User talk:Marskell

Archived round about 30K. I will respond on your user talk page.

Featured article removal candidates view edit
Sideshow Bob	Review now
The Supremes	Review now
0.999...	Review now
Battle of Red Cliffs	Review now
Mariah Carey	Review now
Pokémon Channel	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now
Geography of Ireland	Review now

Sex Pistols

Will have another look today, Sandy 12:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One FA

Good idea. Thanks for letting me know about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What next?

Ok, so what do I do now, strike, or leave it alone and ignore? <sitting on my hands ... > Sandy 00:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it is just a war of attrition, and that some of them (GAers) do just want it "over", which would be a mistake for all of Wiki. It's a GA problem, now threatening to harm Wiki. There's a discussion on plange's page: my advice is to not back down, as any change in inline citations will be to the detriment of Wikipedia. I should shut up now, since I'm not that effective in debates :-) Sandy 00:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hey Marskell, sorry about that uh, "incident" in the Anti-Americanism talk page, I left a little apology there for you to read. Scryer_360 03:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One FA

I saw you claimed you couldn't find an image of Barnard's star and thought "that can't be right", but it appears it is. I did manage to find the sky survey image around Barnard's star here but I suspect you've already seen it. Anyway, that distraction aside, I've signed up for a few. Yomangani ^talk 11:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With arrow as requested ;) [1] from [2]. Yomangani ^talk 12:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was very sloppy - shows the perils of working backwards from an image search. I'll keep looking. Yomangani ^talk 12:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cite problems list

When moving stuff down, I think you'd better cut all the subsequent mentions as well on the various sub-lists you've created. Just do a crtl-F when it's up in edit mode. Marskell 16:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do that (did I miss one?). The thing is, when I created the lists, I didn't add the article that were already in FAR, so a lot of the ones being moved down now aren't on the sub-lists. Thanks for the ctrl-F tip! Sandy 16:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, probably I was the only one who realized I hadn't added current FARs to my original sub-lists :-) I just looked at Sex Pistols, which is hugely improved. Let me know when you consider it ready for a new vote: I'm just about there to Keep. Sandy 16:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star and Barnard's star

First, I'm curious if and when you'll take star back to FAC. Let me know when you do. It's just the sort of core topic that ought to be FA and you've done a lot of work.

I took another look at the star page; compared it to some of the other language versions, and I found a few additions I wanted to make so it feels more complete. I'd like to expand the history section a little more and also include a sub-section on metallicity under the characteristics section. But hopefully soon. Thanks for the interest.

Also, I was wondering if you wanted to look at Barnard's star for which I've started a PR here. I think I can safely summarize a science abstract from a copy edit standpoint, but I need someone to double-check the numbers.

Okay, I'll take a look at the PR. — RJH (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-lingual then? ;). Any help appreciated. Marskell 21:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I know a little french—just enough to get myself in trouble—but usually I just use the google translation links on the foreign-language wikipedia pages. :-) — RJH (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you need someone who speaks French I can help. I found some pictures of Barnard's star here (pictures format is odd), or here (should be PD) or here but has to ask for permission. Poppypetty 00:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Pistols

Thanks for your kind words, and good work yourself on copy editing over the last few weeks. I have, somewhere, a specific book - Savage's - that would be very good on the "Influences and cultural legacy" section, but I just can't find it for now...one of those books given on loan but never returned, I'd guess.

That said, I'm not keen on this area of music articles - contextualising isn't particularly encyclopedic, and legacy usually decends into a list of band that have name dropped in early interviews. But anyway, I'll try and incorporate the suggestion made at the FAR today, over the weekend.

BTW, the royal family had to be pushed to comment on Diana's death, not to mind "God Save The Queen"! - Coil00 22:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "we shall not have it". Mmm, "Off with their heads" seem a more characteristic responce, but would be a tough one to source. Maybe if I try The Suns archive - Coil00 23:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted! Coil00 18:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate if you could take a look at this version of the lead, and maybe copy edit or scan for POV. I've purposely left this bit for last, as a fan of the band it's hard not to get carried away when writing the lead, and this an attempt to establish their impact, factually, and without too many superalatives. Once this section is resolved, I'll change my vote to keep, and we can move on. Thanks again Marskell - Coil00 19:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for your toughtful comments. It will probabally take me a few days to incorporate your suggestions, my schedule for the next few days is a bit hectic. I take what you have said, and will adjust to fit, but if your keen to close this off, the article as it stands sould pass review. Re: "Hope I'm not coming down too hard ", the more brutal, the more beneficial, to be honest.

Not wanting to push my luck, but I 'll be seeking a peer review for Nick Drake in the next month or so, and I hope you don't mind, but I'll probably request your comment during that process. With the expectation of a cold and frank analysis ;) Again - thanks. - Coil00 21:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arrrrrrgh !! Remember when I said I could handle three FARs at once? Well, I didn't plan on Tuberculosis coming up, so I learned my lesson :-) TimVickers is making a valiant effort to save it, so I feel like I have to help over there. I'll get to Sex Pistols as soon as I can; I don't know the territory well, so I'm going to have to spend a lot of time reviewing all of that back and forth to sort it out. Sandy 17:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to think WT:FARs are more difficult even than actual WP:FAs! The changes made have been so substantial that the article, by the time we're finished, and if patience holds, will effectively have been rewritted, and rewritten under intense critical glare. That said, I agree with most of Punctured's comments, it's just finding the time to fix them. The problem with the sources is my first priority right now, to be fair, i think what happened was I was citing for fragments of sentences, but gave the impression that the source backed up the whole, or in some cases, it seems, the whole paragraph. Maybe sloppy, but in my defense, that's what happens when you take an article from 13 to 61 refs in a few weeks! But no matter, I take the point, will fix it, and well, its been a good learning experience so far.

Re: "influences". It would be great if you could add. I strongly believe its worth mentioning that these bands did form as a "direct response". Its an often repeated fact. To be honest I think its the most important statement about the band the article needs to make, and I don't think Punctured is disputing it per ce, just that it needs to be cited (and it is, just not in the right places!). If you want to reinstate, I can move the refs around.

Punctured makes a valid point about the prose; once the obvoius repair work remaining is fixed, I thing it might be worth asking a couple of good copy editors to lend a hand. We could probably do it ourselves over time, but as you've said before, the review is dragging on a bit now, and needs to be resolved. Anyway, thanks for the support and assumption of good faith today - Coil00 22:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "direct response", maybe we're at cross wires here - I'm referring to the fact that many of the other first wave punk band formed almost as copyists. Its a fairly safe claim to make.

Could I ask your opinion about this: I'm tempted to ask that the review is parked for a week or two; I read over it again just now, and I can see alot of room for improvement in the copy. It's 99% of the way in terms of content, but with a bit more polish, it could be a lot more engaging. The story is actually quite funny, albeit in a tragic kind of way, and this has yet to be brought fully accross. You've done a lot of great work here, Marskell, but i'm kinda searching for a project anyway and would like to take this on. Though, to be honest, mostly as a dry run for the peer review I mentioned above. As you said you can get too close to an article, and about two weeks ago I starting to ahve dreams about Drake. I need a break from it, and this is a good outlet. I also need a spellchecker, it seems. - Coil00 23:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky

From: Talk:Anti-Americanism#Want_to_introduce_myself_before_editing_this_page

On another note, IMHO, I don't have very high regard for Chomsky, although we share many of the same biases. He is a leftist ideologue whose strong rhetoric is shallow and simplistic. He is what I call a "gateway author" User:RWV#My_pet_graph.

I have also found some of his research flawed. Two debates, including an acknowledgement that Chomsky's reasoning is fallacious, excuse my debate style I have improved dramatically since then....

Signed: RWV 16:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAR Noms

Ok that's fair enough, I don't intend nominating any more anyway for a fortnight. Could we get some sort of consensus and FAR rules/guidelines upon the amount of FAR noms one can do? I only nominated another in consideration that it's been 4 weeks since I nominated A Day in the Life for FAR/C, which means within the coming days it'll be defeatured as nobody has worked on it properly. LuciferMorgan 12:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions seem fair - that's why I didn't nominate all the Beatles articles at once for FA review and have been nominating one every fortnight. I'm glad now that someone seems to be doing some citation work on the Beatles FAs, namely the Get Back article so hopefully now they'll improve and some may even keep their FA status (which'd be nice). I'm sure one or two of the Project members would like to string me up! LuciferMorgan 12:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bishojo

Good decision, I thought. Tony 13:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple noms

Just a heads up: we have one editor, PopUpPirate (talk · contribs), who was hit with two noms in four days, and another editor, AzaToth (talk · contribs), who made back to back noms. I left a note for AzaToth; you may want to review and/or add to my wording there. We've hit 40 articles in FAR. Sandy 19:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fermi paradox

I was wondering why you reverted the recent changes made to the Fermi Paradox page. Would you care to elaborate?