User talk:Marskell/Archive 17

Cougar
There's a dead link in the footnotes; is ref name Johnson supposed to be ref name Johnson2006, or is it another Johnson ref ?? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK ... I also get crazed about the capitalization issues in these animal articles, although Yomangani has tried to explain it to me before. Is Domestic Cat capitalized, or not?  Cougar is sometimes capped, sometimes not.  I never get it.  It's not a reason not to Support, but I wish I understood it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting Cougar to FA status! I hope your plan to get it on the main page works out. LuciferMorgan 19:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!! (Boy, I snuck in under the wire on that one :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Marskell, it's been fun working with you on Cougar. I'll take a closer look at the evo section tomorrow, but today we celebrate :) Kla'quot 04:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Bus Uncle
No rest for the recently rewarded :-) Better tune in to the situation at The Bus Uncle; I left notes for Raul and Gimmetrow.  If Raul concurs to speedy FAR it, maybe we can create a FAR file for botification, just to keep everything archived correctly.  If Raul disagrees, it may be headed for a FAR exception.  Or not.  I guess it's a BLP issue, but I haven't really read the original article.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And Raul declined to delist it. Get a bag of popcorn. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 05:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On my second bag already. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh God, I work on science articles to get away from the BLP drama, and then I watchlist Marskell's talk page. What was I thinking? Kla'quot 05:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is all my fault sorry, I linked to it during the Allison Stokke AfD to show precedent. The BLP war rages on. –– Lid(Talk) 06:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Catbird
If you like cats there are always...cat...birds.....cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 09:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No news on any songlark pix yet :( cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 09:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * WRT bird photos, I havent doen it much yet - so far I've gone to flickr, ask around. I do have a photo of a Red-backed Fairy-wren which I took 15 years ago but not with a zoom lens so it is a little red and black dot....cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 12:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

FA REview process problems
I've left a comment at Featured Article Review noting at least one fundamental problem for WP. Perhaps you'd care to respond?

Glad to see someone interested in felines, small to large. On the nature of domestic cat type, have you encountered Fritz Lieber's short sotry, Spacetime for Springers? It explains much about the fundamental nature of reality, and also the periodic crazies. ww 12:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * On the question of the felines, the story isn't of much relevance to WP, but to an understanding of the companions/owners we find so graceful and mysterious. And also of the nature of reality. A gem of a story and worth looking up at the library or chasing down a sotry collection with it.


 * As for the PH FA business, my point was not entirely that it had been done behind the curtains as it were. Though that's a problem and a real one. It also involved such issues as your comments (in the note to me) about reasons the article had problems. It does, and will always do in my view (too much strongly held feelings about the event from various sides), but there is not a propsect of ever having a non-controversial article on the topic. It's messy because it had to be; this editor or that insisted on coverage of this or that (Japanese historical background, for instance). That there is a lumpy result is not aesthetic perhaps, but should not disqualify as a FA. Not only do well strained work deserve recognition. A review of the (quite contentious) discussion may illuminate this. don't neglect the archives!


 * Another example of this is Digital Rights Management which has also had a contenrious history, and which (were it not such a live topic) also deserves notable astatus or even an FA, in my view.


 * On the other hand, an article on, for instance, the Palestinian conflict is unlikely to reach even quasi stability long enough to even be nominated for a quality distinction of any kind. ww 13:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:WU FAR
I will see what I can do, but also do ask User:Halibutt, bottom line is he has the books with citations used last time.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Belgium
Refs are clean now, although some of the sources used in the Culture section aren't the highest quality (about.com, personal websites, etc &mdash; perhaps goes with the territory of trying to reference culture). I still find the prose tortured; have a look at Languages to start. I saw inline comments saying that a source didn't verify text. If someone can fix the prose, it should be almost good to go. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed DYK credit?

 * I see you removed the DYK credit. Do you not wish to be credited for future articles of yours that appear on Did you know ?  User:Casliber was already credited, as well, but I thought you both should get the credit for this article.  Smee 08:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC).

Apologies and thanks
Hi, sorry for calling you Marskelly. I have absolutely no idea how it happened. Y isn't even near L on my keyboard. Anyway, it was a slip of the finger, not an attempt to be over familiar! Lovely article, by the way. I see you seem to have done a lot of the work that brought it up to that state.

And while I'm here, thanks for supporting my RfA, regardless of whether it passes or fails. ElinorD (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Our messages crossed. The orange bar lit up just after I pressed save! ElinorD (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Deer oh deer
Found one photo on flickr and left a message left. The author left the photo as 'public' but I thought it was nice to ask first. No answer on the robin though :( cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 20:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * NO %$$&$$( answer on the $%$#&((& deer. Oh well...cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 14:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Raft
Looks fine to me. It isn't all there is to say, but it is good deal better than most painting articles. DYK it. You might follow your own suggestion though, and add the details in the infobox into the article.

As to the very short FACs, I don't see it as a problem. If the consensus is against short items we can add it to the criteria when mine don't pass (don't worry, I'm not going to fly off on one and start calling people fucktards if they don't agree with my point of view ;) ). If they pass, all well and good. I get the feeling (as I guess, from your comment, you do) that length is an unwritten rule, and, if that is the case, I don't see that has any benefit from remaining unwritten. Anyway, I have another medium length one to put through first, so any current arguments will (hopefully) have time to die away. Yomangani talk 23:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've DYK'ed it on your behalf. Yomangani talk 15:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation
I notice you've been discussing the correct use of capitalisation in fauna articles with User:UtherSRG. To my eyes, "the Cougar is found in every major New World habitat" looks just wrong. I can't find any support for this style of capitalisation anywhere; most style guides these days favour using capitalisation sparingly because usability studies show this increases readability, and my enquiries on Talk:Ocelot, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cats have received mostly neutral responses with maybe a slight sense that my edits are the appropriate ones. I'd really like to see this fixed - I know it's minor but it bugs me every time I see it - but it sounds like User:UtherSRG is prepared to defend his corner on this point so I'm not going to get into a revert war with him about it. I'd like to see a clear consensus emerge on what the right thing to do here is so that these articles can be edited to reflect it.

Cheers! &mdash; ciphergoth 08:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Congrats
Congrats on getting Cougar on the Main page. I remembered that you asked me to review the article. Even though I never commented on the FAC I did read the article. I learned a lot by reading it. A good read. Joelito (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We're going to have to get with Tony1, Joelr31, Yomangani, and a few others and figure out this capitalization of animals thingie in WP:MOS. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha. That can of worms (not Worms) has been opened and resealed many times. Best leave it closed if you ask me, I almost lost an eye in the fighting last time. Yomangani talk 01:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Same here. I am not touching that even with a 10-foot stick. LOL. Joelito (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Allright, allright ... then I'm going to unwatch Cougar ... I hate the mainpage !! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I just took another look; guess I'm a masochist. I don't know how anyone can argue the mainpage is good for an article; it's getting mangled, distorted, and destroyed.  Ugh.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The WikiProjects, rather than MoS, are the place to decide it. But it's unlikely to happen. I'm regretting going to upper case if only because I've had to talk about it so much. Marskell 07:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I intended to help watch it on the main page, but I gave up. I just saw something on Tony's talk page about the same issue, different article.  Bedtime here - the party's at  house.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 07:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Long gibberish edit summaries
You're right, as always. I sincerely promise to never do them again. Neil  ╦  08:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Kittens vs. cubs
I figured you must have had a good reason to make it "kittens" so I reverted a change to "cubs," and then later suddenly remembered 3RR. How are we supposed to keep a Main Page FA from deteriorating and follow 3RR at the same time? Rhetorical silly question... have a good day! Kla'quot 15:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverting my user page
This is your last warning. The next time you mess with my stuff, you will taste my mighty rage. Neil  ╦  10:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'd semiprotect them. Although it's great that people can edit the featured article, it's causing more drawback than benefit.   Most of the actual improvements come from people with accounts (if I had the time, and the inclination, I'd actually look in detail at what happenes to TFAs over their 24 hours of fame, and just where the good and bad edits come from); they'd still be able to edit it, anyway.  Neil   ╦  10:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If there's a community consensus that goes against what Raul wants, then that would be a shame, but Raul can't override that (none of us can). We'll wait and see what happens.  Neil   ╦  10:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Self-Published Criterion
After much searching and talking, I haven't been able to find anyone who can explain the problem with self published material that is not contentious, not self-serving, doesn't make claims about third parties or events the subject was uninvolved in, that we're confident the subject wrote. If you're aware of why this is a problem I'd be interested in knowing what it is, otherwise I'd ask that you restore the simplified version of "SELFPUB". If you're interested more in why I think it's a bit of an annoyance, I'd be happy to discuss that too, but maintaining rules because "they've always been there" when they're serving no purpose doesn't seem worthwhile. Wily D 18:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Claims about third parties are seperately forbidden, and I didn't take out that criterion. I left the criteria:


 * it is not contentious;
 * it is not unduly self-serving;
 * it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; and
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.
 * All of which I think "make sense" and have obvious purposes, or at least purposes I was able to figure out. The remaining criterion:


 * it is relevant to the subject's notability;
 * Doesn't strike me as very purposeful, given that any "problematic" information that runs afoul of this will run afoul of at least on of the ones above. I've brought it up twice at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, see both Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, there's some discussion, but no reasons are presented for it - with the sort of argumentative mood BLP's in right now, conversations tend to go off on a tangent. Wily D  18:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Belgium
Dear Marskell, I thank you for your comments about Belgium. The second paragraph of the lead is also in my opinion a monster. Please have a look at the alternative version I suggested in the discussion. Thank you very much for giving your opinion about it. Vb13:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

For the future
I like working on collabs so I've made a bit of a standing list here as a subpage of my userpage, just in case one comes up to collaborate on in the future if you think I'll like it too. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Additonally, wanna put yer 2c in here? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Help
Tim,

I am rallying some people to help me with something. I need some copyedit help on History of Puerto Rico? It is the first article I helped reach FA status. It will be featured June 18 in the main page. Thanks in advance. Joelito (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm doing what I can, but you know my prose stinks, so don't hesitate to change anything I do wrong. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I won't even be online much for the main page. I will try to do something about the redlinks. This was my first FA and it's not as solid as my others but I will try to make it as perfect as possible in the short time before the main page. Joelito (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll try to watch it, Joelito, but I have a hard time when I see articles get hammered on the main page; I get frustrated with the vandalism, but even more frustrated with bad content additions. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Locator maps (specifically, Belgium)
Hello! Thanks for your comments and warning: I had no idea that this would be so controversial -- I was merely being bold in an attempt to create locator maps that carry over the best of all while still being consistent with most. I will heed your warning about edit warring, but (if you read my talk page) I do not believe there is a clear consensus to support SomeHuman's assertions and (IMO) abrasive commentary. Any feedback you can offer (regarding the maps or ways to proceed) is appreciated. Thanks again. Quizimodo 19:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much. I have read those extensive discussions, and I see little evidence of a clear consensus on this issue.  The polls seem confusing, resulting in a state of confusion and (IMO) no consensus.  Two editors (on Wikimedia Commons) have commended me for the maps or criticised them constructively, so I don't know what to think. As for taking a big bite, perhaps I merely need to go on a diet or take a Lactaid?  Perhaps it is best to get wider feedback and re-open the debate; if you can somehow weigh in or mediate, I would appreciate it.  In lieu, perhaps another project (oceanography) is more deserving of my efforts? Quizimodo 20:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that I was one of the editors who commented on Commons. A short recap of the earlier controversy. You were right, in the discussion no consensus was achieved. However by aggressive editing and reverting by a (fairly large) group of editors the consensus to adopt the detailed maps was enforced although this was never reflected in a decent discussion (neither in the country project nor on a single one of the country pages). You may indeed run into problems wanting to change this, but please take care to keep within wiki-guidelines and don't lose your temper as you seem a reasonable person who could do much good to the wiki project. IMHO the map issue is one of the worst examples how bold editing by a small majority can silence informed arguments by a large minority (as you can see on the countries talk page) and I have (for now) given up in engaging myself in this issue, as I can have much more influence, be much more appreciated and basically have much more fun at wiki not going there. Arnoutf 22:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice and support -- as you can see above, Marskell, this doesn't seem clear-cut. Do you have any suggestions for overall technical improvements to the maps?  I want to discuss, but I don't necessarily want to (spend valuable time) debating the issue for not what.  I may seek wider feedback (e.g., on the country project pages), but I wonder whether or not I should just drop this effort to improve the maps and or move on to other projects -- assumptions of good faith aside, some of the involved editors are, well, abrasive.   Thanks for the suggestion about taxa maps: there's an oceanography project which doesn't exist yet but I believe is calling out to me.  ;)  Quizimodo 00:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
I previously thanked you in an edit summary. I think perhaps I should have thanked you properly in a message. Thank you for all your support, the supportive comments from you and other editors really helped me through the last few days. And were responsible for my "re-birth". Thanks. DrKiernan 13:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Question on Pearl Harbor comments.
You mentioned as part of why Pearl Harbor was demoted "weblinks thrown in unformatted". I am not sure what this means. The links seem fine to me, but I am new at this. Can you give me an example, so I can clean them up or standardize them? Thanks in advance, CodeCarpenter 19:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Commas or parentheses for scientific name in opening sentence and elsewhere
(Now that was a long header wasn't it?) There's a debate here about commas versus parentheses for scientific names for organisms (well in this case birds). I'm not sure whether this has been raised elsewhere but would be good to establish once and for all here and could apply as MOS across all biology articles. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Range maps
Gnangarra has done a few for some Banksia articles that a few of us have collaborated on; Banksia integrifolia and Banksia telmatiaea come to mind. Not sure who else. He's pretty approachable. (tell him I dobbed him in ;) ) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Marskell, I pointed out previously that you alone did provide constructive and helpful comments in some of my other posts. I apologize for not pointing it out again on User talk:Raul654. I went back and added that in. AFAIK you were the only person who provided any constructive or helpful comments during that farcical process (I stopped watching that God-awful thread before it ended), and I truly appreciate your help. Unfortunately it didn't slow down, or stop, the bureaucratic steamroller this process provides. This is not just a bureaucratic process, as I pointed out on User:Raul654, it's a *broken* bureaucratic process. I offered to provide specifics about exactly what is broken about it, but as I suspected, no one really cares. These folks steamrolled all over me, and I'm extremely put off by the whole process, and most of the participants that I've encountered, at this point. Thanks again. SqlPac 16:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

FAC
If you get a moment and want to see some 18th century London take a look at Featured article candidates/Four Times of the Day. I fear my lack of serial commas is driving reviewers away. (Do you know if Sandy's left? She seems to have gone on a rather abrupt wikibreak. Leaving seems to be the in-thing, um...are you still here?). Yomangani talk 16:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Re-planted my garden, pruned my watchlist to half, and break is over. Thanks for caring, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

re:Warsaw
I might have time to get to it this weekend. However, I can't in the next couple days because it's the final week for Summer Semester I. Summer Semesters are basically cramming three weeks of material into one week (16 weeks crammed into 6). &mdash; Deckiller 16:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Giant Snipe
Saw this was linked to your bird page. Jimfbleak 05:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fermi paradox
Hi! A lot of people have contributed to re-arranging this page in what seems to them to be a more sensible organization. Please discuss this on the talk page before wholesale reverting. Thanks, LouScheffer 16:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

For raising Yomangani's work from Start class to B class—the highest a bio can be assigned without an A-class peer review, GA or FA—Geogre flying below the radar of No Personal Attacks, and making Wiki such a nice place. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Bobcat tracks
I have responded to your request on my talk page. --Lensim 14:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ancient history
Only just noticed now. Ceoil 17:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Arb ruling
What is this ruling you refer to? Could you provide a link? I'm quite new at this policy stuff. Tim Vickers 17:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
For this. Raymond Arritt 20:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Shame
''Global Warming has remained an FA precisely because editors have gamely stuck to that principle. With the WSJ, the Telegraph, and the National Post—all de jure reliable—you could create a fine (but generic) skepticism section. And it would have no place in the article. Thankfully, it won't wind up in the article while our better science editors are watching it.''

I couldn't agree with you less, and I'm very surprised to read it. You're admitting that there are good sources out there that could be used to write that you call a "fine" skepticism section, and you applaud that "our better science editors" are keeping it out. Shame. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Science is often political, and in an area like Global warming, obviously so. Wikipedia has a responsibility to report every reasonable side of a debate, even if you personally think it's nonsense. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

More furry critters
Given Jaguar, you could do its old world spottey counterpart, the Leopard which has the alot of the groundwork done, just needs quite a bit of reoprganizing which I've started.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * ...or Jaguarundi to complete things....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: (User talk:ais523) the V edit
I can't quite figure out what you're talking about. If this is about my revert on Verifiability, it was due to a request on the Talk page. The request appeared to have instantaneous consensus (i.e. at that point several people supported it and nobody seemed to oppose it), and it normally defuses things somewhat to revert to an older, less contentious (but maybe slightly less clear or up-to-date) version than a newer disputed version during a dispute over policy. If consensus swings the other way, then users could contact me specifically to ask for a revert if they wanted to avoid a wheel-war. I personally have no opinion on the change (I haven't looked into the matter, or even checked the edit apart from basic sanity.) Unlike AfDs, there is often a good reason to make editprotected requests immediately (especially in technical situations, but less so in this case, although preventing having misleading information in policy can certainly be important; I'm not sure if this is the case in this case); on pages like WP:V where it seems unlikely that opinion would be split on a regional basis (and therefore be affected by timezone), a consensus of 5 editors (at least 4 of which are either administrators or have a sufficiently high edit count to render them unlikely to be sockpuppets) and nobody against looks like quite a strong instantaneous consensus (especially to what appears to be a compromise version from the comments). If you actually object to my edit on content rather than procedural reasons, feel free to take it to the Talk page of the relevant policy; however, I feel that a self-revert for purely procedural reasons would cause extra confusion and dispute for no good reason (and it would feel to me like I was endorsing the version I self-reverted to). As you are an administrator, you of course have the technical permission to edit the page yourself (for instance to revert me if you think I've acted a long way out of line), although as the page is protected I feel that doing so without discussing it further would be a bad idea. --ais523 15:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Analgesic requested
I seem to have picked up a minor irritation and would be grateful if you (as an uninvolved admin) could keep a casual eye on it. Thanks - Raymond Arritt 19:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

FAR archive situation
Raul is doing stats, and wants FAR archives to match WP:FA. You don't have to read the whole discussion; read the top, then skip down to the section about the "big problem" at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A note to Raul here. I hope all is well with you.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions for you here about consolidating Dec 2005 archives, and cutting to June 2007 archive. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and consolidated December 2005, and cut June 2007 to archive. Call me impatient :-)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there
The acrimony seems to have dies down and people are now co-operating on a single version that should be able to accommodate all views. Please feel free to edit this draft. here or add specific comments on how to improve it, either for clarity or including more of the relevant viewpoints. Tim Vickers 20:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)