Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aaron (talk | contribs) at 18:26, 9 October 2006 (Here's Your Second Working Man's Barnstar). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• Archive (3 Feb - 16 Feb, 2006)
• Archive (20 Feb - 23 May, 2006)
• Archive (27 May - 28 July, 2006)
• Archive (20 July - 29 Sept, 2006)

Mormon handcart pioneers FAC

I agree with you about "Ibid." being difficult to maintain. (Another editor introduced the "Ibid." style to this article.) I've now converted them back to full references as you suggested.

Thanks again for taking the time to review and comment on this article. — BRMo 21:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Laika

Thanks, I've reverted it - hopefully it will stick. Yomangani 22:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Response

I removed him from several "see also's" you put him in because he was not notable enough to be in many of them. We can not have the Dominican Republic article with an internal link to one unknown writer. The NACLA article as well shouldn't have him in a see also section, one article on a publication doesn't make it necessary to put him in the see also section for that publication. This works for the other articles aswell.--Jersey Devil 00:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for what may have come across as an uncivil tone.--Jersey Devil 01:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease

Thanks a bunch for your comments on Alzheimer's. For the Notable section, I did a small edit but have not elaborated this into a section like Tourette's. I was thinking of mentioning the first case of Alzheimer's disease Nov 3 1906 as the lead to this section and then identify a few others. I think Rita Hayworth deserves special mention because of fundraising that has been done in her name by the Alzheimer's Association. We do have the list of people with AD that I link to in the new Notable Section. Given what we have, would you prefer the list in see also, or would a paragraph be better? --Chrispounds 04:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Peer review/California Gold Rush

Apologize for asking, but could you steer me a bit better -- when you said: "the article needs serious attention to inline citations" regarding the above Peer Review. Was that only a reference to shortening the ibid refs, or did you have something else in mind? thx! NorCalHistory 06:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

VandalWatch

You're welcome. :) Anyway I just started to use VandalProof 2 some minutes ago and now I became a vandal-killer... NCurse _work 17:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the Lyme disease suggestions. You gave me a lot of work. :) NCurse _work 18:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, if my RfA would have a good end, you could nominate the article because I'd be able to watch it much more closely. So don't worry, it must be featured, this article is really among the BEST ones in wiki. NCurse _work 18:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

John Dee - "Bio template is a killer every time"

Hi Sandy. If that pagename is consistently causing you problems, let's set up a WP: shortcut. WP:BIOT, WP:BIOTODO, WP:BIOTD are all available, you fancy any of those? --kingboyk 21:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not the page name so much as it is so hard to edit that page, with everything run together the way it is. Any ideas? I always add the items wrong there. Sandy 21:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure... I know it's transcluded all over the place and since I wasn't involved in setting it up I don't know how much change it can stand before something breaks :) I'd advise having a little word with User:Plange, she's very helpful and if she knows you're having trouble with it she'll come up with something I'm sure. --kingboyk 21:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE Talk page

Howdy - don't know if you've been following it, but I'm sure it won't come as a surprise that the issue is still being discussed (what needs to be cited) and I'm feeling like it's not really getting anywhere. Was wondering if you and some of the other seasoned editors/admins could weigh in? I'm thinking that someone with your experience and clout will help cut through the issue and help bring it into focus. Right now, everyone's talking in circles... I'm not advocating for a particular side, BTW, just that I respect your opinion and so think whatever you make of the situation can only be good for WP. --plange 00:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I think you formulated it well, thanks for weighing in! I know it's complete nonsense, and sometimes borders on arrogance (one even said he'd like non-science editors to show a little humility), but the problem is that these 3 or 4 could potentially change WP:CITE's guidelines if some cooler heads don't weigh in. In fact, someone just changed the page based on that bogus straw man straw poll. Sigh. The time wasted in arguing this is amazing, when they could just be spending it citing their articles instead. Problem is, on one of their points, I don't know enough about science to determine what needs to happen-- it was that it's harder to refute POV-warriors on bogus stuff since no serious publication would bother publishing a refutation, and so their argument is that requiring inline cites gives the POV-pushers a weapon to counter their attempts to keep psuedo-science out-- my response was that WP:RS should be able to take care of this, since if the source for the bogus stuff is bad/not reputable, it can be dismissed, but they said that it wasn't that easy. Sigh again. --plange 02:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I went back to the pre-debate version and checked-- it's the right one you reverted to... Thanks! --plange 02:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

re: notifying others, I think it's time to call in the troops, since this is a coordinated effort on the other side from WP:Physics -- I had asked you, Kirill and Walkerma to weigh in, as you guys are the ones I know well and whose opinions I value. I hadn't thought of Yannismarou--I've gotten to know him from WP:BIOGRAPHY and he's doing great work. I'm a relative newbie, and so don't know others to call, nor do I know enough of the nuances of policies, etc., to weigh in properly myself. :-) --plange 02:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Just saw your post-- sounds good! I'll notify Yannismarou... --plange 02:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Military history of Puerto Rico

Sandy, I think the article is now ready for copyediting. Do your thing, you have my blessings Tony the Marine 04:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• I like it. Tony the Marine 17:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Crap I gave this article a copyedit, but I think my changes might have undone some of your most recent ones. Go back and check if I screwed up anything significant.UberCryxic 18:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

For now, you can go through the article and make any changes you see fit. I will be away for a few hours so when I come back I'll give it another look and see if there still are outstanding issues with prose. Right now the prose is acceptable for a FA, at least in my opinion.UberCryxic 18:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sex pistols

Do you mind having another look? If you list specific sentences where you have an OR or prose concerns, I'll try to deal with them myself. Simply removing sentences/clauses often works well. A lot has been done and I think it a pretty good page. Marskell 11:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:1 featured article per quarter

Check it out and sign up! Marskell 15:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Soxaholix Peer Review

Hi. I have responded to your concerns about copyvio linking at the article. I'd like to know if the changes satisfy your concerns. I also have an e-mail statement from the author of the site that the author of the WSJ article gave him permission to post the article in the fashion that he did on his website and that an upcoming site redesign will remove the article for the future. I don't think any of this is a deal breaker for the article and that you might not have recognized 3 of the sources as highly notable, independent, awarding groups and not blogs. Added with the recognition from a major newspaper as being worthy of an article, I'm confused by your claim of a lack of reliable sourcing. I'd really like to discuss this issue (at the Peer Review would be fine), but I thought to contact your talk page to make sure you knew I was interested in dialogue on the topic. Thanks. ju66l3r 16:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Inline Citations

I'll take a look over there. Indeed, there's a quote on Misplaced Pages by Jimbo Wales himself stating he originally wished for inline citations to stop psychics theorists posting their stuff all over Wiki. I'll try finding it if it hasn't been quoted yet. LuciferMorgan 18:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Your watchlist

Thanks Sandy. I think the article is attracting a lot more attention because it is the featured article on the Philosophy Portal, including sometimes negative attention. I do think it's best not to encourage this guy, but if you have some time and care to look at the talk history, I'd love to hear an outside perspective. Edhubbard 21:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy. I think that Francesco and I have been pretty vigilant about trying to make sure that the article doesn't deteriorate, and there have even been a few improvements since the FAR, but it hasn't changed much. I think if anything that seems OR, weasily or unreferenced gets added, then one of us (me, you or Francesco) will be sure to be on it. Edhubbard 21:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Quickly

Cause I just noticed it: beware strawpolls. There should be a consensus to have a strawpoll not a strawpoll per lack of consensus. Marskell 00:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully remove yourself with a (likely repeated) comment on what exactly you feel. I understand that users can get a bee in their bonnet because our policies imperfect, but we don't strawpoll every evening because of that fact. Engaging a strawpoll validates the user, and sometimes you have to chose not to do that. Marskell 00:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll let my comments there speak for themselves, and I've noticed your strike-throughs. The intent of the questions may not be bad, but they seemed to have been asked as an outcome of attrition (if you're too damn tired to say something else, just check here). And, much as I talk above myself, I do know something about how to design an opinion poll (suffice it to say that Wikitalk rarely get it right...). Off to bed. Marskell 00:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotation

I would like to quote you "I'm not a great copyeditor". I could only wish to be half as good as you. Thanks! Tony the Marine 02:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Thanks for highlighting those missing inline citations. I think the ones you signaled are all OK now. Please let me know if you have more suggestions for improving the article. --HailFire 12:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cell nucleus footnotes

I fixed up the rest of the footnotes in that article except for some I wasn't sure about. Is it OK to have footnotes from inside a sentence (see http://en.wikipedia.org/Cell_nucleus#Anucleated_and_polynucleated_cells). Cheers
Also: Re. layout and Further reading vs References according to WP:LAYOUT it is acceptable to have either before the other, nevertheless, I do prefer it the way you've done it.ShaiM 14:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm adding PMIDs, then I'll go see what I can do to score some more reviews...ShaiM 15:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:MED

Dear Sandy,

I was a bit surprised reading on the WP:MED talk page that you didn't consider yourself a member because you don't have specific medical qualifications... shame on you! We are desperately looking for hardworking laypeople like yourself! Since you've contributed so much to medicine on wiki (especially of course, TS), I've listed you as a participant; again, no criteria to be a member, no diplomas needed! Also, no strings attached, that doesn't mean you have to change anything.

If you want, you can enter specific interests in that table (TS? FAR?).

grtz from a fan, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cite problems list

When moving stuff down, I think you'd better cut all the subsequent mentions as well on the various sub-lists you've created. Just do a crtl-F when it's up in edit mode. Marskell 16:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It must not have been on the sub-lists. I just looked at the diff and saw the move but no subsequent cuts. Ctrl-F is genius, huh? Certainly helps on that list.

Sex Pistols has seen some improvement, BTW. Marskell 16:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

RFA

Thanks for the heads up (and your support). I think the final pound sign was being counted as a vote at least (24 would be the total with that added in). StuffOfInterest appears to think adding that back in will fix it (but I assume that was there when it broke). I added an asterisk back in in the general discussion, so hopefully one of those will fix it. Cheers, Yomangani 00:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It's right for me: 22/3/0/88%. (Have my 4000th edit too). Yomangani 01:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries - it's nice to have somebody concerned. Yomangani 01:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:FN

I've noticed you mention WP:FN often on FACs. On a few recent FACs I've tested an automated tool to fix the refs, recently applied to Pierre Rossier and Local Government Commission for England. I've just made a major change to the code so I would appreciate some testing on other articles. See User:Gimmetrow/replace.js (description on talk page); this can be added to your monobook with {{subst:js|User:Gimmetrow/replace.js}}. Gimmetrow 05:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Issue at Dream Theater should be fixed. I saw a construct with a comment in one article, like this.<ref>blah</ref> <!-- a comment -->. This can be handled but it doesn't seem worth the effort. Gimmetrow 18:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You need to clear your cache so the new javascript loads. Often shift-refreshing some wiki page will refresh the javascript. Gimmetrow 19:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Got it: this is great :-) Sandy 20:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm still editing the script so you should reload it fairly regularly. Discovered that a tag with trailing spaces <ref name="Hi"/ > is parsed (by cite.php) as a ref definition rather than a re-use, and matches a later </ref>. My fix now removes any spaces in named refs to avoid this, but also clobbers spaces in quotes like <ref name="hey you"/>. Gimmetrow 19:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

California Gold Rush

Watching your progress; it's coming along. The reason I brought up Columbia, California was because of this (unreferenced) mention in its article: "... at its height it was California's second-largest city. It was even considered briefly as a site for the state capitol of California." That has always been a claim, but I've not seen a reference. On a similar note, "Mother Lode" isn't well defined in the article. If Columbia was the heart of the Mother Lode, and the population there was so great as to be considered the state capital, that's something that could be sorted out in the article, with "Mother Lode" better defined. On the other hand, maybe it's not even true :-) Best, Sandy 15:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy - it's been interesting and fun to keep working on this. One quick question - I've just started to get that 30 kb "large article" notice, but I've seen that a number of the recent FAs are "large" (like the recent Lord of the Rings and Lost FAs). Am I right not to be too concerned about the size?

Also, I've just been through the comprehensive Starr and Orsi book on the Calif. Gold Rush (Barbarous Soil), and they have an extended chapter on demographics, including a list of the largest 25 or so cities in California in 1850, 1860, and 1870. The list includes such metropolises as Sonora, Rough and Ready, and Yreka. Columbia doesn't appear anywhere on the list, and is not mentioned anywhere in the chapter. Also, California Politics to 1899 doesn't mention Columbia in the State Capitol discussion. Finally, I have asked the original poster of that information if he/she would be kind enough to pass along to me the sources of the information so that the information can be included in other articles. I'll let you know anything I find out!NorCalHistory 16:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Iron Maiden's FAR

Could you take a look at the comments I've left at Iron Maiden's FAR? I'd like to try helping where I can on this article, but I need some advice. Other than what I've left at FAR, would one book (an official bio) be sufficient to blanket the article with inline citations, or would this be inadequate? Feel free to reply at FAR. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 16:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian Revoultion Peer Review

Sandy, since you were so helpful in providing suggestions for improving the San Francisco article, I was hoping you might find some time to look over the article on the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and provide some feedback on the Peer review page. Thanks for any help. --Paul 01:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your insigtful peer review. We are addressing the points you have raised to strengthen the article to achieve FA status on 23 October, the 50th anniversary of the event. Yes, its ambitious, not quite as ambitious as the revolution itself. Your help is greatly appreciated. Istvan 06:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Parliament Act

Looks like an easy save though it needs some more citations, some restructuring and work on the prose (and the singular title bugs me every time I have to type it I see you fixed that - thanks). ALoan is digging up some references too. I don't have a problem with it going to FARC - I should think it will take at least the rest of the week to fix up. Yomangani 09:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Milgram Experiment

I'm not very good at this kind of stuff, but found an excerpt from Milgram's book online; http://home.swbell.net/revscat/perilsOfObedience.html . If this is helpful then great, but if not my apologies. LuciferMorgan 09:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

BH & UT articles.

Thanks for your input on the Barbara Hambly and Cat's Claw articles. I agree that what is required is a request for comments rather than peer review.

Inicdentally, the link on your user page to citation (*Tutorial on citing references ) is dead.

WLU 16:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sex pistols (again)

Well this one has become quite lengthy. Punctured's specific points are fair enough where actionable, but he seems to have a general distaste for the whole article that I don't know how to respond to. I suppose this is still on hold, so it doesn't necessarily need a kp/rm, but just an appraisal of where it's at. Marskell 12:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation

Your fact tags have been removed by User:Prodigenous Zee on the Iron Maiden article. I'm frankly thoroughly annoyed with the idiot - I'm trying to do real work here, and he's just acting as if he owns the article without doing work. LuciferMorgan 16:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I left a few choiced words at his userpage, and reverted his edits. His opinion is that because an Iron Maiden DVD says stuff like their first album was released to critical acclaim, then that's sufficient proof and doesn't need inline citations long as the DVD is just thrown in the reference section. Frankly this doesn't cut it for me - it contravenes NPOV, and if quoting from a DVD source then an inline cite should still be placed. Nobody at FAR would accept a Maiden DVD which talks them up as a reliable source, nor at FAC. I'm unsure what to do next, my comments are likely to brush him up the wrong way. Suppose I should eventually apologise.

If possible, you could try explaining to him about FAR, and tell him if the concerns aren't addressed then the article will lose its FA status. Also, try to tell him about inline citations and verifiability, and how this makes Wiki reliable and is required for FAs nowadays. Also the citation requests help when trying to add cites, encourages editors to help, and therefore helps the article address the FA concerns. LuciferMorgan 17:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I left an apology for being brisk, which'll hopefully cool things over. Some of the info within the article is incorrect, so I'll try correcting this - my additions may need a copyedit though. I'll use the book for citation on certain issues as it uses direct quotes, but as for the band's success I won't use it - for that I feel the Mick Wall book would be inappropriate. LuciferMorgan 17:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about being the bearer of bad news - you're telling me something I already know, as personally I can't see me saving it from FA removal. I don't really have the time - the time I have now is only because I've decided to stop interviewing music artists for awhile, but even that extra time is insufficient. The Metal Wikiproject I find annoying, because if they improved articles as much as they discussed what band is/isn't metal/thrash etc., then the Metal representation on Misplaced Pages would be amazing. Main problems in metal articles are;

1. No inline citations.

2. Fancrufty statements without supporting citations.

3. Critical statements upon each album/song without supporting citations, which are real weasly. Typical lines begin with "It is generally considered.."

Some of the fancrufty statements in the article I'll simply remove, or I'll change the statement. An example would be people saying their first album was successful - instead of this, I'd state it went UK top 10, and maybe quote any critical reviews I can find from the time. LuciferMorgan 17:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's Your Second Working Man's Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your yeoman's (yeowoman's?) work in not just creating the Connecticut 4th congressional district election, 2006 article, but also for singlehandedly bringing it up to near-featured article status in only a few hours, even though policy clearly states that it wasn't up to you to have to create this article in the first place. Aaron 18:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)