User talk:Maralia/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Tel Aviv FA

Hi Maralia, I have replied to your comments at the Tel Aviv FA page. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - Ive replied at the FAC page. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Following Tel Aviv's third failed FAC, I have worked on the issues brought up and renominated it for a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tel Aviv/archive3. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Maralia, Id just like to thank you once again for your comments and help with the Tel Aviv FAC. The article is now going through another peer review and is a copyedit nominee. Any further comments would be really appreciated and sorry for the earlier hotheadedness. I'll keep you updated. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We did it, SS Chris is a Featured Article!

yaay!

Thanks for your help in getting the good ship SS Christopher Columbus to Featured Article status. The nomination went swimmingly, it was clear sailing all the way, no one turned up to torpedo it, and she passed easily.

that's the ticket!

Well co nominator, here's your formal thanks... thanks again for all your hard work. Much appreciated! ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Tedium pays off sometimes.

For Maralia, with gratitude

I wish this were a barnstar, but it serves the same purpose. One hundred and twenty one references! Thank you for going over all of the citations in To Kill a Mockingbird. I would not have been able to nominate it for feature without your help. This is the 2nd article you have jumped in to rescue. I wish I could take you out to dinner. --Moni3 (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You mustn't wish it were a barnstar. I love this picture! As to 'jumping in to rescue': I find that you tend to pick articles that are eminently worthy of rescuing; I merely have the common sense to recognize your talent, and the mechanical ability to plug data into parameters at lightning speeds :) I'm off to really read the article now - thank you for this little present, and the bigger one I'm about to enjoy. Maralia (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi Maralia. Lar suggested I ask you so you can blame him if this request is unwelcome. Nevertheless, I hope it will not be. Lar says you are good on ship articles. There is an article on a fairly obscure ship which sank on its maiden voyage which I have thought for a long time needed improving. I wondered if you would be able to have a look at it. Best wishes and thanks in advance for any help you can give. --John (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's most certainly welcome, although I reserve the right to blame Lar anyway :) I wholeheartedly agree that poor article needs some serious attention; it's certainly the mother of all shipwreck stories. I'm used to having to scrounge for obscure sources, but it must be the most written-about ship ever. I wonder what it will take to sift through all the literature out there to find the most scholarly, least sensational books. Do you have a plan of attack? Feel free to drop me an email if it's easier for discussion about planning. Maralia (talk) 05:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

My high value add was to get the two of you talking about this, so my work is done. As for blame? I'm blameless. My next FA candidate isn't even going to be about a ship! Wasn't there some movie or another about this topic? I forget. ++Lar: t/c 19:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

On that article, you may also want to search thru its history. There were a series of edits on March 23rd by Daniel Chiswick where once completed, the article had more in common with when it was listed as a featured article on June 29, 2005 than it had in common with the version prior to his edit (the wording of several section were reverted to its 2.5+ year old version). Many, including myself, questioned him on the changes; but little was done to undo the changes because, to be honest, both versions are in bad shape and the article still needed work either way.

Still, you might want to look at the version prior to that series of edits, to see if there's anything that may be worth salvaging. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Lar: I actually haven't seen it :) Barek: Thanks for the heads up. Really baffled why someone would remove that much detail and referencing - I would have thought it meant he was moving it into the article on the sinking but it doesn't appear so. Strange! In any event, thanks for giving me a point in time link for a fuller version. Maralia (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that Maralia has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page Montana-class battleship, and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning this Copyeditor's Barnstar and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 07:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history 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) 01:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Captain Scott

Thanks for your support in getting the Captain to FA. There will be more from the ice in the near future. Brianboulton (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

DANFS citation template first draft

Hey, I took the liberty of knocking out a first draft of a DANFS citation template. Take a look at it and make changes, or suggestion or whatever...

• User:Bellhalla/DANFScite – template page, with rudimentary documentation
• User:Bellhalla/DANFScite/sandbox – page with various permutation of the template parameters.

I'm open to changes in naming of the template, format, punctuation, format of the 'short' version, additions, linking, or anything else you can suggest. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Weather front

Hi, thank you for commenting on weather front's FAC. I believe thast I addressed most of your concerns, except for one which I explained on the FAC page. Do you think there is anything more that needs to be done? Thanks, Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 12:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

April GA Newsletter

The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm such a user

You know, I'm a big believer in self-determination. Case in point, I rewrote the article for Mulholland Drive within the past week, bringing it from 9 to 69 citations. I want you to know I was more than conscious to make sure Maralia would approve of my efforts. However, another well-meaning user has changed my inline article citations you can see here and I don't know what's right. I was using citation templates, hoping to bring the article to FA quality before nominating for GA even. Can you take a look? I'd appreciate it. --Moni3 (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Mulholland Drive (film)

Copyedit from the article talk page: "Hello Bzuk, haven't come across you in a while :) Per WP:CITE#HOW nearly any reference style is acceptable even at FAC as long as the article is internally consistent. Moni usually uses the WP:CITET templates, which are perfectly acceptable; admittedly, she hates the damned things and it takes some work to clean up her stray formatting, but the style itself is acceptable. I'm not sure why you would convert citations to a different format. Are you under the impression that MLA is preferred? Or perhaps you couldn't tell that she was in fact following an established form? Maralia (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)"

Hi Maralia, thanks for your response. Another editor, User:Erik, asked me to look at the article in regard to referencing. There is nothing really blatantly wrong with the citations or references other than minor typos and a some lack of consistency. The style guide that appears to be adopted was the Modern Language Association (MLA) style guide which I am using as a guide to correct errors. As mentioned earlier, nothing major was wrong in the citation style but inconsistencies should be addressed. One thing I found unusual was the linking of article date to the author rather than the publication and a mix of ISO and "familiar-style" dating. My recommendation is to make the entire reference section consistent. If MLA is already established, follow that standard throughout which is what I showed in some test edits. The "my style passed FA before" statement is a canard as I have seen some FA articles and reviewers that wouldn't know a referencing style guide if it knocked on their door. I have previously been a reference librarian and I have a past background of 33 years in library work previous to my retirement and becoming an author and editor, so my comments are framed in relation to this experience. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC).

There does not seem to be any interest in collaboration, so I will leave the article's referencing alone. Too bad, because it's an interesting article, mais c'est la vie. Bzuk (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC).

You might be interested in this conversation. Maybe. --Moni3 (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ping

Nelson and stuff. ttfn, Benea (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Bagel

I, for your comments at the Tel Aviv FAC's Flymeoutofhere (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC), award you this Bagel of Zion for improving the coverage of ציון. Remember not to edit on empty stomach.

Wikiproject ships

hello Maralia, thank you very much for extending an invite to me on joining the Wikiproject:ships. I'll very much consider it. Thanks much. Koplimek (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Korean People's Navy ships

Category:Korean People's Navy ships, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

List of world's longest ships

Saw you working there, and have a suggestion regarding the italics. You may want to start using {{Sclass}}, and the associated templates for each of the prefixes. I've found that they make the wiki-markup look much cleaner when working with tables like this. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review request

Could I ask you, if you can find time, to put some review comments on Aeneas Mackintosh, on peer review at the moment? This is an early article, abandoned by me in panic months ago, which I've recently decided to bring to a decent state if possible. I'd really appreciate some feedback. Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

HMS Cardiff

Hi, I've recently been working on HMS Cardiff (D108), trying to bring the article up to FA standard. In the "A" class review (here) it was decided that there is need for a copyedit, I had posted a request at LOCE, but then it was recommended to me (by Roger Davies) that I speak to you about it. I was wondering if you spare a few moments just to take a look at the article please, I'd muchly appreciate it, cheers. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou so much for taking a look at her, I've been eagerly awaiting it. I'll of course try and sort those italics as soon as possible, there is two minor things though; you put the words "Sea Dartss" in the article, was this intentional? Also you spelt "dagger" without a capital "D", is this ok as it's the name of a plane? Ryan4314 (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Both unintentional. Thanks for pointing them out; I have fixed both. Let me know when you think I should take another look. Maralia (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What did you think of my attempt to remove the italics? Do you think she's ready for an FAC yet? Ryan4314 (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll be AFK a bit till my son is in bed for the night, then I'll take another look at it for italics. I didn't review sourcing while I was copyediting, but if you're taking it to FAC soon, I'll want to look that over tonight too. Maralia (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou so much much again, this will be the culmination of nearly 3 months work! I'm off to bed too, it' late here, cheers Ryan4314 (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've given her another, more thorough workup today, and looked over the references. You should be prepared for some of them to be challenged per WP:RS at FAC. It shouldn't be terribly difficult to find alternate sourcing for most of them, and I would suggest doing so before FAC, to help that experience go more smoothly. Following are some examples of references that I feel do not meet the definition of WP:RS:

• ^ The Falklands war: the Bluff Cove disaster. findarticles.com. - This is an aggregator site; instead, cite the original doc here.
• ^ Aerovirtual - Bombas para Jeremy Moore (Spanish). www.angelfire.com. - This is someone's personal website.
• ^ Airplanes. www.choiquehobbies.com.ar. - A model plane hobby site is a really inferior source for citing the downing of a real plane in wartime.
• ^ ^{a b c d} The Royal Navy and the Gulf. www.btinternet.com. - This does not sound reliable: "This in an unofficial site created and maintained by a Royal Navy enthusiast as a hobby."
• ^ Trafalgar 200 Portsmouth. homepage.ntlworld.com - I could not find any information concerning who publishes and/or contributes to this site.
• ^ Edge of the Centre: HMS Cardiff's bell welcomed home. edgeofthecentre.blogspot.com - Blogs are almost never considered reliable sources.

Hope this helps to get you started on improving the references. It will be an even better article as a result. Maralia (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking the time to check the refs, I think I can actually find more suitable ones. Although we'll have to lose the "bell" bit. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, I hope you don't mind me striking through your message (it's so I can mark my progress), what do you think of my efforts so far? In regards to the bell, I don't know what to think, look at what I found when I was looking for alternate refs:

• http://www.cardiff.gov.uk/ObjView.asp?Object_ID=4079&Language=
• http://www.artfact.com/catalog/viewLot.cfm?lotCode=1TE32M2O

Seems we have 3 different stories! I'll have to look into this, also would you mind converting the "Bluff Cove Disaster" ref to it's original source PDF for me plz, I don't know how to do it :( Ryan4314 (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's fine that you struck out items here, but just be advised that when you get to FAC, striking others' comments is a big no-no there:) I've replaced the findarticles ref with a cite journal template. I also did a full pass through the article for reference formatting; it was largely good already, but I cleaned up some inconsistency in author name formatting (I chose lastname, firstname as I prefer it, but anything would have been fine as long as it was consistent). I also added publication dates for many of the books and some of the web sources, as well as a few missing author names. The formatting should be 'done' now. There is a lingering btinternet.com cite (#2) that should be re-sourced, and you should probably also look for alternate sourcing for the statements cited to britains-smallwars.com, as it doesn't appear to meet WP:RS. Good luck figuring out what happened to the bell; I wonder if it's worth asking someone from WP:WALES to check St. John's. If you do, make sure to ask them to take a camera! Maralia (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about the striking, anything else I should know? That's a good idea about Wales lol. Once again thanks for all ur help, it must've been very tedious to do. When she gets to FA, I'll make sure I get Ken to send you a thankyou message and you should add her to your "significant contributions" list, cheers Ryan4314 (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL sorry to be back bugging you again, but in regards to replacing the "small wars" refs, I found a good Google Book here, but it doesn't have a preview function, what would you recommend I do with it? Ryan4314 (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see a preview of that book - and no, I have no idea why googlebooks is so weird. Try this link: [1]. I can confirm that pg 637 does support that one remaining smallwars-cited fact regarding no. 335 sinking the two minesweepers, and it's fine to cite the book for that, whether the online link will work for most people or not. Maralia (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL Hello again, what type of ref should this be [www.cardiff.gov.uk/ObjView.asp?Object_ID=4079&Language=] be (I have no idea why it wont link!) i.e. citebook? Also do you have any idea how I read this article? cheers, Ryan4314 (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That should use {{cite journal}}. As for the second article, can you access it here? If not, I can email the text to you; let me know. Maralia (talk) 05:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Yup, that's done it, my you certainly are clever. I'll start making the appropriate changes to the article soon, cheers.

Hi, this is the website for St John's Parish Church in Cardiff, if I can get the priest to mention the bell on the website, would it then be ok to be used as a reference? Ryan4314 (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Teach a Wikipedian to fish, and s/he'll just stay out there all day in the boat

Hey there. I guess I've missed you on IM, but I keep looking. At any rate, I'd like to clean up my references in Mulholland Dr., but I clearly need to do it myself rather than ask you to clean up after me. I need to learn how to get my references sparkly and pretty. So instead of having you do it, could you look at them, tell me which ones are incorrect and point me in the direction of how to clean them up? I appreciate it again. Hope to chat with you soon (Yahoo). --Moni3 (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

News! Tag & Assess 2008 is coming ...

Milhist's new drive – Tag & Assess 2008 – goes live on April 25 and you are cordially invited to participate. This time, the task is housekeeping. As ever, there are awards galore, plus there's a bit of friendly competition built-in, with a race for bronze, silver and gold wikis! You can sign up, in advance, here. I look forward to seeing you on the drive page! All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

One Stripe (200 articles) Two Stripes (400 articles) Three Stripes (600 articles) Tireless Contributor Barnstar (1000 articles) Chevrons (2000 articles) Working Man's Barnstar (3000 articles) Barnstar of Diligence (4000 articles) Third place overall Second place overall First place overall

Hubble Space Telescope

Thanks for the copyedits. I had two points/questions. First, the overcapitalized references were capitalized that way in the original documents - that's why I had not changed them already. I don't know the Wikipedia policy (if any) on this - do you preserve original formatting, or make it more readable? Next, the bibliography was in the same order as the life of the Hubble - precursors, construction, discovery of flaw, mission to fix, current operations. This was implied and not stated, but might be easier for a user to find what they want among these documents.

Anyway, thanks again, and any comments are welcome, LouScheffer (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's common at FAC to reduce capitalization in reference titles, so that shouldn't be a problem for anyone. As to the bibliography, it should be ordered alphabetically because it exists not as a recommended reading list (in which case your previous order would definitely make sense), but rather to support the Notes: a reader who sees the footnote "Spitzer, History of the Space Telescope, p. 32." should be able to easily locate the Spitzer source in the bibliography. Hope that clarifies both issues. Thanks for your work on the article over the years, and thanks especially for still being around to see it through this review :) Maralia (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like MOS:CAPS#All caps; I never let them go if I notice them :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Sandy! Lou, I had two questions:

• What is 'nm' in this sentence? "its mirror needed to be polished to an accuracy of 1/65 of the wavelength of red light (632 nm), or about 10 nanometres."

'nm' is the usual abbreviation for nanometers. Later in the same sentence this is spelled out, an inconsistency I never noticed before. I'll fix it. LouScheffer (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• This sentence seems to be missing a word or two: "The field of view over which high-quality adaptive optics corrections is limited however, especially in optical colors."

You are right. I'll fix it. LouScheffer (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Maralia (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

hawkwood

Thanks for all the time you've put into editing and reviewing this article. When you get a chance please see if I've addressed your comments to your satisfaction. Savidan 23:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history 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) 01:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Le Quang Tung

Fixed I think. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Monthly update of style and policy pages: April 2008

Maralia—thanks. Was it before the end of April? Doesn't matter; makes it clearer. Tony (talk) 03:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

Hi there. I recently noticed your copy-editing skills, which seem pretty good to me. Would you mind copy-editing a few articles for me when (and if) you have the time? I've been through them several times, but I always miss simple things. Here's the list, in order of priority:

• NeXT (at FAC, has been copy-edited at least three times, but people are still finding grammar problems)
• System 6 (Current GA)
• Macintosh Classic (Current GA nominee)

No worries if you're not interested or don't have the time. Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Myst

I've taken out the grammar fixes you wanted, and I removed the spurious link (looked like linkspam snuck in while I wasn't looking.) Thanks for the review, could you take another look? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking out the quote; I've reworked it, since players commented on 'religious experience', not the morality. The electronic copy of the MacWorld quote was formatted that, but I chalked it up to a typing error and formatted it with brackets. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Aeneas Mackintosh

I'm delighted that the Mackintosh article has been promoted to FA, after a fairly quiet time at FAC, and would like to thank you for your unstinting support, on this and other articles. You may be interested to know, incidentally, that my final article in the series of major British Antarctic expeditions, Nimrod Expedition, has just gone to peer review. Grateful thanks, again. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Malformed noms

Hey, Maralia, what's up with Talk:The Diarrhea Song? Because it's halfway done, GimmeBot can't be used now to finish it, and it has to be finished by hand. Was that what you intended? Maybe you got called away from the computer? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

An unexpected knock at the door, followed by trying to figure out what the hell my kid did to the keyboard while I had stepped away (I still don't know the answer, but it's working now). I'm manually finishing that one; will be done in a minute after I doublecheck my preview first. Maralia (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Whew, you had me worried :-) But also, since I'm currently working on the October and November 2006 FAC files, that one gets us crossways with my checklist on the work page, so I have to remember to remove it. Template:ArticleHistory/work Would it make sense for you to work on some from that list, rather than from What Links here, so we can stay in sync? For example, I could put up the month of September, and you could work on those. You'd be doing the same thing, but pulling your choice of articles to work on from FAC archives rather than What Links here, and we could stay together that way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't pick that one from facfailed, but rather from the bottom of the November 2006 list on the Work page - figured by working from the bottom I'd be less likely to cross signals with you. Sure, put up September for me if you like. Maralia (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Great; we're on the same page. I may take the day off; how about if you work on October, and I'll finish up November ? I'll put up September later if I decide it's worth it to give so much of time to be criticized at every turn (ref to elsewhere). If you find something completely messed up, move it to the messed up section and I'll look later. You might come around to seeing that it may just be easier to focus on sorting the list: Messed up ones that we should work on ourselves, versus easy ones that we can pass to GimmeBot. There are a lot of articlehistories built without the FAC file having been archived, and we have to fix those manually. I'm going to my garden for a while; October is yours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Good gosh, now you're on a roll :-) Is this method working OK for you? If so, I'll put up the next month (basically, I move the archive to a spreadsheet, pull out the already archived FACs, edit it to the correct format, and copy it in to the worksheet). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It's working fine for me. I'm cheating a lot by looking at the code of your 'ready for Gimme' listings whenever I'm not sure how to handle something. I have to run out for a few hours now, so you can keep poking through my list & leaving me notes without any more edit conflicts :) Maralia (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you know how to handle the old style DYKs? See here. Also, there's a list on the talk page of the workpage of old templates or templates that aren't supported by the bot, we have to do those manually, like oldafdfull. If this system is working for you, we'll really be able to start humming now, because GimmeBot can do the rest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Substituted DYKs are generally caught OK.[2] The DYK template changed some over time but I think it catches most of the variants. It can also do oldafdfull, and can do oldafdmulti if it is split [3] and the result codes match something programmed into ArticleHistory. ("Moot" isn't one of those ;) Gimmetrow 22:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you're really getting the hang of it !! I'm thrilled to have someone else to help out with this, and someone else who understands Gimmetrow/GimmeBot's work. I'll sit down later today to review all your contribs just to doublecheck on your "training" <smile> and then maybe we need to let GimmeBot catch up with us before we move on. I'll add the new months one at a time as we move through them; as we get into the older files, we'll find trickier situations, which is another reason I wanted you to "train" from the more recent. I hope you see now why I wanted to work through the archives rather than from What Links here on the facfailed template; because other editors (like GA) built some of these articlehistories, there are many unarchived or incorrect histories, which will come back and bite us with the same malformed noms at FAC problem if we don't get them set up correctly. I'll check over and catch up later today: I suspect a surprise brunch is in the works, and I'd best go prettify. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Bedtime here; at this rate, I really think we can do this ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have an app't in the morning, so if you get ahead of me, you can work on May. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Assata Shakur

OK, I've finally tracked down all the nyt titles and fixed the formatting problems you were so kind as to bring up. I hope you'll find that these have been remedied to your satisfaction and see fit offer some more comments once you're had a chance to read the article proper. Savidan 19:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Bump. Savidan 02:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up. I have decided to renominate the article. Savidan 22:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to say hai

Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or a possibly new friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 10:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Milhist Special Projects Dept/Nelson's birthday

Just a thought but Nelson is a natch for the new Special Projects dept. I've left a message to this effect on woody's page too. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

Hey, Maralia,

Would you be able to do a quick level 4 copyedit of Battle of Verrières Ridge for me? I'd prefer to have a copyedit of the article before I go for A-Class Nomination. If you've got the time, that'd be great. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 19:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, no probs. Roger's done some copyediting on it already (mainly on ref formatting). Advance thanks for your help. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

New page for MILHIST copy-editors

The coordinators have decided to make it easier for copy-editors to watch the new requests by creating an own page for this purpose. On Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Logistics/Copy-editing/Requests all new and old requests are listed. Please add this page to your watchlist. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

Thanks for getting back to me. NeXT is now a featured article, so no need for that one. Right now Macintosh Classic is at FAC, so a copyedit wouldn't hurt. Also PowerBook 100. Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 04:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Notes and Bibliography formatting

Moni3, who passed White Mountain art as a Good Article, has suggested your opinion for proper formatting of the article's Notes and Bibliography. I'm not asking for you to edit these items, but I'm asking if you believe I have formatted them correctly. Thanks in advance for your help. JJ (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Maralia, you have gone way beyond the call of duty! I would have made the changes you suggested, but thanks. The references without authors are really art exhibition catalogs. I guess I can rename the heading? Thanks again. JJ (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mind in the least - it's always a pleasure to put work into an article that someone is seriously about developing. It only becomes drudgery when someone expects me to work for hours on end to correct poor prose or slapdash formatting. Let me know if you have a timeframe for FAC and I'll try to get in a thorough copyedit. As to the art catalogs: how about 'Periodicals' for a heading? Maralia (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Moni3 has suggested a Peer Review, which I'm going to request. Then, I'm going for FA. So, I would very much appreciate a copy edit.

They are not all periodicals, but thanks. I will leave them as "Journals" as a good compromise. JJ (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Disturbingly appropriate Barnstar

		The Paranormal Barnstar
		For finding no typos while reviewing the article USS Missouri (BB-63) I hereby present you with The Paranormal Barnstar. Hopefully, your discovery of no spelling errors in an article will not be a sign of the apocalypse :) TomStar81 (Talk) 07:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Operation Passage to Freedom

Thanks again for the review Maralia. I've done the necessary tweaks I think. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tried shuffling of the acronym explanation to the footnote to make it less unwiedly. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Rush Street

I don't know if you noticed I added some Rush Street information to SS Christopher Columbus. I also put a note on the talk page about finding more images. You may find the current Rush Street FAC interesting. I have just added some new image formatting that I need feedback on.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Nimrod Expedition

This is to thank you for your copyedits and other review comments. Your help during the assembly of this series of expedition histories has been much appreciated. This is the last of the "big four" British Antarctic efforts, though I shall continue to write about minor expeditions, and about individual explorers. I'm glad that you found the articles interesting. Brianboulton (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Soundgarden

see [4] this is the Soundgarden page before i came. This is the Soundgarden page when i startet to work on it [5]. I've done all the work on the page, i'm not saying the other users didn't edit but i made it to what it is now. --Freedom (song) (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Bosch

No, this is just about right on the nail of it. Ceoil (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, good :) I'll stop procrastinating and finish writing up my comments momentarily. Maralia (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Getting through my watchlist

Thank you so much[6] ... I so appreciate someone noticing and helping :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I only thought to do it because I saw that Wayne Gretzky was kept (yay!), but I am trying to pay more attention to FARs. Maralia (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Common Treecreeper

Thanks for the help - need all i can get at FA! Jimfbleak (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Chocolate

Hi, this is Limetolime. A short while ago, you opposed the article at its featured article nomination. Well, this article has been worked on a bit more and has become a GA without a problem. Do you think that the article is ready for FA class again? Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 22:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I don't think the article is ready for FA. The prose needs considerable work to clean up imprecise terminology ("Roughly two-thirds of the entire world's cocoa is produced in Western Africa"), and multiple paragraphs consist of only one or two sentences. The sources used for medical facts appear fairly solid, but the sources for much of the rest of the article are lightweight: numerous books exist, yet there is only one book citation while many facts are cited to blogs and other self-published websites that would not meet WP:RS. From a content standpoint, I don't feel the article is comprehensive: statistics on global consumption and industry size and value are absent, and there is no mention of the many museums dedicated to the subject. The article does not explicitly name the largest manufacturers worldwide, yet lends apparently disproportionate attention to US manufacturers, leaving me wondering why such large but non-US companies as Lindt, Nestle, and Cadbury are merely named. Likewise, the significant chocolate industries in Belgium, Switzerland and the Netherlands receive short shrift, and the US cocoa butter percentage legislation is explicitly detailed while the equivalent European legislation is absent.

I really feel this article needs significant work. As I suggested back at FA, contacting the article's principal editors to enlist their help would be wise. Once you have resolved the referencing and content issues, the FA-Team might be a good place to request some final polishing. Sorry I don't have better news to offer you, but I'm sure the article will benefit in the end. Good luck! Maralia (talk) 03:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter Wall

Hi. I've tried to respond to your concerns at FAC. If you had any further comments, I'd be most grateful. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Help requested

I'm sorry to ask for your help, when you’ve given so generously of your time to my work in the past. However, Nimrod Expedition is at FAC, and has been given a somewhat rapid oppose by a reviewer who suggests a "thorough copyedit" by an "involved editor", whatever that may mean. I’m not asking you to do this, nor do I accept that this is necessary. Whatever faults lie within the article, I don't think they will emerge from that process. Any article is capable of improvement, and I am prepared for any amount of positive criticism. So I need this reviewer to open out, and give me a basis for resolving his issues when I know what they are specifically. Would it be possible for you to pay a brief visit to the FAC review and perhaps reinforce this point? I apologise for bothering you - there is, incidentally, some support on the review page as well. Many thanks for your time. Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

First, my apologies for not responding about Nimrod - I saw that others beat me to it. I'll give it another readthrough today.

I noticed the comment you added to your userpage today, where you're wondering about [7]. I'm not sure how you came up with that link, but I can explain what the result looks like: the files aren't intermingled, but rather, that url is simply comparing a version of ES with a version of that image file. I can create the same type of link intentionally - see [8] for a 'diff' comparing ES with your userpage. Just wanted to let you know that the link itself isn't indicative of a problem with the article. Curious how you came across such a link, though. Maralia (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for replying and I do apologise for taking up your time. The problem with Nimrod has abated somewhat, and the oppose has been struck, but I always welcome your comments at FAC - you know this article series pretty well by now.

As to the link I put on my userpage, let me explain. For months I have been working, on and off, to deal with numerous errors which I have found in the Ernest Shackleton article since its promotion to FA on 31 January. As a working convenience I have given myself a link to the promoted version of the article. There is no other significance, it’s purely a note to myself.

I have pasted your message into this conversation, as I think you prefer unfragmented dialogue. Brianboulton (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

...And, a little to my surprise, I find the Nimrod article promoted! (perhaps you have secret influence in these matters.) Anyway, your help in reviewing and supporting these expedition articles during the past few months is very much appreciated; you must know the stories well enough now to write your own versions. Nimrod's promotion completes my main project (all four major Brit Antarctic expeditions, and their leaders, to FA). In the next months I shall be working on the minor expeditions and the supporting casts, not particulary with FA ambitions in mind, but generally to extend and improve the quality of these articles. Warm thanks, once again - I feel I owe you some favours. Brianboulton (talk) 11:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history 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) 01:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

May FAC and FAR reviewer award

		The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia
		To Maralia, For your superior reviews of at least 15 Featured article candidates during May, thank you for being one of the top reviewers this month and for your careful work and thorough reviews to help promote Wiki's finest work. Not only have you helped maintain standards in featured articles, you've joined the ranks of those who selflessly help restore standards in your work at Wayne Gretzky. And a special thanks for running the May stats, a tiresome job :-)) Always, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Special thanks to Ling.Nut—a retired editor who had a strong commitment to excellence in content review—for designing this award.

Thanks

For doing the compilation of the FA stats for May. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I imagine that work must rank up there with accountancy in terms of excitement. --Laser brain (talk) 23:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I offered to do May because I figured it had to be a pain in the neck, and Sandy has enough to do, plus she was traveling. It was, frankly, awful drudge work, made worse by my essentially having to start over 5 times because I hadn't taken into account some aspect of the statistics. I have an idea for making the worst part of it far less terrible, though, so hopefully I can help out with it again without feeling the urge to leap off precipices :) Maralia (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have two ideas. The chore could be rotated, so others could see FACs as I see them (who gave the info I needed to determine whether to promote or archive?). And we could ask Gimmetrow if it's possible to have a bot run through the archive and generate counts, so we know the top 20 to look at. Not sure a bot would get it right, though? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

My plan is to have a bot generate the '# statements' and '# unique editors' counts, as well as a rough '# FACs per editor' count. That last one won't be perfect - it won't be able to tell a reviewer from a nominator, for example - but even if it lets me narrow the detail work down to the top 25 or 30 then it would still save a lot of time. Not having to manually compile the '# statements' and '# unique editors' figures will cut the work by more than half. Maralia (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Right; not sure how you did the work, but I was cutting, pasting and sorting into Excel for days. Examining only 20 or so editors would still be a lot of work, but about half. And, in case any one has never made the connection, this is why I opposed the other restart method (moving to archive); a bot now has to go to another file to examine the history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice re: FAC. Willking1979 (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks once again...I'm still getting used to editing and Wikiquette.Willking1979 (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles newsletter

Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Montana class battleship

After a review I decided to remove the exernal link you asked about. In this case, I do not think that it helps as much as it does in the Iowa article. Thought you might like to know. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the speedy revert! As always, you are the best!! --Kralizec! (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Anna May Wong

I thought you'd like to know this article just passed FA review. Thank you for your contributions to this article during the review, Maralia. Dekkappai (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow/GimmeBot

... is on vacation, so no progress on Articlehistory work page, and I'll be botifying FAR and FAC closes by hand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I just couldn't copyedit any more tonight, so I thought I'd do something mindless for a bit :) Maralia (talk) 06:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you're really looking for mindless, how would you like to become familiar with this for the next week? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've read through it before; I'm sure I can help. I'm away from home now and will be again at the end of the week; I'm not too busy, but my schedule is a little off. How time-critical is it? Did you already do all of Sunday night's pr/ar? Maralia (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we're up to date now. Next is to watch the FAR archives to see if Marskell or Joel close any. I'll coordinate with you when I'm going to close, so you can watch me do a few manually, and we can coordinate. What do you prefer, middle of the day, evening, late night? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if it's too much work for us, the other option is to leave the old templates on the talk pages, along with a note on the talk page asking editors to wait for GimmeBot. (For example, add the old {{facfailed}}.) If you and I can't keep up, we can go to that. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

I'm not too worried about the process - I've been doing most of the steps already (my strange insistence on manually adding articlehistories instead of waiting for Gimme, when I was learning, should serve me well). I'll kind of have to play it by ear tomorrow: I promised my kid we'd go to the pool, but then he inexplicably slept half the day today, so I suspect I may be dealing with a cranky sick toddler tomorrow. In any case, I have ample experience in stalking your contribs to figure out how to do things, so I'm sure we can work it out. Maralia (talk) 07:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL! OK, I'll let you know, but also watchlist the WP:FAR archive. I hope the kiddo isn't sick ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, take it back; we're not up to date. There's a FAR remove (AK-47) at Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive that Gimme didn't get. FAR remove is the single most complicated botification, so I'll do it tomorrow, and you can check my contribs. Unless you're feeling brave and want to do it yourself. Add "Standing in for GimmeBot" to your edit summaries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not mess with FARs till I've done a few full-process FACs, so I'll just practice my stalking skills. Incidentally, my son slept in until 11am, and then fell asleep ON THE FLOOR in the afternoon and slept for over an hour. Now, don't get me wrong, *I* would totally do both those things EVERY DAY if I had half a chance...but coming from him, I suspect it means a snotty-nosed zombie kid tomorrow. Maralia (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(Shameless infiltration!) I wonder how a particular individual is gonna react when he sees this convo someday (in the archives)!! KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I forgot the other possibility: that he would be fine today, yet the rest of us would start coming down with his illness for him. In a fine turn of events, today *I* am the zombie. Ah well, it's about to storm, so no pool in any case. Sandy, I see removed FARs just went up - I'm watching. Maralia (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I started my day fighting fires on my talk page (and dealing with big kids, big problems and insurance adjusters, glad no one was hospitalized), so I won't get to those until tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and got a good news phone call this morning from the Dr., btw. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, tonight then. Maybe I can get a nap before then so I'll be less of a zombie. So glad to hear you got good news! Maralia (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to botify the removed FARs now. Botifying a FARC is the the worst, in terms of the number of steps. My contribs won't be complete, since I already removed the stars and downgraded the assessments on the talk page from FA to B yesterday. Also, on something like Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brian Horrocks ... this provides an example for how to do reviewer stats. This had 3 (or 4 or 5?) supports before three different editors had to dig in to copyedit it. The supports in this case would get a negative score even if the article passes, and the ce reviewers would get positive points if the article is brought to standard ... they rolled up their sleeves and got it there over premature supports ... just checking to make sure that's how you did the stats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I fell asleep when I put the kid to bed last night, so I'm considerably less zombielike now; commencing stalking. As to stats - yes, that's how I did them last month, we're on the same page. Maralia (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll start on the FARs soon (muttering something about PITA under my breath ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Almost an hour, to do only two FARCs. Let me know if you see anything I missed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Okey, dokey, I'm ready to pr/ar; available to help botify? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Am now. Fire away! Maralia (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do. How about if you process the promotes (they're much easier) as a first pass, and I'll watch. Also, add the star (that's not in the instructions, but GimmeBot does it now). On my way ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Roger. Maralia (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Maralia (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Maralia ! The FAC promotes are the easiest; I'll let you know when I'm going to archive some, so you can have some real fun :-) Then you'll be ready for FARCs, the nightmare. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you around? Ready to try some archives? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Give me about 20 minutes - time to put the rugrat to bed. Maralia (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

They'll be waiting for you in archive, then I'll watch your steps. I Love Cross-Training :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my fault; I forgot to add these new steps to the sandbox.[9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, got it. Maralia (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I forgot another new one! [10] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff. Only one change. Even though the last oldid is yesterday, the time of archiving the FAC should go in AH. [11] Thanks, Maralia ! I'm off to bed soon. I'm always so glad when someone else is trained, in case of the proverbial "hit by a truck" scenario. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I get that in principle, but I'm not seeing that timestamp anywhere. Exactly where did you get it from? Maralia (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Good question, d'oh. Who knows where I got it, LOL !! Should be 2:17, per this. Sorry ! Now do you love gimmebot like I love gimmebot? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to pr/ar; if you're around, I'll start with the archives, which are harder, and leave the promotes for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Fire when ready; I'll catch up after I get the kidlet into bed. Maralia (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If you do the promotes, I'll do the archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Going to pr/ar some in case you're around to help; then I'll be back on later and will start on anything you can't do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm around - and check my contribs. Maralia (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Maralia; I have some things to do around the house, so anything you don't get to, I'll catch later. Saw your contrib :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

He's baaaaaaack :-))

		The Working Woman's Barnstar
		To Marlia, Thank you so much for your invaluable assitance in cleaning up old {{facfailed}} templates for {{articlehistory}}, and for helping process FAC closes during GimmeBot's vacation! The work is so much easier when shared, and it's gratifying that someone else knows how to keep up with these tedious and time-consuming chores! All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry I missed Friday/Saturday nights; packing an entire house sucks, and doing it while a 3-year-old is running around is brutal. Tomorrow I head home, to pack for the beach - closing is on Thursday, and we leave for the beach on Friday :) Maralia (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the touchups on Georgette Heyer - it is hard to notice some of those little things when you've been staring at an article for months. I appreciate the help! Karanacs (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem! I have a few other minor issues; will leave a note at the FAC after I make some lunch. Maralia (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)