User talk:Maralia/Archive 9

SD tagging per AWB
Hi Maralia Could I ask you to instead of mass-tagging pages for speedy deletion, just compile a list of the pages in some sandbox and notify one admin (like me or xeno or Toon05) to batch-delete them, in the future? Otherwise those are clogging up CAT:CSD, and people are going to start deleting them one by one while they could pretty easily all be deleted with one click, with the proper tools. Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea  12:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll figure out a way. I've been using AWB to tag because I have to eyeball each one (they're not in a convenient category, or reliably in a subset of whatlinkshere, and even the false positives need other editing). It's further complicated by AWB bugging out—creating a list from 'what transcludes page' is busted, so I'm having to start with a manual copy/paste of onwiki Special:Whatlinkshere results into a text file, clean up the formatting with search/replace, then import it into AWB just to get a working list. Ugly, huh? :) I'll try weeding out the ones needing editing first instead; a few pre-parse runs after that might get me to a reliable list for CSD. Maralia (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Hmm, if it's easier for you you can also just categorize them in some non-existant category, like Category:FAC pages for G6 deletion, which can then be used to delete them all. That wouldn't change much in your workflow I assume? Amalthea  17:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A category had occurred to me, but I figured that would be frowned on for being out-of-process :) (This is where some smartass talkpage stalker will point out that this would have been the smartest way to get it done.) Per your previous suggestion, I had already started preparing a subpage list, using multiple pre-parsing runs in AWB and a review pass onwiki (thank all that's holy for popups!) to weed out false positives. Glancing at the rest of my batch, it appears that they are mostly false positives that I just need to edit, so I think I'll just keep adding to my subpage. Thanks for the suggestion, though; once I'm through with this batch, it will take some inventive searches to isolate the rest of the relic pages (these were the 'easy' ones!), and a temp category would be more efficient than back-and-forth from wiki–AWB–wiki. In any case, the pages listed at the subpage link above are multiply-confirmed and ready to be deleted. Thanks for your help. Maralia (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅, batch deletion of those listed on the subpage is complete. I have left the backlinks intact. I was just about to mention this until I saw that you already did. You really should think about going for it, your need for the tools has just exhibited itself yet again. -MBK004 04:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, MBK. I just finished processing the rest of the first batch. Even though I had drafted the subpage list at an arbitrary breaking point, it turns out that the list captured all the remaining positive matches from this batch. Creepy. Maralia (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi That second batch doesn't happen to be reviewed yet, does it? I'd be needing a test case cause the batch deletion tool is acting out a little. :) Cheers, Amalthea  13:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, it is ready now; knock yourself out :) After that, I expect to have only one more batch, probably smaller than the others. Thanks. Maralia (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, they are all gone. Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea  15:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Concerning that list, turns out that at least Featured article candidates/West Bengal and Featured article candidates/History of Solidarity had content, and were undeleted since then. I'm guessing they'll need to be moved to Featured article candidates/West Bengal/archive2 resp. Featured article candidates/History of Solidarity/archive1, right? Hmm, I guess for the next batch I'll write some script first to double check whether the page really has no relevant history. :\ Do you think that those were isolated cases, or do I need to check all other deleted pages? Cheers, Amalthea  14:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The two undeleted pages don't really need to be moved, as long as they're properly linked in the ArticleHistory entries on the articles' talk pages.
 * I do have an extra check method, mentioned at User:Maralia/test, that can catch that type of error after the fact: checking the logs of both archived and promoted FACs to ensure that none of them have been turned to redlinks by my deletions. The pre-screening should be sufficient—a 'real' FAC looks nothing like the setup pages I am trying to delete, and I am eyeballing each one—but it seems my eyeballs are not infallible, at least when faced with such volume. I previously checked vs the logs of all archived FACs from 2009–2006 (two errors) and vs the logs of promoted FACs from 2009–2008 (no errors). I got sidetracked with other things and didn't check 2007–2006 until prompted by your message above; this turned up five more apparent errors. Appreciate if you could undelete the seven FAC pages listed in that section of the subpage. I'll be extra vigilant about the last few batches; those mistakes are all preventable. Thanks again for your help. Maralia (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been a bit of a talk page stalker about this. I've undeleted those five. The Indian Navy was a duplicate redirecting to the archive2 so I've left it deleted and removed the red link transclusion from the November log. I've restored Xenomorph (Alien) as it was a FAC, but I haven't moved it to a /archiveN page – this might still want doing. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk)  22:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, a mystery TPS! Guessing the slew of CSD tags a while back were what caught your attention :) In any case, thanks for following up. The Indian Navy one is bugging me, though: it wouldn't be unusual (especially back in 2006) for an article to come to FAC twice in the same month, and its being listed twice in the November log of archived noms is a strong indication that this may have been the case. Is there nothing in the history of Featured article candidates/Indian Navy that looks like a FAC nomination? Maralia (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope it's all redirect, in fact here's the full history of that Indian Navy page:
 * (diff) 08:01, 10 May 2008 . . SandyGeorgia (Talk | contribs | block) (98 bytes) (clear redirect)
 * (diff) 08:01, 10 May 2008 . . SandyGeorgia (Talk | contribs | block) (72 bytes) (moved Featured article candidates/Indian Navy to Featured article candidates/Indian Navy/archive2: archive)
 * Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk)  10:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and from the [ move log of the page], I don't see how there could be anything missing either, seems to be all in /archive1 and /archive2. But I don't see a transclusion of Featured article candidates/Indian Navy in Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2006 anyway? Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Indian Navy doesn't list anything but this page and your test page either. Thanks for checking, and Cheers, Amalthea  12:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not in the November archive because yesterday I saw it was only a redirect and removed it. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  12:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh? Hmm, I guess I checked Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/September 2006 instead of November – I did (attempt to) check the history of course. Anyway, the confusion most probably was caused by the nominator of the article retranscluding the discussion after it was archived by Raul, and Raul didn't notice and archived it a second time:, , , . The discussion page was nor  in the time between archival and retransclusion, so it was the same discussion, and Fa top was invented a fair while later, which is why nobody noticed at the time.  Amalthea  12:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Thanks to both of you for helping clear up that mystery. In the meantime, I have re-checked the pages listed at User:Maralia/test; they are now ready for deletion. Maralia (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, very good. I'll take them on tomorrow, when I can test the updated batch deletion tool on them. Amalthea  20:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, three of them have been restored:
 * (Deletion log); 23:04 . . Piotrus (talk | contribs | block) restored "Featured article candidates/History of the Jews in Poland" (2 revisions restored: please don't delete until you fix all possible red links)
 * (Deletion log); 23:04 . . Piotrus (talk | contribs | block) restored "Featured article candidates/History of Poland (1945-1989)" (3 revisions restored: please don't delete until you fix all possible red links)
 * (Deletion log); 23:04 . . Piotrus (talk | contribs | block) restored "Featured article candidates/Sociocultural evolution" (2 revisions restored: please don't delete until you fix all possible red links)
 * Cheers, Amalthea  23:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 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) 23:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Slowness
Naw, your not slow; I was just fast. I usually skim through articles on assessment...unless the assessment is for GA, A, or A-class at which time I read through everything thoroughly. From what I saw on my skim through everything was in place for B-class ranking, although I am appreciative of the copy edit since I can not copy edit... but then you already knew that, didn't you? :) TomStar81 (Talk &bull; Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 04:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just incapable of reading something without fixing typos, punctuation, etc—a real handicap at FAC sometimes. Someday I'll learn. Maralia (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Review request
Hi again! I'm trying to get some fresh eyes on Yukon Quest before I submit it for another go at FAC. It's an article about sled dog racing, and I thought of you as someone who might not be familiar with the sport and could give me a good opinion on where it's unclear to an outside observer. If you can't do a full copy edit, even a quick readthrough would be appreciated if you have the time. As always, I'm more than willing to reciprocate with a review of my own for any article that needs one. :) Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll take a look. It'll be a nice change from all those polar exploration articles where the sled dogs...well, let's just say they didn't fare well :/ Maralia (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Look on the bright side ... those who survived ... well, their ancestors are now some of the most-pampered dogs in the world. :) JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. As to the wordiness, you're probably the best person to go through and kill what you think is unessential. I'll go through it myself, but I'm not an impartial editor. :) JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #8
You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #8. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know.

--User:Nbahn 04:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 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) 20:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hidey-ho good neigbor
Hey, it's good to see you around. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  04:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's been a busy summer, but things seem to be winding down enough to get back in the swing of things. I'm clearly out of practice—I supported a FAC the other day without checking the ref formatting. I'm surprised someone hasn't reported my account as hacked :D Maralia (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Brunel
Over to you, Maralia. I have done a lot on the citations, I expect more needs to be done. I shall keep clear to allow you to copy-edit. There is a strat para bout his assistant in Early life'', which I couldn't find a home for. I have reordered quite a bit but feel free to vary as you see fit. I will look back in a day or so. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am working on the Transatlantic shipping section at the moment, but will be mostly offline during the day today. (I am in EST, and would guess you are too by your edit times.) After completing this edit I probably won't be back for 9 hours or so. Thanks again for your help! Maralia (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I went overboard
I used a link-finding tool and should have used better judgement....do you think I should re-scan it but only use the very best suggestions? occono (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see that you are watchlisting the articles you use that tool on. Some suggestions for applying the tool:
 * Most WP:Featured articles (like Harvey Milk) will not benefit much from a scripted linking tool. They have usually already been reviewed for useful (and non-useful) wikilinks during the Featured article process.
 * You'll avoid a lot of controversy if you disregard any recommendations that a tool makes about adding or removing wikilinks for dates. There is ongoing debate about the usefulness of linking dates at all, and I would advise just...not going there.
 * Avoid adding wikilinks inside direct quotations. From WP:MOSQUOTE: "Unless there is an overriding reason to do so, Wikipedia avoids linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader."
 * Extremely common terms should not be wikilinked. There is a fair amount of disagreement over where to draw the line for 'common', but linking "woman", to use an example, is not necessary.
 * The tool clearly cannot interpret context, and consequently makes a lot of patently bad suggestions. Some examples from the single edit you made at Harvey Milk (click 'show' to the right for the full list):


 * Semi-automated tools can be very helpful in identifying possible wikilinks, but there is no substitute for your own good judgement. I hope you'll employ a bit more discretion in using that tool in the future. Thanks for being proactive in coming to me about it. Maralia (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. Wow, you put a lot of effort into your reply. To be honest, it was very late here while I was doing it and was getting too tired to judge what I was adding enough. (I think I did better with the first few articles I did) Also, you should write an WP:ESSAY on what inlinks aren't needed, that was very good! Thanks. :) occono (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wildfire
Can you give this article a copy edit and make suggestions for its second FAC that is coming up? I've started a thread on the talk page. I've gone through the article a couple times, but your attention to detail is sharper than mine. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!!
Just wanted to drop a note thanking you for your extensive copyediting of Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak. THANKS!!! Basket of Puppies 20:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, although calling it extensive is over-generous. In any case, thanks for noticing :) I'm writing up a few minor comments for the talk page. Maralia (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey there. Just a kind note regaring the history section of the article. Your userpage asked to drop you a note here due to computer problems. Cheers! Basket of Puppies  03:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Maralia! I've edited the history section again. Whenever you get a chance. :) Basket of Puppies  17:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Forgetfulness
Better late then never :) I'm just glad I finally received the ships barnstar. I can offer you a bit advise on the list you are working on as well: To the best of my own ability, any time someone on Wikipedia has successfully guided an article on a ship or class that we previously had no recognized article on I have awarded that editor either the ships barnstar or the chevrons. In this manner then I do believe that the first people to get a cruiser, sub, battleship, carrier, and a respective class either to A or FA have been honored for the achievement (with the notable exception of me, as I believe that I am the first to have gotten a battleship class to FA but for what should be obvious reasons never bothered awarding myself anything for that effort ;) Hope this helps. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Query
Pardon me for inserting myself into your conversation, but the answer to your question is located. — Kralizec! (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, that's exactly how I did it :) How's the family? Maralia (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My eldest started kindergarten on Wednesday; I am not sure if any of us will ever recover! How are you and yours?  — Kralizec! (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Should I offer congratulations, or a box of tissues (or both!)? We are just dandy here. Today I set my son loose on some construction paper with a pair of safety scissors, and came back a few minutes later to find he had cut out pieces to assemble...a boat. Maybe it's genetic. Maralia (talk) 03:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Colour me four shades of green with envy! Were any of my three kids to have paper and sissors, they would no doubt make Omnitrix aliens!  Perhaps my fruit rolled a ways from the tree after it fell ...  — Kralizec! (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

thx!
Thanks for fixing my butterfinger typo and linking that item at the new-fangled writing page. That old title was a turn-off, wasn't it! Tony  (talk)  05:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Prose help
I've heard you're a good copyeditor, and I need some help. Icos is currently at FAC, and the prose is a big sticking point. Could you look it over? (If a full copyedit would take too long for FAC, that's fine; a thorough copyedit will still help for later.) Shubinator (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for neglecting to reply; I hope you've noticed that I made a couple of edits to get started. For what it's worth, I think the prose in general is not far off the mark (accuracy, however, is an aspect I am not qualified to judge when it comes to medicine). I will be away for the holiday until early next week, but will be glad to give it a copyedit when I return. Maralia (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did see that; thank you. It's tough to find copyeditors knowledgeable in immunology, so working on the prose is plenty. Hopefully the gentlemen at FAC will iron out any scientific errors or ambiguity. Next week is fine. Thank you! Shubinator (talk) 06:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Virginia's references
Last year, when I nominated Virginia for FAC, you ripped me apart for some of the references. With good cause, I have come see. They have been a big concern since the article failed, after which I went back, and I think we now use a more appropriate level of "dead-tree sources." I hope to get the article back on FAC later this week, but would be honored if you could look over article and its references before we do that. Last week we switched to Harvard citations, so perhaps you could look to see if there's been any issue with the switch. Thanks in advance, and I hope you can support us when the article does get nominated!-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 20:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up with me. The sourcing looks much better. I haven't attempted to review it line by line yet, but I would no longer cringe and moan about "low-quality sourcing". History books are a much better source for history! :) I can see that you've put a tremendous amount of work into the article; kudos to you for sticking with it through two years and multiple PRS and FACs. Maralia (talk) 03:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for saying that! I have had to leave the article for periods, but a sense of unfinished business kept me working on it. History books are indeed better, and this article's given me excuse to trek back to my alma mater and their library for the sources. If you do get a chance to look it over, I'd love to get your opinion at WP:FAC. Best-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 04:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, the article has been on FAC again for a few weeks now, and has garnered some nice praise. If you wanted, you could add your thoughts or compare with last time. Best!-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 03:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Gentle nudge
Hi, Maralia! Just a gentle nudge regarding the history section of Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak. :) Basket of Puppies  00:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for nudging instead of poking—I was away for the weekend, then had some awful I-can't-get-out-of-bed virus, and have been slow catching up. Am writing a post for article talk; it will be up shortly. Maralia (talk) 03:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * *the cute puppy comes along and gently nudges you with his super cute nose, and then gives you a pleading look with those puppydog eyes*. Smiles. Basket of Puppies  10:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am working on analysing the sources currently used, as well as evaluating others for inclusion. I'd like to make sure we are using the most current sources available, and reviews versus simple case studies where possible. See here.
 * I also think we could better organize the associated articles:
 * A fair amount of the information we are gathering might be better placed in the stub cerebrospinal fluid leak, with a summary section in SCFSL.
 * At the moment, intracranial hypotension is largely redundant with the SCFSL article, which highlights the problem: if there is to be any redundancy there, it should be with the CSFL article, not SCSFL.
 * There is also the matter of spontaneous intracranial hypotension, which currently redirects to IH; this should ideally redirect to a (now-nonexistent) subsection of IH that specifically focuses on spontaneous IH and clearly associates it with SCSFL.
 * Any thoughts? I know your primary interest is spontaneous CSFL, but we have an opportunity to broaden the impact here. Maralia (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 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) 20:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request!
Thanks for your service as coordinator on WPr Military History for the last six months. Great job, the Wikiproject has matured some more. Lots more needs to be done though.

Would you consider giving a para here on what you planned to do, what you could achieve, what gave you happiness, what irritated you and your suggestions for the road ahead to the new team?

All the best for the new elections!

AshLin (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!
Congrats on your election as Coordinator for the Military history Project. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit?
Heya Maralia. and I nominated Amagi-class battlecruiser, an article we wrote back in January/February, for FAC. The problem is that it is clear that the article's prose is, frankly, terrible in the parts I wrote. Could you lend a hand? Many thanks, — Ed   (talk  •  contribs)  19:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Working on it. Maralia (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 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) 00:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)