User talk:MLilburne/Archive 01

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - Mailer Diablo 11:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Welcome!
 Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 15:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ross Boatman GA nomination
Hi there, thanks for taking the time to review my nomination. Can you give an example of why and where you find the prose to not be compelling? How is that defined? Essexmutant 13:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There's certainly a lot of POV to how "compelling prose" is defined. Joe Beevers is an agreed Good Article and is written very similarly. Essexmutant 14:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to resolve some stuff on it now. Hopefully we'll be able to find some common ground and it will meet GA. Will let you know. Essexmutant 14:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise. I'll just try and improve it. :) Essexmutant 14:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've had a go at tidying this up to meet your concerns. Can you let me know what you think? (changes) Essexmutant 14:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad you liked it. Essexmutant 15:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Linda Ham
I noticed that you made some recent, value-added edits to the Linda Ham article and was wondering if you might know of some information that I was unable to find in my research for the entry. Do you know what Linda Ham's rank was in her various positions? As mission manager, was she an SES or GS-14 or 15? After she was demoted following the disaster, what was her new rank? Also, what is she doing now? Is she still with NASA? Thanks again for the assistance with the article and I hope to get back on it adding cited text very soon. Cla68 11:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You wouldn't be stepping on my toes at all. The military history articles I work on keep me really busy, so I haven't put as much work into this article as I wanted to.  I appreciate any help you could give.  I'm in the process of moving residences over the next month, but hopefully, I'll be able to assist with completing the article soon.  Thanks again for the quick response. Cla68 15:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Cabbage article. Unfortunately, I didn't print out a copy of that article, I didn't think that they might move it to an archive where you have to pay to access it.  When I get back to the U.S. in a week, I'll go to my local public library and see if they can print it out for me.  They usually have access to most electronic newspaper archives.  I do have a hard copy of the Atlantic Monthly article, which is also in an archive that you have to pay for access.  If you let me know your fax number I should be able to send it to you after I get back. Cla68 01:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, if you have articles that I didn't have on the original reference list I posted in the article. My email address is CLA68@yahoo.com.  Thanks! Cla68 22:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Tone cluster
Hi. For your convenience, I thought I'd post the following here. It appears identically on the tone cluster discussion page. Best, Dan —DCGeist 18:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, MLilburne. Thanks for going over the article carefully. Of course, you're correct that my reference method is not "one of the citation methods recommended in Wikipedia." I'd say in response that it's common enough in serious published works, especially scholarly ones that attempt to reach out to a broader audience. I'd argue that the importance of citation in Wikipedia has nothing to do with one particular method or another, but with the paired goals of accuracy and verifiability. I believe my method provides that, while leading--in the context of certain sorts of articles--to greater readability than the officially recommended methods.


 * In the end, I don't have a major problem with changing the citation method. But I'd like to keep it on the grounds that it (a) expands the ways in which Wikipedia addresses a certain vital issue, while (b) being fully in keeping with the pertinent spirit and goals of Wikipedia. So, conceptually, I'd ask you to consider WP:IAR as relevant here. And, as evidence in support, I'd ask you to take a look at the major article Henry Cowell, in relation to which this article was largely developed. "Henry Cowell" uses precisely the same citation method and has been officially rated "A-class." Thanks very much again. Best, Dan —DCGeist 18:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

And the follow-up. —DCGeist 19:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Let's see what other people have to say. My hope is that the method's gain in article readability while maintaining verifiability (which applies to all readers) is generally seen to outweigh the reduction in speed of citation access (which applies to a smaller set of particularly concerned readers).


 * As for the use of the citation method in serious works, this of course differs by field, and in the sort of hardcore academic writing you're probably drowning in as you pursue your doctorate, I'm not surprised you don't come across it. However, there are many serious, scholarly books, published for a general readership, that do employ the method, particularly in the realm of biography--which is how it came to be used for Henry Cowell, "tone cluster"'s parent article. I just pulled three major biographies off my shelf: Einstein: The Life and Times, by Ronald W. Clark; Laurence Olivier: A Biography, by Donald Spoto; and Orson Welles: The Road to Xanadu, by Simon Callow. Each is the product of extensive research--Einstein, for instance, has 48 pages of notes that are exclusively simple citations--and each uses the print equivalent of the citation method employed herein. As a student of modern history, I'm sure you're familiar with the work of Robert Caro. Please see his Pulitzer Prize–winning biography The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York, widely recognized as one of the great modern works of scholarship. It uses a very similar citation method.


 * By the way, in re your point about the embedded citation--to an online source--marked with ">", that's again a method adopted from the Henry Cowell article. Because the reference system in both articles reserves the "Notes" section at the bottom of the article for substantive (i.e., narrative) notes, it is most practical for simple citations of online sources to link directly to those sources. Numbering those citations would cause a numbering conflict with the substantive "Notes" section. After experimenting with different callout symbols, the ">" appears to be the clearest and most visually attractive for this purpose. Best, D —DCGeist 19:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As an addendum, three major works of historical scholarship that are not biographies--it took me less than a minute to grab these from my history shelf: Terrible Honesty: Mongrel Manhattan in the 1920s, by Ann Douglas; Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America's Struggle for Equality, by Richard Kluger; Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution, by Simon Schama. Best, Dan —DCGeist 19:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, MLilburne, it's been a few days and no one else has weighed in. I respect and have accepted your judgment. I've changed the citation method (and added a couple small examples to the final section). Best, Dan —DCGeist 20:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Telecommunication
Hi,

I moved the second paragraph to new section Accessibility in the Telecommunication article.

Please let me know if any additional changes are needed.

Cedars 13:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi,


 * I moved the Accessibility section to the end of the article.


 * Cedars 13:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Biography Newsletter September 2006
The September 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 23:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Would like to hear your opinion
You recently posted about your Glynn Lunney article: "I confirm that I have completed the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. This article was granted GA status over a month ago; I have expanded it significantly since then."

The requirement that you confirm following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps was posted very briefly before being removed. At peer review discussion, I posted a query about modifying the "peer review request." Since you are one of the few who actually experienced this request, I think it important to have your opinion regarding this suggestion. Thanks. -- Jreferee 23:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

DLR
Does it matter if i'm not really that much of a significant contributor? I would still see what i can do when i have spare time to try to follow the guide lines. Simply south 17:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you look at the stations problem? Thanks for the review comments btw. Simply south 18:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

GA review of Hurricane Emily (2005)
I reworded the section and added more information. CrazyC83 17:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Challenger Space Shuttle Disaster GA passed
Hi, Mlilburne. I just finished reading the Challenger article. I think it's excellent. You've all obviously put in a lot of hard work. I really couldn't think of any improvements. I read it carefully, and saw no style glitches; and it is both comprehensive and compelling. Personally, I think it should be an "A" class article. Jeffpw 22:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But I *did* do that! Damn the quirks of Wiki (or damn my own incompetence, whichever is the case). Checking and fixing now. Jeffpw 09:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I manually deleted it from the list, instead of following the wiki suggestion of using the edit summary "Passed Article Name". I also added it to the list of "New GAs". I wanted to add it to the sublist of all good articles, but didn't know which category. If you tell me which category is most appropriate, I will do it immediately (and I am still looking through categories myself). Jeffpw 09:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Never mind, it's all done now :-) Jeffpw 09:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Katherine Cross
Please review the article again. I did use the text from findagrave as a "Place Holder" while I worked on further research. The new, original article can be found at Talk:Katherine Cross/Temp. Thanks! T. White 11:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. I'll take a look at your draft article a little later, and leave comments on the article's talk page, if that's all right. MLilburne 12:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just take a look at it whenever you get a chance! Have a good day! T. White 12:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have made several changes to the article and I have noted references as well. Can you please take off the copyright violation page now?  T. White 10:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose Environmentalism as this week's WP:AID winner
AzaBot 18:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Jay Greene GA passed
I've reviewed the Jay Greene article and it seems informative, accurate, and reasonably complete. Thanks for writing another good article! --Delirium 08:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Star of Bethlehem
Apologies - it has been reverted, my bad (problem with new version of Vandal Proof, think I have the change figured out now). SkierRMH 10:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Guenter Wendt
Hello. I tagged Guenter Wendt as physics as it was in Category:German physicists. Having now read the article, I agree with you that he is not a physicist, so have removed that category and the physics tag from the talk page. Thanks for pointing this out. Mike Peel 10:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much!
Thank you very much for the Barnstar; and thank you, also, for the support and encouragement in getting the article to FA status. Without your helpful criticisms it wouldn't have happened. My biggest hope is that this will give Baker a wider reading audience. I am actually writing his biography now, in cooperation with his literary executor and family. I admire him a great deal. Thanks again! Jeffpw 13:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Lunney
Sorry, I've been busy recently; by the time I had a chance to look at the article in detail, it seems the discussion's closed. Well done on getting it to FA! Shimgray | talk | 00:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

University of Cambridge
Thanks a lot for your detailed comments! They appear to be very thoughtful, and would make the job of improving the article a lot easier. To my regret, I have exams coming up in less than a week, so I don't think I'll be overly active during this period. After that, however, I'll be making the most of your help to work on the article. Thanks again! (I've duplicated this message on my talk page, and parts of it on the comments page) Gimlei 12:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Ditto on the congrats for Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. It was great to read in peer review and definitely deserved the FA.--Will.i.am 06:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to read anything you have whenever it's ready. You can send me a note, or just post it on peer review and I'll get to checking it out (or, post it, and if I don't comment send me a note).--Will.i.am 11:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:S68-18733.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:S68-18733.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 17:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Military brat (U.S. subculture)
Hi Mlilburne, Just wanted to let you know that I made several changes based upon your FAC comments. Were there any other remnants from failed attempt to globalize that you saw? Hopefully, you'll be able to change your vote to "support" ;-) I'll watch your page for responses.Balloonman 09:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Homotopy groups of spheres on WP:GA/R
Hello MLilburne,

I'd like to apologize if I was excessively snarky on the WP:GA/R review of Homotopy groups of spheres. I was dealing with a nontrivial extra-Wiki stress-level  (taking 4 PhD-level classes plus one 200-level Chinese course; and it's final exams/term papers crunch time). I shouldn't have let extra-wiki stress spill on-wiki, but didn't realize it at the time. A minor positive side-benefit is that I have learned from the experience.

Best Regards, --Ling.Nut 19:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Gary Kildall
Thanks for reviewing the article. I think you'll find that everything is now cited. Gazpacho 23:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Guadalupe, again, again, again
I'm dejected about the NPOV tag. I thought the article was less Catholicky/devotional than before. Do you see the bias? The person who left the tag didn't explain what they were talking about (except to say that I'd omitted the Garza-Valdes study -- the one that found the signed and dated underpaintings -- but that's not even true. It's still in there). I never incited a neutrality stamp before. Katsam 21:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review/Jenna Jameson/archive1
I think I responded to all your comments. Please take another look and see if you have more concerns. Thank you for your help! AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing "Henry Pittock"
I've started making some of the changes you suggested... good points, all, some more involved than others. I'll work on it some more tomorrow. I don't like that infobox template, but none of the others seem to work any better... and I can worry about cosmetics after I deal with the more substantive problems. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 04:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review
No problem! Sorry I didn't get to it sooner (I find myself rather abroad at the moment and internet is sometimes questionable). Good luck at FAC!--Will.i.am 12:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I just read your note on the peer review page (about not responding sooner). I guess we're all a little slower these days.:-)  Hope you're feeling better!--Will.i.am 12:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Chris Kraft featured
Congratulations on the Featured Article status of Christopher C. Kraft, Jr.. I really enjoyed the article and appreciate the great work you did on it. Thanks!

Just curious: do you have any plans for doing some work on Eugene F. Kranz (the article, not the man)? It's one of those articles that's okay-but-not-great, and might be right up your alley.

Cheers. --Plek 23:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll second that. nice job! 131.111.8.97 16:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I also really enjoyed the article, but was disappointed to see it promoted in record time for FAC - I felt it should have stayed long enough to garner more support votes !! I always think of FACs with only four support votes as having "thin" support. Why did Raul move it off in only four days, with only four supports - it should have a dozen? Anyway, congratulations are in order, as it was an enjoyable, well-referenced read :-)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto on all the congratulations!--Will.i.am 19:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick FAC question
Do you think my oppose on the Jennings article is too nit-picky? I ask because it is a very good article, but it is simply not verifiable (by me, anyway) in its current state. I do believe every single reference, but my beliefs are not the issue--it's whether the millions of readers who come here will also believe it, without thew ref details. Just wanting another opinion, mostly for reassurance. Cheers, Jeffpw 14:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. I have gotten involved at FARC lately, and I've learned it's just easier to sort these problems out before theyre Featured, rather than stress people out by threatening to delist them. Jeffpw 15:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi there...just posting here to let you know of my reply to Jeff's objection. I guess the problem is that for almost all the articles, readers will have to pay to access them (either through LexisNexis, some other subscription service, or the publication's paid archives)...my view is that they are still verifiable (the Internet is not the only way to verify sources). I believe the main point is that they exist in print (and I've provided information on the publication, author, and date). Let me know your thoughts. Gzkn 05:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Space Shuttle Challenger disaster
Hey there. I was reviewing the article for unnoticed vandalism during its main page time and noticed that the "Rogers Commission investigation" section was almost completely rewritten, but I cannot judge if it is PoV (it looks vaguely like it gives undue weight). Could you examine the diff for any inappropriate changes? Circeus 13:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I only rapidly skimmed through thesection (I was looking for noticeable vandalism, such as that big chunk of text I restored, and so noticed the rewriting), and my impression was that the newer version gave unnecessary prominence to Feinmann (at least in the latter version used in the diff). While I agree he did some memorable stuff, I'm not sure his separate section is necessary (the two paragraphs could just as easily be present without the header). Also, don't forget to link back and categorize that spinoff article when it's done.Circeus 17:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Anabolic Steroid article
In the response for Anabolic Steroids to become a featured article you state the reasons it should not become one are..
 * There are still paragraphs without citations Which specifically don't have citations? If Some articles aren't cited then it's likely they are explained in the references.
 * there is still no explanation as to why the US government and other governments consider anabolic steroids dangerous enough to make them illegal. This is explained in the introduction "Today anabolic steroids are controversial because of their widespread use in competitive sports and their associated side effects."
 * "There are also side effects that are particular to sex..." This needs fixing What needs fixing about this?
 * There are some paragraphs of only one sentence, which ought to be merged with other paragraphs. Which paragraphs specifically? Wikidudeman  (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request
Hi

I have seen you peer reviewed some biography pages. It would be very kind of you if you could also review Abbas Kiarostami when you have time. I've just sent a request for review. Thanks a lot in advance.Sangak 21:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Take care. Sangak 11:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your detailed review. I will try to fix the problems and will let you know. Thanks again :) Sangak 13:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The main photo was not ment to be a personal photo. I put it there to illustrate the first paragraph about his international acclaim. If you see my original edits, it was like the way it is now. Do you think it is now compatible with the fair use rational? I was also concerned about some of the photos and warned editors who added photos. I will check them one by one again. Thanks. Sangak 13:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is the changes I made:


 * Main photo was replaced by a free one.
 * I tried to reduce the number of short paragraphs.
 * The order of the notes and secondary literature are now according to WP:LAYOUT.
 * I worked out the external links according to WP:EL.
 * I also tried to fix some misusage of coma and some grammer mistakes.

However there are probably some more english problems which escape me as I am not a native speaker. Would you please comment on those and the changes made up to now? Thanks a lot for your helps. Sangak 18:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi MLilburne! Hope you are fine. I have notice that some one (User:Wizardman) nominated the article for GA assessment several days ago. I don't know this user and he/she was not involved in writing the article. No one has assessed the article yet. Would that be possible for you to assess it or ask someone else to evaluate it? Thanks. Sangak 15:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Avrocar aritcle review
I have a perceived problem in providing citations for this article because the most comprehensive and authorative sources are actually from my books-is it appropriate to quote from and use my own material? Bzuk 13:21 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Featured article candidates/Jenna Jameson
Could I trouble you to look the article over again? Many examples of writing have been rephrased, including the two you mentioned, but I've looked at the article so long now, I can't see problems without someone else pointing them out. I value your opinion, and hope to be able to meet your standards. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Avrocar again
MLiburne, please look over the article again- I've made some changes based on your recent review. BTW thanks for your support on another issue, specifically, the de Havilland Comet research. Bzuk 17:43 17 February 2007 (UTC).
 * One more time, I've taken a fresh look at the article and added more text, citations and photographs/diagrams.Bzuk 3:38 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Loch Arkaig treasure
I've added the referenced you suggested, perhaps you'd take another look and let me know if you've more suggestions.--Docg 18:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Joseph Francis Shea
Hello there! I have read the article on Joe Shea and have left my comments on the peer review page. The article looks very promising. I sense another FA emerging in the near future. Great job! --Plek 22:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln assassination GA
I completed the recomendations you gave for the article. Is it ready to be a GA? YankeeDoodle14 02:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies
Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 21:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Kiarostami: FAC
Hi

I would like to invite all those who reviewed "Abbas Kiarostami" during last two months to comment on the article at this "final" stage. The article is now featured article candidate. In case you have any comment, please let me know on the Featured article candidates/Abbas Kiarostami page. Thanks.Sangak 16:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC on Gravitor
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Requests for comment/Gravitor. -- Lunokhod 13:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter
The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Reqphoto
Hello, MLilburne. I see you removed the reqphoto tag on Robert R. Gilruth, a tag that was added by me after I added the portrait that is there. Your edit summary says "there is one." Does Wikipedia have some rule I missed that one image disqualifies an article for an image tag? Thanks for your thoughts and best wishes. -Susanlesch 04:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your reply and ideas for where to look for more. -Susanlesch 08:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Anabolic steroid featured article candidate.
I have nominated the Anabolic steroid article to be a featured article. Please vote in support of it being a featured article here Featured article candidates/Anabolic steroid/archive3. I have taken all of your criticism from the past FAC into consideration and changed the article to suit them. Contributors have been working vastly to improve this article since then taking into account criticism of it and improving it on all accounts since it's last nomination and it has gone a long ways since then. Please vote in support of it. Thanks. Wikidudeman  (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007
The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 19:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)