User talk:Marskell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Feb 18 - Sept 12 2005 Sept 13 - Sept 30 2005 A discussion between primates (Oct 6 - 10 2005) Oct 1 - Oct 19 2005 Oct 19 - Nov 16 2005 Nov 17 2005 - Feb 5 2006 Feb 6 - Apr 14 2006

April 15 - July 7 2006 July 8 - August 28 2006 August 29 - October 2 2006 October 3 - October 21 2006 Short archive: October 21 - December 9 2006 December 10 - February 11 2007 February 12 - March 11 2007

Contents 1 Poetry 2 Zodiac 3 Canada 2006 Census data release 4 beavers 5 Google Earth 6 Thoughts on Norte Chico 7 FARC 8 Poetry 9 B movie 10 Thescelosaurus 11 Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons 12 Poetry 13 Deathrocker and revert parole 14 Email 15 3RR warning 16 Defining horrible 17 Null edit 18 Thrashing out RS 19 Haven't talked with everyone yet 20 Microsoft 21 Detroit, Michigan - a look 22 Wikipedia:Featured article review/Richard O'Connor 23 re:Spare a minute? 24 Bot 25 Inline list 26 (Belated) thanks! 27 Sorry if I'm offending too 28 MTR 29 Exopolitics 30 RS 31 Re:History of Poland (1945–1989) 32 FYI - busted numbers 33 Yellowstone 34 Cougar and Bobcat

[edit] Poetry

It looks pretty good, although the prose could use a copy-edit. — Deckiller 17:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

ack, I was hoping you'd say it passes muster, since no one responded to the poor fellow for 3 weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zodiac

hi Marskell, and no worries about the late reply. I know we're all busy. The article is a hell of a lot beter now than when I first found it, and my personal feeling is that the website you linked to in your message on my talk page is a reliable source (been around 15 years, cited on TV and in newspapers). That situation seems to have resolved itself, and most editors seem to now understand that we can't go around accusing living people of being a serial killer.

The *current* problem is an editor who has gotten pointy on us. Since his edits have been reverted, he is now trying to get another website thrown out as an external link, for a variety of reasons I dont agree with. If you have a moment, could you read this? He's driving a lot of people nuts there. Thanks, Jeffpw 21:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canada 2006 Census data release

Regarding your recent edit, the numbers were not inflated. StatsCan has released community data from the 2006 census (see this), so all Canadian communities will be updated to reflect the new, accurate numbers. (And if you'll note, your reversion actually increased one of the numbers I had adjusted downwards.) I figured you should be made aware of this, since it'll affect many articles about Canadian places. Mindmatrix 17:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, no problem. I've had a few instances like that. By the way, my apologies if I came across as a tad snarky - it wasn't my intention. Mindmatrix 13:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] beavers

Yeah, and I hope not beaver fever from the water supply. I may get some time to look at your article briefly. Hope you're keeping well. Tony 03:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Google Earth

Sorry, derivative work, all maps within Google Earth are copyrighted by Google and their respective companies. It would be like asking, "If I take a screenshot of a movie and modify it, is it my own work?" --Golbez 09:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts on Norte Chico

I started without much time and and just looked at the intro.

I would expect a link to the Norte Chico region of Peru if it is an existing administrative/geographic entity. I can't find one though. Does Peru still use this name?

The alternative name, 'Caral-Supe', is derived from... (less polysyllabic)

Pre-Columbian archeologists classify the Norte Chico culture as being in the Late Archaic period (avoid passive voice).

It was 'pre-ceramic', ie it completely lacked pottery and was largely without art, though there is archaeological evidence of textiles. (Why does 'Preceramic' have a capital? I would also prefer a hyphen and the past tense.)

Archaeology also shows that they probably worshipped the same gods as other Pre-Columbian Andean cultures. (possible worship as opposed to impossible worship?)

The greatest achievement of the civilisation was its monumental architecture which included large .....('dynamic' isn't really the right word here for such static objects)

There is speculation that such an extensive civilisation must have had a sophisticated goverment, at least to manage its food resources across the region, though nothing is known of its politics.

Sadly there are several other non-Wiki things I must do, so I have to stop there. Good luck. JMcC 12:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC

I know, I'm really sorry. I don't want to say that Giano's block-worthy comments did not turn me off, because that's not the reason, it's just that I see a group of editors at the Final Fantasy wikiproject interested in churning out FAs, which, in turn, has rekindled my crusade to cleanup fiction articles and set a precedent with certain types of fiction articles. I'll try to make time for FAR and the FAC today, for sure. — Deckiller 16:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poetry

Off already? Did you have ref format concerns you wanted to list on poetry? He's jumbled explanatory notes with source info, unfortunately. Marskell 08:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No, put the note up a day early. Will look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Had a look, thinking I'd just quickly fix them myself. Not so; what a formatting mess—I could fill in some of the missing info, but since I couldn't fill in page numbers or editions, no reason to even start the job, which is bigger than I thought. And since none of our literary experts bothered to comment, I can't see lodging a Remove based only on sloppy and incomplete footnotes—tired of being a punching bag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

While I'm on the road, I'm going to give some serious thought to continued involvement at FAR. It was a most pleasant and enjoyable place to work on nice articles before all of the recent incivility; we did some very nice work, turning many lumps of coal into finely polished gems with collaborative effort from many reviewers and editors bringing different talents and strengths to the work. Reviewers have been trampled on, and it has been allowed—several times in full view of numerous admins who have taken no action to rein in the incivility. Not an example of Wiki's finest, and certainly no longer an enjoyable hobby. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B movie

I appreciate your point about Sandy, and I did articulate that when she's addressed the content specifically that I've been able to improve the article in response, even if I haven't reduced it to a length she's comfortable with. Given the amount of work I've put into the article over the past few months--researching, writing, then condensing--and the readiness I've shown to do more work, I feel the whole "cake" business is really inappropriate. As was Sandy's support of Peter's ad hominems and her piling on top of them. Her good and valuable work in general doesn't justify her recent behavior in this case.

Yes, a list of suggested compression would be great. I have no desire to wear the reader out--anywhere you can point to where the explanation or clarification of a point becomes redundant or overly specific that's very helpful. I know all this stuff now--my concern has been that the interested reader coming to it as a launching pad for further research has everything they need and that the story is complete in of itself. Insofar as that can be accomplished more efficiently, I know that will make the article more useful.—DCGeist 22:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thescelosaurus

Hi AFAIK we've not conversed directly on wikpedia but I noted you got Jaguar to FA some time ago, I'm the dino collab coordiantor and Thescelosaurus (we think) is on the cusp of being nominated for FAC - was wondering if you'd have a look to see if anything wrong jumps out at you. We we keen for some fresh pairs of eyes to look at it. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 07:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 07:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Aha - good pick up already. I am happy for free-association ideas as they pop up. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 07:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Instead of moving the page, I felt it better to get further discussion so I've listed it as proposed move and in the Village Pump. You may want to reaffirm your view in the informal poll Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Requested move just for clarity. Cheers. Nil Einne 16:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poetry

Thanks, and good to see Dylan Thomas on your user page. After getting them added I'll need to make a pass through for consistency. A Musing (formerly Sam) 11:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I like to see more consistency in ref style, but there's nothing that rises to the level of a Remove - nice work ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll post on SandyGeorgia's page as well; I know there's still work on refs (urls and page numbers in particular), and any comments for improvement are always welcome (I spend much of my life dealing with legal citation formats, which I can do in my sleep; the academic formats are thus a bit of a foreign language, and often counter-intuitive to me). While I'll leave the MOS comments to you guys, if in the future you need substantive comment on literary topics, particularly relating to poetry, or historical topics, especially in the areas of the Middle East, US political history, or women in history), please feel free to ask, and if I can I will comment. As you know, I found it frustrating not to get input on the substantive discussion in the article, and I'd prefer not to see others have the same issue. A Musing (formerly Sam) 20:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It was frustrating that you had so little feedback; thanks for letting us know you're available if those topics come up in the future. We can always use a hand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deathrocker and revert parole

Hello. Excuse me if this is not the right way to workout this situation, let me know the procedure if there is one.

User:Deathrocker is keeping on removing the "Replaceable fair use" tag from Image:SerieATrophy.jpg, which was originally inseted by User:Mecu, even if the tag explicitly says it is forbidden to remove it, while the correct procedure should be to discuss the matter on the talk page. I signalled the matter on WP:AN/I, and it was confirmed he is not to remove the tag, but he keeps on removing it.

Moreover, I recently duscovered that he should be under revert parole, if I correctly read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deathrocker/Proposed_decision. Note that his reverting of Image:SerieATrophy.jpg goes well against the terms of revert parole. Best regards.--Francis Escort 19:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Francis Escort was a sockpuppet account of indef-blocked user Panairjdde. This was proved by Check user[1]. Removing edits by sockpuppet accounts of blocked users does not count as a revert.

After another user reported Panairjdde's sockpuppet on the Admins board[2] a couple of hours ago, it was finally blocked. - Deathrocker 22:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet removing that tag is not allowed. Please, Marskell, explain Deathrocker he is not allowed to hide the fact that the image is replaceable and therefore it is not allowed.--Mam't a'nut' 23:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Sorry about the seeming vanishing act, I was in a bit of a rush and cocked up updating my user page, so my wikibreak message disappeared into the ether (I took my email off as I didn't want people emailing and then not getting a reply for weeks). Anyway, I'm back (on a slow and unreliable connection) now. Yomangani^talk 12:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I've just looked a Norte Chico and will support it, but there are a couple of uncited quotes and some oddities:

• The Norte Chico chiefdoms were "almost certainly theocratic, though not brutally so."
• "Maritime foundation of Andean civilization"
• The first paragraph of the lead ends on a semi-colon and has a ref separated by a space
• Cotton likely provided the basis of the dominance of inland over coast (whether development was earlier, later, or contemporaneous) has the refs in reverse order whereas everything else has it in numerical order. Yomangani^talk 12:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning

You have violated WP:3RR at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll. You may wish to re-revert some of your edits. --Coppertwig 19:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I count 5 reverts by you from 22:04 25 March to 18:15 26 March. Remember that it doesn't have to be returning to an identical version to count as a revert; adding or removing a small number of words can count as a revert even if you do other changes at the same time. See for example the reverts Jossi was blocked for and the comment by Seraphimblade about it. (At the 3RR noticeboard and Jossi's talk page.) Maybe you forgot to count edits you did late yesterday as being in the same 24-hour period? --Coppertwig 19:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defining horrible

I smoked a cigarette waiting on last, and think I'll be off to bed. I am curious—one, two, or three questions aside—why anyone who has been on Wiki a while wants to increase our workload. Perhaps you'd understand my word choices if you'd worked on WP:ATT for six months rather than six days. The intention was never to introduce duplicate policy description—it was to reduce it. I'd guess that if the people who worked on ATT in earnest could choose between keeping it as a fourth page (policy, guideline, "supplement" or whatever) or killing it, they'd simply kill it. It would be far far better to my mind, despite having worked on it, to have ATT disappear, than to have ATT and V live at the same time. The possibility that a large project meant to streamline P&Gs could be used to make them more hard to manage is mind-numbing. Note, I'm not talking about the poll now; I'm describing the intention behind Attribtution that developed over many months. I call the "compromise" of running four live pages a horrible idea, because it completely inverts everything Wikipedia:Attribution was made to accomplish. It's not a compromise option; not in the slightest. Marskell 22:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Your work is sincerely appreciated, but the original intent behind WP:ATT is not the bottom line. What matters is what the community wants.

The advantage, in my opinion, would be that while we would have a page containing concise documentation of the relevant concepts, we also would have individual pages with expanded descriptions (which would be handy for citing in specific situations, particularly when someone doesn't understand one of the individual elements).

But I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm asking you to allow the community to decide. If most users dislike the idea, it obviously will fail. So what are you worried about? That they won't dislike the idea? —David Levy 23:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Null edit

Pls teach me how to do that when you have time—your edit summaries are very helpful as I have limited time on a college computer. Will get on Microsoft as soon as I'm home. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thrashing out RS

Thanks for starting that thread. I suspect the difference is between having the basic headline(s) of RS and 100% merger. ATT does need the basics. --VSerrata 10:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haven't talked with everyone yet

Ah see, I did qualify my statement. I'm still in the middle of sorting out who thinks what. My apologies, perhaps saying something while I don't quite have all the facts was premature. On the other hand, I do have to dare speak up at some point, and the intent was to show El_C that people are working on it. :-/ --Kim Bruning 11:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that much is true. I get the impression the other pages wouldn't be quite live anymore though. It's just that apparently it's a position Jimbo Wales is pushing... at least, that's the impression some people have. Which means I really need to talk with him. He's just not easy to reach atm. --Kim Bruning 12:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

KTS - LOL! Glad you still have a sense of humor :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft

Microsoft (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is a much bigger mess than I expected; since we so often hold reviews, I would have appreciated a day to review it. I left comments here. Of course, it continues to concern me when so few reviewers check sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I know; and I was troubled at another one at FAC (promoted with Wiki articles as sources - see the talk page at WP:FAC). I'll spend more time on MS over the next few days, because RN was very helpful to me in the past, and I should be able to clean it all up after I catch up. It's the big picture that troubles me - that people *do* count footnotes without checking sources. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC) PS, I guess the question is, if I continue to highlight these kinds of problems, will anyone notice and/or care, or does whatever we're calling attribution, verifiability or reliable sources these days really not matter to most people? Perhaps I should give up. It's discouraging when an article is promoted with 26 little footnotes going to a Wiki article (Kansas Turnpike). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

PS, if any of my check tags aren't needed, feel free to remove—I was simply marking the places where non-reliable sources were used so I could come back to them. Lots of work to be done there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. Since I'm still catching up, I'll probably put off continued work on MS until Sunday, when I'll have more time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I learned something (only recently :-) about date formatting; as long as you have your preferences set, it doesn't matter which format is entered, the reader will see their preferred format. I didn't have preferences set, so I saw variable formatting; setting preferences solves it. In other words, we can enter dates however we prefer, but I try to stick with yyyy-mm-dd for consistency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I like full dates better as well - less chance for eror with European format, but one of the cite templates seems to choke on them (can't remember which). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC) PS - I'm not reviewing prose at all at this stage; have you checked it? I'm just filling in ref info on this pass. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Detroit, Michigan - a look

I have recently looked over the Detroit article and have noticed a problem concerning a large amount of boosterism, while at the same time known problems associated with the city are either glossed over or ignored. A user, User:Thomas Paine1776, seems to be the one pushing the boosterism and has actively accused others who try to maintain some balance to the article of "Detroit bashing." I have tried to reason with him about this, but he only seems to want to attack me more for it.

In the meantime, can you take a look at the article and tell me what you think of it? I am currently thinking of placing the article for FAR, but with the situation concerning ThomasPaine1776, I am going to try to hold off on that until the conflicts associated with him are resolved. Thanks. Pentawing^Talk 16:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a few notes to the talk page; perhaps that will light a fire. If the content issues aren't resolved, there are other things to roll into a FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article review/Richard O'Connor

Hey, I noticed you're a main FAR/FARC closer. Could you close this debate? Whether of not the status is removed is at your discretion based on the discussion, but it's caused more harm than good and I'd like it closed now that the conversation had stopped. Thanks.--Wizardman 17:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

We'll see what happens. I felt like I had to leave, the pressure was more than I thought it was going to be. I got my reasons for leaving, but given the circumstances I may be back soon. :)--Wizardman 17:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re:Spare a minute?

Hey, sorry; I just noticed there were three threads on my talkpage that I missed :) Sure, I'll comment on them. — Deckiller 03:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bot

If something needs attention, just leave a note on my talk page saying "I've closed a couple FARs". The bot handles a lot of things, and it something is already partially done it creates more work for me. Gimmetrow 13:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Normally I would just leave a message, but a nasty comment arrived on the review after I'd archived it but before it was actually closed; I didn't want the conversation to re-start. In future, if I simply do everything the bot would do, including moving the review to the archive, does it create any problem? Marskell 13:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In the other direction - could regular archive tags have been added, that wouldn't interfere rest of the bot ops? Gimmetrow 13:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Regular archive tags = those used in other discussions, like {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}. If something needs to be marked in such a way to prevent more comments, those could be used and the bot code will add stuff around it. Then the archive top and bottom tag can be deleted later, if necessary. Gimmetrow 14:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

We need to do something on the FAR template similar to what was done on the {{FAC}} template. I made a first stab at it, but it probably needs tweaking. {{FAR}}. I left a note for Rmky87. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Good to know, thank you.--Rmky87 14:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inline list

Not sure if you ever saw my query here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (Belated) thanks!

Thank you for the reviewer's barnstar! Of course it comes at a time when I'm a bit out of the loop, reviewing and reading my talk page included ;) Opabinia regalis 02:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry if I'm offending too

I didn't really intend to yell at you, I was just pulling my hair out that no one was getting the basic point. And, yes, of course it would be inane to propose that people pick the first link; I wasn't suggesting that. Eh. I'm dropping the matter. Just wanted to let you know that I didn't intended any harm. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MTR

I think it looks O.K., although that's from a prose standpoint. Sandy hasn't mentioned any issues with the references, but I think we should keep it up a bit longer so have a larger window to make sure nothing big is spotted. — Deckiller 06:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't found anything wrong, but I'm still sorta in catchup mode, so unless it's glaring, I haven't dug deep. On the surface, it looks fine. Let's get Yellowstone wrapped up—I think it's close :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exopolitics

Please stop removing Webre's informatoin and source, he is very famous in the exopolitics and Ufology community and his works is very well known and was one of the first (if not first) major papers published on exopolitics (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 22:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• His source is reliable, I am not sure what you mean, it was one of the first if not first papers to talk about the subject (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 22:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please stop, it is a well-known document and well cited document in the field of exopolitics, look i am not sure why you keep removing it if your not familiar with the Ufology and exopolitics scenario (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 22:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• It is a primary source my friend, I understand what sources are necessary that why it is in the article (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 22:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Nope, it is also a Secondary source from a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 22:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• It does not go against NPOV, it just states that he is a key figure and published a famous work in the exopolitical and ufology community and given that he is a big player in the community it counts as a well esteablished seconday souce (well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise)(:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 22:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• It is a big work in the community b/c of his experience in the space-political arena in the United States and Canada and given his position at the time he helped initiate a formal exopolitical movement (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 22:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• yup it is a secondary source, and I have given why it counts as an exception to a secondary source (well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise) given that he took all his experience in the political and space field and also it is a primary source b/c of his first hand experience in the field, and he didnt just make this up out of know where, it was a publication that occurred with his famous book Exopolitics: Politics, Government, and Law in the Universe, and he is Michael Salla's coworker (did you not read into their profiles?) (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 23:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Resumed

• I never put that paragraph in: history spot of insertion by a unregistered IP (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 17:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Neither Salla or Webre are professionals, they are and alfred has played a big part in the Canada scene, even in the US he helped co-architect of the Space Preservation Treaty and Space Preservation Act and is cofounder of the Institute for Cooperation in Space which has many key figured in the science and space community as directors and advisors such as Astronaut Edgar D. Mitchell link (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 17:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• lets continue all the rest of the conversations on the exopolitics page instead of our user talk pages (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 18:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RS

RS was always the confusing factor. It started as a POV fork, and so I added stuff from V and NOR to it to make sure it couldn't fork too far. That was the stuff that was "merged" back into ATT. Almost everything else was chucked, but there wasn't much else in it at the time of the merge. It has almost always been more or less a repeat of V and NOR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Punched in the gut by my comment? I'm sorry! I can't see why; I don't think it was your wording or anything, and even if it was, it was hard to see how to explain it all succinctly. What we needed to say was: The bits of RS that were policy are still policy, because they were in V and NOR. The bits that weren't, aren't. But I don't think that would have gone down well. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:History of Poland (1945–1989)

There are no outstanding citation requests or other issues; I cannot anticipate what others want until they tell me. Yes, the article is still undercited, but not by much - I think it's much better than many of our other FAs. I will add the cites for the beining of Gomułka section ASAP, good catch. PS. Done - it was such an interesting question that I wrote a new article - Polish legislative election, 1957, sending it to DYK now :) PS2. I just saw two new comments on FARC - for some reason I unwatched the page, apparently. I'll address those issues soon.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Traveling, home in about a day, will review it as soon as I can after I get home. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I did some of the menial cleanup tonight, but there's a lot to do still. It's *really* hard to work on a long article from a slow connection :-) I'll get on the big stuff when I'm home, and see if any sample cite tags are needed in a section or two. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to say; I suspect it's POV, but don't know enough on the topic or sources to state so. I won't object to a keep; I've recorded what I can on the FAR, and can't add much else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I think we're saying the same thing. I'm just not sure on those sources. And how about that Ceoil ??? Yes, I suspect Keep ratio is moving up as a direct result of your good efforts to get and keep people on board, even in, um ... "hard times". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI - busted numbers

Just so you'll know something changed in case you ever have to go back in diffs: [3] The diffs no longer add up, but the numbers are right and the problem is solved. (It's not visible on all browsers, so you may not see the problem anyway.) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you tweak the tweak ? <grin> [4] The park takes is located ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yellowstone

I took out the sentence you reinserted into the Yellowstone article only because later in that same paragraph it states that the origin is unknown, which according to the best sources I could locate, the origin of the naming is not known with great accuracy. I only took it out because I thought it conflicted with the later comment...if you think it is required, then I won't dispute it. Maybe we need to redo the entire section. I dunno. I am just watching from the sidelines since I thik I may have overedited it a bit and at this point might create a big mess.--MONGO 09:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cougar and Bobcat

Great work on Cougar, man. You might want to work on Bobcat next. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

		The Fauna Barnstar
		For the magnificent work on Cougar. Display this proudly! - UtherSRG (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll be getting to the subspecies soon... and since you asked, I'll get to them tonight when I get home. I've been going in order through the list on User:UtherSRG/Carnivora. I've gotten through Pardofelis and have done the genus page for Prionailurus, so I'm getting close to Cougar anyway. (Although I may have already done it.) While Canadian Lynx needs some work, it's a much smaller article than Bobcat, which needs a good rewriting, particularly to remove redundant or contradictory information. But yes, I know you're still working on Cougar, and getting it to FA status would be fantastic! (Yeah, I'm not entirely letting go of the capitalization issue... *grins* "There are two Canadian lynxes - the Canadian Lynx and the Bobcat".... And yes I know that sometimes it is easy to write things in other ways to make the distinction such as "lynxes in Canada"... but I digress...) - UtherSRG (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)