User talk:Marskell/Archive 13

FA template - kicking and screaming
In your absence, a new template was added to the FA page - we now have to edit another page to keep track of the FA article count. See my comments here. Also, the new bot will require some sort of admin permission, if anyone ever does it, so I won't be able to help. Sandy (Talk) 00:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, talk of a bot, Raul asks that I give it time.   Sandy (Talk) 00:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

AA
I'll try to put those in. Earlier I was never very comfortable with the citing templates because of their lack of user friendliness. Tfine80 23:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

FA bot, and FAC/FAR multi-template
Just to make sure you're following both discussions: this one started on my talk page (now archived, with Raul's input), after Bodyline and Hero of Belarus were re-promoted, and we got more complaints about having no FAC/FAR template; and I suggested using the FA counter bot to count former featured articles. Sandy (Talk) 17:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The Featured article and the Former featured article counters are done and installed - the only number that still has to be tracked is the repromoted articles on Former featured articles. Best, Sandy (Talk) 16:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

season's greetings
A short message to you: I wish you happy holidays, and may 2007 bring good things. – Outriggr § 07:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearing some out of FAR....
Any further comment on V for Vendetta and Titanium? The USS Wisconsin has also received very little comment. Marskell 07:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and Happy New Year. I shouldn't be all business :). Marskell 07:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Happy New Year to you, too - health, peace of mind, and tranquility. There is sure a bottleneck clogging up the bottom of FAR.  Titanium has me so frustrated I can hardly stand to look at it again, but I'll muster my forces and do that - no reason for the ongoing neglect and sloppiness there.  V for Vendetta, ditto, the same issues just keep going on and on - I'll give it one last pass, but if they still haven't completed the work, I'll be a strong remove - it was loaded with OR and POV, and they've had well over a month to deal with it.  USS Wisconsin - frustrating as well - I have been the *only* reviewer to look at it, and that's not right, since my emphasis is on references.  Someone else needs to look at it, since I shouldn't be the only one opining.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I struck my Remove on Titanium, so it should have Keep consensus now - I'm not registering a keep, though - I suspect the article will be a mess again the day after it leaves FARC. I am *so* not impressed by the work there, and since I don't know anything about Chemistry, I can't assure myself the article is worth anything.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Just dropping by
Thanks, Marskell all is well. I just started a new job which is why my time is limited. Joelito (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

FAC bot request
FYI,, I'm thinking if it can be for FAC, same can be done for FAR. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Doublechecking that the FA and FFA bot counters are working correctly - you didn't yet remove Saxophone and First Amendment from WP:FA and add them to WP:FFA. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Another problem - LuciferMorgan removed them from FA, and even though he's not whitelisted on the bot, the bot went ahead and reduced the count. question here. I'll go ahead and add them to FFA, since I'm whitelisted there.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to make sure you're following: Bots/Requests for approval/GimmeBot. (I'm not sure if this will mean FAR Kept and Removed should be in separate archive files as FAC are - should wait til Gimmetrow gets further along before asking.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Attribution
Are you and SV still watching WP:ATT? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Replied on my talk. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Joel is archiving and editing today: maybe he's back ! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Two FARs
Hi Marskell, I have already voted keep for V, I am pleased with P.Chan's last works and he has used good sources, though a few statements need citations. I see Palladian has citations now after my comments, which then I got sarcasm replies back. As long as the article fullfils FA criteria, I am okay with it. I am going to strike my remove vote there. Thanks for asking. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 09:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've also changed to keep on V for Vendetta (now it is the longest FARC ever I'm happy to have it closed ;) ) Yomangani talk 09:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

FAR question
Can just anybody remove articles from FAR? Or only people who have been actively participating in the process? I ask because three have been either removed as FAs or passed FAR in the last hour by a user I am unfamiliar with. Sorry to bother you with this, but I am unsure of the protocols. Jeffpw 17:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've asked Diez2 not to close any in future, but I haven't reinstated any of those that were closed - I'll leave that up to you, Tim. If you leave them closed you'll need to check that all the pages have been updated since the closures were incomplete and although Jeffpw mopped up most of the mess, I don't know all the pages that get updated so I can't check with any degree of certainty. Yomangani talk 23:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Traveling, miserably slow dialup so can't keep up, but think it very bad precedent for anyone besides Marskell and Joelito to start closing or moving FAR or FARCs. The advantages of having only a few responsible for the closings far outweigh any potential disadvantages, as seen on FAC. (Thanks, Jeffpw, for watching out for so much of this !)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

RFA
Hey, how's it going. Did you ever think about going for adminship - I've got to nominate someone (we have been challenged to do so) and I figured it might as well be someone I know is not a big fat retard. Proto :: ►  19:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I, too, am waiting for Marskell's RfA. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Dalek FAR
Hi, Marskell. I'm slightly confused about the situation with the FAR for Dalek. On the one hand, I've got your kind note on my talk page; on the other hand, the template on Talk:Dalek says that it's passed FAR. Can you clarify what's going on? Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... ok. I haven't done any delistings since yesterday, and I guarantee you, that is the last time I will do it. Diez2 13:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Panavision
Thanks for the compliment about my contributions at FAR. I'm trying to take up some of the slack engendered by Sandy's absence this week. I do plan on staying, though, even after her return. Hanging out in the FA areas is a great learning experience. As top Panavision, yes, I can do some additional work. If you can hold off on the delisting until Monday, I can spend the next couple of days referencing it. As I am sure you know, it needs a lot, but I am good at ferreting refs out online. I will also copy edit it as best I can. Then I will feel it has at least had a fair shot if it still loses its FA status. Jeffpw 19:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

My status
Hi Tim how are you? To answer your question, I will never be back to full editing or to the level of editing before I started my job. I am however back to what will be my level of editing from now on. I will be reading FAR/FARCs and closing them when appropiate but my contributions to the main space will be very limited. Joelito (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Last comment
One final final comment Marskell... what do you think of the Monte Cristo change? I think that statement is completely solid now. Just want to get this out of the way, nothing worse than loose FARC ends. :) Cheers.--P-Chan 20:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured article review/Barack Obama
Hey there. Was wondering if you could archive this FAR, as it's kind of become a magnet for new editors to discuss vandalism/other aspects that belong on the article talk page. The original FAR nominator and others agree that the current version now meets FA standards. Gzkn 08:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah...hopefully us article watchers will be vigilant enough in keeping the article from deterioriating too far... Gzkn 13:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies, Marskell. I did debate whether to close it or not, and decided that because it was a non-controversial FAR with consensus achieved, it wasn't a problem. I had already read the discussion you linked, but thought that only regarded FARC for articles that were to be delisted. In any event, I won't close another one, and will leave that to you and Joel. Jeffpw 09:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Home, catching up, thanks Jeff for all the work! But I just saw the Obama problem.  It's partially closed, but not archived, etc.  I believe we should reinstate it until Joelr31 or Marskell closes it - don't want to start down this slippery slope.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Would archiving prevent further misplaced additions from appearing there? I've just removed two that look to have been put there primarily to get attention, but added nothing to the archival value of the discussion; hope that's legit. --HailFire 15:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hailfire, you removed a piece that was part of the FAR (??).  is at work at archiving, a bot that closes the template, and setting up ArticleHistory - try asking him if he can go ahead and run the bot on it, which will archive it and put the box around the FAR ?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I left Gimme a note. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Part of the FAR? I sure didn't think so, and considered that both were posted there well after the consensus had taken shape.  Please have a look here and let me know if you see it differently. If I did wrong, I'm teachable! --HailFire 17:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The marijuana comment was made and addressed before the FAR closed - deleting it may just cause further problems. Now that Gimme has added the closed tag, though, I wouldn't suggest anything that might prompt an edit war - maybe Marskell can reinstate that para, or we can not worry about it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that. Any special projects I can help with to give something back? Fix or find some sources maybe? --HailFire 18:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The undo button still worked on your edit, so I undid it. Generally, comments made before the official close should stay unless there are WP:BLP or other policy issues. Didn't see anything applicable here. Gimmetrow 18:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * oh my goodness, Hailfire, if you're offering to help out elsewhere, you may regret saying that in mine and Marskell's presence :-) We could *desperately* use your writing skills in a number of FARs.  Are you willing? If so, head over to my talk page and look at the "Urgent" FAR box - some of them just need someone to tell us if the prose meets 1a or not, and some articles (if they're well referenced) may just need a light tuneup of the prose.  The article "Quatermass something or another" at WP:FAR is an example of an article that is now thoroughly referenced but needs light copyedit help. It would be great if you'd join us in preserving featured articles' status! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving down
Did you mean to move down Gold standard or Gerald Ford? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't think I want to answer that :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism
I was curious in what way the Gatas Parliament music video, the 'Stupid Americans' video, and the Carolyn Parrish reference were inappropriate. 68.229.204.129 23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hi; nobody is on AIM, so may I ask a favor? May you click on this link: WebCT and see if anything loads? Thanks. &mdash; Deckiller 09:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi; never mind, it's been checked :) &mdash; Deckiller 09:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Damon Hill
I've dropped him a note telling that it's under review. Buc 15:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Military brat (U.S. subculture) fac
Thanks for your constructive feedback... I've tried to incorporate most of it into my article... there was one point I disagreed with and one that I wasn't 100% of one way or another... but I thought they were great comments overall. I'm looking forward to the rest of your commentsBalloonman 07:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Marskell, I was wondering if you've had a chance to review the article since I've addressed your concerns? Do you have any others that are holding you back from supporting the FAC?Balloonman 07:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Third Culture Kids
I liked your travel section on your main page... with that in mind, if the years you lived in another country occurred during your youth, you might be interested in Third Culture Kids. TCKs are people who spent time in another culture with their parents other than their parents birth culture during their youth... the article is in pretty bad shape right now (I wouldn't even consider it a GA yet), but it is my next project.Balloonman 09:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

More bot and ArticleHistory stuff
Just to make sure you know what we're up to:   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Moved it all to here to keep better track of work needed - this is all to make the combined Article History work - I need your help adding the BRPs to WP:FFA. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * uh ... BRP is goofed up ... I think it's RBP :-) Refreshing of Brilliant Prose - I'm not too sure, but reading between the lines, it looks to me like at some point they went back through the brilliant prose promotions and dumped some of them - those are now being included in the templates as FFAs, which is causing them to show up in the category, which is causing the category to disagree with WP:FFA.  Clear as mud?  It means the number of FFAs is higher, since those didn't make the cut of "refreshing" bps. As the bot goes through, they are turning up in the category of FFAs. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure - it just got worse - Placebo just posted a long list, and I'm not sure what it means. I can add all of them if you want, but I'm not that clear on how you decide what goes where, and now we've got to figure out what Placebo's new list is.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. I'm whitelisted on FFA.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I added the first bunch of 8 - we'll see if the whitelist recognizes me. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit request
Hello. I've noticed that you do a lot of work on the Featured Articles, and I was wondering if by any chance you'd possibly have any time spare to have a look at The Quatermass Experiment? It's currently on FARC, where the feeling seems to be that the references are fine but the prose could do with a polish. User:Outriggr has kindly been through and done one copyedit sweep, but User:SandyGeorgia feels it still needs another look. Any possible chance you could give it a glance? Many thanks. Angmering 14:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, very kind of you! Angmering 19:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Pileup
I'll revisit today; I periodically go through bouts of utter frustration when I'm the only reviewer providing feedback at the FAR level - I was there yesterday. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 13:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried to read Panavision and found it just torturous going, although I don't have the ability as Tony does to explain it. We're in a hurting way without Tony - I wish he'd have a look.  Nothing to add on Superman; waiting for help on Firefox, and Illmatic is dismal for any number of reasons - now that's the kind of article that tires and frustrates me, because other reviewers could be pointing out the numerous problems there - but I'll go do it :-)  I sure wish someone else would help out at Roe v. Wade, because it's way out of my area of interest; we have an editor willing to work on it, yet I'm the only one giving feedback.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have another go at Roe v. Wade, Comet Hyakutake needs your input, and I've left at query for. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Bot
On, I think Gimme really needs separate archives for the bot to work (that is, one archive for Keep and one for Remove - unless I missed a step?) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I may be losing track of who's on first :-) I queried Gimmetrow. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Gimme repsonded on talk FAR - my bad ! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything worked like a charm - beautiful - once we get everything up and running, our workload should lighten :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

work
Thanks for your comment, Tim. Yes, it's a problem at the moment. Snowed under with clients until 1 March, then I escape to ski in Canada for the whole of March. Then half-available until May–August, which is the free part of my year. Will try to do a little. Tony 02:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Silence
Though silence is not necessarily an admission, it is not a denial, either. Marcus Tullius Cicero attrib. ;) Steve block Talk 13:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Which means I now have to reread the whole thing, because I had much bigger problems with some of the earlier versions, and now need to see what's still there. As I recall, at one point it was diminishing citation requirements. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia works by attrition. Any hard core group of editors can ultimately frame any policy or guideline page it happens across Wikipedia.  I don't see the value in tagging it rejected.  My take is and always has been that people who drop out lose the right to be counted.  I base that on the fact that whenever I drop out of a debate it is because I have no desire to see it through to an outcome.  People willing to engage unto an outcome should be the people who generate the consensus.  To quote Shakespeare, "Let it be tenable in (their) silence." Steve block Talk 14:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But that lack of editing can mean anything. If you made it policy, you would guarantee people would start debating it again.  Especially if you deprecated RS and V per the initial proposal.  I can't see how hindsight would benefit here, since there's a fundamental fracture over a singular issue upon which no middle ground appears to be achievable.  But maybe you are right.  Maybe we need to have the same argument all over again.  You've probably managed to kill any last vestige of enthusiasm I harbour in the knowledge that I've got to do it all over again, so maybe the war of attrition has a new front.  Steve block Talk 15:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't need hindsight, that was my opinion at the time. :) How to re-energise the debate is the key. I think we had a good agreement that WP:IAR would apply where there was merit, which seemed to solve the issue of pop culture.  Maybe now is as good a time as any to just hammer it and get it home? Steve block Talk 16:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And with that thought, have two stated and one unstated objection, if a statement of its existence in the edit summary does not nullify the unstating of the exception. :) Steve block Talk 17:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, when you do it it is a clever trick. ;) I think the agreement on IAR was that it was an unstated notion that WP:IAR applied. Why it never went through I can't tell. Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 4. I'll try anything to find a consensus, me. :) Slim's idea might work, but yes, this time we should be bolder, and just merge and paddle like mad. Steve block Talk 17:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Um... I beat you to it. Sorry.  As to beans, I have literally failed that guideline in real life with my eldest child.  Well, it was raisins actually.  To get them out you cover the unblocked nose and blow into their mouth. Steve block Talk 17:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations list
Two outstanding posts at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles with citation problems that need your input, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're gonna shoot me - turns out T-34 has inlines. - had again.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:FAR
Hi! I've recently had a Balkan military biography article promoted to FA status (Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria) and decided to look around for other similar articles, to see if I can find any good ideas that I can implement in Ivan Alexander. It seemed to me that these two (especially the Husein Gradaščević article) do not fulfil important FA criteria, so I nominated them for a review.

dRest assured, I wasn't going to nominated any more, and I don't think the same people would work on improving both articles &mdash; they're very different, so I'm not worried it would create any problems. Todor→Bozhinov 14:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We're up to 38 noms, and six nominators with more than one nom at a time: Hbdragon88 (2), Todor→Bozhinov (2), PocklingtonDan (2),  Peta (2), Me (2), LuciferMorgan (3). On that list, the only two helping out are Lucifer and me.  Is it time to start removing repeat noms of those who don't help out?  It feels like the dump and run hits Lucifer, you and me.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "helping out"? I thought writing a review is pretty much "helping out", or do you expect me to rewrite the whole article so that it corresponds to FA criteria? What exactly is the problem with writing several reviews, I thought that could only be positive... The "dump and run" thing sounds quite offensive, and I absolutely don't think removing noms would help in any way. It would only discourage people from contributing to the process. Todor→Bozhinov 15:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry; it wasn't my intent to offend, and my comments weren't aimed at you. And, I'm not suggesting we remove noms, rather encourage nominators to provide feedback when editors are willing to improve their articles.  Yes, I've been frustrated by being the only reviewer providing feedback on many of the long-running reviews, and we could use more help.  Of course, if there are no editors willing to work on articles nominated, no feedback is needed, so I'm referring to articles that do have editors willing to do the work, but nominators who don't return to evaluate and provide feedback.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see :) It seems I didn't quite understand you, so I have to apologize too. I certainly have no intention to just leave my noms and I'm absolutely willing to provide feedback to editors who're working on improving the article (I already responded to one such editor). And I agree the process may use some more regular contributors, that's for sure. Todor→Bozhinov 17:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not your fault - I tend to multi-task, type too fast, and not always get it clear enough the first time. Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Attributability
Thanks for the heads-up. I am swamped by Real Life at the moment, so won't get involved in this discussion for the moment. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

List moves
Did you mean to drop Kakapo? That alters the 523 total. (Do you ever feel like I'm tailing you? :-))  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Norte Chico civilization
Didn't have time to read it - will save that for a plane trip. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Haas, Jonathon; Winifred Creamer, Alvaro Ruiz (2005). "Power and the Emergence of Complex Polities in the Peruvian Preceramic". Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 14: 37-52. Retrieved on 2007-01-31.
 * Has a retrieve date, but no URL to retrieve.
 * Can these be expanded using cite news? Want me to do it?  ^ See CNN and BBC, for instance. Given the tentative nature of much research surrounding Norte Chico, readers should be cautious of claims in general news sources.
 * Some reviewers are now asking for full date wikilinks even on refs, so date preferences will work: Northern Illinios University (22 December 2004).
 * Should Pre be capped here ? The Norte Chico civilization was a complex Pre-Columbian society
 * Need non-breaking hard spaces between numbers and units of measurement - 1,800 km²

Hey hey
Looks like Firefox and Panavision are going to be saved after all. It's a feel-good feeling to help out with this process; I think I'll contribute more. &mdash; Deckiller 09:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd love to help with the prose; it usually takes 2-3 people to copy-edit a FA-size article to meet criterion 1a, so I'll be glad to do whatever I can. It might only be limited to the FARCs, though, because I have plans to elevate Woonsocket, Rhode Island to FA status, A.J. Wright to GA status, LoC, FF anticruft project, and college :) &mdash; Deckiller 09:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:FFA
While I'm thinking about it: Baseball and Poetry are WP:FFAs. That means, if they lose status, they are already on the FFA list, already in the tally, and rather than adding them to the list, you just move them up from the bottom. Now you get to be the one to remember :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Caps
I wasn't arguing for caps, just pointing out that there's no consistency on WP. Fish and birds at least have a policy (even if they are different and inconsistently applied), but mammals are wildly disorganized, seemingly going off whether the person who started the article was using or not using caps. Even within (big) cats there are some capitalised and some not. Personally I can see a use for Black Backed Gull (species) as opposed to black backed gull (species or that one with the black back?), but for monotypic species it gets confusing: Platypus (the extant species) or platypus (those fossil ancestors). I certainly wouldn't go through an article shifting case without discussing it though. Yomangani talk 00:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

An Apology to You
My mentioning of the Palladian FAR recently is due to the fact the same editors who commented at that specific review happen to be commenting there, and seem to be saying the same things. I find these things to be disrespectful, and I feel they're disrespectful of FAR in general.

I don't understand why you closed the review, but I suppose that you feel your judgment was the right one. If you feel in your mind it was closed for the right reasons, then upon thinking deeper about it I respect that decision. I hope you can understand that my mentioning of it wasn't a "personal attack", but sheer frustration at the bitter nature of the Palladian FAR and the outcome. I hope you can accept my apology. I think you do some great stuff on Wikipedia, and will in future. LuciferMorgan 15:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

RestLit and footies
When Restoration literature went through FAC, the big complaint was that it was too long. Bishonen was invaluable at splitting it into daughter articles and trying to consolidate my kitchen-sink-included prose. However, if we were to satisfy the FAR people by using annotative footnotes, I'd be delighted. I would love to emendate with things like, "Discussed both in his Siege of Rhodes and the two "Prefaces" to Gondibert" as a footnote. If that locates where the information can be found in a reasonable sense, because a ton of it is from the reading, then that's groovy by me. I do worry about having the longest FA in history, though. Geogre 21:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Adminship
no problem, if you want I'll delete it outright. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Dispute on FAR/FARC page
The instructions on Featured article review state to list an article under FARC after it has been reviewed. I reviewed the article and listed it under FARC. I am new to this page, so I am not entirely sure this is how the instructions are to be interpreted. If I am incorrect and you are a regular of this page, you may want to initiate a discussion to improve the instructions. Alan.ca 13:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I posted a response on my talk page and I reworked the wording on the FAR page. Alan.ca 13:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yosemite FARC
Why did you move the FAR for Yosemite National Park to the FARC list when almost every single concern put forward had been addressed through FAR? Only one minor thing remained (which I just fixed) and "Articles cannot be listed directly as FARCs, and must first undergo a FAR. The ideal outcome of the review period is to have concerns addressed and the review closed without progressing to the FARC list." --mav 15:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU re LuciferMorgan/SandyGeorgia
Anthony (LM) has asked for a stop on his talkpage. Fine. I shall abide by his wishes. I should like to clear up a few things with you, however, so I shall do it here. My interaction with SandyGeorgia is my own affair, and I do not care for other peoples opinions outside of any official consequences. That said, I would thank you in this instance for your comments as I reviewed my earlier apology and found it wanting. Also, my interaction with SG was and is outside of the matters being debated at LM's talkpage; therefore it is possibly outside the remit of any admin involved in your debate. Lastly, please do not ignore my polite requests to stop invoking my name. LessHeard vanU 23:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind note. The only person likely ever to trouble me, or get me into trouble, is myself. I think I was shouting "I vant to be left alone" a little too loudly for civility. LessHeard vanU 20:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Mainpage
Featured article review/Sly & the Family Stone, mainpage date Feb 18. Both Freddy and I left notes for. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI
Have seen this tone at FAC: sorry to see it at FAR, particularly with commentary from a respected and knowledgeable editor such as Peta&mdash;we need her help on Fair Use. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Is Peta a him? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno&mdash;I have this funny Romance languages thing about names ending in o or a :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)