User talk:Squeamish Ossifrage/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For diligent work of the highest quality at AfD. And welcome to working with a proper Wikipedia username! Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Very much appreciated! I got a little lucky finding that image source, I think. But I enjoyed doing the detective work. I may see about getting myself set up to do that a little more easily and see if I can be of assistance over at WP:CCI, which seems like it could use another hand. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I've taken care of the cleanup on all the articles he's edited. Good job! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW: The AfD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspidotis victoriana Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Citation Barnstar
Phenomenal job on Facepalm! ~TPW 18:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm still not really satisfied with the article, because there ought to be some reliably sourced discussion of the gesture before 2008 other that flat assertions that it's not new. Naming conventions are an obstacle, but I'm undaunted. Frankly, virtually all of the Category:Gestures articles need some TLC. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you hit on the problem, and the solution: it's not a facepalm, it's a pacifier gesture. It looks like there's a ton of good information about it under that name, which is why I now recommend moving the article instead of deleting it.--~TPW 18:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

Hello and welcome! I edit Wikipedia too, under the username Jab843. Wikipedia is written by people like you and me, so thank you for taking the time to participate. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to The Show Must Go on (McLeod's Daughters) with this edit, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions about editing, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Jab843 (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Student project

I left a message at Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors#Unmonitored student projects to see if we can get anyone to help with what you uncovered. If you have any comments, it may be helpful. In particular, if you have additional reasons to believe it's Iowa State. I found 2 users who mentioend Iowa and 1 user who left an Iowa State phone number but I don't know if this is what lead you to believe it was Iowa State. If it is Iowa State, I uncovered what seems a likely course (VDPAM 570) Nil Einne (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you advise?

You clearly have a much deeper knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia than this short record would suggest. I am the first editor who commented on the AfD on Rhys Morgan. I took the trouble to ask a few questions on the talkpage of its initiator. I am not satisfied with the answers I received. I would not wish other new articles, equally well-sourced, to be thus treated. It is a waste of everyone's time. Can you suggest where I should go to raise my concerns about this? BrainyBabe (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The ability for articles to be nominated for deletion when they are not deserving of deletion is something of an institutional shortcoming of the current deletion process. However, well-sourced articles on topics that meet the notability guidelines generally survive the deletion process, and the whole thing is important as an avenue to delete the content that doesn't suit the project's goals. I'm not sure what was going on with this particular nomination either, but people misjudge things sometimes, and I don't see anything suggesting there's something more at hand here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for this. You may well be right, and I am not suggesting any general conspiracy, but rather a certain laxity. It seems to me that the article was proposed for AfD without the references having been read. (I asked, more than once, and got no satisfaction.) If that is the case, it is a serious shortcoming. The original wording was harsh and, frankly, made bizarre suppositions. My comments may not stay on this editor's talkpage long. Is there no place to record over-zealous AfD nominators? One mistake, fine, AGF, but not good to make a habit of it -- and there is no way for others to see if it is a habit without a record. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Rhys Morgan

I have opened up a deletion review for the Rhys Morgan decision as a matter of urgency doktorb wordsdeeds 01:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

  • It wasn't a matter of urgency at all, but since a good faith user objected to the snow closure, I decided it would be simplest to follow the deletion process strictly on this occasion. Accordingly, I have reverted the snow closure per WP:BRD and re-opened the debate, which should now continue for 168 hours before being closed in accordance with the normal process. This is not meant as a slight and I do hope you will not take offence!—S Marshall T/C 01:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Response I am obviously very disappointed by this decision. The assertion that I did not read the article is highly misleading, not to mention offensive. I have been a Wikipedia editor for many, many years, and have followed the rules and regulations throughout these years. To suggest that I did not follow the regulations is complete bunkum. Using the evidence present in the article, I made a choice based on what I thought was a fairly obvious case - it STILL breaks our rules on blogs, recentism, notability, and bias. The "keep" votes are from people who have an immense level of conflict of interest, and therefore skew the vote something rotten. I am very disappointed that this entire episode has been carried out at my expense, rather than at the article itself. This response will be copied to as many concerned editors in this matter. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I am sorry that you feel disappointed and offended. That was not my intent, as my motivations regarding this article were not motivated by any animus for you (nor, I should state, out of any conflict of interest regarding this subject), but out of concern for the best interests of the project. The article in question has problems, yes, and some of its sourcing is unquestionably inadequate. I believe the subject appears to meet notability concerns, but ... and this is the principle factor at hand ... I would not have made a speedy close of (or, likely, participated in) an AFD based on notability or BLP1E concerns. But the repeated claims -- the core of the nomination at AFD and then again at the DRV -- that the article's subject was fictional are trivially easy to disprove and so, in my opinion, are problematic with regard to policy. From WP:BLP, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." False claims that a living person who is and has been the subject of media attention, and who has written a guest column for a major paper, is actually nonexistent, a "highly contrived non notable joke" or "'what we made up in school' jape" are contentious and necessarily unsourced, and I therefore removed them by closing the AFD. Doktorbuk, please understand that I was willing to assume you had made an innocent error regarding AFD; one of the secondary motivations for my closure was to avoid the potential of having an obviously long-term editor raked over the coals for a single bad decision. I am sorry that this was not appreciated and that you have continued to pursue the issue with vigor. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Thank you for this response. Best if I just leave this now, eh? I have my usual political and electoral result pages to busy myself with. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
        • You're most welcome. No hard feelings, I assure you. Your work elsewhere seems very good, and hopefully we'll meet elsewhere down the line under better circumstances. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Bicycle Shaped Object for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bicycle Shaped Object is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bicycle Shaped Object (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Montanans for Healthcare Excellence AFD

You closed this after the article was speedily deleted, but when you did so, you said speedied A7 rather than speedily deleted under criterion A7 or something to that effect. Therefore, Scottywong's AFD tool isn't able to determine the outcome of the AFD. Therefore, would you mind if I reworded your closure of the article without changing meaning so the tool can recognize what happened? Sorry about this, Go Phightins! (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

By all means. In fact, I don't like leaving work for others when I could do it myself, so I did. I've tidied up after speedy deletions in the past with the same wording, and wasn't aware that doing so would break the logic of a tracking tool in common use. Duly noted for future gnoming, as well. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Go Phightins! 20:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Pinky ring

A fine job. Wish I'd done it. As far as I'm concerned that saves the article, which only a day ago I thought was a complete joke. Thank you for doing that and giving it a better future. Damned good writing.~©Djathinkimacowboy 20:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Therefore it is my pleasure:

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For outstanding work at Pinky ring.~©Djathinkimacowboy 23:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
The LGBT Barnstar
For elegantly and concisely tying in the gay community's past with the subject at Pinky ring.~©Djathinkimacowboy 23:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Barnstar
This is especially for your gallant and hard work at Pinky ring which was also noted by several other people here. I should have awarded you this one first.~©Djathinkimacowboy 02:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Pinky ring work in progress

Hi. Just to let you know I have added some quality material to the article. I imagine you are busy and perhaps not able to get on the web just now, but I wanted to drop a reminder that you had posted about consulting more reference material to expand the article. I look forward to it.~©Djathinkimacowboy 07:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
Calm and sensible thinking, very well put, in the current ArbCom civility proceeding. Carrite (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I came here to tell you how much I appreciate your comment at the arbitration board. And I see I'm in good company in doing so. Thank you. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. BencherliteTalk 17:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Same here. Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hellooooooooooooo! I'm Deidra. Nice to meet you! DEIDRA C. (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Merging Porul ilakkanam to Tamil grammar

I have proposed that Porul ilakkanam be merged to Tamil grammar. Since you recently discussed the articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porul ilakkanam, I would welcome any comments you may have on the proposed merge. The discussion is at Talk:Tamil grammar#Merge discussion. Thanks, and happy editing. Cnilep (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Hi there, I'd appreciate if you could revisit your position here when you get a chance, I removed two of those sources as one seemed to fail WP:RS and the other WP:V, come to think of it perhaps both fail WP:V. With those gone and the others not yet verified, the notability becomes more questionable and the case for deletion that much stronger. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

For me, a lot of it comes down to what's in that issue of Mayfair. We've got one good source, a couple poor sources, and what might be a good source -- or might be a 1-line cast-off mention. I'm hoping that someone with access to the issue will be forthcoming. I don't think I have any chance of getting access; they don't appear to have online indexing and my normal pathway for requesting odd documents would look at me funny if I made a request for this particular material. If we aren't anywhere different a few days into the consideration period, I may indeed reconsider my stance. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay thanks, I'll try to track it down, and we can reevaluate soon if we can't get ahold of it. — Cirt (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
For what its worth, I'd have zero objection to deletion of the author's article. All the coverage looks routine, trivial, or both, and even if we wind up saving his book, notability isn't inherited. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Phyllotaxy Towers

Dear sir/madam,
Have you read entire of the article's references including five 300-pages books and 10 scientific papers?
Sincerely

  • ALL OF THE ANALOG AND DIGITAL SCIENTIFIC SOURCES RELATED TO THIS ARTICLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saleh Masoumi (talk • contribs) 19:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC) The main problem is: Wikipedia MUST first asks ALL of the experts in the field of architecture and botany. Also editors of wikipedia MUST read all of the digital and ANALOG sources (one by one, page by page, line by line and word by word) about the subjects, because something may be found about "Phyllotactic Architecture" and it may take years and years. Without proceeding these stages Wikipedia hasn't the right to delete an article because it is an illegal action.
  • As you are copying your responses to both my talk page and the AFD in question, all of my replies to you will be there, both to keep things (relatively) tidy and for the benefit of others taking part in the discussion. If you have any specific questions for me personally, however, feel free to drop them here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

What's your academic degree? in which field dear sir?--2.187.113.29 (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Although my credentials and related professional experience are nontrivial by any measure, they are also not relevant here, and so I will respectfully decline to cite them. The deletion discussion regarding Phyllotaxy Towers is not based on the merits of the architectural science underlying the concept, nor on the credentials of the editors discussing the article, but solely on the grounds of Wikipedia policies related to topic inclusion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I just want you one thing: Let an architecture professor decide about the notability of the article. I would really appreciate it.--2.187.97.249 (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Please understand that when editors at Wikipedia use the word "notability", it does not imply anything about the importance of the topic in its field. Just as architecture, or any field of study, has terms of art, so too does Wikipedia. Here, "notability" refers to one of the standards for article inclusion. You can read about it here. One of the key points of this policy is that it is objective; it does not matter whether the editors discussing the article have academic backgrounds in architecture, or geology, or mathematics, or history, or no formal academic background whatsoever. Many topics that are specific to narrow fields of study do not have the level of independent coverage necessary for "notability" as Wikipedia understand it. That does not mean that they are not important in the context of those fields, only that, until and unless that coverage is available, they should not have their own article here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Didn't see that second template. I'll use it in the future! With thanks and regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Calostoma cinnabarinum

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Your vote Arbitration Comittee Elections

Squeamish Ossifrage,

You recently voted in the Arbitration Committee Elections. In accordance to the Request for comment on the election process, you must have made 150 edits in the main article space of Wikipedia before November 1st in order to be eligible to vote. According to a recent count, you only have 100 such edits.

If you believe we are in error, or there are other circumstances, such as a number of edits across multiple accounts, please let us know. GiantSnowman 16:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Squeamish Ossifrage. You have new messages at TBrandley's talk page.
Message added 16:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TBrandley 16:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

AFD template

Thank you for catching that. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

How about a barnstar?

The Reviewer Barnstar
Good work on featured article discussions and articles for deletion. (Making detailed comments, checking sources, etc.) Atlantima (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm very slow at article creation myself, but it looked like FAC could use more eyes, and I'm happy to be useful jumping in on important quality processes. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Carol

Hey, thanks a lot for your reviewing in the Hurricane Carol FAC. I removed the last of the Grammatico references, and I was wondering if you still opposed it. Cheers! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Metalloid

I've come up with three options for formatting the definitions section, here, in such a way as to reduce the impact of or eliminate the need for embedded lists. Could you have a look please and let me know how they stack up? I acknowledge you have many concerns about this article. I thought I would start small. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I may be busy for a couple days with the holiday coming up, but I'll try to take a look over the article and see what I can suggest in terms of restructuring it and reformatting the list sections. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again. As you said, some careful rewording could also go a long way. If the article reflects only what is explicitly said in the literature, then it seems to me that there is reasonable support for six elements commony recognised as metalloids; contested support for another two (Po, At); mentions in passing for a few others (C, P, Se, Bi) and isolated references to other elements (e.g Al). List of metalloid lists (LOML) could be called up by way of a 'Main article:' link, if we can agree on how I could address any OR concerns in that list. I'll see if I can do some preliminary work on list of metalloid lists by adding some more citation-supported prose. The challenge of getting the wording right sounds engaging. Sandbh (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
First go at editing LOML done. Sandbh (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Have restructured and tried turning the lists into prose. The result is much, much better. I strongly like the flow of the structure from most general to more specific, culminating in the notes. (But I need to check the lead to see if that still matches the main body). Now that I've seen the article all in prose, I agree: the visual appearance is significantly more pleasing. So is the flow within each paragraph. Genuine thanks for putting up with me. Sandbh (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hartebeest

Hi there. About the FAC. I believe there is only one issue left to which you haven't yet responded since a few days - about the Sigmoceros syn. Unless you are busy elsewhere, could you return and see the review once more? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 02:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Calostoma cinnabarinum

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Calostoma cinnabarinum. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Norman Selfe

Hi S.O, As someone who's commented on the Norman Self FA nomination, and now that the nomination is nearing the bottom of the FAC list with no new recent comments, I'd like to encourage you to make a statement of support/oppose or add new comments. I believe I have addressed all the current comments that have been listed there. This is the second time the article has been listed for FA as the first time was closed citing a lack of overt support votes. I'd hate for that to happen again. Sincerely, Wittylama 09:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Squeamish Ossifrage. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive10.
Message added 10:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, all of your points have been addressed.  — AARON • TALK 10:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2

I have responded to most of your concerns at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2. Could you reevaluate the status of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 20:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Now a lot of other editors have made revisions to the article too and are starting to support it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

International Emergency Medicine FAN

Hello. I'm AmericanLemming, and you were kind enough to offer some constructive criticism of my FAN of international emergency medicine. However, you have not posted any further comments recently. If you have the time to continue reviewing my FAN, I would greatly appreciate that. If not, I understand.

Should you choose to continue with your review, you may want to watch the article talk page, as I asked a prolific GA nominator for some advice on improving the article. He does not feel comfortable offering a support/oppose on the FAN because he works exclusively with GAN, but he did have some comments. Anyway, just a FYI. AmericanLemming (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Another Sesame Street article

Hi SO, since you helped out and reviewed the last Sesame Street article up at FAC, I wondered if you could review the most recent one up there now: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Format of Sesame Street/archive1. I need it done quickly, so that I can get into the finals of the Wikicup in ten days, something I'd really like to accomplish. I'd appreciate your assistance greatly. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

So SO (har-har), I believe that I've addressed your concerns appropriately. Let me know what you think of my response, please. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR RFC

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:TFAR nomination of Whaam!

Given your active participation that resulted in the recent WP:FA promotion of Whaam!, I am informing you of a discussion that you may want to take part in at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Whaam.21.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Smith

I just saw the comments you made at the FAC. First off, thank you so much: I think that's the best feedback the article has gotten in a long time. Regardless of whether or not the article passes, I intend to comb through your points one by one and fix them. (I might not get to it until later today or tomorrow...a bit pressed for time at the moment.) Anyway, I just wanted to say thank you. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A hearty amen to that! I've had a little more time to comb through them and resolve most of them. There are a few, I think, that still need discussion. (I put strikethroughs on your comments about issues that I considered completely resolved - I hope you don't mind.) Would you take a few minutes to reevaluate the article and weigh in again at the FAC again?
Thanks very much,
Trevdna (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for continuing to follow up on the FAC. The article really is on my to-do list, and I will continue to chip away at it as I have time. Trevdna is taking some time off for his schooling, which is partly why things have slowed down. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
You're most welcome. I won't lie, I'm pretty doubtful that it's going to see FA this nomination cycle. But it's a big article on a tough topic. And if it requires another go in future, every improvement now makes like easier then ... and improves the encyclopedia, which is of course the real goal! I'm happy to keep plugging away as a reviewer. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip on the strikethroughs and I apologize if I overreached; it was my first FAC on a topic that I care a lot about, and I suppose I was getting a little impatient (knowing that I would have to go back to school there shortly.) And rest assured: it won't be the last FAC on the article. I would love to continue to have your thoughts and comments as a reviewer in the future. Trevdna (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for A Cure for Pokeritis

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Sesame Street discussion

Hi SO, I've started a discussion about a suggestion made during the FAC of Format of Sesame Street (User talk:Figureskatingfan/Sesame Street Sandbox 2). There hasn't been any discussion about it, probably because no one is aware of it. I thought that I'd try and elicit involvement from those involved in the FAC mentioned above. If you have an opinion, please go and express it. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Volubilis

It's now nearly a month since I nominated this article for FA and I'd like to get any remaining issues resolved. Could you please take a look again at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Volubilis/archive1 and let me know if you are happy with the current state of play? Prioryman (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ack! I let this one get away from me. Let me head over and see what I can do! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for sharing my appreciation for alphabetization.  :-). I posted a question at the Help Desk to see what they think of three clicks to get to a footnoted source, but no reply yet.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I stay pretty busy some days making myself useful/annoying watching for reference-format issues at FAC. As for the three-click issue, that's not really a problem, just the combination of explanatory footnotes with the sfn/harvard reference format. It's not my favorite, but a lot of people like it, and it's a perfectly acceptable way to do referencing as far as FAC is concerned. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I guess I'll drop that three-click issue then. But it's not my favorite format either. I like just consecutive numbered footnotes, and stuffing whatever quotes or comments you like into each footnote with or without source(s). I reserve the right to go ballistic if someone makes me click four times to get to a source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Ironically, I prefer my explanatory notes in a separate section from the reference information, but I'm not a huge personal fan of the sfn format. But since Wikipedia doesn't have, and won't ever have, a mandatory house referencing style, sometimes you have to work with a formatting style someone else really loves... as long as they love it consistently. I'm pretty sure you're safe from the dangers of four-clicking, though (now, watch, someone'll drop by here with an FA that proves me wrong...). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Since you wrote that you felt Twilight Zone tragedy should be retitled, would you be interested in participating in the move discussion? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Squeamish Ossifrage. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War/archive3.
Message added 17:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Darkness Shines (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Got some more, would appreciate you taking a peek when times allows. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Responded, and struck what I could accordingly. Realistically, I don't think this article has much hope of promotion this nomination, I'm sorry to say. There's a lot of work left to be done. Among other things, it wants for the services of a good copy editor. I've been trying to point out prose issues where I can, but I am, sadly, not a good copy editor. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Well all I can do is keep plugging away, I found the correct Time article, unless Google Books has sent me astray again, it was this one.[1] I cannot double check though as I do not have a subscription. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Covered some more of your points, would appreciate you taking a look when you have a minute. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
More of your issues have been addressed. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

DRV

Would you mind holding off on that DRV for a second while I get another admin to weigh in first? — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 15:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Afraid I'd already gotten it posted through the wonders of tabbed editing, otherwise I'd've been happy to. I'd rather not try to cram the horse back into the barn after having listed it and linked it, though. That's the sort of thing that makes a mess out of otherwise orderly processes. Sorry I was too speedy on this one. :( Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Attacking my credibility by claiming I supervoted at the DRV while not ever mentioning that sentiment on my talk page makes me feel like you calculated this move for some reason. I don't supervote, never have, never will, as I understand my role as the medium for consensus. If you want to argue that the close didn't match up to policy, that's fine. But I don't appreciate being accused of something I don't do, especially when that accusation comes out of left field. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 16:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I am not entirely certain how I am expected to respond to this comment. I assure you that this was in no way "calculated". I have no involvement in this article outside of my role as an AFD participant. I have had no interaction with you outside of this AFD and our communication on the topic, so far as I'm aware. I do believe that your closure relied too heavily on your personal judgment of the quality and independence of the presented sources and their application to the topic's notability. The description of such actions as a "supervote" is a term of art at DRV with history far older than my participation in this project, and I am not attempting to impugn your motivations or credibility by its use. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A Cure for Pokeritis

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A Cure for Pokeritis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Taylor Trescott -- Taylor Trescott (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Carpet from Bagdad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/The Carpet from Bagdad at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 06:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

FAC

It was my pleasure to give insight in A Cure for Pokeritis, hope the review gets done soon. In the meantime, are you available to check out a FAC nom of mine that's currently quite abandoned? Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 14:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely! Music stuff is outside my normal editing range, so I'll be going into this without any real feel for existing precedent in the area, but unloved FACs are sad, and we can't have that! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Moving Picture Weekly

Hey, there! You wouldn't happen to have access to Moving Picture Weekly, would you? In particular the 27 July 1918 issue? Apparently The Sinking of the Lusitania was on the cover. I can't find a copy online—I can only find issues from 1915 to 1917 at the Internet Archive. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Bleh. I sure don't. You're looking for volume 6, issue 24. I can confirm that it absolutely has The Sinking of the Lusitania as the cover, and that I don't have access to it, at least not at hand. MOMA shows that they have a copy on microform. I've never dealt with their library, so I'm not sure how easy it would be for you to get access to that (especially remotely). These exhibitor mags are the hardest things to find, lemme tell you. I'll keep looking; I've got some 1918 stuff in my plan list, too. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I've got a citation that it was on the cover; since it looks like it was a promotional magazine (?) the contents are probably not what I'm looking for,anyways. Thanks! Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Moving Picture Weekly was an exhibitor's trade magazine (available by subscription to theaters, but not normally to the general public), but not one of the company house organs (which are probably what you think of as promotional magazines in the more modern sense). So while some of what they printed was film synopses and the like that would have been provided by the studios (along with a lot of advertising, to be fair), they did have their own editorial staff, and did write reviews and opinions. It's hard to know what, if anything, they dedicated to Lusitania without getting to look at it; covers and content weren't necessarily tightly related! That said, I can at least let you see what the cover looks like -- this movie poster auction site sold a copy of this issue back in 2011. Someone got quite the deal, in my opinion; uncut exhibitor mags in good condition are not common, and that white-on-black cover is striking! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
It's too bad it's got "eMoviePoster.com" watermarked on it, or it would've been good for a Commons upload. It looks like McCay's artwork, too—for reasons I'll never comprehend a lot of the promotional artwork for McCay's films was done by other artists. If you ever do come across this thing, please let me know if you find anything interesting! Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A Cure for Pokeritis

The article A Cure for Pokeritis you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:A Cure for Pokeritis for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Taylor Trescott -- Taylor Trescott (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for The Carpet from Bagdad

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Kart Fighter assessment

Heyo, just letting you know that I have assessed Kart Fighter as a B-class article. Here are my thoughts:

  • Inline citations should appear only after punctuation, preferably full stops.
  • You probably don't need a Related titles subsection, that information can just be a paragraph in Development.
  • Can the lead be expanded at all? It could mention some more about the development, for instance.
  • To pass GAN it will probably have to be expanded a bit. A few hundred words and a couple more reliable sources might do the trick. That may not be possible with the sources available.

You've done well with what little is available on the internet for this one. Good luck! — Mr. V (t – c) 05:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A Cure for Pokeritis

The article A Cure for Pokeritis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:A Cure for Pokeritis for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Taylor Trescott -- Taylor Trescott (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

KFC

Hi, I have addressed all of your specific complaints from this time around on the KFC page. Cheers Farrtj (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Just so we know what's been sorted out to both our standards, and for reasons of clarity, would you mind using strikethrough like so on corrections that meet your approval? Farrtj (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Yep, that's my general practice. I just haven't had a chance to go through and take a detailed look at your changes. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I can see you've been busy elsewhere. So have I (I just got two articles GA listed in the past week!). Just to give you the heads up, I've worked my way through almost all of your suggestions over at KFC now (I think I have one or two more to complete). I have taken on board most of the suggestions. Where I disagree, I hope I've given sufficient explanation. Farrtj (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Gerald Mast

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Carpet from Bagdad

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Carpet from Bagdad you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Good Article Barnstar
For your contributions to bring The Carpet from Bagdad to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks in particular for preparing this nomination so well that little work was needed in the review. That's a rare treat for a reviewer! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Carpet from Bagdad

The article The Carpet from Bagdad you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Carpet from Bagdad for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Your compliance work is great so as to ensure written material are notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgt88drcr (talk • contribs) 10:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Treblinka extermination camp FAC reminder

Hello. PoeticBent has finished addressing all of your comments at the Treblinka extermination camp FAC, so you can now review his changes (if you haven't been doing so all along) and decide whether or not to change your Oppose. I understand if you decide not to support promotion; I need to do another close-read of the article myself after PoeticBent's extensive changes to the article in response to your comments, and it really needs 2-3 more reviewers before it can pass anyway. AmericanLemming (talk) 07:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Same type message, since my last response to you here a few weeks ago. Dan56 (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Interstate 70 in West Virginia FAC

I was wondering if you could take a look at my FAC again and see if I satisfied your concerns. --AdmrBoltz 20:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello? Can you please return to the review? --AdmrBoltz 20:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
If you check the User contributions, you'll see that Squeamish Ossifrage hasn't edited since December 14th. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Blue's Clues FAC

Hey SO, this is me, soliciting comments for this FAC: [2] I've addressed your comments, and you did promise to look at it more closely? Would you please mind going over and doing so? I appreciate it muchly, and happy New Year. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for The Carpet from Bagdad

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on The Carpet from Bagdad. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2014 WikiCup!

Hello Squeamish Ossifrage, and welcome to the 2014 WikiCup! Your submission page can be found here. The competition will begin at midnight tonight (UTC). There have been a few small changes from last year; the rules can be read in full at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, and the page also includes a summary of changes. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work, and nominated, in 2014 is eligible for points in the competition- the judges will be checking! As ever, this year's competition includes some younger editors. If you are a younger editor, you are certainly welcome, but we have written an advice page at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Advice for younger editors for you. Please do take a look. Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! J Milburn (talk · contribs), The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 17:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 January newsletter

The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Squeamish_Ossifrage/Archive_1&oldid=1078403620"