This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 00:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your stellar work in my behalf. It is greatly appreciated and I hope I live up to your expectations. I am trying very hard. Warmest good wishes for the New Year to you and your family. — mattisse ( Talk) 16:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for moving the information from the main Judaism article to the more topic-specific article. BTW, did you know that the information in new articles less than a week old, or articles expanded less than a week ago, can be nominated for Wikipedia:Did You Know? I think there's a lot of information in this article that would warrant a nomination. -- AFriedman (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I've nominated the article for DYK because it seems like an awfully important article to share on the main page. See Template talk:Did you know#Origins of Judaism. What do you think of the hook? -- AFriedman (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks :) -- AFriedman (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jujutacular. By consensus an AfD runs for seven days. Forcing an early closure was seen to be inappropriate unless it met the criteria in Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. This AfD was originally closed on the same day it opened, therefore it has not had seven days for people to consider the matter. The reasoning behind keeping an AfD open for seven days are varied, and include the sense that people may pile on initially to either iVote for a delete or keep, but that opinion can change when others join the discussion with information or views not initially presented. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed for more info. If you have any further questions, please get in touch. SilkTork * YES! 22:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
O grief! I give up! I can see that someone glancing at the AfD would assume that it's had it's time, and is a straightforward Keep. There's the possibility of starting afresh with a new AfD, but the result would just be the same, so this is one to let drop. I think if I need to reactivate an early closed AfD in future I'll make sure to leave a clear note so that people can see what has happened. Thanks for letting me know. SilkTork * YES! 21:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the long closing rationale here. Given a range of opinions and the likelihood of many eyeballs, it probably diverted several questions/deletion reviews. tedder ( talk) 03:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what should be done now an AfD has been closed. I can't add further to the discussion. When User:Cnilep nominated Alric for AfD, the user also nominated Husa of Elmham. Although the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alric was about Alric, it also covered both AfD nominations. Since the Alric article has been deleted, shouldn't the Husa of Elmham article also deleted? Please reply here on your talk page. Scrivener-uki ( talk) 17:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent work on the Gower. I know you have dipped into the Glamorgan article, but I would appreciate any help you could give to the article as we may be going for Good Article status. As someone with an interest in the beautiful part of Glamorgan I would appreciate if you could keep an eye on any errors made on the west coast. FruitMonkey ( talk) 23:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Which subsection of WP:ENT did Hudecki meet that you closed the AFD as keep? Noone ever supported the claim that he met WP:ENT. THF ( talk) 02:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I see you are deciding on the AFD. Let me add some analytical points. I'm not advocating delete or keep at this point as I am neutral. Comments to follow in minutes. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 20:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec):I have decided the outcome, and am writing up my rationale at the moment. The consensus of several discussions is that 2009 Barack Obama visit to China should be merged to Sino-American relations - and I support that. The consensus for 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan is to delete, and I will go with that. Do you feel your points would have an impact on such an outcome? SilkTork * YES! 20:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, because there are already complaints that Wikipedia is Ameri-centric. The fact that we keep some information about the American president but discard similar information about the Australian PM.
I'm more concerned because it shows that the notability guidelines are being followed with varying compliance, some more than others. That's bad when there is unequal application of the guidelines. I'm not sure how to improve the guidelines to address that problem. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 20:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I see you are deciding on the AFD. Let me add some analytical points. I'm not advocating delete or keep at this point as I am neutral.
Possibilities: Obama-keep, Rudd-keep. This would be in line with things that have a lot of references qualify for articles but fails the notability guidelines for events.
Obama-keep, Rudd-delete or Obama-delete, Rudd-keep. This is hurt Wikipedia by showing that there is a different standard, either pro-American or anti-American. Both visits are not earthshattering, both to major countries in Asia.
Obama-delete, Rudd-delete. This would be in line with the majority of the discussion about fixing the notability (events) guidelines that events need to meet quite a few criteria. These two articles meet the criteria for having widespread coverage (international, including in the press of countries not involved). However, it fails several of the criteria for WP:EVENT.
Obama-merge to Sino American relations, Rudd-merge to Australia Japan relations. Possible compromise.
I really hope the notability guidelines problem will be fixed in a few days. There's currently a problem that we in the process of fixing. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 20:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Could you give me the text of 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan to maintain in my userspace? Obviously consensus does not favor its inclusion now, but that may change someday and I'd like to preserve the content. Everyking ( talk) 01:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Some work has been done on the article in reference to your suggestions. Could you provide further guidance to aid improvement. Cheers, FruitMonkey ( talk) 00:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Rather than engaging in a discussion of the preferable structure of The Kinks, you abruptly failed its GA nomination out of what appears to be pure petulance. Very poor form, my friend. DocKino ( talk) 20:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, 5.4 was your proposal! As I've just said to Jehochman, if I didn't act and do something, a 70% 'CDA' would have been polled yes/no at RfC, which (whether agreed with or not) looks like it could well be against the broader consensus. Do you agree with that? I personally saw the meat in your proposal as Bureaucrats judging by consensus, but the "rule of thumb" figure is important too of course - people will naturally focus on it. I envisioned a 70% RfC being ripped into on technical grounds (ie not being comprehensive enough, fair enough, or properly representing discussion consensus) - actually druring the polling of it, which is disasterous for any proposal if it is also true. I think that the relative silence at the draft page over the past week was/is likely to turn into quite vociferous criticism at the poll itself. That Motion to Close may have failed, but it said an awful lot, as has the lack of general input since Jan 4th. Matt Lewis ( talk) 20:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Obviously every reviewer interprets the rules and guidlines and sets his/her own criteria and it's not up to me to hinder the passage of an otherwise well written article to GA. However, comments from others are explicitly invited. Perhaps I am closer to understanding why the nominator refused my original offer to do the review. -- Kudpung ( talk) 13:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The GA process is very much in line with the whole Wikipedia process - it is open to everyone, and people put into it as much or as little as they are able. I am very supportive of the process - I have done quite a few reviews and enjoy the experience. A GA process may be started and stopped fairly easily. If an article gets failed, the nominator can try again. If an article gets listed and somebody else doesn't feel it quite matches the criteria, it can get delisted quite easily. The main aims are that articles on Wikipedia improve, and editors are motivated to improve articles. Sometimes things don't work out well for one reason or another, but this is not that common. I don't like hearing that people have been discouraged - sometimes it can be due to misunderstandings. I am aware that my own communications can be abrupt and to the point. I aim to be neutral and business like, but that can sometimes be read as cold, or even critical. Now and again I do make the effort to say something positive and encouraging - but not as often as I should! It sounds like you have taken positive points from your experience, which is very good. It's worth bearing in mind that we are all equal here, that we are all volunteers on a charity project,giving our time on what we feel is a worthwhile and serious project. And that we are doing it because we want to - we get some pleasure or satisfaction from it. But we are all fallible. And we all make mistakes. As long as people are working in good faith and with a positive and collaborative attitude, we can forgive them most things. Don't expect too much of your fellow editors, and you won't be too disappointed. And I've yet to meet the person who even claims to know all the policies, guidelines and procedures (given that they change every day, it is quite impossible!) Keep well, and keep editing. SilkTork * YES! 18:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
I am to write this for you since you are the user who decided to delete the article Jayen Varma and the rules say you must be asked first for a review of the action. The majority of votes were to delete. I am worried because it was discussed mainly in the India related topic. Unfortunately this has nothing to do with India related matters. The musician is well known in the western countries. Bass player's are not much noticed in India. That could be the reason why Indian bass players names are not in news and in wikipedia. But there are hundreds of western bassists here even though many of them don’t have reliable references (in many cases). Please look at Jazz_bassists. I also have noticed that you have been to rock concerts. Yes, rock bassists may be more notable. But this guy is known in the west to be faster than Robert Trujillo of Metallica and the bassist of megadeth James Lomenzo is his big fan as well. I don’t know how to give a review application to get the article replaced. May be you can do something. -- Musicindia1 ( talk) 13:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Thank you
Thank you so much for your great thinking. I will work on it . -- Musicindia1 ( talk) 14:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I have looked, and you haven't added any reliable sources. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Unless you can find a reliable source that writes about Jayen Varma the article cannot be moved into mainspace. If you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and still don't understand what a reliable source is, then please let me know and I'll try to explain. SilkTork * YES! 19:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
a lot for taking the time to work on it. I checked what you said. I also find that most of the musicians in the international music have their own youtube channels and also pages in communities with their usernames. That may not mean that the musicians are self promoting. It may be like having their websites operated by their fans and friends. Being a great fan of jazz music and musicians like him, I believe that he uses only myspace and also facebook. And he is currently doing concerts in Mumbai and north India. He has an international convention in February http://www.theaea.org/cec_cac/cec10/index.htm . The video count you said is true. Till recently it was named just jayen varma. Only recently it was named World record Fastest Bassist. And the video was uploaded in 2008. The other one is in 2006 and one is a Lead Guitar Video and the viewers will be high for that. Please be helpful for some more time. There are some other links also here. Like http://paradise4tourist.com/world-copyright-summit-cinevegas-film-festival-nxne-north-by-northeast-music-film-festival-cinema-expo-international-american-black-film-festiv-3 He at least holds a place in the music world along with other bassists who have massive promotion and so he deserves a place in Wikipedea along with them. Please be helpful just like you said to replace the article.Thanks again.-- Musicindia1 ( talk) 06:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Content
I think that essay has been around a good while, and is respected enough to possibly be made into a guideline, and I would support such a proposal; however, I restored the tag to simply say essay, as I couldn't see any discussion on the proposal, nor any attempt to draft such a proposal and get support. When an essay has been proposed as a guideline and then doesn't get consensus it may be tagged as {{ Failed}}, which then confuses people who wonder if the essay's contents are no longer valid. I have known edit wars over the placing and removing of {{ Failed}} after a proposal for guideline didn't get support. If you wish to put together a proposal to upgrade the essays status to guideline, let me know and I'll support it. Regards SilkTork * YES! 12:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 00:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your stellar work in my behalf. It is greatly appreciated and I hope I live up to your expectations. I am trying very hard. Warmest good wishes for the New Year to you and your family. — mattisse ( Talk) 16:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for moving the information from the main Judaism article to the more topic-specific article. BTW, did you know that the information in new articles less than a week old, or articles expanded less than a week ago, can be nominated for Wikipedia:Did You Know? I think there's a lot of information in this article that would warrant a nomination. -- AFriedman (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I've nominated the article for DYK because it seems like an awfully important article to share on the main page. See Template talk:Did you know#Origins of Judaism. What do you think of the hook? -- AFriedman (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks :) -- AFriedman (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Jujutacular. By consensus an AfD runs for seven days. Forcing an early closure was seen to be inappropriate unless it met the criteria in Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. This AfD was originally closed on the same day it opened, therefore it has not had seven days for people to consider the matter. The reasoning behind keeping an AfD open for seven days are varied, and include the sense that people may pile on initially to either iVote for a delete or keep, but that opinion can change when others join the discussion with information or views not initially presented. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed for more info. If you have any further questions, please get in touch. SilkTork * YES! 22:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
O grief! I give up! I can see that someone glancing at the AfD would assume that it's had it's time, and is a straightforward Keep. There's the possibility of starting afresh with a new AfD, but the result would just be the same, so this is one to let drop. I think if I need to reactivate an early closed AfD in future I'll make sure to leave a clear note so that people can see what has happened. Thanks for letting me know. SilkTork * YES! 21:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the long closing rationale here. Given a range of opinions and the likelihood of many eyeballs, it probably diverted several questions/deletion reviews. tedder ( talk) 03:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what should be done now an AfD has been closed. I can't add further to the discussion. When User:Cnilep nominated Alric for AfD, the user also nominated Husa of Elmham. Although the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alric was about Alric, it also covered both AfD nominations. Since the Alric article has been deleted, shouldn't the Husa of Elmham article also deleted? Please reply here on your talk page. Scrivener-uki ( talk) 17:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent work on the Gower. I know you have dipped into the Glamorgan article, but I would appreciate any help you could give to the article as we may be going for Good Article status. As someone with an interest in the beautiful part of Glamorgan I would appreciate if you could keep an eye on any errors made on the west coast. FruitMonkey ( talk) 23:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Which subsection of WP:ENT did Hudecki meet that you closed the AFD as keep? Noone ever supported the claim that he met WP:ENT. THF ( talk) 02:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I see you are deciding on the AFD. Let me add some analytical points. I'm not advocating delete or keep at this point as I am neutral. Comments to follow in minutes. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 20:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec):I have decided the outcome, and am writing up my rationale at the moment. The consensus of several discussions is that 2009 Barack Obama visit to China should be merged to Sino-American relations - and I support that. The consensus for 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan is to delete, and I will go with that. Do you feel your points would have an impact on such an outcome? SilkTork * YES! 20:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, because there are already complaints that Wikipedia is Ameri-centric. The fact that we keep some information about the American president but discard similar information about the Australian PM.
I'm more concerned because it shows that the notability guidelines are being followed with varying compliance, some more than others. That's bad when there is unequal application of the guidelines. I'm not sure how to improve the guidelines to address that problem. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 20:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I see you are deciding on the AFD. Let me add some analytical points. I'm not advocating delete or keep at this point as I am neutral.
Possibilities: Obama-keep, Rudd-keep. This would be in line with things that have a lot of references qualify for articles but fails the notability guidelines for events.
Obama-keep, Rudd-delete or Obama-delete, Rudd-keep. This is hurt Wikipedia by showing that there is a different standard, either pro-American or anti-American. Both visits are not earthshattering, both to major countries in Asia.
Obama-delete, Rudd-delete. This would be in line with the majority of the discussion about fixing the notability (events) guidelines that events need to meet quite a few criteria. These two articles meet the criteria for having widespread coverage (international, including in the press of countries not involved). However, it fails several of the criteria for WP:EVENT.
Obama-merge to Sino American relations, Rudd-merge to Australia Japan relations. Possible compromise.
I really hope the notability guidelines problem will be fixed in a few days. There's currently a problem that we in the process of fixing. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 20:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Could you give me the text of 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan to maintain in my userspace? Obviously consensus does not favor its inclusion now, but that may change someday and I'd like to preserve the content. Everyking ( talk) 01:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Some work has been done on the article in reference to your suggestions. Could you provide further guidance to aid improvement. Cheers, FruitMonkey ( talk) 00:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Rather than engaging in a discussion of the preferable structure of The Kinks, you abruptly failed its GA nomination out of what appears to be pure petulance. Very poor form, my friend. DocKino ( talk) 20:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, 5.4 was your proposal! As I've just said to Jehochman, if I didn't act and do something, a 70% 'CDA' would have been polled yes/no at RfC, which (whether agreed with or not) looks like it could well be against the broader consensus. Do you agree with that? I personally saw the meat in your proposal as Bureaucrats judging by consensus, but the "rule of thumb" figure is important too of course - people will naturally focus on it. I envisioned a 70% RfC being ripped into on technical grounds (ie not being comprehensive enough, fair enough, or properly representing discussion consensus) - actually druring the polling of it, which is disasterous for any proposal if it is also true. I think that the relative silence at the draft page over the past week was/is likely to turn into quite vociferous criticism at the poll itself. That Motion to Close may have failed, but it said an awful lot, as has the lack of general input since Jan 4th. Matt Lewis ( talk) 20:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Obviously every reviewer interprets the rules and guidlines and sets his/her own criteria and it's not up to me to hinder the passage of an otherwise well written article to GA. However, comments from others are explicitly invited. Perhaps I am closer to understanding why the nominator refused my original offer to do the review. -- Kudpung ( talk) 13:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The GA process is very much in line with the whole Wikipedia process - it is open to everyone, and people put into it as much or as little as they are able. I am very supportive of the process - I have done quite a few reviews and enjoy the experience. A GA process may be started and stopped fairly easily. If an article gets failed, the nominator can try again. If an article gets listed and somebody else doesn't feel it quite matches the criteria, it can get delisted quite easily. The main aims are that articles on Wikipedia improve, and editors are motivated to improve articles. Sometimes things don't work out well for one reason or another, but this is not that common. I don't like hearing that people have been discouraged - sometimes it can be due to misunderstandings. I am aware that my own communications can be abrupt and to the point. I aim to be neutral and business like, but that can sometimes be read as cold, or even critical. Now and again I do make the effort to say something positive and encouraging - but not as often as I should! It sounds like you have taken positive points from your experience, which is very good. It's worth bearing in mind that we are all equal here, that we are all volunteers on a charity project,giving our time on what we feel is a worthwhile and serious project. And that we are doing it because we want to - we get some pleasure or satisfaction from it. But we are all fallible. And we all make mistakes. As long as people are working in good faith and with a positive and collaborative attitude, we can forgive them most things. Don't expect too much of your fellow editors, and you won't be too disappointed. And I've yet to meet the person who even claims to know all the policies, guidelines and procedures (given that they change every day, it is quite impossible!) Keep well, and keep editing. SilkTork * YES! 18:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
I am to write this for you since you are the user who decided to delete the article Jayen Varma and the rules say you must be asked first for a review of the action. The majority of votes were to delete. I am worried because it was discussed mainly in the India related topic. Unfortunately this has nothing to do with India related matters. The musician is well known in the western countries. Bass player's are not much noticed in India. That could be the reason why Indian bass players names are not in news and in wikipedia. But there are hundreds of western bassists here even though many of them don’t have reliable references (in many cases). Please look at Jazz_bassists. I also have noticed that you have been to rock concerts. Yes, rock bassists may be more notable. But this guy is known in the west to be faster than Robert Trujillo of Metallica and the bassist of megadeth James Lomenzo is his big fan as well. I don’t know how to give a review application to get the article replaced. May be you can do something. -- Musicindia1 ( talk) 13:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Thank you
Thank you so much for your great thinking. I will work on it . -- Musicindia1 ( talk) 14:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I have looked, and you haven't added any reliable sources. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Unless you can find a reliable source that writes about Jayen Varma the article cannot be moved into mainspace. If you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and still don't understand what a reliable source is, then please let me know and I'll try to explain. SilkTork * YES! 19:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
a lot for taking the time to work on it. I checked what you said. I also find that most of the musicians in the international music have their own youtube channels and also pages in communities with their usernames. That may not mean that the musicians are self promoting. It may be like having their websites operated by their fans and friends. Being a great fan of jazz music and musicians like him, I believe that he uses only myspace and also facebook. And he is currently doing concerts in Mumbai and north India. He has an international convention in February http://www.theaea.org/cec_cac/cec10/index.htm . The video count you said is true. Till recently it was named just jayen varma. Only recently it was named World record Fastest Bassist. And the video was uploaded in 2008. The other one is in 2006 and one is a Lead Guitar Video and the viewers will be high for that. Please be helpful for some more time. There are some other links also here. Like http://paradise4tourist.com/world-copyright-summit-cinevegas-film-festival-nxne-north-by-northeast-music-film-festival-cinema-expo-international-american-black-film-festiv-3 He at least holds a place in the music world along with other bassists who have massive promotion and so he deserves a place in Wikipedea along with them. Please be helpful just like you said to replace the article.Thanks again.-- Musicindia1 ( talk) 06:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
|
Content
I think that essay has been around a good while, and is respected enough to possibly be made into a guideline, and I would support such a proposal; however, I restored the tag to simply say essay, as I couldn't see any discussion on the proposal, nor any attempt to draft such a proposal and get support. When an essay has been proposed as a guideline and then doesn't get consensus it may be tagged as {{ Failed}}, which then confuses people who wonder if the essay's contents are no longer valid. I have known edit wars over the placing and removing of {{ Failed}} after a proposal for guideline didn't get support. If you wish to put together a proposal to upgrade the essays status to guideline, let me know and I'll support it. Regards SilkTork * YES! 12:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)