User talk:Marskell/Archive 23

An interesting theory

Came across this in an inset about Giant Otters in this book: "Love, John A. (1992). Sea Otters. Golden, Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing. ISBN 1-55591-123-4. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)", p. 12: "These so-called campsites are cleared of vegetation so that the residents can trample in their smelly feces and urine to warn off intruding otters." I'll let you decide if/how to incorporate it. Cheers, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

name for species

Hi Marskell, I notice that you gave Litoria caerulea a touch up - nice work. I would like to hear your opinion on the name of the article. Regards, cygnis insignis 15:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ta for the reply. I believe I have a rationale for moving the page to the unambiguous name, the title of the page you linked, the name above. I see this as being in accordance with WP:TOL, common sense, and the most broadly accepted system of nomenclature, but I am aware that not all editors share that view. We might also avoid the suggestion of OR with our disambiguating title ;-) cygnis insignis 16:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Prague Spring

The former was a regional affiliate of the latter in a unified Czechoslovakia, yeah, isn't that kind of obvious? I mean Czechoslovakia is a well enough known country, and if not, then the name Czechoslovakia pretty much explains it.--The Dominator (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for peer review

Hi, I saw your name on the wikipedia:peer review volunteer page. I'm currently working on a science article called the Kardashev Scale, the page has gone through a lot of changes in the last 3 months, some of them reverts that I wish to overturn. I've sent out some notices to people who have worked on the page previously but I'm having problems getting open opinions and feedback. Their ideas about what they want the article to be about and look like are pretty set. I need outside opinion.

In my opinion the Kardashev scale has 3 primary interests:

• 1) A benchmark used by Seti scientists in there search for extraterrestrials
• 2) A catch-all vocabulary term for a scale used by scientists, in classifying advanced civilizations. This has important implications when speculating on sociological structures of advanced civilizations. But also, it is a necessary analysis when talking what about clues might be left behind or generated by alien species; which then might lead the the discovery of extraterrestrials.
• 3) Because it is can be used for the speculation of advanced civilizations it is a magnet for those interested in science fiction. Not many science fiction writers actually talk about the scale or the power generated by fiction species in power(WATTS) terms, but science fiction enthusiasts are interested in the Kardashev Scale.

My primary goals are in advancing the content area of number 2 and diminishing the fictional content. After all, it is a scientific not a fictional topic. My secondary goals are to find and add published content on the extension of the scale. The feedback I have gotten is pretty much divided between goals 1 or 3. And I don't want to create a editing war!

So please read the article and the discussion page and tell me what you think!!

• 1)Is the article presently fine the way it is?
• 2)After you read it, did you get the impression that it was a science article or a science fiction article?
• 3)Was it too long, too short, easy to understand?
• 4)Was the article interesting, was it boring, did it feel jumbled or was it concise?
• 5)What do you think might be needed to be added to this article, what do you think needs to be edited out?

Thx--Sparkygravity (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, so your suggesting that I should generate a section right under the lead about who uses the Kardashev scale and why, with citations?--Sparkygravity (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Heroes peer review

I noticed that your user name was on the Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers list. I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I need help

I can't read this article, and I need it to finish citing Triton, specifically the "Craters" section. If you could have a look at it and fix up the section, I would be very thankful. Thanks again. Serendi^podous 13:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone else already provided me with a link to the article, so it's OK now. Triton is now fully cited. As for the FAC, don't stress over it. If we start preventing people from making nominations we run the risk of seriously dampening newbie enthusiasm. I don't really think that Planet is up to FAC yet, but I need to get some rather obscure materials to hand before I can tackle the issues I have with it. Serendi^podous 20:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I spy your talk page Tim. ;-) I provided the article. Joelito (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Otter

I started work in my sandbox; I see I'm late :-) A bit more to do, and you can have a look. Some of the Spanish is too vague to work with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, done in my sandbox. I know a lot of it may not be useful, and you'll need to fix my prose, but take whatever is useful from my sandbox. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Report comments

Hi Marskell. In case you miss it, I've left comments at User talk:Marskell/Sandbox. Carcharoth (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sirius

PS: Sirius is at FAC. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

FA"s and other work

My current situation makes it very hard for me to do much work on AF level articles or even to create minor stubs. Research is very time consuming and I have little time...just a couple of hours here and there each day...so I have been spending most of my wiki time doing vandal reverts and similar chores...hence, I figured that the tools would have been nice since I could also help clear out backlogs as they present themselves and also block egregious vandals...things that require little concentration compared to research. I hope to have more time soon as I do have one article I would like to get the FA level. Thanks for the kind thoughts.--MONGO 05:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nightwish

Hi, sorry for the confusion, I voted (Wikipedia:Featured article review/Nightwish) and then took another look and got to fixing stuff. I will remove my vote for now, and I think after a few days I can get this one will be back up to FA status. Skeletor2112 (talk) 06:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Help Please

SandyGeorgia sent me here from her talk page suggesting that you may be able to put me out of my misery. I was hoping you can do a pre-emptive strike and block my IP. As weird as that sounds; under the circumstance it may be the only way for me to not become uncivil. So far I've been pretty damn good at chewing off my tongue. If you can't block me --- then can you delete me? I need to get away; but this is like a heroin addictions. Should I blank my page first? Please have mercy. Never--- never --- try to push an article through FA --- especially on the topic of evolution! Please shut down HAL. --Random Replicator (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete please. Thank you! --Random Replicator (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually this works better, apparently I'm not the first to suffer withdraw symptoms. [1] I'll see if I can work out how to do it. --Random Replicator (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC: Planet

I went through the whole article in detail (except for the magnetosphere issue). You are welcome to check it again and let me know what you think. Nergaal (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean not edited 100+ edits? Nergaal (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a fairly akward situation to have to explain my actions. Why is it a requirement to have edited the article if when I stumped upon the article, I thought it is good enough to be an FA and nominated it? As per FA review, it proved that I missed some key points that were solved withing a few days. What would withdrawing it now and renominating it later do besides take attention away from the article? I still do not understand your stand! Nergaal (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That tool is really cool and I am going to assume that it actually shows the real number of edits. I am going to talk to Serendipious and see what he thinks (although I still think withdrawing the nomination is not the best choice). Nergaal (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have a chance, can you give a last glance to Planet? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispatches

You're welcome, yes, and hopefully within the next half-hour or so :) Ral315 (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Surface features on Ganymede

You may be right that 'Surface featutes' is more appropriate place for the information about tidal heating and grooved terrain formation. Also you can try to merge the papagraph about imact features into that subsection.

I am sorry but my participation will be limited in the next several days due to illness. Ruslik (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I requested the article to be peer reviewed. Ruslik (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Abu Dhabi

Hello, I wonder if you could offer your opinion in an ongoing dispute at the Abu Dhabi article. This article includes a paragraph pointing out that Abu Dhabi has been mentioned a few times (not many) in a very popular comic strip about a talking cat. The paragraph was added on 2005-01-12, when the article looked like this. Do you believe that a reference in a comic strip about a talking cat is an important fact that should appear in an encyclopedia article about a major city? Please comment at Talk:Abu Dhabi. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.96.155 (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thought for the next FAC/GAC dispatch

It was nice that you mentioned those people who wrote FAs, but I think it might also be nice to mention the hard-working reviewers. Without their assistance, the articles would not improve! Awadewit | talk 21:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Michigan State University

I'll check later; I just saw the news about internet outages in the Middle East, you OK? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

FAR Q

Marskell, I just found a FAR page on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hurricane Irene (2005) via a VeblenBot link, and it seemed to be open so I commented there. I now see it's not on the FAR page; I almost never comment at FAR so I thought I'd ask you to unconfuse me -- is this closed or was it never open? I thought the "closed" chrome was usually added at the completion of a FAR discussion, giving the different colour and the "this discussion is now closed" header. What's up with this one? Mike Christie (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I usually check the cat once or twice a week to pick up FARs that weren't transcluded; I forgot to do it this week. That needs to be transcluded to FAR, with a note on the FAR and to Nergaal. A lot of the hurricane articles are coming under fire for reasons I haven't deciphered; Titoxd appears to have left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Mammal collab page done

OK, I'll set this up here - feel free to nominate and foraward to any other editor interested in furry critters. We'll see how it flies and I'll drop a note in the signpost.

Nominating key articles is ok, even if you can't work on them. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Perhaps you could look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Homeopathy/archive2. The article was subject to intense edit warring, but things seem to have calmed down as a result of Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. The article is reasonably good and could be featured with a bit of trimming and removal of bloated sections to daughter articles. Jehochman ^Talk 22:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team and first mission (MMM)

Dear Marskell,

Many thanks for volunteering to join the FA-Team. We now have a first mission, to help the Murder, Madness and Mayhem WikiProject improve twelve articles towards featured article status. These articles are really interesting, and the person in charge of WP:MMM is enthusiastic about our support, so this mission should be a real pleasure. Please watchlist the mission page and the WikiProject page as well as some (or all) of the twelve articles. The students contributing to these articles are all new to Wikipedia, so please be ultra-friendly towards them.

The coordinator for this mission is Wrad (talk), who may suggest further ways in which you can help. I will provide back-up. In particular, it might be useful for you to indicate which of the twelve articles interest you most (or which ones you are watchlisting) on the mission page.

Thanks again for joining in. I think this will be a lot of fun for all of us, and hopefully we can make it fun for the students too and create a few more featured articles between now and April. Geometry guy 21:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. If you have time to add information about your expertise to the FA-Team page that would be great!

Anyone working on the Solar System featured topic

Please come settle the current debate raging over there. Thank you. Serendi^podous 11:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Marquez + various

(Copied over from my talk page:) Thanks to you both for your advice and input. Re. the point that some articles are more equal than others... I am aware of this. And I realize it's my problem, not yours. I'm interested, however, that you think that the GGM one is probably the most difficult. I've been thinking that The Dictator Novel probably offered the most challenge, mostly because it doesn't easily fit a recognizeable format, as do the biographical or bibliographical articles. In part I hope to compensate for these variabilities by being an active editor myself, as you can no doubt already see. It's very much a project in which I'm also involved. Regarding assessment, I also very much like the idea that students are being assessed by the wikipedia community for something that they are contributing to the public domain. Of course, that works only if they do manage to bring the articles up to having a decent shot at GA and/or FA review. We're still some distance from that. Anyhow, in sum, this is all very much an experiment. So I all the more appreciate your advice. Some days I'm confident; other days, less so. Having the good will of the wikipedia community and the benefit of experienced eyes such as those of yourselves certainly makes me breathe a little easier. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Prague Spring

Yup, thanks to all your help with that, there's still a lot to do before FA, so it's possible that it might eventually need another copyedit, when I have more time I'll work on the blind-spots that you pointed out.--The Dominator (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Marskell, I was wondering whether you could take another look at Prague Spring and point out spots that need improvement before I take it to FA, and write a short review on its talk page thanks. The Dominator (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:FAR/sub

A tag has been placed on Template:FAR/sub requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

FAC on a book

If your workload permits, would you visit David Suzuki: The Autobiography and comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Suzuki: The Autobiography? Looking for input, if I covered all my bases. It's a short article, I promise! --maclean 05:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

FAR input

I did five or six. Yikes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch

We'll go with yours; I don't know if someone's planning on making sure that someone picks this up regularly. I was under the assumption that someone from the FA team would handle it.

As far as moving it, my preferred method is moving, because it keeps the history intact (cut-and-paste might technically be a GFDL violation). If you do any more dispatches, perhaps you could put them at User:Marskell/Dispatches, so that your sandbox history stays intact, as well as the history of the Signpost article. Ral315 (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful; I'm happy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a typo. It says I'm active, when it should be inactive. And might I suggest for the next one an in-depth enquiry into the rumour that Sandy will promote for chocolate? Confirmation would render all the guides to FA redundant. Yomangani^talk 17:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Chocolate is good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a politician's answer. Yomangani^talk 17:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A platform of change, hope, and chocolate would get my vote. Marskell (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

Um, hi, I noticed you edited the lead guideline, but in doing so you removed, not only a relevant statement of the policy, but also a link to the policy of what a definition is for the purposes of the lead.

In Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Good_definitions it says:

"A definition aims to describe or delimit the meaning of some term (a word or a phrase) by giving a statement of essential properties or distinguishing characteristics of the concept, entity, or kind of entity, denoted by that term."

While it's good to try to minimise the size of the lead guidelines, removing this consensus policy positive statement and leaving only a negative statement about what should be in a definition here is much worse than simply having a slightly longer guideline.

You seem to be implying that the guideline should not follow policy.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Lawson

Not sure how to best present the "Buildings by Lawson" section; it's kinda ugly now, but at least I sourced most of it. I found contradictory info from different sources on the Dunedin Municipal Chambers. Some said he was the architect, some said otherwise, some said another fellow won the contract, but then Lawson used his own plans, I wasn't able to sort it out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, do you 'spose Tony or Cas could lay hands on these sources?

• Chapman Lloyd (2003) In a Strange Garden, The Life and Times of Truby King Penguin. Auckland, N.Z. ISBN 0-14-301879-5.
• Herd, J. & Griffiths, G.J. (1980). Discovering Dunedin. Dunedin: John McIndoe. ISBN 0-86868-030-3.
• Knight, H., and Wales, N. (1988) Buildings of Dunedin. Dunedin: John McIndoe. ISBN 0-86868-106-7.
• Mane-Weoki, Jonathan. (1992). The Architecture of Robert Arthur Lawson. Bulletin of New Zealand art history. Vol 13.
• McGill, David (1997). Landmarks: Notable historic buildings of New Zealand. Auckland: Godwit Publishing. ISBN 1869620038.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Phantom reply on my talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Greatpowers.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Greatpowers.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for peerreview

Hello Marskell, if you have the time I think the article on Nahuatl which I have nominated for a pre-FA peerreview might be right up your ballpark. I would certainly appreciate any comments and suggestions you have that might lead me to improve the content, style and grammar of the article. Thanks beforehand. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Blackface

Yes, I'm still working on it. It's very frustrating that most of the people who aren't happy with the article seem more interested in sniping at it than in doing any solid research in the (rather extensive) literature on the topic.

It would be very helpful to know which concerns you consider valid. - Jmabel | Talk 23:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Cynna Kydd

Thanks for the note. I haven't forgotten about this at all, but I've been really busy over the last few weeks, and really haven't had time to touch Wikipedia apart from skimming my watchlist. I do intend to fix the small number remaining issues soon, but it probably won't be this week (orientation week at university, so I'll be very busy). I'm worried it's going to get taken down in the meantime, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebecca (talk • contribs) 15:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for holding off. I'm planning on doing it this morning. Rebecca (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If you know someone

who might have a chance to look at this paper, I would like to know whether Herschel uses any words to describe moons other than "satellite". I tried asking Joel, but he can't access it. thanks for your help. Serendi^podous 16:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ganymede

Thanks. (Almost) all is well with me. I removed the sentence contaning "the low strength of the higher quadrupole harmonics" and added an explanation for "dimenesionless moment of inertia". However "magnetic moment" requires a lengthy explanation. I think it is better to simply use the wikilink.

I agree that the article is ready to go to FA and I am going to nominate it in the next week. Ruslik (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Co noms et al

Related question at Rick Block's page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch for Feb 18

Hi Marskell, it didn't look like you had had time to put together a Dispatch yet (although maybe I just didn't see it), so I threw one together very quickly. It's not linked at the Signpost yet because I didn't know if you or Sandy had written one already, or if this is what was intended. Karanacs (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I left comments at WT:FAC; we need a place to coordinate this. Let me know which one we're working on, and I'll peek in during the day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your remarks

Your abuse of Crum was totally unacceptable, and you owe him a heartfelt apology. Given your own tendency to follow SandyGeorgia around backing her up in disputes, including disputes of her own making, and attacking people she wants you to attack, it's doubly inappropriate for you to be criticizing anyone else's wikifriendships. Your assumption of bad faith and disrespectul remarks really have to stop. People don't follow you around doing it to you, and you have no right or reason to do it to others. It sometimes feels as though you'd be happy to see certain people driven off the website.

It saddens me to write this, because I had hoped after our last run-in that we could try to respect each other, but it seems for you that this is a one-way street. You are allowed to post insults about me and my friends, but I am not meant to respond, unless I want to risk even more attacks. That can't work. It's a big website, so please let's edit in different areas of it from now on. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What you do is worse. You follow her around acting as an attack dog. Anyway, I don't want to get into a protracted debate about it, because it's all poison and it's not what I'm here for. Just please leave me alone in future, and I'll extend the same courtesy to you. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Marskell, no diffs. You know exactly what you've done, and I don't want to play anymore. This is my last comment about it, and if you want to respond, I'd prefer you did it here. I really mean it. I've had enough. If you want to drive me away from Wikipedia, you, Tim, Sandy, and your little circle of insulting friends are going the right way about it. I hope that's not what you want, so I'm asking that you leave me alone, at least as far as possible. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

FAC, FAR query

FYI, regarding this desysopping and banning of a sockpuppeteer and FA author, I've left a query for Jayron32, here after Thatcher ran some checkusers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

More. Wonderful. We may have an invalid FAC.[2] WikiProject Aviation seems satisfied, but do we need a review, in case? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Aviation is satisfied, and it did have a solid review from Jayron32, so it looks OK.[3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ganymede's FA

The article is now FA candidate. Ruslik (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ozone, which was detected, is trapped in the ice, not in the atmosphere. In fact, ozone has never been observed in the gaseous form on Ganymede. Ruslik (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Global warming

WP:DNFT. Really. Per WP:TROLL, "one of the most disruptive things that can be done is to find new ways to cause trouble that are not quite against the rules." People who are only here to waste other people's time should be blocked just as we would as a common vandal. They do far more damage than someone who violates the most sacred and holy WP:CIV. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured article dispatch workshop

I set up a basic shell (and archives) for coordinating the weekly dispatch at Wikipedia:Featured article dispatch workshop. The 25th is approaching! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Marskell, as far as I can tell from Gguy's talk page, he's not planning to write the blurb on peer review. Unless you want to do that this week, we need a Plan B. So far, no one else has even visited WP:FCDW. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We need an article in two days, and I still don't know if someone is writing peer review, or if we need a plan B. Is the content workshop page not going to work for this? Can you just let me know there if you want to do PR, otherwise I'll work on the next plan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Feeling the same way; I've been struggling to keep up with some fast-moving developments in the autism articles, some serious COI business on other medical articles, some issues at MEDMOS, various irritating sockpuppet situations, and frustrated about FA conversations spreading across four pages while I struggle to get through my article watchlist. Anyway, on the dispatch page, I just want to know what we're doing, because I can write the ArticleHistory article if nothing else is happening, and I just want to know and have everyone on the same page. Can we coordinate this on the dispatch page so others will begin to be in the loop?[4] I know Karanacs is rarely online on weekends, and she'll come along on Monday and have to read three other pages to see what we're doing, and I'd like to begin to coordinate that where we can all follow easily and know what's on. That's why I set up the structure there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, have you seen this? Carcharoth may have let us off the hook this week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I just checked WP:WBFAN, and Casliber has a huge chunk of that category as well (birds, dinosaurs, as well as medical contributions via FAR saves, example, Schizophrenia). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Done

Wikipedia:FCDW/February 25, 2008. I think that's enough for a dispatch. I will tell Ral315. Marskell (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you just have to post the link to that page linked at WP:FCDW, and he picks it up from there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I think you have to also give it a title and a byline. Look at the past issues at {{FCDW}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

WT:FAR comment

I've left a question at WT:FAR. No rush. I'm just leaving a brief note here in case people aren't watching that talk page at the moment. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Jack Warner

Hi Marskell, I recently requested a peer review for a piece on movie mogul Jack Warner. The article includes a good deal of information, and it's reasonably engaging, but I know it can be improved. Your feedback would be greatly appreciated! Cheers, -- twelsht (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Tim

I've been trying to research an article for the last few days, and have been too distracted to keep up with my Wiki obligations. Thanks as always for helping me out. Serendi^podous 19:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town

Sorry for the intrusion but could you look at this article? A series of anon IPs (same person based on comments) has added an unusual addition under popular culture with no attribution other than his/her viewpoint/OR. Of a more serious nature, the editor has also made inappropriate comments on the article's discussion page and my talk page. Thanks for your assistance. FWIW, I may be asking a number of admins for their review of the article. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC).

Cross-talk

And yes, "A new editor would be blocked indef in a heartbeat for a comment like that." Marskell (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am finding a vast disconnect between what are held to be universal truths, and the actual realities. In lieu of pointing to other increasingly mundane misbehaviors by many, I'd at least like to point out that leeway is also granted everyday to even the most egregious behavior. Why? Because individuals are involved. And individual discernment (read guessing).

D**n! I've just checked and found you were the blocking admin. Please believe that it was your comment copied above that drew my attention. It is the daily disparities that are confusing me as to the state of WP - what is normal, usual - not what is correct.

I've today read a talk page conversation where an admin's email address was revealed by another admin, the while that four or five were ganging up on the first about "a bad block summary". Only the following 10-20 comments from them weren't *really* about the summary, it was about his 'attitude'. About the block? His summary? No, about his expressed disdain for off-wiki maillists and off-wiki conversations. With a gratutious WP:AGF thrown in for fuel, if I remember rightly, four and five commenters showing up suddenly isn't incivil, right? (cough!)

People are just not realizing how they appear, all the while they are arguing they haven't done anything wrong. Which is the reason for the block you gave. Arrgh! Shenme (talk) 06:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Habitability for life in general, or habitability for us?

Is the article to cover just sub-ice life on Ganymede, Europa and Callisto, or is it going to discuss the problems humans would encounter in attempting to colonise the system, such as the radiation? Serendi^podous 17:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

How about "Sub-glacial life in the Jovian system"? "Glacial" doesn't quite work but I can't think of a word that means "of or pertaining to ice". Serendi^podous 15:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

FCDW - Feb 25

Maybe this is too late, but if not, I think there was a little misunderstanding: "If there's any sentence you really don't like, notify me." - what I meant was not that anything needed changing, but whether you would consider adding a brief sentence pointing out that other broad categorisations are possible, with one of the broadest being the 403 featured biographical articles? If you want to leave it as it is, that's fine, obviously, but I'm saying this because I think you possibly misunderstood me. Thanks again for writing that and including the stats. I wasn't expecting those graphs to be used that way at all, and it is very gratifying. Carcharoth (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize

I wuz bad

For all the drama and grief and etc. caused by my unblock of Mikkalai. I've taken some time to think about what others have said about that incident. The unblock more of me being bold, and I've considered it, and I don't think it was the most appropriate move. I've decided to read through the blocking policy, and similar policies (ie protection, deletion). I didn't intend to have that action rub off as wheel-warring. I could make excuses all I want for this post, but I was simply a bit annoyed at you because of the tone, and made a hasty statement. I think I'll continue being bold, but that doesn't mean I plan on repeating that action. To sum it up, I could've been clearer with my reason and the action wasn't exactly the best, but it was simply me just being bold about it, the first thing I ever did on WP other than reading (ie editing :-) ). PS: Hope you like the lolcat :D Maxim_(talk) 00:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal RE: User:Mikkalai's vow of silence

You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.

The proposal can be found at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed resolution (Mikkalai vow of silence) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds March 2008 Newsletter

The March 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) 18:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Blackface FAR

It's time. Joelito (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Tim. It really had gone long enough without a clear consensus for keep. Joelito (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Koepfli 2008

Hi Marskell,

(I was about to make a Freudian slip and call you Marsden instead of "Marskell", hee hee.)

Thanks for your support and here's the article you requested. The full paper is on the web (and under Creative Commons license, btw). It would be great if you could cross-examine my reading of it, as molecular genetic techniques are not my forté.

Koepfli, Klaus-Peter; et al. (14 February 2008). "Multigene phylogeny of the Mustelidae: resolving relationships, tempo and biogeographic history of a mammalian adaptive radiation". BMC Biology. 6 (10). {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)

Cheers, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 04:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

bwa ha ha !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

March 17

As far as I know, Durova is doing March 10 on Images, and you and Gguy are on for WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 for peer review:[5] Also: [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)