User talk:Indubitably/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

GFDL

They can use the Wikipedia article only under the terms of the GFDL. This means that they would have state that it came from the Westfield High School (Fairfax County, Virginia). It also means that the text and any derivative of the text must also be licensed under the GFDL. I think there's a page on Wikipedia dedicated to yelling at/working with sites that are improperly forking our content; if you want, I'm sure I can hunt it down. ShadowHalo 02:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate any help you can give me. I'm really wanting to get this article listed as a GA considering the VA massacre and the attention this article may receive because of it (the shooter was a graduate of this high school). My biggest concern is whether that site pulled the information from Wikipedia, or if that information was pulled from that site and put into Wikipedia. I can't promote an article that may be plagiarism and/or copyright infringement, obviously. So I'm currently looking through the logs of edits to see when and by whom the information was added. If it's all one big chunk, it will seem to me that it was probably pulled from the site rather than written by the editor. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 02:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It was massively expanded in a couple days in March 2006 by Zidel333. See the history. ShadowHalo 02:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not Zidel. He's been working on the article periodically for months. After the VA massacre, he really started improving it. Nominated it for GA, I reviewed it, left a detailed list of issues, which he immediately began working on. If you look at the history here, user:20176 added what is the first paragraph verbatim to that site on September 24, 2006. The article has changed since, but the lead is the same. In this version of the article, there is a Buildings and Land section that is on that website but isn't in the current version of the article. I can't tell which came first, the chicken or the egg... the Wikipedia article or that website page. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 03:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It has to be the website that took the information. As I look through the history, it was many edits by many different editors that wrote the version that website has. I'm not sure what to do as far as the website goes, but I feel confident in moving forward with the GA/n. I would appreciate and help or advice you could give in dealing with the copyright issues regarding that website. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 03:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've left comments at the article talk page in case Zidel333 wants to contact them. If not, I'm going to find someone else to do so. I took a look at my high school, and it uses the content I added to the corresponding article here. My guess is that they're forking most of their articles from Wikipedia. Glad you found that. ShadowHalo 04:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikidaddy ...

... sounds kind of strange :) Hey Lara. I'm on but not on a break - if you do have any questions, leave them on my talk page, and I'll pick up on them, but it might take me a day or two. My new job is eating into more of my time than I hoped it would at the moment (and they won't let me use Wikipedia at work, the lousy expletives!) Neil (not Proto ►) 15:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Money

Hello, LaraLove. It's me The Random Editor. I agree with your opinion on the article. If you interested in that subject, I would greatly appreciate your help. Respectfully, --Random ^{Say it here!} 14:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't have much interest in writing that article. I tend to stick to what I know and, although I have a little bit of money, I don't know much about its history... and considering I don't have much of it, I'm a little bitter and don't want to think about money so much. ;)

I'll do some of the cosmetic work, but I doubt much else. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 13:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey LaraLove. I have done a little work on Money. References & Rewriting of the Lead still have to be completed. Look over the article and tell me what you think of the progress. I'm going to get to work on writing the lead tonight. Cheers. --Random ^{Say it here!} 01:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I will look over it as soon as I can. There are a few other editors looking over it as well, with it being the Collaboration of the Week. I'm doing a review of another article tonight. I'll look over Money again after that. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 19:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

WWE

I added several sources a few minutes ago (and fixed several incorrect citations so they would match the citation templates). Are there particular things in the article you feel should be sourced? TJ Spyke 04:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Almost all of it. Read into WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:V, and WP:COPYVIO. I'm not saying the article—or part of the article—is copyright infringement or that it contains plagiarism, but I am saying that I don't know because it is extremely well written and sites no sources. I don't know if all the statements and claims in the article are true because I can't verify any of it.

I'll go through the article again and leave some additional notes on the talk page, but there is a lot to be done and I can't seem to really find any sources for the information in the article, which leads me to believe it is either based on OR or from paper publications. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 13:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hasty archiving?

You recently archived discussions on Talk:Leet that were less than a week old and very relevant to quite recent changes in the article. Seems a little hasty, don't you think? Think of all the users that don't visit the talkpage twice a day. :-| Peter ^Isotalo 21:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't archive it based on days, I archived it because it was so long. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 03:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

East Carolina University

First of all, I would like to thank you for the amount of criticism you gave on East Carolina University. This is what it/I needed. With the references stuff you have to use the citeweb|url=|title=|accessdate= for all URL sources? I think I have corrected all of your suggestions, minus the references, that will take a little time. It would be great to look over the article again and see if there is anything else I need to change, minus the url citing. Thanks:D PGPirate 22:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll review it again later today. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 05:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fooled You!!!

Lol. Well you deserve this.

Review Kaziranga National Park

This article was submitted o 11 th April, yet it is not reviwed for GAC. I will be thankful, if u kindly review this article. I hope you will enjoy reading the article, already peer reviewed and all concerns have been removed. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll review it later today. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 05:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Super Chief delisted as Good Article.

Thanks for the note. It was promoted to GA status before there was a nomination/review/approval process in place. Slambo (Speak) 19:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

To expand (noticed this b/c I have User:Slambo on my watchlist) originally GA was supposed to be simply articles that were good, with an informal process - not the would-be Featured Article process it is today. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Slambo's right, his tagging is way back from 2005, and back then, no article had to be reviewed, it was just about tagging articles that people who were interested in the project thought was good. Several might even still be left on the list, though I think most of the obvious fails have been removed mostly. Homestarmy 21:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand. I didn't know that, but that's why I was cautious in my message. I knew there was probably something more to it. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 03:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Naseem Ashraf

Obviously all articles should strive for a diversity of sources, but, especially I think, articles about living people. A cursory examination of the site in question and it appears to meet WP:RS (the cricinfo site), I have certainly seen much more dubious sites passed off as references at GAC. The blogs don't, won't, probably never will because of a general lack of editorial oversight. For GA though I would argue that more sources should be found, people have to realize that Google isn't the only source of information on Earth and that sometimes to meet the criteria (which as I saw Nehrams2020 say at GA/R)) are very real and have meaning requires a bit of leg work. I would probably fail it or hold it, if the nominator didn't like it they could always appeal at GA/R. I just apply the idea to other examples, if I nominated New York City or Chicago or something like that, and 85% of its citations and sources were CNN.com, would it pass? I highly doubt it. Hope that helps.  : ) (PS-Air Force? Don't you mean ChAIR Force? ; ) IvoShandor 06:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• As an added note a search on the Academic Universe division of LexisNexis returned 125 hits, the first page at least seemed relevant, just searching the last 6 months worth of news, eight separate publications on the first page. IvoShandor 06:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha. You do know I was kidding right? IvoShandor 06:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:GAC - Peter Canavan

Hey, I was wondering if I could appeal to your love of knowledge and get you to peer review the article Peter Canavan, which is a current Good Article candidate. He is a sportsperson, in a sport that is almost exclusive to Ireland, Gaelic football. We are a very small project (only about 8 members), and this is our best article, so it would be a bit of a high watermark of we got our first GA. Or at least feedback therein. :D--Macca7174 21:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you not jump the gun a bit with the fail?? You made a lot of new suggestions that I could have addressed quite quickly - citations, grammar etc - could you not have put it on hold?? Thanks for your time though.--Macca7174 11:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Phil Simms

Thanks for the review, it made the article better. That's the kind of review I was hoping for in the first place. If I came off as a little upset originally, it's because the original comments were vague, but obviously you gave very specific concrete criticisms which improved the article later, so thanks again. Quadzilla99 02:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Peter Canavan

A good example would be "Weird Al" Yankovic. The picture in the infobox is, and must be, a free image; copyrighted images may not be used here to depict a living person. However, you'll notice that there's a copyrighted image in the New look, personal life, and career to present section. An image like this would not be replaceable since it is about a style that Yankovic has since abandoned, and it is necessary to illustrate discussion of what his old image was like. So looking at Peter Canavan, Image:Petercanavan.jpg is definitely out. I would say no to Image:Canavan UUJ doctorate.jpg as well since there's no discussion in that section about receiving a doctorate, and it barely mentions his daughter. We could make a fair use claim on Image:Canavan 2003 All Star - Sean Kelly.jpg since that illustrates a particular event discussed in the article. Image:Canavan 2005 final goal.jpg also needs to be deleted since it's under the {{cc-by-nd-nc}} license, which is unacceptable for use on Wikipedia, and there is little discussion of the final there, mainly just the semi-final. ShadowHalo 05:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably won't have any for at least a couple weeks. I'm working on getting some of the GA's to FA's now. ShadowHalo 05:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Kaziranga National Park

It would appear that consenus at WP:GA/R is to return the article Kaziranga National Park to hold status. Are you interested in handling this, or would you like for me to take over the review? Either way is fine with me. I was about to archive the discussion and return the article to the WP:GAC page with a hold note, but since you were the original reviewer, I thought I would give you the option of handling this. If you want to remain the primary reviewer, don't forget that once the normal hold time (7 days) has expired feel free to pass or fail the article as you see fit. If you want me to take over as reviewer, or want someone else too, that is cool too...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Fall Out Boy

If my edit summaries gave the impression I was assuming bad faith on your part then I apologize. To the bestof my knoweledge. The edit summaries mirrored your edit summaries only with the word "Emo" replaced with the words "Pop Punk" so if that would seem to imply that you were assuming bad faith in the people who added Emo. In any evet, I have never assumed bad faith on your part, perhaps I could've worded the summaries better. I hope you don;t assume bad faith on my part either. My biggest frustration is that I've researched and cited this whole thing... I even found an interview support them not being Emo that I used. I don;t feel entirly qualidied in making determinations about Emo so I respect others who seem able to (just like I hope people who aren't qualied, or don;t feel qualified, in making Pup Punk determinations respect my point of view).--Dr who1975 19:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Something Awful

I've been adding some feedback to the talk section of the Something Awful article. There seems to be major disagreement between User:Walfuz and other editors over what should go into the article, and it seems like the notability standard is so high that essential things are getting ignored.

I pulled something from the forums section of User:McCaine's recent edit that I think does a good job of actually explaining what the forums are, and would like further input before I actually put it back into the article.

If we could have your thoughts, that'd be huge. There seems to be a major chasm over this article that needs to be leapt over before it can reach GA status. - Stick Fig 14:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

New Fall Out Boy edits

Hey LaraLove, I hope you found my new info in FOB's bio useful. Sorry about some of the referencing, I am not too good with formatting that. I just made a bunch of new changes, let me know if you see any problems! Cnota 05:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

what a joke... Cnota 05:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I left you the first message just trying to be nice. You and I have made what seems like a majority of edits from looking over the last 500 on FOB's page, so I thought we could work together to improve it. I did not get a response and I was kinda wondering why you ignored what I said and then directed issues you had with things I did on the talk page and on ShadowHalo's page. Just made me laugh..Cnota 05:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I completely understand how that wasn't on your mind. Just felt like you did it on purpose. I was bored at my mom's house at like 2am on mother's day so I went ahead and added a ton to their bio. Also removed triiva section and incorporated it all in an hour ago. Let's keep improving it. Cnota 06:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The "1" you removed was a note saying that the single was originally release in 2003, but did not chart until 2005. Also, "This Ain't...Arms Race" did not hit 1 on the Billboard Hot 100, but on the BB Pop 100. The "Billboard 200," which is what you changed it to, is the albums chart. Cnota 08:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You know ...

... I think every 'parent' has to let go sooner or later. Lara, I think you're good to go - what do you think? It doesn't mean I won't be around if you do have any questions. Neil (►) 08:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sivaji: The Boss

Hey can you read and hopefully up-grade the Sivaji: The Boss article to a GA. Many Thanks. Universal Hero 10:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hilton Head Island, South Carolina

May I please know why you tagged the HHI article as LONG? I'm just curious, because I have been trying to keep it below the threshold. Also, how do you measure the article's length? I have been using the "edit this page" tab and looking at the top of the page (currently shows 31 kb). Also, what is the significance to the article being LONG in the GA review? Best, MoodyGroove 13:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles 32kb and larger are considered long by GA standards. If you look at the history, it tells in parenthesis after each edit the size of the article after each edit. On edit pages, article size is only displayed for those 30kb and larger. By its history, it is just over 32kb. My reason for tagging it long is to, hopefully, ensure that an experienced reviewer takes the review. Newbies tend to avoid the long ones... and rightly so. --LaraLove^T/_C 19:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the reply. MoodyGroove 19:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Congrats

Congrats, my fellow adoptee... on your graduation. I hope to achieve such lofty heights myself in the near future :o) TearJohnDown 15:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! They should make a little award that looks like a tassel. Good luck with your progress! Let me know if you ever need anything. --LaraLove^T/_C 19:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Adoption Request

Hello Lara, thank you for your offer to adopt me. I would love to accept your offer. I'm not an uber-newbie but there are loads of things I have no idea how to do and frequently I struggle to find out how to do them in the help. Look forward to hearing from you. Potkettle 12:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fall Out Boy

The rationale doesn't make any attempt to state that the image cannot be replaced. I'll see if I can find a free one. ShadowHalo 18:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There were already two uploaded at commons:Fall Out Boy, so I replaced the copyrighted one. ShadowHalo 18:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Template Editing

OK, first question! I'm collating notes to write an article that will go in the { met_vars } template, but I can't see how to edit that template so that it will be included. How do I do that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Potkettle (talk • contribs) 12:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

I've answered Potkettle on their talk page.Circeus 15:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Delisting of Terry Wogan

Hi, I was the one who nominated Terry Wogan for GA status - I mostly wanted feedback on it, since I wasn't sure it was up to scratch. If you have time, I would like to hear your comments on how it failed, so that I can make the corrections before renomination. Thanks for your input --Fritzpoll 16:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I look forward to some feedback --Fritzpoll 17:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Help needed at WP:GA/R

Hey, I noticed you are a frequent contributor to WP:GA/R. There are a few discussion threads that are floundering and need additional comments from other editors. I would like to act on these soon, as they have been up for discussion for several weeks, but so few people have commented that I can't even archive as "no consensus" since we have a near null-set of comments. If you have the time, could you take a peek at the following articles and make any comments at WP:GA/R as you see fit? The articles needing additional comment are: Jeremy Clarkson, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Anaximander, and Syncaris pacifica. Thanks in advance for your help with this! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC) You might care to look at the English Reformation talk page,Roger Arguile 10:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: GAC and conflict of Interest

For the message you left on the GAC talk page regarding the review of the WikiProject Dinosaur articles, I recommend requesting a GA review for each article. The review team will read them and either endorse listing or delist. Be sure to note in the nomination that you are only looking to legitimize the promotions. If the reviewers missed minor issues, we will list those and give the article editor(s) a chance to address them. Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 16:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lara!

Thanks for your note. I've listed the articles at Good Article Review as you suggested. I think both articles meet the requirements, as I've done GA reviewing before, but would prefer that the articles get the standard look-through that every Good Article Candidate should get. I only (co-)wrote one of the two articles, but as they are on related topics (ornithischian dinosaur genera), and both had input from the WikiProject Dinosaurs team, I have listed them together. Thanks again for your helpful message. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 17:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

GA review for 1975 storm

I've left them a note to make two changes to the article and I'll go ahead and pass it. I'm surprised no one else has reviewed it. To be honest, this is the first article I've reviewed, let alone been the sole reviewer, which may explain the problem you noted. Hopefully they can make the changes quickly. I've placed it on hold for the 2-7 day period, as I should have done at the beginning. You'd be surprised how many articles go up for GA, but are not placed on hold. They shouldn't have to pay for my initial mistake...and now I know better. =) Thegreatdr 02:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Trent Valley Line

Hi Lara, I'm just wondering if you could investigate this for me? This train article, with two citations, was passed two days ago as a GA by User:AGK (an admin oddly enough) but I don't feel it actually meets the criteria. What are your thoughts? If I'm wasting your time then you have my apologies. LuciferMorgan 03:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, which is appreciated. If it was an old pass, I wouldn't have asked for a second opinion, though I'm glad you've given me that second opinion. LuciferMorgan 10:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with your sentiment - I've listed 30+ train articles on the GAR talk page which all likely need quick delisting. And my apologies for that misunderstanding we had awhile back. LuciferMorgan 12:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Hey! Sorry I was late at reviewing the article, I just was always on a rushed time limit and never actually had the time to give it a proper review. Dreamy 18:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Philadelphia wanamakergrandcourt.jpg

Assuming the building allows people to go inside, then yes, it is replaceable and should be tagged with {{rfu}}. ShadowHalo 07:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi, I have reviewed your site and I think its pretty cool. You seem to know what you are doing which is an attractive ability to me. I am 46 and have served honorably in the U.S. Navy. I am currently disabled and working hard to rehabilitate. I have a little experience with a PC and like the idea of blogging my worthless views around the universe. I am a bit uneducated when it comes to writing "the code". I have been going through the tutorial about working with it. I seem to be able to pick up on it. I just don't know to set my page up to the standards you seem to have acquired. So, yea, if you're willing to adopt I am willing to be adopted--Crackrjack 06:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Your review

Lara, all your comments are right and quick corrections have been made. Thank you. However, most of what you mention could have been corrected immediately and faster if you had done it instead of just reporting it. Wouldn't it be simpler to change a hyphen than explaining where to look for it? Good point about the differences between references and footnotes. In fact, I was wondering how to separate both; they are awful like that, so I'll look into it. The mention of the crater won't be explained further. Since it is not really a biography element, I don't know where else to place it.

By the way, I don't know why the article is already in the process for a GA nomination, since it is currently waiting for final proofread.

Regards. — Robin des Bois ♘ ➳ ✉ 20:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the adoption

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

Train articles delisted

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

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

User:y4kk

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

GAC backlog elimination drive

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

Speedy Delists

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

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

No worries

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

American English vs Americanism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

East Carolina University

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

Michael Jackson GA review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apologies

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

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

redlink on your user page

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

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

Two GARs that have substantiall changed recently

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

Terry Wogan

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

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