User talk:Hag2/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Danny Casolaro

July 29 to early-August

The enclosed is collapsed for usability. It contains mostly Wildhartlivie's comments from July 29, 2008 to early-August 2008.

The following conversation took place early on.

I was curious about why you removed the citations from the article here. Each quote included in an article requires a citation, and the majority of the citations you removed were for quotes. Could you explain? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for noticing. When I first attempted to read the article "Joseph Daniel Casolaro" it was unreadable because of several problems. The first problem had to do with "overlinking". The article looked as if it was a well-lit blue/red signpost of miscellaneous linking for such things as "racehorses", "obstetricians" and whatnot. The second problem was that the original author had referenced everything with a notation -- almost every sentence !! -- such as this:

An example from the original manuscript.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

After the scandal erupted, "police returned to Room 517 for a more thorough, if belated search." (Ridgeway and Vaughan, 39) The room had not been rented since Casolaro's body was discovered. (Ridgeway and Vaughan, 39) Authorities gathered fingerprint and fiber evidence, and reexamined the windows and doors for evidence consistent with a forced entry. (Ridgeway and Vaughan, 39) The roof was examined for footprints, and for evidence that might have been consistent with someone rappelling into the window. (Ridgeway and Vaughan, 39) These new searches uncovered nothing unusual. (Ridgeway and Vaughan, 39) Roads were searched for miles around, seeking signs of Casloaro's missing briefcase and accordion file — without success. (Ridgeway and Vaughan, 39)

"...blah blah blah. (Corn, A8)" or "(Ridgeway and Vaughn, page 41)". Because of these two problems I suspected that no one read the article. A close examination of the timespan between comments in the Talkpage (and History) more or less confirmed my observation. Consequently, the first thing that I attempted to do was to provide footnote notation, rather than the original author's sentence-by-sentence citation. I agree with you that "each quote included in an article requires a citation". However sometimes it is possible to reference an internal quote by the manner in which that quoted material is presented. For example, if someone says something within the article, and we know who he is that is providing that information, then it is not always necessary to cite his direct quote a second time in the footnotes (although the first place that his quote was seen in print was in a third-party's printed manuscript.)

Anyway.... This is my current reasoning. If this is unacceptable, please let me know. I am exhausted trying to make "Joseph Danny Casolaro" a readable article. To be truthful, this manuscript is almost an impossible endeavor. The problem is primarily that the original author has borrowed so freely from a Village Voice article by James Ridgeway and Doug Vaughan (SEE: all the current bottom citation-notation) that this article is so close to plagarism that if you have a better way of dealing with the situation, then by all means revert my attempts to the original article and try to read it from beginning to end.

Although I would like to finish what I have started before I abandon this project, I am teetering on a fine line.

Thanks for your interest. I will discontinue...until I hear from you.

I should point out that this is a work in progress. I have provided rough drafts:

1. User:Hag2/INS...OCT_draft

2. User:Hag2/Final_draft

3. User:Hag2/Last_draft

4. User:Hag2/Death_draft

5. User:Hag2/First_Suicide_draft

6. User:Hag2/Funeral_draft

7. User:Hag2/More_thorough_draft

8. User:Hag2/Aftermath_draft

9. User:Hag2/What_draft

and I welcome all input. Hag2 (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I did take a look at the version prior to your efforts and I agree that it was a mess. By all means, please go ahead and continue your work on the article. I only noticed it because of an edit made by a sock puppet whose work I was looking at. I'll take a look again in the future and see if there are any suggestions. Thanks for your explanation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Darn. I was hoping that you would tell me to go away. *grin* That sock puppet was probably me: I forgot to log in ^&*%$#! Hag2 (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No, no. The sock puppet account is the one whose changes I reverted. It is yet another new account by a banned user who moves around from one public internet access site to another, so the best that can be done is to block the accounts as they pop up. Otherwise, the LA County Public Library, LAX, UCLA, etc. would be all be blocked. You're on the right track, keep it up!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I looked over the Casolaro article a bit this morning and it is shaping up quite well. I had a few comments I wanted to leave for you. Hopefully they will help. First here is a great help with referencing, all tied up in one handy little template:

Really, there isn't a lot to add. Be sure to close all the spaces between a sentence and the reference, there should be no breaks. I'm not sure if it was you, but if not, ignore the next. There seems to be a lot of lead ins which begin (for example) "As David Corn wrote in The Nation. You don't have to include those lead ins, who wrote it, and where is in the reference. Take a look at the first couple of sections where I changed some of that. Remember that you are writing an article, not a term paper or analysis, so it is more accepted to simply use the quote, or make the statement, then just reference it. Along those lines, try to steer away from using so many direct and block quotes. Too many will just create issues later on from someone. To be honest, I've used the "quote farm" template on article before, so I am one of those who encourages incorporating facts from the sources re-presented instead of quoting extensively. Wikipedia articles should strive for straight articles. Hopefully some of this will help. If you have any questions, let me know!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The above is an extended post that has been collapsed for improved usability.

August to early-December

The enclosed is collapsed for usability. It contains mostly Wildhartlivie's comments from August 2008 to December 2008.

The following conversation took place in August.

Hi. Thanks for your note. I've only started using the checklink tool and it's very helpful. I've been going through my watchlist this weekend. I have it watchlisted and I look at your edits when they come up. I suppose I am guilty of not passing on props on the article, instead, I would have contacted you if I'd seen a problem. I'll try to do better and be more proactive. Before you re-nominate it for GA review, let me, or someone else I rely on for 2nd opinions to go over it for form, content, citations etc. and that should help a lot. Keep up the good work! Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I've looked at the two types of notes for this and my preference would be to incorporate as many of the explanatory notes as possible in with the Footnotes section. It could be a little confusing to some readers to have two sections. It doesn't hurt for a line to have more than one reference.

I have a few comments, hopefully you'll find something constructive in them. Some are just routine housekeeping types. One comment I have is that you need to avoid including what could be construed as original research. Specifically, I'm referring to the notes about the absence of a Sheraton Inn. You need to find a reference that says this somewhere, I think. Another note is that you shouldn't refer to him as Danny unless that is in a quote by someone. He should be referred to by his full name or by Casolaro. The books listed in the "See also" section should be moved to the bottom under the heading of "Further reading".

One question I have is whether you've considered converting some of the quotes into your own prose. Too many quotes may be considered an issue to GA reviewers. Meanwhile, the attributes for them should probably be tied to a citation. Stylistically, it looks good, I'm just not sure how it would be received. An example:

One of the troubles in the case is separating the reliable information from the specious.

Along with some reliable information, Casolaro also sucked up... a lot of garbage. His notes show that he was influenced by the silly 'secret team' theory of the Christic Institute and that he chased down material fed to him by a reporter who worked for Lyndon LaRouche, the grandmaster of conspiracy theories.
— Corn, David; The Nation page 515

Could be written as (the reference markup is visible purposely):

One of the troubles in the case is separating the reliable information from the specious. David Corn noted that along with reliable information, Casolaro tend to suck up "a lot of garbage", and that he was influenced by the Christic Institute's "silly 'secret team' theory."<ref name="corn515">Corn, David; ''The Nation'' page 515.</ref> He also spent time following leads fed to him by "a reporter who worked for Lyndon LaRouche, the grandmaster of conspiracy theories."<ref name="corn515"/>

Let me know what you think. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:Layout suggests using "Further reading". This would be the last section of the article, after the books. There is a bit of leeway on naming the reference and books section. When the material being cited in the article is to specific books, I personally prefer using "Bibliography" to "References." I then use "References" as the main footnote title. That's my preference, anyway.

I thought while I was here, I'd clarify the original research comment I made. What it amounts to, essentially, is to try and avoid drawing conclusions not presented elsewhere, or presentation of material that refutes referenced facts. The original research line is a fine one that's sometimes hard to see. One policy you might read to help clarify that is WP:SYN, which is about synthesizing a conclusion from two otherwise unrelated facts. I suppose the best way to think of it is that we don't have to present a solution or outcome to a mystery just because we're writing about it, AKA we aren't doing an investigation or news story. One article that I've worked on that had its fair share of synthesis battles is Karyn Kupcinet, whose 1963 death is a mystery. My Wikipedia editing partner and I had a long, drawn-out battle with a person who was bound and determined to present an article that solved her death. The official cause of death was strangulation, with the presence of a broken hyoid bone. Simple enough, one would say. But the other editor had dug into the Los Angeles newspaper archives and came up with stories from several year later about the coroner who had conducted Kupcinet's autopsy. In later years, (I want to say 1968 or 69, but I'm not sure without digging) the coroner had drinking issues and made some errors in autopsies. One or two of those involved the possibility that he had broken the hyoid bone himself during autopsy. The editor tried and tried to present this information in the article to cast doubt on the findings in the Kupcinet case. This was in spite of the fact that there was no mention of doubt cast on cases from 5 or 6 years earlier, nor on the Kupcinet case specifically. By taking these two disparate issues and presenting them as conclusion of incompetence in the Kupcinet autopsy, the editor was synthesizing a solution.

I'm not saying at all that I see this in the Casolaro article, but I did note the mention of the non-existence of the Sheraton Inn. If you could find something published that supports this error, it would remove any question regarding it. Does that help? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I had a look, sorry to take so long (not feeling on top of the world this week). I made 3 or 4 minor style changes to how the refs and footnotes were displayed. I'm not as clear on the footnotes, but the refs section guidelines encourage two columns when the number of refs exceeds something around 25. The more refs there are, the more room they take so the trend has been to the reflist style. The Further reading section is fine, I just made it a subheading higher up the hierarchy, per layout. I would note that those entries are supposed to be in alphabetical by author's last name, then by date of publication within an author's works. It looks like you've been working and it is coming along. There are several places where multiple uses of one reference can be combined. Ridgeway and Vaughan; page 37 is one. They can be collapsed into one ref with abcd, etc., notations by using <ref name="ridgeway37"> for the first use and <ref name="ridgeway3"/> for subsequent uses of the same ref. I will either do it, or suggest to you that you make use of the ref combinations when it is looking like you're ready to polish it off. It's a point that GA reviewers will make. The Further reading section shouldn't contain what is being used in the refs above it. Hopefully this helps. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your notes

Hi, Hag. I'm sorry I didn't get back to you on all of that, I was down with a migraine yesterday and it's only improving through last night. I looked over what you had presented in what you removed from my talk page. Some of the material on the INSLAW page was a bit out of my realm of expertise, but what I can say is that while what I saw being added, I don't think it was vandalism, but it does present other issues. I don't think the two IPs are connected. It appears that the 71. IP was answering the year old query by 76. about who William Hamilton was. 76.18.82.93 traces to outside of Albuquerque, New Mexico, and seems to have an interest in conspiracy theories. A great many high speed home connections show up as based at the national headquarters address, but the traceroute gives more precise info. The 71. IP, on the other hand, is a problem. While the WHOIS does show Reston, VA, that is a major internet hub which is the home of Verizon. It traceroutes to Washington DC. That tends to confirm that it may well be the head of INSLAW. And therein lies the problem. Have a look at WP:CoI - the head of a company has a deep conflict of interest in adding to an article about himself or his company. If he has corrections or other material that needs added, he has no place in adding it to the article. It should be posted on the article talk page, or perhaps a talk page of an interested editor, or he could contact the Wikimedia Foundation. To counter his comment on the 76. talk page, that someone can come in and make a change, or may, and say they are in charge of the company, is what would undermine WP reliability. It has to be sourced by reliable sources, not the word of an anonymous IP that he's the CEO. Otherwise, the contributions are dubious. Don't back away from challenging the veracity of it, it is incumbent on him to provide the sources. If it continues to be an issue, it can be taken to the WP:COI/N noticeboard for investigation. Does that help? Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Project templates

I wanted to tell you that in general, project templates are placed and filled out by members of the various projects who know the parameter requirements and assessment criteria for project-connected articles. I've worked on WP Biography as well as WP Actors and Filmmakers for a long time, assessing articles, so I don't often omit a needed parameter in a template. Not all of them are needed or used for all people, and the template itself is a project housekeeping tool. In general, the article author doesn't complete the template, although it is acceptable to initiate one using only the basic data (name, living or not, listas). An author shouldn't assess his or her own article. Note that there is a red link in the current template. To request a peer review, you need to click on that red link and begin the review request.

Regarding the Inslaw article, I'm not entirely clear as to which projects this article belongs. One certainly is WP:Business, which uses either the {{Business}} or the {{Infobox Company}} template. You should just place this template on the talk page and then someone who works in the project will do the assessment. Other projects may, or may not, adopt the article as part of its work as time passes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

But you are one of the authors on the Casolaro article. You've done a great deal of work to it, working toward taking to good article status, and you are requesting a peer review for suggestions in improving the article. By all of those standards, you are an author. Anyone who puts that much work into an article is so. I'm only making that distinction because it allows for neutral assessment and progress of an article. In any case, I'll look at the peer review if you'll leave me a wikilink for it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Questions Hopefully I don't overwhelm you with information. This is a matter of the differences in organization and process.

Wikiprojects are part of a system of editing organization that groups articles pertaining to given topics, or groups of topics, into a manageable system wherein interested editors can collaborate on specific articles or groups. {{Business}}-template and {{WPBiography}}-template) are tools used to identify and distinguish articles under that system. Some articles will fall under the jurisdiction of multiple projects. For a good example of diversity of interested projects, look at Talk:O. J. Simpson. Note that not all projects will attend to or deal with a given article equally. Project talk page templates are tools of each project, used to categorize articles based on type of article, specific policies that deal with them (biographies of living persons comes to mind), and quality. Assessments are a fundamental process in the article quality realm. The "stub, start, C, B, good article, A and featured article" classifications are basic quality determinations, which are based on fairly specific criteria. You can see the basic guideline for article quality here. Anyone can make quality assessments at class B or below, however there are work groups and detailed processes for higher classes such as GA, A, and FA. The {{assessment}} template is the base template for all project talk page templates, not intended for use by itself.

Infobox templates, such as {{WPBiography}}, {{Infobox Company}}, etc., are templates used to organize information across related articles in a standarized manner. Sometimes an can qualify for more than one infobox, although only one should be used. Editors may have to debate it out to decide which one to use.

As for things related to process on Wikipedia, the most fundamental of which is the process of article improvement on the path to feature article status. All articles are standardized based on manual of style guidelines. Project assessment is also part of this process. When an article has been worked and reworked and finally has evolved to a specific quality, the reviews process begins: good article, A and finally feature article. A peer review is an open invitation to other editors to make a quality assessment and make suggestions pursuant to the featured article status.

I hope this helps give you a better understanding. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The above is an extended post that has been collapsed for improved usability.

December 2008 to 7-days ago

The enclosed is collapsed for usability. December 2008 to 7-days ago.

The following conversation took place in August.

B-Class downgrade

Well, hmm. I don't know that there's much meaning in downgrading the assessment level on this article. The difference between B and C is mostly based on extensiveness of referencing, comprehensiveness of coverage and writing, and honestly, I can't see that it doesn't meet B-Class. The major difference in the article's content would be scrutinized at the point where it was nominated for good article status. In an article like this, where the routine reader would be looking for information, I think most of the questions would be answered. Right now, whatever it is lacking is more of what you want it to say, not what an uninformed reader would miss. Personally, I still think it is a bit heavy on the quotes usage and I'm certain a GA reviewer would have problems with that. Otherwise, don't worry too much about the B-C difference. A great many people don't even bother with the assessment grade. I also think that a new assessor would rate it B as well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC) reclassification

I'm not sure where you mean, I don't see a new topic on reclassification on the Casolaro talk page. The old talk page material on that page needs to be archived, some of it is 3 years old. If you are wanting to open a new topic on this, you can just post a diff link with your note and not copy and paste the whole comment to another page. To get the diff link, go to your talk page history page and right-click copy the "(last)" link for my posting. Then all you need do is paste the link between two brackets [] where you make reference to my response. That's more workable and less refactoring. If you aren't sure about how to do that, let me know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC) copyediting Hi, Dixie, I found a few footnotes missing in places so far. I'll keep looking. Anne Teedham (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I just finished Inslaw's lastest additions, and I hope that is what you wanted? Anne Teedham (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problems Thanks for uploading File:CasolaroDanny.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) 13:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(See File:CasolaroDanny.JPG subsection: a detailed Fair use rationale for Danny Casolaro page)

File copyright problem with File:CasolaroDanny.JPG

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:CasolaroDanny.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. feydey (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Feydey, I need to have you explain in detail what exactly is wrong with the information on the File:CasolaroDanny.JPG page. To the best of my knowledge, I have tried to insert all relevant information in the detailed Fair use rationale for Danny Casolaro. If something is missing somewhere, please tell me exactly what that is, and where it should be inserted, and how to insert it. It looks to me as though, inserting the tag {{Non-free unsure}}...somewhere is sufficient. If you know where, please tell me. Thank you. [14:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)]

Please add a license as the image does not have information on its copyright status. feydey (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I am going to add {{Non-free unsure}} to the section marked "license". Is that satisfactory? Toby Ornott (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That's good by me, Toby. But wait until we hear from Feydey. Thanks. Hag

This is a good page: Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free, possibly use {{Non-free fair use in}}. feydey (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'll insert the {{non-free fair use in|''Danny Casolaro''}} in the place Toby Ornott suggested, and see how long that lasts. Thanks.--Hag

discussion regarding Corn quote I'll take a look at what is going on later this evening and get back to you on it, if that's okay. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks. It's not all that important. I think I just hurt someone's feelings that's all. But I think I have explained myself well enough now that the butt-person will understand there are no hard feelings. I noticed butt- when you reverted something butt- did with the Corn quote. I then ignored everything until I saw butt's comment on the talkpage. When I checked elsewhere, it looked to me as if butt was some kind of instigator just looking for arguments centered around sematics and logic and that sort of thing. Then when I got to butt's talkpage I saw that you and someone else had "welcomed" butt with what I was about to say. Sooooo I stepped overboard and told butt that talkpages were not supposed to be for personal platforms to exercise silly arguments etcetera. Last night, butt- then went up and down Danny's talkpage cutting and pasting butt's previous remarks into obscurity, then further clarifying whatever butt was trying to convey in the first place, and eventually thoroughly turning the complete page upside down into lots of bolded corrections, revisions, etcetera. Anyway,...to make this short: I've had my say and I am going to ignore butt unless butt continues with butt's silliness. I had asked for your opinion just because I wanted a second opinion on whether I was over acting. I think I was. 'cuz butt just seems to be fairly naive, and annoying. —Dixie Brown (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the user is refactoring talk page content, revert it and let me know and I'll leave a warning about refactoring. The small amount I've looked at tells me he's less interested in the Casolaro article and much more concerned with bashing the person whom you quoted. I don't think you're wrong. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Wild. "Refactoring"? New word for me. I'll look that up, read about it, and then I will not be so ignorant. Thanks again. Talk to you later. Dixie.

thanks, Theo Thanks for your help on organizing. Much appreciated. Dixie 15:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Improving My Comment (ihaveabutt's commentary)

I did a lot of work to clarify and fix (my) prior comment. Is it still concerning, the way you noted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaveabutt (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you suggest that Corn's quote is imbalanced due to his choice of words (or perhaps his election to use three dependent sentences in order to construct a much longer main sentence—for instance, (1) Anomalies do not add up to a conclusive case for murder...; (2) [the] suicide explanation is unsatisfying but not wholly implausible; and (3) the possibility of murder is intriguing but the evidence to date is not overwhelming.) Overlooking what Corn writes for the minute, I want to know: have you read the entire article? Hag2 (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how word choice and 3 dependent sentences is involved in my concern with Corn. There might be a misunderstanding. I don't know if you have had a chance to read the corrections I needed to make, which are clearer. On my mytalk page, you raise very pointed concerns, and I took steps to clarify, but I still don't fully understand (when you mention philosophy, grammar, etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaveabutt (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I have read your clarification. Have you read the entire article?

Incidentally, you do not need to continue using the talkback feature; I am "watching". "Watching" is a feature which you will understand much better by clicking the element at the top of your screen called "My watchlist", and by digesting the various elements of your "My preferences" (e.g. "editing" and "raw watchlist" etc.). Lastly, your html-coding is a less acceptable standard around Wikipedia than using the standard Wikipedia guidelines of the Tutorial. For instance, when you click open this particular correspondence (in order to continue), you will note that I not only removed your capitalized heading, but also your coding for blockquote style. What you received instead, was the use of the colon (:). The more colons (::::) used in a conversation, the farther to the right each person's remarks are made. Another element common to Wikipedia formatting, is "level structuring". I will demonstrate "level structuring" the next time. When I do, you will then note that our conversation has been moved to the top of the page under the section marked Danny Casolaro. I will do that next time, not now. Finally, it is considered polite etiquette to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) whenever you are anywhere except on your own talk page.—Dixie 20:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

We need a new means through which to make sure we understand each others' view before adding new matters. Is your comment, the one my my mytalk page the way you wish to keep it? My original question was whether my question it still concerning you, the way you noted on my mytalk page?--Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am happy to see that you have discovered the use of the colons. "Level structuring" is useful in keeping a discussion organized with related subject matter. I used it (in this case) to keep everything on my page (with respect to Danny Casolaro) confined to the Table of Contents heading "Danny Casolaro". Since this is my talkpage, I am allowed to do this. Some editors will monitor various Article Talkpages and perform "refactoring" which I understand to be something on the order of "organizing a talkpage" for cohesion, clarity, summary, and a few other things. Since no one has been much interested in the article Danny Casolaro, I assumed this privilege of refactoring for the Danny Casolaro talkpage during the course of the previous six months as a form of "maintenance" for the article. This should not imply that I have any privilege which another editor is denied; it should only be understood that I saw a need for organization, and became the "custodian". There are other editors in the background who "keep an eye on me". So far, those editors and I have disagreed only on a few minor points.

As far as I can tell, your position on the Corn quote is that it is not a good one to be using in its current position within the article. I disagree with you. I doubt seriously that you and I will come to a meeting of the minds on this issue ever. If you feel strongly that your position should prevail, then submit a WP:Request for Comment on the appropriate "Request for Comment page". When you open a request, it invites the entire community to your debate. I welcome such a move; there has been very little interest from the main community regarding this article. The more the merrier.

I am solely interested in the factual content of the article. Currently, there are several areas of questionable material, and I should be marking those with appropriate inline template tags. Yet my primary interest has taken me elsewhere, into the tangential areas of the Inslaw Affair.

This does not mean that I am walking away from Danny Casolaro. It means that you are free to edit whatever you object to; and if it is acceptable to the other editors of Danny Casolaro, then consensus will prevail.

I encourage you to make use of the Request for Comment if you feel that Corn's quote is unacceptable. I believe if you take the time to study everything which I have written regarding Danny Casolaro over the course of the previous six months you will discover that I am not certain if the entire article is encyclopedic.

However, I am glad that you have been persistent; there appears to be a major problem with the quotation—that is, it is written currently as one, long construction, yet upon closer examination, it looks as though the quotation should be separated into two, distinctly separate quotes. As soon as I can confirm this correction, I will make the necessary changes. Perhaps this alteration may help to further clarify the issue? —Dixie 20:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The above is an extended post that has been collapsed for improved usability.

Spellchecks

With reference to [1], you're very welcome. Thats what I do :) WikiRoxor ^talk 01:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Richard Mohun

Thanks for your note on my talk page, I can see the edit comment wasn't meant as anything more than a comment on why youstopped your copyedit at that point. I appreciate your copyediting efforts and thanks to them (and the contributions of many others) the article is much improved. I can honestly say that this is the probably the most editors that have ever been involved in an article I have created (even my FA didn't generate this much comment!) but I can see that everyone is just trying to make the article better. Hopefully it won't be long before it is up to GA standards (which is probably as far as I can take it at the moment) and I can move on to some other topics. Once again thanks for your edits - Dumelow (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

PJ Haarsma

Hi, I am reviewing your article, PJ Haarsma, for GA and have left some comments on Talk:PJ Haarsma/GA1. Please feel free to contact me with comments or questions. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Mattisse. Thank you for your notification. I've been watching carefully as I am the nominator. However, Kethra is the principal editor so I am going to notify her too. She worked diligently on both PJ Haarsma and The Softwire over the course of the past months, and I am sure that she is excited to see how her efforts are progressing.--Dixie

Giovanni Di Stefano

I'm not prepared to accept any terms that give fred a special status.Geni 16:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

GDS has asked me to ask you to contact him via email the next time that he is on the US (December). He says that he will invite you to New York (I would have sent you an email, but you don't have it enabled). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.