User talk:Marskell/Archive 8

Persian Gulf
Hi, I was the one who added the `Naming Dispute` section to the Persian Gulf article, as a compromise, since other editors before me, seem to have had a long edit warring going on there, so thank you for your interjection and revertion.Zmmz 21:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of Compromise
Marskell, can you please go here, and see if you feel like leaving a short comment there?; it is very important to me. ThanksZmmz 09:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Marskell, I really appreciate that you left a comment on that page on my behalf, but please be kind enough to move your comments here, by today if possible, because they want it to be submitted in this page. Thank you so muchZmmz 18:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you Marskell for your kind comments; it worked. I`m grateful.Zmmz 19:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Anglophobia
What do you think about the anonymous restoring of this article? It has gone back to being unbalanced/unreferenced and a one-man rant! I hoped a newer version would get a better article more along the lines of those for similar topics. I know it was still written from one viewpoint but could have been expanded. Is there a process in Wikipedia for abitrating or is it a free for all?

FARC
When defeaturing articles, you must update Wikipedia:Featured articles. All the rest of that stuff - the star on the article and talk page, are meaingless decorations. The list, on the other hand, is considered the authorative source for what is and is not a featured article. Raul654 14:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Turkish literature
Hello, now that the article is off the mainpage I edited the hated introduction. I hope it is liked. --Monotonehell 07:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the congratulations; I appreciate it. And don't worry, I recognize pedantic quibbles as being no more than pedantic quibbles (I engage in them myself with a rather frightening regularity). Anyhow, thanks again for the congrats and the assistance. —Saposcat 08:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Skeletor pic
I like 'Peela' and 'Dorko'. I only removed because it wasn't strictly fair use, and some guy asked me to lose it when I was up for adminship. Boooo. Proto ||   type   15:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on Wikipedia talk:Good articles
I removed your comment there, which was unhelpful and irrelevant. Evidently you don't like the concept of good articles, so why not just take it off your watchlist and ignore it, instead of popping up every few weeks saying it's pointless. I suggested to you before that you list it on WP:MFD and argue for its removal and see what the consensus is - do that if you like. But stop leaving comments like this which help absolutely no-one. Worldtraveller 00:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Page move
If by 'manual move' you mean you cut and pasted the content into a new page, that will have to be undone. Cut and paste moves are forbidden for copyright reasons. I'll look into it; in the mean time, please don't change anything. Tom Harrison Talk 14:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It happens; don't worry about it. Tom Harrison Talk 14:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, it looks like no harm done. I think I have restored the status quo ante, taking no position on the merits. I wasn't aware of this controversy. Probably the place to take it is requested moves, where there can be discussion and hopefully consensus. Tom Harrison Talk 14:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me look into it a little more. Tom Harrison Talk 15:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, now I think I have restored the status quo. The page is at Extraterrestrial life in culture, and Alien (popular culture) redirects there. All are move-protected for now. Tom Harrison Talk 16:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Vedexent Paradox...
Cute message :)

I must apologize for not getting back to you sooner. My reasons for staying away from the Fermi Paradox are 2-fold - and I am coming back :)


 * 1) Work. Work has been smacking me hard for the last couple of weeks. 12-hour days and all that.
 * 2) Differing, but not invalid, editing styles ;) Let me explain. You and I have very different ways of approaching the article - not irreconcilable differences, but we seem to have them. We can still work together, and my reasoning runs like this: my reaction to your different style is to quibble while your edits are "works in progress" (did you notice? :D ), but your end results are quite good. So, I thought, since I had unobstructed editing time on the article, I'd keep my trap shut, let you edit, and when you had made significant changes I'd evaluate the results - which I am sure are positive changes, and probably easier for you to do without me quibbling over your shoulder through the interim stages ;) As you noted, you have made significant changes, and I'd have read them and given you feedback, save for point #1. I'll try and get to them soonest - but today I've already worked, and tomorrow is the last day for me to file my income tax. So - no promises this weekend, but I'll see if I can get to it early in the week, if I don't have some time tomorrow - which I may :) In general what I've peeked a look at is good changes, but I'll sit down, read and review the whole article later :) - Vedexent 21:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Mamers Vallis.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mamers Vallis.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 18:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Surface features of Mars
Hi; yeah, i hadn't noticed the inconsistencies in the lat/long stuff until you pointed them out.. i don't know much about it, and don't particularly have a preference to style, so i'll do whatever you decide.

regarding the 'surface features' instead of 'topography'.. i definitely prefer 'surface features' because i think it's all-encompasing. even large areas like Tharsis i would count as a 'surface feature' because it is simply a notable feature of the surface, because it is a combination of various smaller features of the surface (the mountains, say).

also, i'm not convinced that all of these valles, terrae, etc, are notable enough to have entire articles to themselves.. i mean there's usually not a whole lot one can say about them. i would prefer an overview article, like Valles on Mars, that describes the notable ones, and possibly just links to a wikisource list with coordinates, and other information, similar to that found at http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov. . I mean, i just can't imagine what something like Uzboi Vallis would look like if it weren't a stub; surely the place for that information is in a larger article.

those are my thoughts, anyway.. keep up the good work! :) Mlm42 14:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

in fact, it's probably best to simply include the smaller features in articles of the larger ones. For example, Uzboi Vallis likely belongs entirely within Argyre Planitia. also, you may be interested in the new WikiProject Martian Geography. Mlm42 15:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Fermi paradox
Thanks for your reply at WP:PR, I was preoccupied with a different article. However, I still think the lead needs work. Not only religious fundamentalists would dispute the point of view of the second sentence - the "rare Earth" proponents would also dispute that the large size and age of the universe seems to suggest etc. Essentially, it's one POV that age/size/#planets implies there should be lots of life - a central POV to the article, of course, and one that Fermi was directly answering - but still a POV. Thus I would be happier with something more like "The estimated age and size of the universe, along with the likely number of planets, imply to some theorists that extraterrestrial life should be common." It's weasel words but maybe you can do better with this general idea? Also, I'll look at the lower sections and get back to you. Kaisershatner 16:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I did a complete read-through. I think it's a structural problem. The whole lower half of the article (arguments against) really should be in the first section IMO. (1) What is the Fermi paradox (2) arguments in favor of ET life such as scale, Dawson equation or whatever, (3) arguments against - rare Earth, inhospitible universe, (4) alternative explanations - time and distance separation, (5) efforts to figure this out by actually looking - SETI, etc. I think if you keep asking yourself "what is this article about" when you're reading the 2nd half you'll see the main idea is lost - it's less about the Fermi paradox than all this other (related) stuff. Let me know what you think, I'm not in a rush to recut this article unless you're more or less on board; just trying to help. Best, Kaisershatner 17:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

GWB Science edit
I was the one who originally made the edit critical of the Union of Concerned Scientists. I just wanted to drop by and say that I thought your edit of that material was fair and just. Thanks! --FairNBalanced 17:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

tautologies
FYI, there's a philosophical school (neo-positivism) that defines tautologies as the only *valid* statements. There were many criticisms to this approach (many of which I tend to accept), but afaik none of these ever stated that tautologies would suddenly become invalid, or inappropriate to explain something. --Francis Schonken 08:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, just saw your discussion with Francis Schonken pop up on my watchlist, so I just randomly checked in to be sure everything is ok. (more folks should do that. ) I think you have some good logical points, and so does Francis. I hope you're both listening to each other. :) Um well, I don't really have much to say besides that... *scratches head* Well, have fun! Kim Bruning 09:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, I think you're both experienced wikipedians. If there's any further objections from Francis Schonkens' side, I'll bet you can both work them out :-) Kim Bruning 11:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism
No problem; I'm happy to help. I don't have access to CheckUser, and the people who do try not to use it unless there is some policy violation like 3RR or block evasion. I'll watch the page for a while and see how it goes. Tom Harrison Talk 23:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoops... I thought I had it on my watchlist, but I guess it was deleted somehow. I will keep helping with it, sorry. Tfine80 22:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I initiated a RfC (Requests for comment/Christinam) against this user. His frustrating edits on Anti-Americanism are one thing, but his entire history on Wikipedia seems to be political trolling. Can you endorse it? Tfine80 03:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[Responding to a comment on my talk page]. Yes, the new pic seems fine to me, I will say so on the talk page...Cadr 17:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Christinam
Yes, indeed, though she's still around. I've blocked the obvious sock indefinitely, but Christinam is still operative. If she continues to be very disruptive, or if other accounts emerge, she may be blocked indefinitely too. There's only so much chaos other editors can be expected to put up with. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently, User:BenMerill and User:Donut2 was him/her too. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy thing
Yes I was wondering about that. I'd like to let it be organic for a bit to see where it goes, then maybe rein it in. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Editing policy pages
No, any editor can edit policy pages. You should make removals/additions only after some consensus has emerged on the policy's talk page (or some other forum directly relating to that policy). But, any user can edit a policy; you do not have to be an admin. --Durin 20:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

FARC
Whups - thank you for posting the FARC to the archive page for me; I missed that part. - Brian Kendig 23:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh
How do you manage to compress so much meaning into a single word edit summary? Keep up the good work. --GraemeL (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Astrology.
Keep up the good work. If you don't let incivility get you down or cause you to drop to that level then I think that NPOV may be attainable on the page. Thanks. Jefffire 14:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Marskell, I need your help
I just submitted my Definition of planet article for featured article consideration and I've been told my sources aren't properly cited. Could you come have a look and tell me what I'm doing wrong, please? Thanks. Serendipodous 21:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you thank you thank you for helping me with the refs, and also for so eloquently rewording my intro. Now that I have the template I can do the rest myself, so don't worry about taking any more time out of your busy schedule! Serendipodous 10:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Merging on Objective validity...
Yes, I agree with the merging. As to Seymour, I'm torn on this. I would like to see it somewhere in Wikipedia because the idea has a history, perhaps related to Landscheit, Nelson, and Brown, except these were not astrologers. Perhaps it could be split off as a stub article, having a link from this one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Piper Almanac (talk • contribs) 13:07, May 25, 2006 (UTC).

Definition of Planet article finished!
Well, I've gone through the ninth circle of Hell, but I think I've managed to finally finish the definition of planet article. What do you think? Serendipodous 17:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Majorities
I've responded on the Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're right, but my experience is that it's quite difficult to get these kinds of clarifications put into policy pages. Jayjg (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV policy edit
You wrote in the edit summary: "rv for now. nothing wrong with the sentiment but we should settle on wording"

Please initiate the discussion (at NPOV Talk) by transcribing your thoughts as to what you immediately perceived was unsatisfactory wording. Thanks. --Diligens 13:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind pointing me to this inverse rule for editing policy pages?

I would also appreciate it if you would explain what you specifically mean by, "laying it on a little thick", in regard to my edit of NPOV. Thanks. --Diligens 13:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Fermi paradox
Fine, you may revert my reversions. Yet, I stand by the word "belief" over "theory". :) Regards, --Cormac Canales 18:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Objective validity of astrology
Thanks for your comments and your tags. I always take the tags seriously and they have helped me. Sometimes they may have been zealously applied by both sides, but there's always something behind them. Piper Almanac 22:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Binary star
Hi,

Thanks for commenting on the FA nomination of Binary star. I have tried to take care of your objections.

Regards, Nick Mks 17:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely
Count on me to participate. Feel free to cite my comments to him as evidence of having tried and failed to resolve the matter. FeloniousMonk 18:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you please point me to the wiki page that describes the RfC process? All I'm finding for the intented result is dispute resolution, but not the means. Would the user be banned? Zeusnoos 14:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Marskell!
Thanks for the star. I feel like I can go to the head of the class now :). I was wondering whether I got the star right away or only once it appeared on the Main Page. I thought about enquiring but didn't want to look a gift horse in the mouth. I really like the Fermi Paradox article; it's just as comprehensive as the PlanetHab. I've never liked the term "Fermi Paradox;" it implies that if aliens are out there, we MUST detect them, simply because, well, we should. It's a remarkably arrogant assumption. I've always considered it the "Fermi Question." I need to start thinking about a new topic to work on. Any ideas? Serendipodous 18:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

FAR (urgent)
See my comment at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review. I'll wait before doing any more until you respond.--Alabamaboy 15:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous revert
Sorry Markell, that was me. I didn't intend to be anonymous, but didn't log in on that screen and I don't think there's a way to fix it once it's been submitted. What's your objection to using a book based on a master's thesis? The book is published and it went through an academic review process. The author is highly qualified and the study is well known. Piper Almanac 21:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

NOR
Thanks for this information. I've gone over the line a few times. When I look, for example, at Dean and Kelly again without the criticism I think it's okay. Astrologers would not expect a result and Dean and Kelly didn't find one. Arguing that they shouldn't have expected a result was not only unnecessary, but took me into NOR territory. Piper Almanac 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks
What's with calling me a troll? Haven't you been here long enough to know about WP:NPA? Stanfordandson 21:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Howdy again:)
I've been nursing the solar system article for a while, wondering what you thought of it. Serendipodous 08:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Maya
Hi Marskell. yes, I had seen those changes you've made to Maya civilization, it looks like a good start at reorganisation to me. I shall be away the next couple of days, but will think it over and look in more detail when I return. I agree there's ample material (both written and yet to be written) for substantial sub-articles on each of the themes there ("History" for example could even have an article per archaeological era- Preclassic, Classic, etc), once we start to work these out then the main Maya article can be revised to see it succinctly captures the main elements, while the subarticles can go into more exhaustive detail. I'd still like for there to be sufficient material remaining in the head article for it to stand up of its own accord. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK  23:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

FAR
Hi Marskell

Just to say that I think the new system is working very well. Congratulations on conceiving and implementing it. (It was you, wasn't it?) Tony 09:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Tim—I notice that Antarctica is now in the FARC list. It was in the minor review list, and I moved it to major review a few days ago. I'm confused; I thought it had to go through a two-week major review before being FARCed, if at all. I agree that it shouldn't be deflowered. Can it be moved back into major review? Tony 14:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism (unavoidable superpower obligations)
You wrote (in your summary): "'any superpower would be compelled to adopt'--this introduces very assumptive language and i think throws off due weight here)." It is no more assumptive than the claims in the previous sentences. Both sets of claims exist in well-known, respected books. (In the case of the claims about unavoidable superpower obligations, the most well-known book is of course Kagan's.) The sentence is needed for the sake of completeness. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-23 14:43 (UTC)

You wrote: "that comes with superpower status" OK? Answer: Yup! Best, --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-24 08:39 (UTC)

Antarctica
OK, but it's a little drastic for the article, which is definitely a FA once the prose is fixed up. I guess I expected that the process would gradually ramp up the pressure on contributors in a three-stage process, rather than two, hopefully avoiding the third. But I don't mind. Tony 09:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at the instructions lately, but I think there should be scope for articles to move from whatever their entry level to a more intensive level, either once or twice. Id' understood your process to enable seven possible tracks, related to (1) the level of deficiency at entry level, (2) the promptness of the improvement effort, and (3) ultimatly, the extent of the improvement effort:

Entry level into minor review

*resolved

*unresolved --> major review; resolved

*unresolved --> major review; unresolved --> FARC; retained

*unresolved --> major review; unresolved --> FARC; demoted

Entry level into major review

*resolved

*unresolved --> FARC; retained

*unresolved --> FARC; demoted

I saw Antarctica as having only a moderate deficiency in relation to just 2a (therefore minor review entry level). The response of contributors has been neither prompt nor sufficient (therefore put in major review, after two weeks, which seemed like a good time. I'm hoping that the response will be sufficient to forestall further movement to FARC.

As you said, it's all about motivating contributors to 'buy into' the improvement process (thus minimising demotions). The seven possibilities are admirably flexible. What do you think? Tony 13:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Has my latest posting on Hinduism made the decision easier?

Raul is down on explicit timings. What do you see as the disadvantage of a maximum of two weeks on minor followed by two weeks on major? Gives them more time to work through it. After all, the ones that are moved from minor to major will be suffering from a lack of motivation to improve. I see the move as a filip to get them off their asses. But it's only a thought. Tony 06:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe six weeks is on the long side, and I guess you're worried that the process might lose impetus over that interval. So four weeks is your notional maximum? On the plus side, I'd have thought it would be rare for the full three-part, six-week process to occur, since almost all articles put into minor review would be undeserving of ultimate demotion. That's certainly true of Antarctica. The other problem, as I mentioned before, is that Raul doesn't much like explicit periods in these processes. I guess he's concerned about the burden of counting days and the potential for inflexibility. But I'm not as strongly against explicit periods as he is.

I wonder whether the solution is to recommend rather than prescribe periods. I don't know, but perhaps:

"A review or a FARC is intended to take about two weeks, although that period might be shorter or longer depending on the issues involved in particular cases, and the availability of the contributors to a nominated article. Where an article is moved from one process to the next because the issues have not been addressed, the entire process should typically not exceed a month in duration."

Not sure. Raul will object. Tony 09:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Canadianism
I'm less and less able to handle the situation on my own. Do you have any advise? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that would be wise. Thanks. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 14:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Fermdi paradox
Great article, I'll support now :-) Ta bu shi da yu 11:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

FAR
Oh, they'll hate the IIT article being moved to FARC; he asked me to take a look yesterday, but I can't do much until after next Monday, a huge work deadline. Thanks—can't wait until I'm free. Tony 16:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note, Marskell. I see what you mean.  AS was nominated, and nothing has happened.  Maybe people are overwhelmed?  I'm over there trying to give them ideas of how to improve the article, but I'm afraid it's not salvageable, and I'm getting ready to suggest to them that they revert it to the last FA.  I try to review only the subjects I have a prayer of knowing something about, and do try to vote on all of them when/if they get to a stage of needing it. It's quite alarming what is out there that is considered FA :-(  There must be more good copy editors out there somewhere, besides you and Tony :-) Sandy 22:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Happy Canada Day
Happy Canada Day. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

'tarctica
Will do after work deadline, tomorrow 17:00 here. Tony 14:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Marginally around
I was away from the internet while at a conference (in Canada btw - beautiful country!) - just catching up on the astrology talk - same old same old it appears. I don't have anything to add to the discussion except maybe to comment on Plotinus who was not defending astrology as acausal. I have developed a stronger nut allergy than in the past, the antihistemic of attraction to odd ideas has worn off. Zeusnoos 00:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned on the Talk, I used to be one of the nuts. So I still have some sympathy, esp. for Chris who has a good mind and could go far outside the community of astrologers if certain conditions are met. The reason you see more resistance on the astrology page is that as far as beliefs go, it is deeply compelling. A believer in astrology organizes the world around astrological patterns and experiences the world in a way that constantly 'proves' astrology to oneself. Being around other astrologers will then confirm and entrench the belief that shared  experience means that astrology is a metaphysical reality.  It's very difficult to break out this worldview. Many astrologers think that if only skeptics studied it for years, they too would see the same patterns and accept it as true. Zeusnoos 20:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

FAR
Sorry...Forgot to archive it. I updated the article's talk page, the article, WP:FA but forgot that one. Joelito (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Marskell, some rambling thoughts and observation: I would appreciate your input. On the one hand, two weeks of FAR, followed by two weeks of FARC should be enough to get an article dealt with.  And, it has been mentioned that deadlines aren't hard and fast.  So, how to deal with an article with issues like Asperger syndrome?  The article is a wreck, and perhaps has no prayer of maintaining its FA status.  But the fact that it is under review has encouraged some of the editors there to get involved, get organized, and stand up to the "original researchers".  Even if the article emerges delisted, the process will result in a much better, albeit still problematic, article.  So, the longer it stays under review, perhaps the better?  What do you think?  This is an example where the process may help motivate editors to work towards a better article, but the task is huge.  I'm not sure if it won't go back to being a repository of original research once attention is off of the article, but the process has at least highlighted the problems. So, does an article like this benefit from being FARC'd quickly, or staying in FAR as long as possible?  Sandy 17:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will do. Sandy 18:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this whole process isn't working (boo-hoo) but the whole point is no keep/remove before a review. Let's do the review comments first and it will be moved down in due course. Marskell 22:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's working fine. Some articles (e.g.; AS) are improving as a result of the process, and the ones that aren't improving can't say they didn't have time.  Sandy 00:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Influence
Yo,

I just wanted to ask you why you changed it from 'correlation' to 'influence' in the intro? I wanted to talk about it here so that we can have an actual discussion without some sort of idiotic interruptions from Einstein over on the astro talk page.

My position on this is that some traditions of astrology are causal and some are acausal, so saying that astrology studies 'correlations' is a statement that can sort of account for both insomuch as it could imply causation but it doesn't necessarily have to. It refers to both positions. Saying that astrology studies 'influences' seems to be a more direct statement there is an assumption of causality in every form and tradition of astrology, and this just isn't the case. For example the Babylonian tradition of astrology is clearly omen based and not causal in nature. Astrology simply represented the ‘heavenly writing’ of the gods from which mankind could learn their intimations. This is based on the assumption that this tradition can legitimately be defined as “astrology” proper though, and some might actually dispute this. Those issues aside, I just wanted to find out what your reasoning is. --Chris Brennan 20:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Adminship?
Hey Marskell, would you be interested if I nominated you for adminship? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyclone FAR
OK, it was a bit naughty of me to move it straight away (encouraged by the main author). Tony 04:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you're perfectly right: if we don't follow the rules, casual users can't be expected to do so. And the suddenness of the old FARC process was one of the reasons for moving to this new system. The pipeline is longer here, and nominators like me just need to be patient!

On another matter, I do hope that there are enough committed reviewers to maintain legitimacy for every nomination; the list of articles to be reviewed is long. Tony 12:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's related to the elephant in Wikipedia's living room: a serious lack of good copy-editors. There's too little reward/recognition to encourage them to be active. Perhaps we need to establish a list of WPians who are available to copy-edit and/or review for the PR, FAC and FAR processes. My activites, and those of other reviewers in the FAC and FAR rooms are revealing contributors' frustration, and on occasion desperation, for want of skilled assistance.

Do you think I should start an article entitled "List of copy-editors"? The list could include the following information:

User name/scope of interests/availability etc.

I'm keen to establish a band of copy-editors who, for example, are willing to help with articles relevant to the Indian subcontinent.

Tony 12:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll support. Since I joined Wiki, I've been desperately looking for help in many areas, and anything like this would be helpful.  I just can't write well, period.  But ... I don't think that's the biggest elephant in Wiki's living room.  A "sea of fans" comes more to mind in all areas:  AfDs, RfAs, FACs, FARs and so on.  There are some topics I won't touch on a vote, since I don't want to deal with the fallout.   Sandy 13:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, it just occurred to me: isn't there already some sort of Editorial review cabal?  I recall seeing mention of something somewhere, maybe on peer review or FAC?  I'll go see if I can find it.  Sandy 14:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is what I saw -- not the right thing. Version 1.0 Editorial Team. Sandy 14:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)