User talk:Marskell/Archive 16

Page numbers on book sources

This is close, but I'm not sure what you want to do about page numbers on book sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me; when they aren't given on the footnote, the page numbers are listed with the Reference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Another one to possibly move off the list? [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Norte Chico civilization

I forgot to mention - I had a quick look after the FAC finished: a fine article; well done! I left a few hidden inline comments in the text. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your eminence, ..

I note that you de-eminentized Mr. D., a point covered in a note at Talk:Charles Darwin#Eminent?. Any comments you have will be appreciated: anyway, enjoy your travels! .. dave souza, talk 18:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking to avoid conflict

Hey, sorry to bring this mess up again, but user Deathrocker (now known as User:Daddy Kindsoul) and I are conflicting on alternative rock. He's made some comments that are mere POV and have been debunked (here) that I would nevertheless reconsider if he produces reliable sources, but I'm more troubled by his comments directed at me here, particularly in their non-friendly matter. I've had the unfortunate circumstances to get in edit debates with this user on other music pages such as Talk:Punk rock and Talk:Heavy metal music where I was but one of many users to struggle with dealing with him and his attitude. However, on this page I am pretty much the only regular editor, so I fear there will be few or no replies to the talk page discussion and that I will be caught up in a discussion between just the two of us that goes nowhere. I really don't want to go through all this mess again and I know he's had a number of bans that can lead to much worse if the situation goes out of hand again, so I want to avoid any sort of conflict before it gets out of hand. I don't know if you could mediate or would be willing to (or even just get him to try and be more friendly), but there's certainly other things I'd rather do on Wikipedia than get into another conflict with a user who has been prone to reverting pages wholesale (without regard to edits made since the version he is reverting to) and has removed sourced material from articles on numerous occasions. Above all, I really don't hold any ill will towards him, but he is difficult to work with. Like I said, I really don't want to get into the whole back and forth with him that many other users have found themselves caught up in in the past. Thank you for your time. WesleyDodds 08:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it, particularly since others began to drop in and share their views. I'm not looking for any sort of conflict, but I suppose it's impossible after the punk rock and heavy metal music FARs for us not to have certain preconceived notions about one another. I really don't care much about the borderline personal attacks directed towards myself, it's the disregard of sources and other viewpoints provided by others as well as a lack of assuming good faith from other users that bothers me. I won't bother you about this situation unless it gets out of hand again, which I certainly hope it doesn't. Thanks for your time anyway. WesleyDodds 06:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The third chimpanzee

There has been a citation needed tag added to your work on the The Third Chimpanzee article

Broadly, the work foregrounds patterns of environmental determinism for which Diamond is a well-known proponent (and has occasionally been criticized)

Would you be able to find a citation or deal with it in some way such as removing the part in brackets or removing the tag if you feel it is unwarranted? Thanks Richard001 00:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Teacup

Would you like to borrow this one, in case another storm breaks out? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so you won't be wanting the matching teapot, milk jug, sugar bowl, tongs, cake stand, plate, and butter knife, then? How about a long spoon? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Renaming and block log

I've raised the discussion here where it will get a wider viewing. Secretlondon 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Citations

You may have missed this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Planetary Habitability

Given the length of the article "Planetary habitability," I suggest creating a new article, such as "Red dwarf planets" and moving most of the material from that section to the new article. There has been a great deal of very recent research on the subject, including a special issue of Astrobiology, and the new article could expand on the existing statements in Planetary habitability while introducing a few more discussed in recent papers. What do you think? Vegasprof 18:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Great Lakes Storm of 1913

I've moved the quotations section to wikiquote, so the article should be fine now. However, someone has voted Remove per 1c, saying only "lack of citations". I consider such voting without discussion to be completely irresponsible, and in no way attempting to improve the quality of the article (the whole point of Wikipedia). Unless that person responds further, please disregard their wholly useless vote. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-29 15:29Z

• Please disregard LuciferMorgan's Remove vote, as he has replied with the following: "For the record, the drive by voting was solely due to your attitude of criticising people who criticise the article." This has nothing to do with improving the article, but with attacking me, and as such can be ignored. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-30 16:00Z

This is incorrect. I am saying that I didn't comment before due to the fear of being attacked actually. Brian0918 seems to think everything I do on FAR is actually with dishonest intentions and I find this saddening. LuciferMorgan 21:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring at FAR

If you're logged on, better tune in to the Military Brat war. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Working Group - Trying to start a discussion

I've suggested getting the Working Group together at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Working_Group to start talking about any potential compromise on the attribution policy issue. Perahaps you can add the page to your watchlist. I have also mentioned this page in the community discussion, so there is public awareness of this discussion. Hopefully you will be willing to participate. Thanks. zadignose 19:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming FAR

I left a question for you on that page. --Blue Tie 01:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie, sorry to barge in, but Marskell is in another time zone. Since the FAR is closed, you should register further comments or questions on the talk page. (Noting that someone rightly reverted your post-closure comment.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons

I'm not sure how to handle this one without a conflict of interest. I was strongly opposed to its FAC, and didn't think it should have been promoted to begin with. It is based on an archive of UseNet posts run by fans, which I don't feel is a reliable source. I didn't think any of the sourcing was good enough. Others did ... shrug?

I'll put a nom today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg

Hello, Marskell. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Marskell/Archive 8. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 23:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Religion and extraterrestrial life

I saw that you are working on an article on this subject. I call your attention to an essay by Norman Lamm, first published in 1960 and printed in the book "Challenge: Torah Views on Science and its Problems," edited by Aryeh Carmell and Cyril Domb. He develops the Jewish view of a hypothetical extraterrestrial life, and concludes with the theme that God may choose to enhance his universe with life for reasons unknown to us. Good luck. Placeholder account 18:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A note from "Placeholder"

I am User:YechielMan, but I've decided to temporarily shut down my main account for reasons that need not concern us. As for the creepy feeling, I patrol new user pages. It's something that people just don't do, so I keep getting tips from RC patrollers who follow my tracks and point out when I make a mistaken action on a user page. Mostly I'm looking for spam, and believe me, there's plenty of it. I just happened to notice your subpage, and I wanted to comment. Placeholder account 21:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

To see new userpages, go to Special:Newpages and change the namespace setting from "(Main)" to "User." I cannot find a full text of the article by Lamm, which appears on p. 354 to 399 of the "Challenge" book. I was able to find a citation with a short excerpt here, which also brings some other relevant citations. Placeholder account 18:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

FARs

I did some drive-by comments yesterday; I'll see if I can spend some time commenting on more this weekend. — Deckiller 19:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Quadz has done great work on Thorpe; we need to work to keep that. I'll run through again later today. I'm staying away from the Lake Storm based on past experiences with Brian — I don't care either way, the article is OK enough for me. The Tax article is still rough going; citations are OK, it's the prose. Winklethorpe has worked so hard, it would be a shame not to keep it. I really really wish we could get ALoan or Taxman to go through it. I pinged ALoan several days ago, but nothing yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

See the question at WT:FAR about Duran Duran. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

A glitch: Author of this fan site is Catherine Munro. See CatherineMunro (talk · contribs) And, it's a commercial site, which has been part of the article since it passed FAC in 2004. And people wonder why I hype on checking the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism

To name just one ex. of minor things that are wrong with the Anti-Amer. page: "polarised" should be "polarized." I changed this and a few other things. Can you be more selective in your reverts? And what is "quotefarm"? Thanks. --Justice for All 23:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Islam FAC

hello Marskell, i thought i'd request more feedback as we've attempted to implement the changes you recommended over the past few days. thank you. ITAQALLAH 18:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom corporation tax Thanks

Hi. Thanks for your amendments on the article, which have definitely improved the prose in the lead. Thanks, Winklethorpe (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Main page date requests

See rough start on page, and also see the talk page. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/dates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam in Greenwich Community College

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Greenwich Community College, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Greenwich Community College is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Greenwich Community College, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 20:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ensworth

It takes about four to five hours to cite an Ensworth page from my experience. I would definatly like to help out in a planned effort to bring the articles to current standards, but maybe this process should be carried outside of FAR. Sorry about all that **** a few months back, bty. Ceoil 21:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Where I am now, it's literally impossible to cite an Emsworth article." I know what you mean, but I visit civilization every so often, and thank god for online libraries. The irony of an Irish person working to save British roylaty articles haunts me though ;) Ceoil 07:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Admin help

Marskell, can you put Libertarian socialism on your watchlist for a bit? There's a move there to unilaterally reverse a FAR and a failed FAC, adding it back to FA and altering ArticleHistory — I've reverted all and left talk page messages, so hopefully that will die down now, but may need admin help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference question

I noticed you're in charge of the FAR process, I have a question. I'm working on 50 Cent an editor said we don't need retrieval dates on refs, but I've noticed that almost all the recently passed FAs have them. Aren't they required? or at least added to almost all FA candidates? Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 17:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You've used a lot of sources there that are also available in hard print (example, USA Today). Technically, you need not provide a web retrieval date when you've given all the biblio info so that someone can find the article in hard print (article title, publisher, publication date and author when available), for example, in a library. But, if you've given a convenience link to a websource, it's still wise (although not required) to provide a last access date; it's good practice, doesn't hurt, although not required. You should always provide a last access date on websources for info that is not also available in hard print. See WP:CITE/ES. The bottom line is that people need to be able to find your information in the future; either in hard print, or in the internet archive, if your links go dead, and the more info you can provide, the better. Bottom line; if you haven't provided enough info to locate the source in hardprint in a library, websources need an access date, and it's good practice to provide one anyway, even when not required. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a matter of best practice it's wise to do it even if not specifically required in a given circumstance; it takes two seconds, and saves people asking. Note that {{Cite web}} generates the retrieval date for you, so no work required.

For the record, I look after FAR only unofficially. Marskell 18:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who said they weren't necessary and these are my reasons. Let's say the following web link in the reference goes dead:

Shaheem Reid, November 7, 2005. "50 Cent: Return To Southside". MTV.

Sandy said above that the bottom line is people need to be able to find your information in the future. I strongly agree. And if the web page can not be retrieved from an archive search despite knowing the URL, author, date it was written, and document it was written in, then surely a retrieval date isn't going to be any more useful. Spellcast 07:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieval dates are needed on websources that aren't also available in hardprint; that one needs a retrieval date. Better still, put them on all websources. It's not an issue worth arguing over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Marskell, would you like to copy this talk page section to the article talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Reminder on Belgium FAR

Libertarian socialism seems to have calmed down. I left a note in red for you at the top of the Belgium FAR, just as a reminder. It's already at WP:FFA, so if it ends up removed, you don't augment the count at FFA — you just move it from the re-promoted section at the bottom to the correct section — we shouldn't double count demotions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace

I suppose it is too late to add that some sections are in fact unreferenced, do you think? Simply south 16:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Brief look, no refs in these sections Buckingham Palace#The Garden, the Royal Mews and the Mall, Buckingham Palace#Home of the Monarch lead, Buckingham Palace#The Palace in the 21st century: Royal Use and Public Access and the others have barely 1 ref per section. Simply south 12:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Tim. Sorry for this late reply. I have been really busy ast work since the company I work for is moving to a new site. It's been chaotic these past 2 weeks. But, other than that, everything has been fine.

After the move I will get back into editing some and help you out in FAR. Joelito (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

hunched

We all profit from your time at the screen, so keep it up! In my spare time (ha ...) I'm a professional-standard masseur—heavy pressure, East Asian style. But hey, everyone else benefits, and I have to pay to be massaged. Damn.

On my recent brazen action, I wouldn't have tagged a normal article unless far worse; but the MOS is supposed to be a model for us all, and as such is an embarrassment if it doesn't practise exactly what it preaches. Despite its privileged status, it has been allowed to descend into bloated, inconsistent language in too many places. The italics versus quotes is one such issue. Tony 10:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please

Please do not alter WP:BLP without clear and full consensus.[2] It is a policy page and it is currently full protected due to edit warring over that section.[3] Using your ability to edit the page while it is full-protected while the section is disputed and you are a participant to the discussion will only serve to add more heat to the conflict. While this is normally expressly discouraged, it is even more of a concern because this is a policy under dispute. Thanks! Vassyana 07:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It has generally been my understanding that pages are still considered protected while the template remains, regardless of initial expiry time. So, please accept my apology for any misunderstanding. Since the page is unprotected, I would recommend commenting out the section until consensus is reached regarding wording and whether it should even be included. Vassyana 07:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

I hope you don't mind if I ask you a question every now and then. I've recently been working on Lebron James and an editor has said the lead is fine the way it is, but I feel it is too short and does not summarize the article. The high school career, Olympics section, and MVP race aren't summarized enoug in the lead but they figure prominently in the article. I hate to put you in the middle of a disagreement but since one of your main jobs is working with FAs I figured you would know best. Here's the version I added:[4] Here's the one he prefers:[5] Tayquan ^holla _{My work} 21:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Exopolitics#Education

• once again, we have another dilemma in the exopolitics article, any opinion or insight on your part would be great! (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 23:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oxyrhynchus

I'm waiting on a book to be sent from the UK, but I'm making slow progress on it anyway. Remove it and I'll stick it back into FAC when I'm done. If you are interested, Io (moon), may soon be resurrected from WP:FFA. I went to start work on it the other day and found it almost done, have a look over it if you get a chance. Yomangani^talk 22:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

Thanks for the heads up about the overview addition. It looks good. —Viriditas | Talk 10:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

WT:FAC food fight

Well, that is what I tried to do as well, to just point out that the "how old are you" line of questioning was inappropriate. I didn't see your initial comment as being particularly offensive, and his reaction was disproportionate, which caused things to flare up from there. I'd say it's best to just drop this incident, but if this recurs (the incivility, not the multiple FAC attempts), then a sternly-worded civility warning may be in order. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"From trees"

I know it's a very small thing, but I can't recall reading an exact line describing an attack from a tree branch in the sources I've read, so I don't want to use those exact words. Trouble with little stuff like this is that a google search will turn up some semi-reliable thing, while google scholar will turn up nothing. Is cougar FA-worthy otherwise? Marskell 17:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I was basing my opinion on this work by the naturalist and author William Hamilton Gibson:

Gibson, William Hamilton (1880). Camp Life in the Woods and the Tricks of Trapping and Trap Making. pp. pp. 161-164. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

Quotes:

"The life of the puma is mostly in the trees. Crouching upon the branches it watches for, or steals, cat-like, upon its prey. Should a solitary animal pass within reach, the puma will not hesitate in pouncing upon the unfortunate creature;..."

"The puma loves to hide in the branches of trees, and from this eminence to launch itself upon the doomed animal that may pass within its reach."

But I'm not by any means intending to hold up the article FA on this issue. Thanks. —RJH (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for digging up the quote. Unfortunately, 1880 is likely too old to be considered reliable. If you want an interesting five minute read, check this.

As you wish. Of course modern quotes appear to suffer from a different type of bias. Thanks. — RJH (talk)

BTW, I have promised to get Neptune to FAC within a few months (unless a certain prolific astronomy editor named RJH gets there first...). I let you know if I start working on it. Marskell 12:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Good luck on that project. I'm sure you'll do well. — RJH (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

UK CT FAR

Just wanted to say thank you for, in no particular order, your patience, contributions, and copyediting on this. I hope that it'll improve further. On a humourous note, your closing comment has given me the final push to do something about my signature, as "Winkle" is UK slang for, well, I won't say what. Not sure what sig change, though. Thanks, Winklethorpe (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the register screen needs a motto "Choose your username in haste, repent at leisure" :) J.Winklethorpe ^talk 13:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't know why

Hi. Don't know why you arbitrarily decided to remove my words and my welcome from User talk:Danieljordani‎ page but I restored them. Thanks. --Justanother 13:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. After reading your comments on AN/I, I think that perhaps you did not realize that I hade already left that friendlier welcome message? Thank you for you input on AN/I. --Justanother 13:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

re: BLP protection

Nope, go for it, it looked bad when I looked at the page, but if you think 48 hours is sufficient, you're probably right ;) Cheers, Riana ⁂ 13:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Peiligang culture Majiabang culture Paul Davids Panthera Showgirl Salisbury Zoo Qijia culture Saqqaq culture Operation Planet X Copernican principle Coalition for Freedom of Information Evolving the Alien Synthetic biology Archaeology of the Americas Vegas World Cupisnique Andy Hurley Stellar atmosphere John William Draper

Cleanup Courtney Brown Culture of Angola Economics of global warming Merge Microbiological culture Cultural-history archaeology Anal probing Add Sources Astrosociobiology Arecibo message Protohistory Wikify Charles Hampden-Turner Tairona Edsel Ford Expand Yasmin Le Bon Coyote (mythology) Plaza Hotel & Casino

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba 14:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Brilliant. How the hell did it come up with anal probe? Marskell 14:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It knows you better than you know yourself. Yomangani^talk 14:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Smee's appeal

Hi. I just looked at Smee's appeal that what she was reverting at Children of God were "nonsense edits". Please see the discussion in the talk page to put the lie to that claim. I am not allowed to post on Smee's talk page both by Smee's own request and by an agreement brokered by Bishonen. Thanks. --Justanother 04:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking into Smee's unblock request. I agree that Smee was doing some things wrong. I'm not sure this level of edit warring warrants a block, though: I'm more concerned with Smee calling good-faith edits "vandalism". But I really don't think 72 hours is appropriate: there was only 1 previous block (and that one was also potentially too long), plus this is at least partially a case of misunderstanding the policy. Is there a reason you haven't stated why it would be bad to reduce this to an ordinary duration, like 24 hours? Mangojuice^talk 15:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, right, forgot about the name change. Anyway, Smee has showed considerable contrition, and has posted a statement re-evaluating his/her approach here. But if you've seen that, I'll leave it to you. I think the continuation of the block doesn't serve much of a purpose now. Mangojuice^talk 17:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher FAR

I'd also left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, which I've noted as well. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Caseformars.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Caseformars.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sprung

Aha...I can see what yer next furry critter'll be at FAC. I've left a list of substantial articles for folk at both WP mammals and WP birds to whet their teeth on to get to GA or FA. Feel free to add any other largish articles to it cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 01:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I stuck the mammals at the bottom of the Mammals project page as there was no collab. Feel free to add any others, I reckon Panda and Hippo are goers or Low-hanging fruit (great expression that). Birds is at the bottom of the collaboration page. Also did the same Standing List thingy at Wikiproject fungi too.

I was musing on ways of flagging big messy articles for folk to get stuck into so figured this was worth a shot. I got stuck into Humpback Whale and Kakapo on FAR...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 13:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, we'll see how [this] goes....

Yeah, pages can be tricky - I really hate the ones which refer to a few species eg Kangaroo or Kookaburra; Agree about Lions 'n' Tigers..that's why I thought Hippo may be a goer (more manageable). Biggies require forking etc. We were musing on upper size limits at Schizophrenia and I think we're Ok...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Not forever on WP; only a little while here.

Thanks for writing, Marskell, I appreciate it! Incidentally, I hope you haven't interpreted any of my late comments in the FAR area (which I realize have leaned towards rhetoric and my version of joke-making) as negative toward your stewardship. (What me, worry too much?) No, I think you're one of the most well-rounded editors out there, deft at administration and article writing. Enjoy your summer as well, and come back to Canada sometime, eh? –Outriggr § 08:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

FARs update

I can look at those two tomorrow morning if you can wait; headed for the airport, an all-day deal. I don't know who is going to copyedit Schizophrenia, as I was counting on Outriggr. Not sure if it's still in bad shape, as I haven't checked recently. No printer here, or I'd print them all to read on the plane. Never got to read the Puma.  :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I can ask Circeus for something completely different to what he's used to. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 20:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I just had a quick glance at both. Belgium is in dire need of a copyedit (there are completely indecipherable sentences), incomplete references in varying formats and dead links in footnotes, not comprehensive (lots of topics not discussed *at all*, like crime, military, things seen in other country articles), still MOS issues like weird and inconsistent use of dashes. Just doesn't look featured quality yet, and doesn't strike me that it can get there from here unless something major changes. I'll add specifics to the FAR tomorrow. I still have some concerns about Schizophrenia, but no doubt the article will make it. It needs more time, though; I'll enter my comments tomorrow, not sure yet if it's little enough that it can be accomplished quickly under the review phase, but there's still a bit more to look at. VAST improvement, but I need to look carefully tomorrow when I have time. That's all I'm good for today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Greatpowers.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Greatpowers.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)