User talk:RelHistBuff/Archive2007

Titanium

Additional work since your vote - can you revisit? Wikipedia:Featured article review/Titanium Regards, Sandy (Talk) 01:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see you around again !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad to be back and will contribute when I can on WP:FAR. --RelHistBuff 14:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tkachw1.gif

Hello RelHistBuff, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Tkachw1.gif) was found at the following location: User:RelHistBuff/sandbox/Original Version. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 01:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive

A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 23:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Little while no see

Hi RelHistBuff,

Little while no see. I saw your sig and was glad to see you. I always thought your GA reviews were among the very best.

I don't do GA; am trying unsuccessfully not to do anything on Wikipedia now, 'cause I have to study for prelim exams. But I am kinda lurking on FAC, FAR etc. and may start contributing modestly October-ish. GA toughened my hide a little, so I won't get upset about things. I have learned to follow the path of the immense wisdom of WP:DGAF :-)

Very good to see you around again! Ling.Nut 12:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ling.Nut. After writing my own article and shepherding it to an FA and then helping another person get his article to FA, I had decided that I had enough with GA and started to work on FAR instead. I learned a lot about the politics behind Wikipedia and so I thought it best to retire, satisfied that I made my tiny, but sufficient contribution. But after six months of complete quiet, I am back again working on FAR. Maybe in the near future I might get inspired enough to shepherd another article again! --RelHistBuff 13:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, if by "politics" you mean wiki-drama, well, I'm learning to ignore it (see link in my first comment). If you mean the group of self-important editors who are trying to be (or perhaps are) Big Wheels... see above, again.
• ..and I'm happy you're back! :-) Ling.Nut 14:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A Thousand Cuts / One Wikiquette

Hi, RHB. I see you're supposed to be studying, but still hope to draw your attention to this complaint I filed a few minutes ago re an article you had a hard time with, too. I think this is the one you are referring to on your user page. May I ask how far you got up the conflict resolution ladder before moving on? I need to decide how far I'll take it. Censoring the Armstrong biography is an endless problem with this user, and it's as bad as if Wiki were letting Karl Rove control the edits to George W. Bush's entry. -- Lisasmall 13:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have had horrendous problems with this user. I originally had a fairly neutral version of this article which I was working on in October 2006. User jebbrady started editing it at the end of that month. I tried to reason with him but he could only bring in his POV, continuing to revert all my suggested changes. In December, as seen in the article's talk page, I asked for a third opinion to resolve the dispute amicably. Even with the support of the third opinion, User:Amatulic (see the diff here), jebbrady refused to cooperate. I decided to not take it up any further and let him keep the article in its current degenerate state. This is a terrible weakness in Wikipedia. A controversial article on a well known topic has the possibility of getting something resolved. Something less well known is left in a terrible state in the hands of a POV warrior who has a lot of free time on his hands. I have been busy which is why I took a six month break, but I will be glad to support any effort to get this article out of the "ownership" of jebbrady and back under the control of Wikipedia. --RelHistBuff 12:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. He keeps making dire references to edits he disapproved of in October; I didn't realize that was you. Anyway, would you be willing to copy the paragraph above, or a rewrite if needed, to my WP:WQA request here? The WQA is higher on the dispute resolution list than a WP:THIRD but lower than mediation and arbitration, which is where I think we're going. Right now, he's got a few more days to complete his own sourced version of the article. I voluntarily and immediately stepped back, since I didn't want to waste my energy, and everyone's time, on a revert war. (If his article is still a hagiography, I can submit a substitute which will survive in the diffs even if it gets deleted.)

However, while stepping back from what could have been an edit war, I also immediately filed WP:SSP because he'd been using unsigned sock puppets, and I filed the WP:WQA because individual editors are never going to get anywhere. Right now, he's already been told by an admin twice that TIME is a reliable source for Wiki, but he's refused to accept it; and he believes that Armstrong's autobiography is neutral. This needs formal intervention, and the mediators (or, if necessary, arbitrators), would find your experience helpful. Thanks for being willing to put more time into this. I have no personal interest in Armstrong or Jebbrady or any of the churches involved, but, like you, it concerns me that a single fan can censor any information, no matter how basic (like the number of marriages! his first wife's middle name!) that he considers detrimental. In my first (and last) attempt to reason with him on the substance of the article, he instantly accused me of using courtesy as a tactic to curry favor with Wiki admins. That was proof enough for me that sweet reason had no chance. I note that he made the same accusation against you. BTW, he now asserts that the WP:THIRD agreed with him, not you. -- Lisasmall 03:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

hi

Hi RelHistBuff, I dunno if this is canvassing or not — if it is, then please disregard & accept my apologies... but if not, & if you have time, then would you mind commenting on the FAC of Georg Cantor? Thanks! Ling.Nut 00:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Georg Cantor redux

• I added a longish paragraph about the philosophy of mathematics, after which my head promptly exploded. Let me know if this satisfies your concerns... thanks! Ling.Nut 23:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Georg made the grade

Hi RelHistBuff,

Georg Cantor made FA. :-) I'd like to thank you for your help. Your comments led to the addition of some important material that shouldn't have been overlooked!

Now I need to study for prelims, and hope to stay from Wikipedia 'til September-ish, but I'll be back. Later! Ling.Nut 10:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ballot about Belgium

Hi, RHB. There actually was a vote on the return of Leopold III of Belgium, which was in his favor. But he still abdicated in order to keep the unity of his country. That makes the phrase in the article 'Belgium' about a ballot on the latter topic, highly undesired. The reference that supports the phrase only refers to a vote of confidence in the government, a rather banal event and not quite a ballot, and stresses that one has to carefully think about the reasons for a further unity of the country; such is indeed scrutinizing in OED English. The edit comment might not suffice to explain your unfortunate but for insiders all too apparent hint to the most direct treat ever to that unity. (See in Dutch Koningskwestie or French Question royale). Kind regards. — SomeHuman 09 Aug2007 22:10 (UTC)

Sorry, but as an anglophone, "scrutinizing" has a completely different meaning. You might be able to find obscure definitions of the word in the OED, but most anglophones would not think the word is related to taking a vote or poll. --RelHistBuff 22:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Belgium FAR

If you truly feel that these two people are disruptive to the article then the solution is not to defeatuure the article (attacking the symptom) but to ask for their bannishment for it (attacking the root cause). Joelito (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Armstrong criticism section

RelHistBuff, EdJohnston has suggested that someone come up with a criticism section for the Armstrong article in userpage space for discussion purposes. I don't feel qualified to do the initial pass at it: would you like to give it a shot? I already checked with Lisasmall as well. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 18:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Sarek, much as I would like to help, I am busy doing some research for two other articles (I would like to get them to FA). Just to let you know though of my interest in the article, I did spend a lot of time on it. I first start editing in May 2006(version here, a POV mess) and I effectively stopped in October (version here). By then you can see the article was completely rewritten and approaching NPOV (please take a look and judge for yourself though). My goal was to make it more biographical rather than doctrine-oriented. I was going to work on the citations next and then jebbrady started to mess with it. In my view jebbrady is POV-pusher with a LOT of time on his hands. The evidence can be seen in his long monologues on the Armstrong talk pages. As long as he persists, that page will never be of decent quality. In order to get a true NPOV version, a significant number of editors (who have only a normal amount of free time each) are needed to match the persistance of jebbrady. Unfortunately, there are very few editors that are fervently interested in the topic of Armstrong. I do sympathise with you, Lisasmall, EdJohnston, and 24.6.65.83 but I see no other solution other than arbitration. --RelHistBuff 19:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I suspect you're correct, but I'm trying to fix things before then. I'm 90% sure that if it goes to arbitration, Jeb will get banned from the HWA/WCG articles, and I'd much prefer a solution that allows him to remain a active member of the WP community (if not quite as active as he has been). I think he's decided that I'm not to be listened to, though, so Arbcom may be the only thing that will rein him in.--SarekOfVulcan 20:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I admire your level of patience. Good luck. If, however, it does go to arbitration, then drop me a note and I will add my comments. --RelHistBuff 21:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, RHB. I was just leaving you this note and bumped into an edit conflict as you were writing at the same time.  :) I agree that arbitration is inevitable, and I will do what I can to help SarekOfVulcan. I know you've had about all the fun you can stand with this, and I am glad you might be available, no matter how briefly, if arbitration progresses. Jebbrady was a toxic experience for you, but happily, you're still editing. Other users apparently have been so discouraged they've never come back to Wiki editing at all. Either way, thank you for all you have done so far. -- Lisasmall 22:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Belgium

Hi Rel. I've responded on Joel's talk. I've been avoiding the page because SomeHuman is so hard to deal with, but I actually don't mind going back to it to make improvements if you have any in mind; I've gone through it once so am familiar with the material. We could cut the table, for instance, for the timebeing, until a better version is suggested. Marskell 13:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK then, I went and removed the table and started a thread regarding better explaining it. This will no doubt lead to reverts but I think I'm solid ground because anyone who had anything to say about it said they didn't understand it. So you could stay tuned there. Where a FAR is kept but people are unhappy I try to go back to the page and address the concerns directly. Marskell 13:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I will put it back on my watchlist. --RelHistBuff 17:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, Rel. I do want to say that your contributions at FAR are very much welcome and I really hope you don't think people aren't considering and looking at things. It's so often damned if you do, damned if you don't, at FAR. It was Joel's closure, but I prompted him, so it's half mine; I think he's thoughtful with things and I always agree with his decisions. IMO on this article, certain paragraphs or sentences get edited (often because of POV debates) by a non-native speaker and then you have this pocket of bad prose. So, you'll have clearly bad sentences, but the bulk of the prose is passable. I was responsible for the last full copyedit, and most of Belgium is good. Do you remove based on 1a because certain paras are bad (but can be fixed, easily enough), while the bulk of it is OK? Tough call! I don't think the FAR process is wrong for defaulting keep in such cases, which is what happened here. If you've watchlisted the article, we can hopefully work on it some more. My main thought is that I hope RelHistBuff doesn't give up on the review proces! We're all trying!

(Sorry for talking over two threads!) Marskell 20:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I will continue helping out at FAR. However, my contributions may drop a bit as I start working on pulling some B-class articles up the value chain. --RelHistBuff 21:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration case involving Jebbrady

For your information, I have filed an arbitration case regarding Jebbrady's editing of the Armstrong-related articles.--SarekOfVulcan 17:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed in other RfAs other people make statements or give evidence. Should I make a statement now? Or should I wait until the arbitrators decide to take the case? --RelHistBuff 16:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure: the instructions used to be clearer. I think that you can add yourself as an involved party now, but you'll be bound by any decisions the Arbcom makes. I'm pretty sure that that doesn't apply to Evidence-givers. It would be nice if you'd add a statement, since you can establish that editors have had the same problems with Jebbrady for quite a while now.--SarekOfVulcan 18:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I put in a comment. I mentioned one part of the dispute resolution process (Third Opinion) that was tried. I would recommend that you or Lisasmall mention the Wikiquette Alert. Just to show that at least two different methods of negotiation were tried and failed. --RelHistBuff 21:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

FAR of Charles Ives

Hello there--just wanted to bring your attention to:

1st FAR of Charles Ives Alerted nominator, 1st FAR reviewers, WP:Bio, WP:CT, WP:Composers.

Which I believe fulfills what you had said (however its already there). The only issue I have is contacting the major contributors, there doesn't seem to be one particular person involved with it, I suppose I'll send out a mass-message. Thanks. MrPrada 09:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

At least try to get the latest, major editors. They may feel that they have a stake in this. --RelHistBuff 09:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Belgium again

Ditto. As with many cases of OWN, other editors simply leave because the don't want to deal with it and the "owner" feels reinforced. I don't know what to do with it. It probably does need another forum other than FAR; having intermittent revert wars over a table doesn't make sense. We'll see if anyone has the energy for WP:DR. Marskell 12:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Sverre of Norway. User:Fornadan did do some work recently so I guess it gets another extension. If you judiciously add some more fact tags and contact him/her perhaps it can be taken care of. Marskell 12:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Jebbrady RFC up

I've put it up here: you need to review it and see if you can certify my statement within 24 hours (because I wasted 24 before taking it live).--SarekOfVulcan 21:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I must really thank you for all the effort you made of going through the history of the talk page! I was going to do that myself (going through each diff, one-by-one), but I see that you have done a fantastic job. I have certified it and I will put it on my watchlist. --RelHistBuff 22:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and you're welcome. Note that the compare two diffs button works really well on some of these extended edits. One of the reasons I stopped when I did is that from that point forward, there are too many people speaking at once...--SarekOfVulcan 23:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

RHB, three votes having been recorded (out of the four needed for a decision about whether to hear the case) on the ARB, Sarek has filed this RFC/U which you and I both certified because we meet the "tried and failed" criterion. Please take a look at the subsection there with my evidence of my own attempts and failures. I don't know if you have the time to add a similar subsection re your Oct-Dec grind. My subsection uses more links than diffs. Sarek thinks that diffs are preferred, which you may want to keep in mind if you decide to add an evidence section about your own attempts and failures. I know you're busy and have already given a great deal of time to this. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 08:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lisa. I am travelling at the moment, but hope to add something similiar to your subsection next week. I probably will not be able to match your level of knowledge of the policies of wiki (your subsection really shows your skills in your profession), but I will do my best. --RelHistBuff 14:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Henry Fonda's FAR

The relevant Wikiprojects and users were notified at the time of the article's nomination. The nomination page now reflects these facts. Thanks for your concern. Grim-Gym 21:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites

Hi Rel. I really have no idea what to do with this one at FAR. On the one hand, there's obviously enough removals to remove, but every time I look somebody has been up to work trying to improve. Can you check a second time? If it's still clearly not there, I suppose it must go. There's a bunch of FARs with little or no comments, incidentally (nudge, nudge—I had been meaning to thank you for continuing to comment on the page). Cheers, Marskell 21:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I will reread the article today and add some more comments (either reaffirming or changing my vote). I hope that will help things in clarifying a decision. Sorry about not being as active on FAR. I had become selective on what to review because I've been busy on working on an article toward FA candidacy. --RelHistBuff 08:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent review on FARC. I copied your comments to the talk page for future editors. I can't take another round of this conflict. I will address the fraudulent content problem in arbitration, hopefully leading to a permanent solution. As you may have guessed, I was stuck between a rock and a hard place between two editors. I suppose you could say that I chose the lesser of two evils, but I cannot abide dishonesty. I hope you will participate in a Peer review and FAC if there ever is one again. Ovadyah 16:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Shalom Rel: The confusion with respect to the Ebionites can never be understood -- and the true teachings of Jesus will remain an enigma -- until which time the quotation by Hippolytus is explored and understood. In my own article on The Three Lies ( http://TheThreeLies.com ), I portray the Wikipedia as being spiritually castrated (see http://TheThreeLies.com#TrueProphet ). The article itself begins with the AskMoses.com portrayal of the Final Temple, and demonstrates how this is the true objective of all Spiritual Religions -- and especially Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The long suppressed Epistle of Peter And James warns that if this essential knowledge is lost, that the (religious) people of this world will be bound to a spiritual diaspora that will be impossible for them to emerge out of -- i.e., "it will remain even for those who really seek the truth, always to wander in error" ( http://TheThreeLies.com#diaspora ). And the fact that the Wikipedia has chosen to continue this censorship, only furthers the spiritual disenfranchisement of all those who seek the Truth and TheWay. Nazirene - http://BrotherOfYeshua.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazirene (talk • contribs) 16:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for November 2007

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, can't help ya

I'm really sorry to have to say this, but I'm currently unable to review any more articles. I'm in the middle of reviewing Society of the Song Dynasty and I've got another on deck when I've finished. Good luck finding someone to review it, though. If in two weeks you haven't found anyone, ask me again – conditions may be different. Cheers. – Scartol · Talk 11:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, these lightweights!

(Prim voice) I'm reading said article at the moment and will do some copyediting and reviewing over the next day or two, all being well. qp10qp 00:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(genuflecting) Many thanks, sir. "I'm not worthy!". --RelHistBuff 09:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to genuflect, a curtsey will do.

By "lightweight", of course, I am referring to that punk Scartol, not you. He only writes about one featured article a month and has restricted his adoption of orphans to a mere three, so who is he to cry "busy"?

I've now finished reading the article and am about to start a copyedit. My first response is that it is fluent and readable, though not critical enough. It can certainly make FA, in my opinion. Many congratulations on all your fine work! qp10qp 14:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Laleena

Hi. Of course I can help you. I was surprised to see your message, but I knew I'd get some. Yes, I'll do that. Cheers, Laleena 00:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. Thanks for going ahead. I just wanted to mention that since I left you the message, another user has been going through a heavy copy-edit as well as a review. You can see what has been happening in the talk page. But I still appreciate it if the article is looked over through another pair of eyes. I just wanted to mention though that I saw a few errors in your first set of copy-edits. I will correct them. --RelHistBuff 07:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am using the grammar that is common in America. If you could tell me what went wrong and how you corrected it, I'll look it over. Thanks, Laleena 01:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, concerning the punctuation you can see in this diff, the University of St Andrews is a name of the university and is a proper noun. So no apostrophe or full stop are needed. Also, in British spelling, the saint abbreviation (St) does not have a full stop. Concerning the spelling in this diff, if you look at WP:MOSQUOTE, the original spelling (from the 16th century) should be preserved because it a quotation. The basic rules are in our manual of style. Conformity checks to our "house" style and corrections for certain grammatical constructions (use of passive vs. active voice, dependent/independent clauses,...), tense agreement or usage, flow of reading, etc. are things that the article might need. If this is all too much, then even a light overview and corrections are ok. The more people who read it, the higher probability that my mistakes will get caught! Thanks again. --RelHistBuff 13:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Knox and more

Wonderful work on the Knox article! If you feel the inclination, English Dissenters is in desperate need of attention. I link to it almost every day, so I see its sorry shape. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to write it at the moment. However, I do have an excellent bibliography that I could offer you. Pre-selected and reviewed for usefulness (I've even read most of the books and have notes somewhere that I could email you, if that would help). Just no time to write. Awadewit | talk 06:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I really enjoyed working on it, especially working collaboratively with you and Qp. And thanks for the suggestion. The topic really looks interesting, but I don't think I can do it justice, at least not yet. Unfortunately, I live in a non-anglophone country and finding the sources can be somewhat difficult. I was fairly lucky with Knox in finding several books, but as you and Qp rightly pointed out, the 50s/60s are not really considered modern. So my next targeted article will depend on what quality sources I can find. I saw your FAC review of Thomas Cranmer and I agree with you that it was weak on the use of sources. I think I can find a copy of Diarmid MacCulloch which you mentioned is the definitive biography. So perhaps I can work on that one. I just need to get two or three others for cross-checking and balance. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand - research is the most difficult part of any non-controversial article. Cranmer is definitely another worthy and difficult biography to tackle. I look forward to reading it in the future! Awadewit | talk 01:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Palazzo

Ya, I don't know what to do Rel. Option 2 would be a new precedent and Raul should set it, if it's to be set. At the moment, I'm just ignoring it. It will probably flare back up when it gets moved to FARC. Marskell (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Knox FA

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for getting John Knox up to Featured Article status. Keep up the fine work! Flex (talk/contribs) 16:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I already have other projects in mind. It depends on whether I can get the right sources. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi relhistbuff

You're one of the folks that I keep wishing I could work with some day, or at least interact with in the content review process, but it never happens. :-) The prelims were tough.. but it's like having a baby (or so I've read): the agony seems excruciating, but once you're finished, the joy is equally intense. When I got the letter that I had passed, I literally collapsed on the floor in relief, like a bag of wet clothes. Now I'm allegedly working on my dissertation in Linguistics, while teaching English in Taiwan. I plan to pop in to FAC, GAR and PR once or twice a week, but can't do any heavy lifting on Wikipedia. It's a shame 'cause I have some topics I'm really interested in working in. later! Ling.Nut (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)