User talk:Marskell/Archive 24

More on mammal capitalization
Care to weigh in? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals - UtherSRG (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by primary authors? The revision history as far back as January 2003 shows lowercase on your most recent revert to Bobcat. Bugguyak (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't matter why don't you leave it lowercase since that is the consensus in the discussions. Bugguyak (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Neptune
Maybe the second or third or even the fourth time, I would understand. I don't understand any more why every planet FAC has the same issues. FAC is not peer review; I can't understand at this stage why these things aren't being addressed pre-FAC when it's the same core group of editors. If you have any insight or advice, perhaps you can help. Featured article candidates/Neptune. With as many FAs as they have, these articles should be appearing at FAC clean by now; they're not, and yet they rack up support with no one reviewing for these recurring issues. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Prague Spring
Hi Marskell, you think you could give Prague Spring a quick look and tell me what needs to be done? I'd like to take it to FAC soon, thanks. The Dominator (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Saying hi
I was just rereading the second-class citizen page, and flashed back to the day we were both working on it back and forth. I think we did a hell of a good job together on that one. I hope you're well... glad to see you're still active. Zephyrad (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

March 10 dispatch
Am running through FCDW/March 10, 2008 now. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And ... time to start tweaking next week: FCDW/March 17, 2008.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
You recently made comments about this article on its talk page. ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. JMcC (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm keep a close eye on this FAR. I do not feel that it merits a FAR and that it could have been resolved on the talk page. However, I will allow it for the time being.

Furthermore, I hope it does not degrade into a debate about whether it should be an FA. Any such comments should be moved to its talk page. Do you agree? Joelito (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a hot potato; removing off-topic stuff to the talk page might be one way to keep it focused on WP:WIAFA, or it might inflame further. Some of the participants in the debate may not have a solid understanding of WP:WIAFA.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that this shouldn't be a FAR. It's likely to produce a lot of ranting and little article improvement, but I'll let Marskell handle it. Raul654 (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Shutting down the ranting might just push it elsewhere. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Tim, if you agree then I will close it (and take whatever heat might come). Joelito (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the ambivalence above, which I also felt in noticing it, I think I agree with Joel and Raul that it should be closed. But it needs a closing comment that well explains things. There's more than one issue here. I don't mind if you close it Joel, but do explain it. Marskell (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything wrong with it, but prose isn't my forte. Sourcing is clean, MoS is fine, it's notable. If there are legitimate prose issues, perhaps Deckiller or Tony1 will run through, but Marskell, if you don't see legitimate prose issues, I don't see any issues grounded in criterion.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * By multiple issues, I meant the broader meta discussions that surround video games that this article has been representative of recently. Marskell (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, thinking about it more, just close it Joel. That the specifics could easily have been worked out on article talk is true, and that is enough for premature FARs. We can save the meta discussion. Marskell (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and just because the moon is out of alignment today, there's already talk of a (predictable, third) Barack Obama FAR on its talk page. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll close it today (soon). Joelito (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Tale of woe
I'll suggest some references for Geogre on talk within a few days. I'm slow to add directly as the article is outside my area of interest, though it does seem really, very, nicely written. Ceoil (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't want to turn to A; have asked my fair share of favours from her at this stage; dunno - my credit is low but I'll just add directly; see what I can do. Ceoil (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha! Usually I don't give a damn about all the broken English I leave behind in my wake, but I there is something about Guinness from a tin can that reminds me that I am just a lone sinner and all that stuff is all my fault. Every misspelling in the world; it was me, i done it. Sorry. Ceoil (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Struggling to catch up on FAR, Marskell; have been dealing with a disruptive editor for two days now, sapping my time. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Marskell, as someone who has grappled with a current event FA, would you like to review Featured article candidates/Assassination of Benazir Bhutto or Featured article candidates/Waterboarding? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't even looked yet, but I know you're not that :-) I just looked at Game theory on FAR and went ... ugh ... too hard to even describe, and I studied game theory.  Flow and prose, but don't want to tangle there. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Follow responses at my talk. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Were you planning to look at Neptune at FAC? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review
Hi, may you please peer review Komodo dragon, which I am working on? I saw your name on the list, and I'd like your help.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Very notable
Hi Marskell. Did you know that Raul had insisted that we keep the "Very notable" point? I think we have to live with it and if we can, to improve it. But we can't drop it. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Requesting peer review of Facebook
I noticed that you listed yourself as a volunteer for general copyediting for peer review. I am requesting a peer review from you for Peer review/Facebook/archive2, if you have the time. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

March 17 Dispatch
For review, FCDW/March 17, 2008. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Getting people to take topics has been like herding cats. March 24 needs to be decided; is "implementing Raul's TFA proposal" ready to go yet, or do we need to choose something else?  If someone doesn't speak up, I'll have to work on "assigning" something.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review idea
Hi, I have made a proposal that no peer review request be archived without some response. To aid in this, there is a new list of PR requests at least one week old that have had no repsonses beyond a semi-automated peer review. This list is at Peer review/backlog.

There are just over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, so I figure if each of these volunteers reviewed just one or two PR requests without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog (as there have been 2 or 3 such unanswered requests a day on average).

If you would be able to help out with a review or two a month from the "no responses" backlog list that would be great (and much appreciated). Please discuss questions, comments, or ideas at the PR talk page and thanks in advance for your help, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Blue Iguana
Marskell, would you mind looking in on Peer review/Blue Iguana/archive1; Mike's a great editor. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Requesting peer review of PHP
I noticed that you listed yourself as a volunteer for general copyediting for peer review. I am requesting a peer review from you for Peer review/PHP/archive2, if you have the time. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oba-mania/phobia hits Wikipedia
Hi Marskell, SandyGeorgia sent me over. Have you got any wisdom or opinions to share about this? A look at the article's talk page will give you a sense of the FACR 1(e) problems that it is currently experiencing. Thanks for any guidance. --HailFire (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been getting impossible at Barack Obama. Now the validity of the FAR process is being called directly into question. Isn't there a line that can be drawn with editors who will say anything and just don't care? Who can help draw that line? I'm running out of ideas. --HailFire (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * More on my talk page. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The General in His Labyrinth
Marskell, the FA-Team have been so magnificent and helpful and generous with your time regarding the WP:MMM. Thank you so much! I feel I shouldn't even think of imposing you any more. But I just thought I'd make you aware that the editors of The General in His Labyrinth are feeling a little overwhelmed. They've made some great progress, and the article is now one of our better ones. But I suspect that a fresh eye and a bit of encouragement would go down very well, if it were at all possible for you to provide them. But please don't feel pressured at all! Thanks again. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your layout revisions seem to contradict WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines and Layout. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I was going by the layout in the guidelines. I don't have any reason to do otherwise! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I just came by to point out the same thing. I know it's open to interpretation, but for me it makes sense to have the synopsis after the background - it sets a context for the novel, which is often important in understanding the plot. I agree that there's no place for lists like publication history near the top though. EyeSerene talk 20:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But, as I just noted to Wassup, virtually all of our fiction articles start with the plot summary. This is very clearly Wiki practice. Marskell (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think whatever works best for a given article is the way to go, regardless of guidelines (WP:IAR!) However, I do believe with these articles, which are inextricably products of their historical environments, that having the background before the plot helps readers in a way that would not necessarily be the case with other types of novel. It's no big deal though - we're there to help out the MMM, not fall out over trivia ;) EyeSerene talk 20:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm not warring with you. It is an editing error. I'll fix it. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Marskell, it wasn't you, it was Wassup. I told him before I started working I was putting the article in use, he persisted and I got tangled in multiple edit conflicts after tedious ref cleanup work, I lost most of the work, didn't finish what I started, and have no idea if the refs are correct now. Can't think of too many things that frustrate me as much as needlessly lost work. Over and out. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ok, wading back in very tentatively, I don't know what to do here, but look at this last version before I put the article in use to initiate cleanup, and look now. The citations at El general are completely destroyed now, and it's all going to need to be reverted. I'm not sure what Wassup is trying to do, but most of the refs now point to one page, the named refs are set up wrong, and I do wish he would have just let me show him how to do it with one hour of the article in use. A revert is the best option now, but I hesitate to go there.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (Just out of class again.) Yeah.  That referencing has all gone wrong.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you all can sort it out and agree to have me put it in use for an hour of work, I'll revert and fix everything, but I don't want to wade into trouble. Let me know; it would probably have to be tomorrow now. I would have preferred to go step by step to help the other editors follow and see how it's done correctly. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been bold. See the article talk page.  Now off for a breath of air.  Back in a few mins.  I personally am more than happy for you to take an hour over the editing.  If the other editors are around and available, I'm sure they'd be delight to learn more.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
I'm sorry Marskell, I should not have called you a "Jobsworth", that was uncalled for, no "ifs" and "buts," I apologise. I know you have tried hard to save the page - and my temper is getting too fraught at the edges on this. Giano (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing
History of erotic depictions FAR: Can you understand, that The DVD cited was a documentary, and that the people in it were experts...and to cite the film cites those experts in it? Your decision based on that was completely wrong. Even the naysayers (ask Johnbod, he's seen the DVD noted that the experts in the DVD were credible. The producers of the DVD are not porn directors and anyway do not make the content of it. I'm willing to send you the documentary so you can see for yourself...it is a series of interviews with experts. Academic, published experts. You closed that FAR citing something that no one had even complained about! If I prove to you that this documentary's content is done by experts, list them out, send it to you will you reconsider? You never even gave me a chance to discuss that reference, it wasn't brought up in the FAR, and just blindsided it with an early closing...this is extremely unfair and absolutely wrong. pschemp | talk 03:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply:


 * 1. They were complaining about ONE source, the Libido magazine one, not this one. 2. You can see for yourself the extensive cast list and experts included in the source here: http://imdb.com/title/tt0498445/ - note the PROFESSOR titles. Look these guys up and you'll see they are published authors. As for porn people, As Bob Guiccione founded penthouse...he is THE person most qualified to speak about its history. I offered to send you the source so you can see for yourself. Are you so unable to admit that you might have made a mistake that you won't even try? pschemp | talk 04:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Here we have an abstract from a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL that uses it as a source. Why is this still not good enough for you?  Its good enough for them. And also note they use the Libido source Johnbod was complaining about. "Museum and society was launched in March 2003 as an independent peer reviewed journal which brings together new writing by academics and museum professionals on the subject of museums. It is both international in scope and at the cutting edge of empirical and theoretical research on museums. museum and society is edited by Gordon Fyfe (Keele University), Kevin Hetherington (Open University) and Susan Pearce (University of Leicester)."pschemp | talk 05:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Link on amazon with review by seattle times movie critic:  and describing the film makers here "They are also the makers of the world-class documentary series Pornography: The Secret History of Civilization (C4 and HBO)"  you can note that it was made for Britian's Channel 4 and also broadcast on HBO. Here   you can see that they are documentary filmmakers of some repute...having won multiple awards for their documentaries, giving them a reputation for fact checking and accuracy.
 * And here another academic who quotes it.
 * Here - it is used as a source again and discussed in a peer reviewed journal "One local expression of this new-found prominence of previously illicit sexual material on mass market television in Britian has been the Channel Four television series "Pornography: the secret history of civilization" This series is remarkable for its portrayal of professional pornographers as a visionary vanguard involved in the championing and expansion of popular taste (against the obstacles put in their way simply by puritanical and prejudiced social forces.)" pschemp | talk 06:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you please stop blowing me off now? This evidence wasn't in the FAR case because NO ONE QUESTIONED IT AS A SOURCE. The way it was cited was questioned, and the Libido magazine article was questioned, but what you closed it for was not. Note that Libido magazine articles were also deemed worthy of that peer reviewed magazine, and I posted the academic credentials of that author in the FAR. pschemp | talk 06:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Pschemp asked me to weigh in; I'm very far behind on my regular watchlist, and I promise to catch up on this later today. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is Marskell's answer: moved from my talk page. It will make more sense to keep all the discussion here.pschemp | talk 20:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In noting remove Johnbod pointed out "The article remains over-reliant on two sources, both with issues discussed at length above." Those two, I must assume, are Libido and the documentary. The first is dubious enough, and the second leads here. It doesn't, cited as it is, meet policy. There's no editorial info provided and, well, Seymour Butts, tends to jump out. Now you are telling me with reviews and so on that it's a serious and sober documentary. I'm perfectly willing to accept that. But you are asking the reader (twenty-two times) to assume a source is reliable when the link suggests the opposite. (Admittedly, that raises questions about how to cite documentaries and to what extent we should rely on them: even if it is a good picture, is it appropriate to cite large swathes of the article to a commercial source readers can't access? I would say not.) Finally, I was less than impressed with the tone adopted on the FAR and the reverts in the history. There seemed to be a total resistance to changes.


 * Anyway, if you are asking to reopen the FAR, most definitely no. This would have to cycle back through FAC. But don't throw it up there immediately. Reduce the over-reliance on the documentary, find a better way to cite it, improve the lead, and remove Libido, as it's borderline at best. Finally, try to come to terms with the concerns of the two main people objecting. Marskell (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Marskell, are you seriously saying that because the link goes to the publisher's site and not the amazon site that it can't be a serious reference? Why does it matter? It could just as easily link to the amazon info or the imdb info. When it was first published, it used the working pseudonyms of some of the participants, but later editions have the real namesand the names of the producers, which are in the article citation, and on the amazon link and all over all the references I noted. Those show that the participants have PhD's and are otherwise qualified to talk about pornography. You have completely ignored the fact that Johnbod objected to the WAY it was cited, not the actual reference. I have subsequently shown you a peer reviewed article that used both of the sources you don't like for a reference. I have also listed this on the verifiability notice board, and so far the response there is that it is a reliable source. I gave examples of the producers having won awards for their documentaries, cited peer reviewed journals that praise the documentary and plenty of evidence that this is legitimate.  Your behavior on the FAR was really out of line, you at first admitted that the FAR shouldn't even have come there, then closed it early purely on the claim that the main source is not legitimate, without even giving me a chance to show that it is.  You pretty obviously did not carefully read that FAR, because every concrete complaint that the initiators had that could be addressed was. You yourself said it was better suited for dispute resolution, so to take it upon yourself to ignore the real facts of the article and make such a capricious decision was not appropriate.  I think you have tainted the whole process, and the FAR and the decision should be thrown out. pschemp | talk 20:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding this to keep it all in one place. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * pschemp, if you want a broad openion, you should offer at FAC. The article is very stong and fine, I don't doubt that a little more work would push it over the line. ?? Ceoil (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ack, pschemp, I'm up in the middle of the night because I realized I forgot to get back here to respond. My response will be general rather than specific to the issues raised on the FAR, so I don't create a conflict or prejudicial position if/when the article comes back to FAC.  FAR doesn't second guess FAC and FAC doesn't second guess FAR; that's why we have the lag time between promotion and review, and why I support the very difficult decisions Marskell and Joelr31 must make at FAR (often without the benefit of the larger pool of reviewers that we have at FAC).  De-featuring an article is a weighty decision, and not one they take lightly or without allowing as much discussion and long deliberation as possible.  A FAR is not overturned; when editors  disagree with the conclusion, they have remedy via a new FAC, just as the remedy when a FAC is questioned is via a FAR.  I'm sorry you felt ignored because I didn't respond to your e-mail about this FAR, but it's to your advantage that I have not taken a position on this article and can be a neutral judge of consensus if/when it comes back to FAC.  I recommend you follow Marskell's advice on addressing the other issues raised on the FAR, and when it's ready to come back to FAC, consensus there will be the judge.  Good luck !  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The FAR was wrongly brought in the first place. It should have gone to dispute resolution. I don't have a cabal to support me I am just an editor pretty much alone working on this. If it goes back to FAC, Johnbod and Zantasktik will show up and claim all the dispute stuff that can't be solved by FAC or FAR again. The fact remains that Marskell closed the FAR on an erroneous assumption that the main source is not verifiable.  That error means that the FAR should be either restarted or voided. pschemp | talk 06:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

More on my talk page, and now on Raul's talk page as well. The discussion is split onto four pages now; I guess pschemp has now placed it in Raul's court. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oort cloud
It's quite short, but do you think it stands up to FAC? Most FAs I've dealt with have been around 40 K in length, but I've only managed to get OC up to 32. If you think it could withstand an FAC, I'll nominate it.  Serendi pod ous  11:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way, you might want to check out the April issue of Scientific American.  Serendi pod ous  11:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Action potential
I worked on the article a bit and was alarmed at what I found. is actively editing, but hasn't gotten to it; been on hold for a month now. I asked if he could pitch in, and he wasn't happy with what he saw and entered a Remove. It's hard to understand why PMA declares Keep on an article this far off of status; for examples of the problems with article flow, just look at refractory period, which is discussed and defined in several sections (with the same name!). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WillowW says work will start tomorrow, so more hold it is, I guess. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

CG FA Review

 * Marskell, can you please provide some more elaboration on these issues. I am willing to work diligently to address all of your concerns; however that would be more easily accomplished with more specificity. Thanks. Red thoreau  (talk TR 22:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit request
Hi - any chance you could run a quick ce eye over Max Mosley? Copyedit has been requested by a reviewer, although they've since withdrawn their request on the basis that they don't have time to review the work done since the complaint was raised. At least, I think that's the reason. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * FAC nixed due partly to various copyedit concerns, but more to the recent 'Nazi sex orgy' allegations from the News of the World. Headline writer's dream, I should think. Anyway, it's probably not worth bothering now, since we're likely to see some instability for a while. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

lol
Ey ya moolie where ya bin? That's old news. I put that info into Planet X over a month ago. :-) No. The new issue of SA features a cover story on detecting plants on other planets, and the various ways they might evolve to cope with different varieties of sunlight. Sounded right up your alley, particularly as regards red dwarfs (in short: plants on red dwarf planets would be black to catch as many different types of photon as possible).

Oort cloud's been Brightoranged, so at least that issue's out of the way. As regards citation, I really can't keep track of all the various lunatic conventions that Wikipedia has worked out. I'd love to trust PR, but these days a PR usually means waiting three weeks for an automated bot to tell you nothing you didn't know already, or some guy to say, "Um, yeah. Looks cool to me. Keep it up dude."  Serendi pod ous  18:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ey Tim; you've got yourself a stalker
You probably don't know the background of all this, but someone (he refuses to give himself a name) decided to create a page called Planetary human habitability, but refused to cite it, and it was deleted and merged with Planetary habitability. So now he's decided to take his frustration out on your article's apparent lack of citation. Now I know the article is well sourced, but perhaps it could use more obvious citation. Might be worth taking an hour out to deal with that. Would shut the guy up and make your article look better to boot.  Serendi pod ous  11:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Btrieve
Tim, a good friend of mine is a senior member of the marketing team at Pervasive. I'd be happy to let her know that this article is under threat of being delisted; as far as I can tell it's not been on the main page, so I would think Pervasive might be interested in having it smartened up. Of course this brings risks with it; I can communicate Wikipedia's expectations to my friend, but Pervasive are a commercial organization and this might not be an effective engagement.

I can certainly explain to her how it could work well. Do you think this is worth a try? I don't know if something similar (collaborative, that is) has been tried before with a company and a related article. It would be cool if it worked (and if it did work, that in itself would be good publicity for Pervasive in the tech community). Mike Christie (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've sent her a note asking if she's interested; I should hear back soon. I'll let you know what happens.  Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds April 2008 Newsletter
The April 2008 issue of the Bird 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) 00:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review request
Hi, Marskell. I have made changes to Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game), a GA- & A-class article. I hope to improve it further and have open a peer review for it. I would greatly appreciate your feedback regarding copyediting and any fresh out-of-the-video-gamer view you can bring in. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review assistance requested
I started a peer review at WikiProject video games for The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. If you could copyedit it or put in any other suggestions, I'd appreciate it: WikiProject_Video_games/Peer_review. Thanks! Voyaging(talk) 01:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

April 7 Dispatch draft

 * FCDW/April 7, 2008 Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The FAR portion of that page needed expansion; no one did it :-( Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama FAR
Hi Marskell, I found your name as an associate in the transition process of FARs to FARCs. The Barack Obama FAR is already being voted on with keeps and removes, so I was wondering if we can move that into FARC? Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Happy, Marskell's been very busy lately and not online much. All articles have at least two weeks in FAR; the idea is to actually review the article and identify issues, hopefully resolve them, not just vote to remove or keep. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, please ignore this message Marskell. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. If they don't settle differences and work together, it's a long ways 'til November. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This should help a lot.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

anti-Americanism
I did not realize you are admin, when you came to the talk page. Thanks for coming over, please keep an eye on it. Igor Berger (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am glad you showed interest in the article. I've been watching it over the past few months while the article been in danger of destruction and deletion. There was an editor User:Bsharvy who opposed the article calling it nothing more than a dictionary definition. He nominated it for delition, but it was a keep. He did not give up then but he and his sock chalenged every editor to slowly delete the article. He and the sock were blocked indef. A few weeks ago I feel he has come back resurrected, also with a sleeper sock as well. Same thing, same style of argument. I have filed a sock report, but it will take time for editors to investigate. He is very subtle in how he does things. But let's leave this for now, or it will seem as if I am forum shoping to get my POV on the suspected sock. So, the article, I recommend leaving it fully protected for now, maybe even a few weeks or a month, so things can quiet down. We can fix stuff on the talk page and you or another admin can put it into the article. I have added the article to Wikipedia projet politics and project systematic bias. I hope more editors will show interest in this politicly charged article so there will not be me against them but Wikipedia editors as a community working together to improve the article. Please check my edit history and you can see I work with many articles, to preserve NPOV and I have no ownership problem. I am really exusted with this article and would be very happy if you agree with my request so I can go about editng other articles and enjoy contributing to Wikipedia not dealing with Trolling and Flaming. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * TFB image. I agree, not now, but latter when things quiet down we can add it to a proper section that I believe has a lot of relevency to this article. 10 million people died by AFB and little boy & fat man in Japan. This is not only aa but terrorism, genocide...imho...it is a shame! There was no need for AFB, 70 cities...it is all sourced expet the numner of dead...will talk more later. Igor Berger (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand to make this glue to AA I need to find a historian that says that these events contributed to the raise of AA in Japan. Will look around. Igor Berger (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's just revert to this version let them protest. Igor Berger (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I recommend if anyone startd edit warring, protect the article page. Wikipedia is not a battlefield and we should not entertain drama just for debate sake. They want to debate? Great for them, just revert to your version lock it up, and let them debate for amonth if they want! Constructive consensus editng is welcome, but WP:POINT is disruptive to the article and wikipedia. It creats uncessary drama that none needs or wants. They have problem with that they know where to go WP:DR Igor Berger (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies
I made the arbitrary break you mention here. Honestly, I didn't know it was frowned upon. I really am not a fan of the long discussion sections, because I get bored with tendentious, repetitive, and frankly uninformative commentary. I couldn't find my edit, so I added a break, just so I didn't have to scroll through tons of edits to find my little one. I was not even thinking that it might make an appearance of trying to swing the vote or anything. I would assume that if it were done to make it appear like the discussion was moving one way or another, you would see that for what it was. But in my case, I'd put a break every paragraph. I was asked to help out in FAC's, but there is just so much writing. Can't we limit people to one sentence? :)  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

FAR query
Marskell, Featured article review/1996 United States campaign finance controversy is about the name of the article (which passed FAC), for gosh sakes, and looks WP:POINTy, particularly since there was no attempt to resolve on talk (no discussion at all as far as I can see). Looks like FAR is being asked to resolve a naming issue; the sort of dispute resolution that could go elsewhere. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have closed this FAR. Joelito (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Btrieve & Pervasive
I think it was reasonable to remove it. A pity I didn't notice it earlier; Pervasive have only had a week's notice. I think I'll suggest they don't bother trying to take it to FAC; that would be an order of magnitude harder than FAR in this case, I suspect, particularly with the conflict of interest difficulty and the fact that the editor involved has no experience with Wikipedia. Oh, well, it was worth a shot. Thanks for the note -- Mike Christie (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess what I meant was that people would look at all criteria, not just the ones identified at FAR, and so it would be harder. On reflection I see that was hasty -- if they weren't identified as problems at FAR, they shouldn't be problems at FAC either.  I'll see if Pervasive are still interested; I do need to let them know the process has changed, though. Mike Christie (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hubble Telescope FARC?
Hi - Can you please explain your thinking behind moving Hubble Telescope to FARC? The FAR nominator hasn't replied (at least on the FAR page) to requests for clarifications about what the specific issues are. I think there's been a good faith effort to respond to the issues that have been raised. Moving this to FARC without any responses from the nominator seems a little harsh to me. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The Revenge of Bsharvy Part 3
I think it is fairly obvious that Life.temp is yet another incarnation of Bsharvy. He is a new user who has homed straight to the Anti-Americanism page which he instantly starts trashing: displaying, despite being a supposed newbie, complete mastery of wikipedia usage and complaints procedures etc. Bsarvy was always bringing complaints against other editors just like Life.temp. Can we check whether Life.temp is using the very same computer as Bsharvy in downtown Seoul, Korea? Colin4C (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Bsharvy has another SSP User talk:Gohdeilocks indef blocked by User:Mastcell for his attack on me User:Igorberger please read his page and his attack on me User_talk:Igorberger/01-january-2008-06-January-2008 User_talk:Igorberger/01-january-2008-06-January-2008 User_talk:Igorberger/01-january-2008-06-January-2008 now User talk:Gohdeilocks is a parody on User:John Gohde now compare this to the accusations he is making against me on ANI ANI This guy who ever he originally is, is stalking editor on wikipedia and off Wikipedia as you can see by this Website naturalhealthperspective.net. This website was made as a parody of John Gohde website naturalhealthperspective.com. I feel this editor has been after many other establish editors and admins. Curently User:Durova is being attacked off wiki. If user Life.temp is this same user as all of these mentioned here, we have a serious problem and this may have to go all the way to ArbCom, because the relationship it may have to User:Durova ArbCom case. Igor Berger (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel this user who ever he/she is is the owner of naturalhealthperspective.net and some other Websitees that have been set up specifically to attack Wikipedia editors, because they do not agree with their - and I am saying their because I thing this is more than one editor but a cabal - NPOV editing. These alleged users - cabal are trying to systematically bias Wikipedia to destroy it is no censorship encyclopidic integrati. Their way of doing things is to reduce the article that is not pro-their agenda and delete it. The methodoly is well establsihed. Every article is debated untill it is deleted. This is not imagionary but a fact! Igor Berger (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Bsharvy put 5 tags on anti-Americanism, now Life.temp proposing tags here at village pump, "I like to see the tags, because I like to know when I am reading something that isn't a consensus." Igor Berger (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

AA mediation cabal
I think before you head up there you should see this it is relevent to the case as well as to the other matter. Igor Berger (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been address. Igor Berger (talk)

Back to writing at some point?
OK, User:Anonymous Dissident was keen to collaborate to get Leopard to FAC at some point, and Tiger is the new mammal collab. Clayoquot's done a great job of Polar Bear though Brown Rat got some work up but not a huge amount..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Nebular Hypothesis
Hi, Tim. This article has been languishing in Peer Review for two weeks with only one actual reviewer. May I ask you to read it? Ruslik (talk) 07:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

FAC request
Flag of Canada is at FAC, in case you have time for a look. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

GimmeBot
Gimmetrow will be out for three days beginning 20:00 UTC April 24; if something has to be closed then, I can do it manually, but that's no fun :-)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll botify them as soon as I get through my morning watchlist; at least Keeps aren't as much work as Removes :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll get to them. It's not a problem; since I'm not processing FAC closes while GimmeBot is away, I can carve out time for botifying the FARs. After I have the requisite morning coffee :-)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Blech. Remove FARs are the worst to process (see User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox); please spare me until Gimmetrow is back on Monday :-) I had so much energy when I was younger ... two years ago LOL !!! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing to worry about (except that right now I love Gimmetrow and hate you :-))) Man, this sucks.  :-))  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Done, hour and a half, 47 edits later; hope I didn't miss anything. It wasn't really that bad, and would have been a pleasure to botify three saves at once if other FAR participants could just be nice or grateful once in a while. And that sums up why it's time to move FAR to a straight-up vote after a shorter discussion period; the old spirit of saving FARs is not appreciated, and who likes to be beaten up (for two years) for trying to help? Ta da !! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to the manual botifying; I meant it's no longer fun to save FARs as it used to be, and I'm not sure the work is appreciated. It's tiring to be beaten up by the "usual suspects" for trying to maintain standards.  Since the bulk of the citation list has been processed, it is better to move back to a shorter period, and let articles that are no longer at standard re-apply at FAC if they need months of work.  The comments that have come through recently have just not been worth it, and are another indication that we're ready for the post-citation-list phase.  Perhaps we did so much so well that now there's a sense of entitlement, that editors think there is some obligation for uninvolved editors to "save" articles at FAR? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dealing with passive-aggressiveness is always fun :-) How many of us are left, after all the beating up?  You, less of me than before because I'm just worn out and tired of being bashed, Ceoil and DrK?  Here are my thoughts, and I'll weigh in on the FAR talk page after I recover from a morning of being a bot :-)  I think the standard month as originally designed is good, but the FAR/FARC period needs to be re-allocated.  One week for discussion, three weeks at FARC.  Too many of the FARS languish during the entire time they're in the review phase, with no one doing anything until they move to FARC and see that they're going to get "voted off".  That has happened on almost every one of the extra-long FARs.  Look at action potential; work didn't even start until it was time to "vote if off the island".  And on the removes, no matter how long they had, work didn't happen.  I'm not saying to shorten the period: just go back to respecting the month, but give editors a kick to get moving sooner.  It has always been exhausting work, and if we're getting passively-aggressively beaten up for it, it's just not fun.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't made it back over to WT:FAR yet today. These Dispatches are killing me, and I really need for everyone to start using the talkpage at WP:FCDW to coordinate that work. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Action potential
Hey Marskell,

I know that you're one of the wizards of FAR, so I think you would have keen insights about the readiness of action potential to resume its place as a Featured Article. I'm going to add some more references to 2008 textbooks, and maybe a few of us will do one more copy-edit; but aside from that, I think the article is basically ready. Willow (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Tim, you back for good?
Just wondered. And did you ever get to read the April issue of Scientific American?  Serendi pod ous  17:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjet Birds May 2008 Newsletter
The May 2008 issue of the Bird 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) 00:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Potential FAR problem
Marksell, can you keep an eye on this brewing issue? Unclear which article carries the star, and which might come to FAR. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Another question: if the split stands, are we really going to go through a month FAR, when we no longer have the featurd article? Rhetorical.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed FA split
I haven't gotten any clear indication from Raul on those two proposals, but the discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles. I don't think anything is happening soon, but it would help if you would watchlist those discussions. A lot of people who don't understand page maintenance issues tend to weigh in there, and many suggestions are unhelpful. (Removing may be a lot easier than adding, but I can envision nightmares with every random proposal that appears there in terms of what it takes to add a batch.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * uh ... your editing habits, and my memory :-) I can no longer guarantee I'll remember that if/when it comes up.  Would you mind adding the same points you made on my talk page to the discussion on teh FA talk page, so we'll remember if/when decision time comes?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for mentioning my memory on the FA page :-)) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mind if I merge your new post in with the entire discussion at the top of the page, so it will all be archived together and we can follow it all in one place? Both Cas and Yomangani are on breaks, so I'd like to keep everything together, since the other proposals came from them.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yea, instead, there's a big silly argument over psychology and philosophy, even though the current grouping was well discussed and hard fought. The editors now opposing that group (without having proposed a workable solution) posted about it to the Village Pump. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Two notes: Raul responded on my talk page (in line with my thinking, which is ... patience ... we'll divide it soon enough), and good gosh, I just looked at The Office FAR, and that Jbmurray is really doing good review work. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation: Anti-Americanism
Requests_for_mediation/Anti-Americanism Life.temp (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)