Laurindo Tavares

Our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite. - Karl Popper

---

Archived round about 30K. I will respond on your user talk page. I don't watch user talk pages, so I may or may not respond if you don't reply to me here.

My user talk has slowly become my user page; my actual user page I just find frustrating and I think I'll stick with the poems. I throw extra stuff here. For the record: Tim Marskell, a Canadian living in the United Arab Emirates (though often found elsewhere).

Wikipedia:Babel

enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.

fr-1Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau élémentaire de français.

This user is a member of WikiProject for writing a featured article per quarter.

This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

• Archives 1 to 21, 2005-2007
• Jan 1 - Jan 25 2008
• Jan 26 - Mar 3 2008
• Mar 4 - May 5 2008
• May 5 - July 2 2008

barnstar

Thanks, Tim. But let me acknowledge how important your work has been in an essential and probably under-rated part of the featured-content process. I'm sorry not to be there all the time, but it's just not possible. Maybe we need a Signpost Dispatch on FAR to raise its profile and attract more reviewers. TONY (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou Marskell, yeah and per Tony... Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit?

Hi Marskell,

I saw your name on Wikipedia:PRV#Natural_sciences and am wondering if you would be willing to do some copyediting on Spinosaurus. Your entry under Natural Sciences indicates that you've worked on animal articles, and although Spinosaurus isn't a mammal, I am looking for someone generally unfamiliar with the subject to look the article over. If you don't have time, it's not a problem, but the article was sent to the League of Copyeditors some time ago, before that project shut down, and nothing was done with the article. I would like to see a full copy-edit by someone new before it is sent to FAC, and I hoped you'd be willing to help out or offer suggestions for improvement. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team Proposals

Please comment on the current FA-Team proposals. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Splitting the biology section at WP:FA

I keep waiting for Yomangani to come back, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen, and bio just keeps growing. Raul weighed in, so let's pow-wow with Casliber and Tim Vickers here and get on with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team successes!

Indigenous people of the Everglades region, Draining and development of the Everglades and Restoration of the Everglades have all recently become FAs! King Arthur is now at FAC! Thanks to our hard-working team members! Awadewit (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you copyedit Mangalore?

Hi there, I saw you listed at Wikipedia:PRV#General copyediting as a copyeditor. I was wondering if you would copyedit Mangalore which is a city article. The article is already a GA and it uses UK English. Hope that's not a problem. Language is very simple and the prose is quite precise. Copyediting won't take much of your time. Thanks!. Kensplanet (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review#Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria)

Hi Marksell,

I am asking for a big favours of yours. I nominated the article Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria) for featured list, but there were too many small grammar problems, so we decided to withdraw it, and do a peer review first. The list is complete and very well sourced. It also followed all he suggestions given in Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium) (recently promoted to featured list), so in general is in a very good shape. Only the description fields for the coins are in a need of a good copy/edit. Can you please help us to get this list promoted?

Many thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

date autoformatting

Tim—I don't know whether you're aware that the campaign to persuade WPians not to use it is alive and kicking, especially at FAC; there, the removal of autoformatting from nominated articles has been, with one exception, met with either a positive reaction or passed over without noticing it. I hope you don't mind my going through the FAR/C in the same way. TONY (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC) PS Essential information: it's no longer encouraged by MOSNUM. TONY (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Marskell! My time allowing, I'll try to do my best in FAR.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Supremes

Marskell, I prefer for this to be held for a little while longer, if thats ok. Did you see there was another Filiocht article FAR'd today; The Cantos no less. Drat. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 18:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ceoil is getting stretched thin at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really, given Marskells patience! Here is me admitting that butter is still on the long finger, but worth keeping open. But if only Outriggr was still around to help with the Cantos. Oh well. ( Ceoil ^sláinte 01:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for massive favour on India House, a current FAC

Hello Marskell, I was wondering if I could ask you for a massIve favour and help copyedit India House. This artilce is currently listed for FAC. A reviewer in the FAC mentioned quite strongly that the text is not upto the mark. I thought it would help a lot if somebody had a look and suggested any improvement, since it has already been copyedited once by another editor and once byself. Please understand that I am neither looking for your support in the FAC, nor am I asking you to comment on wether it deserves or not to be FA, since I realise this would be canvassing. Nontheless, any comments on improving the article would be extremely welcome.[[::User: rueben_lys| rueben_lys]] ([[::User talk: rueben_lys|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/ rueben_lys|contribs]]) 01:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Help

I have an FA candidate (Puerto Rican Amazon) that requires some copyediting. Can you help? Joelito (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you recommend someone instead? Joelito (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch

Marskell, at Wikipedia:FCDW/July 21, 2008, I said you proposed the new system; I realize I don't have evidence of that, and I wasn't around then, so I could be wrong. Can you check the wording? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Shrine of Remembrance

Hi there Marskell, the nominator has said that he's happy to end the review with a keep. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And I cleaned it up after it closed: Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Shrine of Remembrance/archive1; it was well above others that hadn't moved yet, so I hadn't yet gotten around to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's That Man Again...

I think Bsharvy is back in town. Watch this space: Anti-Americanism. Colin4C (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

dark ages

see comments below. Your discusiion was sensible and I wonder if you'd be willing to weigh in now and try to improve the situation at Dark Ages.

I have just read through 50 pages of Talk on Dark Ages, and it reveals a Wiki article that is in deep trouble. 29 people contributed comments complaining about the one-sided polemics against the term "Dark Ages." 7 people argued that to talk of the Dark Ages is invalid and that the article need only represent this one point of view -- but mostly the rejecttion of diverse views is the work of two people, stbalbach and Doric Loon. Loon compliments stbalbach for "assiduously maintainging and defending this article over the years," meaning, beating back all other contributors and defending their personal POV. They don't seem to be ashamed that during this time the artcle lost its status as a Good Article, way back in Mary 2006. Some defense! In the talk pages, stbalbach and Loon state openly that they consider the Dark Ages not dark, and that their opinion is the only valid one, and the only one that may be included. For ex, stbalbach: "Its impossible to defend the use of the term (Dark Ages) with what we now know." Any alternate, referenced quotes or information are undone and dismissed as not good references. This is Orwell's 1984 - some pigs are more equal than others. Marskell said it very well back in 2005, and its still true now in 2008: "It's disappointing to see revisionism has won out. 'the middle ages were not dark, therefore there can be no causes of darkness...you see stbalback beecoming a crusader...it is still possible to walk into a respectable university and hear the Dark Ages discussed...unfortunately readers of wikipedia won't be able to find out...." One poor user of Wiki wrote his frustration on teh talk page, that none of the information he was hoping for on The Dark AGes was here, just polemics. His complaint was trashed. This page is crying out for arbitration, to stop a small number of people from domineering and preventing balanced POV. It's time to rebel against the dictatorial rule of stbalbach and his henchwomen. I am fairly new to Wikipedia. Judging from stbalbach's page, he is very active - does that make him impregnable or is there something that can be done? There is really no point in trying as individuals to improve the article while he is in place as the self-appointed Dictator of Truth. Now is the time for concerned people to speak up. If you agree that stbalbach's reign of power should end, and the article should include references that support the term Dark Ages, and explain why, so as to have a balanced POV, please speak up now. More experienced Wikipedians - what can be done?--Cimicifugia (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Cimicifugia

Planets beyond Neptune

Tim, I've run afoul of Tony1 yet again in the FAC process. For some reason I have never managed to best his verbal challenge. I suppose my master's degree in English literature was a fluke. Still, he seems to like what you do, so if you could give that article a once-over, I'd appreciate it. Serendi^podous 13:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

FAR

There are two FARs requiring attention: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ronald Reagan and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Roman–Persian Wars. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Make that three: Wikipedia:Featured article review/William III of England is back, closed only a few months ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to get a look tonight. I have been without internet access for more than a week. Hopefully it gets restored today. Joelito (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Reagan was relisted at FAR hours after you closed it; I left a note for Raul. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Just Curious

... about the Ronald Reagan FAR that you very quickly closed. I just wondered why, since the only reason given (by someone else) was that FARs shouldn't be used for questions about whether an article is neutral, which I didn't understand. Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

New FA-Team mission needs your help!

Félix Houphouët-Boigny needs to be copyedited and peer reviewed. We would appreciate any and all help from the crack members of the FA-Team! Sign up here. Merci! Awadewit (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

FA to portal

A proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Namespace for featured content pages to move some pages (unsure which) of the featured processes to portal pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

After this and several similar issues, Gimmetrow has decided to throw in the towel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen no indication from Gimme that this proposal has anything to do with his decision. —David Levy 18:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Marskell: Please give the discussion a second look. I believe that you've been misled regarding the proposal's implications (and SandyGeorgia just acknowledged that the proposal's outcome has no bearing on the bot situation). Thanks! —David Levy 18:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be illogical to separate WP:FA from WP:FAC, WP:FARC etc. They are part of organic parts of one project. I am writing here since the discussion on Village pump (proposals) became to long to follow. If people want P:FA they can start it and it can coexist with WP:FA. Ruslik (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:FA, in its current form, functions as a portal. Why not move it to the portal namespace and replace it with a page geared toward editors (which is what the Wikipedia namespace is for)? —David Levy 19:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"a page geared toward editors"—I have always thought that the current WP:FA is "geared toward editors"!? If it is recreated after the move as you suggest, I am not sure that it will be much different from the current WP:FA, which is a product of consensus among editors in the first place. I am also not sure that editors will bother updating P:FA. Ruslik (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I just spent almost an hour drafting a response on the village pump thread, so you can go over and read that. Obviously, I agree with Ruslik in this thread (and thanks for watching my talk and jumping in Ruslik!). At the same time, I think David is arguing in good faith and I have tried to respond. I would like to keep it to one thread, and my talk probably isn't the place to do it. Marskell (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Helium FARC

G'day, sir! It appears we are done over at Helium's FARC. I don't mean to keep pestering people about it, but it's a monkey that we'd all like off of our backs. If you think it's ready, huzzah! If not, we'll figure it out. Thanks! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Old FAs without review

Marskell, when I get around to it, I'll probably cross-compare User talk:Dr_pda#2005 FAs to the citations list, eliminate duplicates, and post any newly identified articles in a new list at the bottom of the citations list. Does that work for you? I noticed the need to do this by reviewing the older medical FAs; there are several on that list that are in real trouble, even though they don't show up on the citations list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Before doing anything else, I want to cross-reference the new list with the old list ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, lost track of that. A wikifriend passed away and I lost my train of thought on that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds August newsletter

The August 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. MeegsC | Talk 01:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Anna Politkovskaya/archive1

...know anyone interested in recent human rights issues? Wikipedia:Peer review/Anna Politkovskaya/archive1 tks Solenodon (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism

Here we go again...I have tried to nip things in the bud, but if the admins want the whole operatic performance of long-standing editors being harrassed and intimidated and the article the subject of another sustained attempt to destroy it, by Bsharvy and his acolytes, and the rest of the whole time-wasting faraggo, so be it. Colin4C (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for red pen assistance

Hello, your name is listed at WP:PCR and I was wondering if you would be able to help me copyedit Bone Wars, as I'm getting nowhere looking over my own prose. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:FAWCP in discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles with citation problems

I mentioned you in discussion, at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles_with_citation_problems#Removal_of_shortcut_link_-_WP:FAWCP. Though you should know. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Wikipedia:FAWCP

I have nominated Wikipedia:FAWCP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

John Millington Synge

Ottava Rima (talk · contribs) cited it, and I did some MoS tweaks. See Citations query. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Heads up: Chris 73 (talk · contribs) just got back-to-back FARs. I notified the talk page of Coconut crab days ago, and then put it up, and he got a second one a day later from Cirt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry

I apologize about the whole WP:FAWCP thing. I let a discussion get carried away and out of hand as opposed to just ending it and letting it go. Sorry to have wasted your time and I hope we can put this behind us. Yours, Cirt (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for replying, I appreciate it. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Lincolnshire, Illinois Copyedit

Hi Marskell...I was wondering if you could take a look at the Lincolnshire, Illinois article. I've been putting some hours in, and a senior administrator suggested I sniff around for some people to help me in the copyediting sector. I would really appreciate it if you took a look at it.

Thanks, --Starstriker7(^{Say hi}_{or see my works}) 04:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

FAs with citation problems

I'm allowed to add stuff to that aren't I? In any case I've been trying to ref some of the older ones anyway, eg History of the ACT, Canberra, Flag of Australia, Tom Playford etc without waiting for FAR to toll. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

B1nguyen, that list only reflects articles that were lacking citations at the time the citation requirments changed and the list was generated (back in 2006). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We need to discuss what to do with that page now that it's shrunk so much. Blnguyen, I'd like to avoid individuals adding things as it would turn the list into something it was not meant to be.

Sandy, maybe we should rename it Unreviewed Featured Articles. I notice you've already hidden everything from '05 and previous. I'd like to bump this up to end-June '06 (if Drpda doesn't mind) because FAR and FARC were merged that month. Then we'd keep the no citations/few citations sections and add an "other unreviewed" section. The only question is your notifications. I don't want to recreate a monster. Alternatively, we could create an Unreviewed Featured Articles page independently of the FAWCP. Marskell (talk) 10:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Responded on the citations page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've added thru Jun 2006 and added a blurb at the top, that needs your review. You'll have to view it in edit mode, or see this diff. If you agree, I'll 1) rename the page, 2) remove the by Project sections, and 3) unveil the hidden tables. Then, as these articles come to FAR, I would maintain a separate set of stats below the by-year listings; that is, the previous list and the new list would be kept entirely separate for stats purposes, but on the same page so I can update in one place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I can easily make those structural changes once we unveil it; working in a hidden HTML comment mode is hard :-) The info is all there; it's just a matter of whether you want to unveil it and rename the page. I can address the structure any time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Marskell, I eventually want to do a Dispatch on you and FAR (see Wikipedia talk:Featured content dispatch workshop). If we're going to unveil this next phase, please weigh in on the Dispatch page with your thoughts re the timing on a Dispatch (or just let me know your thoughts). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretty, pretty please with sucrose syrup on top!

You ask for politeness and concentration on your peer review volunteer section, so I thought sucrose syrup'd be more concentrated than sugar on top. I'd like you to review Wikipedia:Peer_review/United_Nations_list_of_Non-Self-Governing_Territories/archive1 please. Thank you ever so much for reading. :)--Thecurran (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Red Cliffs

What would you like to do with Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Red Cliffs? Normally, in a situation like this, I'd bypass botification and manually move it to archive1 with a "Previous FAR withdrawn" on the cleared redirect, without adding it to articlehistory or the keep archive. Mattisse hasn't answered, and she seems to take issue with me often, so I don't want to archive this without checking with you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No answer still, so unless you disagree, I'll go ahead and move it to archive1 and clear the redirect, but it doesn't need to be entered in articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Feedback

I trust your judgment and unbiased opinion so as to ask you to give me some feedback at User_talk:Jossi/What_shoud_I_do ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Premature FARs

Marskell, I used to always remove these for you/FAR, but now we're in a different spot. Since I promoted it, I don't think I can remove it, even though it doesn't conform with FAR instructions. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Planets beyond Neptune How shall we handle these in the future? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, Serendipodous withdrew it, but the issue remains (that I'm not comfortable doing that background work at FAR on articles I promoted at FAC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hydrocloric acid is good enough now; MoS seems fine and it's cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

New Review

Calgary Flames 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. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a shame that an article that so badly fails the FAC should be listed as featured standard. In blocking reviews of failing articles it undermines WP, by giving editors such a low standard to aim for. Fasach Nua (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

[1]? Could be a can of worms, but I wouldn't object. DrKiernan (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

So, it would merge FARC and FAR and shorten the overall period. (If there are any other substantial proposed changes, I missed them.) If FARC and FAR are merged, do you think we'll have a problem with a lot of editors instantly declaring Remove or Keep, before work has progressed (where they used to have to wait for a move to FARC), making it harder for you to sort what has been addressed and what declarations are relevant? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Could the instructions be changed to suggest that editors not post Keep or Remove until someone has performed a detailed evaluation of the article, and local editors have had time to respond? That way, FARC and FAR could be combined into a less formal three-step process — first someone takes a close look at the article and reports to the FAR page, then local editors are given a chance to respond, then the community decides whether the response is adequate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Since we have to enforce "no declartions during FAR" even with the current divided system, I'm not sure that would be heeded. I'm concerned that unless we clearly keep two phases, we'll just get a lot of pile-on declarations early on. I suspect Marskell is prepared to deal with that, but I'm wondering if it will make pages hard to sort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. I didn't know people watched my sandbox :). I was sort of hoping to keep this secret while thinking it through some more.

The issue of pile-on removes is the most serious one and part of the reason we have a two step process now. However, I am perfectly willing to ignore removes once work commences (as is Joel) and I think all the FAR regulars know that. Give me a few days to write up a rationale. Marskell (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Inactivity

Just so you know, I have been and will continue logging esporadically for the next two weeks until my new laptop arrives. Joelito (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Gulftodaylogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gulftodaylogo.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Chagas disease

The Med Project has been at work; can we move it off the citations list? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson

Marskell, I left a response at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Samuel Johnson. The concern about decoupling Boswell and TS is that it is precisely the strength of the evidence in several bios and writings that informed the TS diagnosis. Without those writings, it would be just another speculative diagnosis rather than a strongly informed posthumous diagnosis that enjoys widespread (unanimous as far as I know) medical consensus:

He is also the subject of one of the most celebrated biographies in English, James Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson. Boswell's Life, along with other biographies, documented Johnson's behaviour and mannerisms in such detail that they have informed the posthumous diagnosis of Tourette syndrome (TS), a condition unknown to 18th-century physicians.

I may not be following your line of reasoning, so need more feedback on how to fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

He's ready for a new look; hope I didn't botch it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama back at FAR

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama, I left a note for Raul as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution for Barack Obama

WorkerBee74 has already offered mediation. It was refused by the pro-Obama partisans who are homesteading on the article. I choose that word because they are living there and seek to WP:OWN it. Read Noroton's comments at the FAR carefully. There is no way to dismiss him as an edit warrior or SPA. Curious bystander (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Eckhart

Hey Marskell, listen, do you have time to look over Aaron Eckhart's article and give some feedback? I'm trying to maybe aim to FA status and want to know what needs to be done first. That's if you have time, of course. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Superpredator

I now suggest that the article Superpredator be redirected to Predation, which now includes even more material about superpredators. References can be moved as appropriate. --Paul from Michigan (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia (terminology) FAR improper closure

I'm sorry but you closed it on simply incorrect grounds, and very much too early. The people involved were all involved in the discussion elsewhere that lead to the FAR review, and were in no way unbiased. This simply wasn't a snowball. Reviews are supposed to be held for 2-3 weeks and you closed it in a few hours.

As Taemyr states:

I would disagree with Marskell's statement that the nom does not directly adress WP:WIAFA, WP:WIAFA begins with the requirement that the pages in question meets our policies. Taemyr (talk) 11:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes."

the requirements are the Wikipedia:List of policies. It fails on WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The article was extensively debated at FAC with wide participation over a long period of time; FAR does not second guess FAC and FAR is not dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, which rule is that? I was completely unable to find it. Where's that written? If that's a rule, why isn't it on the FAR page?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll just have to AFD it then. I was trying to avoid it, but I guess when an FAR is improperly closed on spurious grounds I'm left with no choice.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

FAR is not designed to handle policy disputes, which is basically what you wanted to initiate. The idea that the article fails NOTDICT is strange, to say the least. Marskell (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not a rule either. That's not a rule you can give to not to review the article. You do not get to invent the rules as you go along.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't meet WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I'm not challenging that policy in any way shape or form. I'm challenging the article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The idea that administrators get to decide policy- where's that written? Nowhere, because they don't. By doing this you are abusing your powers, and I'm raising this on the administrators noticeboard. You're totally out of order here.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Administative abuse of process of FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Copy editing Davenport, Iowa

Hi! I was wondering if you could copy edit Davenport, Iowa? I am working on getting it to a Featured Article, and one of the suggestions on the peer review was to have a "fresh pair of eyes" copy edit the page, which is a good idea anyway. I will be asking a few people at the PR volunteer's page, to get the widest copyedit perspective I can get. If you can help me, let me know on my talk page or just go ahead and edit the article! If you can't, thanks anyway, a note on my talk would be helpful, but not a big deal if you don't. Thanks again! Ctjf83Talk 00:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you be able to help me with this? CTJF83Talk 19:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Note

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Help needed with Aaron Sorkin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Followup: [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Just another day at the office: not one, but three AN/I FAR threads. Macedonia, Law, and Sorkin. Have I had a nice day? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hiya

Regarding "excellent" articles, I'll reply here since people are already a bit fatigued at WT:FAC. If the goal is to find and help and co-opt as many editors as possible who are involved in other review processes but not yet at FAC, then I think the most effective marketing would be to pick a name for the goal that sounds as easy as possible (DYK) rather than one that sounds hard. I've also tried myself, and seen other people try (as you have), to get people interested in new forms of ego-boo and new awards, with absolutely zero success. If people are motivated by awards at all, they seem to want the existing awards. (Feel free to respond here or over at my place, or not.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations list

I moved the Citations list to Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles and added the unreviewed articles through June 30, 2006; the top needs a rewrite now, best left to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless Tony/Dan want it for the monthly updates, WP:FCDW/October 13, 2008 is open for the next Dispatch (they usually publish about a week late, so it's not really the 13th). Please let me know if we should aim for that date, otherwise I'll plan something else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Takur Ghar

Marskell, a while back the two of us decided we would work together on the Battle of Takur Ghar's article just as soon as my life settled down some. Unfortunately, my life did not calm down as expected, and looking at things I know are coming, it will be many years before I really have the time and resources to put serious work into Wikipedia articles, especially because I won't have access to most of my reference sources for a while. So I apologize for not being able to help as I originally thought I could.--LWF (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds October newsletter

The October 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) 00:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)