Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:55, 13 January 2008

• Archive 1: August 2003 - November 2003
• Archive 2: December 2003 - March 2004
• Archive 3: April 2004 - July 2004
• Archive 4: August 2004 - November 2004
• Archive 5: December 2004 - March 2005
• Archive 6: April 2005 - July 2005
• Archive 7: August 2005 - November 2005
• Archive 8: December 2005 - March 2006
• Archive 9: April 2006 - July 2006
• Archive 10: August 2006 - November 2006
• Archive 11: December 2006 - February 2007
• Archive 12: March 2007 - May 2007
• Archive 13: June 2007 - August 2007
• Archive 14: September 2007 - December 2007
• Archive 15: January 2008 - March 2008

Jimmy McAleer FAC

Hi Raul654,

I just wanted to alert you to a situation that has developed on the Jimmy McAleer FAC. Early on, a reviewer opposed the article's promotion on the ground that it contained POV material. Three other reviewers challenged this assertion, arguing that the piece was well referenced and included no language that qualified as POV. The article now has the support of five reviewers. The opposed reviewer has failed to revisit the article. Similarly, this reviewer has not responded to a message confirming that the article was revised. I consulted another reviewer about the best way to proceed. This reviewer suggested that I "make the situation known." Sincerely, -- twelsht (talk) 06:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Raul, The opposed reviewer on the Jimmy McAleer FAC apparently has a history of "hit-and-run" reviews. Until now, I have never encountered a reviewer who presented a list of actionable concerns and then closed with a request (demand, really) that the nominator send the article to the GAC. In this case, the reviewer's critique (yet to be revisited) was challenged by three other reviewers. Is there a policy in place to deal with such negligent reviewers? I suspect they are a source of frustration to everyone involved in the FAC process. Sincerely, -- twelsht (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Palazzo Pitti

Happy New Year Raul.

This article is one of Giano's, currently at FAR here. The review has been relatively tame, but is split. OK, I'm being a total coward. Kept or removed, I'm sure I'll catch hell for this one. On the one hand, it is well written and Giano will tell you it's accurate. On the other, with a single intext citation, it in no way resembles current successful FACs. (Unless you want to argue there isn't a single thing in it likely to be challenged.)

I don't want to close it. If it's kept, it would amount to a new precedent and a form of grandfathering, which was rejected in early '05. People will call it a double standard. If it's removed, Giano and others will be angry. I don't want another FA drama, so advice would be appreciated. Marskell (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Date holding

Is there a way to keep a date open for main page requests? I just got my first FA (Godsmack) and I would like it featured on the main page on August 25, 2008, as it will be the ten year anniversery of the band's debut album. Is there a way I can keep that date open for home page? And if so how will I get it on the main page requests page if there is a limit of five articles? Replie on my talk page please. Thank you,

Burningclean  02:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Emperor Naming

I saw your comment on AN about the naming of Hirohito, and followed up on it here Talk:Hirohito#Proposed_article_page_MOVE, since previous debates were spread over several pages, with few participants, and it seems like User:Švitrigaila is a rather firm believer in the Showa name, I'm thinking a content RFC might be in order. I've never filed one, so I'm wondering if you could point me to a completed one that I could use as a model (best practice)? Watching here, thanks. MBisanz 04:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Swedish emigration

I made a comment concerning the mainpage blurb for Swedish emigration to the United States at Misplaced Pages talk:Today's featured article#Swedish emigration. Thought I'd give you a heads up in case you hadn't noticed that thread.

Peter 12:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll deal with this tomorrow or the day after. Raul654 (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Hirohito#RFC:_Appropriate_Emperor_Name

An RFC on content you have commented on has opened, comments are welcome. MBisanz 01:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your threat on my talk page

I polietley suggest that you try engaging in reasoned discussion with people with whom you disagree, rather than attack their motives and make threats. Doing so will help you be more persuasive, and better conform to Misplaced Pages policy.

Now, that being said, I invite you to challenge me on the mertits of the concerns I have expressed about the langugage of "scientific consensus" in various Misplaced Pages entries.

My recent edits (such as here) are essential in making our articles conform to Wikipeida's laudable "neutral point of view" policy. While the claim that there is a "scientific consensus" on global warming is widely reported by many sources, it is not universally accepted. It is not Misplaced Pages's business to decide on behalf of readers which theories and opinions are right and which ones are wrong. To illustrate the distinction I am making, I urge editors to consider the example of the article on scientific consensus on global warming. In contrast to the article we are editing, the article "scientific consensus on global warming" appropriately reports specifically which individuals and which groups claim that there is a "scientific consensus" on global warming; it does not make the claim itself. (For instance, the article states the "IPCC Third Assessment Report ... issued a joint statement ... IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science." Again, the Misplaced Pages article itself does not declare the theory of man-made global warming the "scientific consensus; it merely reports the views of certain groups that have done so.) I have no problem with reporting the authorities that have asserted there is a "scientific consensus" on global warming. However, a Misplaced Pages article by itself should not make that assertion per policy. The Noosphere (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

First, I do not believe for a second that you're new here. Second, we get deniers (or their sockpuppets) here all the time attempting to water down the language in our global warming articles, and/or to fill them with pseduoscientific nonsense manufactured by the oil industry. I leave it to William M. Connelly, Raymond Arritt, et al to debunk that. I step in when one of the never-ending string of deniers/sockpuppets they have to deal with becomes excessively disruptive, and in this case that's you. You've already recieved numerous warnings (which you promptly deleted from your talk page), but you will receive no more. If you do not immediately discontinue your disruptive behavior, I will block you. Raul654 (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh??????????? I'm just a college student from Florida. I'm not a part of some conspiracy by the oil companies to deny global warming on Misplaced Pages. (At least that's what I think I read from what you're implying.) If my views on global warming are so stupid and I'm such a dupe of the oil companies, why not respond to the merits of my comments? That should be easy. After all, if you're right, demonstrating why some dupe like me is wrong should be even easier than making threats and making up conspiracies. The Noosphere (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(a) You misinterpret what I wrote. Global warming is a topic around which swirls much disinformation, created by oil companies (and the scientists they fund, and the think tanks that promote their research, etc).

(b) Yes, your views on global warming are very wrong. Although it is not our job to explain to you (to your satisfaction) exactly why your views and understanding are wrong, others here have taken considerable time to explain to you what you are mistaken about. Apparently it was a great waste of time, because you continue to disrupt the GW articles. Raul654 (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User:The Noosphere

He's now on User:Friday's radar as well. Best to let an absolutely, totally uninvolved admin like her deal with him so there will be no question of the block sticking. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Friday offered me some constructive criticism, and I accept that. From my brief impression of him/her, he/she strikes me as fair-minded and ethical. The Noosphere (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hey there. You OK? --Dweller (talk) 10:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fine Raul654 (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Happy to help with any FAC issues you may have piled up in Sandy's absence. I know you have a lot on your considerable plate. --Dweller (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Awbrey

Wow. Good job. Corvus cornix_talk 23:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

University of California, Riverside FAC

Why did you shut down the FAC discussion for University of California, Riverside after just five days? I think that was far, far too short in this case. Tony1 raised some 1a concerns, but when you removed it from the FAC list, I was in the middle of thoroughly copyediting the article, with the goal of going beyond Tony1's specific concerns. Other (minor) concerns are being actively addressed by me and Amerique. Did you think the FAC wasn't generating enough discussion or attention? Or do you think the nomination was too premature, or that there are problems that haven't been addressed by objectors? szyslak 00:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: I'm not demanding that you reopen the FAC discussion. I figure only the most extreme circumstances would merit such an action. I'll just continue doing my copyediting thing, and send it back to FAC whenever it's become truly "brilliant prose". szyslak 00:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not contesting the closure either, but it happened so suddenly I thought the GimmieBot was responsible. If I may say so, UCR article has undergone tremendous improvement in five days, and I don't see the reason for shutting it down before any other comments or criticisms could be made. Amerique 02:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Raul

I hope we will get to know more about each other in the future. I think we have certain atributes in common. I will advice later when it is tm,e for us to have a chat. But if you need me to show you where we going, I am your shining star to destiny! Regards, Igor Berger (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Attempting to address the issues with Illinois’s FAC has proven to be both difficult and frustrating because the commenters are dragging the length and the notability of the incompleted battleship into the FAC discussion, neither of which ought to be issues for the FAC -- length is explicitly penned as a non-issue, and arguments on the notability point should be taken to the notability page or addressed with an afd. In any case I do appreciate your intervention in the article (though I must say I am sorry to see it has come to this), and I am trying to address the issues brought up by the oppose voters when such objects cite things that can be fixed. In particular, BQZip01's objection list has been greatly appreciated. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BN friendly poke

Hello Raul! Sorry to bother you, but it seems like people (myself included) would appreciate some 'crat input on the latest WP:BN thread. Just thought you'd like to know. :) Happy editing! Best, Keilana_(recall) 03:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Western Chalukya architecture

I noticed your post on Gianno II's talk page. Before anyone decides to renominate this article in a hurry, let me point out that the article has major outstanding problems of cohesion and coherence, and by that I don't mean organization of sections. I mean problems of flow of prose and more importantly flow of information in prose. If you give me ten minutes, I'll pick out two paragraphs in the article and annotate them on the talk page of the article. I'm sure, once I point out the problems, user:Dineshkannambadi will try to fix them as best as he can, but I guarantee you that I will then find two more paragraphs and do the same, and two more ... Coherence (which includes logic, time order in paragraphs, etc.) takes time. Give me ten minutes, and I'll post something on the Talk:Western Chalukya architecture. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please see Talk:Western_Chalukya_architecture#Clarity.2C_Cohesion_and_Coherence. Sorry, it took 20. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Update Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Vote for a post-meetup restaurant

I'm charged with making the reservations for us, so let's make it official. We'll do this via voting and everyone including anonymous voters, sockpuppets, and canvassed supporters is enfranchised. Voting irregularities and election fraud are encouraged as that would be really amusing in this instance. Please vote for whichever restaurant you would like to eat at given the information provided above and your own personal prejudices at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC#Let's make it official. The prevailing restaurant will be called first for the reservation. If a reservation cannot be obtained at the winning restaurant, the runner-up restaurant will be called thus making this entire process pointless. Voting ends 24 hours after this timestamp (because I said so). ScienceApologist (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Is that editor a sock of a banned user? I noticed you are reverting his edits on sight, and without summary, so I was curious. Bellwether _C 18:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've caught 3 of his socks in as many minutes. I don't know if it's a previously encountered sockpuppeteer or a new one, but I'm shooting on sight. Raul654 (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

FA Process

A brief questions that you may be able to address in regards to Introduction to Evolution FA attempt. The page has become a bit messy; owed somewhat to my inexperience so I created a well organized list of concerns on Talk:Introduction to evolution and attempted to address them. They are specifically numbered with a plea for commentary. Does this constitute a good faith effort for following up on criticisms since it is not on the FA page? There was a bold notification on the FA page Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution as well as messages posted on their user page. If you look at Item 9 and 11 on the discussion page, there is a plea for specifics so that I can address the rather vague criticisms. I assume it is a common problem for people to drop in, oppose, then never return? Maybe its not a brief question! Try again. Does conversation on the discussion page of the article factor into the process of determining "If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements". Sorry, newbie here its just frustration when you get this; and no follow-up, after adding an addition 40+ citations.

Oppose: there are unreferenced paragraphs. --Brískelly --Random Replicator (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

--Random Replicator (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly two opposes came from "professional voters" both average 3-4 opposes in 30 minutes are less; accounting for a new found career of opposing / supporting articles. In one case the contribution page is an endless list of Featured Article reviews since Christmas. I'm working my butt off to address concerns and getting machine-gunned by drive-by shooters. Should I be specific or would you automatically note such things in the closing process? Sorry to be a nuisance --- no doubt it is even more frustrating on your end. Just point me to a policy! Cheers. --Random Replicator (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Award

John Day (printer)

I expect you de-scheduled it because it is on FAR. Fair enough. User: BuddingJournalist and I had got it ready for its big day, though, and I think it's in FA shape. I hope it can be put back on the front-page list soon. qp10qp (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just an update that Marskell has now closed the FAR. BuddingJournalist 15:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, very good. Raul654 (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Western Chalukya architecture

Hi Raul. I have a bit of a situation here. Giano was doing a fine job copy editing the article (for which I am thankful) until Fowler's post that he (Fowler) and Mattisse should re-write it, once Giano is finished. This has become a de-moralizer (understandably so) for Giano who is now reluctant to go further with the copy edits (understandably so). This I feel is a sort of unique intimidation on the part of Fowler, who at this point seems to have re-conciled to keeping out of the FAC discussion, after being warned by an admin to stop taking stabs at me. How do I deal with this situation. Too much work has gone into this article, which seems to be almost "there". I understand, anyone has the right to contribute to an article, but not with the attitude that Fowler has shown. Please help.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I have said nowhere that I plan to rewrite it. Please see user:Mattisse's post on my talk page here. And, no I am not "re-conciled to keeping out of the FAC discussion" (implied) as a result of user:Nishkid64's warning on my talk page (see here). He, in fact, is encouraging me there (and elsewhere) to be bold and copy-edit the article myself, an enterprise for which I lack both the time and the interest. I have withdrawn from the discussion simply because, after reading user:Kiyarr's post, I have lost interest in this candidacy, and have consequently changed my "strong oppose" to "abstain." As for the article being "almost there," please reread my first post in the second FA review, especially the paragraph I provide there as an example. Any article that after forty days as an FAC has a paragraph like that, does not, in my opinion, meet criterion 1 (a), not even remotely. I do believe that a rewrite by user:Mattisse is the quickest and surest way of fixing the outstanding problems, but my suggestion to that effect is not meant to be intimidating, "unique"-ly or otherwise. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

PS I have now changed my vote to Strong Support. Please see my post in the FAC. Best wishes to user:Dineshkannambadi. Warm regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Raul. I am concerned that a discussion that has nothing to do with the FAC or the topic at hand is on-going on this FAC page between Dwarf Kirlston and Random Replicator. This is an unnecessary distraction for prosepective reviewers and may actually throw them off the topic. I request your permission to delete their discussion which seems to be dwelling on "validity of the FA process and its loop holes", which IMO should be taken elsewhere.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your work dealing with Scibaby/Obedium, your work as a CheckUser, and as Featured Article Director, and being a great Wikipedian! Solumeiras 15:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. You may wish to list about Obedium/Scibaby at User:Solumeiras/vandalismwatch/Obedium POV editing, just to document it for users!

Main page request:

When am I allowed to ask that André Kertész be featured on the main page for July 2, his birthday? I see the FA main page requests page hasn't changed at all - I've been watching it and the requests page is full again as soon as a spot opens. I'm on too infrequently to be able to sit by and wait for a spot to open. To be frank, I thought you were going to sort the whole process out? You have my honest respect as an editor, but for goodness sake, the requests page is inadequate. This will be the 5th month I have been asking for the process to be changed. You kepe saying you'll change it, but nothing's been done. Regards, Spawn Man (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You can put a request on the requests page anytime within the month preceding the date you want to request. So, for a July 2 request, you can request it starting on June 2 (as soon as a slot opens up). I'll tell you what - if July 2 is approaching and you haven't been able to get in a request on the requests page, drop a note here and I'll see what I can do (the purpose of the requests page was, FWIW, to avoid just that, but I'll make an exception for you). Raul654 (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Raul; I have a hard time trying to revert vandalism before anyone else let alone one of 5 hotly constested spots for main page request... I do sincerly hope that you can come to some kind of solution to the main problems with the system. Anyway, I know that you're just an editor like me, so sorry if I dumped the issue on you. Sincerly, Spawn Man (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw your idea and commented on the link you provided. On another note, if I'd seen this page earlier, I would have listed the article I mention above there - instead of waiting until 30 days before the date, could I list it there instead? Just a thought...? Also, if you need any help with the FA request system, I'm willing to help. I use that feature a lot and I want it to work perfectly. I think a trial for this new proposal of yours would be good, but I think it may need further additions for it to work perfectly. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

F-4 Phantom FARC review

Can someone please explain what is wrong with the referencing of the F-4 Phantom article? All of the print references have references yet User:SandyGeorgia claims the fact that references do not have publishers as a pretext to have the article delisted.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like one of the biggest problem is that it has lots of "citation needed" tags. Raul654 (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The comment from User:SandyGeorgia specifically referred to publishers of references. This remains unexplainedNigel Ish (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

She may have made a mistake. Raul654 (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Mistakes are certainly a possibility all things considered. I just looked in there, and I see Marskell has commented and has things in hand. There are still quite a few other problems with that article. I'll be traveling beginning Monday; I'll have sporadic internet connections here and there for a week, and hope to return refreshed and renewed. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI Gangtok

This article is schedules for the main page on 14 January 2008, but I suspect somebody will throw it up for review between now and then. It has few to no references, and although I'm not a FA participant, I don't think it meets the requirements. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 20:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

FA long range requests for main page

Hello. I hope that the long range requests page has just as much weight in deciding which FA is featured on which date as the regular requests page? Happyme22 (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote

A user is quoting an edit summary of your here Talk:Hirohito#Categories_on_redirects. I've given the standard policy reply, but given that you probably wrote the policy at some point, I'm figuring you can give a better explanation. MBisanz 18:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed them for the same reasons as you quoted from Misplaced Pages:Redirect - it makes no sense to have the same article listed twice (under two different names) on the category page. Raul654 (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

TFA - Jack Sheppard

I noticed that Jack Sheppard is up for TFA on 20 January. The first sentence of the lead is unfortunately grammatically incorrect. I fixed it in the article itself but the teaser for the main page is still wrong (here). I can't fix that because I am not an administrator. The sentence reads: Jack Sheppard was a notorious English robber, burglar and thief of early 18th century London. It should read: Jack Sheppard was a notorious English robber, burglar and thief of early 18th-century London. If you or someone with the power could change this, grammar nerds like myself would appreciate it. Awadewit | talk 06:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)