User talk:Indubitably

*READ THIS FIRST OR YOUR MESSAGE MAY BE IGNORED*

^{Probably not, but read it anyway.}

1. If you are pissed off at something I've done, assume good faith. Most likely, whatever I did was with the best of intentions. Should you decide to pitch a fit on my talk page, prepare to get spanked... and not in the good way. Also note that I endorse WP:DGAF.

2. If you plan to post a request for me to review a Good Article Nominee, turn around and go back out the same door you came in. I'm not doing anymore GAN requests. Put it on the list and hope. If it catches my eye as interesting, I'll review it. Note: If it's not relating to entertainment, North Carolina, famous persons or potentially high-profile articles, chances are I'm not going to review it... just so you know.

Thanks for the adoption

I guess that if it is possible to have a conversation about this in real time like messenger or other source you recommend. I am pretty flexible with availability so just name a time and place and I will be there. Thanks for offering to assist me.Crackrjack 00:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Train articles delisted

Thanks for helping out with that. I was working on it too. Make sure you get around to leaving a note on the talk page of each article explaining the fixes needed and changing the GA tag to DelistedGA. Thanks again, and you do great work at GA. Happy editing! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

All good. Later. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:y4kk

Thanks for offering to adopt me, I'll take it up. I am reasonably competent at the very basics of editing et cetera ... But I'll ask if I need help Thanks Y4kk 18:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

GAC backlog elimination drive

This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 00:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delists

Do speedy delists get archived? I am interested in the {{ArticleHistory}} linkage. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. This query regards Bertrand Russell and Illinois Institute of Technology. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries

No worries, Lara. :) I'm surprised that there hasn't been more of an effort on the part of the Star Wars fans to bring it up to scratch.-Malkinann 02:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

American English vs Americanism

Americanisms are words that are not particularly known outside of the US. It is acceptable (as per policy) to use American English spellings but we should always avoid words that are unlikely to be known outside of a particular geographic area, such as sophomore. violet/riga (t) 07:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what wikification is for. I review British English articles regularly for GA nominations and GA reviews. There are almost always British-specific words and terms used. It is not a disqualifier for GA and it is not inappropriate for standard articles.

Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 07:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. People should not come across a word they don't know simply because people from one fraction of the English-speaking world think it's word. It is jarring to have to then figure/find out what it means. When there is a very obvious and sensible substitute it should be used - all English-speakers will know what a "second album" is but not a "sophomore album". To add further weight by UK browser-based spellchecker also refuses to accept "sophomore". violet/riga (t) 07:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Your spell checker should not weigh in on decisions like this. There are plenty of British English words that my spell checker throws out. That doesn't mean they are unacceptable for Wikipedia. If you feel sophomore is not an acceptable word to be used in American English articles, you have some work to do to revert all uses to your preferred alternative.

Wp:mos#National_varieties_of_English states "If there is a strong tie to a specific region or topic, use the appropriate variety. - Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country."

Wp:mos#Disputes_over_style_issues states "In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so. For example, it is acceptable to change from American to British spelling if the article concerns a British topic, and vice versa. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable. Editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If an article has been stable in a given style, it is not converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, editors defer to the style used by the first major contributor."

Thus, I have replaced the use of the word sophomore in the article as the topic is of an American band. If you still feel this is wrong, take it to arbitration.

Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 07:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You are quoting policies that are used in spelling disputes, not acceptable wordage. When a word is an idiom it should be avoided if there is an obvious alternative. Please don't edit war here - "second album" is a universal English term whereas you are trying to maintain one that many people will not know. violet/riga (t) 07:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The browser spellchecker was a supportive comment and not the primary reason for me removing "sophomore". Even the sophomore articles states that it's a "US English idiomatic term". I have been removing any reference to a "sophomore album" because it is not commonly understood by the majority of English speakers. violet/riga (t) 08:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Lara, despite a non-American I do know that sophomore is one of the years in college (although I had to click on your wikilink to find out it meant the second year of college) ... I would not want to have to click on a wikilink to find out what a term means while reading an article unless there was no alternative - it's easier to read if non-idiomatic terms are used wherever possible. So "second album" would be better than "sophomore album". There are occasions where a term unique to American English or British English has to be used (for example, sidewalk/pavement - they mean the same thing, but one is specifically American and one is specifically British), but here, "second album" means the same thing and is universally understandable. So that is better, I think. I see your point, but it's a little thing, don't sweat it! Neil (►) 11:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

East Carolina University

Hello Lara, I have gone through the requests on the article East Carolina University and corrected everything you have said. Except for the references section. It seems like a gigantic task, which I will complete soon! If you could please look through it at your earliest convenience, I would be greatly appreciative. Sorry about the delay from the last time we talked, Ive been moving around:) PGPirate 17:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jackson GA review

Hello, I felt the need to write here about something in particular you mentioned in the GA review because it's not really related to the article. You mentioned the person whose vote I crossed out in the last review. That person had less than 100 edits in mainspace and was banned, that exact same day I think, for one week because there were suspicions of sockpuppetry. Furthermore, that user's edit history was completely unacceptable; the vast majority of his less than 100 edits on mainspace (less than 50 even it seemed) were done in consensus-building activities, which is absolutely laughable. I was well within my rights to remove those comments entirely. Crossing them out was being nice. I just wanted to clarify this.UberCryxic 05:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I did not realize that was the banned user. I will remove the portion of my post. Additionally, I did not intend to save that post yet, as I am not done reviewing the article. I will not be able to review the entire article (at least not tonight), but I'm in the process of adding more information. The article is in need of much work. Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 05:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I also want to mention something else. I really do want to address all of these concerns, but I feel the best place for that would be the talk page of the article, without the unnecessary tensions arising over whether we need or should have a GA review at this time. The original nominator crossed some boundaries with this nomination. It was done way too soon, and instead of focusing on improving the article, we are left to argue over the legitimacy of the review...or lack thereof.UberCryxic 06:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I can move my review to the talk page and simply state in the GA/R that I have done so with a summary of my concerns. That will help reduce clutter on the GA/R page as well. Past that, as has been mentioned, there is no time frame for when articles can be renominated for GA/R. If it doesn't meet GA criteria, then it doesn't meet GA criteria. Issues were brought up in the review and have not been addressed. His concerns are legitimate. And while I appreciate, and truly hope you are honest when you say, that you want to make the necessary changes to bring the article up to standard, it has not been made apparent from the edit history since the first GA/R. It seems more like revert-happy editing than progress. As much as you may want this review to go away, it isn't. And I mean no disrespect with that. Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 06:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There might not be rules officially on timeframes, but there are implicit guidelines and traditions in Wikipedia that you don't renominate a hotly contested article for a GA review just over two weeks after the last one closed, if I may be direct. Issues were definitely brought up in the review, and they were definitely addressed. I do not know why you made that comment. Maybe they were not addressed in a manner that is satisfactory to you, or to someone else, but they were definitely addressed, and thoroughly too. I have written five featured articles on Wikipedia; I know what it takes to bring articles up to good standards. I've done a lot of work with this article that's gone unnoticed (like writing the entire "Influence" section). I also do not mean any disrespect when I say that this GA review has no legitimacy whatsoever.UberCryxic 06:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm is not appreciated. If you don't appreciate the GA Review process, then by all means, let us (the reviewers) not waste our time on this ENTIRELY too long article, critiquing it's NUMEROUS mistakes and just delist it considering it is obviously substandard. It will save everyone time and effort. But I'm sure that's an unacceptable option for you. That viable alternative put to the side, for the time being, what exactly is it that you find makes this process lack legitimacy? LaraLove^T/_C 06:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I was not being sarcastic. I'm being serious. Other editors have also raised the same concerns as myself.

Quadzilla wrote the following: "While I too think the lead is laughably overlong, this article really shouldn't be here for the reasons Uber stated. I've never liked the idea of blanket reverting back to another version it basically undoes all the work people have done to an article over a course of time and is disrespectful in my view, it's like saying "Sorry but all your work was useless"."

MDP wrote the following: "I agree with Quadzilla99. If this is not about delisting the article, as you state, then this is not the place for it. I would have liked to have seen this brought up on the talk page, discussing your opinions and remedies, before bringing it to here. I also feel that more time should be given before resubmitting it to a GAR."

I don't see anything sarcastic here. I've already explained why this new nomination lacks legitimacy: it is coming way too soon after an earlier one just closed. Normally we are encouraged to wait several months (three or four is good) before renominating articles to FA and GA reviews.UberCryxic 06:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I also like your use of the word "process." Part of "process" in Wikipedia is waiting three or some months before renominating surviving articles for GA reviews.UberCryxic 06:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well....just to clarify a little more. As an example....if someone nominates a FA article to see if it's still FA quality and the article survives the nomination, then it's not appropriate to renominate it two weeks later if no major changes have occurred in the interval. However, if that FA article does not survive the review, then you can definitely renominate two weeks later if the article has witnessed significant improvements. That's generally the way it works.UberCryxic 06:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And for the final bit in my "quadruple-posting" here....almost always...issues relating to content (prose, encyclopedic material, etc) outweigh those relating to technicalities (length, reference formatting, etc)....everyone is addressing the latter while ignoring the fact that this article has made major strides in the former since it attained GA status.UberCryxic 06:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"I also do not mean any disrespect when I say that this GA review has no legitimacy whatsoever." That reads like sarcasm to me. Either way, my view is that no sufficient progress appears to have been made. I agree with Quadzilla that reverting to a previous version from long ago is inappropriate. But (and I'm just going to be very blunt here) I whole-heartedly believe that, if you spent the massive amount of time you do arguing with everyone and anyone about this review instead working on the necessary changes to the article, the review wouldn't even matter. Fix the article and there's no need for a review. But, apparently, you're more interested in debating than correcting the issues.

If you're so experienced with writing FAs, stop complaining and start fixing. It can't be that difficult to bring an article to GA when you know how to get them to FA and you've got a half dozen people listing the problems for you. Do you see my frustration, and I'm sure at least part of the frustration for the other reviewers? You are dragging way too much into this review, just as you did the last one. It's wasting our time as much as yours. There are many other articles in need of review (the back log at GA/N, for example). The time we're wasting on this constant and unnecessary debate could be better served there. So stop fighting every suggestion and just fix the article.

I'll be moving much of the comments from the review to the talk page where, as you stated, they more appropriately belong tomorrow... or later today, rather. That way, hopefully, other reviewers won't be deterred from participating. We'll get the necessary number of votes and follow through accordingly.

And, in response to your "quadruple" post, if this article has made major strides with prose, then it must have seriously had some issues I overlooked in the last review because there are still issues with prose, as I listed with my review. And while they may be considered more important, as someone else mentioned, when you have lots of little problems, they add up to one big problem. This article is riddled with little problems... and that's a big problem when you're wanting to attain or keep GA.

I'm going to get some rest now. I suggest you take a break from GA/R and from my talk page and spend some time on the edit page of Jacko's article. LaraLove^T/_C 06:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well since you are so concerned with "Jacko's" article, it might also not hurt if you spent some time improving it. I don't see who put me in charge. I certainly didn't. Hahaha....just kidding.

Anyway, again I was not being sarcastic. I was being dead-on serious. This review is illegitimate and is the main hindrance right now to improving the article. There are some very real issues and problems here, I'm not going to deny that. I basically stated in the GAR that you brought up many big problems relating to citations and references and all that. I have also made clear that I am willing to go and improve them, and I will. But the same frustration that you feel with me is reciprocated on this side when people violate process so flagrantly. I mean...this article just finished a GAR and it's now being renominated two weeks later. That is frustrating and it'd be reasonable for me to invoke the snowball clause; no consensus two weeks ago, so what makes you think there is going to consensus now? Why put the article through a recently failed process when there's a good chance it will fail again? Why cause so much unnecessary conversations when we could easily close that GAR and start debating your ideas, and those of everyone else, in the talk page?

Furthermore, some of the issues that you've raised are imagined, not actual. I consider a complaint about the length of the article as much a waste of time, me being forced to respond, that is, as you consider me wasting your time right now. Some of these issues are not issues at all. Issues don't become issues just when you raise them. It's standard for lengthy Wikipedia articles to have three or four paragraphs. This one has four. Michael Jackson is a famous living person who constantly makes the news; no surprise at all that he has a long article. In the end, I would like you to address my arguments just like you hope that I address yours.UberCryxic 07:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

When I say you "brow-beat" people this is what I mean. Will you please cease from arguing the issues here-there and everywhere. I cannot keep up with you if you try & change people's minds on issues in places where it is not ultimately, appropriate, unlike the article's talk page. Is there any need to discuss this here, and not on the public talk page? It seems like you are trying to change minds behind the scenes. You reply over and over again, even when the other user simply insists they do not agree. I have dealt with this behaviour before, and victims simply do not fall at the feet of people who espouse it.

I do not wish to create a scene or put words into LaraLove's mouth, but I feel you must desist from over wordy discussion which refuses to acknowledge anybody's point. There is far too much talk, far too little action. You said proudly on my talk page about your 10,000+ edits. How many are on the talk page? How many are article edits?--Manboobies 12:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

UberCryxic, I'm not editing the article because I don't want to. I have a to-do list longer than I am tall and MJ isn't on it. It is fact that you waste time debating nothing important. Time that could be spend fixing issues. And I predict that this GA/R will have a consensus if the votes run as usual, unlike the previous GA/R for this article, where half the votes were from users who never before or since voted in GA/R. As far as addressing your points, the article is too long. Period. It contains unnecessary information that isn't correctly sourced and that is in need of rewording. The further I get into the article, the more problems I find. And, if I wanted to fix the article, I would have it done in a week because I wouldn't spend my time skyrocketing my edit count on talk pages for the sake of arguing. If you don't want to be the custodian of the article, get over the GA/R and let someone who cares about the quality of the article and the value of GA take over (like Manboobies) and fix it. Stop reverting every edit and let it go. And get off my talk page. I'm over this conversation. I've got more important things to do... like finish my review of the article so, hopefully, Manboobies or someone can fix it. LaraLove^T/_C 16:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, since we are apologizing, then let me also hand down my sincere apologies that this has gone so far in your talk page Lara. You are really not the one who I'm having the main argument with so I will not bother you here anymore.UberCryxic 17:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I have taken quite a liking to your ideas and will implement most of them in the next few days. I have already started and am notifying people about my progress in the talk page in case you have any questions.UberCryxic 18:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey again Lara, I've made some major changes to the article today. I'm still not done yet, that's for sure, but I think I've mostly covered your concerns (and some of the concerns of Manboobies). For starters, the lead has been truncated and the article went from 115 kb to 101 kb. I've created a new section in the talk page titled "Improvements and Suggestions" where I've detailed my changes over the past few hours. In the "Suggestions" part, I replied to some concerns that you had that I either did not understand well or disagreed with. Please visit that and reply when you have time. Also please tell me what you of the general changes I've made, which include adding citations for controversial claims, formatting references, and fixing some of the prose. As I said, I am not done yet. I think this process will need a few more days (probably until the end of the week) for things to shape up nicely. Thanks for your help.UberCryxic 22:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ugh there have been a lot of edits and improvements to the article. I myself have had nearly 100 edits over the past two days. So...we're taking "action," as you put it. Please respond to the concerns I raised in the talk page. Thank you.UberCryxic 19:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

My utter apologies at this discussion possibly stressing you out and making its way to your talk page. I will try to negotiate that discussion is kept to the talk page. I know it stresses me out when I am contacted personally like this.--Manboobies 12:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not your fault. No apology needed. Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 16:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

redlink on your user page

You have a redlink on your user page to an editor review.. was it archived? .. anyhow, have a good day! Ling.Nut 19:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No. It has not yet begun. LaraLove^T/_C 19:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Two GARs that have substantiall changed recently

Gregor Cantor and Michael Jackson have been quite overhauled in the past day or so. Could you take a fresh look at these and see what you now think. Thanks. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Terry Wogan

Noticed the transfer - many thanks. I hope you'll be seeing this in GA Review soon - but hopefully after the backlog is cleared! --Fritzpoll 17:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not GA/R, GA/N! I'm sure it will do fine at the next one, providing all necessary changes are made. LaraLove^T/_C 17:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

GA/R

I was thinking of one 1c here. Aaron Bowen 02:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, definitely don't let it be known there that you're using FA criteria to judge these articles! No, no. Ha. Yea. Stick to GA criteria, please. It's already upsetting enough for some of these article custodians... which has been made painfully clear this week! LaraLove^T/_C 03:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't using FA criteria. I was referring to the criteria for citations (2b) and got thew two confused. Basically I'm saying it still needs more citations especially in the ealry life section and for some of the biographical details. Simple mistake. Aaron Bowen 06:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Good to hear. It's not a problem. Your participation is appreciated. LaraLove^T/_C 06:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Hi Lara, I have appreciated your contribution to the recent discussions, and so was a bit surprised by your response to LuciferMorgan's comment on Georg Cantor. I agree very much with the intention to refocus the GA project's efforts on making an impartial assessment, irrespective of whether some (e.g. math) editors have been obstructive or disrespectful, but the way your comment was phrased suggests it might have been better placed on LuciferMorgan's talk page. Anyway, I understand the frustration. I have been trying hard to see if there is any way to find some accommodation between the despair I find at WikiProject Mathematics, and the valuable work that takes place at GA. I hope your comment (and that of LuciferMorgan) won't frustrate math editors even further. Geometry guy 20:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering those from WP Mathematics have decided to bring their issues to GA/R in an extremely inappropriate and disrespectful manner, it seemed appropriate that my comments be made among those. It's shameful behavior from adults claiming to be academics. Blatant disrespect that should not be condoned by anyone, and it's even more upsetting that one is an admin. Totally pathetic. You, however, if I'm keeping track of everything accurately in my head, have been able to remain mature, and I thank you for that. LaraLove^T/_C 19:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Brian Adams (wrestler) Review

Thanks for the thoughtful and complete review of the Brian Adams bio, you are the first person who's actually been helpful. I really appreciate it!

This is the first wrestling bio I've worked on, but I plan on working on more. I'd like to try and get it to as close to GA as I can that way I've got an idea of what it takes to get an article there, and hopefully make it easier on subsequent articles. I won't ask you to review it as a GAC, but would it be a problem is I asked you to look over it after I work on it some more and get your opinion again? If you're too busy and can't I'd understand. Thanks again for your help! - Theophilus75 20:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hey there, I've been working on that Brian Adams article quite a bit lately. I gone completely through it rechanging most of the sentence structure and trying to clean it up some (had some help from another wikieditor as well). I've done my best to make sure that the article is written "out of universe." I've found a couple more sources, but for some reason this particular wrestler is difficult to find information on. I've made sure that I have at least one source per paragraph and have sourced questionable information. I'm sure I will eventually find more to fix it, but at this point I think I'm gone about as far as I can without some guidance. Would you mind looking over it for me whenever you get a chance. Thanks a lot!!! - T-75|talk|contribs 22:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Keane (film)

LaraLove, thanks your your input on the review of the GA nomination, i appreciate the feedback. Thanks Murphy Inc 03:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Information

I am merely applying WP:WIAGA as written. If you can show me where it requires either ((tl|citeweb}} or the many-to-one style of footnotes, I will change my !votes accordingly. It is unfair, both to nominators and initial reviewers, to apply a standard not in WP:WIAGA; it wastes everybody's time.

• What would you say to calling initial reviewers "evaluators" to get rid of the ambiguity?

• The only reason I concern myself with this process is that, for all the insistence on its voluntary nature, it does come off as mandatory for FA, both because of its presence in the grading scheme (which can be tweaked) and because of its name. If I were a newbie editor, and told that serious editors were considering whether something I had written was a Good Article or not, I would consider participation fairly mandatory.

What would you say to Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Style and Form? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If you don't care whether GA is moved, I hope you will not oppose the move request.

As for the rest of your reply, I trust that you read articles more carefully than you read my post: for example, I never said that I thought that GA was essential for FA; I knew better when GA was formed and I first commented on it. I said that I thought that newbie editors would. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

In short, it's a useful tool; I agree. WP:WIAGA does not require it; nor in fact does it recommend any means of inline citation. Therefore it is not an actionable ground for failing articles. Feel free to continue recommending to article editors; but don't be surprised if they sometimes disagree. It is invisible to readers, and I am not alone in finding it harder to produce and maintain that straightforward notes in wiki markup. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do me the minor of courtesy of reading what I actually wrote: recommending that something be done is not "recommending any means of doing" it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care if you or Homestarmy have fun setting yourselves up as judges over the articles of Wikipedia. I would like you to use the standards of WP:WIAGA as written, since it is what nominators and reviewers have every reason to expect. It would be nice if you would recognize such simple distinctions as that between recommending that something be done, and recommending one way to do it. Writing an encyclopedia requires precise and accurate use of English; judging one should require even more precise and accurate English. It would be nice if judging articles were left either to the general opinion, or to the opinions of those who know the rudiments of the subject matter; either would do.

In short, I would like GA to function tolerably. But what I want is to move GA to a name where sensible authors of good articles will feel free to ignore the lot of you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

DNFTT

PMAnderson is trying to bait people. It looks from this comment: "You know, you're right! We should removed the country from ALL articles based on the fact that anyone can just click on the state or township or whatever for that respective country. Brilliant!" that you left at GAR that it is working. If no one ever responds to anything he says, you know, just ignore him, it would be much better. Much less stress. I stopped reading any comment with his name attached, and it has brought my wikistress level down a lot. I don't see any support from anyone for the stuff he writes, he a crackpot. By continuing to respond, we all only extend the pointless conversations and obfuscate otherwise important discussions. Ignore him, and we will all be better off. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

DNFTT = Old internet shorthand for Do Not Feed The Trolls. And there is no nead to strike or even comment on his votes. 6-1 is just as much of a consensus as 6-0. Let him vote; again I have seen little support for any position he espouses. Just leave his comments and votes there without response. That's the best way to deal with this. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the best way to deal with me is to abide by your own guidelines and policies; the second best way is to change the name of this process to something that newbies will see as entirely voluntary. Either will do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Dani California

I edited the lead, numbers throughout the article, as well as changing all applicable references over to the Cite Web template. Hope this sways your thinking a bit and allows the article to stand a better chance of remaining a GA. Regards, NSR77 ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and best wishes. Regards, NSR77 ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. As I certainly did not write the prose for this article, I am now noticing quite a few mistakes and copyediting that needs to be done. I'll finish and clean it up. Gratefully yours, NSR77 ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Cite web and citation style

Actually, if you read the WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:FN, WP:V or any of the other guidelines and policies dealing with referencing, use of the cite web template, or any template, should NEVER be required, and I agree with that. What is required is the use of full bibliographic information, such as:

• Author's name (if availible)
• Article title (if an article)
• Book/Journal title
• Edition/Volume/Issue/ etc. if a multi edition/volume/issue work
• Publication information (Publishing house/location/date for books, copyright holder and last update date for websites)
• Url for websites (preferably linked to title name)
• access date for websites
• ISBN for books published since the advent of ISBN.

Consider these two references:

1. McCambridge, Michael (Ed.) ESPN:SportsCentury, Hyperion Books, New York, NY, 2000. ISBN: 0-7868-6471-0
2. McCambridge, Michael (Ed.) (2000). ESPN:SportsCentury. New York, NY: Hyperion Books. ISBN 0-7868-6471-0.

Or these two:

1. Deetz, Patricia and James F. Deetz. (2000)"Passengers on the Mayflower: Ages & Occupations, Origins & Connections", The Plymouth Colony Archive Project Retreived on May 19 2006
2. Patricia Scott Deetz (2000). "Passengers on the Mayflower: Ages & Occupations, Origins & Connections". The Plymouth Colony Archive Project. Retrieved 2006-05-19. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

The #1 in each case uses no templates; it is written in plain text using MLA bibliography writing standards. #2 uses cite templates. Both #1 and #2 in each set should be acceptable. The point is, as long as the information is complete, and the article uses a consistant referencing style, no one should require the use of a template. I and you may think templates make things easier, but others disagree. Cite templates have long coding, and can actually obfuscate the writing, making articles more difficult to edit for some people. You can ask for complete bibliographic information. You can ask for uniform style of references. But you should never ask someone to use a specific template or even a specific style. Taiwanese aborigines is an FA that uses parenthetical notes. Dime (United States coin) is an FA that uses footnotes. The FA Cricket World Cup uses a hybrid style. What they have in common is that they are adequately referenced (complete info) and that they use references consistently. That's all I ever ask for in my GA reviews. I may steer people toward using cite templates; but I would never fail an article that didn't use them so long as the references were complete and consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayron32 (talk • contribs)

Relax. Breathe. Ok. Now, the issue I see is that many people (including the unnamed person you mention on my talk page whom I assume we both know who we are talking about) have trouble with shades of meaning. No one really cares about differences between "recommendations" and "requirements" If its in print, it instantly becomes a requirement (see WP:CREEP ). Even if the intent is different, when you say "It would be nice if you..." the way that parses to many people is "You must..." That seems to be one of the many sources of contention at GA/R and many places. People who pass/fail articles, people who write articles that are passed or failed, people who comment at GA/R all have differing standards because some people see words "recommendation" and "guideline" and think "I can ignore this" and other people see words like "recommendation" and "guideline" and think "I must do this." The conservative approach; one that assumes that all items in print are required, ends up being the default, unless it is expressely and painstakingly made clear that "This is never required nor will any article fail for missing this" (see the Image criteria at WIAGA). In most cases, it isn't worth spelling out such differences, and the better thing is not to mention it at all.

For the record, I am also considering abandoning GA/R for a while as well. Certain unnamed editors (whom I think we both know) have made it an incivil place and little work is getting done there. I am off being busy improving articles in other ways. If your looking for other reviewing outlets that are less contentious, might I recommend WP:PR or WP:FAC. They both suffer for lack of good reviewers, and could REALLY benefit from your work. Please consider spending your time there. Thanks and later. Sorry about pissing you off up there. I meant no offense. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I enjoy working with you as well. Unfortunately, our favorite unnamed editor has made GA/R an unfriendly place to work right now. Trolls like him, in my experience, generally have a short attention span. I'll be back in a few weeks I am sure, and he will be gone, I am also sure. Right now, however, reading his comments just raises my blood pressure to the point where it isn't even worth it. Like I said above, FAC and PR are much friendlier places to do reviews, since the reviews tend to be more focused, and the article nominators tend to be much more responsive. Besides, we don't have to deal with the "it's only GA" attitude (which I despise), since there is often little debate over FA criteria: It is expressly the best Wikipedia has to offer, and thus most critiques to improve articles are welcome. Plus, I have been spending more time on articles I have been working on and let slide for a while. Consider hanging around FAC and PR and I look forward to working with you there as well.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What's with you and GA?

Lara,

I don't have that much time for Wikipedia those things, but my watchlist told me you've just crossed out your name from the list of participants of WikiProject Good Articles. Perhaps I am just ignorant and not following, but did something happen? It would be a great loss for GA if you left, and I hope the little things won't succeed in distracting you for doing a lot of Good for GA and Wikipedia as a whole!

Kind regards,

PrinceGloria

Lara,

Thanks for your reply and explaining it to me. I believe, however, you are too kind to some people, i.e. taking obviously goofy people seriously when they do not deserve it. I hope you would reconsider and rejoin the project soon - not only your reviews will be missed, but also it was very important to have your voice of reason around.

I will be looking forward for your homecoming :D

Have a good day,

PrinceGloria

I'm not at GA much these days Lara for the same reasons, so I can definitely understand your reasons. I agree with PrinceGloria though, in that the GA Project has greatly benefited from your input and it will miss that. I hope you reconsider and don't let these editors self-important hacks grind you down. LuciferMorgan 22:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Gnome Week

	Gnomes, unite!
File:P1000744.jpg	You are invited to participate in Gnome Week, a mass article cleanup drive between June 21 and June 28, 2007.
	This week, backlogs will be cleared. Articles will be polished. Typos will be fixed. Bad prose will be edited. Unreferenced articles will be sourced. No article will be safe from our reach! The more people who participate, the better Wikipedia will become as a result.
	I would love it if you would participate! - Zacharycrimsonwolf
Edit message

Adoption

Would be happy to be adopted. So how and when do we start? CyberoidX 12:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)