User talk:Maralia/Archive 8

HD
Thanks for your eds, I'll switch to cleaning up the talk page to save you the headache of edit conflicts - they give a kind of warm feeling but can be a little tricky can't they! :) L&there4;V 23:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * After thought - I forgot to use you 50% vs written, will put back in later if you haven't already. L&there4;V 23:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Was away having dinner. Have tweaked the lead again. Would still like to see consistency on capitalization of the gene and the protein (no idea which if any should be capitalized, but all permutations are currently in use) as well as the abbreviations Htt/HTT, mHtt/mHTT, etc. Lastly, I made a pretty bold edit of the Diagnosis section (mostly Genetic testing) that I hope you will check closely as I am far from an expert. Thanks! Maralia (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Checked, all ok &radic;. I put the capitalization on talk page with it's own header - just below the mhtt/htt discussion from the past and will address, many thanks. L&there4;V 12:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As for capitalization, in case you're wondering, from a previous conversation 'I switched the gene name to all-caps italics wherever I saw it and the protein name to all-caps non-italics' and anything that is 'mutant'  is same but with lower case 'm' prefixed, although you will be able to find people use standards  so using these papers inconsistency creeps in :( I will ce it now... L&there4;V 23:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying on capitalization of the abbreviations (and on italics; had missed the line RE gene capitalization in MOS). Still not clear on Huntingtin vs. huntingtin for the gene and the protein, but I don't see it codified anywhere, so I'd be happy with just consistency of usage. Ping me when you've finished your latest pass and I'll give it another read. Maralia (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have gone through capitalized the gene name, protein lower case and attempted to avoid the phrase 'huntingtin protein' as it is ambiguous and could be used either way - see Talk:Huntington's_disease for further info, I've gone for consistency rather than the definite answer ( which may be elusive and way too complicated to implement), will hopefully being doing other copyeds later, but I think I've addressed issues you've raised. many thanks L&there4;V 14:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Maralia, hope all is well, the article is going through FAC as we speak, and I have just remembered I'd let you know before, the date Garondo and I set seems to have crept up without my noticing - could have something with going to Glastonbury festival ! Seems as always we could do with help copediting, here we go then .. ! L&there4;V 00:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 issue of the Military history 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Nassau class battleship
I just wanted to mention how much I dislike reviewing all those measurements in MilHist articles :))) I think that article needs a lot of MoS work; it started to make me dizzy :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look after dinner. Maralia (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Maralia! Those articles are so number intensive, and there are often problems with hyphenation.   If Tony ever looks at one of those articles, he may go to town :)  Maybe there's a way to raise more awareness at MilHist of the number and hyphen issues?  Thanks again,  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

1047
Hey Maralia. Would you be able to take a look at Design 1047 battlecruiser, which is at FAC, if you have time? I know that you are totally overloaded, so please delay/don't look at it if you don't have time. :-) Thanks, — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs) 
 * I started, but got tied up with stuff off my watchlist when I came back after dinner, and now I have a nasty headache. Will try to finish it off tomorrow; bug me if I forget. Maralia (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello again! I addressed all of them, but left one in there for you to check. Have I altered the wording enough so that I am not speaking to the reader? — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  23:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Endometriosis Overlinking
I'm looking for help with the wp:overlinking policy and I invite you to join the discussion at Village_pump_(policy)

Together, we're making good articles. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 07:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

M249 squad automatic weapon
Hey. You opposed this articles FAC over referencing. I know you've already struck your oppose, but I've completely redone the refs. You might like to take a look :-).-- Patton t / c 14:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Just something
I haven't seen your input about some of the grammar claims about the Johnson page. I was wondering if you could take a third party look and contact me with any that are still in the article and should be addressed? I respect your opinion on such things. It seems that the fighting halted many of the reviews. I should have more time to devote to article writing this week, as my current Wiki stuff will be finishing up tonight when it closes. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and don't think that this is urgent and needs to be done now, if you are willing to. I'm sure that the FAC will be there for a week or so more, as no one is really reviewing and its stagnated near the bottom. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That FAC was promoted by Karanacs this morning. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, well. That gives Maralia even more time to look at any concerns. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you looking for a grammar check on the article, or specific feedback vs the grammar issues raised at the FAC? I would rather eat hot lead than try to decipher the lengthy FAC page, but I'd be happy to do the former. Maralia (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a general sweep of the article looking for grammar. Some of the issues raised were a few words that were characterized as "antiquated" or some sentences that were vague or too confusing to understand. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Old templates
Are you sure we want to have them removed? I thought we were keeping them around in case we ever had to wing it without GimmeBot? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not wholesale indiscriminate removal; mostly just tagging as deprecated to make it clear that they're no longer in active use. Some of them, though, never were used and could be deleted. Don't worry, I will take the time to look into each one and form a good recommendation case-by-case. Maralia (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Crisis
An unexpected development on Wikipedia that concerns us has been brought to our attention by Moonriddengirl. Please follow this link for more information. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Collins Line
I did SS Baltic (1850) and SS Pacific (1849). When I start on a class of ships I usually do the lot but in this case I just whipped these two out to get a five-part DYK on another topic. I might have gone on to do the rest but since I see you already started on them, I thought you might want to do at least a couple.

If I was doing them as a set, I would probably write a blanket article called something like "Collins Line ships" where I would include the detail common to all four ships (or five, including Adriatic), and then just concentrate on the service histories in the individual articles. I think that's the best way to proceed because otherwise you end up with a lot of redundant info in the individual ship articles. If you would like to tackle such an article though, I can give you a couple of useful sources. Gatoclass (talk) 07:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the DYK nom up yet? Was curious about a five-part DYK related to those ships, but couldn't find a nom.


 * I wouldn't in the least mind if you wanted to work on any of the other ships. I am mainly interested in working on Arctic, due to the spectacular manner in which she was wrecked, and the extreme amount of coverage in newspapers and books. Maralia (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The nom was up, but I just decided to pull it as I am now considering breaking it up into two separate hooks (ironically, after spending all that time researching those two ship articles!).


 * I think the Collins Line ships are very interesting, and I would like to give them the attention I think they deserve, but I have other priorities at the moment and if I manage to get back to them at all it probably won't be for weeks, if not months. So if you change your mind about them, it's not likely to bother me :) Cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

What every happened to
Hey there Maralia, I know that back in November/December there was some talk about your running for admin, whatever became of that? If you want a new nom, I would not be opposed to giving you one.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I had some real life stuff going on that would've made it difficult to handle an RFA (first an illness in the family, and then my primary computer gave up the ghost). Things have settled down since, and I'm gearing up to get on with it again. I've recently contacted both people who previously wrote co-noms for me and they're still on board, so I think I'll stick with that; 3 co-noms seems a bit much to me. Thanks very much for the offer, though! Maralia (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem... I've been seeing your name around a lot more lately and just wanted to find out what happened... I knew there were personal issues then, but didn't know if you had completely decided against it or what.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Keith Johnson
Thanks for pointing those out, I've fixed them.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 00:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Wh ip it ! Now whip it good! 03:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A barnstar

 * It was just a few minutes' work, really. But thank you, it's always nice to be appreciated :) Maralia (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The 7th DC Meetup
Please be advised that a proposed Meetup/DC 7 is being discussed here. We need your help to figure out some of the details! You are being sent this notice because you previously expressed interest in such meetups. If you no longer wish to receive such notices, then please leave your user name [ here]. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Tex Settle
Thanks for cleaning up that Hindu grammar of mine! Any suggestions how to find verifiable date/place of his death, other than breaking into Pentagon screaming FOIA? NVO (talk)
 * You're welcome! I have some ideas; let me see what I can find. Maralia (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's what I've found so far:
 * The SSA lists a Thomas Settle, born 4 Nov 1895, last residence in zip 20015 (DC), that died in April 1980. His SSN was 579-52-8080; you can see the summary report I pulled this from by searching on that SSN at this site.
 * SSA info on Fay can be found by searching on 579-60-9349; she died in 1989.
 * Tex appears to be listed in the 1900 DC census, at age 4.
 * He's also listed in the 1910 Honolulu census, at age 14, in the household of Joseph Settle and May C W Settle.
 * By the 1920 census, Joseph seems to be back in DC, but it's not clear if the family was with him. Tex would have graduated from the Naval Academy by that time anyway.
 * While I'm on the topic of the Naval Academy: this Navy source says he graduated in 1915. The USNA alumni site shows Thomas G. Settle as a member of the class of 1919.
 * It seems likely that May's maiden name was Williams. I haven't sussed out a Greenhow connection yet; any of your sources hint at where that came from? It has some interesting possible connections.
 * The Joyner Library at East Carolina University apparently has a 67-page transcription of an oral history given by his wife Fay, covering 1923–1957.
 * The University of Texas/Dallas has a box of some correspondence between Tex and Admiral Rosendahl, including articles by Tex.
 * The Naval Historical Center has a box of Tex's correspondence and notes.
 * I don't have immediate access to the relevant census listings (they are available online, but behind pay walls). Know anyone with an ancestry.com paid subscription? Maralia (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1980 sounds reasonable - at least one of the books I used say he lived over 80. As for the middle names - no idea; in fact, the only book I saw that deciphered G. W. is They sailed the skies, p. 35 but it does not mention anything prior to Academy. NVO (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note regarding dashes—I clearly was confused about it. I was using the insertable dashes on the edit page for a while, but I guess you are right—they display OK on the article pages with my IE7 browser, but not in the edit space. I'd much rather not use the html code. Any idea how I change the browser setting to display them in the edit window? LilHelpa (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah.. I found the setting in preferences that will change the font to permit me to see this better. Many thanks for clearing this up for me. I still have a lot of MOS to learn before I'm a really good copy editor. I try to respond to requests, but it is not really my thing (yet). LilHelpa (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply
What do you mean by "breaking wikilinks?" Magus732 (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

FAR
Just the techie I was looking for. Can you look at the two computing FARs at the bottom please? Nobody is reviewing it. Thanks  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI thread on Gimmebot
Here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ships
I'm working on Clements Markham, currently at peer review. It has a lot of 19th century warships in it, and I'm not sure I've linked them all correctly. If you could possibly look at this aspect of the article, I would be very grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Jacob Aaron Westervelt‎
Nice work on cleaning this one up some more, I obviously missed quite a bit first time round -- that will teach me to copy edit after a 3 hour conference call! – ukexpat (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing :) I can tell that you put a lot of work into it, too; the prose is much better than it was when I skimmed the article a couple weeks ago. I still have a fair amount of work to do on the reference formatting, but it's getting there! Maralia (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Opera cleanup
Why are you delinking Opera Software in the citations, changing "cite press release" to "cite press release/citation", changing "Agnitum" to "Agnitum Ltd", wikilinking small screen rendering (a redirect to mobile browser), and changing all the dates from American to British format? The rest of your changes look mostly okay. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In order:
 * I delinked redundant wikilinks to Opera Software in the citations. The article as a whole had tons of redundant wikilinks.
 * I changed cite press release to cite press release/citation because the former improperly displays press release titles in italics, while the latter properly displays them in quote marks.
 * I changed Agnitum to Agnitum Ltd because that's how the linked website displayed the name.
 * I wikilinked small screen rendering because the term was not explained in-text; several redirects (from various wordings) to mobile browser existed, and it seemed an appropriate link.
 * The date formats used in the article were not consistent. The dates used in the text were mdy and dmy, while the dates in citations were invariably dmy format. I standardized to the latter form as it required vastly fewer changes and seemed appropriate given the international scope of the article.
 * I'm sorry that the FAR has been a bit contentious, but I'm just trying to help here. Maralia (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please join
Please join the arbitration against me. All negative comments are welcome at Requests for arbitration under my name. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 20:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured content dispatch
I'd love to work on a series about it - I don't think people realise how easy it can be. I suppose the first one should cover finding and scanning images?

Anyway, I'm afraid I'm about to sleep, so let's work this out tomorrow. Commons:Help:Scanning (which I largely wrote) would probably be my basis, though I did write a lot of that quite some time ago... Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, hate to be a pain, but I do need to know how you want to go forwards =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies, didn't realize the ball was in my court :) I've glanced at the scanning info you wrote, and it certainly has potential as a dispatch. Before we delve into this one, though, could you give me a rough overview of the series as you envision it? Even just a list of proposed titles would be a start. Maralia (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fountain of Time/archive2
Since you participated in the discussion at Featured article candidates/Fountain of Time/archive1, you might want to comment at Featured article candidates/Fountain of Time/archive2.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson
user:Moni3 referred me to you for possible copyediting help with the Jackie Robinson article now up for FA review. Let me know if you have time. BillTunell (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts. The FAC has hit a wall over the issue of including non-free images, which I'm not going to pursue.  But the editorial copy looks great.  I appreciate your taking the time. BillTunell (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Shipwrecks of the Georgia coast
I have nominated shipwrecks of the georgia coast for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you.  APK  straight up now tell me  00:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Blah, I hate automated messages. Anywho, I noticed the category was a duplicate of Category:Shipwrecks of the Georgia (U.S. state) coast. Hope you don't mind.  APK  straight up now tell me  00:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would simply suggest merging the two together than sending the second to be deleted as a non-controversial deletion as a duplicate category---with the second one being kept as Georgia can be more than just the US State.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But then that would make more sense. :-P I chose CfD because I'm not very familiar with merging cats, but your suggestion sounds better. How do I change the nomination?  APK   straight up now tell me  01:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. Maralia, are you still planning to make an appearance next month?  APK  straight up now tell me  01:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmph..to think I would make such a mistake! It was nearly two years ago, though, so I guess I can forgive my rookie self. Support deletion; will post at the CFD.
 * Good grief, that meetup is only 2 weeks away. Where has May gone?! Yes, I think I can swing it; are you going to grace us with your presence? Would have been funnier to have it this weekend, though. Maralia (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think so. I'll have to get my hair did and buy a new fancy dress. DressBarn, here I come!  APK  straight up now tell me  04:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ed is taking Maralia's page off of his watchlist; it's difficult to edit when you are laughing at comments here and comments at the convenient link to Moni3's talk page given by APK above. :) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  04:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't mind APK; the dress & do are surely just to make sure I notice him this time. I'll just let you guess what I'd have to strap on wear in order for him to notice me. Maralia (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * O_O wow. TMI. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  05:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh lawd. Ya'll need Jesus. You better not miss Sunday School in the morning! On a totally unrelated note, do you think I should separate Category:Shipwrecks of the Carolina coast? (ex: "Shipwrecks of the North Carolina coast" & "Shipwrecks of the Carolina no one cares about South Carolina coast")  APK  straight up now tell me  05:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Methinks I might burst into flames. Trying to split the Carolinas might be more trouble than it's worth; old sources often don't distinguish between the two. Maralia (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit request
If you have time, would you be able to help me with a copyedit of Battle of the Coral Sea? I believe it's almost ready for A-class and FAC nomination. Cla68 (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Should be able to start working on it within a day or so. Maralia (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for taking the time to do that. Your copyediting significantly improved the article and is much, much appreciated.  Thanks again. Cla68 (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind note. After Coral Sea and Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson (which I am working on now), I should be thoroughly immune to the fear of long articles :) Maralia (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

And another...
Copyedit request! (you should have kept your head down :) Our old friend Horatio, which you set me on all that time ago. It's at good article now, but it needs a copyedit. I've opened a peer review as well a short time ago, but when I went to the milhist copyedit request page again I found my original request from about this time last year still up there. So I don't think we'll get much help from that quarter. I know you must be busy, but anything you can do would be much appreciated! ttfn, Benea (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. William Windsor (goat), what a concept! Disciplined for "lack of decorum" but he was only "acting the goat"! Brilliant! Nice to see the military has a lighter side! Benea (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback Tyw7
-- Tyw7 ‍ ‍‍ (Talk  ●  Contributions) Leading Innovations >>>  16:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:FACL
A while back, you commented on modifying the FAC tools page to make WP:FACL work again. Are you an admin? If so, I was wondering if you might be able to help add the category to Featured article tools. Perhaps, ? Thanks! Budding Journalist 00:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Midshipman at FAC
Maralia, your eyes are needed. See WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Midshipman. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing it out; have been away for nearly a week and wouldn't have wanted to miss that one. From the passed A-class version I see what you mean about citation issues. I posted a review at the FAC (few MOS issues, but lots of prose ones). Too sleepy to deal with the A-class issue now; will tackle that beast tomorrow. Maralia (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

FA nom
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/British_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=257817364 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/British_Empire&diff=next&oldid=257817364 I raise a whiff and a concerned grunt with the removal of my name from the page. --Jay( Talk ) 19:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You created that nomination page in 2007, but never submitted the nomination at FAC; consequently, there was exactly zero further action on it. When someone else re-used the same nomination page for a new nomination a full year later, I fixed up the nomination by adding the tools we use and removing the irrelevant, incomplete prior nomination statement, with the edit summary "add tools, fix format by removing previous single-line nomination from 2007 that was never submitted". What, exactly, are you taking issue with? Maralia (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A whiff and a concerned grunt of course. --Jay( Talk ) 05:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for review
I was struck by the clarity and depth of your FAC review for 1968 Illinois earthquake and was wondering if you might have time to take an article a little outside your editing history. I'm preparing 2009 Orange Bowl for a pass at FAC in order to complete a featured topic, and I'm trying to get as many eyes on it as possible in order to smooth its passage. Any comments you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Even a cursory readthrough and your thoughts would be helpful. If you don't have time or aren't inclined to help, it's not a problem. I simply was struck by the thoroughness of your review and thought you'd be the person to ask. Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly, although I haven't followed football of any kind in ages, so I may have some dumb questions for you :) I have just read the article; will try to turn my notes into something intelligible for you later tonight. Maralia (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I look forward to hearing what you have to say. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Have (finally) posted comments at the talk page. Sorry for the delay. I've watchlisted it for follow-up. Maralia (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Now that I've got an ample list from several editors, I'll tackle that tonight. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've posted the FAC for 2009 Orange Bowl now. Thank you again for your help in the pre-FAC review. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw that you're having computer problems. If you get them fixed before the review is up, could you take a gander at the FAC page? Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

June 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Edward Low, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Omegapuzzle (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:DTTR. Further, you're templating the wrong editor. Maralia removed the vandalism: --Moni3 (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * User blocked for disruption. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Illinois earthquake
Hi Maralia, thanks for your in-depth comments. I believe I have resolved all of them, as you can see at the FAC.  ceran  thor 10:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
I may be pretty but I am just at odds with letters and words! -- Banj e b oi   16:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem :) Maralia (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for a lookthrough of Battle of Bosworth Field
Hi Maralia. Do you have the time to have a quick look-through of the said battle? I am looking for assurance that the article would not be a massive oppose magnet at FAC. Basically, if you see something that made pause and go "wait a minute", can you raise the issue? Thank you in advance. Jappalang (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. I've read through it, made a handful of minor tweaks, and have a few further comments. Will write them up on the article talk page today. Maralia (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to look over. I have responded to your queries, please take a look.  I hope my explanation and idea for the web page citing are proper.  Jappalang (talk) 23:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson Redux
Maralia, I took your advice and, after thinking it over, re-nominated the Jackie Robinson article for FA status. In the meantime I've ordered a couple of rights-free images to replace two others that were causing controversy. Tha narrows the scope of the image debate to two photos. Hopefully, this will either eliminate opposition or at least focus the debate to where the adminsitrators will rule on them.

I'm going to try to limit my comments this time around so as to not upset anybody. That should also help.

Noticed your recent edit, BTW. Thanks for all your effort, and for talking me down off the ledge. BillTunell (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So glad to hear this. I still have Eig and Rampersad sitting on my desk. Having just reread The Boys of Summer, I'm more eager than ever to see this excellent article recognized. I'll keep an eye on the FAC and help out where I can. Maralia (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've printed the article out and will be going over it today and tomorrow. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)