User talk:Marskell/Archive 9

adminship

Tim—I couldn't help noticing an invitation on this page for you to go for adminship. It's very sweet of Canadian Caesar to offer, but I want to say that there are two reasons you should be wary of accepting.First, adminship will bring you under pressure to do relatively clerical duties, diluting your valuable contributions on the language and structural side of WP. Your skills are too scarce in this project to waste. Second, the RfA process, at its worst, can be akin to that of a medieval trial; there are people who occasionally go out of their way to assassinate applicants' character. It may not be a problem for you, but there's a risk that the trial may be quite unrelated in content and intensity to the role of an admin. It can be hurtful and out of proportion with the lowly role of the bucket-and-mop status.

Just my private thoughts on the matter. Tony 16:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If you ever go for adminship I will support/defend you unconditionally. Your contributions to this encyclopedia are worthy of much more recognition/praise than a mop and bucket. Joelito (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"Private" thoughts, LOL !! I fully concur with Tony's sentiments on adminship. Of course, if you ever went that way, I would support, but it wouldn't be the best use of your time or talent. Sandy 18:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

A Reply

Hey Marksell - yeah, I've really cut back my postings lately, ever since I started my new job. Hopefully they should pick up again in the near future. If and when they do, FAR is definitely one of the pages which I would be most involved in.

Cheers!

The Disco King 16:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Canadian/US religiousness numbers

Oh, I agree with that. Canadian Christians are far more likely to be of a liberal bent, so it doesn't surprise me that many (perhaps most) of them don't attend church regularly. That sort of thing always puzzled me. In France, for example, people claim to be Catholic, yet show no evidence of wanting to be Catholic. What keeps them from simply abandoning the religion? In my neck of the woods, almost everybody goes to church. Hell, most of my classmates (mostly African Americans, presumably Baptists) go to church twice a week—Sundays and Wednesdays. They're shocked when they hear I don't go at all, even on holidays. Bhumiya (said/done) 22:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hotel Canada

I think it may have been Yann Martel. While accepting the 2002 Booker Prize, he described Canada as "a good hotel to write from". However, he may have simply been alluding to a metaphor established by an earlier quote, so it's difficult to say. However, this is the only definite quote I've found through Google that even remotely resembles the one I remember. Somehow I thought it was an older quote. Bhumiya (said/done) 22:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Astrology

Hi Marksell, I've noticed in the astrology page that Aquirata makes significant changes by deleteing anything he considers against astrology, without discussing in the talk page, and so without consensus. Isn't that against rules? He makes edits on his POV, like [1], [2], [3] and a ton of such edits. Isn't thisvandalism? Can we ban him? Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 13:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Aquirata

If Aquirata is ignoring the NPOV policy at an article please document it with diffs at his user conduct RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aquirata. If it amounts to an ongoing pattern of ignoring policy and disruption WP:DR provides for next steps to get him in line. If he's blatantly disruptive, notify an administrator or leave a note on my talk page and I will. FeloniousMonk 21:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Your query on AS

Not sure what's next, since I don't fully understand how the new process should work in a case like this. Until today, everyone was working together, and it looked like the editors would keep the article together. No longer likely, since this post to what claims to be the largest AS message board. I guess the newbie lesson that I learned is to not get involved in trying to salvage a star you're voting on. From now on, I only vote :-) It felt cruel to say yea or nay without trying to help, when it isn't hard to just pitch in and do it, but now I see the problem with that approach. Sandy 22:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement: I'm still learning. I probably moved too fast for them. <sigh> I can't help it, I work fast! Sandy 15:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wind Waker FAR

Hi Marskell, I just wanted to thank you for the copyediting you did on The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker and for keeping the FAR open while the improvements were being made. The article is in much better condition for it. Pagrashtak 02:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I made a few comments at Template talk:FARpassed a few days ago that I'd like you to take a look at. Pagrashtak 03:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you agreed, I've implemented the changes. You can see the new parameters in action at the Zelda talk page. I've made all parameters optional, so the template still works with a simple {{FARpassed}} call. I've also added a rough draft of usage instructions. Feel free to look it over and make improvements. Pagrashtak 16:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Coca-Cola

Hi Tim

Are you taking into account the remove/delist declarations from the major review? Since the FAR template does say to hit the link to say remove or keep, which applies only to FARC, perhaps there's a case for five removes here.

Is there some way of altering the wording on the template?

Tony 15:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the template. However, the bottom sentence still says: "This template adds articles to Category:Wikipedia featured article review candidates.". I wonder what to do about that. Tony 15:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Phishing article

Hi, do you think that it should be moved to the FARC list or taken out of the FAR process? It's been there since 23 July. Changes are here: [4]. Tony 14:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

After a little experience with the new system, the issue of whether articles can be moved directly from minor review to FARC has come up in relation to Phishing. You and I discussed this a little while ago, and I think we concluded that it's OK to do so; otherwise the whole process could take six weeks to delist an article, which he feels is too long. This brings me to a more basic question: should the minor and major review lists be merged? One reason not to have the minor review process is that it may act as a disincentive to contributors to take up the spade and improve the article ("Oh, just a minor tweak will do it; there's only a little bit to do; someone else can do it"). The system would be simpler if binary rather than ternary, and those who run the room (seems to be you, Sandy, Joel and I at the moment) would find it a little easier to keep track of time issues. I'm copying this text to the others, and to the FAR discussion page. Tony 22:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

While I agree that something needs to be done to settle things, I'm unclear what you hope to achieve through mediation specifically? It seems like we have gone beyond that at this point. It has gone beyond a sort of rational disagreement to the point where he is basically just trolling now. It seems like opening up a mediation discussion about those questions that you brought up with just lead to more sophistry. I mean, it really isn't the sources that he is using so much as it is that he is trying to spin them and portray them in order to suit whatever argument he is trying to make on a given day. Although, perhaps this is just another step in the direction of a more serious dispute resolution process? --Chris Brennan 16:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for mediation tag

Hey Marksell, I noticed that you put the request for mediation tag on the wrong talk page. If you wished to place the tag, do place it here. I'll be glad to participate. ThanksVorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 09:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I've compiled a non-exhaustive list of POV edits by Aquirata here. You might want to use that as proof of his POV pushing.Vorpal Blade^{snicker-snack} 10:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Closing early

My reasoning for closing early is that we can concentrate our efforts on articles which have a chance of maintaining its featured status. With so many articles in the FARC section reviewers have to dilute their efforts thus either spending too much time to review/vote or simply skipping some articles. This diminishes their effectiveness for assessing articles. Joelito (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Lastovo

I ce'ed the intro a week ago and just had a go at geography. Wow. This needs some work on writing and even sourcing (sentences that begin "this is probably because..." are not on). I'll try and go over the rest before the main page date. Marskell 18:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't dare get involved with copyediting: don't write well enough. How can I help? Take a look at another one that will need to be looked at after it gets through the wonderful filter on FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aleksandr Vasilevsky. Sandy

FAR template

Tim—It looks fine now. Tony 01:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

In case it is not clear for some reason, I am waiting for your proposed list of Involved parties to the mediation you requested. I cannot agree to mediation with the current list. Aquirata 00:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I see several issues with the current RfM. For the purposes of this discussion, I'll assume that your intention is to improve the Astrology article and the editing experience thereof. It goes without saying that I will not be a party to any kind of a hidden motive.

1. Involved parties: These should be experts on the subject in general with the proviso that on the Science section the help of a scientist (or expert on scientific issues) will be needed. So my list would include Chris Brennan, David Cochrane, Piper Almanac, Zeusnoos and myself for the astrology side (subject matter) plus either yourself or Jefffire for the scientific side. Jefffire has indicated a desire to withdraw from this process, which simplifies this question.
2. Other steps: Delete the reference to the RfC as it is a separate issue.
3. Issues to be mediated: The sourcing question should be reworded to read What constitutes a reliable source in terms of the Astrology page and other pages dealing with astrology? Specifically, should dependable astrological sources be given preference to dependable scientific sources, or the other way around? The second point is worded properly. There are many other issues in addition to the ones listed, but they are about conduct, so a separate request would be needed.

What do you think? Aquirata 12:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, we may be getting somewhere.

• Issues: The wording of the first issue should be amended with the counterpoint as follows: "Are scientific sources reliable for astrological claims?" By the way, by "dependable" I didn't mean "reliable" as per WP. A dependable source may or may not be WP reliable, it is simply a good source for the topic in question.
• Involved parties: This seems to be a sticky point. A preference for experts have no grounding in policy, you're probably right. If you can reach beyond WP policies, however, you will see that in any discussion on earth you'd want to involve experts. It's no use asking laypeople to attempt to reconcile quantum mechanics with relativity. We must have experts editing the article. In the old days, one skeptic was appointed as a rule, playing the devil's advocate to make sure the arguments were rock solid. If we have one expert and ten skeptics on a topic, it will go nowhere. I think this is common sense. Same for the mediation. The people who have been involved for the past two or three months are: yourself, Jefffire (skeptics), Chris Brennan, Piper Alamanac, Zeusnoos and myself (experts). Jefffire has effectively withdrawn from the process. Chris and Zeusnoos can represent both sides and so can I (just take a look at my user page if you're in doubt). So the list "Marskell, Chris Brennan, Piper Alamanac, Zeusnoos, Aquirata" is a lot more balanced than you may think at first.

Aquirata 16:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen this:

• "Mediation is not a forum for policy decisions. If the locus of the dispute is not covered by current policy, the matter must be referred to the Wikipedia community as a whole. Under no circumstances will mediation between a small number of parties be substituted for a valid community-wide exercise in consensus building."

Can the question of sourcing be mediated? Aquirata 23:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The question of sources assumes that astrological sources and scientific sources are separate and distinct entities. In some cases they are, but in many cases not. I don't think the purpose of mediation would be to separate the types of sources into two camps, which seems to be the request. Piper Almanac 15:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

major/minor review merger

Tim—I agree with all that you said. What about this lead text:

This page facilitates the review of featured articles and the removal of the featured status of those that still fail to meet the featured article criteria after the review process.

There are two categories in the process: the featured article review (FAR) and featured article removal candidate (FARC) lists. Articles cannot be listed directly as FARCs, but must first undergo a FAR. It is regarded as desirable for a FAR to run its course and be closed without progressing to the FARC list, unless the circumstances suggest that such a progression is necessary to maintain FA standards.

Older reviews are stored in the archive.

Featured article reviews (FARs)

FARs are intended to facilitate a range of improvements to FAs, from updating and relatively light editing—including the checking of references and their formatting—to the addressing of more involved issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness and POV.

When listing here, a nominator must specify these criteria and may propose remedies. The nomination should last at least from one to weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Here, reviewers do not declare "keep" or "remove". If the consensus is that the deficiencies have been addressed, the review is closed; if not, the article is placed on the FARC list.

Older FAs are held to the current standards. Articles that were recently promoted should not be listed here (three months is typically regarded as the minimum interval between promotion and listing here, unless there are extenuating circumstances).

Tony 12:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

PS I suggest a short note at the top somewhere advising that the major/minor review process has been merged by consensus (which could be removed after a little while). Perhaps we ought to advise on talk pages of articles currently undergoing minor review that it's just called "review" now, etc. Tony 12:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

moving targets and mediation

Yes, I understand the frustration. I've only had time today to really watch the changes in motion. If the second step of mediation fails, what happens? Zeusnoos 15:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

FAR merger

Tim - your changes a definite improvement, except that I wonder whether the first sentence is needed, in the light of the second:

"A nominator need not desire actual removal to list an article here. Minor reviews of articles that are generally up to standard, but may require a copy-edit, are welcome."

If you want to keep the first sentence, could we depersonalise it? Something like ("A nomination need not be made with the goal of removal. Minor reviews of articles that are generally up to standard, but that may require a copy-edit, are welcome.")? Tony 15:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

{{MarsGeo-Crater}}

Fixed. I've also fixed all the other MarsGeo templates in the same way. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 18:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

FAR traffic

Yeah, in future I'll only add one, and I won' add any for quite a while. Thx. Tony 06:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

FAR notes

I have been following the discussion in the talk page and it is also my opinion that we should not defeature for prose only since that is easily fixable.

Also I will not close Sarajevo since I have edited the article and commented on the review. I only close those where I have not participated. Joelito (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

StarCraft

I FARCed it without reading your comment. Sorry, but it's done now. I still think it's not well written. Perhaps this will be one to pass FARC. Tony 15:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy X

Would you agree on closing the Final Fantasy X review? It seems that major concerns have been addressed and there is no need for FARC. Joelito (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

re: curious

I was going to write on the Talk that I usually understand what Aqui means, but have no idea what he is talking about in this instance. Whatever it is, it sounds mad. The 29 years is in reference to the Saturn cycle, 11.9 in reference to the Jupiter cycle. In ancient astrology (Hellenistic and earlier) these cycles were not a part of astrological interpretation as they are in modern astrology, so the 5000 of (written!) history is bogus anyhow. Oh, well... Zeusnoos 19:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA

You're RfA (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Marskell) is ready and may be accepted at any time, if you're still interested. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're wondering about the inspiration, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kappa 3 has existed for quite some time now, though never accepted. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Marskell, would you say I'm an okay editor or an unpopular one? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I think I was a bit disturbed at that moment by what I assume was a misunderstanding with another editor. The vast majority of my stress these days comes from real life, not the wiki. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Phishing

Thankyou for the update. My apologies for not being more active in the FAR. I read it over and commented. Thanks again. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

200 FARs

Just curious... you said that two of them are now in the Wikipedia namespace? Which ones are they? Titoxd^(?!?) 21:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Eep! I asked the wrong user... *looks for a rock to hide under*. No, what happened is that I saw a notice on the Signpost's Tip line, which said that two former featured articles were moved into the Wikipedia namespace. A few hours later, I remembered about the note and started wondering about it, but for some reason I was sure that it was you who had posted the note (with you handling most of FAR's work and all that). But yeah... I'm sorry, I guess that must have confused you! Titoxd^(?!?) 02:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

FARs

I will leave all three (Lastovo, Papal conclave and Phishing) since all seem to be moving forward. Lastovo just got a new editor who asked until the weekend to do some work in the article. However, Billboard (advertising) has no chance to pass. Joelito (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thanks so much for voting, Marskell! Thanks so much for your taking your time to vote on my request for adminship! With a final vote count of (82/5/0), it succeeded, and I'm now an administrator! I assure you, though, you have nothing to worry about with me being an admin. I'll be very careful/conservative at first, so I don't accidentally do anything wrong, and I promise not to do anything with the tools that would silence any criticism, as I assume was your thoughts when voting in opposition due to removed votes. Feel free to contact me with any comments/suggestions in the future! —Mets501 (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Astrology page

Please do not demonstrate ignorance and lack of intelligence by simply reverting my edits. All of them were explained, the least you can do is do the same, one by one. And I thought you had a sense of humour, but life must be a bitch. Aquirata 07:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Jaguar

I see you have been working on the Jaguar article. I found a paper with the phylogeny of the Panthera genus, maybe you can find some use for it in the Jaguar article. [5] Joelito (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the article, leopards and lions are the closest related of the Panthera genus. The jaguar evolved before the lion and leopard. In other words, the lion, the leopard, and the jaguar all had a common ancestor. This makes jaguars, lions and leopards a clade. From this common ancestor the jaguar was the first to emerge (either by vicarization or divergence, almost cretainly the latter) and afterwards the lion and the leopard species emerge. The Jaguar was the first species to emerge since it moved (migrated) away from Africa where the common ancestor was located. If you need any other explanations don't hesistate to ask. I am not a biologist but I can offer what little knowledge I possess.

On a side note I also began writing again. Fauna of Puerto Rico is my newest article. It is 70% done, just needs some more info and copyedits and it's ready for FAC. Joelito (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You are correct on the lead. I have not worked on it. I usually finish the lead after the article is done.

Regarding the references I usually use Harvard (parenthetical) style and even though they are supported by Wiki people tend to hate them all together which is why I use cite.php.

As you said evolution is not 2,4,8. Careful reading of the references must be done and if diverging theories are available in the literature then all must be presented and explained. Joelito (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support over on the new planet page Marskell

It's a bit weird, after ruling the roost alone for so long, to suddenly find my throne deposed. I'm starting to feel a bit like King Lear. But then, such is the way of Wikipedia, I suppose. Serendipodous 14:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Wangi/RFA

Thanks for your support on my RfA. Give me shout if I can be of help. Thanks/wangi 00:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you OK, Marskell?

Don't mean to pry, but you seem in a bit of a mood. I think it might be good tactics to reword your last comment; "Damn you all," isn't likely to go down well with the other editors. I'm finding the experience frustrating too (and at least you didn't use the F-word like Cyde Weys) this whole thing is getting too passionate. Whatever the IAU decides, the IAU will decide. At least there's an alternate definition proposal to vote for. Serendipodous 22:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

My advice: if you're going to use that quote, be sure to quote it in it's entirety, put it in italics, and use lots of exclamation points: You idiots! You blew it up! Damn you!!!! Damn you all to hell!!!!!. That way the irony is safely conveyed. :-) Serendipodous 06:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you didn't miss it. My absence from that poll is quite deliberate. I feel I'm too personally involved with that article to make an unbiased comment. And given the 'tudes people seem to be copping over there at present, I really don't want to get another "fecetious comment" accusation hurled at me. Serendipodous 22:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Deja vu all over again

It's baaaaack! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous members of Mensa (2nd nomination) ... your 2¢ would be appreciated. --Dennette 15:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

FARCs w/o comments

I believe it is in the best interests if everyone not close FARCs until a clear consensus can be observed. In other words, FARCs without comments shoulod be left open until people review the article and vote. Joelito (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You make a good question. How long? I believe that we cannot compromise the process with trying to maintain the page dynamic. Consensus is one of the founding concepts in Wikipedia and I believe that we cannot impose decisions when the consensus is non existent or isn't clear. Maybe we should take the discussion to the FAR talk page. See what others think. Joelito (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning on 2006_redefinition_of_planet

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Dionyseus 08:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Grr

{{unblock|Don't know if this is an open proxy or what, but I'd like to edit}} Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Freakofnurture for the following reason (see our blocking policy): This IP address has been blocked because it is believed to be an open proxy or zombie computer. To prevent abuse, editing from these proxies is currently prohibited. For more information about open proxies and what you can do, please see the WikiProject on open proxies.

Your IP address is 195.229.242.84. Marskell 10:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've put a request for a review up for you on Wikiproject Open Proxies. Hope this helps. ➨ ЯEDVERS 17:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't fucking edit

So there.

Marskell, is there anything I can do ? Sandy 22:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Should I ask Joelito to look in here? Sandy 23:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't do more to help: don't know what an open proxy is :-) Glad you're back! (Are you back?) Sandy 11:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to worry :-) The circumstances this summer have been different, for personal reasons. Since I've already picked up a few Wikistalkers, I'll leave the explanation at that :-) Sandy 21:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism

The article is anti-americanism and has a duty to provide background information, american anti-communism is background info, however section "the other" uses a quote to cover POV, and says "anti-americanism is the worst of the worst" or something like that, I have decided not to remove the other, so please please leave discrimination, both are tagged POV. can we please discuss on the talk page before having this war of reverts again! --Frogsprog 13:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

beans

Not at all. I did wonder what it meant, but no problem. So ... is it worth writing out guidelines for decision-making at FARC? Maybe, maybe not. Tony 09:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've already expressed to you what I think of the system of appointing people admins: it sucks, and in fact doesn't at all prevent the appointment of small-minded, power-hungry people who don't calm disputes, but inflame them.

I must say that I strongly disagree with a blanket ban on non-admins in the de-starring procedure. I'd rather the bucket and mop was kept quite separate from that kind of function, and the extra functions and privileges of admins not expanded in such a way. In essence, I see a lot of admins who are not good editors; IMV, the job is appropriate for those who are happy to perform menial tasks. Closing FARs and FARCs is not a menial task, but requires the kind of skills that admins do not typically have. Tony 10:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)