User talk:Dana boomer/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA review[edit]

Hi Dana, I was wondering if you could have a look at W. R. van Hoëvell. Wehwalt started reviewing, but gave up on it, I think (or on me). Would you mind? I think it's in pretty decent shape. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks quite interesting. If Wehwalt has truly given it up (perhaps you would want to ping him and see?), then I'll of course take over the review. It's probably going to be this afternoon/evening before I have time to really read over it in detail, though. Dana boomer (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, see User_talk:Wehwalt#W._R._van_Ho.C3.ABvell--I think he's passing this time. I'd love for you to have a look at it. I don't think we've worked on something together, and I'd like to see if your reputation holds up. ;) Happy new year, and thanks in advance! Drmies (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
My reputation? That makes me nervous :) After I posted the above, I saw the discussion on Wehwalt's page, and I've since made a few initial comments on the review page. I obviously shouldn't have promised the rest of the review on New Year's Eve, but I should get to it by this evening at the latest, given that we're getting a lovely snowstorm here and being inside on my computer doesn't sound all that bad! Dana boomer (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, there's no rush on my account. A snowstorm sounds exciting. I, on the other hand, jumped in our pool this morning--it was vewwy wefweshing. If you really get snowed in, John Greenleaf Whittier has a poem for you. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
We've only received a couple of inches of snow so far, but are expecting at least another foot and 40 mph wind gusts in the next 24 hours. So...yeah...such is life in the northern US. On the pool - you suck. I won't see a pool (or possibly the sun) around here for a few months yet :( Oh well, snowmobiles are fun too :) I've finished my initial review of the article, so it's ready for you to take a look when you get a chance, though I'm in no hurry, Dana boomer (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, glad I live here. But it was cold here too--like in the high forties. Brrr! Hehe. OK, I went over the article and your comments again, and I hope I made some progress. Have a look, and may it warm the cockles of your feet. BTW, would you know where I could find inflatable penguins (preferably on an ice floe) to guard the pool for the winter? Drmies (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for this, though I think I'm going to grossly abuse my powers and revdel the edit summary out of pure shame that I am responsible for that mistake. You know, that van Hoevell guy, I didn't think he was promising at all. Look at him, with his facial hair and his weight and his nobility--and he goes out to the other side of the world and calls us out for what we are: racist oppressors. I went through a school system founded on the traditional Protestant values of guys like him, but I never met an old-school Protestant quite like him. So there's my political slant: I wrote the article. Topic selection is always biased, I suppose--I'm much less interested in bringing Jan Jacob Rochussen up to any status.... Drmies (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and passed the article. He was definitely one of the good guys, and topic selection is always biased, as you say - it's the same reason I edit American Livestock Breeds Conservancy rather than ConAgra Foods or Tyson Foods (I only have a little bit of opinion there!!!). As far as inflatable penguins goes, I've never personally bought one, but a quick Google search showed at least a couple of companies that sell them - I didn't see any ice floes but you could always get them a clear (or white) floatie pad to sit on. Dana boomer (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Dana--I hope we can do this again someday. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup[edit]

Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially began at the start of 2012 (UTC), and so you are free to claim any content from after that time. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.

This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Azteca horse GAN[edit]

Hi there, just letting you know that I've started the Good Article review for Azteca horse. If I find any problems then I'll leave comments here. Cheers, BigDom 14:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Colt brothers[edit]

Hi Dana, I have Samuel Colt at FAC now and I have learned a lot from that which should help me when I bring John C. Colt over. In the GA from that article for that one you said you wanted to see more about his sister's suicide and its impact. I found something in a few pieces about the Colt family. Christopher Sr's first wife dies and he remarried a younger woman who seemed to have no time for the children (except Samuel) which is why they were left to fend for themselves. Any tips on wording that John may have become more attached to his 1 remaining sister because she became a type of surrogate mother for him without making it sound too "sappy"? Thanks in advance.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe something along the lines of "After the death of his own mother and the remarriage of his father, John grew closer to his sister and saw her almost as a surrogate mother. Due to this connection, it was a huge loss to John when his sister committed suicide." That's just a first thought, though. I'm about to sign off for the night, but I'll take another look at it in the morning and see if what I just wrote still makes sense then :) Dana boomer (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

FAR DR ?[edit]

Bishonen just handed in her tools, and I see we have a reviewer calling other editors her "drones" and not even reading commentary, calling TLDR. Not a good situation, even more so since that reviewer frequently noms FARs without adequate rationale. I don't know how to go about getting you more help from uninvolved admins or getting someone to consider WP:DR ... any suggestions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

  1. 22:41, December 5, 2011 Brad responds to a FAR post with TLDR
  2. 13:04, January 1, 2012 Brad references "drones"
  3. 17:45, January 1, 2012 Bish queries "drones"
  4. 19:01, January 1, 2012 Nikkimaria warns (but note that Brad never struck)
  5. 19:31, January 1, 2012 The ed17-- an admin-- defends Brad
  6. 01:52, January 2, 2012 Bish mentions placating belligerant reviewer
  7. 07:11, January 2, 2012 Brad refers to Wicked Witch of the West and her Monkeys, The ed17 placates
  8. 08:56, 3 January 2012 Brad blames other editors for his outburst, refuses to strike (Are people really being told to "fuck off" at FAR, as well? This is getting worse and worse. Why is that Bishonen's problem?)
  9. 22:00, January 3, 2012 Brad refers to Bish as "Bitchonandon" and Nikkimaria "drinking the kool-aid"
  10. 23:52, January 3, 2012 Bish hibernates
  11. 01:00, January 4, 2012 Appallingly, but at this point not surprisingly, The Ed17 redacts and covers up the "bitch", with narry a warning, and then a statement that Brad shouldn't "stoop to that level", when Bish never went there. Love the deferential edit summary there.
  12. 20:27, January 4, 2012 Bish turns in bits, hasn't been back except one brief post
  13. 07:00, January 5, 2012 Not to be outdone, and even more disgustingly, Brad next changes The Ed's redaction from his earlier Bitchanondon to Bishonen BACK to Bishonenon and still receives no warning-- allowed to call her names even after he's chased her from the Project.

Now, if you had written an FA, had this kind of behavior aimed at you, and only one warning from one admin, while the abuse is allowed to continue and is condoned by another admin, would you want to work for Wikipedia? If you don't want to address Brad's behaviors at FAR because it might create a COI, please alert an admin who will. Obviously The ed17 won't. I also didn't see any indication that Bishonen was one of "two bickering editors", which seems to be an unfair characterization of her participation on that FAR. In cases where bad faith attacks took over a FAR, Marskell would close them as no consensus Keep and tell the editors to come back in a few months and make a real case, with AGF and specifics. YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Brad's use of "TLDR" and "drones" was unfortunate. As was Bishonen's turning in her admin bits - although I still don't see anything that says this FAR was a specific cause of that. However - the phrasing is not a blockable offense, and he was warned. He is, by and large, a good reviewer. Attacking him will not help FAR, although gently steering him toward more polite language might. Accusations of cabalism, enabling and admin double standards (User talk:The ed17#Disappointing) seem to me to be stronger language than is needed, especially when you're bringing this all up again over three weeks after the kerfluffle had died down. I'm also confused at the admin double standards, given that the "attacked" editor (Bish) is, or was an admin, and Brad isn't. Me running to another admin and telling them to "address" Brad is as much of COI as me doing it myself. The bad faith attacks were on both sides in this case (read Giano's baiting in that FAR, for example), and obviously more than one editor has concerns about the sourcing in this article. I don't see how restarting this whole thing in a few months would help, although Nikki may have a different opinion (and I'm really not sure why this is on my talk page, given that there are two delegates and Nikki has actually been more involved in this than I am). During the course of my several FAs, "my" articles have been the object of tendentious editing, POV editing, bad faith accusations and general nasty behavior, some of which took months to resolve. So yes, I know that being a content editor is difficult. Yet, I'm still here, still have my admin bits, and am still writing FAs (albeit slowly). Dana boomer (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
OK then, I seem to be hitting a wall here and becoming concerned that you don't see an issue. That The Ed17 ignored several sexist attacks on Bish, and that you are downplaying them as well, isn't something I get. Does Nikkimaria need more help in dealing with this, since it's looking like a trend, all pointing to this Brad editor. I don't care if his attack are "addressed" as much as I care that he is trodding all over FAR, and FA writers, and articles, and that is accepted and endorsed, and isn't good for Featured articles or their processes. What motiviation do people have to come to FAC if they know they can be treated this way six months after FAC? Why put your work up at FAC if 1) you have to endure the onslaught of TFA, and 2) the other end can behave this way, and put articles up to be defeatured without even engaging the criteria? Pointing to "Giano baiting" is a copout, too, because Brad attacked Bish.

It's on your talk page because you entirely ignored it at WT:FAR when I posted it there months ago, and Nikkimaria isn't ignoring it. Narry a reply, the same kinds of FARs continued, and notifications aren't being done to boot.

Is this sort of behavior something you want to overtake FAR, because you seem to be defending a reviewer in spite of me putting multiple examples on WT:FAR of how he isn't conducting himself as he should be at FAR. Do you want to create an environment that will attract other reviewers? Because I came over to begin to pitch in, picked a Spanish-language article so I could help out with the sources, found a completely deficient FAR rationale based entirely on opinion backed by no sources, and found for the second time that I weighed in at FAR that notifications hadn't been done. So when I began looking around at other FARs, I found more problems in how FARs are presented. So, why would experienced and qualified reviewers want to weigh in to an environment like that? It all amounts to FAR being dominated by a reviewer who shows a disinterest in improving articles, and a disinterest at FAR in bringing in as many participants as possible to do that. Dispassionate FARs start with a clear explanation of the deficiencies, based on examples and with sources-- not IDONTLIKEIT as FAR rationales with exaggerated hyperbole as Brad uses and no specifics-- that is bound to alienate.

Please, FAC and the entire process is affected when FAR behaves this way, since this discourages people from wanting to write FAs. Please act on my suggestions, make sure notifications are done, and take a firmer hand in guiding FARs, including how they are presented.

Mysore has been up for three or four days, with no talk page notification, and apparently no one has even checked. Doesn't much matter since Dinesh is another FA writer who was chased away by these kinds of FARs, so talk page notification won't help in that case (there's no one left there to fix that article, and if you don't know that history, it's bound to repeat at FAR-- which it is), but has anyone noticed there was no attempt to notify, and no effort to just remove the faulty text that has crept in since Dinesh's departure?

Discussion can move back to WT:FAR if it won't be ignored there, but don't expect much female participation if FA writers can be labeled "bitch" and "wicked witches" and you don't see a problem. The Ed17 presents a classic case that should be in the Civility arbcase-- admins ignoring two sexist attacks when they're made by editors they're friendly with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see the Wicked Witch/bitch comment until today, and I'm not about to restart that argument three weeks after the fact. If Brad makes comments like that again, yes, he should be sanctioned, because he's already been warned once. However, at this point, it's a cold issue. Nikki engaged at the Relapse FAR, and I have engaged him at other FARs (he has a tendency to get into arguments with User:Volunteer Marek as well). However, on the majority of FARs, he is a solid reviewer. You can see him all over FAR, and the majority of his reviews are good. It would be great to have a bunch of reviewers and editors working to improve the articles at FAR - however, we don't have that. Nikki and I can do all of the pinging and begging that we want, and it doesn't really do much good. If you've got ideas on how to bring in all of these reviewers and editors, I'd love to hear them, because I've been asking for ideas on this topic since I became a delegate. I only brought up Giano because you seemed to be pinning the deterioration of the situation at the Relapse FAR solely on Brad and TheEd17 when that is simply not the case. I also find it slightly amusing that you pin decreasing participation at FAC in large part on the atmosphere at FAR - it seems to me that the atmosphere at FAC currently is almost as bad. What is the saying - don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house?
I'm also a little confused when you say that this discussion is on my talk page because Nikki is engaging (thus insinuating that I am not), but then say that "these kind of FARs" chased away "Dinesh" (I'm assuming you mean User:Dineshkannambadi), who became inactive almost a year before I became a delegate. If this latter part is true, then the trend at FAR has its beginnings long before my tenure began, and dates back to when Joel and Marskell were delegates and you were quite active at FAR (in other words, I'm not sure why you're blaming me for it). Yes, notifications need to be better checked, and inexperienced nominators need to have more attention paid to them. However, effort might be better spent talking to nominators then yelling at me. Also, at FAC you have half a dozen people checking for you to make sure the basics have been done (primary contributors notified, etc) - Nikki and I don't have that luxury at FAR.
As to your specific examples - there was a note on the Mysore talk page from early 2010 saying that the article had deteriorated and needed either significant work on sourcing/prose or a FAR. Very little has happened to the article since that note - mainly vandalism cleanup and link archiving/dead link marking. No, it wasn't an extensive note - however, if someone has posted something like this on one of "my" FAs, I would have immediately addressed their points and engaged them for further information; if a note is ignored completely, I think we can safely say that no-one is interested. However, I also noticed that no projects had been notified, so I left a note for the nominator to please rectify this. Easy enough. On the Lavoe FAR, I dropped a note to the (inexperienced) nominator, telling him what additional information was needed. I see that you had already left him a message, but found it (IMO) to be short, uninformative and slightly snarky. We should be working with both experienced and inexperienced nominators and reviewers in a polite and helpful manner, not arguing with each other on talk pages. I'm sorry you find that you dislike the atmosphere at FAR - I find I dislike the current atmosphere at FAC almost as much. Perhaps when the leadership RfC is over the whole featured article area (FAC and FAR) can get back to a discussion of how to attract and retain more good reviewers.
All of the above aside, I know that you have a thorough understanding of the FA system almost since the beginning, and I respect that. I also would love to see you participating more at FAR now that you no longer have the duties of a FAC delegate, because you are a wonderful reviewer. Dana boomer (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I have defended my actions listed (and mischaracterized) above on my talk page. I've also apologized to Bish. It'd be nice if Sandy would drop the stick, but I expect I'll see these diffs again in the future when/if we cross paths. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
You certainly will see them again if you do anything similar again; your standards are clear and have not been mischaracterized. You defend and accept and turn a blind eye to hostile gender-based attacks when they come from your MilHist buddy, claiming you'd all behave poorly if your articles were at FAR (how very sad) and then claiming that Brad had "stooped" as low as Bish, when Bish stooped nowhere (followed by Dana characterizing Bish as a "bickering editor"). The idea that you believe you've apologized to Bish makes it all go away isn't on; I don't see Bish posting, and I do see Brad gets to call women bitches and witches at FAR, and gets to put up as many nominations as he likes without engaging the criteria or helping improve articles. I fully sympathize with Bish: I'd turn in the tools, too, if I had to work alongside admins who took their role as you do (the old, "not a group I want to be part of" scenario, that keeps many from every wanting the tools to begin with).

Dana, I hope you'll reread my post in a few days when you may be less defensive and might see that you've missed the point, misconstrued my intent, put words into my mouth that I didn't say, and assumed things that I simply didn't mean. FAR traffic is so low now, and has been since the days when Marskell was gone and Mattisse was able to chase off Dinesh during the YellowMonkey tenure, that I don't understand that nominations can't be checked when they're new and kept on track as they progress (a mid-2010 post at Mysore indeed). Upon seeing the environment at FAR early this year, I originally came here to ask if you needed help and if there was something I could do. Pointing fingers wasn't the intent here-- nor did I say I was posting here because Nikki was engaging and you weren't. I said I was posting here (again) because my concerns were ignored at WT:FAR, that I noticed that again when I began to review FARs yesterday and found that the trends that started after Marskell left have accelerated. How to bring in reviewers in that environment? You'll lose this one in favor of an environment furthered there by one very offensive reviewer who is dominating the page, enabled by The Ed17 no matter how vociferously he denies that. You make your choices about what kind of reviewer you want: if you want those whose interest in FAR amounts to posting Delist often, you got him. That wasn't how I operated when I was active at FAR. This highlights again that better communications are needed in some sort of FA process newsletter, because the history of how FAR once worked, and its purpose and goals, seems to have been lost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've explained all of that to you on my talk page, but I'll repeat it. I did not defend anything. I did not do anything because he is my 'Milhist buddy.' If Tourette syndrome was FARed, you'd have talk page stalkers flocking to the page – and that's exactly what I said, wasn't it? No caballing at all. I told that the "stoop" comment was poorly phrased and I explained my intent – which was 'don't stoop that low" – in an email to Bish. In any case, Bish and I have worked things out, so I don't know why you're picking up the flag weeks later and running with it. If you'd like, please feel free to continue the mischaracterizations of my character at any time... (sorry for clogging your talk page, Dana!) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
No problem Ed :) Sandy, I've taken a couple of days away from this discussion to get a fresh perspective, and coming back and re-reading it, I still see much of your post as attacking both me and FAR. If you didn't mean it that way, then I will AGF; however, that is how it came across to me. Your statement "It's on your talk page because you entirely ignored it at WT:FAR...and Nikkimaria isn't ignoring it." would seem to exactly say that you think Nikki is engaging when I am not - or should I be reading this another way? I'm sorry if you thought I was defensive - I didn't mean it to come across that way - but when someone comes to my page bringing up a month-old discussion with diffs that I had never seen before and saying I should have acted upon makes me respond perhaps a bit more strongly than I would have otherwise. If removing Brad from FAR was your goal, you seem to have accomplished it - he has now said that he will no longer be active there. I have enjoyed reading through the reviews you have done over the past few days and truly appreciate them - I look forward to seeing more from you and others now that Brad is gone. Dana boomer (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
What about Cirt? Has he gone as well? Malleus Fatuorum 02:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I believe so - although I never saw a firm statement from him, I haven't seen him around in months. Dana boomer (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Dana, I appreciate that you took the few days to re-think it, and am sorry that you still see it the way you do, and that it came across to you as it did.

The reference to Nikkimaria was not intended as a comparison-- just a straight answer to why it was here. Ignored at FAR, can't go there; doesn't involved Nikkimaria, doesn't belong there; directly involves my January 5 post to you, so belongs here-- was my thinking and all I meant to say with that.

I'm sorry you had never seen those diffs before, but when FAR is being disrupted, is it not important for folks to look into the background before labeling someone a "bickering editor"?[1] Should it be taken lightly when someone who was writing FAs when you and I were "still in Wikipedia diapers", and who has always been a sensible straightshooter on Wikipedia turns in her tools because she no longer wants to be part of a Project where editors can be treated like that? (And mind you, I say that as someone who was for years the target of the contempt of her Wikiassociate Geogre, but for Brad and Ed to target and characterize Bish because other editors have pointed out the deficiencies in how FARs are being nominated of late wasn't fair.) Please re-read the FAR in question and explain to me what Bish said in her post just before the TLDR response from Brad to encourage this chain of events from Brad, The Ed17, and then to be labeled as a "bickering editor"?

More importantly here, to the issue that my post made you feel attacked, could we back up through the chronology? Setting aside for a moment what happened when I revisited FAR this week so I could begin to help and found more of the same that I had raised back in October (a post to WT:FAR that was entirely ignored), could I respectfully ask that you re-read my first post here with an eye towards what you think my intent might have been? Did I come here to offer help or to attack? Why might I have offered help? Do you think you took my offer or concern seriously (your response got rolled in to a more or less "by the way" shrugging off of my post in the next section). At the time I raised what (to me, at least), was a very serious matter-- disruption taking over several FARs-- I assumed that you were aware of the extent of the problem but that your hands were tied and you couldn't directly deal with it because that would put you in a conflicted position. I was quite surprised to see that I didn't even get a direct response, rather a "by the way" in the next section that essentially discounted any concerns and opted for letting Brad continue to behave this way at FAR and a nonchalance about the consequences to other editors or articles. That is how, to me, it feels like the conversation unfolded, although I came here asking you how I could help you get a handle on what was occurring there.

On the matter of Brad leaving FAR, in my experience, folks who make such claims rarely follow through on them, but should he return, perhaps he will now see a more positive way of interacting there. In a Delist, Delist, Delist environment furthered by one or two editors, it's unlikely other editors will want to be part of that page; perhaps that can be turned around, because there are plenty of iffy FAs still on the books, and a more active FAR is needed to address those that really warrant attention.

So ... it was never my intent to make you feel attacked, and I'm sincerely sorry that I did make you feel that way-- I came here to offer help, and from my seat, my offer was ignored. I posted to WT:FAR twice last year to offer help. When I was three times ignored, I moved on and started working. Yet when I dug in on a Spanish-language FAR, I found the same problem I brought up months ago. And found more of same deficient nominations from Brad, where the focus was not on engaging the criteria and listing items for improvement, rather "I don't like it" type nominations. Yes, it's the delegates job to make sure that nominations stay on track, and there aren't too many nominations to keep up with these days. Also, making sure that FAR isn't a place where grudges are visited was always a fine line that had to be walked by the delegates, and closing grudge FARs as soon as they were launched with inadequate rationale and attempts to resolve deficiencies per-FAR, was the way it was done in the past and one of the reasons for having a requirement for talk page notification.

Before I became a FAC delegate, FAR was the place I most worked-- when the emphasis was on saving as many stars as possible (always a function of whether there were editors willing to do the work). We did manage to save one-third of 523 articles when the criteria changed-- that was a huge effort, and I believe the one-third was a success. I enjoyed that work when (pre-2008) FAR was an active page, and look forward to working there again and hopefully helping the delegates revitalize the page; it was never my intent to make you feel attacked, I don't question the difficulties involved in managing a page where folks might feel their work is being attacked, but the posts here on your page resulted only because my concerns about how editors and articles were being treated were several times ignored or made light of, so I laid out the issue (I hope clearly) here. I hope we can close this chapter and get on with doing the work there-- I am quite confident that FAR is in good hands, that you are now aware of the effect Brad was having on the page, but you may have been unaware that some of the trends that had taken hold there of late were decidedly different from how FAR worked in the days when it was active, and allowing one nominator who calls women "bitches" and "witches" to run the page is something that needs to stop. I do apologize if it seems like/felt like I beat you over the head with the evidence, but my earlier, more subtle, attempts didn't get noticed. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

FAS question[edit]

Could you please make Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/December 2011, or point me to the person I should ask to make it? I see you made the November page, so I asked here first - it is linked to on WP:FAS. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Dana, that stays redlinked at WP:FAS well into the month, as we wait for someone to create the archive-- I typically keep my hands off, since Marskell was fond of doing it himself, and was troubled when I did the archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks.png Thanks so much - do you think there would be any interest in seeing if a bot could do the archive work? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I've archived December. I ususally just forget to do it, because we keep/delist so infrequently. I'll try to remember, or anyone should feel free to do it - I have no problem with others doing "paperwork" for me (and as far as I know, Nikki feels the same way). On the above section, I don't know. As a delegate I have been trying to stay somewhat neutral - I didn't see the latest flap at the Relapse FAR until after it was pretty much over, and saw that Nikki had been handling it. I haven't had a chance to check the page yet today, so hadn't seen the latest with Bishonen (and, without looking, have no idea what handing in her tools has to do with the FAR). More uninvolved admins would be I don't really have the time, energy or interest to get in between two bickering editors right now - they're adults, they're experienced users, they should be able to work things out. Yes, I feel that Brad should have been more civil in his commentary and "TLDR" was very un-useful, but we also can't afford to lose one of our major reviewers right now. Dana boomer (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
It looks like the query I raised in the section above about Bish was answered here, so I missed that part. I rather imagine that if my work were treated at FAR as hers was, I'd hand in my tools as well, not wanting to work for a Project that treats editors as she was treated. As long as FAR is a place where there is not a distinct effort to save articles-- rather a place that just wants to delist, delist, delist as was started there by Mattisse during YellowMonkey's tenure-- you are not going to attract good reviewers or people interested in working there. Yes, lack of civility, failure to follow instructions, and the faulty rationale that is taking over in nomination statements there, needs to be addressed. We don't just delist because WeDontLikeIt, and as long as you have one reviewer dominating the page, who has no interest in respecting FA writers or addressing WIAFA, people will stay away in droves. Characterizing Bishonen as one of "two bickering editors", after the way Brad behaved on that FAR, isn't quite fair. As the delegate, if you don't want to get involved, that's understandable, but ask someone else to look in (as I offered to above). You may believe you can't afford to lose a reviewer who is not civil, but can you afford to keep him? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
(added after reading EC) - A bot would be great. Like I said, it's just one of those things that I forget about... Dana boomer (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I've already started work on making a bot to create FAC's monthly archives; if I have time I'll try to also get FAR in. Ucucha (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Wonderful, thanks Ucucha! And something I should have added earlier was that I didn't realize there were other pages dependent on the FAR archives...otherwise I would have written a sticky-note to myself or something to make sure I did the archiving - my apologies. Dana boomer (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Ucucha - I do not watch Dana's talk page and so missed your comment here - sorry. After I had from CBM, I made a request at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Featured_article_review.2Farchive_Bot.3F - should I withdraw it? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Why aren't they just archiving directly to each month, like we do at FAC anyway ... why do we need two different bots operating on two different kinds of archives? I've never understood why FAR archives need to be "cut to archive" anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm good either way. I was just working with the system I inherited. If you all think there's a way to change it to make it better/easier, I'm all ears. Dana boomer (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think FAC's system is easier to maintain: just have monthly pages like Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2012 where you put everything promoted/archived/kept/demoted. I'd be happy to help implement that. Ucucha (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
If you wouldn't mind, that would be great. Before you do so, however, let me ping Nikkimaria and see if she has any issues with it (I doubt she will, but don't want to make decisions unilaterally). Dana boomer (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with that approach. Thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
It was always strange -- you'll also have to adjust the FAR-instructions template, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

GAN Michael Plumb[edit]


I've reviewed your nomination at Talk:Michael Plumb/GA1 and made a few comments. I've put the review on hold while you evaluate my suggestions.

Best wishes,

MathewTownsend (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Dana, I whipped up a ditty that might address Mathew's comments, on the talk page of the article. If it helps, use it, if not, no biggie. Good luck! Montanabw(talk) 23:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You. Are. Awesome. I was totally not feeling in the mood to whip that up tonight, so to see it mostly done was so nice. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Donkey proverbs[edit]

Re this I have the paper and can email it to you. It contains some mention of proverbs about donkeys too! SmartSE (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Smartse, that would be awesome. I'll send you an e-mail so that you can attach. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Michael Plumb[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Dana, ya want to update the portal with the new DYKs and GAs? I've been remiss in maintaining and lost track of how many new ones we have. (Maye could toss some of the pre-2007 DYK's from existing queues to save time...) Montanabw(talk) 16:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyedited Large Black (pig)[edit]

Hi Dana,

Steven asked me to take a look at your article for copyediting purposes (I think he feels guilty that he hasn't had a chance to get to it yet). I made a few changes – just some extra commas and tweaks to wording. Hope it's helpful to you, and good luck with the GA process! :) Cheers, Accedietalk to me 06:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey Dana, I've also started editing the article. I've added material mostly from the Storey's Illustrated Guide and the encyclopedia of livestock breeds I have. If you want, I can email you scans of the relevant couple pages. I also uploaded a couple new files to the Commons category. I'll keep poking at it, and let me know if you want anything in particular. Thanks for your patience, Steven Walling • talk 01:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'm probably done for now, though I think we should probably state the obvious and say why they are more suited for outdoor production. Great work Dana! Steven Walling • talk 03:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for not getting back to this sooner; as you can see from my editing history I haven't been around much for the past few days. Thank you both so much for your help on this! Dana boomer (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year[edit]

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Ya know...[edit]

Illegitimi non carborundum my dear. Some battles are worth it. Strength in numbers, dear...  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 00:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Dana boomer. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

SarahStierch (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: American Livestock Breeds Conservancy[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of American Livestock Breeds Conservancy know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 23, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 23, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The American Livestock Breeds Conservancy is a nonprofit organization focused on preserving and promoting rare breeds of livestock. Founded in 1977 through the efforts of livestock breed enthusiasts concerned at the disappearance of many of the US's heritage livestock breeds, the ALBC was the pioneer livestock preservation organization in the United States, and remains a leading organization in that field. It has initiated programs that have saved multiple breeds from extinction, and works closely with similar organizations in other countries, including Rare Breeds Canada. The ALBC maintains a conservation priority list that divides endangered breeds of horses, asses, sheep, goats, cattle, rabbits, pigs and poultry into five categories based on population numbers and historical interest. The organization has published several books, and works with breed registries and other groups on several aspects of breed preservation, including genetic testing, historical documentation, animal rescue and marketing. Preservation of genetic material is of special interest to the ALBC, and for a period of time it maintained a gene bank that was later transferred to the United States Department of Agriculture. It has also developed and published several heritage definitions, including parameters for heritage breeds of cattle and poultry. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The phrase that comes to mind is .. what goes around, comes around... (snickers). Ealdgyth - Talk 23:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah, yeah :) I'm actually fairly happy about this one being on the main page - it's a great organization that does good work. I do need to remember to sent them an e-mail about the article being TFA, though, so that they aren't wondering if they suddenly get a bunch of web traffic. Dana boomer (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Congrats, Dana, even if it is another day of the joy of vandal patrol! Montanabw(talk) 00:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I sent an e-mail to the ALBC and got a really nice note back - they were very complimentary on the completeness/accuracy of the article. It's things like that that make up for the stress-inducing parts of WP. Dana boomer (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
It's nice when that happens, given the constant backdrop of "Wikipedia is unreliable". When I was writing the Halifax Gibbet article I contacted the local museum that has the original axe blade. Like you, I got a nice note back saying that the Wikipedia article was more informative than their own leaflet on the subject, and suggesting a couple of additional sources I might like to look at. And of course there's Ealdgyth's carousel article, which is also excellent. Well done us! Malleus Fatuorum 18:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Dana, congratulations! Great article. An FA without a picture--how are the masses going to get interested? ("I'm a visual learner so I couldn't read Oedipus for class today.") Also, I think Wikipedia is a bit old-fashioned: we should tweet the entire article. Can you please summarize in no more than 140 characters? All the best, Drmies (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Not sure what you mean by no pictures - the article is headed by the logo, which is common practice in organization articles, and includes quite a few other pictures of breeds helped/listed by the organization. I don't do Tweeting, but possibly something like "The American Livestock Breeds Conservancy is a nonprofit organization focused on preserving and promoting rare breeds of livestock." (Not sure how many characters that is...if short, you could add something like "It has been instrumental in saving several endangered breeds of livestock".). Dana boomer (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No picture on the front page, I meant--I'm going to guess that fair use doesn't cover that. No, I won't be tweeting it myself, but I gathered that tweeting is now a mandatory exercise in some literature classes. Whoever runs the front page could do that--some smart person a lot younger than me. Again, congrats on your fine work. Which reminds me: I just started reading a book which has three really nice horses in the opening chapter and a man who tends to them lovingly. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, I see what you mean now. Yes, fair use does not cover front-page appearances. I'm a little surprised that they didn't just pick one of the breed images used in the article, or some generic "animals in a pasture" image, but whatever. As for "tweeting is now a mandatory exercise in some literature classes" - are you serious? Tweeting =/= literature, IMO, and I'm fairly sure that if my college English/lit profs were dead, they would be rolling over in their graves. I have not read that book, but it sounds interesting. Dana boomer (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chennai/archive2[edit]

Dana, sorry I haven't been able to address your earlier note on this, I've been away from WP for a while, I'll try to do something over the next few days. Also, why are all the Chennai Super Kings links included on this page? Probably some template somewhere but I couldn't figure it out. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing your input. As for the links, the template searches for all FACs/FARs that begin with the title of the article, so Chennai brings up Chennai Super Kings, Australia brings up Australian football, etc. I agree that it's weird, but don't know if there's a way to prevent those links from showing up. Any TPSs know? Dana boomer (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

War Horse[edit]

We just saw this movie. Great flick, as always with Spielberg. And for you stalkers, the horse lives. Dana, is it true that in WWI more horses died than people? PumpkinSky talk 21:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if that's true or not. The numbers of horses lost by many countries was not well tracked during the war. Britain lost almost half a million horses, or one horse for every two men lost. In writing Horses in World War I, I was unable to find solid statistics for how many horses were lost overall. The US sent over a million horses overseas during the war, with only about 200 returning to the US, and Australia shipped over 135,000 overseas, with only one returning. However, not all of these horses were killed in the war - some were slaughtered afterwards and some were sold to local populations. The Brooke Hospital for Animals was formed after the war in response to a young British woman seeing the neglect and abuse many British horses was facing after being sold in Egypt rather than being taken back to Britain. I still haven't seen the movie, however - my schedule keeps not allowing it. Dana boomer (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. The story of Albert and his horse Joey is really neat. The sad part is the suffering horses (and other animals) endure during war, but that it's good this film makes people aware of that. I once saw a cemetery for war dogs, something else few think to remember.PumpkinSky talk 23:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Might be useful[edit]

Seeing some activity on a certain article, searched Flickr, found these highlights (some already in commons, I think), might be helpful if licensing stuff is copacetic: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], (this one unusual and cool), I think same horse as current lead photo, a goofy reenactor,or two- amusing, [8], [9]. Montanabw(talk) 18:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Please start doing this yourself!!![edit]

Hi, Dana! Yes, you were right, I had missed out the quotation marks round the page title of the reference at Haflinger, sorry about that. However, in "fixing" the reference, you removed the English translation of the title, in my view rather more important. I'll restore it soon.

I am full of admiration for the work you did on the "culture and trivia" parts of the Donkey article, stuff I myself would most definitely not have had the patience to do. I do note, however, that the references you added did not conform to the format (list-defined) then in use in the article. Could I ask you to consider extending to other editors the same courtesy you demand from them? I'll fix those soon too.

By the way, what would you say to splitting that whole culture section off into a separate entity, say Donkeys in culture? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem wasn't the quotation marks - it was the lack of use of the cite web template that is used by all other references in the article. On Donkey, as the primary contributor to the article, I see no reason to use a reference format that I find clumsy and hard to use. I agreed to the change in the reference format because I assumed you were planning to do significant cleanup work on the article - something that has not happened. I'm not going to argue with you about the format now, but if I continue doing significant work on the article (having rewritten and sourced two major sections now) I may ask for the format to be changed back. No, the popular culture section does not need to be its own article. It should probably be trimmed, actually, to remove some more of the more trivia mentions. Dana boomer (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I favor continuing work on the main article and not creating a bunch of content forks and stubs. Donkeys, like other domestic animals, need their own broad overview article. Let me know if you need any specific help, particularly on the science--nutrition and anatomy-- sections. I think I did the last cleanup on the nutrition stuff and could find more sources if you need them. Montanabw(talk) 22:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter[edit]


WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is Conradh na Gaeilge Grapple X (submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by Minnesota Ruby2010 (submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is Mauritius Jivesh boodhun (submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.

  • Florida 12george1 (submissions) was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
  • Florida 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
  • Russia Sp33dyphil (submissions) was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
  • Russia Sp33dyphil (submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
  • Byzantine Empire Speciate (submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
  • Mauritius Jivesh boodhun (submissions) was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Swedish heraldry FAC[edit]

I recently nominated Swedish heraldry for WP:FAC, and we need knowledgeable editors to comment on the article. Since you have been a contributor to that article, I hope you will take some time to look it over and leave your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Swedish heraldry/archive1. Thank you for your time and your contributions! Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

GA Award.png The Good Article Reviewer's Medal of Merit
It is with great admiration that I award you this barnstar for completing Good Article reviews for the December 2011 Good Article Nomination backlog elimination drive Cheers,AstroCog (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sir Edmund Andros[edit]

I believe that this article is about ready for re-nomination. I should get to that later tonight; I'm working on some last-minute revisions still. Sorry if my responses on the last review were far from prompt; I hope to do better this time! DCItalk 02:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Work needed for West Bengal[edit]

Hello! Thank you for the notification in the talk page of West Bengal for the large amount of work needed in the article. As a major contributor to the article, may I request you something? Major contributors to the article are, as of today, busy in the FARC of Kolkata (the capital of this state!). The FARC is going good, and we expect that to be over soon. Can we please wait a few days more before major works can be done in West Bengal? It is better to take articles one by one! Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course! I had no intention of nominating the article for FAR right away - I was more just trying to gauge if there was anyone interested in working on it. I'd much prefer that cleanup work was done without the need for a FAR - less stressful and procedural for everyone that way. Please let me know if you would like additional comments on the article once the tags are taken care of. Dana boomer (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Clean-up tags are taken care of. Updating references, and formatting to maintain internal consistency is going on (about one third done). After this, prose improvement will be attempted. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Online Ambassador, Spring 2012[edit]

Hi, Dana! As you may know, the Wikipedia Education Program has instilled a new set of standards that courses must meet to officially join the program for the semester. As you can see, one of the requirements is that at least one ambassador or professor is a Wikipedian, as this should give students more access to helpful information about contributing to Wikipedia and creating good content. You are listed on the Online Ambassador page; are you still interested in remaining active this semester? Some of these classes will have to remove themselves from the program should they fail to meet these standards, but we would like to ensure that new students are receiving proper support during the editing process. Please let me know if you are still interested in mentoring these students this semester and/or visit the Online Ambassador talk page to select a course that still needs an Online Ambassador. Thank you! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview[edit]

Dear Dana,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.


Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

GAN Large Black (pig)[edit]


I'm reviewing your nomination and made a few comments at Talk:Large Black (pig). All in all, it looks good!

Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There's an edit war going on over this article. I'll wait and see what happens before I do further reviewing. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
This is an update, in case you don't see it.[10] It's not possible for me to continue the review unless the editors of Large Black (pig) engage with each other. As you can see from this,[11] you and Justlettersandnumbers are the major editors (after Steven Walling) and must communicate constructively if this review is to go forward. Speaking for myself, it was horrifying and dismaying that an editor uninvolved with the article at all reverted my edits to the article with a incomprehensible (to me) edit summary: "Revert a sudden number of edits added without consensus since GA nom that are confusing the reviewer", when most of those edits were mine. Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Mathew, more on your talk page. Montanabw(talk) 23:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Alert to any TPS of Dana[edit]

Me and my big mouth, but I have now filed an ANI on Justlettersandnumbers, due to his ongoing harassment of Dana. Please take note of the discussion here: Wikipedia:ANI#Justlettersandnumbers. This probably needs more than an ANI, but an ANI is all I have the gumption for. I encourage Dana's friends and supporters to weigh in. This isn't about me or my interactions with JLAN, it's about Dana, and my wish to see JLAN stop picking on her. His defense of himself just insulted her up the wazoo: He said " I believe her to be essentially a good-faith editor, hampered by an inflated or even non-neutral view of the importance of all things American, an excessively proprietorial attitude to articles she has worked on, a lack of common courtesy and a rather poor prose style." WHAT!!!! I now somewhat regret that I filed this, (not enough to withdraw it, though) but when I saw him attacking her excellent work on Donkey and then Large Black (pig), (which I had never edited), I just saw red. This bully must be stopped. The discussion needs to not be about me, it needs Dana's friends and supporters to weigh in. Montanabw(talk) 21:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


Hi, Dana, I feel like I owe you an apology. When I said I agreed with JLAN's assessment, I meant the general gist of it. I later realised that you interpreted this to mean I agreed with his assessment of your writing skills and level of courtesy. I actually did not review these things and therefore have no knowledge of them. I should have been clearer as to what parts of his assessment I agreed with. I will try to be more careful about this kind of thing in the future. Regards, --Dianna (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you for the clarification. I did indeed think that you meant you agreed with his assessment of my character and writing skills, which, as you can tell, rather got my back up. Apology accepted, and I offer one of my own to reacting to what I thought you meant instead of what you actually meant. I look forward to working with you in the future. Dana boomer (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
I've just been through the current AN/I, and the whole mess you seem to have got caught up in. I've got to say, I'm impressed at how well you've kept your composure throughout. Wikipedia needs more editors like you and I'm proud to be part of the same project as an editor who handles situations as you do. WormTT · (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Wow, thank you very much! This was definitely not expected, but is much appreciated. This whole situation has been very frustrating for me, and I have felt harassed at times, but I'm glad to see that others think I have been civil - sometimes it is much harder to monitor one's self then it is to monitor others. Dana boomer (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
You have been civil. Sometimes too civil (grin). But I'll unbelt the gladiator sword. Just remember that the only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. And maybe the wikipedia spats aren't really a battle between good and evil, but the principle is out there -- fight for what matters to you! So maybe do a better job of choosing your battles than I do, but if you ever choose one and need a hand, I shall be there. Montanabw(talk) 03:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Question on featured article cleanup[edit]

Hi! I have been working on clean up of two FAs that are on the top of clan up list : West Bengal and Darjeeling. They have categories "All article with potentially dated statement", "Articles containing potentially dated statement since 2009, 2010" etc. How do know which sentences/sections of those articles have those potentially dated statements? I have cleaned up dead links and "citation needed" tags, but finding it difficult to address those dated statement issues. Of note, Darjeeling underwent an FAR in 2010. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

These categories are generated by the "as of" template that can only be seen in the edit window. For example, the Flora and fauna section of Darjeeling, when in the edit window, as {{As of|2009}}. These do not need to be "fixed" as broken links or fact tags do, but are more of a note that these areas of the article could be out of date. For example, if there is an article with "as of 2001", the information is over a decade out of date and could stand to be updated. Dated statements from 2009-2011 are generally OK, although more recent data is always preferable if you can find it. I know that the cleanup list shows these as cleanup templates, but generally I ignore them, unless they are quite old. Hope this helps; please let me know if you have any further questions. Thank you so much for doing the necessary cleanup work on these articles! Dana boomer (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. I will find out those tags, and take necessary action.Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I have another question. In West Bengal, "original research" tag is there. I suspect this was inserted especially to address certain sections such as "Culture". Is there any way that I can find out where exactly the OR tag is pointing to? While we are trying to update and improve references for the whole article, it would be easier if we know whether any parts need more and urgent attention. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Generally, an editor is supposed to leave a post on the talk page when they add an OR tag, explaining what parts of the article they have an issue with. If the editor in question didn't do this, I would suggest asking them on their talk page. If they decline to reply, or are inactive, then read through the article yourself and perhaps ask another editor to do the same. If you (and anyone else) find something you think is OR, then fix it and remove the tag; if you can't find anything, just remove the tag without further delay. Like I said, editors aren't supposed to tag an article as OR without further explanation; unfortunately, it happens quite a bit. Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I am contacting the editor who inserted the tag. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Andros GAN[edit]

I replied to you on the Andros review page, and added replies to several of your other comments. I added a full paragraph on the "shipping the captives to Boston" incident that was under-sourced or confusing in the article. dci | TALK 19:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Kolkata FARC[edit]

Would appreciate your comments in the FARC of Kolkata. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Nokota Horse[edit]

Thank you Dana, for contacting me, and please pardon my mistakes, i have a lot to learn. But i do also have a lot of experience and connections with the Nokota Horses, so i am glad that you initiated a discussion and think that by working together we can make the article much stronger :-) i (seth Zeigler, i am actually logged in under my wife's account but will make changes in the future under my own, we just always work better together as a team!) lived on the Kuntz family ranch with Frank and Leo and these horses for a decade and am the registrar of the breed since 2001. My Swedish wife and i are now very active with Nokota horses here in Sweden, our new home, and unfortunately i do not have immediate access to all of the myriad resources, especially the enormous report by Castle McLaughlin: The History and Status of the Wild Horses of Theodore Roosevelt National Park. Theodore Roosevelt Nature and History Association. 1989. On the other hand, a friend just sent us an old newspaper article from USAgriculture, March 23 1993 that can be very helpful, although i am eager to discuss changes before making or reinstating them :-) And i am unsure if i should upload this article from an ag newspaper, so please just let me know what is best.

The 6th paragraph reads "Life in the Badlands hasn't been easy. The park has tried various methods to eliminate the wild bands since the mid-50s." Castle's report elaborates on all of this immensely, but unfortunately does not exist in electronic form.

The article continues "The horses have found champions in Linton, N.D., horseman Leo and Frank Kuntz. Over the last dozen years the brothers hae put together a herd of 150 horses, all with the distinctive conformation and coloring of the Sioux horse. And they've set up a breed registraton - The Nokota - to keep track of them." ... "Kuntz also values their speed and toughness. He's competed for years inthe Great American Horse Race, a high speed run through extremely tough terrain. It was formerly called a 'Suicide Race'. 'Our main race horse came right out of the park,'Kuntz said. 'He's a red roan with a bald face and white spots on the side. He neber messed up. He always brought his gas money.' Kuntz got a few wild horses from the park to breed to his thoroughbreds and running quarter horses, hoping to add agility and stamina. But the pure park stock was faster, tougher, and more level-headed than anything he could breed them to. His 'main horse' is 17, but Kuntz said 'I could still put a lot of modern-day horses in the ground with him'."

Later in this same article it states "In 1986, the park rounded up and auctioned of all the horses that looked like the old Sioux type. Leo and Frank outbid killer buyers to take nearly 60 horses home - including the park's dominant horse, a magnificant blue roan stallion. After the auction, a half-dozen new stallions were turned loose in the park: quarter horss, Arabs, thoroughbreds, even a Shire-cross bucking horse stallion. Park officials feld local ranchers would pay more for modern breeds and bucking prospects at the surplus animal auctions."

So this is some support for the changes i made beginning on line 11, though other changes come from my personal experience with these horses. i was literally there at the table before the lawsuit ever began when Leo was begging the people who would go on to form the Nokota Horse Association to use some other name, like "North Dakota Badlands Horse" for the horses presently removed from the park that did not meet the Nokota Horse Conservancy's registration guidelines of minimum percentage foundation breeding. Leo explained how he had created the name "Nokota" simply by combining the words North and Dakota and that it had a lot of precedent describing the original type of horse in the park and use with the already long standing Nokota Horse breed registry. And i was a part of the litigation that ensued and respect all who wish to help preserve and promote both the original type of horses from the park and those found there today, so that is why i tried to mention The North Dakota Badlands Horse Registry that resulted and explain its difference. Yet i do not know how to reference this and defer to your wisdom :-)

i also apologize for being so slow to respond, as i did not notice your changes until now. But i thank you for your help and hope that this gives us a good starting point to make this certainly good article even better :-)

Emma.zeigler (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Seth.d.zeigler (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Seth, and thank for getting back to me on this! It's always good to work with someone who has real-world knowledge of the breed. With the USAgriculture article, you don't need to upload it, but can you give me some additional details? I'm specifically looking for the title of the article, the author if given, and the page of the newsletter it was on. I may be able to get the McLaughlin report through inter-library loan at my local library, but if I can (and as far as I can see it's only held by one library in the US, so I may not be able to) it will most likely take a few weeks, so we'll have to be patient :) Unfortunately, personal experience doesn't fit with Wikipedia's verifiability policy, which sucks in situations like this. Do you know of any sources that give this version of the naming of the breed? Basically, since we have a reliable source that gives one story, we can't contradict this without another reliable source to back up the information. In the meantime, until I can get this information from you, I've done a bit of work on the article to include information on the NDBHR. Due to Wikipedia convention, the lead of the article (the first couple of paragraphs, before the first section header) should only summarize information found in the body, it shouldn't include new information. Due to this, when we add information in from your new sources (thank you so much for providing these, by the way!) we'll add most of it and the reference formatting into the body and then brief statements summarizing the new info into the lead. If you have any questions on this (I know that WP's policies can be a labyrinth to a newcomer) please let me know. Thanks again for being willing to collaborate with me on this. Dana boomer (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Dana! Our friend only mailed the page that this article is found on, but i actually uploaded it to facebook for fun, anyway, so you can see it at title is "Sioux Horses Find a Home on the Range" by Kristi Lee Johnson, Associate Editor. In the bottom right corner is says "March 23, 1993/31" so i assume "31" is the page number, not an edition number or such...? Per Castle's report, Theodore Roosevelt National Park formerly made copies available and may supply you with one if you ask, but i am not certain of this. On the other hand, we will be back at the Kuntz ranch for to help put the bands out to summer pasture and for the annual meeting of the Nokota Horse Conservancy in June, and then i can retrieve my copy of Castle's report and be much more helpful in that regard :-) In the meantime, here is the text to the article on Nokota horses in Horse Illustrated which is itself a helpful resource that elaborates, among other things, on the origin of the name :-) You can see the cover of this edition of "Horse Illustrated" at and surely many more copies of it are floating around ready to be had :-) So i suppose i should let you look through these and then we can take it from there :-) We deeply appreciate your sage assistance!Seth.d.zeigler (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Seth, you are a joy to work with! Thank you so much for those links. I have integrated some of the material into the article and did some tweaking on what was already there, based on the new sources - please take a look and see if there is anything important that I missed. I will try e-mailing the TRNP and see if they can provide me with a copy, and if not, will request it through ILL the next time I'm at my library. I also wanted to thank you for the pictures that you uploaded last year - it's wonderful (and unusual) to get good pictures of a relatively rare breed. Please let me know if you have questions on any of the editing that I did today, and if not, I look forward to speaking again once one of us has the report in hand! Thanks again, so much, for your help! Dana boomer (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you yet again, Dana! i truly feel that working on this article also helps to better ensure the survival of this relatively unknown breed; Wikipedia is such a fantastic tool for spreading information :-) And since the Nokota horses have really won my respect and appreciation it is definitely i who should thank you. Anything more that you can think of from me would be an honor on my part, including if there is any sort of specific photo you think would be effective? We have a modest collection of Nokota photos available here but always the opportunity to take more :-) i start losing brain power this late in the evening, but the only thing i can see to clarify at the moment is in the last paragraph of the history section. Leo and Frank actually purchased 54 at the 1986 roundup sale and this was definitely the most they ever bought at one time, but at the 1981 roundup they bought 11 if i remember correctly (Castle's report will have the definite number), a similar number at the 1991 roundup, a few in 1994 and again in 2000. So maybe it is more detailed to say something like "At the 1986 auction, concerned about the welfare of the Nokota horse, Leo and Frank Kuntz purchased almost 60 horses, including the dominant stallion, a blue roan." Then maybe in the 1990's to Today section we can just tweak "By 1993, the Kuntz brothers had a herd of 150 horses, including those purchased from the park over the course of several roundups and their descendents.", or something similar? i guess at the end of that paragraph we could add many more states in which they can now be found, in addition to Sweden and France, but you know better than i if that is prudent or simply getting too detailed? i am beginning to understand better how much you do on Wikipedia, and it is very kind and commendable of you to donate so much of your time to the advancement of knowledge! Many thanks :-) And if you are ever in North Dakota or Sweden our home and the ranch are both always happy for guests, and you are very welcome! Seth.d.zeigler (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Seth, I apologize for taking a couple of days to get back to you on this - I haven't had time over the past couple of days. I should have the time this evening, so will work on this then. Thanks for you patience, Dana boomer (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Update: I've tweaked both of the spots that you mentioned and added a bit more information along the way. Do you have a source on the breed's populations outside the US? I've removed the mentions of specific states (upon re-reading, it was too detailed), but would love to be able to give other countries where they are present. As far as photos, if you had one (or more) of them being used under-saddle (endurance, ranching, western sports, jumping?) that would be great to get a little more visual diversity in the article. And that is a very generous offer - if I'm ever in either of those two areas, I'll have to send you an e-mail - I've never been able to see Nokotas in real life, so would love to get a chance! Dana boomer (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
No worries at all, Dana, we are glad for your help whenever it comes and certainly understand not having time (can you hear our 9 month old screeching behind me, lol). i feel that you have definitely improved the article yet again, and we will see what we can do to help with pictures under saddle and will ask our French friends/Nokota owners, too, as we have a really nice photo of theirs in mind under western tack :-) Per sources on the population outside the US, i will see if i can find anything referencing the few in Canada (tho nothing comes to mind at the moment) and if internet sources are valid you can use our own website and this blog is also in english, in addition to numerous articles in Swedish if you feel it is better to reference an actual printed resource? Finally, as to visiting, it would be fun for us all, too, and you are welcome to bring friends and family because more is just more fun and more entertainment for our kids :-) Seth.d.zeigler (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Jack le Goff[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


Hello, Dana. I've responded to several of your review comments, and have added in quite a bit of new information to the Andros article. I'm not sure if you're still keeping Andros on hold, but you haven't replied in a few days, so I'm wondering if you're around. dci | TALK 00:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

DCI, I apologize, I somehow managed to completely miss your responses on the review page. The article is still on hold, and I should have the time this evening to look through your comments and re-review the article. Dana boomer (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
That's fine. It turned out I have plenty of internet access even while on vacation, so I'll be around to address any issues. dci | TALK 20:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Bonfire (horse)[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 February newsletter[edit]


Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was Conradh na Gaeilge Grapple X (submissions), again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was United Kingdom Tigerboy1966 (submissions), thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were Minnesota Ruby2010 (submissions), Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), Wisconsin Miyagawa (submissions) and Scotland Casliber (submissions). February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from Minnesota Ruby2010 (submissions). At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.

The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.

The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) 23:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)