User talk:Marskell

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

---

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

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

Wikipedia:Babel

enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.

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

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

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

• Archives 1 to 21, 2005-2007
• Jan 1 - Jan 25 2008
• Jan 26 - Mar 3 2008

More on mammal capitalization

Care to weigh in? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals#Capitalization_re-visited - UtherSRG (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by primary authors? The revision history as far back as January 2003 shows lowercase on your most recent revert to Bobcat. Bugguyak (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If it doesn't matter why don't you leave it lowercase since that is the consensus in the discussions. Bugguyak (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Neptune

Maybe the second or third or even the fourth time, I would understand. I don't understand any more why every planet FAC has the same issues. FAC is not peer review; I can't understand at this stage why these things aren't being addressed pre-FAC when it's the same core group of editors. If you have any insight or advice, perhaps you can help. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Neptune. With as many FAs as they have, these articles should be appearing at FAC clean by now; they're not, and yet they rack up support with no one reviewing for these recurring issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Prague Spring

Hi Marskell, you think you could give Prague Spring a quick look and tell me what needs to be done? I'd like to take it to FAC soon, thanks. The Dominator (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Saying hi

I was just rereading the second-class citizen page, and flashed back to the day we were both working on it back and forth. I think we did a hell of a good job together on that one. I hope you're well... glad to see you're still active. Zephyrad (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

March 10 dispatch

Am running through Wikipedia:FCDW/March 10, 2008 now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And ... time to start tweaking next week: Wikipedia:FCDW/March 17, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

You recently made comments about this article on its talk page. ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. JMcC (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm keep a close eye on this FAR. I do not feel that it merits a FAR and that it could have been resolved on the talk page. However, I will allow it for the time being.

Furthermore, I hope it does not degrade into a debate about whether it should be an FA. Any such comments should be moved to its talk page. Do you agree? Joelito (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a hot potato; removing off-topic stuff to the talk page might be one way to keep it focused on WP:WIAFA, or it might inflame further. Some of the participants in the debate may not have a solid understanding of WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this shouldn't be a FAR. It's likely to produce a lot of ranting and little article improvement, but I'll let Marskell handle it. Raul654 (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Shutting down the ranting might just push it elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Tim, if you agree then I will close it (and take whatever heat might come). Joelito (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the ambivalence above, which I also felt in noticing it, I think I agree with Joel and Raul that it should be closed. But it needs a closing comment that well explains things. There's more than one issue here. I don't mind if you close it Joel, but do explain it. Marskell (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't find anything wrong with it, but prose isn't my forte. Sourcing is clean, MoS is fine, it's notable. If there are legitimate prose issues, perhaps Deckiller or Tony1 will run through, but Marskell, if you don't see legitimate prose issues, I don't see any issues grounded in criterion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

By multiple issues, I meant the broader meta discussions that surround video games that this article has been representative of recently. Marskell (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it more, just close it Joel. That the specifics could easily have been worked out on article talk is true, and that is enough for premature FARs. We can save the meta discussion. Marskell (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and just because the moon is out of alignment today, there's already talk of a (predictable, third) Barack Obama FAR on its talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll close it today (soon). Joelito (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Tale of woe

I'll suggest some references for Geogre on talk within a few days. I'm slow to add directly as the article is outside my area of interest, though it does seem really, very, nicely written. Ceoil (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't want to turn to A; have asked my fair share of favours from her at this stage; dunno - my credit is low but I'll just add directly; see what I can do. Ceoil (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Usually I don't give a damn about all the broken English I leave behind in my wake, but I there is something about Guinness from a tin can that reminds me that I am just a lone sinner and all that stuff is all my fault. Every misspelling in the world; it was me, i done it. Sorry. Ceoil (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Struggling to catch up on FAR, Marskell; have been dealing with a disruptive editor for two days now, sapping my time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Marskell, as someone who has grappled with a current event FA, would you like to review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Assassination of Benazir Bhutto or Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Waterboarding? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't even looked yet, but I know you're not that :-) I just looked at Game theory on FAR and went ... ugh ... too hard to even describe, and I studied game theory. Flow and prose, but don't want to tangle there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Follow responses at my talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Were you planning to look at Neptune at FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi, may you please peer review Komodo dragon, which I am working on? I saw your name on the list, and I'd like your help. bibliomaniac15 02:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Very notable

Hi Marskell. Did you know that Raul had insisted that we keep the "Very notable" point? I think we have to live with it and if we can, to improve it. But we can't drop it. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Requesting peer review of Facebook

I noticed that you listed yourself as a volunteer for general copyediting for peer review. I am requesting a peer review from you for Wikipedia:Peer review/Facebook/archive2, if you have the time. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

March 17 Dispatch

For review, Wikipedia:FCDW/March 17, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Getting people to take topics has been like herding cats. March 24 needs to be decided; is "implementing Raul's TFA proposal" ready to go yet, or do we need to choose something else? If someone doesn't speak up, I'll have to work on "assigning" something. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review idea

Hi, I have made a proposal that no peer review request be archived without some response. To aid in this, there is a new list of PR requests at least one week old that have had no repsonses beyond a semi-automated peer review. This list is at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog.

There are just over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, so I figure if each of these volunteers reviewed just one or two PR requests without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog (as there have been 2 or 3 such unanswered requests a day on average).

If you would be able to help out with a review or two a month from the "no responses" backlog list that would be great (and much appreciated). Please discuss questions, comments, or ideas at the PR talk page and thanks in advance for your help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Blue Iguana

Marskell, would you mind looking in on Wikipedia:Peer review/Blue Iguana/archive1; Mike's a great editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Requesting peer review of PHP

I noticed that you listed yourself as a volunteer for general copyediting for peer review. I am requesting a peer review from you for Wikipedia:Peer review/PHP/archive2, if you have the time. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oba-mania/phobia hits Wikipedia

Hi Marskell, SandyGeorgia sent me over. Have you got any wisdom or opinions to share about this? A look at the article's talk page will give you a sense of the FACR 1(e) problems that it is currently experiencing. Thanks for any guidance. --HailFire (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been getting impossible at Barack Obama. Now the validity of the FAR process is being called directly into question. Isn't there a line that can be drawn with editors who will say anything and just don't care? Who can help draw that line? I'm running out of ideas. --HailFire (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The General in His Labyrinth

Marskell, the FA-Team have been so magnificent and helpful and generous with your time regarding the WP:MMM. Thank you so much! I feel I shouldn't even think of imposing you any more. But I just thought I'd make you aware that the editors of The General in His Labyrinth are feeling a little overwhelmed. They've made some great progress, and the article is now one of our better ones. But I suspect that a fresh eye and a bit of encouragement would go down very well, if it were at all possible for you to provide them. But please don't feel pressured at all! Thanks again. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Your layout revisions seem to contradict Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines and Wikipedia:Layout. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going by the layout in the guidelines. I don't have any reason to do otherwise! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I just came by to point out the same thing. I know it's open to interpretation, but for me it makes sense to have the synopsis after the background - it sets a context for the novel, which is often important in understanding the plot. I agree that there's no place for lists like publication history near the top though. EyeSerene^talk 20:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

But, as I just noted to Wassup, virtually all of our fiction articles start with the plot summary. This is very clearly Wiki practice. Marskell (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think whatever works best for a given article is the way to go, regardless of guidelines (WP:IAR!) However, I do believe with these articles, which are inextricably products of their historical environments, that having the background before the plot helps readers in a way that would not necessarily be the case with other types of novel. It's no big deal though - we're there to help out the MMM, not fall out over trivia ;) EyeSerene^talk 20:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm not warring with you. It is an editing error. I'll fix it. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Marskell, it wasn't you, it was Wassup. I told him before I started working I was putting the article in use, he persisted and I got tangled in multiple edit conflicts after tedious ref cleanup work, I lost most of the work, didn't finish what I started, and have no idea if the refs are correct now. Can't think of too many things that frustrate me as much as needlessly lost work. Over and out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

ok, wading back in very tentatively, I don't know what to do here, but look at this last version before I put the article in use to initiate cleanup, and look now. The citations at El general are completely destroyed now, and it's all going to need to be reverted. I'm not sure what Wassup is trying to do, but most of the refs now point to one page, the named refs are set up wrong, and I do wish he would have just let me show him how to do it with one hour of the article in use. A revert is the best option now, but I hesitate to go there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(Just out of class again.) Yeah. That referencing has all gone wrong. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If you all can sort it out and agree to have me put it in use for an hour of work, I'll revert and fix everything, but I don't want to wade into trouble. Let me know; it would probably have to be tomorrow now. I would have preferred to go step by step to help the other editors follow and see how it's done correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been bold. See the article talk page. Now off for a breath of air. Back in a few mins. I personally am more than happy for you to take an hour over the editing. If the other editors are around and available, I'm sure they'd be delight to learn more. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry Marskell, I should not have called you a "Jobsworth", that was uncalled for, no "ifs" and "buts," I apologise. I know you have tried hard to save the page - and my temper is getting too fraught at the edges on this. Giano (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)