User talk:Derek.cashman/Archive 6

Noble gas

Hi, I have re-nominated the article for GAN. You reviewed it a few weeks ago and I would appreciate it if you could take a second look at the article to review it again. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The article has had significant improvements since it was last nominated. If you have time, please take a look at it. Gary King (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I have reviewed Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for working on addressing the issues. I delisted the article because there was no progress during the week that it was under review. If anyone ever jumps on to fix any issues during the sweeps review, I have no problem extending the deadline. But if no progress is being made, I'm assuming the editors are not going to address the issues, and I don't want to leave it on hold forever. However, it's good to see you're working on the article, as I really didn't want to delist it. When you are done or if you have any questions, let me know on my talk page so I can pass the article. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Polyclonal response again!

Hi!

Several changes have been made to the polyclonal response article. Do you mind giving it a look, and making further suggestions for its betterment? In particular, I have shifted the "{{details}}" templates to the top of the respective sections after I received the same suggestion from another user.

Regards.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 17:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I read your comment regarding the primary and secondary structure of the proteins in your edit summary. Do you feel it'd be alright to make a note out of the deleted text? This I'm asking as I don't think the liked article (protein structure) really explains the concept well in the given context. —KetanPanchal^taLK 17:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Implemented your suggestions

"I am not understanding the way you've written this sentence: "So, when in the "history of a clone", naive cells encounter their specific antigen to give rise to the plasma cells (that neutralize the same antigen by binding it), and also leave a few memory cells, this is known as the primary immune response." I think it's the beginning that's a bit confusing."

I'd thought it made the understanding of subtle difference between a clone not getting sensitized v/s just one naive cell not getting sensitized clearer. But, on your recommendation (may be because it's too informal)

"Need a few citations in some unsourced sections: 'T helper cell stimulation', 'Clonality of B cells', 'Difficulty in producing monoclonal antibodies'. Also, is the indented item in 'Increased probability of recognizing any antigen' a quote? If so, it needs quotation marks and a citation."

 Done on all counts.

Regards.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 17:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis‎

I have renominated the Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis‎ article, which has somewhat improved from the previously reviewed version. If you have sufficient time, I would like your assessment. The previous disagreements eventually required a mediation to resolve. Any questions, please let me know. - RoyBoy 23:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Polyclonal thanks!

Well, that's supposed to mean thanks for many reasons:

• That you promoted the article
• That you yourself made the (numerous) small contributions
• That you took your job so seriously, making sure that the article actually reaches a certain quality before being promoted
• That you awarded me a barnstar, and for other compliments
• And very important, being such a nice and important Wikipedian.

Early on, I was a bit irritated as to why an article in which already so much of hard work had been put was not being promoted. But, I realized with all the suggestions and changes that you'd made that that was my mistake—putting in too much hard work. My mistake was in trying to make it, in your words, "a stand-alone" article. That was partly because the I somehow didn't find the other articles satisfactory enough (I did try to modify some of them—B cell, memory B cell, clone, linear epitope, etc), but adding the concepts related to primary and secondary structure that I wanted in the polyclonal response article might have proved irrelevant there.

But, in the course of evolution of this article I realized that you were doing a terrific job, putting in a lot of effort (and that I better listen to you ;) as you were much more experienced than me).

You might have required to struggle so much with me because of my inexperience. This was the first article with which I was so intimately associated. My only criterion for making an article "good" was that the reader should understand it, and had totally overlooked the fact that equally important, it requires to merge together with the entire encyclopedia.

This was a very instructive experience. I hope, I'll have to struggle a bit less the next time around.

By the way, if this does not sound overambitious, what major changes would be required to make it reach featured article quality?

Also, now I'm felling that the article more aptly should be titled as Polyclonal B cell response; not that there are many other types of polyclonal responses in the body, but this sounds more appropriate.

Regards.

And yes one more thing, I was very impressed with the rate at which you were making edits the day before. And thanks for those edits.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 06:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Commen

Threats such as "I will revert you in 24 hours if you do not respond" (paraphrased) ([1]) are wholly unconstructive and totally against the spirit of Wikipedia. Please could you be more careful about your wordings in the future. What if the user had had a sudden spate of ill health? Not exactly fair to give an ultimatum. Additionally, we don't use ultimatums on Wikipedia. We don't rush things. We use discussion and WP:AGF to achieve progress. You did not WP:AGF with Enigmaman. You could have politely inquired why he had made the changes, waited until he had given his response before jumping to conclusions. Sorry for the long rant but that sort of behaviour is totally unacceptable on Wikipedia. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 09:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

My problem wasn't with your questioning, buddy. You made an ultimatum. Ultimatum's are really unproductive on Wikipedia. So please don't issue anymore. Cheers, mate. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to try and get me desysopped. I am open to WP:RECALL and I openly welcome you to try and have the tools removed. By the way, referring to you as "buddy" or "mate" is a colloquial term of endearment, I don't really understand how you can take offense to it. Perplexing! But, anyway, sure, try and have me desysopped. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

One more thing!

I didn't want you to miss this. Enjoy! —KetanPanchal^taLK 10:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

City of Salford

Hi thanks for your comments, although sadly not the delisting. I've replied here and would appreciate any further comments you have, it's been mostly me working on this article and it's sometimes hard to know how much is too much or too little in terms of detail. Thanks again. Nev1 (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Open Review proposal

Thank you for your contributions to the discussion on GA process reform at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Reform. Based on the suggestions made, a proposal has been set out (at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Reform#Open review proposal). Your further input would be very welcome, as there are a number of areas that may need more discussion before this proposal is put to the wider community. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 10:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi again!

I'm not sure but you might have missed this query posed by me. Since, you have scrutinized the polyclonal response (now, Polyclonal B cell response) article so closely, I wanted to know what all further changes would be required for it to get the A-class, and subsequently to the FA-status? By the way, I have added citations from a few other sources, and added a few images. Also, somewhat reorganized the references.

Thanks in advance.

—KetanPanchal^taLK 18:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Lealholm

Hi Dr. Cash. For the article Lealholm, I was wondering if you could take another look at it. I know you said that there are some issues with the comprehensiveness of the article due to its length, but I don't think we can fault a Wikipedia page simply because there is little available information. I believe that for a town of Lealholm's size (less than 1000 residents), the amount of information is just about right. The main concern I have is with the culture section. Most of the information there appears to be OR. However, I'm wondering how much of that section actually does need to be cited. If you believe that the article is not ready for GA, please let me know and I'll fail it since there seems to be very little activity on it at all. Best, epicAdam (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oxygen Toxicity

Just a quick note of thanks for your review and helpful suggestions. It gives us a good road-map to follow for improvement. --RexxS (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: GA review

I was half asleep with ten different things going through my mind! I thought I did something wrong lol, just couldn't think of it at the time. Thanks for watching and have a great weekend! Dusti^SPEAK!! 04:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Nuthatch

Promoted while I slept! many thanks jimfbleak (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence County (Ohio) government web sites

Why did you remove the Lawrence County Recorder link?

Are you aware of what the legal significance of a County Recorder?

The are a counties archives, keeping all the legal and historical records for a county,

and sometimes the Townships or Cities/Towns/Villages as well.

For Lawrence County (Ohio), there does not seem to be a "unified" county government web site.

Please either:

• If you can find an official "unified" county one which has links to the County departments, please post it.
• or restore the Lawrence County Recorder link.

A link/reference to the County Recorder is necessary for anyone trying to look up county records to populate the other Wiki articles on the Townships, Cities, Villages, and Towns within the County. In particular, I went to the page to see if their records search was back up to resolve a discrepancy with Burlington, Ohio and South Point, Ohio both claiming to to be the Southernmost point in Ohio. LeheckaG (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Vigoda

Please consider removing the hatnote you added to Abe Vigoda. Enough of a bad joke is enough. --CliffC (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Articlehistory errors

Please remember to scroll to the bottom of the talk page to check for the red articlehistory error category when updating an articlehistory;[2] alternately, you can leave the templates and GimmeBot will eventually come through and build the articlehistory correctly. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, here: [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Greater Manchester

Hello again Dr Cash!

As a geographer and a very experienced and respected reviewer (that's not creeping, I really think it!), I thought you may want to pop over and have a look at the Greater Manchester article - one which the Greater Manchester WikiProject is planning to nominate for WP:FA shortly. I can't think of any other user I'd rather take a look at this page for tips, so I thought I'd come and beg for a once-over! Hope you can help, --Jza84 |  Talk  01:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN

You are mentioned here OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: GAN reviewer of the Month

Thank you so much Dr. Cash, I really appreciate it and I'll keep up with doing my job. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You won't believe this....

I can't, for the life of me, remember how I got the list of usernames at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/participants into AWB last month. Using the "links on page" option only gives stuff that's actually [[wikilinked]] (and a few random outliers) as opposed to stuff in the {{user}} template. Do you have any idea what I'm doing wrong? —Giggy 06:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Deprecate/Depreciate

Per your tweak, I think the two have become almost synonymous. I always understood 'deprecate' to mean 'disapprove' or 'put down' (as in a self-deprecating comment), whereas 'depreciate' means 'to lose worth'. I did mean depreciated, as in 'become worthless', but I believe that thanks to computer folk not being able to use words properly, deprecate now has a second meaning ('rendered obsolete') which, I agree, fits better. So thanks ;) EyeSerene^talk 20:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

GA newsletter

For some reason, I am not retrieving the GA newsletter. Could you please re-add me to the list? miranda 21:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm having some AWB madness; see two sections up. Dunno if Doc Cash missed my message. —Giggy 02:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Psychoactive drug - Thoric's chart is back

Hi, once upon a time you contributed to a discussion concerning a chart on the Psychoactive drug article, which was a Venn diagram depicting a classification system for psychoactive substances created by User:Thoric. I was under the impression that the community had spoken and that the chart had been deemed original research, and indeed the chart has been absent from the article for almost a year, but it has recently re-appeared and its creator is lobbying heavily for its inclusion. I would greatly appreciate your comments in the renewed discussion. Thanks! Steve Carlson^Talk 00:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No need for insults

Anyway, based on information provided on Thoric's user page, I did a search for his real name (Derek Snider) on google. It doesn't look like this guy is any type of serious drug researcher (other than perhaps the type that experiments on himself, possibly?). A linkedin profile indicates he's either a retail manager of a computer shop, a "Senior Software Architect", or a "Contributing Sports Writer"; though I suspect "Senior Software Architect" could be resume-speak for, "I've hacked a few programs on the internet and played around", and "Contributing Sports Writer" could be interpreted as, "sports blogger". Anyway, not to be mean, but I think this guy might've been using some of the drugs he's listing on the chart, probably quite heavily,... Dr. Cash (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I know you're very fond of WP:NOR, but perhaps you should also take a read of WP:NPA? Yes, I'm the "senior software architect", by title for a multimillion dollar webhosting and email company. I don't generally hack programs (other than the Apache server and PHP). I write software from scratch, and have been doing so for over 20 years, primarily in C and C++ (and also PHP). While I am not a paid professional drug researcher, I do possess an extensive collection of research books (i.e. over 50 volumes). I have also shown the chart to several well known, well respected experts, including Dr. Alexander Shulgin (although the version he saw was this one: Image:Drug_Chart_version_1.0.png), and while there may have been some minor concerns, for the most part the chart was well received. In any case, I didn't put the chart back, someone else did. I was just re-addressing some of the concerns. Your insulting comments about by person however, are way out of line. --Thoric (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Chemistry Article Peer Review

Howdy, I pulled your name off the peer review volunteers page. I've got an article on acid dissociation constants that I'd like to get up to A-Class under Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry and hoped you might be willing to take a look. Many thanks! EagleFalconn (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

1,000 things!

Finally! I never thought it would get this far six months ago... thanks for the help and funny new 1000th thing. RedThunder 19:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Norfolk flag.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Norfolk flag.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

GAN reminder

Hi. This is just a reminder that it has been over 14 days since you placed the good article nomination for Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis on hold. If the article does not yet meet the GA criteria, you may wish to contact the nominating editor. Thank you for your help. -epicAdam (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

{{WikiProject Pharmacology}}

Yep, you fixed it; the category seems to be filling up fine. It will take a while for the category to update and display all the tagged articles, though. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal link

Hey, good idea. How about adding an image to replace the generic Portal icon? I considered two that look recognizable at 50 px—Image:Tabletten.JPG and Image:Bowl hygeia.svg. Both are more pharmacy- than pharmacology-related, though. {{portal|Pharmacy and Pharmacology|Tabletten.JPG}} gives the top one, and
{{portal|Pharmacy and Pharmacology|Bowl hygeia.svg}} gives the bottom one. What do you think? —Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter note

Hi - just a note that I'm not going to be able to deliver wikiproject newsletters as of... well, as of now. You can ask at WP:BOTREQ for another bot to pick up Giggabot's slack. Cheers, —Giggy 23:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Spencer Elden

I agree with your rationale at the Spencer Elden AfD, but did this really need an AfD? If you want the content merged, you just need a {{merge}} tag, not AfD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 22:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Saint Paul GA Preperation

Hello,

The Saint Paul, Minnesota article is being prepared for GA Nomination ahead of the 2008 RNC and the attention the article will be receiving (and in some cases already has).

Other editors and myself have been working on the article lately and we would like to you to help. If you have additions, comments, concerns, questions or other feed back, it is all appreciated. There is a peer review already set up and detailed checklist of issues that need to be fixed is on the talk page. These items can be crossed off when completed. Feel free to add to the list and sign your username, so that we know who added it.

Any help is appreciated. Also, if you would like to work on other articles directly related to Saint Paul, especially those that link off the Saint Paul article, that would be great too.

Thanks and have a great day, Calebrw (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Washington, D.C. FAC

Thank you for supporting Washington, D.C. at FAC. Given your work at WP:CITY, your comments are especially appreciated. Best always, epicAdam (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Average and record temperatures

I fixed the last six that were using it and deleted it. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Newsletter mailout

Hi. I haven't received the GA Newsletter for some time. Has it stopped, or have I been removed from the list? Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Same problem, here. -- iMatthew _T.C. 23:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi doc. I've seen the newsletter on other peoples' talk pages and saw it was delivered three days ago. I'm still waiting for it to be dropped on mine. My name is listed at Wikipedia:WGA#Participants so it's not that I'm thinking I should be getting it when I shouldn't. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review Request

Hey Dr.Cash, I currently have the article The Great American Bash (2005) up for Peer review, here. I come to you in hopes of you reviewing the article, as I'm aiming to get this article prepared for Featured Article status. I would really appreciate if you would take some time and review this article to the best of your abilities. Cheers, -- iMatthew _T.C. 13:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you by chance read over this message? -- iMatthew _T.C. 21:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

GA newsletter

I have been talking to Ohanaunited and if you are waiting to send out the newsletter, I can write a story for the second column concerning GA sweeps. I think it would be a good time to educate some of our members on the Sweeps process. Since it started a year ago, we're a third of the way done and are continuing to to get new reviewers. If it's too late for this newsletter, let me know, and if you want, I can do it for next month's newsletter. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I write the WP:FILMS newsletter, and don't always get it off by the first either. I'll try to have a column done by tonight or tomorrow for you to look at. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Newsletter/Current and updated it with this month's newsletter. The page was created so that we didn't have to continuously update Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Newsletters. After you create each new newsletter just paste the entire newsletter on this page and it will update it on the main newsletters' page. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't used AWB since June. I guess you can ask one of the several bots to deliver the newsletter. There are a list of them at Category:Newsletter delivery bots. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review limits

The guidelines for Wikipedia:Peer review ask that editors nominate no more than one article per day (and four total at any one time). While the rules say that one of the requests can be removed, I will let it slide since this is the first time. Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hypopituitarism

Hey Dr Cash, thanks for an earlier GA review on hypopituitarism. I agree that it was not ready for GA, and I have now done some general expansion. The one point that might possibly make it unsuitable is its reliance on one high-quality recent source, which is indeed cited 34 times. This is simply the best we have, and I can assure you that this source gives a representative picture of the topic. Instead, I have identified a number of extra sources that simply corrobate and supplement the first source's points, including a second broad-ranging review on the same subject. Do you think this is going to remain an obstacle to GA? I have also asked Gary King to comment, because he too took issue with this. JFW | T@lk 10:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The Lancet and PMJ sources are most definitely secondary, and I'm really surprised that you label them tertiary because both of them are clinical reviews on the topic of the article. I tend to build my articles on 2-3 high-quality reviews, sometimes stealing some of their sources if those too happen to be reviews. This has never caused me problems with previous articles, such as subarachnoid hemorrhage (now an FA) and Wilson's disease. JFW | T@lk 19:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I'm just gauging to see whether I should bother submitting this one for GAC again later. Could you tell me how to subscribe to the GA newsletter? JFW | T@lk 05:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK item for GA newsletter

What I meant is that the goal of sweeps is to review all articles listed before that date. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

GA talk pages

Thanks for notifying me of the move. I had expected someone like you to have a comment on the matter. Did I miss the GA monthly newsletter this month?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of my new solution.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO

You have been not signed up as an active member of WP:CHICAGO, but you have made at least 25 edits to Chicago. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please sign up as such at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members. Also, if you are a member, be aware of Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3 and be advised that the project is now trying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO

According to my records, you have nominated at least one article (Northern Illinois University shooting) that includes a category at WP:CHIBOTCATS that has been promoted to WP:FA, WP:FL or WP:GA. You are not signed up as an active member of WP:CHICAGO. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please sign up as such at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members. Also, if you are a member, be aware of Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3 and be advised that the project is now trying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO leadership

This month you have indicated new or continuing interest in WP:CHICAGO as either an active or semi-active member. The response to the project membership survey was strong enough that we should attempt to organize it in a more fully functional way. Please sign up at Wikipedia:CHICAGO/leadership if you would be willing to serve as a leader of the project from September 1, 2008 to February 28, 2009. The various leadership responsibilities are listed there. The roles will be somewhat similar to the roles of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators. We are a less mature and developed project than WP:MILHIST however, so our division of roles will be slightly different. Please respond by the 23rd.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter delivery bot

Hi, doc. Thanks for the delivery. If you're having problems with AWB you could try User:Xenobot which does newsletter deliveries. There is also User:Ralbot, but that too uses AWB. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review

Hi Cashman, recently you reviewed and passed Michael Jackson's health and appearance believing it to be a great article. I was quite impressed with your open mindedness regarding this controversial subject, you seemed to like it. Another article I have waiting for a review is the more complex 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson. I think you do medical stuff but this is a very broad article. It covers law, medicine, media and music. If you are interested in reviewing it I would be great full. Thank you. — Realist² 15:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

You may employ the services of TinucherianBot to deliver the WP:GA newsletter instead of manually doing it with AWB. Just FYI -- Tinu Cherian - 05:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pittsburgh view-from-incline sm.jpg

I love this image. Pittsburgh never looked better. I couldn't help but nominate it for featured picture status (WP:Featured picture candidates/Pittsburgh). Would you consider uploading a larger version so it can be nominated on commons too? =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO

Thanks for volunteering for a role in WP:CHICAGO. We still have no one to do the collaboration or the newsletter. Let me know if you would like to do either of these. Are you interested in overseeing the whole project. If so let me know. I will do it if no one else wants to.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

GA newsletter mention

With Jon Corzine's promotion, I now claim to be a major contributor to 100 current GAs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO

It is not exactly clear to me what the best way to divide the responsibilities for the new coordinators who have volunteered. Here is what I think we need in terms of review coordinators:

1. we need at least one person to be the peer review coordinator for WP:CHICAGO. This person would be responsible for both WP:CHIR#PR, which is for internal peer reviews within the project and WP:CHIR#EPR, which are peer reviews at WP:PR and elsewhere that we should try to transclude to WP:CHIR. I think such a person should comment on all reviews listed at either of these places and coordinate archiving of such reviews. This person should also monitor WT:CHICAGO for articles seeking assistance and make sure the editors are aware that we now have project reviews. In the early stages of the project this person should also comment on all discussions at WP:CHIR#A-CLASS until we build up some momentum.
2. we need at least one person to be the A-Class review coordinator for WP:CHICAGO. This person would be responsible for WP:CHIR#A-CLASS. This person should comment on all reviews there and coordinate archiving of such reviews. This person should also monitor WP:CHIR#FAC and WP:FAC because articles listed for FAC review should often come from our A-Class pool in the future. Also articles that fail may come to our A-Class for guidance. In the early stages of the project this person should comment on all discussions at either WP:CHIR#PR or WP:CHIR#EPR in order to help get the momentum going for our review process.
3. we need someone to monitor delistings at WP:FAR, WP:FARC, WP:FLRC, WP:GAR, and keep an eye on individual GAR discussions. This person should keep an eye on whether all the leading editors of each article, the leading editors of each article's talk page, and the projects listed on the talk pages have been duly notified. This will help maximize the likelihood that we find people to respond to discussion comments. Transcluding all articles to the proper locations at WP:CHIR is a must. This person hopefully will have an interest in helping to clean up an occasional article or two as well.

Generally, discussion pages are removed immediately at WP:CHIR, but kept at WP:CHIDISCUSS for two weeks after closing. I have been attempting to do all of these things for the project myself as well as my other tasks. We have three volunteers who mentioned an interest in reviews so each of you should discuss among yourselves which coordinator you would like to be.

Two of the review coordinator respondents also listed Assessments. Within the assessment department at WP:CHIASSESS we need a few tasks handled as well.

1. Assessment requests need to be responded to.
2. WP:CHIQUALITY and WP:CHIPRIORITY need to be kept up to date
3. Category:Unknown-importance Chicago articles and Category:Unassessed Chicago articles need to be kept up
4. Category:Top-importance Chicago articles needs to be administered. We have made it policy to keep the Top-importance for the top .2% of all WP:CHICAGO articles. Thus the following will be the next promotions based on the last round of voting:

Magnificent Mile -when the project gets to 16000 articles

Haymarket Riot -16500 articles

Daniel Burnham -17000 articles

Chicago River -17500 articles

Lake Shore Drive -18000 articles

Museum of Science and Industry (Chicago) -18500 articles

Chicago Tribune -19000 articles

The following will be considered for promotion or we may call for another vote or we may discontinue promoting altogether: Soldier Field -19500 articles

Sears, Roebuck and Company -20000 articles

Chicago school (architecture) -20500 articles

William Wrigley Jr.-21000articles

New candidates for Top-importance should be continually brought forth. Alternative selection methods may be considered, but currently we support or oppose inclusion on a ballot and then vote on the ballot. We should keep discussion open on this issue. Again, please discuss the division of responsibility. I am hoping to have all responsibilities assigned and be a fairly fully functional project on September 1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. When you get a chance, let me know how you guys are going to divide up the reviewerships. Apparently, some articles have gotten inadvertently tagged. We have been using bots to tag all articles with categories in WP:CHIBOTCATS. I don't think songs or albums should fall within any of these categories. Make sure Speciate (talk · contribs) the Chicago category coordinator is on board with your thoughts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Songs about Chicago (such as "My Kind of Town" and "The Super Bowl Shuffle") belong in the project and deserve a category.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we are agreeing songs by Chicago bands should not be added simply for that reason, but songs about Chicago should. I dropped a note at Speciate's page. The category should say something about this difference in its intro. Maybe the examples you mention would be noted in such an explanation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the other reviewers have chosen delistings and peer reviews. Would you be willing to do A-Class reviews. I have asked the peer review coordinator to come comment in order to make sure we have at least two people commenting. In return you should probably comment on the internal peer reviews. I will comment on any that are not mine. Let me know if you will accept this responsibility.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

AFD

I think you mentioned AFDing something in our last conversation. I think we should try to encourage use of WP:CHIR for notifying folks of such matters. Please transclude any AFDs there if they relate to the project.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Kirkcaldy

that is exactly what i have been wanting to hear, thank you. anyway, some minor things have since been addressed by me such as section shuffles and removing text from one or two pictures and i do know Mutt Lucker did add the elympothy section, although it is very little it is a start. Kilnburn (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing my mistake on the page on Google

Thank you for clearing my mistake on Google - I had brought in information on Google Chrome, but put it in the wrong section (sorry - I thought I had put it at the end of the "History" section). Later, I noticed that there was already a reference to Google Chrome (good to see that Wikipedia is keeping up with its standards of being an up-to-date encyclopaedia, possibly the world's most up-to-date encyclopaedia, at least for certain topic areas). I have not actually used Google Chrome myself yet - I tend to use either Internet Explorer or Mozilla Firefox, but a colleague of mine told me today (Thursday 4 September) that Google Chrome is very good. I remain Mozilla Firefox fan, myself. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Lincolnshire, Illinois for Peer Review

Hi Derek.cashman...I was hoping that you could take a look at this article. It could use the evaluation, and I could use the experience.

Thanks, --Starstriker7(^{Say hi}_{or see my works}) 14:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:FormerLouisvilleFlag.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FormerLouisvilleFlag.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Northern Illinois University shooting

Hi, I am currently engaged in a heated editing dispute in the article 2008, which lists notable events that took place in the year 2008. Knowing that you have been a significant contributor to the article Northern Illinois University shooting, perhaps you could provide an alternate opinion. Even though it wasn't the first or deadliest school shooting, I still believe it was a very notable event that affected the nation and world in many ways in the year 2008 (gun politics, higher education, mental health, journalism ethics, video game politics, emergency preparedness, etc.). I even backed it up with three international sources (from Australia and the U.K.), which I felt demonstrated the event's global importance. Unfortunately, people disagreed with that. Mind you, the event had been listed in that article all year, and only did it become a problem when I tried to add an image on the article recently. I stopped trying to put the image on there, but then they outright deleted the text entry about the event, which I thought was very uncalled for, and utterly ridiculous, considering it was perhaps one of the biggest media events of the year. Perhaps you could help revert this senseless deletion of a notable entry and provide some input on the talk page. Thanks for your help! Abog (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hi, I was hoping you could help me out with my peer review request for the Davenport, Iowa page. I worked really hard to get it to a GA in March, and am hoping to get it to an FA by the end of this year. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! CTJF83Talk 02:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review Request Lakeside Apartments District, Oakland, California

I'm humbly asking for your considered opinion with my peer review request for the Lakeside Apartments District, Oakland, California page. I've listed this article for peer review because, at present the City of Oakland's Planning Commission and City Council is revising zoning and height regulations for new land development (i.e. skyscrapers) in the neighborhood. Currently, much public attention is focused on this neighborhood in the Hearing Rooms at City Hall down the street, around in the conference tables of local investment banks, and kitchen tables of local activists. Having spent many hours editing it, I'd hope this article reflects a modicum of accuracy and good encyclopedic writing.Critical Chris (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

lehman article - semiprotect edit request

hi

any chance you could make the requested edits suggested/requested on the articles talk page several hours ago? i'm not (and am not in a position to be) a registered wiki editor.

thanks.--68.173.2.68 (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Neighborhoods and WP:CITY

Alright, for the Gulfton article, you said for that: "The article appears to be written as, and trying to follow the guidelines of, a US city article."

When, for River Oaks, Houston, Texas, you said: "I would strongly encourage editors to take a look at the WikiProject Cities' guideline for US cities." (from: Talk:River_Oaks,_Houston,_Texas#GA)

So, how do you reconcile that? How closely should a neighborhood follow WP:CITY? Both Gulfton and River Oaks are communities within Houston, so surely WP:CITY has to have some role in Gulfton. There is no WP:Neighborhood, so how do I compare the Chicago neighborhoods to the Houston neighborhoods? Also, River Oaks has a similar layout and has been promoted to GA. What does River Oaks have that Gulfton doesn't have? (besides a formal "boundary," as there is no Gulfton homeowner's association or anything like that)

See, this explanation is why a review period is needed - so you can get into more detail and so people will know what to fix.

I will re-evaluate the article, or appeal the GA decision, or both (after all Somno, a previous reviewer, said Gulfton was close to being a GA and Gulfton had a similar structure, so what is going on?). WhisperToMe (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Anyway, please respond at the Talk:Gulfton,_Houston,_Texas#Discussion_about_GA2 page :) - WhisperToMe (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much! I just added some community-specific info about the Gulfton storefront and the location of Gulfton as per the freeways and city streets. I'll see if adding some more "specifics" that show the flavor of the community will get this article up to par with River Oaks's article. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Did you see my responses and notes about some of the changes I made in the GA2 comment thread? For some reason I do not see them when looking at the Gulfton talk page, but I see then when going to edit the section. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSMED

Hi Derek. Oxygen toxicity was submitted to WP:GAN again, and I see that you previously reviewed it. Are you aware of WP:MOSMED? I directed the nominator to read it and try to comply with it. [I failed the article.] Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured article drive

Hey, Dr. Cash. Before, I worked on Lincolnshire, Illinois, and it should be through GAN in no time, but I've been thinking, and I am absolutely sure that I can pull bigger things off. The result of this mindset was this featured article drive for WP:CITIES that I've been trying to organize, and it involves eighteen of the largest cities in the United States. However, I believe the only way to make it work is to acquire all information beforehand. In this case, this means peer review. Are you up for the job?

If so, I have already opened up a peer review on the city of Los Angeles, California; it can be found at this location here.

Please get back to me as soon as possible.

Thanks, --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 12:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

GAC newsletter

Was there an August newsletter? I think I dropped a note to you when I got my 100th, but I don't recall seeing one and it is now Oct.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tal-seal.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tal-seal.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Kirkcaldy

i'm pleased to say that i have done a lot of work on the article and following your suggestions, i have made many changes and extensions. what do you think of it now (particularly when there is still a lot of copyediting to do)? Kilnburn (talk) 07:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Cities Announcement Listing

Hello, Derek.cashman. You have new messages at Starstriker7's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GA elimination drive

Hi there. Is there any chance you could advertise a GAN backlog elimination drive to active GA reviewers as per G-Guy and Giggy's suggestion at WT:GAN? Peanut4 (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Gorman, California . . .

Gorman, California is ready to be looked at. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy note, ANI

Hello, I have a left a note on ANI. I would have taken it up directly, but incivility plus canvassing is not helpful and I felt some administrator review would be beneficial. rootology (C)(T) 14:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, please watch the vandalism accusations and check who actually removed something. :) rootology (C)(T) 15:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I never accused YOU of vandalising, you accused ME of vandalising, when YOU had removed that footnote. Look at the diffs again. You called YOURSELF a vandal there...! rootology (C)(T) 15:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am totally with you. Want to joint-propose that all the AP-exempted ones be moved to just <city> instead of <city, state>? rootology (C)(T) 15:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Beat me to it. ;) rootology (C)(T) 16:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the Cities featured article drive

Hey, Dr. Cash. I was thinking over the featured article drive, and I think that maybe, instead of letting this whole thing languish until all reviewing is done, work on articles could be started in addition to work on the actual featured article drive. I know Los Angeles and Chicago, and based on the reviews the information is essentially complete. As information is already total, willing editors generally will not need to worry about ignorance in the sector. Would you like to divide and conquer? --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 23:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway

Saw your edit and edit summary. MOS actually states the complete opposite now, and wikilinking full dates has been deprecated. See Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Date_autoformatting for more. - auburnpilot talk 15:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I missed the entire discussion as well, and only noticed the change when I saw editors running scripts to remove the auto-formatting. Personally, I agree that it was a bad decision, and one that was poorly advertised, but I doubt it'll be reversed. From what I understand, it was a rather contentious debate. - auburnpilot talk 15:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

GA cleanup

Gimmetrow, the operator of GimmeBot, quit today, over a GAR tussle, so I'm hoping the GA editors will be much more careful about getting your articlehistories done correctly. I won't be able to keep up alone, and I don't have the patience of Gimmetrow when it comes to cleaning up GAs. [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Carrier Air Wing Six - trancluded Talk:Carrier Air Wing Six/GA2 back to page in the usual place tho it always could be accesses from GA template

You said on my talk page:

Also, when you delist an article from WP:GA, you need to cite the reasons for delisting. All you did for the Carrier Air Wing Six article was slap a delistedGA tag on it with no actual description or reasons for why you delisted it.

You characterize my action so unpleasantly. I did cite my reasoning and the editor of the article was agreeable. Please see Talk:Carrier Air Wing Six/GA2 of Carrier Air Wing Six. Somehow it was detached from the page but can always be accessed from the GA template. I transcluded it back on the talk page.

I apologize that it does not meet with your approval. I promise never to get near a GAR again! The GA process is so pleasant and rewording that I think I will stick to that, rather than risk another GAR. I have done many, many GA's with no problems at all. I am sorry to have upset you. This one GAR has become an unpleasant experience for us all, upsetting you and a negative experience for me, so I will stay away. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Your advice to me not entirely right

Besides wrongly saying that all I did "slap a delistedGA tag on" when, the fact, I did write a review that you could have accessed, I have received a post that your additional advice was wrong.

Individual GARs are a minefield, best to stay well clear. Dr Cash is not entirely correct in his advice to you above though. Wikiproject class ratings are nothing at all to do with GA ratings. Wikiprojects are at liberty to use whatever ratings they like, including GA, but that has nothing to do with the GA process. So when you delist an article you ought not to alter any wikiproject ratings. That's the responsibility of the projects themselves.

Therefore, everything you said was incorrect. Feel free not to post any more accusations or advice on my page. Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

US City moves

I closed the discussion and moved all but two. Please go through the hat-notes in the articles and make sure they are correct and please go through the talk pages and remove any move templates I have missed. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

November 2008 newsletter

Curious, I don't know if you'd add this sort of thing to the newsletter, but TonyTheTiger posted that he has passed 100 GAs, and I am almost at that, by what I hope, I should be at 100 during the weekend that it is to be released, if you could add these landmarks' to the newsletter, it would be a big help.Mitch32^(UP) 18:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the GA statistics section should highlight GAs that are currently also WP:FACs to encourage people to try to make the leap from GA to FA. I'm not sure if it should be in a numerical form (ie. 7 GAs are currently at FAC) or if they should explicitly name the articles. Also, I wonder how many former GAs have been promoted to FA status, and how current GAs have tried to leap the gap, but failed? I wonder how difficult it would be to find these things out? -Malkinann (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Huletts Landing, New York/1

Derek, you've put Huletts Landing, New York up for GAR on the basis that is contains short sections? As WP:WIAGA obviously states nothing against having short sections, would you mind explaining what the article needs to be expanded with? Your current rationale, with all due respect, is quite vague. Thank you. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Your rationale mentioned nothing of broadness/comprehensiveness/completeness. It simply noted that the article has "short sections". That aside, please explain what the article is lacking in comprehensives. Derek, not all locations have as much information as New York City or Boston. Small towns are, obviously, going to have far less information than a large city. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that is true. But do you have any evidence to prove that the editors who worked on the article skimped on content? AGF comes into play here; one could argue that it's unfair to the significant contributors to the article to assume information is lacking due to the length of a section. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed that, and while reviewing the article I took that into consideration. However, subjects such as this are so obscure, that often very few reliable sources cover them. This is evidenced by a =Google search that I did, in which I turned up little outside of what is currently in the article. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No need to be uncivil here; I'm simply trying to work this out. True, a library search would indeed be beneficial. However, the article addresses all of the major aspects, which is exactly what WP:WIAGA requires; it addresses the main aspects of the topic. WIAGA does not require the addition of every last fact. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Hafnium/GA1

bump Nergaal (talk) 09:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC) I believe the issues were solved Nergaal (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

William Bedle

Will you please weigh in on this article. The nominator (User:BlackJack) has put it up for a third GAN (the last fail only a couple days ago). It was failed by two experienced reviewers, and now he's got User:KenKt, who has 22 total edits under his belt, to review it a third time. I don't think sockpuppetry is an issue here, but something just seems wrong. Thanks. --99.156.92.12 (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The article should have been renominated at WP:GAN; that's what WP:GAR is for. The article has been moved. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have only just begun to review articles, being a new member, and I picked this one up following an exchange with the main editor on the Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria page. I fail to understand the problem and I am rather surprised that a seemingly drastic action has been taken on the basis of a post made by a non-member. When I was a non-member I confined myself to making minor edits as I did not think I could wield such influence. Could you please explain the process as I am confused? What happens to the review work that I have already done and the findings I have posted on GA/3 that, I believe, will help to improve the article? Has my time been wasted?

I should add that the previous review GA/2 was not actually carried out and I have given my opinion of that reviewer's attitude on the GA/3 page. I suppose rules are rules but I think the editor has a case when he expects that a proper review shall be done. I believe he is entirely justified in his view that the GA/2 reviewer had no justification for doubting the reliability of the cited sources and thereby failed to assume good faith. I gather that the editor was not entirely happy with GA/1 either but I cannot support him there because that was a detailed review in my opinion.

Finally, I cannot find the review article on a WP:GAR page so could you please give me directions? Thank you. --KenKt (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

My confusion intensifies. I have just been reading the WP:GAR page and noted the following:

• If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, read the review first. If you can fix the concerns, find them unreasonable, or the review inadequate, it is usually best to renominate the article at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, rather than requesting a community reassessment: there is no minimum time limit between nominations!

Isn't this what the editor has done? And why do you say he should not have done it so soon when there is no minimum time limit? I think this needs to be properly explained. --KenKt (talk) 06:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Derek. First, if you look at the GA/2 review and then at my talk page and then at the contribs history of the IP address that instigated this thread, I think you will draw the same conclusion as me re who it is. Does use of an IP address count as sockpuppeting? I've posted a warning on the IP address talk page about the message on my page and if you want to take it further that's up to you. Frankly, I have no time for people like that.

I can't say I agree with your action in moving the review out of GAN into GAR. The guideline quoted by User:KenKt above seems to say it all, really.

The point is that GA/2 was simply not done. I didn't agree with GA/1 but at least he performed a full review against the GA criteria and didn't make any absurd and untenable assumptions about the cited sources. The article was changed after GA/1 and so I naturally expected that the GA/2 reviewer would use the criteria too and then come up with some constructive feedback. What happened was a farce that just brings the review process into disrepute as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway, would you please clarify the procedure as per KenKt's request above. Thanks. ---Jack | ^{talk page} 14:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that moving the article to GAR was a farce. I said that the GA/2 non-review was a farce.

You have still not explained this procedure given the evident contradiction found by KenKt above. Why is it "simply not right for the article to be renominated directly to GAN immediately after being delisted" when the guideline clearly states that "...the review inadequate, it is usually best to renominate the article"? ---Jack | ^{talk page} 17:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I have concluded my review of the article within the reassessment page and I would like to know what happens next? I have been reading the entries that followed my previous one to this page and must agree with the "mysterious correspondent" at the top of the thread that something certainly seems wrong. Isn't there any kind of site control to prevent idiots causing trouble via IP addresses? I hope this sort of activity is not typical of Wikipedia as otherwise I might decide to utilise my time elsewhere. --KenKt (talk) 07:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to answer some questions about this matter. The reassessment hasn't been transcluded to the GAR page after you supposedly moved it and I notice that another user has already corrected one of your transfer edits. I'm wondering if you actually know what you are doing and if you actually have any authority to move something from GAN to GAR without the consent of either the main editor or an active reviewer?

Furthermore, I'm very suspicious of the message you received from the "IP address" immediately after the same person had committed vandalism on my talk page. Why did you go along with this person's request so readily without consulting interested parties first? Could it be that you have some sympathy with another person's point of view, perhaps?

Can I have a full explanation, please, before I take the whole matter further? ---Jack | ^{talk page} 11:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sister cities

Hi Derek, my name is Marek. I am not wishing to start any arguments, or anything like that. I would just like to explain the logic behind some of my edits.

In a recent edit you made to Bratislava, you stated that term 'Sister Cities' was 'wikipedia canon standard'. I am not disputing the use of this term at all – I believe it derives from Cities International (SCI), which is based in Washington DC, USA. This term may well be common, or standard in the US. I, however, live in UK, where the term 'Twin Towns' is most commonly used. (In the UK, when you enter a town, on the signposts it has a list titled 'Twin Towns', as is the case on most official local government websites) The term 'Sister Cities' is also used in UK, but usually when referring to a town or city in the US. (I've also seen the term used sometimes for cities outside Europe, mainly South America.) On European town/city websites I have seen various terms used, 'Partner Cities', 'Town Partnerships', 'Town Twinning', 'International Partnerships', the list of translations goes on... I believe that the term 'Brother Cities' is used in former Soviet bloc countries.

As I have been primarily been working on Wikipedia European Cities/Towns, I have found 'Twin Towns' or 'Twinning' most common, so to preserve this I thought the title: 'Twin Towns – Sister Cities' most ‘appropriate’. I am not asking you to change you opinion, I just though I would explain my thinking. I believe that the ‘correct’ title depends on the location, (similar to the 'colour' vs. 'color' debate). In conclusion, I would like to give as an example the article of my home town, Eastleigh. All the Best, Marek.69 ^talk 00:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

GAR

Re the Bedle review, I am not waiting for you any longer and I have done what is necessary to move this forward. Your action was out of order because it clearly does not comply with the GAR guidelines. The GAC/2 review was not properly carried out so I renominated and that is in compliance with GAR guidelines. You failed to show any respect for two other users by going ahead with your change without prior consultation and the only "authority" you can claim is that you are registered as a GA reviewer (as am I, for what that is worth). You then compounded everything by failing to complete the procedure so that we had a review page that was out on a limb and did not transclude to GAR. Then you disappear for days and no one can get any explanation from you. From my point of view, this is all a complete waste of time.

I have reverted your actions and restored the review page to GAN. As I am also a registered GA reviewer, not to mention a very senior editor, I consider myself entitled to be WP:BOLD and do what is necessary to remove an obstruction to progress that has been caused by another user. I feel especially justified when you have acted on a message received from one of the non-registered users that you so strongly oppose in a userbox on your user page.

The reviewer has all but finished his review so I have proposed to him that if he signs it off I will do one of the following:

• assumed fail – I will leave the article as B-class and will not nominate it for GA again unless it can be expanded because new source data has come to light (given that GAC3a is the main concern)
• assumed pass – I will transfer the review to GAR myself (and do it right!) given that he has expressed a couple of concerns around GAC1b (albeit a minor point) and, as expected, GAC3a

I think either course of action is more than reasonable and certainly much more reasonable than anything you have tried to do in this matter. In future, show some proper consideration for registered editors before you "weigh in". ---Jack | ^{talk page} 07:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

See, this is the kind of insulting, stubborn behavior you can expect from BlackJack...he needs to be controlled! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.156.92.12 (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)