User talk:Laser brain/Archive 3

Empire of Brazil FAC is now open!
Empire of Brazil is now a Featured Article candidate. Your opinion (either as support or oppose) is welcome. Here is the page: Featured article candidates/Empire of Brazil/archive1. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, gee whiz, I don't mean to sound harsh, but leaving reviewspam on the talk page of anyone remotely associated with FAC does not seem to me the best way to get positive reviews. Laser Brain, perhaps Raul and the delegates could hint that this sort of thing isn't terribly appreciated?  Unless it is, of course.  But hey, I hate pop up ads too.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, yeah, that is a bit of overkill now that I'm looking at it. I'd assumed I was getting it because I'dgfrgg000000000000000000000000 reviewed his articles before. (Excuse the interruption by Wikipedia kitty.) -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I blinked at it, then realized I had no connection with the guy and it was impersonal (I do get review requests which I am responsive to) and then I ran my watchlist and it was on the list of a dozen or so people I had watchlisted.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll go drop a note to Lecen; generally, I don't discourage asking for reviews, but 62 talk pages is more than notes-- it's almost spam. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. One is not a big issue, and I admire his imagination.  However, I would dislike to receive this for every filed FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As I explained to SandyGeorgia: The invitations were sent to editors who are divided in three different types: 1) The ones who reviewed Featured Articles which are related to Brazilian 19th century history (Pedro II of Brazil, Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná and José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco ) - you, Laser Brain, for example; 2) The ones who are active members WikiProject Former countries and that have successfully promoted their articles to FA status; and 3) The ones who appeared in Empire of Brazil talk page and have somehow contributed to the article.


 * I did not go around randomly sending invitations. I'm quite surprised to see that someone could be offended for being invited to review a FAC nomination on a subject that interests the person. But if that's the case, as I also said to Sandy, I won't do it anymore. --Lecen (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No offense meant, I'm uncertain where I fell into that analysis, as I have never reviewed a Brazilian FA, am not a member of any WikiProject and I don't remember ever contributing to the Empire of Brazil talk page or article. But whatever.  Good luck with your nomination.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Davenport, IA
Two archives, two questions: welcome to the FAC Closing Orange Bar Club :) See here. (But I still hold the record for getting an orange bar after promoting one!) Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oof! :) Will follow up with those shortly. I didn't see that convo on your Talk page. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  18:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You make your own decision, but if you want to un-archive, you can do that before GimmeBot goes through-- it's a PITA after he goes through. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's best to un-archive given the discussion on your talk, and the subsequent expectations of the nominator. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  18:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I appreciate it, I really don't want to have to go through a 4th FAC. I'll get to work on it after lunch. C T J F 8 3  chat 18:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're more experienced then me...so where can I 'ping' people to comment on the nomination? C T J F 8 3  chat 15:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * , and  know Geography articles well, and usually do thorough reviews.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I was hoping someone would notice this with all that is going on bellow. C T J F 8 3  chat 18:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess you can fail it now...and I'll renominate after the fixes. C T J F 8 3  chat 04:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well we don't say "fail", we just archive it. Think of it as going away for later consideration. I will withdraw it if you wish. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  05:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Up to you this time. It's been a month. I could get the issues fixed, just don't know how much longer it should stay open. C T J F 8 3  chat 05:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Incubator/Little Sound DJ
I've marked this as a possible copyvio from http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/lsdj-gameboy-cartridge and explicitly stated that they do not allow commercial use of their content as expressed in their terms of use in Section 5: Ownership and Permitted Use of Content. Could you please clarify as to why you think that this would be public domain material, as you told me here? :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  07:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi TeleCom, one of the things we have to consider is date of origin of the text. The alleged copyvio text has existed here since at least 2008, and the text on the site you linked above is very likely newer. Therefore, there is a strong likelihood that Worthopedia is copying text from Wikipedia, not the other way around. Therefore, it does not matter what license they claim. If anything, they are required to provide proper attribution since they copied it from us. If you'll look closely, you can see that they wrote "-/wiki/Little_Sound_DJ" right after the text, which is probably their slipshod way of attributing the text. From looking at the rest of the site, they appear to copy text from Wikipedia regularly. Hope this helps! -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  15:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for the undeletion of 'Shefali Razdan Duggal'
Recently the page 'Shefali Razdan Duggal' was deleted for G12: Copyright infringement, when in fact we represent the copyright owner. We are PixInk, a small design company based in San Francisco, and Shefali Razdan Duggal (whom the article is about) is a client of ours who commissioned us to create a wikipedia page for her, as well as a website and blog. The copy that appeared on the page was copy written and sent to us by her to use for this page. This same copy also appears on her professional website we designed, www.shefalirazdanduggal.com, which is where the misunderstanding most probably occurred. The text was cited back to the website in case this happened, but if it wasn't done correctly we can and will fix the problem areas. Shefali wiki (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:CP
Hi! Thanks for pitching in, we can always use the help. I just felt the need to comment about something I noticed: You deleted Oman Oil Company after a rewrite had already been placed at Talk:Oman Oil Company/Temp. I know it's easy to miss, but it would be a shame to lose a good rewrite if the editor didn't follow up on it and move it themselves as they did in this case. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, my goof. Thanks for the note—I'll be sure to double-check that every time. The scope of the copyright problems is truly amazing. On at least one I checked, the copyvio text had been in place for five years! -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  23:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Andy, I wanted to also thank you for jumping in -- it is really, really appreciated. One thing: when you delete the articles from the CP list, it is best to use the Listed at Copyright problems for over seven days reason rather than as a G12 speedy. (You'll find it listed at the bottom of the delete reason box). I only noticed because I've expecting a possibly intense response from the Native American Journalists Association creator when that article goes bye-bye -- and if they think it was speedied rather than listed for two weeks it might escalate their anger. Ah, well... what can we do, heh? Have fun at CP. Cheers. — Cactus Writer (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, good to know that is there. I'm sure it helps when they come back and find it deleted. I have no doubt permission will eventually be obtained for the NAJA article, and hopefully my message on their talk page will alleviate their concerns. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  01:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment
I have proposed the renaming of a category, and wanted to know if you would consider commenting on the proposed renaming over at that link. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Restore
Please restore the article History of the Jews in Brody. You had no legal grounds to remove the article. I am the author of the article on wikipedia and of the article in my word document (at personal.ceu.hu/students/97/...) in my personal archive (which is no publication!). And I have explicitly stated it on the wikipedia article (you should have read it at least before deleting). --Roman Zacharij (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have sent the following letter to:

permissions-commons@wikimedia.org

Dear Sirs,

Hereby I ask you to restore the article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Brody

which was unjustly deleted, as on the deleted wikipedia article itself I have explicitely stated that I am the authour of both of wikipedia article and of source document at my student server. The one who deleted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Laser_brain) clearly ignored to read this statement of mine on the wikipedia article.

Hereby I confirm once again:

--- I hereby affirm that me, Roman Zakharii the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of History of the Jews in Brody http://www.personal.ceu.hu/students/97/Roman_Zakharii/brody.doc

I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Roman Zakharii, (details) -


 * Actually, removing your content under legal ground is precisely what I did. We do this to protect ourselves and to protect legal copyright owners. We generally do not accept on-wiki claims to copyright because we have no way of verifying your identity. Now that you have taken the correct step to identify your authorship through the OTRS system, I have restored the article history and placed the copyright notice until we process the ticket. Once the ticket is processed, we will restore the content. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  03:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Tracking FAC disruption
I can't see deletions, so I can't reconstruct all the pieces or remember all the blocked editors or deleted FACs, so I started User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox. was handling it, but it hasn't been enough-- since many of those FACs are deleted, I can't reconstruct them all. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will run through all of the deleted ones to track the users. Or, would it be useful to undelete them for a while for investigation? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  04:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are still some others, but I just can't remember what they were-- that's my problem with deletions, since I can't see them. Does Great Pumpkin have no deleted FACs?  At one time, I came across a slew of "Pumpkin" editors, but can't find that now. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Great Pumpkin has no deleted contribs, and only a handful of contribs outside user space. GreatOrangePumpkin has several deleted featured process pages, which I've added to the sandbox. Will keep looking for other user names. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  18:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I can't recall how or why Great Pumpkin was blocked, or where I found all the rest. By the way, I've been distracted for days by Andrew Wakefield being at ITN, but will get through FAC today.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not seeing where Great Pumpkin figures into it. He was blocked as a sock of Grundle2600 (see Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600 and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Grundle2600). Great Pumpkin never edited Paul McCartney, but he made a significant edit to Hugo Chávez, so maybe that's why you remember him? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Could be, since Grundle is there also, but I seem to remember a whole ton of "Pumpkins" at FAC; I wish I had kept track of this earlier. Unless we find something linking Gret Pumpkin and GreatOrangePumpkin, I'll need to remove Great Pumpkin from the FAC portion.  I think I've caught up with Wakefield for the day, and can turn my attention to FAC soon.  After a break and some food :)  And what is a Pygmalian romance, anyway?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As of now, I don't see anything linking the two. Great Pumpkin made barely any edits, so it's difficult to draw connections. I've done some different searches of the user list to find "pumpkin" so I have something to go through. Ever read Pygmalion, or see My Fair Lady? The idea that I can "fix" someone who isn't otherwise suitable is... folly. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  20:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I coulda told 'ya that :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō/archive1
Your comments on this article have been addressed. Please see if the changes are up to snuff and see if the rest of the article is satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Stark Raving Dad
Hello, you opposed the previous FAC for Stark Raving Dad. I have re-nominated the article at FAC and it appears to be heading for a pass, but I didn't think it was right for that happen without you having a chance to voice your opinion. -- Scorpion 0422  20:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Afghanistan – Denmark relations
How can it be COPYVIO, when i took from this page Danish Committee for Aid to Afghan Refugees and other wiki pages? --Ahmetyal 22:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already explained how. Many or most of the sentences are either directly copied from their sources or are closely paraphrased. For example: "Denmark has also contributed to mine clearance. 4 million people have received instruction in the dangers involved in mines." This is almost verbatim from the source listed. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  22:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Ahmetyal
I have made several warnings regarding copyvio such as, I've spent hours removing copy violation from Danish bilaterals. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your attention to the matter. Your help is greatly appreciated. It's unfortunate that the problem is so widespread, but it looks like we may be making some progress. He appears to understand the issue now. I am closely monitoring his contributions—if there are any further issues, I will take appropriate action. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  00:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar, thanks
Thank you for the barnstar Andy. Boosts my ego. :) — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 05:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Almirante Latorre-class battleship/archive1
Andy, thanks for taking the time to read and review this article. It's extremely gratifying to know you found the story of the ships fascinating, as that's why I write these articles... but I rarely hear feedback on whether people liked the story or not. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, Ed. I look forward to seeing more such articles at FAC. The reason I was initially drawn to Wikipedia is the wealth of information I would never be exposed to unless I had been a History major... even then, such depth (har har) would be hard to come by. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  14:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

IP craziness
These anonymous IPs sure have nothing better to do, doesn't it seem? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it's one dude... they all geolocate to one area of Brazil. He's very enthusiastic. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  15:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Source query
I've e-mailed the Library of Michigan, but in attempting to find some information, the article on Elderly Instruments popped up on my Google search. Since the article used an article from a 1996 issue of Michigan Living magazine as a source, I'm curious if you know where I might find a copy of the April 1994 and April 2001 issues. Supposedly they awarded Brockway Mountain Drive in the Upper Peninsula "one of the best 'Fall Color Views' and 'Mountain Biking Areas'" according to the Keweenaw Chamber of Commerce. I'd rather go right to the source and ask the horse, rather than the answer the chamber wants to endorse. P.S. This is for one of my next FAC articles that's come together quite nicely if I can upgrade the level of sourcing for a few details. Thanks in advance.  Imzadi  1979   →  10:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a tough one. That magazine isn't indexed in any library databases that I know of, since it is published by AAA Michigan. But, you've got a good shot that some of the bigger libraries keep archive copies. Traverse City is a good chance. I actually have the physical copy that I used for Elderly, so I didn't find it using any online searches. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  14:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not contact AAA Michigan?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Leave it to the attorney to point out the coldly logical, obvious answer. :) -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  14:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have contacted AAA of Michigan before, and it took 2.5 months to find a map source used in the M-6 article. Fortunately, the Library of Michigan archives it in bound volumes, as does Grand Valley State University. A research librarian pulled the articles today, and the citations were waiting in my inbox earlier this afternoon. Thanks for the backup suggestions though.:-)  Imzadi  1979   →  21:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Butterfly (Mariah Carey album)/archive2
Andy, some stupid NPAs and name-calling were going on in this review. Would you mind taking a look? I don't understand how to tackle them here. I am speaking to both of them in the meantime, trying to resolve their fights. Can you leave a note for something in the FAC? — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 18:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Andy. I have left a note with Tbhotch and I have talked with Petergriffin9901 and cooled him down. He's now seeing the reason for oppose and why his nomination is being criticized. Sighh, part of life don't you think? — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 19:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Normally delegates may move off-topic conversation to the talk page, but it's really up to the nominator and reviewers to self-regulate. I hope this goes smoothly from here on out. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassador application
I'm glad you appreciate the other side of it, the effort to make sure we give a consistent and good help experience to the newcomers when we're working with professors. Are you thinking about applying? I hope you do. Cheers--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternate account
Andy you remember me telling you guys about who is an alternate account of disruptive user Piano non troppo? I would like you to check the recent activities of this user, and the random Withdraw being stuck to random nominations. This is seriously getting out of hand. He is being discussed for a topic ban at GAN, I think we need a discussion at FAC regarding this. What do you think? — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 16:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I do remember. I will continue to move off-topic stuff to the talk pages, and I will look closer at the larger picture later today when I have time. In the mean time, I suggest you remove the "sucky reviewer" comment—I think you're above that, don't you? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  18:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * YA I accept that was not needed, just came out seeing the user's heinous deeds. I will strike them out. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 18:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate. :) -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy, thought of informing you that since 56tyvfg88yju is unresponsive and is removing other's messages from his talk page, I thought of informing that I am keeping an eye on each and every edit of his, and warned him not to use language like "this article makes me wanna vomit" or calling other editors "illiterate" or asking fairly good articles to withdraw. If you want my opinion, 56tyvfg88yju could have been a wonderful content reviewer. Its just so frustrating to see him/her throwing that all away for this bullshit. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 08:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't remove the comments etc. he makes again, but based on those edits I would be shocked if this user wasn't a sock or bad faith user. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 17:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He is an obvious sock, but not seemingly in violation of policy. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  23:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

CSI effect
I have attempted to address your concerns at the FAC for CSI effect. Happy clams? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm never really happy until I get my dram of scotch after 9 pm. :) I'm raising concerns because I'm trying to archive and promote tonight. So, I'm commenting with my delegate hat on, not my reviewer hat. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  03:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what that means. Please drive carefully. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 12:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed overlink
I've fixed the overlink for Walden–Wallkill Rail Trail. For some reason, I was under the impression that links which appeared in the lead needed to be repeated in an article's body, but WP:REPEATLINK cleared that up. Thank you for the run-through. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

FAC advice
Hey Laser Brain, I currently have Grand Coulee Dam at FAC and will be leaving for a three-week trip in about a week. The problem is that I won't have reliable internet access, if any, while gone. If the FAC is still active when I leave, will it be archived or can it be put on hold? Thanks.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey there! It will likely be archived, not necessarily for non-activity but just because it has been open for around two weeks with no support. That's not your fault—it's just overtaxed reviewers. Sometimes the topic area can make attracting reviewers a challenge as well. I would actually recommend withdrawing it now and bringing it back when you return. Hopefully I will get a chance to provide feedback then, and maybe you can ping some other editors with interest in that topic area to get some reviews. User:Moabdave might be interested. Thanks! -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have at least two of the references, I can take care of routine matters should the FAC continue past NN's departure date. At least as far as Feb 7, after which I am myself away, but I doubt it will be open that long, win, lose, or lose.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, then I have no problem leaving it open if there is some movement and actionable feedback. I will let Sandy know, since I was involved in the peer review and will likely provide an FAC review. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be good, perhaps you could look at it early in the week so you get NortyNort, who is far more familiar with dams than I am.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated. I will monitor/respond to the best of my ability until I leave. I hope and don't think any major issues should arise. I will query Moabdave as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can take a look, would sometime this week be soon enough? I've got stuff to do tonight, but I can surely get to it this week. Dave (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to respond to your concerns, Laser Brain, but can't guarantee I can answer them all. Hopefully Moabdave will be able to answer any I can't.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? I supported the article. The laundry list is JKBrooks85's. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  17:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Too busy to notice that, I guess. Never mind.  Hoping for a stale cupcake from someone if I get this through while NortyNort is away.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm rather in awe of the amount of work you do here. Not only will I send a cupcake, I'll even take requests as to the flavor. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  17:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It comes and goes in waves. I will be away large sections of the next three months, and my output will go down, of course.  Thanks for the flexibility on the stale cupcake!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

History of the New York Jets at FAC
As you reviewed it last time, do you think you could find time to review it again? I think it is considerably improved from first time through, which I will admit was overly rushed. I've taken a lot of care with the prose, and The Writer 2.0 has been a huge help, still it is a large article and I have no doubt that there are things reviewers won't like that will have to be dealt with. I suppose eventually we will have to ask Raul to dispose of this FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mean to review it again. I recall having a bit different of a takeaway from some of the other reviewers, especially regarding jargon, but we'll see how it stands now. I'm Raul can handle it. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  15:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I recall, I was required to inform the readers that the Jets had qualified for "the playoff stage of the competition". I did cut out a lot of jargon; some is unavoidable and the article cannot be a course in Football 101.  We will see what you and other reviewers think, a couple have weighed in already.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It strikes me that with four supports, it might be time to notify Raul that he might want to take a look at it. That this was a difficult article is clear, but I think it will be OK.  The Jets need to send The Writer 2.0 and me used jockstraps for our labors, or something of similar value and display worthiness.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I pinged him. Not sure how he usually operates, but we'll see. Would you settle for a piece of sod from the polo grounds? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the article, that would be sodden sod so I better bring some plastic.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

L'ange de Nisida TFA
I see that this has been nominated in the non-specific spot. I would love to see it on the main page, but I have a slight problem. A week or so ago I left a note here, about Handel's opera Rinaldo and its tercentenary date, 24 February. Two others editors have since laid claim to that date, so Raul will have to make a decision. As Rinaldo has to get through FAC, its chances of selection look small, and will probably vanish altogether if L'ange is selected shortly before it. Is there any possibility you could defer your nomination until Rinaldo's fate is clear? No other date is significant for Rinaldo - it's 24 February or nothing. I am not expecting preference, only a chance to stay in the game. Brianboulton (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops, of course. I was just responding at WT:TFA before I saw this. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  21:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for withdrawing L'ange for the moment. Let us see what happens for 24th February. At least one of the nominations has a very strong case for selection, I must admit. Brianboulton (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Tales of Monkey Island/archive1
Got a quick question regarding this nomination: it strikes me that the last unresolved point in this FAC is the comments by. I was generally put off addressing them due to his attitude, and other editors calling him out on his poor or unjustified reviews at both GAN and FAC (and even on this very page!). Would you, with your delegate hat on, regard the thrust of 56tyvfg88yju's otherwise acerbic comments as actionable, as something I should definitely address for the FAC to pass? -- Sabre (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * His comments are definitely actionable (once you peel back the hyperbole), but it's an editorial decision whether you think they are reasonable to deal with or would improve the article. Whether clusters of citations affect readability is really a subjective matter. So, I would say that if you decide not to make changes in response to his comments, you might want to comment with your rationale. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

FAC
Hello, thanks for your recent work at FAC! I'm going to be going through soon to promote/archive. Could you please revisit the various nominations where you opposed and see if the nominators have addressed your concerns? I'm looking at Featured article candidates/Adenanthos cuneatus/archive1 in particular. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  00:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do. Feel free to poke me anytime if you need an image copyright review for one or more FACs. Stifle (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Butterfly (Mariah Carey album)/archive2
Hi Andy. Can you do me a small favor. I would like to retract the nomination. I am quite busy at the moment and am interested in doing a song next not album. Can you please close the FAC? Thank a lot. Cheers!-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   08:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy, during this FAC, after I argued about the irrelevancy of a certain piece of information in the article, the nominator agreed to remove it from the article. However, after withdrawing the nomination, he has re-inserted that info. After I reverted his addition, he reverted me back stating, "The info is extra for high standard FACs, however for a regular GA, there is nothing wrong". Surely this is unacceptable, and contrary to the spirit of FAC?—indopug (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * At the very least, it seems like a questionable use of the good-faith efforts of reviewers. I agree with you. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  03:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Benet Academy/archive2
Hi. Why was this FAC closed? The image issues had been addressed and were waiting Stifle to revisit. Nikkimaria's lean oppose and comments on prose were being addressed and had not been revisited yet either. Why not let the reviewers respond and let the FAC progress? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, when the FAC backlog is such as it is, I will archive nominations that have been around for two weeks with no support. This tactic is needed to keep the page manageable and the burden on overworked reviewers down. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  20:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we have leave to renominate early, as provided for in the FAC guidelines? Edge3 (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would be prudent to try to address the problems brought up in the nomination and return in two weeks. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  14:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply
EdChem (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Pre-Madonna
Dear Andy, is it acceptable to include url links of google books when one is using books as reference, such as in the above article? Are you aware of any FA quality article following this? Because I personally find them unnecessary. — Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 10:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I do it all the time, personally, see for example Carousel (musical). By the way, Andy, you put Allegro (musical) in the proper category at WP:FA.  Curses, foiled again.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wehwalt, I was planning on nominating Like a Virgin for FAC, do you think I need to add urls? — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 12:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is helpful to all concerned, as source reviewers can check stuff easily and users can do quick further research. I think it is a best practice.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess you're going to have to move on from musicals now that I broke the pattern. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  13:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No such luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Silly question
Hi Andy, I am a fairly big Star Wars geek, but it wasn't until I was watching The Empire Strikes Back earlier today that I finally noticed a line of dialogue that may explain your user name (Princess Leia is talking to Han Solo and says "I don't know where you get your delusions, laser brain.") Regardless of the source, I've always liked your user name. I've been trying to help out a bit more at FAC (though I am quite busy IRL at the moment). Hope all is well with you, take care, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bingo. :) I think you're the first one to catch that, or at least ask me about it. Anyway, big thanks for your contributions across the board—you're one of the users who form the glue that holds this place together. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  04:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind words (blushes) - I think the same could more fittingly be said of you. I almost used "Two fighters against a star destroyer?" as the header for my post, but thought it would be too hard to explain if that was not the reason behind your user name. I figured calling myself stir bar here would be too mundane, so I used the German name. Take care, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I like user names with stories behind them—makes life more interesting. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Mine is what Siegmund calls himself in Die Walkure, when Hunding calls his name repeatedly near the end of Act 2, it sends shivers down my spine. More action then takes place in the next three minutes then in the rest of the five hour opera ... and look what happens to Wehwalt! (on business end of spear)--Wehwalt (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion
Hey Andy, there is a move discussion here, from Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan to Borat. This was my rookie FA, by the way, learning at the knee of Lenin & McCarthy. I'm not asking you to participate in the discussion (though obviously you would be welcome) but to check with you on the procedure if the move goes forward, to deal with the FA star and paperwork and all that good stuff. I don't know what backstage stuff is involved in the magic wand waving the director and delegates do.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, no additional action would be required. Gimmebot will update WP:FA automatically, and Rick Bot will update WP:WBFAN. The old noms will of course be under the old article title, but that's no big deal since the links will still be correct on the article talk page. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  04:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. BTW, thanks for mentioning to Raul about the Jets, but there is really no hurry.  When it passes, it passes (note:  I will probably feel differently about it if it now runs over a cliff!)--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Zduhać FAC
I am willing to do a format check on the sources of this FAC article, but as every source is in Russian I wouldn't be able to take the check any further. The article looks likely to fail (an oppose, a leaning-to-oppose, no supports), so I am wondering if it is worth doing at all. What do you think? (Are you the sole active delegate at the moment?) Brianboulton (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would hold off unless a copyeditor comes out of the woodwork to help. His last FA, Badnjak (Serbian), was heavily edited by Malleus before being submitted, which helped its quality immensely. I will likely let it run a while longer since the logjam isn't too bad, so we'll see what happens. Sandy is back from a recent absence, but I'm not sure when her next FAC cycle might be. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  20:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Illinois (album)
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to note my appreciation for helping to raise the quality of the Illinois (album) article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Morgan dollar
Hi Andy. Thanks for the comments on the FAC for Morgan dollar! I just wanted to let you know that I fixed the things you mentioned, but I have a question that I posted on the FAC page. I don't mean to rush you, though, I just wanted to let you know that I answered. Thanks again!-RHM22 (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Link's Awakening
Not to fear, I've got articles in the pipeline, ArbCom stuff is just gonna sap my will to do pretty much anything save for the ten-odd articles on my todo list :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

All this pain smothers me
I read you want to work on Gish. Get back to me in a week and I might be in the mood to help out all the way to FA Valhalla. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool deal. I've been collecting some sources, so I can email you whatever ones you want, depending on how you want to split up the work. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  17:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to like working on production and music details. Dealing with charts and sales is my least favorite part of the process. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll take a look at the other areas first. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  03:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been preoccupied lately. I'll see what I can do soon. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Request
With Pipe Dream (musical) well on its way, would you mind if I nommed another R&H now? I'm hoping for a March 29 TFA (60th anniversary) but it would be nice if things were a bit more relaxed than Rinaldo--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That should be fine. I don't see any showstoppers at the Pipe Dream FAC. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  23:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither did they in 1955. Thanks.  I may wait a day or two anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I probably won't bother. Someone else wants March 29 on the template, so there seems no reason to rush as I won't try to ace out another writer for the spot.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Who? I guess it's a good problem to have. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  13:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Andy, I'll get through the bottom of the page today, but Wehwalt, you can certainly go ahead and put it up, regardless of TFA! I read through the top of the page yesterday, and found we are even more lacking in reviews than usual :-(  Is a month at FAC becoming the new norm?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Jappalang's Battle of Towton. I'll get the article on some other time, a dispute has developed about how many cast members to list and how they are to be referenced, so I don't feel comfortable putting up the article at FAC just yet.  Yes, it is a good problem, because TFA/R is either feast or famine.  I have two FAC's I'm intending to review, and hope to get them up this weekend.  Thanks to both of you but I'll wait a bit on the nom and see what develops.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If the FACs you are going to review are in the bottom half of the page, would you mind letting me know, so I won't spend time on them yet, or perhaps archive them prematurely? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And I'm assuming I'm dealing with Empire of Brazil :) -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  14:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep :) I think there's still another on your recusal list at the chat page-- I'll get there as soon as I can.  And I still haven't made time to peek in at Parkinson's.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going to do Leslie Groves, but if you think it will pass without my intervention, it has three supports, I'll look at another article. And I was defeated by the Empire of Brazil myself, so I was planning to do the princess which is near the top of the list.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead and do Groves! I hate this notion creeping in that three supports is adequate, and although Hawkeye is an established FA writer, we have the ongoing problem that MilHist articles are frequently only reviewed by other MilHist editors, so another review is welcome!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get to it today, but I am overpromised and undertimed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to hurry-- since I'm going through today anyway, I may get there before you, and it can wait til the next pass. I don't see any reason to deprive an established FA writer of the benefit of additional review.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You got there before me. I found a surprisingly small number of minor problems for them to clear up.  Well written, actually.  Anyway, I nommed Me and Juliet, which was not the one I intended to, actually.  Back to coins or something after this.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I put in a request for Kennedy half dollar? The long list of mintages is long. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  04:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will look at it, though modern coins are more difficult. I probably would not include a list of mintages (I did not for Lincoln cent) but leave that for a sub article.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I discussed it with RHM22 and we'll work on it. Sourcing is going to be a pain, so can't tell you when you'll see it at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice, thanks! Always my favorite coin. I have a whole bunch of them. I saw the book on Amazon—is it difficult to source because it's still in circulation? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  16:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there! I'm the one who'll be working with Wehwalt to improve the article. In my opinion, the reason for the lack of information about the Kennedy half isn't really because it's currently in circulation. I would guess the reason is that there isn't a lot of interest amongst serious researchers and writers. Generally, when a coin design is discontinued, there's a flurry of interest from people who are either interested in the history of coinage or are nostalgic. There's a fair amount out there about the Kennedy half, though, so we should be able to put together a pretty nice article. By the way, I agree completely about the mintage figures in the article. I'm currently working on a sub article with all the data in a sortable table.-RHM22 (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * RHM22 pretty much said it. The 1905-1921 era I've worked on with coins until now is much better studied.  However, the story of how the Kennedy and its eventful first year deserves to be better told here.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like an interesting project, for sure. There's an interesting article here about collecting the Kennedy half dollars. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  02:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good one because it actually mentions that the coin is rarely circulated today and gives the reason for that. I've found when writing coin articles that the hardest information to source is that which is obvious to most numismatists. Since people already know it, very few good sources actually print it. Though it's obvious to people who are interested, a lot of it isn't obvious enough to go without a ref.-RHM22 (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, that had me worried. I'm glad the ANA is doing something constructive!--Wehwalt (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination request
Would there be any objection if I nominated Rosendale trestle as an FA? My current FAC on La Stazione has several supports and no opposes, and April 6, 2012 will be the 140th anniversary of the day the trestle first opened. Plus, given the current construction schedule, it may also be the day the bridge opens as a walkway. The extra point from being promoted a year ago probably won't be necessary, but the numbers are just too beautiful to risk it. --Gyrobo (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  22:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Gyrobo (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

FAC 3 for 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl
Hello. I recently posted the third nomination for 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl at FAC. I remember you opposed the original nomination due primarily to prose issues; if you could comment as to whether your concerns have been addressed, I would appreciate it.

Additionally, I wanted to politely request that you recuse from either promoting or archiving this featured article candidacy. You archived the second nomination before it had reached the "older nominations" section, due to (per your edit summary) "no support in two weeks". However, as mentioned above, you had opposed the first nomination, and in that first oppose indicated that you hadn't read through the entire article. I believe it would have been better to review the article rather than to archive it when you had opposed it at an earlier nomination. While I believe you were acting in good faith, I hope you understand why I would prefer that you recuse under these circumstance. –Grondemar 21:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely understand, and would be happy to recuse. I knew when I agreed to become a delegate that I would run into repeat nominations that I had opposed in the past due to the number of reviews I used to do. It's a worthwhile question to consider whether I should recuse from all of them. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  22:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Got it; because it has two earlier archives with little review, I'll let it run at least three weeks this time. Since I sometimes forget, I'll add a note on the FAC for myself.  I don't think it's necessary for Laser to recuse from all older cases he previously opposed unless there are special circumstances, but I'm OK with handling this one. However, Grondemar, you might want to authorize Laser to promote it should it gain consensus in my absence, so you won't potentially be held up when I'm skiing in two weeks.  Asking a FAC delegate to recuse, when we generally have no problem with neutrality, could delay the FAC as we juggle our schedules.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Which reminds me, Andy ... hold up on reviewing until I return from travel, so you won't have to recuse on any :) I haven't pinged Karanacs in a while to see how she's doing-- I'll do that soon.  Sure do miss her :(  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sacagawea dollar
Hi Andy. From the requests above, it seems like you're the right one to ask about this. Could I please be allowed to nominate Sacagawea dollar for FA status? The FAC for Morgan dollar is still active. Sacagawea dollar is currently a GAN, but I would like to remove it and make it an FAC instead.-RHM22 (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That should be fine—Morgan dollar looks like it's maturing nicely. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  22:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'll nominate it as soon as I can figure out how to remove it from GAN.-RHM22 (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

A question
Hello! I have a question about something. I contacted a director, asking him about a music video's information. He responded, and unfortunately, we did it through e-mail. How can I source the information he sent me? Can I take a screenshot of the e-mail message and upload it somewhere? I asked him if he could add that information to his official website, but he didn't. Can you help? Thanks! – <b style="font-family:Arial; color:CornflowerBlue;">Novice7</b> (<b style="font-family:Arial; color:DodgerBlue;">talk</b>) 14:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Do it the way that academic publications do it, attribute it to a "personal communication". Malleus Fatuorum 14:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you tell me how to do it? Like can I use Citation, and add format as "personal communication"? – <b style="font-family:Arial; color:CornflowerBlue;">Novice7</b> (<b style="font-family:Arial; color:DodgerBlue;">talk</b>) 16:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure how to answer. I can't find any precedent. I would probably go with something like "Shmoe, Joe. Personal communication. 19 February 2011." in the References section. Just be consistent and give as much information as you can. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  01:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. – <b style="font-family:Arial; color:CornflowerBlue;">Novice7</b> (<b style="font-family:Arial; color:DodgerBlue;">talk</b>) 03:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought this wasn't permissible on the grounds that it wouldn't be verifiable -- at least I thought I'd seen something on a policy page to that effect. The argument was that an email is at best no more than a self-published source, so is restricted to sourcing only the things that a self-published source can support.  On top of that it's not independently verifiable; anyone can go buy a self-published book and check what it says, but an email can't be acquired in that way.  An image of it is possible, but I would think that's the same as scanning in a letter and using that as a source -- I wouldn't think that's OK either.  I have had some emails from off-wiki experts who I'd love to be able to quote, but have always assumed I can't use that material. Mike Christie (talk – library) 21:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mike here ... if it's not available in some form of publication, it's really not verifiable. Check out WP:V where it's specifically mentioned that sources need to be published. The mere act of sending an email is not publication. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not quite the way I'm seeing the issue. What is it that's being verified? That some expert has offered some opinion in a personal communication? How is that different from someone claiming that permission to upload an image has been granted by the copyright holder? If there's a verifiability issue then why couldn't it be dealt with by the OTRS system if necessary? Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was also thinking it could be handled within OTRS. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  22:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Guys, this is the screenshot of the e-mail (I removed my email id). – <b style="font-family:Arial; color:CornflowerBlue;">Novice7</b> (<b style="font-family:Arial; color:DodgerBlue;">talk</b>) 03:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Does OTRS help, in this case? – <b style="font-family:Arial; color:CornflowerBlue;">Novice7</b> (<b style="font-family:Arial; color:DodgerBlue;">talk</b>) 04:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Empire of Brazil
Andy, could you be kind and tell me why Empire of Brazil has not been passed so far? Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Last time I went through the nomination and the article itself, issues were still being found. I will be going through today, so I will look to see that actionable feedback has been addressed. Where you were given sample issues, hopefully you have checked the rest of the article for said issues. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  14:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the main points raised by Tony were the size of the article and about national revenue being the eighth largest in the world. I reduced the size from 134 Kb to 128 Kb. Pedro II of Brazil, for example, is 119 Kb long (you might know that, since you made a great review in it when I nominated it). I noticed that Tony asked whether it was the eighth in nominal or PPP terms. He certainly mistaked nationa revenues (sum of tax collections) with GDP.
 * SandyGeorgia mentioned the size issue. Tony told me to "Take what Sandy says seriously, please", implying that I was mocking her or something like that. Which is untrue. All I said was "You've got to make up your mind. Either other articles can be used as comparison or they can't". She was using other FAs as examples for comparison, but I had to see another reviewer (Cryptic C62) say "In future endeavors, it would greatly behoove you to drop this bizarre notion that the purpose of an FAC is to compare a given article to existing FAs. That is simply not the case". The reviewers make me feel like a blind man trying to cross a busy street without any help. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * " I think she was pointing out that other longer articles have ballooned after promotion and we want to be sure to avoid that. Article length is always a concern, especially when we get subarticles for free and there is no cost to reader comprehension. I understand your frustration—just keep your head high and work with the community. If you disagree with a request or it contradicts a previous reviewer, explain the rationale for your choice and move on. If multiple reviewers apply pressure (as with the lead), it's usually a good idea to display flexibility. A good idiom to remember at FAC is "pick your battles". -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  15:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ow, but the lead issue has been resolved for quite some time. The two reviewers (Cryptic C62 and Brianboulton) who complained about it were pleased with the modifications I made and gave their support for the article. --Lecen (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I know. I was just using it as an example. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  15:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Malmö FF FAC
Hi! Thanks for your comments. I have replied on the FAC page. --Reckless182 (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi again, an image review has been done and there has been no acitivity on the FAC for the last three days. Do you have any additional comments? Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Constellation v Insurgente FAC
I finally got my hands on the source i needed to address the comments several editors made, i have addressed the majority of the outstanding comments and the one or two i have not done today i shall address tommorow.XavierGreen (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Kennedy half dollar
Hi Andy. I don't know if Wehwalt has told you or not, but Kennedy half dollar is finished for the most part and is now put up for PR.-RHM22 (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Holy smokes! You guys are awesome! You have no idea how cool this is for me—a dear family member used to give me Kennedy dollars when I was a kid and I saved all of them. Many are still in little plastic containers. I really should have them looked at some time so I know what I have, but reading your article will certainly help. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  17:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wehwalt deserves most the credit on this one. His NY Times resource proved extremely valuable for these coins! My books literally had about ten sentences worth of information in them! I was thoroughly amazed at the amount of information that he found. I mentioned earlier that I think the article is now the most comprehensive source of information on the Kennedy half dollar online, and perhaps even better than anything in print!-RHM22 (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Contentious FAC
Hey Andy, just thought I'd offer you some warning: WP:Featured article candidates/Shakespeare authorship question/archive1 is likely to get very messy very fast (check out the peer review for the likely outcome) and will require a lot of policing if it's to stay on track. I saw your note about removing commentary from banned users/socks, but based on the current state of the page I'm thinking that may not be enough. I was somewhat involved in trying to keep the PR focused, but FAC is your arena - I'm not sure how much I should interfere, or what we can do there. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that. I'm going to have to try to be proactive—but really, any other FAC regulars can help. If you spot obviously off-topic discussion, feel free to move it to the talk page. Thanks for the warning /: -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  23:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess you saw the arb case? Ask other admins to pitch in so you don't have to be the bad guy?  Bad time for me to be leaving, but I'm not pouting :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea, depending on how things go. I don't mind being the bad guy, though. :) -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  23:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Laser brain, your name has been mentioned at WP:AE. Any suggestions for how to handle the problem would be welcome. One possible step is semiprotection of the FAC. You might comment on that idea. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully that won't be necessary. I will continue to move off-topic discussion to the talk page for now and hope people can moderate their behavior. I'm looking at the enforcement request currently (as an admin, not as an FAC delegate) to see if action is needed. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  20:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Turning Point (2008)/archive1
Wouldn't it just be better to restart the nomination than close it? As all the issues were fixed, just no one said support or oppose. That is kinda out of my hands.-- Will C  15:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't usually restart nominations unless they become long, contentious, and/or impossible to gauge. When the FAC backlog is long (as it is), we may archive nominations for lack of activity. It is true that you should not feel faulted; reviewers are overworked and some topic areas can be difficult to get attention. Some common tactics for getting more reviews are: dropping a note at relevant WikiProjects, pinging authors of previous sports- or wresting-related GAs and FAs, looking at WP:PRV for folks that are interested in the topic area, etc. Obviously you don't want to move into WP:CANVAS territory, but you may wish to be proactive. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  16:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard
I just replied to your request on Featured article candidates/L. Ron Hubbard/archive2. I would like to highlight that I am keen to secure the March 13 slot on this month's queue in order to meet the centenary date, so I would be grateful if you or one of the other delegates could close this review as soon as possible. Helatrobus (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Rude reviewers
Since you've been closing a lot of the FAC reviews lately, I would like your advice on how best to handle the rude comments on Featured article candidates/Marojejy National Park/archive1. I prefer to not honor disrespectful statements with a reply. As I explained to Peacock.Lane in my first and only reply, this slight variation in citation style cuts down on redundancy and has passed on numerous other recent FAs I've managed to promote. I can make plenty of arguments in support of what I've done and against the traditional approach, but I won't bother if people can't be civil. –  VisionHolder « talk » 04:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a specific way that you want me to reply to these comments? If not, I may reply very briefly by saying that I will not discuss the matter further until the matter is discussed in a civil tone.  Again, regardless of the issue, nominators and reviewers alike are entitled to civil treatment.  In regards to this particular issue, I can point to other FACs in which is was brought up, discussed, was not changed, but the article still passed anyway.  Again, I await you suggestion. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 04:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I missed your comment earlier. I am in the middle of a few actions, and then I will reply. Thanks for your patience! -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  04:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed the comments you refer to earlier today, and I didn't think much of them because you appeared to have the matter in hand. The reviewer appears to have a flair for hyperbole—I know, because we can smell our own. If someone makes a comment (no matter the tone) that you disagree with, it's best to concisely explain why you disagree and move on. If you don't care for the tone, it's best to disengage. Of course, all FAC participants are welcome to ask a delegate for intervention if they feel the page is getting out of hand, but, like I said, you seemed to let it roll off your back. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  05:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's always seemed to me that a delegate is much more likely to disregard a reviewer who tends to be overly dramatic or concise with his or her disagreements. If you respond positively and try to evince some constructive comments, you've really done all you can. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * FAC work requires calm in writing, even though in real life you may be throwing things at the wall over reviewer comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, everyone, for the suggestions. I feel I have handled the situation as best I can.  Best regards, –  VisionHolder  « talk » 17:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

TCM FAC
I have just left new messages on WikiProject Film, Horror, and TV to request reviewers ASAP. I hope you'll leave the FAC open a little while longer to allow those editors to see the request in the coming days.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's been a concern raised at that FAC that the message Bignole left may constitute canvassing. I have no real opinion either way, just letting you know. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I left a note there. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Mumford & Sons
Depending on how you define it Glastonbury is the largest festival in UK & Europe & has been the making (or breaking) of many careers (I first went in 1981 & this will be my 26th Glasto, so have seen a few). It also receives massive TV exposure. The John Peel stage (which they played last year) is just one of 15 or so stages but the second stage is big - capacity 10-15,000 & they will be on before Primal Scream - the main (Pyramid) stage (capacity 20-30,000) is U2 at the same time - so yes it is a big deal for most bands.&mdash; Rod talk 21:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Question
I'm not questioning your closure here, but what critertia did you use to close this? I responded to something and nineteen minutes later you closed it, hardly enough time to really discuss anything. If you could please elaborate on this, that would be great. Otherwise, I am quite confused. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Kevin, as a delegate, I keep a look out for articles that come to FAC unprepared. The number of substantive issues raised right off the bat indicate that the article needs quite a bit of work that would be better completed before coming to FAC. I will almost always archive the nomination in these circumstances—please take some time to make sure the plagiarism/copyvio and other issues are cleared before renominating. I recommend working with an uninvolved editor to get a fresh look, if you did not personally recognize these issues. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  21:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks! I figured I had mass-responded enough that someone would at least note that before closure but you are probably right there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

FAC feedback
Thank you for the note. I have read the signpost article, but was wondering if there was something in particular about my comments that prompted you leaving it or do you do that for everyone? I am open to feedback. Racepacket (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In the cases where I just said "support", it was because I felt that all of my concerns were addressed at the GA review and that the article met both GA and FA criteria by the time of my comment in the FAC discussion. I think that I have spent more time on reviewing the articles than some of the FA reviewers. In the Rutherford B. Hayes FAC discussion, I had done two separate GA reviews for two different nominators. For the FAC, I repeated the disamb and bad link tests and reported that fact, only to have someone else do it a few hours later as if my comment was completely ignored. So I have stopped checking for disamb or bad links at FAC. Racepacket (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Turning Point
Sorry, forgot about the two weeks thing. Thought it had been two weeks already. I've been losing track of time lately. I guess I wasn't thinking, just a spur of the moment thing. Popped in my head to renominate it and I did without thinking about it.-- Will C  04:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's no big deal, don't worry about it! -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  04:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of FAC
Why did you delete the FAC page for the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress? <b style="background:SaddleBrown;color:Gold;">Sp33dyphil</b> (T • C • I love Wikipedia!)  07:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You did not follow the FAC instructions, which indicate that you may only have one FAC nomination running at a time. An occasion exception may be made if your existing nomination is doing well and quite mature, but yours is not. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  07:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion requested
Would you check the latest comments at the Shakespeare authorship question FAC? I don't want to stifle debate, but I don't want the process to degenerate into an argument about the topic itself. If I'm over-reacting please let me know. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Nikkimaria moved the material. Sorry to bother you. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hanged, drawn and quartered
Why did you promote Hanged, drawn and quartered to FA before the issues I raised hand been addressed? -- PBS (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ping. -- PBS (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Philip: Put simply, I felt there was consensus to promote. That's not to say your points are not valid or that they shouldn't be pursued in the future—no article is "done" and even FAs are worked on after promotion. Thanks for your review! -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  15:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Question about Shakespeare authorship question FAC
Hey LB. I perused the FA nominations for the past few months and noticed that most of them took much less time than this article has been nominated, and most of them that were promoted had fewer net "support" votes than this one has garnered (some as few as two). Is it because of the nature of the topic that this is taking so long, the opposition from the POV advocates, or are there other reasons? Thanks muchly. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * LB is away for a few days ... I'll be going through FAC tonight or tomorrow. There is no set time for FACs and no set number of Supports needed for promotion (I say that without yet having looked at the FAC, but am aware of the arb case and issues surrounding the article).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks a lot. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Your indefinite semiprotection of User talk:YellowMonkey
Hello. I am not convinced that your indefinite semiprotection of User talk:YellowMonkey was appropriate, since it's a talk page and that's what people were doing, talking. It's not clear to me what disruption that was causing.

In any case, you forgot to add the lock icon denoting semiprotection pp-semi-indef, so please remedy that. 203.186.64.156 (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback. The user has been inactive for many months and any useful discussion about his status has been exhausted. It may resume at the proper venue when he returns. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  03:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not a massive deal, but your argument fails to convince me that protection was desirable, let alone necessary.
 * Even if it were necessary, however, surely a full protection would be warranted. I don't see why you would selectively prevent only non-autoconfirmed users from talking about the topic.
 * Finally, my request to add the lock icon denoting semiprotection pp-semi-indef still stands. Thank you. 203.186.64.156 (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's there—sorry about that. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  14:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Good move in placing the semi-protection. Supported. Moondyne (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Moondyne, your contribution to this discussion is valuable and your argument even more convincing. 203.186.64.156 (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I just stopped by to say that was a good call. There was far too much grave-dancing going on and it wasn;t helping anyone, least of all YM. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks also from me. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Another thank from me. Thank your very much for this decision.--115.75.144.240 (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Update
SO MUCH WORK. I promise to help out as soon as I can. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I haven't exactly been tearing it up. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  14:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you please weigh in?
Andy, could you please weigh in on the La Stazione FAC? There was a lot of initial support, no major issues identified, and by this point I get the feeling that reviewers are approaching it as, "well, there must be a problem because it hasn't already been promoted. Nothing about the article is fundamentally unclear or in violation of the MoS, but there must be something..." I wouldn't normally ask for intervention, especially since you've graciously allowed me to have a second FAC nomination up, but one of the reviewers left a rather rude edit summary on the actual article; I'm concerned that this station article may be getting railroaded. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * At a glance it looks like there are some calls for an independent copyedit and prose review. Are you asking me to weigh in on the readiness of the article or asking me to do a full review and recuse? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  23:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm comfortable with either option, because by this point I think the nomination has pretty much run its course; the only outstanding issues have been requests for information not available in any source, or outside the scope of the article, or rehashes of what other reviewers have already asked about. I've tried as best I could to address the issues that were raised, and I don't believe there to be any prose issues, or any other issues remaining, that would prevent promotion. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm really short on time right now, so I'm not sure I can provide a proper review. I don't have the same outlook on the nomination as you do, though—it looks like there are some pretty clear calls to have the prose looked at. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  17:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * When you do have the time, I would appreciate a full review. I honestly don't believe that the issues identified are in fact issues, or that the article's prose is unclear or malformed. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

FAC
Hi Andy! I nominated an article for an FA. I feel it is not ready, so I'd like to withdraw my nomination. Can you close it? <b style="font-family:Arial; color:CornflowerBlue;">Novice7</b> (<b style="font-family:Arial; color:DodgerBlue;">talk</b>) 04:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I archived it as withdrawn - Andy, if you think it should be deleted instead, feel free. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Nikki! <b style="font-family:Arial; color:CornflowerBlue;">Novice7</b> (<b style="font-family:Arial; color:DodgerBlue;">talk</b>) 04:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sucamilc Banned On False Pretenses. Please Correct.
I've blocked Sucamilc as a disruptive SPA and obvious sock/meatpuppet. I second the request first placed on this nomination not to engage these types of accounts—it only encourages them when they realize they have an audience. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)'

Andy, I assume that you are "Laser Brain," since your link leads to "his" talk page. I am writing to inform you in no uncertain terms that "Sucamilc" was not and is not a meat puppet or a sock puppet, let alone an "obvious" one, as you state. I respectfully request that restore his privileges asap, since the statement above is factually erroneous. If you do not, I will lodge a formal complaint that will require eventually that you justify these baseless assertions. I suggest that it would best for all involved if you personally reversed your own decision. Thank you for your attention to this matter.--BenJonson (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all. When a new user shows up, goes immediately to an area of controversy, and takes a position, it means one of two things: they have been recruited or asked somewhere to join the discussion (meatpuppet) or they are an alternate account of an existing user made to create the appearance of support for the position (sockpuppet). No new user would just randomly find their way into the SAQ nomination for their first edit. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  13:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Submitted for your consideration
Here, Sandy asked me to ask you to take a look, since she's self-recused from Lecen's FACs. - Dank (push to talk) 18:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Media request regarding Native American Journalists Association deletion
I'm Terri Hansen, a news reporter. Please contact me at terri@terrihansen.com if you wish to respond to assertions by the Native American Journalists Association that you deleted their page due to unambigious copyright violation. They tell me they gave W permission to use their content but their request was ignored. That information is avaiable in the history. Their page was deleted in Jan. 10 by another administrator owing to an alleged lack of notability. This is your opportunity to explain your reasoning for the record. Please note that NAJA is the only minority journalists organization (there are 76 journalist organizations total profiled) to be deleted. Thank you for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.249 (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Nadia Ali
Hi, I saw your name on the peer review page and I was wondering if you could please help me out? I have listed the article for singer-songwriter Nadia Ali for a peer review. I have been working on it recently with help from others and would appreciate some feedback on what further improvements could be done to get it to a Good Article status. Thanks! Hassan514 (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix Wiknic is ready to go
Phoenix Wiknic is ready to go (pending a few minor tweaks)--Jax 0677 (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yossi Sheffi and ESI Group articles
Dear Laser brain,

I have a minor problem that I hope you can help me resolve. I wrote an article on Yossi Sheffi, which one administrator (JohnCD) looked over and suggested I move to the mainspace. After I did so, the article was reviewed by yet another administrator (Bearcat) who made a few helpful changes. Since the article has now been reviewed twice, is it possible for the "this is a new, unreviewed article" template to be removed from the top of the article page? If so, can you do it or tell me how I can do it? And should I restore the categories? It looks like they were removed by Bearcat when he reviewed the article. Thanks!

Also, I wrote an article on the ESI Group, which is posted at my sub-page (".../ESI Group"). I would feel better it it were reviewed before I move it to the mainspace. Would it be possible for you to review it and let me know if you think it's ready for the mainspace now or if there are changes that I should make to it?

Thank you very much!Michael Leeman (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI
I've cited a comment from you, at Sockpuppet investigations/Piano non troppo. -- Cirt (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

A request
Hi, Laser brain! I have recently nominated a new article to FAC: Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil. Unlike others I nominated before, this one is very short. This, I don't believe it will be a tiresome read. Anyway, I'd very glad if you could take some time to read it and share your thoughts about it. In case you're willing, please go to Featured article candidates/Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil/archive1. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Donde esta usted?
Hope you are OK physically. If you are spending time away from the net...great! Get sun. Hope I was not a part of any Wikidrama that pushed you away (if that happened). I know I slammed one article that you promoted. In any case, hope you are healthy and getting outside time.TCO (reviews needed) 02:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Peer review request for Horn (instrument)
Hello Laser brain (if that wasn't your username that would sound very rude!), since you are a peer review volunteer, could you please assist with the peer review of the article Horn (instrument)? Thank you. --Nat682 (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

FAC delegation
Hi Laserbrain. You've been inactive for a number of months now, so I've replaced you as a FAC delegate. I don't mean anything personal by it - it's just that we need active editors to do it. If you resume editing and want the job back, poke me and we'll discuss it. Raul654 (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Peer review/FutureSex/LoveSounds/archive2
Hi Laser. Does music interest you? I was wondering if you drop by the PR page. Regards, Efe (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009/archive2
As you took part in the first FAC for this article, I though you might be interested in participating in the current FAC for Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009. Regards,  Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 20:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Pictures for Valley Metro
To improve the Valley Metro page it needs images of each model. NABI: 30-LFW, 40-LFW, 45C, 60-BRT CNG; New Flyer: C40LFR, D40LFR, D42LFA, D60LF, D62LFA, DE60LFR, L40LFR; Eldorado: EZ Rider 30-footer, EZ Rider 35-footer; Startrans. Need one of each with good quality and better view of vehicle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJofLakeland (talk • contribs) 07:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: L'ange de Nisida
This is a note to let the main editors of L'ange de Nisida know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 3, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/November 3, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:



L'ange de Nisida (The Angel of Nisida) is an opera semiseria in four acts by Italian composer Gaetano Donizetti (pictured), from a libretto by Alphonse Royer and Gustave Vaëz. Parts of the libretto are considered analogous with the libretto for Giovani Pacini's Adelaide e Comingio, and the final scene is based on the François-Thomas-Marie de Baculard d'Arnaud play Les Amants malheureux, ou le comte de Comminges. Donizetti worked on the opera in the autumn of 1839—its final page is dated 27 December 1839. Because the subject matter involved the mistress of a Neapolitan king, and may thus have caused difficulties with the Italian censors, Donizetti decided that the opera should be presented in France. However, the theater company Donizetti contracted went bankrupt. L'ange was never performed and was reworked as La favorite in September 1840. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on your FA on the front page! Where do we draw the line and protect against IP vandalism? (Not yet, I suppose?) Drmies (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm not really sure what the current attitudes are about protecting main page articles. I don't think it's been too bad—and I'm grateful for some of the small fixes that have occurred since it's been on the main page. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure either--I think usually we let it ride a bit longer. I think it's pretty much under control, though, after a brief bad spell. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Howdy!
Hope life is going smoothly and you're back for more than a few days :) Karanacs (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Always happy to see you around, and I also hope you'll be staying a while! Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I hope so too. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad to have you back :) Raul654 (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Best wishes, Graham Graham Colm (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Good to see you back on Wikipedia! Ucucha (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to see you back at FAC! We need you. - Dank (push to talk) 11:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Great to see your name popping up on my watch list again - welcome back! Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto, sorry I didn't say sooner, that was the first I had noticed your return. I cleared out my watchlist over the summer.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. As an FYI, Sturmvogel and Dank are working to get USS Arizona (BB-39) to FA by December 7th, and you asked to be poked when that happened. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's exciting! Thanks for the heads-up. Oh, and thanks everyone for the welcomes. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Elvis
I have edited 'four' to various, because saying he is inducted in 4 hall of fame is just underestimating or being ignorant about actual info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justicejayant (talk • contribs) 04:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

What about reviewing an article?
Hi, Laser brain, there is quite a few time since we bumped into each other. Since you made a few very good reviews of articles I nominated to FAC I was wondering if you could help me out with another one. I plan to nominate Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias soon but I want to be pretty sure that it looks good enough to be promoted. If you have the time and interest, would you mind taking a look at it? Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Greetings! I would like to look at it. I am traveling right now, so the first opportunity I will have is Tuesday. I hope that works for you. -- Laser brain  (talk)  01:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your reply. I gave up on the peer review and instead I nominated for FAC. If you're interested on taking a look at, please do it. I would be very glad. I not, don't worry about it. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank god
You're back I hope. Missed you around here. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 06:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Enjoy the holiday!
How are you, Andy? I hope you're fine. Anyway, merry Chistmas and happy new year. You've done a lot for Wikipedia and I expect to see you next year. Best wishes, --Lecen (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

SO wonderful ...
to see you around again :) Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Just got back from touring with a band in SE Asia. Internet access was so dreadful that I just gave up. Home for several months now. -- Laser brain  (talk)  03:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool beans ... glad you're home safe and sound, and I hope you had fun! Sheesh, things are slipping in here everywhere one looks, and your knowledge and steady hand and dedication were missed!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're in the mood...
...and feel like a spot of reviewing, please feel free to visit & comment on the peer review for Monteverdi's lost operas. I still remember Nisida. Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be my pleasure. I'd like to work on Il furioso all'isola di San Domingo soon, but it's been nigh-on impossible to locate a recording. Perhaps Lucia di Lammermoor. -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Might this be a possible recording of Il furioso?. Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I looked at that one. I was trying to avoid it because I understand the sound quality is atrocious and it has no liner notes. I've had this on backorder for weeks, which apparently is a very good recording. I could probably find it more quickly if I started combing used CD sites, but I haven't reached that stage yet. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It would need to be a bloody good recording to justify $65 (or even £44.98). Brianboulton (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Like a Prayer (song)
Andy, if you are around, can you cast your angelic eyes on teh above article and comment about its chances at FAC? I have developed it and it passed GA also, but I guess comprehensiveness is still an issue. Other than that how do you feel about the subject coverage etc.? — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 06:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Andy. I will come back with some more questions for you. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 06:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

FAC
No problem. I just wanted to get my work there done quickly (so much I missed the part atop the page saying "wait 2 weeks"! helps that me and another guy finished the copyedit just two days after the nom was archived...). Next week, either Friday or Saturday, I put it there again. igordebraga ≠ 15:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

reply
Hey Laser:

Thanks for the kind note. Will reply at length later, sun is shining. Nothing earth shattering, just how my mind works to try to respond to the various comments in there, methodically. TLDR version: yes, if good content review was done and not mentioned, I would undercount extent of content review. Hope you are well in real life!TCO (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please could you help
Laser, please could you help with "User:Banana Fingers", as he continues to be so rude, I can't believe someone is allowed to abuse other editors so vigorously as he has been doing to me for the last couple of days. "User:Banana Fingers" would always follow up on my edits to articles that I have recently revised only for him to keep reverting my edits on those aritcles, in his statement that he should be the only one that is a correct editor then would follow up with insults towards me. I have edited over 4,500 times in 10 months (pleas click Here), and I have been told my edits are good and useful by several administrators. So I don't know why "User:Banana Fingers" is swearing and treating me like the way he is doing. Please see User_talk:MarkMysoe for his latest abusing of me. MarkMysoe (talk) 10:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Lost operas
I have moved Monteverdi's lost operas from PR to FAC, should you wish to add further comments. Brianboulton (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

paraphrasing
Okay I decided to stay and have you be my mentor for paraphrasing. You see, when I first started, doing these major edits. I felt as long as was citing a source, it was okay that I copied it. But then I learned that it would still violate copyright, so I went back and re-paraphrased my stuff. But that was before I learned about close paraphrasing. Anyway the list I give you should be easy to correct since I relied on one source (Mammalian species articles) which is available online. LittleJerry (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! I am happy to see this. We need you. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * LittleJerry, this is great news! Glad you're willing to move forward, best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Laser brain, so can you help me fix the giraffe and tammar articles and perhaps co-nominate one of them with me. I hope to kill two birds with one stone. LittleJerry (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, I will help you fix them. I think the Tammar article will be fine, and we will be able to close the GAR with no change to the status. For giraffe, how do you want to proceed? Some of the close paraphrasing has been identified in the FAC nomination—do you want to take a pass at rephrasing them first so I can review them, or do you want me to rephrase them? I'm not interested in co-nominating them, but I will give you whatever help you need. -- Laser brain  (talk)  19:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have access to the sources (like the Estes book?) LittleJerry (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I only have access to what's available online, at the moment. -- Laser brain  (talk)  19:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have links to the Estes and Prothero books on the talk page. I can paraphrase whether is not available online. LittleJerry (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Randall Flagg
Thanks, I appreciate your offer and I will try to get in touch with you before I decide to renominate it in the future.

The only thing I'm confused by is "essentially the debate over which of King's characters are actually meant to be embodiment of Flagg" as I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean further confirmation on what's already stated in the article? Walter/Marten being Flagg comes from the Dark Tower novels themselves and has been referenced in the concordances by Robin Furth and Bev Vincent's book "Road to the Dark Tower" both of which are in the references section.

Thanks again for your help, I appreciate it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Flagg is referred to by name in the books. Some examples:  But I'll try to provide further sourcing from the books and I'll take a look for any sources that discuss him further.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Source review query
Hi, Andy - can you tell me if your recent sources spotcheck on Monteverdi's lost operas incorporated a general sources review, or should I ask Nikki or someone to do that? Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It did, and I added a comment to make that explicit. It looks like Auree reviewed source formatting. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Report of possible block evading
Hi Laser, Just thought I should inform you that Banana Fingers may be block evading, as I remember it not being allowed, from my personal experience of once being blocked for a further 2 weeks because of trying to edit articles by creating a sock puppetry account. There is a editor called Feuerjaguar who just joined Wikipedia on 3 February 2012, and is editing the exact same articles as Banana Fingers was editing before you decided block Banana Fingers. See the edit history of Feuerjaguar --> Special:Contributions/Feuerjaguar then look at the edit history of the Wikipedia articles that Feuerjaguar has edited, then you would see the name of Special:Contributions/Banana Fingers on the "Revision history" of these Wikipedia articles that Feuerjaguar has also edited since joining Wikipedia a few hours before you decided to block Banana Fingers, and also take a look at a edit request by Feuerjaguar for the aritcle Ghana national football team, which was fully protected at 16:37, 4 February 2012‎ due to me and Banana Fingers Edit warring / Content disputing on the article --> Talk:Ghana national football team. Laser, I just thought I should let you know. --MarkMysoe (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm, I'm unconvinced. This account was registered in late January, before Banana Fingers got blocked. Communication style seems different too. If Feuerjaguar starts edit warring or causing problems, further action can be taken. -- Laser brain  (talk)  02:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Mark, accusing another editor of block evasion and sock puppetry is not something to be taken lightly. If you are adamant, try WP:SPI. If not, then I'd advise an apology to Banana Fingers. GiantSnowman 17:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi GiantSnowman, please I was not outright accusing Banana Fingers of Sock puppetry and block evasion. What I mentioned to Laser brain was that there may have been a possibility of Sock puppetry from Feuerjaguar in a possible connection to Banana Fingers due to the editor Feuerjaguar unfortunately editing the same articles Banana Fingers had also come across and also of me personally experiencing being blocked and evading the block by sock puppetry in the past, because I was so adamant to continue editing. Laser brain has already advised me on what action should be taking and that was to see if there is any edit warring or causing problems by Feuerjaguar, then further action could be taken. That is what I would do. --MarkMysoe (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You said "Just thought I should inform you that Banana Fingers may be block evading" - that's a pretty clear indication that you were accusing BF of block evasion. Like I said, I'd suggest an apology - a metaphorical olive wreath as it were. GiantSnowman 09:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks ?
I haven't launched any "personal attack" on anyone, I've just explained clearly why my humble contribution was relevant or at least as every bit as relevant as yours or this woman's, and the fact that such a simple action should be considered "personal attack" is saying a lot about what kind of fascist micro-state WP has become thanks to some very arrogant arbitrary edititors who are running it exactly like they were dictators in a little dictatorship kingdom of words, with repressive actions and punishments on top to match... What a shame. So sad. . HarryBlock (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)HarryBlock
 * Easy with the hyperbole there, Tex. Comment on the content, not the editor. Your post to Lobo is full of invective directed at the editor, which is precisely the definition of a personal attack. I doubt much of anything I say is going to penetrate, but nevertheless, please heed the advice and warnings you've already received from multiple editors. -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"Warnings I've had from multiple editors" ? I've had threats and arbitrary removals from you and your friend "Lobo" so far, Sir... That's all. Please, come back down from your pedestal. I am 58 and my word deserves as much respect and credit as yours, I'm sorry. being humble is sometimes a better attitude, believe me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryBlock (talk • contribs) 22:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. I have warned you about personal attacks and edit warring, and Jim1138 has warned you about personal attacks and civility here and here. That's multiple editors. I have not removed any of your content from anywhere. Part of my job as an administrator is to protect Wikipedia from editors who use edit warring and personal attacks as methods to get their way; here I am acting in that capacity. -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Incorrectly identified copyright problem
Hi Laser

Over on this page,, you indicate that the page had a copyright problem. But actually, it seems that the source that you refer to - - took its content from the pre-existing wikipedia entry rather than vice versa. So can I suggest that the article should be restored to its pre-April 2010 state - for example this September 2009 version. (April 2010 is the date of the supposedly infringing material).

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.198.238 (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to be correct. The Wikipedia content did predate the source content. I have restored it. -- Laser brain  (talk)  00:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Katharine Hepburn FAC
Hey there Laser Brain. I hope you don't mind me popping in. You indicated on the Katharine Hepburn FAC that you intended to review it. I don't want to push you at all, obviously you should do what you want with your wikitime (!) but I was hoping this is still the case? The page is yet to attract a review, and I'm rather itching for some feedback. :) If you could spare the time, that would be great. -- Lobo (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Lobo, I hope to get to it within a day or two. I have been slowly reading it and digesting the material. -- Laser brain  (talk)  05:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay that's great, thanks LB -- Lobo (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It's okay. I obviously knew there was a good chance of opposes when I nominated&mdash;FAC standards are extremely high, and this is my first ever attempt. And it's a very tricky article to go with. I'm glad to hear you don't think it's far off anyway. I do just hope you'll continue reading through the article and providing commentary: I find it difficult to spot problems in my own writing, and this stuff is so helpful to me. I'll appreciate it enormously. -- Lobo (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * LB, I've completely reworked the lead. Would you mind taking a look and see what you think? I think I've also addressed everything else you mentioned, although I may need some help spotting other "parallel structure problems". I don't think I'm skilled enough to spot these myself. -- Lobo (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Question: Laser brain, I was just wondering if it would be alright to move the initial comments you left to the FAC's talk page? They mostly regard the earlier version of the lead, so no longer apply to the article. I'd quite like to keep the page as clean and easy to digest as possible. I wanted to check this was okay with you though, before going ahead with it (I asked Ucucha if I could use a collapsable box, but s/he said I should ask reviewers if I could move their comments, instead). Cheers, hope you're well -- Lobo (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't mind if the delegates don't! -- Laser brain  (talk)  23:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Request
Glad to see you're back. I was disappointed with the lack of input in my latest Nintendo DSi fac, so if you're interested, I'd like you to look at it before sending it back.  « ₣M₣ »  01:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. It looks like the initial opposition probably discouraged further reviews. Do you feel like you addressed Jinnai's comments between then and now, or are there still open items? Or maybe subjective items you didn't agree with him about? -- Laser brain  (talk)  02:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Point 1 could still be relevant, but 2 and 4 are fine now. Jinnai admitted on the fac talkpage that Point 3 was from his/her own experience. I've found no RS to back up those claims.  « ₣M₣ »  04:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been busy working for the last couple of days. I will get to this soon. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate name changes
Thanks for dealing with Monteverdi's lost operas title vandalism. This editor has done the same thing with Mozart in Italy; he seems to be on some daft one-man mission. Can you please revert this one to the proper title, and perhaps add a note to the editor advising him to desist from these unilateral actions. If he is not aware of th conventions relating to composers' names he ought not to be editing classical music articles. I will check out what other damage he may have done. Brianboulton (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, and I have left a note for him. I see what he is doing—he may have a bot or script to create a list of articles whose titles don't match the bold text in the lead. It seems he is moving them without checking the conventions, though. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Broken Sword
Hi! Can you vote for Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars at FAC again, since I fixed the problems? Best --Khanassassin ☪ 17:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you fixed two sources, but you have not fixed the comprehensiveness problem. The other sources will need to be checked against WP:RS as well. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi! Can you please vote now? I have fixed the comprehensiveness problem, according to Jimmy Blackwing. Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 15:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your nomination was archived. You will have to wait at least two weeks before nominating it again. I don't understand what the hurry is. Featured Articles have a much higher standard than GAs, and it is worth taking your time to ensure you have met all the criteria and followed all of the directions. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

More Mozart titles
Hello Laser brain,

Thanks for repairing the title of Mozart in Italy. As you pointed out, the switch to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in Italy was made by editor Koafv without consulting anyone else, and I believe that had he done this the title change would not have received consensus.

There are actually ten more articles just like it -- would you consider taking them on as well? They are:


 * Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and scatology
 * Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and smallpox
 * Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's starling
 * Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and dance
 * Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's compositional method
 * Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's Berlin journey
 * Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Freemasonry
 * Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Roman Catholicism
 * Ludwig van Beethoven and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
 * Joseph Haydn and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
 * Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's name

Yours very truly, Opus33 (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have moved them all back, as it seems there is a standing consensus for the old titles. The user did not respond to my previous comment to him about consensus, so it's unknown what he may do next. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Opus33 (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC Follies
Thanks for the head's up, Laser Brain. I think you put your finger on le mot juste. The only appropriate response is: "Seriously??" Best, Dan. DCGeist (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Article restructuring at the Beatles
There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Giraffe
I did some clean up for the giraffe article. Can you please spotcheck it? It particulary need help paraphasing the last cite for [12]. LittleJerry (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do. I'd like to get the GAR for Tammar wallaby closed as well. I don't think there will be any call for removing GA status. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So are you gonna get to it soon? LittleJerry (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, probably not. I've been dealing with a rather large problem with sourcing by an established editor that is taking up all of my wiki time. Please do not rush these to FAC. It's much better to take lots of time and do the job right. There is nothing to be gained from rushing things to FAC. -- Laser brain  (talk)  02:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Elk
Please consider that people thinking about Alces alces may simply write in other Wikipedia articles "elk" in double square brackets if they are unaware of the ambiguity. If "Elk" was a disambiguation page, the people would be warned by a bot that they must be more specific. Many people do not know that European elk and North American elk are very different and do not even belong to the same genus. As a biologist and science translator for 20 years, I've heard about the North American usage of this word only recently. That is why I'm so persistent - to avoid confusion in Wikipedia and elsewhere, rather than to prove that I'm right for the sake of my ego. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are arguing. What we are trying to tell you is that is not how pages are disambiguated here. If there is one clearly preferable target for a page, that is where the page goes. Since the elk is North American, and it is called an "elk" in North America, that is where it goes. Anyone else who winds up there accidentally is served by notice at the top of the page. There is no sense in adding an extra page and extra click for readers who wanted elk and arrived at the correct place. Usability 101. Consider rabbit. It goes to the animal because that is what most readers would be looking for when they type in rabbit. If I typed in "rabbit" but was looking for Rabbit (Winnie-the-Pooh), I have to do a bit more work. There would be no sense in making "rabbit" go to a disambiguation page just because there are other things someone might have meant. Now if I am writing an article and I insert a wikilink to elk or rabbit, it is my responsibility as an editor to check the link and make sure it going to the target I intended. -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Why have your reverted my last edits? They improve the quality of the article. Have you ever read them and my latest explanations in the discussion? Pleas prove what was wrong about my edits and why you suggest that they degrade its quality. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't deleted the reliable source but moved it higher!!! Please see the source - it doesn't mention the names listed at the end of the sentence. I've explained it in the edit summary. You shouldn't revert edits if you haven't read them carefully. My edits are not disruptive, but improve the quality of the article. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic precedent
Long term disruptive user is being called to task for something. He makes an 11th hour plea and basically agrees to what the people asking for his ban want, but instead of letting the community consensus form, he does it himself, negating that discussion. Those opposing mentioned the community could have kept the discussion going to make it formal, but I can guarantee that anyone who tried to do that would have been told to "drop the stick" since bugs had already agreed to what the community wanted. he then goes back on his word, the condition for which the previous discussion was stopped in its tracks, a clear majority want him banned, and you've just let him walk away. With zero recourse and zero evidence the disruptive behaviour won't continue, since he hit the trifecta there, starting a conversation on AN/I against his ban, the nature of the discussion he started, and the drama close in the middle of it. From WP:CONSENSUS This means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms. a very clear majority in both discussion had legitimate concerns regarding his editing, and I can't see how your close remotely addresses any of those concerns. you've given him carte blanche to return as he was. As Kim pointed out, we've now just said as a community any time you're being called to task, just volunteer for a bunch of restrictions, then go back on your word later, don't worry, we'll just take it.--Crossmr (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To be clear, my close neither defends nor legitimizes BB's behavior on AN/I. I closed it as I did because the thread lacked clarity in what was being requested, and those opposing brought up legitimate concerns about the way this was being done. If the community wants BB banned from that board, wouldn't you rather see it done correctly? You know what happens when things are done in a slipshod manner—later on, people poke holes in the outcome and it loses its effectiveness. We constantly have requests for clarification even for relatively well-written arb cases. It may be a moot point anyway: . -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your close imposed no restriction on him, no warning, nothing. As such he was free to carry on as he had before. You didn't explicitly endorse it, but you also didn't do anything to curb it either. The thread was very clear Propose an extension of the topic ban for a further month from today of which the original close said Bugs has voluntarily agreed to avoid the drama boards for one month unless he is called here for issues that directly involve is own behavior. How is that not clear? That seems to be a very specific request based on very specific criteria. The only thing not clear were his supporters trying to use his volunteering for the restriction as some kind of double jeopardy rule, which really wasn't addressing the issue at all. As for his claim, well he claimed he'd stay away from AN/I for a month as well.--Crossmr (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the opposing comments were pretty clear in pointing out that the thread was requesting an extension to something that didn't exist. I realize that he agreed to take a break in the face of the threat of sanctions, and that some of you consider that a de facto sanction. There were then refrains of "Well, then can the proposal be about this instead?" It makes for a muddy proposal that, if enacted, has holes the size of a Mack truck. It would be easy for him to circumvent the sanction by claiming that the process was improper. My main point continues to be that this needs to be done right, if it's going to be done. I don't like jumping through hoops any more than the next guy, but we need to be fair. -- Laser brain  (talk)  01:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Defeated Sanity
Thank you very much! If the IP returns and continue their edit, do you have any suggestions on what I should do next? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The Satanic Bible expansion
Hello! First of all, thanks for your constructive FA review of The Satanic Bible. I have worked to add a Themes section, and was hoping you would give me some feedback on it—do you think it is complete, or do you see any issues with it? You also suggested a section on the cultural and religious impact of the book. I was hoping you could give me a little more advice regarding this. I feel like cultural impact is somewhat worked in to the Reception section, where I discuss the Satanic Panic and the criticism the book has received. Do you feel there is more that needs to be said on this? As for the religious impact, I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.

Thanks for your advice! – GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I will look soon. I think what I meant by "religious impact" is how the book has affected the spread of Satanism. I saw some journal articles about how Satanism has seen some degree of increase that's directly attributable to the book. Do you have access to library databases? If not, I could try to pull some of these and email them to you as PDFs. -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I have access to quite a few databases through my university. Many of the sources I've already used were from JSTOR, etc. Thanks for your help! – GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Categories
From : "It has been agreed after discussion in the Wikipedia Opera Project that all opera title articles will be included in this main category to enable searching by users." Whether or no I agree with it, I make an effort to follow it. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Spotcheck on Missouri River
Hello there, I have responded to your comments on this FAC. I hope you're going to continue the spotchecking, because it would be a shame to see the FAC fail at this late stage... Shann º n  01:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Your turn
sigh Toddst1 (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Wehwalt
I don't think it a mistake; please put it back and see the edit protected request on his talk (by me). Alarbus (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's very strange. It's unlike Wehwalt to make an edit like that and leave it broken. -- Laser brain  (talk)  03:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * JSTOR. Please fix the table. Alarbus (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, whatever happened there went completely over my head. I've emailed him about it. Hope things work out. -- Laser brain  (talk)  03:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Mulholland drive plot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mulholland_Drive_%28film%29 take a look here for discussion thanks. --JTBX (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I need your help, again!
Hi, Remember me? that "Soar eagle" article? I've something new on my hands.

I know this may not be a subject of your liking. But I presume that you may have some technical help for me.

I added some controversial information regarding "Human's similarity to herbivores". apparently, all my sources (mostly MDs and PhDs) amounted to a "vegan propaganda". I am not a Vegan. I'm really in support of truth. But simply claiming that my whole contribution is a "propaganda" is not likely an adequate reason for removal of the whole section.

My question is a fairly simple one, Is calling/labelling my edits as "propaganda" a sufficient ground for undoing all my changes(~16,503 bytes)? Visit this history page and the talk page. Please do something soon. They repeatedly deleting my additions. without discussing it with me or providing any reliable source that claims anything contradictory regarding human anatomy. -- DrYouMe  (Talk?)   11:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that calling your edits "propaganda" is not a great way to encourage new editor participation. They are probably very sensitive to such information being added to the article—I say this to explain their actions, not to condone them. The page Identifying reliable sources is not easy to absorb all at once, but I can tell you that the editors at herbivore are actually removing your content because it adds undue weight to the views presented, and because the sources are not high-quality. I see you were given similar advise by Pesky at WP:AN/I. I think you will need to find a high-quality source such as a peer-reviewed academic journal that supports these claims, and then try gaining consensus for adding a smaller section representing these views. Hope this helps. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This helps. I understood your point. Thank you. I refrained from stretching the argument further there on the talk page of the article. Thanks once again for your time. -- DrYouMe  (Talk?)   00:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

FAC for A Free Ride
Hello, I came here after an advice in my talk page that you could help in determining FAC. If you have time, would you be interested in reviewing this article to determine whether all the sources available on this topic have examined. Thank you! -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  03:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. It might take me a day or two to get to it. If I'm understanding correctly, are you interested in discovering if there are any sources you haven't used? -- Laser brain  (talk)  04:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  04:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply
-- DrYouMe  (Talk?)   03:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Poppy Meadow FA.
Hi! I have done all your points at the FA Review, and I do admit they were very good points! Thank you very much for taking part in both FA reviews, you can probably see how much the article has progressed! However, after doing all your points I hope I have changed your Oppose in to a Support! Once again, Thanks. Mayhem Mario  16:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi again! Thanks for the FA comments, do I have to waitn untill a independent editor comes forward and wants to do it? What is the process? Can you put a talkback template on my talk when you reply, thanks! Mayhem  Mario  16:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you will need to find someone to do it. It's a lot of work, so your chances of someone casually happening by and doing it are pretty low. Thanks for sticking with it! -- Laser brain  (talk)  01:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Strangely enough, your comment here has somewhat crystallised for me an aspect of Wikipedia that I find rather difficult, which is that nothing is ever finished and can be forgotten about. Obviously I've got no problem with ongoing improvements to an article beyond FAC, for instance, but so many of the subsequent edits are frankly crap at best. I'm the kind of person who wants to see a job finished, but I have to keep fixing up articles I worked on years ago, like the Donner Party. I know this isn't directly related to your opposition at this FAC, but for some reason it prompted this thought. Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I empathize. After any reasonable absence I've returned to look agog at the articles I've worked on, muttering, "What the fuck happened here?" We're all Sisyphus here—as soon as we stop pushing, the ball is going to roll right back down the hill. -- Laser brain  (talk)  02:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Georg Solti FAC
Andy, as you haven't commented on this one, I wonder if you'd mind offering an additional opinion on the employment of one particular non-free image, as the nominator is caught in the middle of the argument. He could of course just delete and be done with it but I'd prefer to grab the bull by the horns and at least establish a majority opinion to help head off a potential post-FAC edit war. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, glad to help. -- Laser brain  (talk)  01:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Many tks, Andy. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for advice
The hapless nominator mentioned above in re the Solti article was I. May I further trespass on your time to ask for your opinion about the image here ? Does "Rights Advisory: No known restrictions on publication" equal "public domain"? Grateful for advice. Tim riley (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Tim. Thanks for the contact, and thanks for tolerating my commentary on your nomination. It was a struggle for me to separate my personal opinion (I like the photo) from what I know is the best application of our image use policy. As for the image above, that would be considered public domain. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Thanks for that guidance. Tim riley (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Banana Fingers
Hi there LASER, VASCO from Portugal here,

A bit worrying indeed...this message (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Banana_Fingers&diff=483294163&oldid=482584422) to this user from me triggered this reply (here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VascoAmaral&diff=483332687&oldid=483172027). Not requesting any action whatsoever, i am just conveying my sadness at this interaction approach some users have.

Attentively, keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. His communication style is pretty over-the-top. I and several others have asked him to tone it down without much effect. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What the hey?! Now, one of my last four summaries at Juan Luis Guirado (or ALL, go figure with this chap) has merited this absolute beauty of an answer (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VascoAmaral&diff=483504750&oldid=483464134), you can read them to see if i did anything wrong, what on earth is this? Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I hope your silence does not belie a feeling that my summaries in the article were in fact harsh, thus meriting the rubbish answer i received, i think they were not. Anyways, sorry to bother you - only brought this to your attention because i saw you blocked this individual once (again, not requesting anything, just briefing) - happy weekend/editing - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I just don't know what else to do. Next stop is probably to open an WP:RFC/U on his behavior and try to get some community pressure on him to be more collegial. -- Laser brain   (talk)  02:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I fucked up
I fucked up so your cheese is safe. Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, I figured. I actually hate putting a stick in spokes, but sometimes there's just too much wrong to carry on. -- Laser brain  (talk)  02:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But I do so hate fucking up. Maybe when the FAC is over I'll try rewriting it to match the sources. Malleus Fatuorum 02:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Give me a shout if you want to divide and conquer. I'll need periodic breaks from the Madonna craptacular. -- Laser brain  (talk)  02:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The punishment should match the crime. I still really can't believe that I missed what you found so easily: embarrassing. Malleus Fatuorum 03:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't be embarrassed -- you've helped crystallise a result for the nom, which is what was needed, one way or the other. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've started trying to fix the mismatch between what the sources say and what the article says. Would you mind if I asked you to run your eye over it when (if) I get the job done? Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Would be glad to. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been through the whole article now, so I'd be glad to see what you think now. I had hoped to have some help from the article's FAC nominator, but ... anyway, it's done now. Malleus Fatuorum 03:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Defeated Sanity
You suggested on my talk page that the semi-protection could continue if the IPs came back. Is that something you can do, or should I submit it to WP:RFP or WP:ANI again? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, much appreciated. I'll check out the last edits made to it. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

A different strategy
Could I just show you a few lines and their sources and you can comment on whether the pharasing is good enough? LittleJerry (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. -- Laser brain  (talk)  03:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I posted them here. LittleJerry (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * These are OK, and I think within most people's acceptable parameters. You are improving—I think if you want to improve further, you should try reading a source, and then paraphrasing it a couple hours later without looking. This technique will give you even more distance from the text, and will also prove that you absorbed the material. -- Laser brain  (talk)  02:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you review then for the FA review? LittleJerry (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can probably get to it after the weekend. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Please make it a spotcheck review. That's whats really needed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Carmen
If you can find your opera hat, you may fancy looking my latest effort at FAC. It's ben heavily peer-reviewed, but it would be nice to have a fresh eye on the finished article. Brianboulton (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be my pleasure. And thank you again for your recent PR—it was immensely helpful. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR
(Cross posting to everyone who commented in the JSTOR discussion on WT:FAC)

I have now created Requests for JSTOR access. Feel free to sign up. Raul654 (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Imaginos
I've been re-working extensively the article about the album Imaginos that you started peer reviewing last week and now it should be more readable. If you have time and patience to have a look at my work and give me your opinion, it would be much appreciated. Thank you. Lewismaster (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I should have time within the next week. I look forward to it! -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Dan Leno -FA request
Hi Lb, are you in a position to carry out a few spot checks for the above? I would be incredibly grateful for any help you could offer. All the best! -- Cassianto (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I will try to get to it today. Looks like an interesting article! -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thankyou. That would be great! -- Cassianto (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Copying question
There is one case of direct copying in the giraffe article, the captions for File:Genetic subdivision in the giraffe based on mitochondrial DNA sequences.png. The article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution License. Is that okay? LittleJerry (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand exactly. You copied the caption from the source? You would still need to treat it as a quotation. If the image is free, the text is still copyrighted that they wrote around the image. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Put qoutations. I meant that the article also has a CC license. Anyway, are you gonna give around to spotchecking the article? LittleJerry (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems like last time I looked at the nomination, there were some changes and additions occurring to the text. I'd rather spotcheck once you think the text is relatively stable. How is it now? -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think its good now. Axl is done with his review. LittleJerry (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please spotcheck? LittleJerry (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like Axl did a spotcheck? -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * He would like someone else to do some too. Besides, you seem to be more experienced at doing it. LittleJerry (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Can't you do some quick samples? LittleJerry (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Lecen
Laser brain, I'd like to ask you to read carefully the links MarshalN20 provided. He said that I was going to bring back a wikiproject in "...which people can gather their members for "edit wars" (the exact term used by Lecen)". These were his precise words. Nowhere I ever said that I inteded to gather anyone to make edit wars. I was pretty much clear that sometimes we need someone to review an article of ours or we are stuck on an unnecessary dispute over something and we need a third party to share its thoughts about it. MarshalN20 is claiming things I never said and that's unfair. --Lecen (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I understood what you meant, as you suspected. I was simply acknowledging his point that WikiProjects should not be organized to edit war. No worries, friend. -- Laser brain  (talk)  05:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I really appreciate your good sense. You might be wondering what's going on. The problem began on Cisplatine War, where Cambalachero opened a move request that has been universally opposed. He and his friend MarshalN20 were both warned by two different editors about their aggressive and accusing behavior ("Also, with calling my comment an outright lie, you are again assuming the worst in those who disagree with you. Judicatus just called you out for the same.") I opposed the move. Both editors tag along with another editor called WeeMonster on Falklands War and War of the Pacific where anyone who does not share their views is tagged as forcing "British POV" or "Chilean POV". In my case, it's "Brazilian POV". But this is all, I don't want to waste your time with this. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S.: BTW, Cambalachero opened the ANI just after I wrote this: A retaliation because I pointed several flaws on his FAC. --Lecen (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Belated comment
I thought at the time I read it that this was a very principled and eloquent statement, but I neglected to say so at the time, so I'd like to rectify that now. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the comment. I wish we could achieve fairness across the board, where good contributors who have gotten into trouble are given a way forward and non-contributors who just cause problems are shown the door. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Beatles infobox
There is a Straw Poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

paid

 * I'm gona sandwich a reply to your question in the thread at wt:fac. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately I think #3 is the least likely type of paid editor we're ever likely to encounter. The conversations have been a real eye-opener, and I've now considered many more angles to the problem than I originally had. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This thing suffers from elephantiasis of the tldr bone. I don't knpw if the discussions are connecting with one another. Is WT:FAC a cul-de-sac? – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've seen many interesting conversations come and go at WT:FAC that are only peripherally related to the FA process. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI
FYI, I did reply to your comment on Sandy's talk page, but she removed it. Continue here if you wish (not that there seems much point, but you did express rather a strong opinion). Rd232 talk 18:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Couple of requests
Hi Andy, if you have time, could you do an image check at Mary, Queen of Scots? FYI, I'm happy to give it a bye for source spotchecks given recent ones at Dr K's FACs. On a separate matter, there's this image. Saw it when reviewing Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (novel) for GA and was wondering how one could assert PD due to it being 70 years after the author's (photographer's) death when we don't know the author... ;-) It'd be a shame to lose it since a number of articles use it (with reason), so any thoughts on the licensing? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can look at Mary soon, but unlikely until morning Arizona time. Regarding the other image—it's pretty much impossible to tell without knowing the original source and date of first publication. I'm sure Mayfair wasn't the first publication. If it can be demonstrated to have been first published in 1921, it would be PD for sure. -- Laser brain  (talk)  01:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the thing, isn't it? Published, as opposed to taken (which is unlikely to be disputed)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: C. D. Howe
This is a note to let the main editors of C. D. Howe know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 20, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/May 20, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:



C. D. Howe (1886–1960) was a powerful Canadian Cabinet minister of the Liberal Party. He is credited with transforming the Canadian economy from agriculture-based to industrial. Born in Massachusetts, Howe moved to Nova Scotia as a young adult to take up a professorship at Dalhousie University. After working for the Canadian government as an engineer, he began his own firm, and became a wealthy man. In 1935, he was recruited as a Liberal candidate for the Canadian House of Commons by then Opposition leader Mackenzie King. The Liberals won the election in a landslide, and Howe won his seat. Mackenzie King appointed him to the Cabinet. There, he took major parts in many new enterprises, including the founding of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Trans-Canada Air Lines. When World War II began in 1939, Howe played a crucial role in Canada's war effort, and recruited many corporate executives to serve in wartime enterprises. Howe's impatience with the necessity for parliamentary debate of his proposals won him few friends, and he was often accused of dictatorial conduct by the Opposition. In the 1957 election, Howe's actions and policies were made an issue by Opposition leader John Diefenbaker. He lost his seat in the election, and Diefenbaker became Prime Minister, ending almost 22 years of Liberal rule. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Good to see you back! Ucucha (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ha! Wikipedia sucks back in one more victim vainly struggling to escape. — kwami (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

A great way to start the new year -- welcome back Andy! Can I interest you in a spotcheck or two? Just kidding, ease back in at your own pace -- see you round... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm always good for a spotcheck, Ian! Thanks for the welcome. -- Laser brain  (talk)  03:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back.  ceran  thor 01:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

A very warm welcome from me, and many others I suspect, on your return Andy. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Tomcat (7) 11:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Dude !!!!
Holy cow, now 2013 is stacking up grand!!! Great to see you, I hope all is well, and I hope you stick around for a long long long time! Happy New Year, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Happy New Year to you as well. Now that I've spent the entirety of fall 2012 on complete wastes of time, I'm ready to get back to doing something that matters. :) -- Laser brain  (talk)  03:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I spent all spring, summer and fall-- right up to the first hard freeze-- relandscaping my property, and when I came back to Wikipedia, I found it an unrecognizable place even for the hardened and wisened, so prepare yourself. FAC was taken over by reviewers whose standards were at the DYK level, many many FAs went through on that kind of support that are not FAs at all, rampant personal attacks are now the norm, many admins don't even pretend neutrality now, and socking seems to be accepted as the norm.  It's grim, but FA was always above the fray ... perhaps if good reviewers begin to return, we can resurrect it!  I pity the delegates, who have had limited feedback to work with, and it must have been a much less enjoyable job for them then it was when we had the feedback of excellent reviewers who are now mostly gone.  Come back !  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's too bad that there are so many negative feelings around. I hope many editors have not been discouraged. I see reduced participation in many areas. My guess is this place will continue to evolve with or without our help—but I'd rather help it evolve for the better. :) -- Laser brain  (talk)  00:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Fresh eyes needed
Andy, I would v. much appreciate a review of this candidate if you have the time and the vocation. It is the nominator's 9th attempt to get it promoted. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I should be able to look at it within the next few hours. -- Laser brain  (talk)  00:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back, and a favor
Glad to see you editing again—I have only been back a few months myself, and it's lovely both to see a familiar name and to know that a great FAC reviewer has returned.

And now the favor part: nearly a month ago I agreed to give a light copyedit to California State Route 56, which has been waiting at FAC for quite some time. Between holiday obligations, [thankfully minor] illnesses, and now a fractured ankle (!), I haven't been able to get to it. Would you consider giving it a go for me? I've read through the article twice and do not think it needs much work; I am just entirely too distracted by appointments and such to focus on it. No worries if you don't have the time, but I would very much appreciate it if you do—I hate reneging on my commitments.

In any case, so happy to see you return! Maralia (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh hello! Welcome back yourself. I look forward to seeing you at FAC again. Luckily editing Wikipedia is unlikely to make your ankle worse. I do believe I can run through the highway article tonight, if they don't mind waiting. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much! I owe you one. Maralia (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Greg LeMond
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I appreciated the feedback you provided concerning this FA-nomination, and I responded tonight (though I have not had any opportunity to yet edit the article). I'm committed to the article on-going and would like to see it through to FA-status. Thanks. joepa T 23:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Source review/spotcheck
Hi mate, I'm taking you at your word (above!) and asking if you wouldn't mind checking over this FAC, which appears about ready apart from a source review and a spotcheck (appears to me to be the nominator's first FAC). Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to, if it can wait until tomorrow. I am out of town for a job with only an iPad, which isn't really conducive to editing. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No prob. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Under the Bridge
Hi, Thanks for your message. Could you please look at my question on my talk page. Thank you. --MmMms11111 (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

"Reverted good faith edits by Officialfunker (talk): Need a reliable source for these changes". Hi! A reliable source for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Bridge is my RHCP singles collection, ok?Officialfunker (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Maus FAC
I think it would be fair to the nominator to let them know if you find their efforts to address your comments to be sufficient for you to support, and if not, to let them know what still needs to be done.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Harrison FAC
Thanks for being willing to take a look! I'll let you know when JG66's comments have been resolved. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  21:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we are now finished with JG66's comments and he is (hopefully) finshed adding them, so anytime you want to start your review, we would greatly appreciate your input. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Now is as good a time as any to take a look at the article. Evan and I would greatly appreciate your input. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

FAC
Hi. How are you? If you have any spare time, could you please take a look at this FAC nomination? Thanks in advance Till  06:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. The weekends are usually pretty busy for me, but I'll definitely look at by the beginning of this week. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated Till  12:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Oblivion
Hey, I noticed your comments on the latest Oblivion FAC discussion (which is now nearly a year-old). I'm trying to get the article ready for another FAC, and I think I've addressed most of the unresolved issues in the previous discussion. If you have time, can you do some source spot checks on the article? It seems that source issues were the main reason why the FAC didn't pass last time.--Futuretrillionaire (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! I owe someone a review at FAC, and then I can get to yours. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like Andy didn't get to (re)spotcheck this article before he took his latest break -- correct me if I'm wrong. In any case I've left a request for Nikkimaria to revisit the sourcing and, ideally, run another spotcheck as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Plant's Strider SPI

 * I've started an SPI here, perhaps you would consider weighing-in on the socking likelyhood. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Notifying you that Batman Arkham City is up for FAC
I've nominated this article again, it failed last time not through opposition but lack of interest. It's a quality article encompassing all the available information in a neat, presentable and interesting way, so I hope you can lend your voice to the discussion if you have the time. Thanks for reading. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Roy Orbison
Thanks for your message, just picked it up. Think the reference was to James Burton - this is verified by amongst other places the wikipedia page about Black and White Night Live, the imdb entry for it and http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00g6349. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ng999 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Absence
I apologize to everyone for my recent absence (or as Ian put it, my "latest break", hah), especially those whom I promised assistance. I've spent the last few years working as a touring musician, a profession that unfortunately can involve sudden calls from desperate bands who have just lost their keyboardists in bizarre gardening accidents, etc. I've just returned from an overseas tour and I'm now taking a "desk job" because this lifestyle is no longer compatible with my love life. So, I intend to be on wiki a lot more frequently and reliably. -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well a hearty welcome back, Andy -- you can see I had such faith in your eventual return that I still had your talk page watchlisted... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Same here. Graham Colm (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks gents. I promise not to take any more six-month leaves after I promised someone a source check. :) -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Good to have you back! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Late to the party! So glad to see you ... Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Before you get too busy here. I miss you, come back!  « Ryūkotsusei »  22:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Operation Winter '94 FAC
Hi! Thanks for your note. Unfortunately, I have no idea what to do regarding the copyediting issues right now. I suppose I'll have to leave the article as it is.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

ENGVAR
I have taken it up because when an article actually goes to Featured Article, there are spelling champions who change the spelling. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Ian Rose (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes ArbCom case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ  21  17:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

S&M
Hi Laser brain, Some time ago you commented (and opposed) at FAC on the S&M (song) article. The article is now back at Peer Review, having gone through something of a good copyedit by me, and a further ce/review by Cassianto. The original nominator Aaron is still very much involved in the process and we would both be delighted if you would give any comments you could at the PR, prior to the next attempt at FAC. Many thanks if you are able to help. - SchroCat (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Thanks for all your hard work on this article. I'll be on a short wikibreak soon because I'm moving cross-country, so I'm not sure I'll have a chance to contribute to the PR. However, I breezed through a few sections and it looks much improved. There doesn't seem to be much appetite at FAC for pop culture articles these days, unfortunately. I hope all goes smoothly. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Laser brain, Many thanks. I'm hoping for one more person to come along, so it may still be open when you're done, but if not then I'll drop you a line when we go to FAC, if that's OK? I hope the move goes OK, and thanks again! - SchroCat (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As per the above, the article is now at FAC. If you have the chance we'd be delighted to hear your comments. If you're too tied up with other bits and pieces, then it's not a problem at all. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

move request
Hi, Laser brain. Sorry to interrupt your wikibreak, but could you please move Guizhou Soar Eagle to Guizhou Soar Dragon, and Chengdu Xianglong to Chengdu Tianchi? There is no UAV called "Soar Eagle", only "Soar Dragon", and the latter means "翔龙" (Xianglong) in Chinese. The V-tailed UAV mentioned in Chengdu Xianglong is actually called "天翅" (Tianchi, literally "sky wing"). Both of these UAVs were designed by CAC, so some of the enditors must confuse one with another. Thanks! Baiweiflight (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Uruguayan War
Laser brain, Uruguayan War is now a FA. I wanted to tell you that I really appreciate your effort to review the article and give your support. P.S.: Good to see you around. I thought you were gone for good. --Lecen (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Unblock to vanish?
Hi there. In 2011 you blocked, a sockmaster.

Would you object to me unblocking him for the sole purpose of submitting a request to WP:VANISH?

I'm an OTRS volunteer who has been serving as an e-mail liason between this user and some bureaucrats, who insist they cannot do anything to rename/vanish unless the user is unblocked first.

The user's concern is related to WP:REALNAME. He had previously posted an unblock request to rename his account, but was declined. He'd prefer vanishing, but he'd be satisfied if the account name could be changed to anything else.

If you agree, I will unblock and monitor the account to ensure that the only activity is a request to vanish. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with that. Thanks for the heads-up. -- Laser brain  (talk)  23:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Reconsider
Since you mentioned the oppose rationale, i thought you'd be interested in reading my oppose in WP:Requests for adminship/Adjwilley. Pass a Method  talk  01:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention the oppose rationale, but I did read and consider your opposition. I think your argument would be strengthened considerably by supplying diffs to back up your statements that he edits with a Christian POV, treats editors unfairly, etc. Most editors will not take these statements at face value without proof. -- Laser brain  (talk)  01:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
'' Sam   &#x1f3a4;   16:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I appreciated your source review of my recent FAC (which seems to have been promoted) and help with getting accustomed to some of the new standards at FAC. That article served as a great crash course on how expectations and customs have changed in the past couple years. Thanks! :) –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem! I was glad to see your name pop up at FAC again! -- Laser brain  (talk)  00:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Review request
Hi Andy, thought I'd ask direct rather than at WT:FAC: would you mind image/source reviewing F.C. Porto in international club football? Lemonade looks like he's spotchecked some sources but the formatting-style SR would be useful. Also appreciate just a spotcheck of prose if you can, I find the 'group pronoun/possessive' for a club a bit jarring but I understand that's common in BritEng, which I assume this is employing since it's football (or what we Down Under prefer to call soccer)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For extra confusion, I have a two friends from Australia, one who uses "football" to mean Australian rules football and another who uses it to mean rugby. At any rate, I'm afraid I'm rather short on time for the rest of today but I could certainly get to it this weekend. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, football (or "footy"!) is applied to whichever code you favour that employs an oval-shaped ball rather than a round one... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. When you have an opportunity, please check my replies to your comments. Cheers, Parutakupiu (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Diva   Knockouts   22:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb
Lemme get this straight...Joefromrandb attacks a bunch of editors, calls me an asshole, makes spurious soapbox and bias assertions, and I'm the bad guy in this situation? That, sir, is not right. I want you to look at the diffs again (and all but one of those diffs is in the last eight days), plus his continued recalcitrance to my requests on his page to stop attacking editors (he treats it as some joke), and maybe you'd understand why I'm outrage. If not, I have no respect for you p  b  p  15:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Where did I say you were a bad guy? All I suggested is that you find something else to do for a while. Editing from an emotional position is rarely a winning proposition. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh...ok... p  b  p  15:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Stop shooting messengers
p b  p  20:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Revert
I missed that edit notice. Thanks for catching that. I'll make a section on the talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposed siteban of Strangesad. Thank you. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 02:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

C-SPAN FAC
Hi Laser brain, I'm not sure if you've seen but I replied to your comment regarding my involvement with the C-SPAN article on the FAC page here. I hope this clears up any confusion or concerns you might have. Do you think this article is something you'd be willing to review? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 20:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am interested in reviewing it, yes. I've been trying to progress a few of my own projects, but I will make my way in there as soon as feasible. -- Laser brain  (talk)  00:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Kentucky history
You wanted Kentucky history, so I'll bring you a little Kentucky history. Given that my current projects are progressing slowly, I decided to look back through some of my old GAs to see if anything might be ready to make the jump to FA. I'm thinking Taylor v. Beckham, the Supreme Court case that helped decide the disputed 1899 Kentucky gubernatorial election, might be in the neighborhood. I've listed it for a pre-FAC peer review here, if you'd like to comment. Also, I need to do some research on the current status of some of the buildings at Constitution Square State Historic Site, since some renovations and such were still under way the last time I looked at it, but I think it should be pretty close, too. It had a previous FAC that died for lack of reviews. Look for that one sometime after Taylor v. Beckham closes. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I'm slammed at work (I promise I'm not actually playing Civ 5) but I'll make my way over to Taylor v. Beckham when I can manage it. -- Laser brain  (talk)  18:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Source check
Thank you for your source check at Featured article candidates/Thaddeus McCotter presidential campaign, 2012/archive2. I appreciate your input.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hurricane Diane FAC
Hey there! I got some outside eyes to review the prose for Diane. I was wondering if you still held your oppose on the FAC. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've struck my opposition. I'm short on time at the moment, but if I can, I will go back and review it more thorough to see if I can support. Thanks for the reminder. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Joseph Bishara
The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Never Let Me Down FA review
Hey thank you for your feedback on the article I've nominated for FA review. I've taken another pass through the article in an attempt to make the edits you've requested. The biggest open issue is whether or not I've struck the right balance between use of direct quotes and paraphrasing. I think it's better now but you're the judge :) Please let me know what else about the article should be updated or changed. Thank you very much for your time! 87Fan (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Gary Barlow - genre
Hi, sorry for the interrupt. Can you revert the genre for Gary Barlow page? Yids2010 was not allow other users to revert any genre. But according to AllMusic, genre says pop/rock and classical. As for soft rock was not supported by citation and hasn't cited from AllMusic at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.178.246 (talk) 07:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Explain to me something
If you agree that the article When God Writes Your Love Story isn't really a good example of what a featured article looks like, perhaps you could let me know what the best thing to do is about this qua Featured Articles. The argument, "have a discussion on the talkpage" doesn't seem to be working because of the concerted resistance to actually looking at what the problems are. I'm at a loss. The FA(R) process is stymied in bureaucratic arbitrariness (3 steps to delisting? Whatever for?) and people use the "FA badge" as an excuse to the tune of: "Well, it's a featured article, so they must have done something right. It must be the person pointing out problems who is wrong." Do you see where I'm coming from here? There is a problem and if people like you who seem to indicate that you see issues don't do something about it, it will destroy the very thing you are trying to protect. jps (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The concept is that it's a lot of work to get an article to FA status, so it should be a lot of work to get it delisted. There are all kinds of reasons why candidates might receive intense scrutiny or why they might go through with deficiencies. It all depends on who decides to show up that day. If someone lists a literature article at FAC and no one shows up who knows anything about sourcing literature articles, what are we to do? The article might enjoy broad support and so it will get promoted. Having been an FAC coordinator, I know that those guys don't have enough bandwidth to detect all the deep issues. If they see consensus to promote, they're going to promote unless there are obvious issues in which case they will ask for further review. I'm sure you don't have the bandwidth to do something about all the issues you see on WP either, so you prioritize. For me, a pop religious culture book is pretty low on the totem pole, so I probably won't spend many cycles on it. Ultimately, you decide whether you want to get involved in some capacity or find something else to do. I choose to spend my time at FAC trying to catch deficient candidates on the way in. -- Laser brain   (talk)  14:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest the problem is, then, with the assumption that lots of work to get to a status should imply lots of work to remove the status? Featured articles should be really, really good. I mean professional quality. If someone finds a problem in a journal article, the journal does not say, "see if you can't get the author to understand the problems and fix them in an errata. Wait six months before we have a discussion to decide whether to have a discussion about retracting the article". There is no argument like, "well, it took a lot of work to write that article and get it accepted and so it should take a lot of work to detract it." That's just not thinking about what the best way to offer content is. Now, I understand that we're made of volunteers and eschew certain amounts of professionalism, but surely featured articles should be putting one's best foot forward. By preventing critique from happening, this removes the incentive to actually fix the problems as they come up.


 * Imagine if the process went another way: that the FAR came first and the demotion happened quickly once problems were expressed. Then we could work on fixing them and there would be an incentive for the author to try to work on the problems rather than drag feet or insist that because the article is featured it should not be tagged, or edited too much, for example. What we have here is a system that rewards an arbitrary demarcation and, by doing so, devalues the demarcation. I understand you guys have a problem recruiting volunteers. That's hard luck. But the answer is not to tip-toe around people's ownership feelings when a featured article is discovered to have problems. I'm just amazed that you all aren't seeing the problem here.
 * jps (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (tps response) I understand the frustration with the idea that an FAC "cements" a status for a certain period, but there's no reason that improvements can't be made without an FAR (and in general it is a far better idea to float such ideas on the talk page and make fixes there; FARs ruffle feathers and if your aim is a better article doing so with the least amount of drama is always preferable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I was trying, David. But the problem as I saw it was that people use the status as an excuse not to improve. "It's featured so we should not do any major edits." "It's featured, so even though there is a dispute about neutrality, we should not tag the article with notification tags." These types of arguments are being made and if FA is a carrot we use to entice authors to improve, surely removing the featured article status will entice them to pay more attention. So, I thought, rather naively, if I just get the status removed some of this posturing will go away. And anyway, a review should be welcomed, isn't that part of what writing is all about? Dammit if I wouldn't like it if people reviewed my work more often. Reviews should never be considered "feather ruffling" and if that's the current ethos here we really need to try to change that. What's more, a featured article review can apparently only become a discussion for delisting after it has run its course. The bureaucratic labyrinth is pretty remarkable. Why so many hoops to jump through just get an acknowledgement that there was a mistake in the promotion of one article? Seems like misplaced priorities to me. jps (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would in principle agree with you; while there have been instances I have defended the "status quo" of the article because I felt a point garnered consensus when discussed in an FAC, I have never seen FA status as meaning the article is "done" and cannot be improved, or that it can be assumed that all aspects of the article are considered the best they can be. I do think it's unfortunate that the authors are treating FA as a shield. However there is no deadline, and as far as bureaucracy goes waiting a little bit won't be the most painful experience in the world. If you're interested in continuing the dialogue on the talk page I will try and look in depth at your concerns and pitch in. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

While I genuinely appreciate the offer, I've decided to disengage from that page for the foreseeable future. If you feel up to it, go ahead and try to figure out what to do about the problems. It's not a simple fix: this is a structural matter where academic sources are scant but somewhat scathing and the sources that are of the same religion tend to be rather laudatory. Meanwhile, there's no context provided at all... well, I'm going to let it go for the time being. But I do think that the system whereby FARs are viewed in a negative light needs to be considered at least flawed if not entirely broken. jps (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Grace Sherwood FA
Thank you from PSky and Wehwalt for your comment and review of this recently successful FAC. Pumpkin Sky  talk  20:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Peer review request
Hi, Laser brain. Could you please shine your light on Fluorine. Currently at peer review. It's a work of love...please help brush it up.98.117.75.177 (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, will look at it soon. -- Laser brain  (talk)  11:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)