-the phrase self-governing is a hyphenated, not unhyphenated phrase.

5-Grito de Lares-My edits add several important facts. First, what is "Lares". Second, if you're going to revert the phrase "two-day-long" because this is a summary, why not edit out, for the same reason, "small but significant", and the 26-word references to Betances and Ruiz Belvis. It should all remain, in spite of being a summary article.

6-Referring to Spain as "who" sounds less correct than "which". Is there any grammatical basis to revert my edits, because it certainly has nothing to do with the two excuses (summarization and political squabbling) used to justify the wholesale revert of my edits.

7-It is totally incorrect that the July 25, 1898 invasion happened "at the outbreak of" the war. As a matter of fact, it was virtually at the end of active hostilities. I could have written "nearly at the end of" but simply inserted the very neutral NPOV word "during". What's the justification to revert that?

8-Adding 9 words to expand on "Natural disasters", without specifically mentioning the West Coast earthquake and tsunami and the names or dates of San Ciprian, San Ciriaco hurricanes, etc, doesn't really change the "summary" nature of the articles.

9-Piñero and Muñoz' titles-The titles describing the prior positions held by the first Puerto Rican governors before being appointed/elected to that job are relevant facts that only add 4 words to the summary.

10-If you choose to mention "La Isleta de San Juan" the mistake that it is "known as Old San Juan" has to be corrected, either by eliminating the mistake or correcting it, as I did, to explain that it "includes Old San Juan and Puerta de Tierra. As a matter of fact, most of the population and the geographic territory of the Isleta is in Puerta de Tierra and not the minuscule barrio known as Old San Juan.

11-El Yunque-what's the problem with mentioning that it's one of thew highest peaks, instead of simply "located". It only adds 11 characters!!!

12-Providing San Juan and Puerto Rico's lowest temps ever draws more attention than simply the 82 degree avg temp.

13-The edit closest to the allegation of "Political squabbling" would be my edit explaining that statehood supporters saw the "Spanish Only law" as "another attempt to move the islands away from eventual statehood". However, I was very careful to simply paraphrase existing text describing how many people saw Rosselló's Spanish/English law as "another attempt to move the island (sic) closer to statehood". If my edit is reverted, so should the identical existing text be reverted.

14-San Juan/St. Augustine. It is a major fact that should not be reverted from any summary that San Juan is the oldest city under the American flag.

15-Ratify/approve-What's the problem with this edit?

16-To state that there is a compact between PR and the US is a matter for politicalk debate. To state that there was an approval "in the manner of a compact" is uncontradicted fact.

17-If mentioning and listing consulates is important, a mention of the unusual relations between PR and the Vatican is important, too.

18-The reversion of my correction regarding national delegates leaves in place the entirely false existing text that PR is "not accorded equal-proportional representation" in both national parties.

19-Existing text that PR is an "independent taxation authority by mutual agreement with the U.S. Congress" is totally false. Congress frequently modifies tax laws applicable to PR without seeking a "mutual agreement" with PR. Examples include elimination of Sec. 936, creation of temporary Sec. 30A, amendment of Sec. 199, etc. My edits eliminated that falsity and provided neutral, factual correcions.

20-The summary should never exclude the fact that PR now has four registered politicalk parties, not three and that the fourth is non-political status-based.

My edits may not be perfect but if any one of them are to be reverted, it should be done in an individual, not wholesale, basis, as would be done with a vandal, and each revert should be explained, at least briefly, in order to demonstrate respect for the time and effort invested in preparing the edits.Pr4ever (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As you may noticed, I'm now doing and explaining every edit individually so each one may be judged on its merits and not wholesale.Pr4ever (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

mona iguana
Ref's incorrect on all 17 articles...I should have caught it months ago...it's 2 Greek words combined to make a Latin word.

I noticed it on an update today across all the cyclura articles.--Mike Searson (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Father Sanchez
Glad you approve of the source! Check Cyclura pinguis, he gave me those two pictures to use...I'm hoping he's going to provide more!--Mike Searson (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith FARs
I agree that if there are serious concerns, you have to let it stand. What I suggest is subtly making clear to the nominator that you are watching it. Or not so subtly, if they are being a dick. You can see what I posted to WP:FAR. Marskell (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Palo Colorado
Is that a scientific name? If not, then it should be capitalized, since it's a proper noun. If it is the scientific name then it should be Palo colorado. Sorry for getting the species wrong. I just went with what Luma apiculata said and Cyrilla racemiflora makes no mention of this. Rocket000 16:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Teller FAR
I agree with that closing. I was going to keep it myself just to shut it up. Louis Riel is more difficult. I think the issues fall between major and minor but the work has stopped. Marskell (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Edward Teller
How can I tell from the history who closed the Edward Teller FAR?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In general you are doing a great job keeping the WP:FAR process up and running. I have never paid attention to how it closes, but I looked on the talk page and saw a bot did the closing from what I saw and was confused.  Of course, I should have thought to look at the actual FAR discussion page.  In general, this was a productive FAR. The article was improved through the process in a way that brought it much closer to the standards of more newly minted WP:FAs.  I have had a consistent record of being hotly contested in requests for additional citations. I try to hold others to the standards I have held myself to in my 3FAs, 4FLs 41GAs, as well as my current WP:FAC and 25 current WP:GACs.  I am often contested and this case was no different.  I just was very disappointed at the closure which essentially endorsed this edit as well as this one.  However, since most editors don't want to hold themselves to the standards I hold myself to this will I am sure continue to happen.  My problem is that the citation covering the entire section truly amounts to no more than a bunch of references for someone to fish through.  PMA and I have had at it before and at some point I think he should just call a Spade a Spade when it comes to taking my advice.  I guess I would just like your opinion on the two edits I am troubled by.  The larger picture was that a greatly improved article was kept and if you were up against a deadline to make a decision you did the right thing.  That is not my point here.  My question is it now policy to cite several paragraphs with a few general sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is based on my comments on the Lisbon Earthquake, they have been misunderstood. I think it does need footnotes, and attempted to give its authors a clear and coherent justification for why this is more than dry-as-dust pedantry, so they, who at present know its sources better than any reviewer is likely to, will provide them. (Btw, Edward Teller does deal with deeply controversial matters, both about Oppenheimer and about SDI; but those assertions are based on good sources.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

My standards at FARC are that articles should be retained if: Which of these is higher may be debateable. FARC is sometimes phrased as though articles should not be kept if it is possible to improve them; which would result in no articles being kept at all.
 * They are at least average among those we now promote, and
 * I don't cringe at the thought of having them on the front page

At FAR I expect that objections should be specific enough to be actionable; they should also have clear relationship to the clarity, accuracy, neutrality or verifiability of the article. Not doing so results in reactions like this or this. I would like FA to be the backbone of Wikipedia, as LingNut says it is; but while it is not, I will continue to defend articles which meet my standards, while suggesting improvements, as i did here, by suggesting footnotes that would be useful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Did I miss either Joelr31 or Marskell's response to my 19:58, 9 December 2007 posting somewhere?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think your reply was vague. I do not understand it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Epa
Epa, Joelito, I never thanked you for the kind words several days ago, the offer for help if I need it (I'm sure I will), and thanks also for the vandal revert. That's the first time I've encountered a creative vandal edit with inline citations, no less !! We have the same concerns about multiple noms and consideration at FAR, but how to solve it is harder. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Riel
I took care of some overlinking today, and added a couple of refs. But I also added a couple of tags. It's close. I'll try to look at the Reconsidered section myself. Marskell (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * DrKiernan did some more work, Sandy struck her oppose, and I thought I'd just keep it. It's within criteria. He was quite a magnificant fellow, Louis Riel. I think our page does him justice :). Marskell (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Tainos and Green Iguanas
Hello,

I never made any edit to the Green Iguana article close to what you claim I made. The only reference to Tainos in that article is where the word Iguana derived from: The word Iguana is derived from a Spanish form of the Taino name for the species "Iwana". There are different iguanas in the Carribean: the Lesser Antillean Iguana and all the species and subspecies of Cyclura. I do not know if the Tainos ate Green iguanas...they did eat Cycluras. --Mike Searson (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just realized that about 5 minutes after I typed that, I apologize. I think I should have made that link in the Tainio article to either iguana (not entirely accurate, but the Lesser Antillean Iguana is in that genus) or perhaps iguanidae.  I think i may have been editing multiple articles at the same time and probably linked to the wrong one.  My fault, I apologize again.  I'll stick to articles about animals, weapons, etc!--Mike Searson (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

FAR
Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan at FAR, when it just passed FAC. Since I passed it at FAC, I don't want to be the one to explain the rules. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand why you did what you did, but it looks to me that did so for the sake of process as opposed to product. Its not like I expressed concerns on the FAC and reopened because I was ignored (which I why I figure that rule exists). I'm a little concerned at Sandy's message above, she should have just done it herself IMO. As for product, could you give the actual article a look over? FYI, the nominator has the same concerns as myself with the FA process but obviously doesn't mind the result.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Rico
The article is receiving many new edits given the latest status developments. Some were to the intro which really distorted it. I neutralized some, but please read the current version just in case I missed anything else. Cuidate. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 16:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit war resolved, request for unblock
Hey Joelr31, I was just wondering if you would unblock Blu-ray Disc because the edit war about a pic in the article has been resolved. Several people have expressed opinions, and all except one (who later said that quote "I don't really care") agreed to remove the pic because it is irrelevent. The reason I am asking you to unblock it is the admin I orginally contacted about the edit war (User:Quadell), is currently on a break from Wikipedia and is not available. I appreciate your help. Thingg (talk) 03:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead(II) nitrate, back to FA?
Hi, Joel, I've copy-edited the lead(II) nitrate article from the Chemicals wikiproject, after it was recentely demoted from its FA-status. In this, you contributed to the voting process. Would you please be so kind as to provide feedback in its now running FA re-candidacy?  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  19:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

History of the Peerage
Yes, thank you for the reminder. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)