User talk:Maralia/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Maralia. 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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

You can obtain a photo of this ship at the following URL:
1. www.navsource.org
2. Photo URL
Hope it works out for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwarbinek (talk • contribs)

For your efforts to copyedit USS Constitution. The article is now GA! --Brad (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm so glad to see it reach GA! Citing page numbers, while necessary, will expand the appearance of the reference list, so I'd especially like to tweak the book cites to use short format (name, year, page number) in conjunction with the full listings in the bibliography. Do you have a guesstimated timeframe for FA? I imagine it's going to take a lot of work to pull page numbers after the fact :/ Maralia (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I realize this must be done to go any higher on the rating scale. A-class will be next but overall I have no set time schedule for things. I could cite page numbers right now for Martin (different edition) and Toll. I will be removing Fitz-Enz entirely and replacing that with another book that I'll have by Wednesday and at the same time I could pick up the Jennings book. The Project Gutenberg books that I've used have no page numbers at all, and I don't know how those should be handled. What would help me the most is getting a kick start on revamping the references. After that I think it would be a matter of just following the form. --Brad (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

For the Gutenburg books, a good compromise would be to cite the appropriate chapter, since page numbers aren't available online. As to the rest: I'll start converting some long-form book cites into short-form. After all the page numbers are in, we'll need to remember to take one more step to 'group' any same-page cites. If we are stringent about keeping to the short-form cite format, simple search-and-replaces should take care of that final step, when the time comes. I'll start with Toll; let me know whichever ones I should do next (I don't want to do them too far ahead of you or it will make the references look terrible). Maralia (talk) 05:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Another thing about the Gutenberg books is that the WP:V expectations are different. If there is a web accessible link to the full text (especially if the text is searchable) then verifying a reference is trivial, even without page numbers. I'm not saying they aren't needed but if there is no clear pagination it is less of a dealbreaker issue. Protonk (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

True, but chapters would be better than nothing, in case the Gutenberg links get taken down or something random :) As to short-form refs: I just converted the Toll cites to short-form, but it makes the references look so terrible (without the page numbers and related grouping) that I don't want to save my changes. I think it makes more sense for you to convert them as you get page numbers—simply change <ref name="Toll" /> to <ref>Toll 2006, p. x</ref> as you go, using ref names for any groupable (same-page) cites. Make sense? Maralia (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll start with Toll sometime today and see what happens. Once I do this often enough things will be ok. --Brad (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've cited Toll to page numbers. Let me know how that looks. --Brad (talk) 02:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the right idea. I tidied it up a little; try to remember to keep the comma position consistent (after the year), and use pp. rather than p. if the citation is for multiple pages. Let me know when you get the next set in, and I'll take another look. Maralia (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing the Martin refs currently but this may take a few days. A new book I just acquired is Old Ironsides ISBN 0-7838-9151-2 and would like your opinion on whether this book is an acceptable replacement for Fitz-Enz. Otherwise it seems that I've depleted all the books I have access to. --Brad (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Some questions:

I may have missed something here, but why exactly are we trying to replace Fitz-Enz?

At the GAR it was brought to my attention that his book may not be a good RS. In all cases the only cites I used from Fitz-Enz are where his info compared to Martin and others.

The Edwin Palmer Hoyt book is listed by Amazon as fiction written for ages 9–12, so it seems an unlikely substitute for Fitz-Enz, although I haven't seen it myself.

My library network has it listed as adult non-fiction albeit in large print. I have the book here on my desk.

This spurred me to check what is cited to Wachtel (also a young readers book): the ship's beam, and that 'she would often carry over fifty guns at a time'. Surely some of the more scholarly sources could support these two facts now?

Yeah, that one should go; I'll find other sources.

You haven't mentioned getting page numbers for the Bernard Ireland book. If you're not able to get your hands on it, let me know and I'll try to find it.

I'll take a look at the format of the Martin refs later tonight. Maralia (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I can get the Ireland book again but not right away. I've tried to use a broad spectrum of material to cite from so far but I've pretty much run out of books to cite at this point. I do have some public domain PDF's I haven't read through yet. Those might compliment the article enough to where I can stop being concerned about books. --Brad (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Break

I've finished Martin while picking up after your examples of formatting. Next book to be fixed will be Jennings. What were your thoughts on this Fitz-Enz problem? If Hoyt can't be proven to be adult non-fiction then I guess we'll have to keep Fitz-Enz. --Brad (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You needn't 'prove' it per se: Amazon is notoriously error-ridden, and I would certainly put more weight on your judgment, as you have the book in hand. Does it cite sources or include a bibliography? Maralia (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting for Fitz-Enz to come in at the library again but I think his bibli was better than Hoyt's, so I'm keeping it. Other references that you suggested use the chapter numbers would go something like this <ref>Abbott 1896, Chapter #</ref>? --Brad (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, thought I replied to this earlier. Yes, that's the idea (but just to be clear, without the # sign: 'Abbott 1896, Chapter 4'). Maralia (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Maralia, I'm not sure if I ever encountered you on here before but I've been around the featured article candidate block a few times. There was a time when I refused to nominate any articles for FAC because of the excruciatingly ego-busting ~~battle~~ experience that is FAC. This recent FAC for James Russell Lowell, however, has been one of the most positive experiences of my tenure here at Wikipedia. Your comments were extremely thorough, well-considered, and presented in the true spirit of this project: helpful collaboration. I have never been known to take criticism well, but I was unable to consider any of your comments critical. Instead they were sincerely helpful... isn't that what WP is all about? I considered offering you a barnstar. Instead, I offer these (public) words of thanks and of praise. You are, as I said, nothing less than awesome and a true credit to Wikipedia. I look forward to further e-interaction. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh my. You really made my day with your kind praise. I had noticed your article work on Margaret Fuller and Nathaniel Parker Willis this summer, and read the FACs for both. I chose Lowell to review knowing that the prose would be good (not riddled with, say, GoogleTranslatorese or Indglish); that the sourcing would be solid (not loaded with about.com and blogs); and that you would approach FAC comments as opportunities for article improvement (not obstacles to the quest for a gold star). My review was not affected by these presumptions, of course—even great writers produce some doozies, and nobody gets a free pass—but my time is limited and FACs are many, and I attempt to pick nominations that are likely to succeed (or, unfortunately, fail) with only moderate work at FAC. Reviewing is a largely thankless job; just hearing that you consider your FAC one of your 'most positive experiences' here is incredibly rewarding. Really, my efforts at Lowell were not extraordinary, for me or for many other frequent reviewers—the difference was you. You came to FAC with the right attitude and a solid article that just needed a little polishing. It was a pleasure working with you, and congratulations! Maralia (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hiya Maralia. I see you made the edit at WP:BETTER substituting WP:PROSELINE for WP:LISTCRUFT. What I'm doing on other style guidelines pages is, when one example is swapped out for another or one essay is swapped for another, I take a hard look at whether we could get along without any essay or example. This looks like one of those cases to me. The discussions I've seen in review processes on prose vs. lists vs. tables are pretty deep; I'd be happy to give editors a quick answer, but my feeling is that the current guidelines (including the little information there is at WP:EMBED) are about as helpful as we can be, in general; every case is different. Would you mind if I remove the link? (Feel free to reply here or there.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me to not link to anything there. I made the change because the listcruft essay was clearly off-topic (it's about list articles, not lists within articles). Maralia (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and thanks. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I do keep ya'll busy, don't I? ;-)

		The TomStar81 Spelling Award
		Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that Maralia has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning this TomStar81 Spelling Award and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your compliments. Please accept my gratitude as well for your great copyedits to the article; it further improved the reading experience! Jappalang (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm wondering if you might have time to help copyediting Alien (film). It's currently at FAC and some concerns about prose have been brought up. I've gone over Tony's guides but I feel I am too close to the text (being the primary contributor) to be able to take an objective eye and work out the kinks. Jappalang recommended you as an experienced copyeditor, so I'm hoping you might have time to lend an eye to the article. Thanks very much for your consideration. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Maralia/Archive 6, you posted at one or more of the recent discussions of short FAs. There's now a proposal to change the featured article criteria that attempts to address this. Please take a look and consider adding your comments to the straw poll there. Mike Christie (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not really sure how Gondjout has unresolved issues: I think the sourcing concern has been adressed, and I've replied to all the prose comments. Please put Nki back. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was writing a very strong oppose based solely upon the Nki article. One at a time. And you really need to work on that Nki article. Use other national park articles as a guide. It's not comprehensive enough by a long way. And I need to pay attention to the Gondjout FAC, but if it's accurate that you translated most of the article or its sources using Google translator, that's...not sufficient. --Moni3 (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that was basically a "what the heck" moment, considering there is practically no other non-trivial Nki sources. Moni, I can read a little bit of French and just used Google translate as a guide. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That opens the door to so many opportunities for misunderstanding the sources and the text. Why concentrate on these articles that you may not understand? I've used Google translator, and damn if I could understand what in the world was trying to be said. You may be getting a very important part of the article wrong and you wouldn't know it. Neither would we. That's quite frightening and really irresponsible. I would feel much more comfortable if a native French speaker wrote this article. I'd suggest working on something you're really interested in but in your native language. --Moni3 (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm really at a loss to understand your logic here. Gondjout has no supports and one very significant oppose that mirrors many of the issues with its previous nomination and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1964 Gabon coup d'état/archive1. It is not even remotely close to being promoted. Maralia (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec, to Moni) I re checked most of the claims against Reed, Matthews, and Darlington, and they were pretty much the same (except the French sources contained a bit more, that's why I didn't replace them). It can be scary, though I did have a lot of help from Nishkid64, who relied on native french speakers and Google Translate. Sure, I'll work on 2003 Bam earthquake once Gondjout, 1964 Gabon coup d'etat, Leon M'ba, and Jean-Hilaire Aubame have that little bronze star on them. Note to self: Never. again. :)

(to Maralia) I think I adressed the sourcing concerns at this FAC. Why, do you have anything to say? ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The FAC instructions state: "Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." Thanks for processing the nom, Maralia. EOTW, since you're on this page, please don't add another nomination until the one you have currently on the page is closed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There will be no offense taken. However (with all due respect) the information recently included in this article is sourced and can be verified. Check into it and you will simply find that this is legit! It is Accurate/Correct/un-Biased and completely worthy of inclusion. The subject matter is reletively obscured information, and much of it was distorted, but it has recently "resurfaced" and come to the light. So... after "further review", the play "stands as called". This article should be reverted back to the last edit Middim13. SEE: Internation Directroy of Company Historys Volume 40 pages 204-210. Look under Electric Boat Company/General Dynamics etc.. Edited by Jay P. Pederson 2001. Published by the St. James Press 27500 Drake Road, Farmington Hills, MI 48331 (USA). Continue to look further into this "subject" and find this information "tied in" to many other different (reliable) sources etc.. Also see: Arthur Leopold Busch and John P. Holland/Crescent Shipyard etc. It will be confirmed! Thanks for your sincerity/understanding and the fact that you can remain unbiased to what is known to be true in the most fair and balanced approach to integrity along the way! Thanks for your sincereity in this matter.--Middim13 (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

		The WikiChevrons
		For service above and beyond the call of duty as part of Operation Silent Sentry, the October 15, 2008, effort to keep the mainpage article USS New Jersey (BB-62) vandal free and address any talkpage related question, I herby present you with The WikiChevrons. Semper Fi! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

		*USS Nevada* (BB-36)**
		Thank you very, very much for your constructive criticism on the successful FAC that the USS Nevada (BB-36) recently went through. Looking back, it would not have passed without your comments and help. Thank you soooo much, Maralia. Cheers, —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 14:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Nevada underway off of the U.S. Atlantic coast on 17 September 1944.

Hello, Maralia. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a possible topic or community ban of Middim13. The discussion is about the topic WP:ANI#Topic or community ban needed. Thank you. ---MBK₀₀₄ 02:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Dan sent me here about terminology regarding Harvey Milk's tour on USS Kittiwake. The prose originally said he was "stationed aboard" and it was changed to "stationed on", the basis for that change apparently being that "aboard" somehow conflicted with his being a diver. I changed it back to "aboard" and Dan said I should ask you. I should say at the outset that I'm ok with either wording, but just chimed in at the FAC because I didn't think the original wording was "wrong" in any sense. Ok. That's a lot of quotes. What I'm looking for is your opinion on the subject: does it matter? Is aboard incorrect? Feel free to answer here or on my talk page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Protonk (talk • contribs)

Aboard is not incorrect, but it was dissonant in "diver aboard". My suggestion to Moni was "He served aboard the submarine rescue ship USS Kittiwake as a deep-sea diver". Maralia (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. Sorry about the sig. I took myself off the signbot list because it always seemed like I would catch the problem and sign just in time to ec with the bot. Protonk (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we should go for illogical accuracy. "He served under the USS Kittiwake as a deep sea diver". Because, you know, when he was working, he was underneath it...diving. Or maybe he was around it, floating, sending bubbles aloft in the briny deep. --Moni3 (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If he was like any of the divers i knew... "He served on the pier next to the USS Kittiwake, wearing daisy duke shorts and smoking cigarettes." :) Protonk (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

o_0 --Moni3 (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you still planning to review (per your note at the bottom of the FAC)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Moni and I just spent 3 hours on Skype going through the article, actually. She probably wants to kill me now :) I'll post in the morning—sleepytime! Maralia (talk) 05:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm really glad I don't speak Skype ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Aw, Sandy. We'd have such fun talking on Skype (which is talking, not type-chatting like on IRC). I have no murderous intentions for Maralia. I have a list for others, though...biding my time....--Moni3 (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Maralia, I like the way you talk. It is my pleasure to meet you. And I'm impressed with your work on Wikipedia. Have a nice day! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 09:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you—and that's one section header that surely won't be duplicated :) Maralia (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Marskell usually shows up very early am US East Coast time ... I left a suggestion on his talk page that you not try to botify this one in to articlhistory, since it was out of process and that is so much work without GimmeBot. Once Marskell deals with it, you can do the withdrawn shortcut (move to archive1, clear the redirect with "previous FAR withdrawn"). Watch for Marskell to show up, usually in the morning. Normally, I would do this myself, but not on FAs that I promoted (I recuse on those). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I left follow up at User talk:Marskell and at Talk:Natalee Holloway. Goodness, checking your contribs, are you seriously botifying the GA templates? You ARE a trooper !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to. I haven't committed to it anywhere, because it just might kill me :) Maralia (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, you're amazing. Doing all of that manually would make me batty. I'm still hoping we'll hear from Gimmetrow, but I realistically don't expect that we will. So, I will resurrect {{facfailed}} and {{featured}}, and {{FARpassed}} and {{FormerFA2}}, so that the talk pages can be gradually botified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern and response. Although, I could have edited the article in a different username or etc. I just thought the article was very well written and that it should be at least discussed towards being a featured article. (Phrasia (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

It really pains me to withdraw a ship article from FAC, but QM is seriously lacking in references, and just isn't up to the featured article criteria yet. Peer review and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Review would be good places for feedback. Maralia (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Maralia:

In recent weeks there has been more discussion about the problem of copying text and passing it off as original writing.

At DYK I and others have taken the position that articles cut-and-pasted from public domain sources are not allowed on DYK. There is some disagreement on that.

In vetting DYK nominations I have found text which was copied verbatim from DANFS, and other US public domain sources including other military sources and reports on named storms. There have also been articles submitted which are machine-translations of articles from other wikis, or other foreign-language (and copyrighted) sources. In the past I came across verbatim text from a source on a British listed (historic) property. There also have been a number of instances where text has been copied, minimally altered, and added to articles.

As you may know, FAC has had similar issues.

Now I do not believe that the copying of DANFS or other PD text is plagarism (and many articles based on DANFS clearly state that source), but I also do not think it should be the basis for a DYK, much less an FA. I understand that one can take the position that a new article which incorporates PD text is nevertheless a positive addition to wikipedia, but that still should not be the basis for DYK, given the stated policies for that feature. One of the issues is that these articles are often created by the DYK credit seekers, who clone the text, add an infobox, collect the DYK, and then move on. It also leads to a culture whereby other editors clone text of copyrighted sources, barely change it, and pass it off as their own, without attribution.

And given the number of FAs dealing with ships and storms, we may have a broader problem here. It may be a subject that should not be argued out piecemeal at DYK, FA, or GA. Do you have any thoughts on where a centralize discussion could take place? Kablammo (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The mere prospect of this debate is giving me a panic attack :) VP is probably the place to start, with notices at various other pages, but I think it would be wise to put significant planning into it first. As you say, this is a *really* broad issue, and many previous discussions have attacked it from the wrong angle and/or quickly devolved into acrimony without even approaching resolution. A carefully-crafted initial statement could perhaps avoid some of that drama. I'm willing to help, but can we table this till tomorrow? It's my birthday, and getting older is enough drama for me for one day. Maralia (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand, and approach it with some trepidation myself. I wish to approach it only in concert with others. The initial statement should be as devoid of adjectives as possible; there is no reason to pass judgment on what has transpired before (and even less to "call out" anyone for past actions); the focus should be purely forward-looking and for the best long-term interests of Wikipedia. Take whatever time you wish-- and Happy Birthday!. (I don't even know what VP is.) Kablammo (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

VP = Village Pump. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Never been there-- most days, I have indoor water. Kablammo (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Kablammo asked me to come here, as I have found many of these cut & paste articles. I agree that it is not plagiarism; my concern is that the article's are featured on the main page via DYK. A cut & paste article is not something I would want on the main page, as it advertises that our best work (even if only a DYK) is just ripped from some PD source. Note: I've also found articles that were cut & paste from copyrighted sources on DYK (then, later at GA). Some of these had incorrect attributions; others had not attribution at all. I think we need to clarify 1.) whether cut & pasting is OK and 2.) to what extent; or maybe have some statement that it is "discouraged". Anyway, I've a poorly performing FAC right now and I don't have the heart to take this to the VP...I'll comment on it, but I don't have the energy for a battle. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)This is not a policy or guideline, but I happen to think pasting PD text into an article is pretty cheap, and makes Wikipedia the ghetto cousin of better written materials. I also don't think copying text from one article into a similar article when both cover a portion of the same topic isn't very cool either. But then, I did that when I wrote four companion articles for Everglades. I don't know why it's different, copying myself. Maybe it's not. It's part of the reason why I can't hurry up already and nominate that article for FA - because I feel like I should rewrite half of it... --Moni3 (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In terms of history (so that, um, delicate wording can be employed when the discussion is launched) we did have numerous FAs written by a current and respected editor in 2004 and 2005 that had large pieces taken from PD text. I believe it was a common practice in earlier days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

All the more reason not to add specific examples to the discussion. And the use of public domain text at DYKs has been tolerated, even though policy appears to discourage it. (The rules are not as clear and specific as they could be.) But as Lazulilasher says, these are articles appearing on the Main Page; what appears there should be more than repetition of other resources. (Maralia, thank you for your hospitality here-- bring around some cake if any is left over.) Kablammo (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think my point of view differs somewhat from most of those expressed here. I'm certainly willing to talk about it more, but I'm starting to wonder if a realtime medium might be more productive for hashing out an initial approach. Perhaps Skype? (Birthday cake was on Sunday, and it's long gone. So sad!) Maralia (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't speak Skype or IRC or any of those technobeasts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I think pd cut and paste likely served a valuable purpose when wikipedia was young-and still does for certain subjects. At dyk, however, there are huge amounts of non cut and paste articles which should be chosen first. The practice also encourages quote farms and quoting from copyrighted sources without proper attribution. Thus, I do think we should at least ask for the community's opinion regarding the practice - and more generally, to what extent quotation is allowable under nfc. Note: I was robbed and don't have reliable computer access until Tuesday at the earliest-so, can we wait until then? Lazulilasher (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

RAWR. Talk page stalker here. I think that cut and paste PD text, while within policy and "ok" insofar as article content goes should not be allowed for DYK. Part of the motivation for DYK is the little medal--it's like a barnstar you have to earn. I think the DYK notes and competition about numbering have done a great deal of good for the encyclopedia (arguably the same can be said for FA and GA)--as for Lazuli's concerns above, I understand them but feel that on balance, the net outcome of DYK is better for the encyclopedia. People try harder when a little status is involved and in a big social work like wikipedia, status is harder to measure informally, so FA/GA/DYK help connote it. But if part of the implicit "reward" for creating a DYK is in the recognition, then plagarism (or acknowledged copying of PD sources, where it is not plagarism...explicitly) cannot be acceptable. It is "ok" in articlespace because we don't have bylines. PD work is everyones'. Work not PD is GFDL anyway, so it isn't as though one author is claiming credit for work not their own. but for FA/GA/DYK, credit is given, so we have to be strict about the source of the material. Protonk (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify: I support DYK 100%, and believe that it generates tremendous work for the encyclopedia. I do not, however, think that PD CnPs should be allowed there (they are currently discouraged in DYK rules; not explicity disallowed). At this stage in our development, I think we have enough editors creating original content collated from various sources that we have no need for CnP. I think that for "status" articles (GA/FA, and DYK to a lesser extent) that we should consider not allowing cut and paste in the future. Why? We have enough talented writers now that the practice shouldn't be needed (or reflect our best work); for instance, I used 1911 in the pied-noir article (as a source, not text) before someone pointed out to me that it was rather disingenous to be sourced to another encyclopedia. After stewing for a few hours, I realised he was correct. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Just saw this at the Village Pump. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:Marskell#Update on FAC/FAR/FL closings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, no problem. I used User:SandyGeorgia/Withdrawn FAC as a guide, but actually followed the steps you took when archiving the 1964 Gabon coup d'état FAC. I wasn't sure whether Gimmebot was still out of action (no edits since October 21), which is why I did the steps manually. I would have done the {{articlehistory}} too, save for the explicit instruction not to (for all I knew, I could have chosen to do it one minute before the bot was reactivated, which would have stalled it). So, for future reference if Gimmebot doesn't come back online, it's OK to update the article history template as long as I've done all the other steps (move to /archive1 etc)? All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 22:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's always safe to do articlehistory, as long as the other steps are already done. Do you have Dr pda's script, User talk:Dr pda/articlehistory.js? Makes getting those oldids much easier. Maralia (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I do now. :) Thanks, I think I've got a grasp now of both the "normal" Gimme-friendly, and manual methods. Sorry for taking up your time. Steve ^{T • C} 22:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can help pick up any of the withdrawals, it's more than worth my time to explain. Thanks! Maralia (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Awesomeness
		To the awesome and amazing Maralia, who reduced the old {{facfailed}} talk page templates from 700 to 0, helping build the archived FACs into {{articlehistory}} templates: in grateful appreciation for the hours of tedious work that will help us better maintain FAC records in the future. You're the best !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

WOW that is one seriously psychedelic barnstar! We never could've gotten all 700 done without both you and Gimme working on them, too, but thank you :) Maralia (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This barnstar burns my retinas. --Moni3 (talk) 04:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I went through the Jan 2005 archive and replaced some missing facfailed templates :-) I refuse to deal with the old Macau facfailed from Jan 2005, since someone overwrote the old FAC, and it's too old to worry about without admin tools to recreate the old fac. I may eventually start through the 2004 archives if I get incredibly bored, but I wanted to finish 2005 for the sake of my memory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to put the old facfailed template at Talk:Pokémon Red and Blue so we can have a test of how GimmeBot deals with that. (And we have to remind David Fuchs not to leave them halfway.) Let's watchlist the Pokemon page and see how that works?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I was gonna leave David a note, but then I thought 'what if somebody left me a note every time I minorly screwed something up'. I watchlisted it when I moved it to archive :) Maralia (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Your name was recommended to me by SandyGeorgia, with respect to copy editing. If you have time, could you please do a copy edit of the above article. It has been through a indepth PR and awaits one good round of copy edits before FAC nomination.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Those corrections are great and much appreciated. Cla68 (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For that brilliant idea you had which allows easier monitoring of Ships related articles to keep them safe from vandalism. Mjroots (talk) 06:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Maralia!

Thanks again for your work on Hubble. I see you've started to delink the dates manually. Since linked dates are useless, this seems like a good idea, but do we need to do this manually? From the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Citation templates#De-linking_dates it looks like everyone supports de-linking the accessdate parameter. If this is done, then we can keep the smaller and simpler parameter, which eases editing. Do you know if this will not be implemented for some reason, despite the strong support? Thanks for any light you can shed on this, LouScheffer (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't up to date on that discussion, thanks for the link. You're right that it may be wasted effort to switch from accessdate to accessdaymonth/accessyear if linking is removed, but even if linking is removed in the templates, there will still be a date format disparity at HST, with the dates in the article in daymonthyear format but the dates in the references in ISO format. I don't foresee that template discussion resulting in a massive effort to convert ISO dates to one of the preferred date formats, unfortunately, but I'm happy to put off dealing with it at HST for a bit, in hopes that at least delinking happens at the template level. Thanks. Maralia (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Please substitute the template so that the text doesn't change when the template changes. Some day the template might change and it could change the meaning of the template used many months ago, which isn't always good. Gary King (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Hadn't occurred to me since I usually just copy/paste the text so I can mangle it up a bit myself :) Maralia (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You have been mentioned here as a possible coopted Milhist coordinator. You may wish to comment :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I was afraid that would happen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

At this point I think it's time to point out that I have photos of Maralia cavorting with naked animals. And she sexually harassed me, fired my State Trooper brother-in-law, carries the card of communist organizations, requires an intervention with a licensed substance abuse therapist for her bizarre addiction to Krispy Kreme donuts, built an immense and alarming shrine to the wonder, talent, and righteousness of Anita Bryant, and voiced her support of protecting Satanic rituals. She also told me she enjoys stomping on kittens. This surely disqualifies her for any position in WP:MilHist, does it not? I divulge these things only out of public interest...and love... --Moni3 (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Great strategy :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/London. I'd do it myself but I'd probably flub it... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow! THanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It's a wonder I didn't botch it up; still on my first cup of coffee. Maralia (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The existing coordinators have unanimously decided to coopt you as a Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject with immediate effect. As is customary, I present you with these stars and wish you luck in the coming months.

In addition to reading the summary of coordinator responsibilities, there are background essays, which may be of interest:

Finally, there's a coordinator usebox – {{WPMILHIST Coordinator}} – if you wish to use it.

Once again, all the very best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Seriously. She stomps kittens. --Moni3 (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That was the clincher. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 22:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh - the reward on Wikipedia for a job well done is another three jobs. Congrats, and looking forward to working with you ;) EyeSerene^talk 12:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I do. And what a catch you've turned out to be ;) EyeSerene^talk 20:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit: sorry, didn't read your posting request at the top of the page. Copied to my talk page too :P EyeSerene^talk 20:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations Maralia. You'll do a grand job I'm sure. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I dunno about 'grand', but I hope I can manage to do some good amongst stirring up trouble :) Maralia (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

None of us can hope to do more than that. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!! --Kralizec! (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I had to find something to do with my time, now that you don't talk to me anymore <cry> Maralia (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and see User talk:Darkspots and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JeanLatore. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I didn't know about that one, but suspected your other 'friend', given that it was pop culture. Maralia (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

More in line with the first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Did I mention how irritating it is to have to go deal with a vandal when I haven't gotten through my morning watchlist? See the checkuser: it was a different vandal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

On the FAC for this article you said: "Please use endashes, rather than hyphens, in page ranges." I'm sure you're following policy, but have you got any idea what the point of this is? They're both short lines, only differing in size. (Please notify me if you respond here) - Mgm|^(talk) 08:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Like commas and other punctuation, the proper type of dash helps readers parse a sentence. The length of a dash gives readers a visual hint about the relationship of words. The shortest dash, the hyphen, is used for the closest connection: words with prefixes, like counter-intuitive, and compound adjectives, like light-green house. The next longer dash, the endash, is used mainly to convey a relationship between words, such as 1–2 days or American–Russian relations. The longest dash, the emdash, signifies a diversion—an interruption or break from the rest of the sentence.

I've glossed over some of the finer points, but I hope this brief summary helps. More detail can be found at WP:DASH. Maralia (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I created {{FACClosed}} to add to the bottom of the early (relative to GimmeBot's schedule) closings: the variables are "archived" or "promoted". So, you just enter {{subst:FACClosed|archived}} ~~~~ at the bottom of the FAC when you archive it. David Fuchs has withdrawn nominations without doing the rest of the "paperwork", next to deal with those. I'd like to have only those editors I've asked to help doing that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Did those: you might not have noticed they were only partially withdrawn by David Fuchs. Also, see new additions at User:SandyGeorgia/Glitter. One is likely a sock, but I don't have time to deal with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, will make a note of the new template. Sorry I wasn't around to help with those closes—I am having one of those weeks where every stupid little thing that can go wrong does. Maralia (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the coordinators' ranks!! The article above that I've worked for a long time and got to featured status has recently been de-featured due to mostly copyedit considerations that, frankly, I cannot fully understand - dashes and whatnot. Would you mind helping me to fix it up? - telling me what I need to fix? - I'm quite happy to do the hard work, but need help seeing what actually needs to be done. Thanks Buckshot06(prof) 12:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome. I would be glad to help by giving this article a copyedit & MOS cleanup, but it does seem to need other work still. A quick look at the References section leaves me confused about many of the sources. Some examples:

Babakin - by whom is this Independent Military Review published? Is this a journal, or a paper?
Baumgardner - this is a Geocities link; what makes this a reliable source?
Many items in the References lack a publisher.
Only one listing in References has an accessdate - and it is not an online source. While some Notes for online sources list an accessdate, many do not. All online sources should have an accessdate, and it's easier to list it in the References one time than to duplicate it with each Note to the same source.
The Notes should be listed by the same scheme (lastname, firstname) as the correlating list in the References. Currently, many Notes are firstname lastname, or even begin with the paper/article name instead.

There are other more minor formatting issues with the Notes and References such as missing spaces in page notations (p. 400, not p.400), confusion over italics and quote marks (italics for book and series titles, quotes for article/chapter titles), and date formatting (some accessdates are in ISO format while others are in international format). I can help clean those up while you're working on the meatier stuff. Maralia (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

i Dont like people editing my page, i dont Edited other Peoples User pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiemaloneyscoreg (talk • contribs) 01:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I posted my reasoning on your talk page about 30 minutes ago. Essentially, userpages do not belong in categories intended for articles, nor may you crosslink from mainspace articles to your userpage. Maralia (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been going through the tasks listed in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships sidebar. Though I am more into the subject of ship design, I will contribute all I can. ChrysalSnowlax (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

... at Wikipedia:FCDW/WBFAN‎. I hadn't clued in yet to the missing italics, et al. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

But of course! Just doing my job, ma'am :) Maralia (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

One of those days ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with someone who believes that pedophilia==gay. File under rope, nearing end of. Maralia (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

eeeek. I've decided lately to just file the darn rope, out of my life, that is. Let's see how long it lasts :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have some input on the following discussions, some of which you may have missed:

WT:MHCOORD#Task force adoption - Proposal for filling the last three TF coordinator slots

WT:MHCOORD#Coordinating task forces - Job description re task forces. Some input already but much more welcomed so we can get a summary/checklist in place.

WT:MHCOORD#C-Class: testing the water - Views welcomed on whether in principle Milhist should adopt C-Class.

WT:MHCOORD#A-class article reassessment - Finishing touches on getting the reappraisal review in place.

Very many thanks :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Moni3 would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Moni3 to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Maralia . If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Thanks very much. I am kind of a wreck at the moment—my father was in hospital over the weekend—so I hope you'll both understand if I take a couple days to collect myself before responding. He is home, and 'okay', but I'm not exactly at my best today. Maralia (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your father; I hope he makes a speedy recovery. Otherwise, take your time and go when you're completely ready. It's your RfA, after all :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, take it on when you can. Best wishes to you and your family. --Moni3 (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts and prayers are with you, Maralia - hope everything is better soon! Karanacs (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You have my thoughts and prayers too, friend. Take your time and come back here only when you are ready - Wikipedia is not, and is much less important, than real life...Unless your username is SandyGeorgia...;) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

sorry to hear about your Father hope he is okay...

I lost my mother 2 month ago to Parkinson's

207.106.86.85 (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

He seems to be feeling better, and we'll have the results of some tests in a few days. Thanks, everyone, for your kind notes. Maralia (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I too would like to send well-wishes for your father's health, as well as express support for an RfA. However as others have said, take your time (especially since RfA can be a real meatgrinder these days). --Kralizec! (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope the news is good, Maralia. RfA can be very stressful even when everything goes perfectly, and how often is that? I have some ideas to help, but only after everything gets back to normal for you and yours. Best wishes. (Not watchlisting since you might be away a while.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I've got no doubt at all that you'd make an excellent administrator Maralia, but I would counsel caution. RfA can be a real ego-bruiser, which you're likely not to be in need of right now. There's no rush anyway; I'm sure Moni's offer of nomination will still be open in a month or twos time. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with MF... if you do choose to run, you might want to take a look at my comments over on Moni's talk page. I saw that she was talking about noming ya, and did a quick review of your edit history. While I think you have what it takes to be an admin, there were some areas that could make an RfA stressful---unless you address them head on (perhaps in your answers.) Being a good admin and a good admin candidate, are not always the same thing. As for timing, there is no rush, taking your time is always seen as a good thing---especially when there are obvious RL concerns. Hope your father is ok.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Send my wishes to your family and to your father. I hope that he recovers swiftly. Protonk (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you please add azma.com to the Air Pollution wiki page,that site is by SDI health which has 600 employees, and runs pollen.com a well known pollen forecasting website. azma.com is updated daily with Air Pollution trends across the entire USA

Here is an animated trend map I just created to see the past 30 days of air pollution trends http://www.azma.com/images/maps/Daily_Map_Update/wow.gif

http://www.sdihealth.com/about/releases/Azma.com%20Launch%20July%202008.pdf

I assure you this site is accurate, does not have any advertising and helps 1,000+ people a day with the air quality forecast

http://www.azma.com/ http://www.pollen.com/ http://www.sdihealth.com/

http://www.sdihealth.com/about/releases/Azma.com%20Launch%20July%202008.pdf

http://www.azma.com/Asthma-and-Allergy.aspx

207.106.86.85 (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This link has been added to Asthma repeatedly and has been rejected by multiple editors as inappropriate. The service is not unique or particularly notable or relevant; every major weather forecasting service offers air quality predictions. Maralia (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

we supply the trends to every major weather forcasting service, we are the number one company doing this

About SDI Since 1982, SDI has been delivering the most innovative healthcare data products and analytic services on the market to the pharmaceutical, biotech, healthcare, medical device, and consumer packaged goods industries. SDI is a leading provider of de-identified patient-level data, as well as real-time localized disease and treatment surveillance and modeling data. SDI takes a consultative approach to designing the best analyses for its clients, combined with expert study execution and analytical expertise to produce superior insights. Its current roster of client companies in the pharmaceutical/biotech sector includes all of the top 20 firms. For more information, visit www.sdihealth.com or call 610.834.0800.

I think azma.com will help Asthma patients deal with this chronic condition, I hope we can get mentioned someday on wikipedia Asthma Page

thanks for your consideration 207.106.86.85 (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Air quality forecasting is available from dozens, if not hundreds, of sources online. Wikipedia is not in the business of funneling readers to a specific site when such things are widely available. Maralia (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

we make a pretty little US daily map and have a database of trends by zip code there is no other site like this! it is very unique and the only site of its kind, please list us???????? 207.106.86.85 (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you take a look at the sourcing queries on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ralph Bakshi and tell me if I'm out of line here? It appears that the editors are using citations to sources they did not actually consult, but that were sources for works they did consult. When questioned, I'm getting "I've done this before and it's fine", which I do not consider fine, but I'd like a second opinion. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I see several people have weighed in there, so I'll not pile on. I looked over his 3 previous film FACs, though, and he did get dinged for this at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coonskin (film) by Sandy: "the correct way to cite them is by naming the newspaper article as cited in the book, since that was your actual source". Maralia (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in on me!

The headlines there are really screwy when I pull them up in edit mode. Some people seem to have used ==HEADLINE== and others ===HEADLINE===, but at least in my browser the ToC doesn't register a difference. Dunno. If I've done something wrong, feel free to fix it. Take care, Marskell (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

*Slaps head.* Thanks! Marskell (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

First, thanks for making a really kind and thoughtful vote in my RfA. Second, I see you're active again; if you're interested in RfA, I have some thoughts. Note that I was completely deficient in some areas and no one cared; what they cared about was breadth, and evidence of being helpful in some way regarding policy and guidelines. One thing you could tackle if you like would be to do the December or January update of the 7 content policy pages at WP:Update ... - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Bump. Okay now I'm watchlisting :) There's another guy who had a recent rough RfA who might like to do the policy page updates, if you're not interested. (But that's just a guess, he might not be interested.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Maralia, I saw your comment here on Template_talk:DANFS. What I would like to know is, if this proposal is ultimately approved and gets implemented, should we do the same thing with these templates: {{FS1037C}}/{{FS1037C talk}} and {{FS1037C MS188}}/{{FS1037C MS188 talk}}? It seems to me, that for the sake of consistency, we should do the same thing: deprecate the talk page templates for each, and move the (hidden) category for article inclusion to the main template. --Eastlaw (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

In general, yes, I think so; in my experience the talk page templates have really served no purpose other than to populate categories without cluttering mainspace. Incidentally, I understand why you removed a category that was on the latter set of templates, but why did you remove the more-specific of the two that were there? Seems like it would be more useful to categorize those by MIL-STD-188 than just by 1037C. Maralia (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That last thing was actually a mistake on my part. Thanks for catching it. --Eastlaw (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

... in spiffing up Brad Cohen before the show Sunday night? I chunked in some text and a bunch of sources, but it's 3 am and I'm tuckered out. I've met Brad, and he says it's authentic, so I'm really looking forward to this movie. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

On 10 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article German submarine U-558, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

–Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 06:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind remarks regarding the above. I would like to see this article worked up a bit. It could use a map, and I know there's been some diving activity on the wreck over the years, some underwater pix would be great, but where they are and whether public domain obviously are issues. Supposedly the wreck is hanging partially over a 700 ft drop off to the floor of Lynn Canal. That could be a very dramatic illustration. I don't have any part of the skill necessary to prepare a presentation like this, but I have seen some excellent drawings on Wiki commons on other topics.Mtsmallwood (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Maralia. I am very impressed with your English standards, and would like to request your aid for Toa Payoh Ritual Murders. The case was a sensation in Singapore, intriguing and disgusting people with the revelations of sex, drugs, and violence in the murders of two children. I have written the article in hopes of getting it to be an FA. Thus, could you check on its (my) language (which I have oft been told is "clunky") and any deficiencies that could impede its FAC? Thank you very much! Jappalang (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot. The peer review is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Toa Payoh Ritual Murders/archive1. Jappalang (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Careful, you might inadvertently debunk the oft-repeated meme that it's 'impossible' to get Singapore articles to FA because of systemic bias! :) Seriously, though, I'm happy to help. I've read the article (wow, no *wonder* it was all over the news there!). It looks like you're getting good responses at the PR, and I notice Karanacs is planning to weigh in soon. I'm stretched a bit thin at the moment, with the holidays and all; would you mind pinging me again early next week, and I'll see what I can do then? Thanks for thinking of me. Maralia (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Maralia. I am willing to wait a bit. I will ask again next week. Jappalang (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. I hope I am not jumping the gun too early. Brianboulton has gave the article a copyedit and I have made some changes. I would like to get other pair of eyes to go through the article, so take a look if you have the time over this week and weekend. Many thanks in advance. Jappalang (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Maralia, thanks for helping close out The Great Gatsby. I was unsure of the process there. I was once thinking I'd work on this, but the brief FAC left me with the impression that attempting to work on Gatsby is probably a bad project for anyone outside FAC's lit clique. The cost/benefit analysis doesn't add up. My enthusiasm for a literature FAC is pretty low right now since the standards have been rammed up beyond all reason (not to mention any plausible reading of WP:WIAFA) and I don't feel like wasting my time pandering to the gatekeeper. --JayHenry (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Coming over to inquire, although it's probably not necessary. Maralia, did you get Christmas and Gatsby all sewn up, talk page, FAC page, etc.? Just starting in to FAC, I suspect I no longer have to stalk your edits, just checking :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Jay: no problem on Gatsby, but I'm sorry to hear you feel that way about lit FACs. You raised a whole slew of issues there, and I sympathize with you on many of them, but I think you'd find that many people (including said gatekeeper) would roll up their sleeves and chip in.

Sandy: thanks for the reminder. I thought I'd taken care of them all, but it turns out I had edited Christmas' talk page for a different reason, and neglected to make sure the fac tag was there (apparently it never was). There was one other withdraw (Henryk Górecki, withdrawn by nom) but I've just checked that one and everything looks good to go now. Maralia (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I am the keymaster! --Moni3 (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I just read this four minutes ago. Maralia (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Tell me which figures are not accurate, what do you dispute?--Woogie10w (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't personally dispute any figure; I merely assessed the article for WP:MilHist, and left a hidden comment explaining that I didn't pass it on criterion 2 because there appear to be some missing figures as well as open disputes on the talk page regarding accuracy. Maralia (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There are no disputes at this time, you are looking at issues from the distant past.--Woogie10w (talk) 09:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting; the most recent post on the talk page is less than a month old, certainly appears to challenge some figures ("UK official casualty figures for 1914-18 lack credibility."), and was in fact posted by you. Color me confused! I will ask theWWI taskforce guys to review my assessment. Maralia (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't make head nor tail of the reasoning behind the British casualty figures in the article. Woogie10w, you are doing exactly the right thing by refering back to primary sources - hopefully this will mean the figures can be sorted out sortly. The Land (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I think I see what is going on. Different sources give different numbers for British casualties, but those presented in the table are consistent and referenced, so that is easily good enough to count the article as B-class. The Land (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Maralia (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Regarding, you may feel free at any time to stop watching my page. You misinterpret a statement I made to myself. Are you aware that SandyGeorgia took an even more innocent statement, my offer to watch an FA on the main page, and used it to suggest deep corruption between me and another editor during his RFA. She spent several paragraphs explaining her Strongly oppose to his RFA based on my offer, maintaining the depth of the evil corruption, even though others replied that they could not see what she meant. However, some accepted her word without reading the evidence, such is her power to corrupt. My offer was not a quid pro quo, and although I don't see Colin's infraction as serious, it is certainly more so than my simple offer to watch an article on the Main Page.

Although I don't have email enabled, as I don't want to receive the "plethora" of emails, Sandy is sending out, reinforcing her view of me as a corrupt person. I do urge you not to reinforce this extremely negative strain, especially when it harms the RFA of innocent editors. (Fortunately, his passed anyway.)

The simple act of unwatching my page, ceasing this obsession with all that I do, may enable Sandy to cease any obsession she may have with me, just another editor who is special only in that I don't, in MF's words, "bend over and pucker" for the FAC crowd. Surely it is causing trouble to take my notice of of Colin's comment to myself and spread it to the FAC clique where each had their predictable say. I urge you to leave me alone, and unwatch my talk page. What have I ever done to you? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 06:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come now. Let's dispense with this nonsense whereby everything is reframed in terms of your perceived nemesis. Where was your concern about harming 'innocent editors' when you chose the word "infraction" above? Or when you made the insinuating post that I brought to his (Graham's, not Colin's) attention? Where has it been for the past six months, during which you've endlessly derided FAC reviewers and writers as everything from "[Sandy's] minions" to "the FAC regulars caste system" to "her adopted 16 year olds"? You've declined to substantiate your claims of various improprieties at FAC, while continuing to haphazardly sling mud in the general direction of your target. You are maligning hardworking editors, individually and as a group. Did you expect them all to bite their tongues and look the other way forever? I for one will not. Maralia (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Since I've been mentioned above, I'd like to make it very clear that I have never used the phrase "bend over and pucker up" in relation to an "FAC crowd", although I have used it in other contexts not to do with FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. So it is acceptable to use such phrases as long as they are not used in the context of FAC? Fine, I will remember that. Is there a place where these rules are listed so I can know what words I can and cannot use with the FAC editors or in relation to FAC that differ from those allowable in other contexts? Warmest Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to see that you are still apparently unable to tell the difference between "FAC" and "FAC crowd". And even more disappointed to see that you are still unable to understand that phrases taken out of context are simply that, phrases taken out of context. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

I appreciate your efforts in summarizing Lightmouse's edits on his talk page, but I hope your efforts aren't for naught. Lightmouse has been asked many times (on his talk page and/or at the template talk page) not to remove uses of {{convert}} for knot conversion. I'm trying really hard to assume good faith here, but the longer this cycle goes on it gets harder and harder to assume anything other than either (a) cluelessness/carelessness in use of powerful tools, or (b) willful disruption because it doesn't meet his particular worldview. If this weren't the Christmas holidays, I would personally take this to ANI (something I've never done before) to get him to undo these changes. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Maralia -- I appreciate your help in parsing this minor quandry at Order of the Bath. In thanks, may I share two other paired images? As you may already know, Vincent Van Gogh copied two of the One Hundred Famous Views of Edo by Andō Hiroshige (安藤広重), which were among his collection of Japanese ukiyoe prints:

I think I've learned from working through this small problem with you. I'm pleased to include {{double image}} among the tools available in future. --Tenmei (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey. I've dealt with your comments and await your follow-up. No need to rush of course, just making sure everything's good. :) Wizardman 02:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I had my comments on the next section (Career years) ready to post last night, but got distracted by researching a bot problem. I ended up opening so many tabs that my browser bit the dust over a period of time; I was able to save my Grove comments, but they may be a little out of date if you've edited that section in the meantime. I could go ahead and post them, but I think the article might be better served if I just directly copyedited the remainder. I don't like to do that at FAC without making sure that the nominator is okay with it, though—what's your preference? I'm fairly baseball savvy, so I don't think I'm likely to make many boneheaded mistakes, but it's up to you. Maralia (talk) 04:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to copyedit what's left I have no problem with that, go right ahead. Wizardman 04:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Maralia. 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.

←

→

Break

Break

Your Wikipedia Entry: USS General W. G. Haan (AP-158)

Constitution thanks

Thank you

Proseline

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter&nbsp;: Issue XXXI (September 2008)

Admit it

Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge

Copyedit help

FACR

FAC instructions

Completely legitimate &amp; factual information about first (submarine) fleet of the Royal Navy

Thank You!

My great thanks

ANI notice

Harvey Milk FAC

WjkedjeklJUIO865:-)

Botification on Holloway

RMS Queen Mary

Copying of text

Happy Birthday, Maralia&nbsp;!!!

Update on FAC/FAR/FL closings

AWESOME&nbsp;!!

Don't look now&nbsp;:-)

Trial

Kannada literature in the Western Chalukya Empire

FA corrections

Barnstar

De-linking dates

FAC withdrawn template

Milhist coordinator

FAC withdraw...

Milhist coordinator confirmation

See also

Herbert Greenfield

Template for premature archives

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter&nbsp;: Issue XXXII (October 2008)

Russian Ground Forces

Why is my User Page being edited?

Thank you for the Welcome note

Thank you for the cleanup

Coordinator discussions

Good morning and surprise

can you please add a new site to the Asthma wiki page?

Hey there...

Peekaboo

Bump

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter&nbsp;: Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

Need some advice re: attribution templates

Interested

DYK for German submarine U-558

SS Princess Sophia

Requesting copyediting and reviewing of Toa Payoh Ritual Murders

Gatsby

ww1 casualties

Oh, trouble!

Null edit and edit histories

User:Lightmouse

Double image template

Orval Grove

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

Completely legitimate & factual information about first (submarine) fleet of the Royal Navy

Happy Birthday, Maralia !!!

AWESOME !!

Don't look now :-)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)