Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:22, 7 November 2006

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

"recognized professional expert"

I think you are right. It is the entire phrase that allows professional to be misunderstood. It can be read as a recognized expert who is professional which can be easily misinterpreted. A "recognized professional" alone is not nearly as problamatic.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

My RFA!

Marskell, thank you so much for your support for my RfA. I passed with a vote tally of 61/0/1. I am honored that the consensus was to allow me the added privilege of the admin mop. I appreciate your support and complimentary words on my RFA! --plange 21:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnard's Star

Congrats on getting Barnard's Star to FA status. Joelito (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Me too. Well deserved. JMcC 16:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:One featured article per quarter

Hi Marskell,
I added a section to the above in which users (like me) can list themselves as "resources" to those working on FACs. I am thinking of copy-editing, source acquisition, and who knows what else. The additions are based on some of the talk page comments (e.g. badlydrawnjeff), though now that I look again, I see that you may not be such a fan of the idea. My rationale is that if FAC authors need help, they need it at a certain time: there's no point in someone like me picking a random moment, unrequested, to copy-edit an article, for example. I see my additions as a complement to the purpose of the page, and I added a q/a regarding why these resources don't "duplicate peer review". Anyway, it's your baby, and if you don't like it, or it doesn't work, feel free to axe. (If it doesn't work, I'll axe. :-) –Outriggr § 04:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"Science" citation guidelines

From the old discussion at WP:CITE, it appears that a few of the math/physics folks are calling this a guideline without broad exposure or consensus: Misplaced Pages:Scientific citation guidelines. At a minimum, it doesn't apply to *all* fields of science, so is misnamed. Sandy (Talk) 14:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify that there seems to be a misunderstanding. I never meant to imply that this was a guideline that had the consensus of all of Misplaced Pages and I thought I had stated this clearly. Perhaps by using a banner at the top of the page that looks, at a glance, identical to the standard guideline banner I have caused some confusion. If so, I'm sorry. –Joke 15:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA front matter

Repeating the word "bad" is not an argument. It is not a reason to do anything and you are not going to convince anyone with it. —Centrx→talk • 19:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Multiple noms

Since I leave the notifications on the talk pages, I can't help notice that four Emsworth articles have been nommed in 3 weeks: House of Lords Oct 8, Mary I of England Oct 20, Order of the Garter Oct 26, and Hereditary peer Oct 28. This is a fast pace, and issues have been raised on the FARs. I'm not sure there's anything we can do, but I wanted to be sure you had a look at the comments on the FARs. Sandy (Talk) 04:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were busy; just want to make sure you have a look as soon as you're free. Sandy (Talk) 14:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

disruptive discussions at FAR

Tim—I wonder whether these persistent interruptions to the review process might be moved en masse to the talk page. Tony 13:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Pope Pious

Well, his initial improvements after my "remove" vote are ok for my current "neutral" vote. But since some of the parts I indicated are not yet citated, I cannot vote "keep". So, it is up to you (I think!)!--Yannismarou 19:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that eventually this article will very soon be Ok. A problem I noticed is that somebody added some tags which, in any case, are ugly for FAs. It'd be better if savidan takes care of them, because we close the article.--Yannismarou 19:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"Dogma defined dogmatically"? How else would it be defined? savidan 22:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

TS - thanks

Thanks for the note, Tim -- not to worry -- I was also traveling when your last FAC came up. (By the way, more travel starting tomorrow - sporadic, limited internet access ... ) Sandy (Talk) 01:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

your note

Hi Marskell. I appreciated your note and the fact that you (and Sandy) took the time to suggest I reconsider. Now that I've gotten over my little episode, I'll be hanging around in some capacity. Cheers, –Outriggr § 03:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

You should be able to edit now. Tom Harrison 15:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)