I have attempted to reply to your comments on Borat 's FAC, but I must stress that a lot of the information you're demanding, especially that concerning the production of the film, simply isn't avaible. -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 04:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The biggest issue here is the copyediting. The whole article has some real copyedit problems. Many sentances have like 4-5 independant clauses strung together with commas and conjunctions. It is hard to parse. Try WP:LOCE to see if they can help some.-- Jayron32| talk| contribs 04:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I've gotten through all the copyedit problems you've pointed out, I think. -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 02:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for this input. I corrected the problems you cited and will look into the licencing of the pictures you were concerned about shortly. Any more input you may have is very much appreciated. Okiefromokla 02:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply

update: Greetings. The problems you mentioned with the Tulsa article have now been fixed, including the pictures. Both the pictures you were concerned about have been deleted and you'll see that one of them has been replaced with a different picture (in the "history" section). Thanks for the input and I am looking forward to having your support. Okiefromokla 22:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks! I appreciate the support, thank again. Okiefromokla 01:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi there - thanks for your kind comments about and support of my FAC nomination for this article. I just wanted to reply to something you said there without drawing the FAC off topic. While it would be nice to see a Quatermass series featured topic, I don't think one covering just the current featured and good articles would cut it — there'd be too much missing. Perhaps when the main character's page, the fourth instalment from 1979, the feature film versions and the 1996 radio serial have all been brought up to scratch (if I ever manage it!) it might happen. While there is possibly an argument for just having a topic covering the three 1950s BBC serials and their writer and producer, I suspect that such a topic would quite rightly get shot down at FTC for excluding too much. Anyway, thanks again for your kind comments on my work! Angmering 08:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, if these three articles are any indication, there is not a doubt in my mind that this series will get to FT status. Good job and good luck on getting the rest of these featured or GA!-- Jayron32| talk| contribs 22:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Just letting you know that I have addressed your concerns at FLC and if you could give it your support or a further reason to oppose, I would appreciate it. Todd661 09:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply

G'day Jayron, I'll have a look sometime. Bit preoccupied at present. Looks much better already and I'm sure you'll get it through next time :) cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 12:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the kind comments about Pontiac's Rebellion. Your check is in the mail! — Kevin Myers 15:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Looks good! Thanks. I don't mind the images under the headings but see your point. It looks even better now. Good work. :) - Jeeny 05:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your support and useful comments on the Uncle Tom's Cabin article. The article has just been promoted to featured article status. Best, -- Alabamaboy 12:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 6	21 April 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: State updates Project news April 27 IRC meeting California Deletion debates MacArthur Maze Fire Illinois Featured member Circular route shields Pennsylvania From the editors
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — Vsh Bot ( t • c) 19:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Completed!!! Can we get that pass to a good article now? — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry about the excessive citations -- I think there was a misunderstanding on what would be the best way to cite that fact. We've pared it down to two citations, one for each half of the sentence. We appreciate your time! Karanacs 01:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply

On 8 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gettysburg Cyclorama, 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.

-- ALoan (Talk) 10:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry about the mistakes, I'm new at reviewing articles. Actually, I've been working on a really good article my self which is nominated for GA. I was hoping to find someone to review it. I've made huge changes to the article ever since it failed. -- JA10 ^{T · C} 21:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply

State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania). -- JA10 ^{T · C} 21:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I have noticed...thanks for the review. Almost all of the changes you've suggested have now taken effect. It went along with one other comment about there being a lack of supporting articles for surface weather analysis. I've restarted the weather map article, with surface analysis as a subarticle, which goes into more depth about isohyets used within surface analyses. Some of this has been added to surface weather analysis as well. I'm having a hard time finding out how it was determined that isobars should be used within surface weather analyses...they have been since at least 1871 on the Daily Weather Map series. I'll dig a little more...but I did add some more detail into the history section which addresses other aspects of their evolution in the United States now included within the article. Thegreatdr 15:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Have you had a chance to look at it lately? I'm wondering if your opinion regarding FAC has changed since the first review. No one has commented on the article in some time. Thegreatdr 20:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Please, take it. I think it's a nice article, but it took me three days to get through it the first time... I don't want to read it anymore. -- LaraLove ^Talk/ _Contribs 18:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Check reference 5 (on the GA Review list--the references have changed in the article slightly since the review) to make sure that it's not distorted. It's the Kaziranga100.com page. It is all messed up for me. Article editor says it's fine for them. -- LaraLove ^T/ _C 04:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Looks fine to me... Maybe its your browser settings or virus or spam blocker or something? -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 16:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Can u tell me if there is way to cite a link of PDF file with page number, like havard style of book? The reviwer said to mention the page number. All the other stuffs done. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey I'm looking for a few sources to expand this article a little more, any chance you have a couple more up your sleeve? Quadzilla99 20:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Particularly for the college career would be great, I can't seem to find any. Quadzilla99 20:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC) reply

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For going out of your way to be helpful, I, Quadzilla99, award you this Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar. Thanks again! Quadzilla99 06:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks! You are doing a great job! I'll do what I can, which is a bit of tweaking, as in; a little tweak here, and a little tweak there, here a tweak, there a tweak, everywhere a tweak, tweak. Sorry, couldn't help myself singing the little nursery tune in my head while typing. :p - Jeeny  ^Talk 17:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello. I don't know if you're still interested, but this Brazilian guy nominated Brazil again for GA. Editors haven't solved the problems we all mentioned. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 06:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I noticed that this was one of your areas of concern in the GA/R of Alpha Phi Omega. Could you please give a pointer to what your concern is here and any examples? Naraht 13:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC) reply

comments have been left at the article's talk page. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 17:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comments. I had already tracked it down to Berthollet (1803) and had re-written the article reversible reaction, but what I have written is very much in line with your comments. Petergans 08:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I noticed that you were one of the editors to vote "keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spider-Man Movie History a while ago. You'll be glad to find out that it has been restored as a quality article at Spider-Man film series. It is still being improved, but I hope you can get a reader's benefit from it. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 05:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Nice job. It is looking good. If you need any specific help with it, let me know!-- Jayron32| talk| contribs 05:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks Jayron32 for the feedback in regards to the Bud Grant article. I will resolve this issues as quickly as possible. Thanks for your help again! RyguyMN 06:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your kind words. I really don't like the bad faith assumed by other editors during the GA nominalizations process (especially One night in hackney, which is always tottaly against me), that's why I strongly opposed the delisting of that article. Cheers, Eurocopter tigre 17:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC) reply

That's ok, however, he started to categorize me as an inexperienced user, but he doesn't even know me. If I'm inexperienced on GA-related things, that doesn't mean I'm inexperienced per overall. I will stop posting any more comments regarding him. Regards, Eurocopter tigre 19:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I'd given up replying after his last reply, as I was aware he was simply trolling. You'll see I was perfectly civil here to begin with, but the editor has chosen to react in the way he has. Is it my fault he's passed three articles as GAs which didn't meet the standards required? Just in case you hadn't noticed, Brazil has been nominated again by the way.... One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 19:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for all you've done for Taiwanese aborigines. We really appreciate your help.

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		For Jayron32, a steady hand at WP:GA, and originator of Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. -- Ling.Nut 11:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

• Well, you are very welcome! -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 17:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Ok, sorry... João Felipe C.S 17:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi,

I'm trying to work on the referencing of the pipe organ article you peer reviewed for us, but would like a little help. I think I've digested all of the information from WP:CITE and WP:FN but now feel we've got too many sections. I've also been looking at other FAs to see how they have done it.

I think I am ok with the basic Harvard styles etc, the citing isn't the problem, rather the sectioning. With regard to internet citing, I've left the full citations in the "Footnotes" section, but books that have been cited more than once etc, I've simplified the footnotes to "Author, page" (I'd obviously include the date if there is more than one by the author), putting the full citation in the "References" section. Other further reading is now in the "Bibliography", or "External links" if a website. The problem seems to be that a lot of the footnotes are internet links, meaning the "Refs" and "Bib" look short in comparison.

Can you check if I'm doing this correctly and give me some feedback on how to improve/where to go from here.

Many thanks

– MDCollins ( talk) 09:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I was actually in the process of working through some of them... and screwing up the names in the edit summary (I need to work on that). :) I just delisted the two train articles... possibly another article. It's all running together at this point.

• Syncaris pacifica was nominated on May 8th by User:ChicagoPimp. He left a message on the article talk page that same day, but the history of that page shows User:KP Botany delisted it on May 6th and left a detailed message on the talk page. I don't know why ChicagoPimp even brought it to GA/R when it had already been delisted. I've removed the discussion. I'll look over the rest now.

Regards, LaraLove ^T/ _C 18:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Can't you also get one or two to vote at the GAR for EMD GP30? It has five delists and no keeps, so once it passes the threshold of six it can be easily archived. LuciferMorgan 19:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks you for you remarks in response to my comments. My concern is likewise that WP articles are of the highest possible standard. In some ways it has an advantage in that many encyclopedia articles aredistinclty biased because they are, of course, the work of one contributor. On the other hand, so wide is the range of academic views on some subjects that one is is danger of saying about any issue 'on the one hand' and 'on the other'. I have attempted to provide a range of information and views on a subject, the Reformation, which has seen a huge growth industry with revised opinions both extended and controverted. I have attempted to provide a degree of coherance while noting dissenting voices. I hope that my recent additions have supplied more support to my way of seeing what the possiblities are. I am however, not convinced that any group of people will agree on how the Reformation(s) in England are to be described. Roger Arguile 21:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I reverted and resized the images. I don't know how to resize the infobox pic, but this might help also. I would prefer some pics with the architeture section. TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for adding the archiving instructions to the latest page, I totally didn't thing about it. Regarding Ayaan Hirsi Ali's discussion, I didn't archive it because I found that it had been delisted by the nominator the day after it was nominated. I considered it a delist without review at that point. While I'm here, I'd also like to point out that at least two of the articles that were reviewed by User:Eurocopter tigre were never listed on the GA page. Can we just make him stop reviewing articles? He's got two on hold at the moment, one of which has no inline citations. The amount of work his reviews have caused other people in the past few days is ridiculous. Regards, LaraLove ^T/ _C 06:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not really in the "making other people do stuff" business. I have left a few notes on his talk page encouaging him to be more thoughtful about how he reviews Good Article Candidates. If you would like to do the same, it may be helpful for him to get said encouragement from several other editors. He's still rather "new" at reviewing GA's, and with the proper encouragement he may become good at it. We can use the help, really. Remember, WP:BITE. If he passes articles that are OBVIOUSLY substandard, delist them without prejudice, but also don't be rude about it. Borderline cases may benefit from GA/R, but the really egregious stuff can be delisted on sight. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 17:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC) reply

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 8	19 May 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: State updates Project news USRD members assist Canada project California Deletion debates Two debates at USRD Illinois Featured member A new GA Oklahoma From the editors Pennsylvania From the editors Washington
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — Vsh Bot ( t • c) 19:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I've posted a list at the GA/R talk page of all the inadequate sub GA train articles. I don't have the time to delist such a vast amount (30+) as I'm busy with off wiki things, so I'm hoping the regulars can chip in with delisting the articles. LuciferMorgan 11:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Jayron, I just cut through the whole train section in GA. I delisted them all and now I'm going in and posting the same message to all of them. They'll all have messages on the talk page before I log off tonight. I'll get any others that may be left tomorrow unless you get them tonight. -- LaraLove ^T/ _C 05:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Technically, I'm not rv'ing the fanboys edits. Some of his contributions are valid. They simply require a proper policy follow-up to keep the poetic schoolboy book report content out. Some help would be appreciated. Thanks! 156.34.142.110 18:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Look, it looks like your a good editor and you mean well. Take it to the talk page; editwarring, even if you are techincally right, is never a productive means of improving an article. I have made a request for page protection to let this issue cool down. The kind of editing going on at this article is not helpful and needs to cease.-- Jayron32| talk| contribs 18:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I'll add in a joke PS... Your request for page prot could have been worded like: "a policy ignoring fanboy IP is edit warring with a dedicated Barnstar awarded IP who is having a hard time to keep the article from being ruined" :) . After 20000 edits as a logged user I quit my former name(since they mean nothing anyways) and decided to edit as an anon. I have been admin praised and awarded for doing so. A little AGF and faith and a little less bias would be great. Have a nice day! 156.34.142.110 18:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Again, I take no stance on either you or 80.47.... and your qualities as editors. Even if you are right and he is wrong, which is entirely possible, edit warring is not a productive way to get things done.-- Jayron32| talk| contribs 18:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I hope the page gets protected. But it would be a great service to the article if the last 3(or 4 depending on recent damage done) are rv'd. WP:AWW, WP:ATT, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and WP:FAIR are all being ignored and forgotten. The article is in really bad shape as it is. My AGF is that it doesn't get any worse oops...to late :D 156.34.142.110 18:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC) reply

 GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. Nehrams2020 05:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I apologize for not recognizing you earlier. I am just getting familiar with this type of userbox. You may want to place the following on your user page:

TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I tend not to use userboxes like that. I use them sparingly (only project userboxes) since they would clog my userpage otherwise. I have assessed dozens of GAs, and if I noted each one, my user page would become unweildy with userboxes. Besides, assessing GA's isn't all that much to be proud of. It's IMPROVING articles to GA status that I am more proud of (and is the harder task, really).-- Jayron32| talk| contribs 03:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Just wanted to follow up with you on the Texas A&M University article that you helped promote to GA status. Just wanted that you for your encouragement for us to actually apply for FA status. We have extensively rewritten our article and are currently in the FA nomination phase. We just wanted to know what you thoughts on our rewrites. thanks Oldag07 05:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC) reply

This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{ GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. -- Nehrams2020 00:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the review on Saurolophus, and have a great day! J. Spencer 16:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I asked around for some Plymouth book recommendations. Apparently Douglas Anderson's William Bradford's Books: Of Plimmoth Plantation and the Printed Word is supposed to be an excellent book on Plymouth. It is carefully sourced and has an excellent bibliography that you can work from as well. Awadewit ^Talk 07:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks! I will look into it! I appreciate the help you have given! -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 02:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Jay, i notice you frequently around at GAC and FAC and was hoping you would take a look at my FAC, God Hates Us All. I'm not asking you to vote, but perhaps if you take a look to see if there is any deficiencies, I understand if you are busy you may not have time to, thanks for your time. M3tal H3ad 08:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron, and thanks for taking a look at the FAC for God Hates Us All. I've tried to address 2 of your 3 points, though I've explained as regards the song articles etc. in my reply to your 3rd point. If you could take a look and re-evaluate the article to see whether it now meets / dissatisfies the criteria, I'd be very grateful. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 17:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for taking a look. Constructive criticism is always better than a support. In regards to the song, many Slayer related song articles were made re-directs when the project first formed, and as you see above Lucifer redirected lots of them recently because they are full of cruft/OR. I could make an article but it will only be a paragraph or two. Thanks again :) M3tal H3ad 07:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron, did you manage to have a quick look once more after? Hope you're not too busy, and all the best. LuciferMorgan 22:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Based on your comments on its FAC, I've made the following changes to the article:

• I've added content to the lead so that it should cover everything. The 1st paragraph covers the plot and parodies, the 2nd covers the production and cast, the third covers releases, reception and its computer game. The "comic book style" has been replaced with "cartoon style", and now bears a relation to "Parodies and references" which mention cartoons.
• As for the Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon reference, I found a review comparing the film to it and added it to the reception.
• The cast section has been moved to between production and plot. Then, the parodies section follows the plot.
• A translation of the Hungarian title is roughly made, it literally means "His Punch Lands".
• The HK$ have been converted into US$.
• Roger Ebert's statement in reception has been expanded to indicate that he said it at Sundance.
• It has been noted that the film was rated R in the United States in the reception section.

If there are any more concerns, please let me know.-- Kylohk 09:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

And now, I've distinguished between the 2 currencies.-- Kylohk 15:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I, Jeeny, award you this barnstar for your major contributions to the article Plymouth Colony. Without your diligent and good work, it would not be the great article it has become. Thank you. - Jeeny  Talk 21:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello Jayron, I was just wondering something about the GA review process relating to the recent nominations for Michael Jackson. I was informed that you were the one who closed the last GA review on May 11 after there was a lack of consensus. Is this correct? If so, then I had somewhat of a request. I think it's obvious that everyone is trying to improve the article, but the current method is unhelpful and causing some unnecessary tensions. Do you think it would be best if this current GA review were closed and all of the nominating user's problems, and those of other contributors, were brought in the talk page instead? This would actually allow us to talk about the article's potential problems rather than worry about whether we should be having a GA review in the first place. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Thank you very much for listening. UberCryxic 05:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Uber, this is extremely inappropriate. I note you are also brow-beating User:LaraLove who has said to delist on her personal talk page. If you ask for closure of a GA review, please do it in public, and accountably. I find this unsettling, deeply in fact.-- Manboobies 13:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I mean, whilst this is a public page, it seems you did it in the hope I wouldn't see it.-- Manboobies 13:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply

And I'm sorry to leave no less than 3 posts, but here is a message from LaraLove left for Uber that I think Jayron may wish to read: "I can move my review to the talk page and simply state in the GA/R that I have done so with a summary of my concerns. That will help reduce clutter on the GA/R page as well. Past that, as has been mentioned, there is no time frame for when articles can be renominated for GA/R. If it doesn't meet GA criteria, then it doesn't meet GA criteria. Issues were brought up in the review and have not been addressed. His concerns are legitimate. And while I appreciate, and truly hope you are honest when you say, that you want to make the necessary changes to bring the article up to standard, it has not been made apparent from the edit history since the first GA/R. It seems more like revert-happy editing than progress. As much as you may want this review to go away, it isn't. And I mean no disrespect with that. Regards, LaraLoveT/C 06:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC) "-- Manboobies 13:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Since we're all reading and writing this here; I thought it prudent to continue the conversation. Let's keep a level head about this and return to the facts of the situation:

• I closed the original GA/R debate on May 11 on the Michael Jackson article without prejudice as "No consensus-maintain status quo" since the debate was hopelessly deadlocked. The result was 5-4 and was by far the largest and longest running debate on the page. It had been open 6 weeks and was so long and hard to follow that it was difficult to act on; I thought it prudent to close the debate and archive the discussion. I actually never commented on the first debate; I merely archived it.
• A second GA/R was opened on May 27 by Manboobies claiming that the issues raised in the prior GA/R had not been addressed. As of this writing, as best as I can see, we have the following opinions on this particular GA/R:

• Comments to close debate for procedural reasons (too close to prior GA/R): UberCryxic, Quadzilla99, MPD
• Votes to delist: Manboobies, Jayron32, LaraLove
• Beyond these comments germaine to the specific GA/R, there is a LONG, and I must say, personal, debate between UberCryxic and Manboobies which has now occured in at least 4 places: The Michael Jackson Talk Page, The GA/R page, LaraLove's Talk Page, and my Talk Page. I have not looked at the talk pages of the principals involved; it may be there and other places as well.

Now, let's get on to my opinions on the matter:

• I still feel that substandard articles should not remain at the GA list simply because of technical or procedural reasons. Wikipedia is not a beurocracy, democracy, or any other -ocracy. It is an encyclopedia. To claim that we should put forward to the public an article labeled as a "Good Article" one that does NOT meet the criteria as spelled out in WP:WIAGA simply because some vote was closed at some time in the past is counter to Wikipedia's primary mission.
• Whatever personal matters exist between Manboobies and UberCryxic, it should be noted that GA/R, My talk page, and LaraLove's talk page is not the place to carry on these debates. I take no stance on this pointless debate except to note that it is pointless. While it is being carried on, there continue to be outstanding issues with the Michael Jackson article. Actionable violations of WP:WIAGA have been left by several users in BOTH GA/R debates, and these have NOT been acted upon. Does the article need improvement to maintain GA status: In my opinion, yes. Does this debate over the validity of the GA/R actually improve the article? In my opinion, no. So why are we having it?
• It is my opinion that there is no time frame to restart the debate. Articles are frequently brought up at GA/R within hours of promotion as a GA. If an article is substandard and an editor has an honest, good faith objection to its being listed, then it is brought up for debate. There is no time frame whereby an editor must tolerate a substandard article on the list. If a clear consensus exists in one direction or the other, and an editor acts continuously in violation of that consensus, it is obvious point making, and should not be tolerated. For anyone involved in GA/R, they will recognize the famous "Brazil" incident as an example of this. This is NOT what is happening here. A prior debate failed to reach any consensus opinion on the matter. A new debate was started in an attempt to find consensus opinion this time. I see no problem with that.
• Consensus will never be reached if discussion is NOT maintained on the subject at hand. An editor wants to know "Does the Michael Jackson article meet the Good Article" criteria as outlined in WP:WIAGA. Any side discussion distract from the main issue, and derail any attempts at reaching consensus. We should return the debate to that issue.

That's all I have to say here on the matter. I will bring up the salient points at GA/R for further discussion. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 16:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello again Jayron, I've carried out several extensive changes to the article today and plan to carry out some more in the following few days, all while keeping in mind the advice that people have given. The article has now gone from 115 kb to 101 kb and will get shorter. The lead has also been significantly truncated. I'd like you to take another look and tell me what you think. Regarding the stability of the article: as I mentioned in the GAR, this article has been stable for months. Only now did it become a bit heated, and there's nothing wrong with having flare-ups here and there. You can't prevent any article from "suffering" in this manner, and when it does, it's almost never a good reason by itself to suggestion a demotion (you were not doing that; you had other reasons as well, but I just wanted to clarify this). Thank you for listening. UberCryxic 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Jayron, for how long does the GAR run? Or if you can't answer that now because it's too soon, for how long do you think a normal one might run? I'm looking at your latest suggestions and they are quite hefty. There's a lot of stuff that's going to need rewriting if the categorization is changed that way, which I'm not too sure how I feel about at this point. UberCryxic 04:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Barring exceptional circumstances, GA/R's are expected to run about a week. The following exceptions usually apply:

• The article is being actively improved and the GA/R is being commented on on a regular basis.
• Consensus is clear per WP:SNOW, the snowball clause: Many responses show clear consensus in a very short time (like, lets say, 5-6 delist votes in a few hours).
• After a week, not enough comments have been made to detemine ANY consensus (even no consensus): Usually less than 3-4 comments means it will stay up for more than a week.

This article would seem to apply under the first rule. As a practical matter, most of the people who usually archive and act on GA/R discussions (myself, LaraLove, Quadzilla, and Homestarmy) are involved in the discussion and it is my sense that it will probably not be archived in the near future. Look at the page and a few of the archives pages to get a sense of when and how a discussion is usually archived. I would oppose archiving the discussion myself since it looks like the discussion is productive and the article is being improved. If that stops in the next few days, who knows, but as long as progress is made, there is no set deadline. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 04:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Or actually....I'm not that sure that much is going to have to be rewritten. Taking a look at the article as it is and keeping your framework in mind, what do you think? Do you think we can basically just rearrange text around to satisfy the aforementioned sections? UberCryxic 04:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Missed your last comment. We seem to be alternating here. I would say that, from my perspective, shuffling the text would be all I require right now. Do that (you don't have to use my organization exactly, but you should get the general idea) and I will see how it looks. I make no guarantees until I see it, but as I forsee it, that is what is holding up my support for the article right now. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 04:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Ok thank you! And on the new categorization...what do you think is the best way to go about that? Just rearrange the text that now exists in the biography to fit the new sections, or something else? UberCryxic 04:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply

All-right. I just saw your last reply. I have to go sleep shortly, but I am taking up that categorization later on today and we'll see how it works out. UberCryxic 04:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Well apparently I've been struck by the wikibug today because I can't stop editing. I just finished the recategorization! I really like your idea too; the article looks much better now, with more thorough and logical planning. Before you take a look to see what you think, I just wanted to mention several things. I have ignored the section "Acting Career" because....Michael Jackson's acting career is completely non-notable beyond his music videos, and those already have their own section. Second, I firmly believe that "Legacy of Thriller" is a legitimate category in its own right. I would say this about no other album, but Thriller deserves its own legacy article, much less legacy section. It is responsible for so many things in the music industry today that only a separate section can do it justice. But nevertheless I'm willing to negotiate on this and hear you out. If you really think it should be incorporated somehow, we can discuss. And finally: the "Recognition, influence on later artists" deals with awards, and I feel this relates to influence, so it would be best if it stayed in that overarching section. But again, just let me know what you think about all this. Thank you very much for your help! UberCryxic 05:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Ah, wikiaddiction. I have it as well (its 1:08 AM local time. And I am here!). I will take a looksee. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 05:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey, I've added a reference for that tag, fixed the statement in the Music videos section, and reorganized the personal life section. For your request on splitting the personal life from the Jackson 5 beginnings...I think it's best if we provide some context early on by saying something about his childhood. It's sort of weird to just start off with the Jackson 5 and leave that other stuff for a section that readers won't get to in a while. Don't know if this is just me though. UberCryxic 05:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey Jayron, sorry to bother you again, but can you tell me what you think now? I kind of want to be on top of all this and get it over with. Again, thanks for all your help. UberCryxic 03:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you so very very much for the award! I really appreciate it. While we're at it, let me also thank you for the great work that you do here in Wikipedia. I didn't know you before, but you are quite an amazingly involved contributor. Good job and keep it up! UberCryxic 04:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Well thank you too! Yeah, I have become quite adicted to Wikipedia. I am a former school teacher who left work to stay home with my newborn son. Wikipedia helps keep me intellectually stimulated. Honestly, it has become like heroin for me. I can't get away. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 04:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

If you have any ideas regarding my ongoing debate regarding primary and secondary sources at the talk page for the Freemasonry article, I would appreciate hearing them. If you want to jump in, that would be fine, too. Awadewit ^Talk 16:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for posting. I thought that your post was incredibly helpful. I did not realize that I needed to explain all of the terms and consequences of using particular kinds of sources. That was quite valuable. I'm not sure that the editors are in a listening mood, but I feel like we have done what we can. Awadewit ^Talk 10:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

As is my usual complaint, I really need to get to my schoolwork. :-) Have I addressed enough of the referencing and POV issues for you? Thanks Ling.Nut 19:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Found that last fly in the Cantorian ointment. Thanks! Ling.Nut 03:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Check the history of the MJ article. I'm currently going through it. I won't be able to finish tonight, but I'm making minor changes and copy-editing, and I'm listing issues with prose and other recommendations on the talk page. I'll look over the Cantor article tomorrow. Regards, LaraLove ^T/ _C 05:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

The MJ article is still far from GA. While there is currently only one fact tag, there should be more. I'll get around to adding them. I'm doing cosmetic work to help them out, but there is much to be done. I'm still not even 1/2 way through the article for my review, and the references alone with take at least two days to verify and reformat. My delist vote stands for now. I would nominate it for the Wikiproject GAc, but I don't think they'd do much to improve it. I'm starting to think they leave the articles in worse condition than they find them. Regardless, I still feel this article should be delisted and renominated after it's brought to up to standards. LaraLove ^T/ _C 06:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. However, UberCryxic has been VERY responsive, and I would not doubt at this point that any changes you request he would be likely to make. Thanks for looking this over carefully! -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 14:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC) reply

thanks for that; citations and references have never been my strong point ;) -- Paaerduag 07:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Could you peer review Karmichael Hunt. That would be much appreciated.

Article: Karmichael Hunt
Peer Review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Karmichael Hunt

Thanks

SpecialWindler 07:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC) reply

What does DNFTT mean? Anyway, you're right. I was thinking about that at work tonight. It occurred to me that he is much like a child and ignoring childish behavior is generally the best policy. I do think, however, that any votes he makes in GA/R should be stricken if there isn't some basis for them regarding WIAGA. If it doesn't stop soon, I'm most likely going to take it to RFC. LaraLove ^T/ _C 04:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I was going to ask your opinion on possibly tweaking the criteria, as listed at WP:WIAGA, to add the recommendation to use {{tl:cite web}}, or at least to give detailed citations to refs (considering all the flack we're taking for suggesting cite web for most GA/Rs). Anyway, as I was looking through the footnotes of WIAGA, I noticed that it recommends the use of Harvard referencing. Upon further review, and this is why I'm sending this message, from what I can tell, {{tl:cite web}} is included as a Harvard referencing template. Therefore, WIAGA does, in fact, recommend the use of it, no? I also think it should be unacceptable for a GA to have a trivia section.

Also, WP:GA/R reads that GAs are "decent", while WP:WIAGA and WP:GVF read that GAs are "satisfactory", which sounds better to me. Do you think it appropriate for me to change GA/R to read "satisfactory" per WIAGA and GVF, or should I open discussion on the talk page? LaraLove ^T/ _C 05:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comments.

Can an article become FA without pics.

I know that the image on Karmichael Hunt will have to go, for it to become FA, but it's there for now.

I don't live in Brisbane and am not going there just to get a pic of Hunt, but can an article become FA without pics (I know pics increase its quality etc).

Thanks (you can reply here).

SpecialWindler 05:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Try Flickr to see if a free picture of him already exists. That's one option. You can also hunt around to see if any Wikipedians from Brisbane can help out and take a picture. Try Category:Wikipedians in Queensland and ask at a few talk pages of Active wikipedians. Someone may be able to pitch in and help out. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 05:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• • I've already tried Flickr but there are none, I may "hunt" for some wikipedians as you suggested. I've contemplated using the image below but it would stop it getting FA (in my opinion). You still haven't answered my original question. SpecialWindler 05:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• • • I wouldn't rush to FA exactly yet. The pic problem is the least of your worries yet. Ask around if someone can take a pic for you; keep working on this article in the mean time. It is quite good, but FA's can take months to fine-tune and get right. This article needs some expansion before it is really FA ready. It is a fantastic start, and you are on the right track, but I wouldn't worry about the image issue until the rest is fixed up.-- Jayron32| talk| contribs 05:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Did you mean to put that message on my talkpage? When have I ever required anyone to use cite web, or failed a GAC or delisted a GAR because of it? Talk about discouraging people. I'm like > < that close to pulling anything GA-related off my watchlist and trying something new. I'm talking about a recommendation. Nothing I've written has ever stated or implied that it should be required. It's my opinion that the cite web template is extremely helpful in organizing the required information when citing a reference. I just want this "academic" off my back and out of GA/Rs business. If we include the recommendation on the page, we don't have to take flack from this guy. That's my suggestion. The page already suggests the use of cite web and other templates in Note 2 of the footnotes. I'm simply suggesting we clarify for the sake of sanity here. LaraLove ^T/ _C 04:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I correct myself. I looked back over some of my GAC reviews and in one I used the word "need" which could be interpreted as a requirement. Though, there was no issue with the custodian on that. They just didn't do it. Although, there was plenty they didn't do. So, in that regard, I have misspoken. But it has never been my intention to require a template. Always a recommendation, and never have a failed or delisted an article for that sole purpose. I believe I'd probably just overhaul the references of an article if that was the only failing factor. LaraLove ^T/ _C 04:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

At the risk of sounding cheesy, and even borderline mushy, where are you refocusing your editing? I've come to enjoy working with you on GA/R. I feel like we both care enough to put genuine effort into the process for the greater improvement of Wikipedia. With that said, if you're focusing your efforts on a different process, I'd like to join you there. LaraLove ^T/ _C 04:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello. I noticed that you made some great contributions to an AfD debate over LUST, the student television station. Well, there is a similar debate going on over the notability Glasgow University Student Television which is in dire need of a third opinion. I was wondering if you could possibly comment on the article? Thanks very much. JMalky 09:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Many thanks. JMalky 15:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 9	9 June 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: State updates Project news Highways notability guideline? California Deletion debates Portal debate Maryland Featured member Three new GAs From the editors Exit list debates
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — Vsh Bot ( t • c) 16:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

On 9 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paul Philippoteaux, 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.

-- howcheng { chat} 17:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I didn't have anything to do with this article. I just nominated it. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 03:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC) reply

	Gnomes, unite!
	Hello, Jayron32! You are invited to participate in Gnome Week, a mass article cleanup drive between June 21 and June 28, 2007.
	This week, backlogs will be cleared. Articles will be polished. Typos will be fixed. Bad prose will be edited. Unreferenced articles will be sourced. No article will be safe from our reach! The more people who participate, the better Wikipedia will become as a result.
	I would love it if you would participate! - LaraLove T/ C
Edit message

I have left a table on Karmichael Hunt, it's a bit messy, Can you give any thoughts. SpecialWindler ^talk 09:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the notification. Tyrenius 02:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I've tried to address your concerns about the article, though I had questions on a few of them. Please take a look when you get a chance. Thanks.-- Loodog 23:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I've implemented your latest suggestions. Let me know if there's anything else you see.-- Loodog 04:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, I've gone and done it and the Aggie Band article is up for Featured Article status. Any feedback (especially support) would be greatly appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Can I get an "amen" on the article now (issues fixed....I hope). — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the main page request. If you are interested I have another art related FAC up at the moment. Yomangani ^talk 00:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Ok, I've added a pile of references to the map. Towns to add include:

• Rochester ref
• Falmouth, incorporated as Succonesset ref
• Little Compton ref
• Bristol ref - this is the only one that was a little sketchy, 1680 might be a settlement date rather than an incorporation date, but I think it's correct.

Towns to remove:

• Hingham - by the source currently cited it was settled in 1633 as part of Mass. Bay and I didn't find anything to suggest otherwise.
• Hull - I couldn't find a good history, though several references to it being settled in 1624 from Plymouth - I'm assuming it got transferred to Mass. Bay along with Weymouth in 1630, at any rate it wasn't incorporated until after becoming part of Mass. Bay. Kmusser 18:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually, the refs all look good. Demos confirms the Bristol date, as his book includes a 1685 census that lists it as an official town incorporated recently. I will have to recheck the exact date of incorporation, but it was clearly an official Plymouth town before 1691. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 22:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I couldn't abandon GA/R. I went back to see if the math whiz kids had left yet, and I see everything is just kind of sitting there. Poor GA/R, lol. I've started some cleanup. Hopefully the backlog will be gone soon. LaraLove ^T/ _C 20:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I've been there as well. Looks like the haters have all left. Told you it would blow over in a week or so. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 22:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Would you mind commenting on the consensus check thing on the GA/r talk page, and I guess your vote on Brian Adams needs to be re-cast. Aaron Bowen 05:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

The stuff that I wrote is a fact. I didn't condemn or praise Paradox, I merely passed on information. RTexasUSA

I edited the article to note that Paradox's games are generally easy to mod. Be sure to let me know if this violates the POV standards too. RTexasUSA

I have added factual material to the Wild Chicago article on at least five occasions -- specifically about the show's guidebook. Each time this material has been deleted by another Wiki user. This person was also a part of Wild Chicago's history and according to the tracking sites, resides in Paris. I strongly suspect that this person, who had a one time strong connection with Wild Chicago, was not mentioned in the guidebook and therefore, is deleting this factual information. I have written privately to the individual with no response. Even when Wiki editors have reinstated the paragraph about the guidebook this user is systematically deleting it. So, in frustration, I deleted the bulk of the article and focused it SPECIFICALLY on the guidebook paragraph to point this out to editors. You caught it. Good. Isn't there someway to lock the information that keeps being deleted in place?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.232.208 ( talk • contribs)

Thanks for the nice comments at FAC and GAC on Ceawlin and Æthelberht; I appreciate it. I will be taking Ceawlin to FAC, though I think I'll wait till the Æthelberht nom settles down and gets a couple more supports. I don't think I'll go through peer review, though, as you suggested I might; it just seems to take too long. I tried an experiment with Æthelberht of not going through GA first, and that seems to have worked OK, so if I have figured out what it takes to pass FA I might go straight to FAC with future articles. Anyway, thanks again. Mike Christie (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply

No problemo. There's no real need, I guess, to do any precursor work before going to FAC. Honestly, you have gotten quite good at writing these feature quality articles on the Anglo-Saxon kings. Keep it up! -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 16:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello, In the past you have reviewed East Carolina Universityfor GA status. I am asking if you could give East Carolina University a peer-review. I want to add the article to the Good article candidates list. Thank you, PG Pirate

 GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. -- Kalyan 08:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Did you know? was updated. On July 3, 2007, a fact from the article Hills Memorial Library, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Keep up the great work Jayron! Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 00:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi please adopt user Matrix17. You seem like a nice and fair guy. I think the user i want you to adopt needs someone who is understanding because the user isnt really doing anything wrong but has just comed on the wrongside with admins who blocks him etc. So if you could adopt him and look out for illwilling admins i would be glad. because i feel matrix17 has been misthreated here and blocked for the wrong reason. regards-- Usernamedit 11:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 10	7 July 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: State updates Project news Kentucky subproject promoted California Deletion debates AID restructuring Maryland Featured member GA status Pennsylvania From the editors Notability discussion currently collecting dust
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — Vsh Bot ( t • c) 04:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

... for your clarifications to Plymouth Colony ( [1]). -- Otheus 08:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC) reply

... has been sitting around for a while, partly because the nominator had other issues. Do you consider your objections have been addressed? If not, what more needs to be done? -- AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC) reply

A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{ GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. -- Nehrams2020 23:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello, thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peru. After some work on the article, I've written an answer. Could you check it please? Greetings, -- Victor12 16:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello Jayron! Just wanted to say thanks for the review, very well done. some of the things you said I had a feeling you would (ie: History being a list) but others I didnt (ie: external links=bad) lol. So very good all around. Currently myself and another more skilled editor are going over the article and will attempt to do all the fixes you sugested. I just had a couple of questions.

• 1. are the other "lists" in the article ok to stay or should they be removed (I recently went over most of them and made them "descriptive lists") ex: instead of something like:

• • Aliant Tower - a tower
  • Assomption building - a building

I made it more like:

• • The Aliant Tower is a tall structure in the downtown of moncton...
  • The assomption building is a building which was...

The only reason we have some lists is because if we make the lists into seperate articles nobody will read them (moncton isnt a city like New York where enough people are interested to actually click on a "main article" type deal.)

• 2. When I add in more and more references the size of the article (in kbs, not actual text) is dramitally increased. We are trying to keep the article from being like 100kb+. is there a way to add refs in without increasing the size of the article so dramatically? Or do we have to remove some stuff to add in references?

Anyways, thanks again for all the help I greatly appriciate the advice :D

Have a good day!

Stu pendousmat 18:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

discussion moved to article talk page. I will reply there. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 18:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I've reviewed and promoted this article for GA, but I don't know where to categorize it. It was suggested by Giggy to put it under geography, in the conservation areas section, but that's for places. Why is there no misc section or biographies section? One would think the same categories listed at GAC would be listed at GA and once passed, it would go to the same cat it was nominated under, no? Lara Love 04:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Perfect. Thank you. Lara Love 04:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I just wanted to let you know that I've tried my hand at a summary. Cheers, Tewfik ^Talk 18:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I forgot to notify you that I had replied earlier. Let me know, Tewfik ^Talk 19:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm glad you're back at GA/R. :) Lara Love 07:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Me too, but what is going on with U.S. Route 40? The regular editors all seem to want to delist it, when it is not so bad. Why? Geometry guy 21:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Request for re-review

Hello Jayron. I did add this to the Moncton talk page first...but you did not respond. Im not sure if this is just because you are away...or if you are no longer watching it...I figured I would re-post here just to be sure.

I was wondering if you could re-review the Moncton article for us as we have made all the changes you requested. for example:

• The LEAD now summarizes the article much better.
• The HISTORY section is now prose and referenced.
• The CLIMATE and MILITARY sections are now referenced. As well as TRANSPORTATION and TOURISM. *We also added in many other references in for good measure :)
• The EXTERNAL LINKS are all removed from the main body of the article and replaced with *wikilinks (we made a bunch of new articles to link to) or plain text.
• The paragraphs you pointed out have been fixed.

I dont know if you can just review it again...or if I have to put it through the works again. I just thought since you can see what has changed you would be the best candidate to re-review it :)

Thanks again!

Stu pendousmat 01:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi! Im an English teacher in Toluca Mexico (west of Mexico City). My Advanced B classes will be contributing to Wikipedia as the focus of their English course for Fall 2007. I am looking for people who would like to mentor my students (who will be working in groups) as they do the following assignments: Edit and article (adding a citation), writing a stub with a citation, translating an English language article for Spanish Wikipedia and for the final project, writing a full article for English Wiki (they can expand on the stub mentioned previously). What I would like to do is put a list of "mentors/adopters" on my talk page as a kind of short cut for my students, who have limited time to get things done. The semester begings Aug 6, but the real Wikipedia work wont begin until the beginning of Sept. If you would like to add your name to my list, please go to my talk page and add it there, perhaps with a short introduction, if you like.

Thank you!

Thelmadatter 20:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter reply

Kmusser has now graciously created a great modern map, IMO, to replace the period map used in the article, if you would like to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jersey Shore shark attacks of 1916. Thanks. Dmoon1 22:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Excellent, thanks for the review; I am glad to see that the hard work paid off. I am not too concerned about the shorter of sections at the moment because I think I have the ideal book, yet I cannot seem to find it now... But yes, these sections will need to be extensively expanded before any future developments. It's a fairly recent article and most sections seem to be reasonably intact. Anyhow, thanks again. Chris.B 09:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Dear roads editor,

You may have noticed some changes at WP:USRD lately. Some of them, like the cleanup templates and the stub templates, have been astounding and great. Unfortunately, others have been disturbing.

This has become evidenced by the departure of a few prominent editors at USRD, a few RFC's, and much fighting among USRD editors.

After the second RFC, many of us found the opportunity to take a step away from Wikipedia for a while--as a self-imposed wikibreak, or possibly on vacation.

The result of such introspection was that many of us were placing ourselves in a "walled garden" and on a self-imposed pedestal of authority over the roads department. Also, we were being hostile to a few users who were not agreeing with us.

In fact, IRC has been the main incarnation of this "walled garden." Decisions have been made there to conduct grudges and prejudices against a few valued USRD users with poor justification.

For this, we have come to apologize. We have come to ask your forgiveness.

In addition to this, we hope to work as one USRD team from now on and to encourage cooperation instead of the promotion of interests.

All users are welcome to collaborate on IRC, the newsletter, or anywhere else at USRD.

In the future, please feel free to approach us about any issues you may have.

Regards,

• Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs)
• TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats}
• master son ^{T - C}
• Son ^Talk
• ( →O - R L Y?)

16:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you are saving changes to the good article candidate page as you work. In order to stave off a potential mental break down when your work disappears because of a server or PC malfunction, I suggest that you create your own sandbox in a sub-page of your user page. Whenever I am making gigantic changes to something, I just copy the entire article into my sandbox and then save the changes there. Once I'm done, I just cut and paste it into the actual page.

This kind of sandbox is way different than the community sandbox. The former gets deleted as other editors use it, but the latter is your very own and can only be used by you (unless vandalized by some dumbass with too much free time). -- Ghostexorcist 19:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the tip, but I actually dislike using personal sandboxed, for transparency reasons. I prefer that my work be visible in the edit history of the page I am working on. Making a massive changes in a single go makes it harder for other editors to track changes and progress. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 19:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the kind words and grading of the Kinston Indians article. Your time and advice are greatly appreciated. Kinston eagle 03:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I thought you were a sysop. Am I remembering incorrectly? Lara ♥Love 06:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Nope. I am just an ordinary, average editor. No special powers here. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 06:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Shocking. Lara ♥Love 06:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Not sure I am looking for that kind of responsibility. Really, I enjoy what I do, and I am strecthed thin-enough as it is with what I am involved in. Never much wanted to do the kind of work that admins do. I think of it as a thankless sort of job, and there is enough else for me to do around here. I am honored, though, that you think I would make a good admin... It means alot really. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 20:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Eep. Sorry I didn't check back sooner. I tell ya, I suck at checking back on talk pages... my watchlist is long enough as it is, though. Anyway, I totally understand your POV. However, if you should ever change your mind, let me know. I'd proudly nominate you. Lara ♥Love 05:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for reviewing this article. I have made improvements as per your suggestions. Please see what you think. -- Johnfos 05:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you for your participation in the GAC backlog elimination drive! ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 21:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I'll search for a VH1 list, but the ones currently listed are major lists from popular magazines, such as Rolling Stones "500 Greatest Albums of All Time", Spin Magazine's "Top 90 Albums of the 90s", etc. Ah, never mind. On the awards compilation it has "VH1 Greatest Albums" list, which was compiled in no order. I'll add it. NSR77 ^T _C 11:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Congratulations on the FA pass of Plymouth Colony. You definitely put a lot of work into the article, and it is about time it passed. Again, great work. Raime 01:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Well thank you! And thanks for all of your help as well! -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 01:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Well done as well, although I missed it. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi there Jayron. Awadewit has kindly copyedited the article and I have attempted to put more context into the article. Regards, Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply

In case you didn't know, the Library of Congress has quite a lot (over 3000) of historic football pictures and images and almost all of them are in the public domain. Dmoon1 05:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey thanks, I'll take a look when I have some time and add them where appropriate. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 05:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey, just wanted to say thanks for reviewing Oklahoma during this FAC. Not many people are taking a crack at it, so thanks again! Okiefromokla• talk 16:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 11	18 August 2007	About the Newsletter
Departments: Features: State and national updates Project news Cleanup system revamped Assessment Deletion debates Stubs renamed New York Featured member IRC channel goes global From the editors Minnesota bridge collapses One year after SRNC: A reflection
Archives  |  Newsroom   Shortcut : WP:USRD/NEWS

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — Rschen7754bot 21:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply

It was my first FA....and its references are in horrible condition :( They read like an annotated bibliography! I wish I had time to brush it up now, but it'll take some time to get to it. — Deckill er 02:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I'll take a look at it when I have the time. I am abit tied up for the next couple of days. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 02:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey. I checked the article as you requested. I only go about half way through, I'll resume tomorrow (I'm so tired, I can barely keep my head up here). I corrected some errors, but I have couple of issues. I'll list them here:

• There is an inconsistency in how centuries are expressed. I believe it should either be written out (twentieth century) or in numerals (20th century) in all occurrences.
• Under "First collegiate games", it reads, Princeton students are reported to have played a game called "ballown"... Reported by whom?

I'm sure I'll come upon some other issues tomorrow. I'm not sure when I'll resume. Chris is taking the kids out for the day, and I have to work a 10-12 hour shift, so I may or may not have time to do it tomorrow morning. If not, I'll resume when I get off work tomorrow night. Regards, Lara ♥Love 05:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Picking up where I left off:

• Under "Expansion (1880–1904)", the Rose Bowl is mentioned for the first time, but there is no information on it until "From a regional to a national sport (1930–1958)".
• Under "Pop Warner", Though the shift was invented by Stagg, Warner's single wing and double wing formations utilized it to perfection - Really? Not only is perfection unattainable, it's unencyclopedic, in my opinion. I recommend rewording.
• Under "From a regional to a national sport (1930–1958)", In the early 1930s, the college game blossomed in popularity. The college game grew in popularity in the south, ... is redundant. The second paragraph seems to be in random order.
• Fourth paragraph, "Though General Robert Neyland at Tennessee continued to eschew its use (former Tennessee quarterback Tex Davis noted, when told by Neyland that he would throw 20 or 30 times, "I didn't know he meant the whole season."[34]) several rules changes to the game had a profound effect on throwing the ball." The quote in the middle of the sentence is very distracting. It breaks the flow. Lara ♥Love 18:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC) reply

A few more things:

• I assume "to this day" is a term you use frequently in real life. While it is a relatively common term, it's not necessarily encyclopedic, especially used this many times in one article. I rewrote a couple instances, but I recommend trying to rewrite a couple more.
• Under "Growth of bowl games", The Coalition lasted for three years, however the formula used to determine matchups was convoluted; ... I think the prose can be improved here.

I've now left off at the start of pro football. Lara ♥Love 19:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Jayron,

I'd love to help, especially on such an important topic. However, currently, my online time is limited and I will not be able to help on long copyediting tasks... for a few weeks. Thanks for your understanding. Best of luck on the article. -- Otheus 17:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC) reply

OK, I'll put it back on GAR, GA, T:GA, and add the GA banner to its talk page. I saw your note, but didn't notice the time stamp. Sorry about that. Giggy ^Talk 06:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply

No problem. It was an honest mistake... -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 06:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply

OK, all relisted. I said I'd leave it like that for a couple of days, and we can go from there. No go archive some more GAR threads, it's over backlogged! Giggy ^Talk 06:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey, Jason. I was hoping to get your participation, no matter how little or much you are able, in the GA sweeps (reviewing all listed articles to ensure quality). I'd also like your opinion on how best to achieve the goal. Personally, I prefer participation in this particular task by invitation only. As was made evident by the backlog elimination drive, not all reviewers can be trusted to give a thorough review. For that reason, I would like only experienced, trusted reviewers to participate in this. What do you think? Lara ♥Love 03:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Sounds good. I'd like to help out where I can. I support the idea of handling this through invite-only; however please take care. There are some who already consider GA to be rather like a WP:CABAL, and things like this only add fuel to their fire. I agree this is the best way to handle it. Just be aware that not all will. Just let me know what you want me to do and when to start. Personally, I think the best way to organize this is to keep a page where we log the "swept" categories, with the date of the last sweep, so that any reviewers who are also sweepers can see where the help is most needed. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 17:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Great minds think alike. Check out GA sweeps. There's a link to the sweep list there. As far as it being like a cabal, there is no cabal... just keep repeating that. :) But I would hope others wouldn't look at this particular project that way considering it's solely to uphold the quality of the project. It's pointless to have a mass sweep of articles in order to catch those that have fallen through the cracks if not all of the reviewers are competent and let articles again fall through the cracks. Just don't let PMA find out. He'll oppose and raise Hell just for the sake of it. Have you seen that WP:CITE is now protected? He raised Hell about the policy stating that inline citations should be placed after punc. He wants it to be either before or after, editor preference, consistent through articles, not Wikipedia. Lara ♥Love 21:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, let me know what you want me to do... I will be glad to help. And yes, some people are only interested in stirring up trouble, and not really interested in writing a better encyclopedia. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 00:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, hopefully the grumpy old troll doesn't notice this one until we're done. Lara ♥Love 01:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I am busy copy editing away at History of American football. I have made quite a few changes - please revert the unhelpful ones. When I am unsure of a change or don't know enough to make a change, I have inserted an internal comment. These are best read using something like wikEd which color codes types of edits. Awadewit | talk 18:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Since you weighed in last time, thought you may want to know that the Mother Teresa article was referred for review...again! Stubborn editors want another try. -- Anietor 00:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Yo. LARA ♥LOVE 18:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey! So check it out... if you're online today (August 25), check out THIS... I started writing articles for Wikinews in the wee hours of the 24th. Cleaned one up to publishing, wrote two about bad things happening to little kids, then wrote one about the iPhone lock to the AT&T netword being cracked by a teenager. So yea, if it's still the 25th, check out the main page of Wikinews! LARA ♥LOVE 16:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Well done!!!! Nice job on the article! -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 01:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hola Mentors!

Im sending you this reminder because you volunteered to mentor my students in English Advanced B as they become contributing members of the Wikipedia community. We start working with Wikipedia in earnest next week. I ask you to take a look at your entry in the Mentor Table at Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/Mentors

Please update the information, esp. with what your technical and informational expertise is or, if you have decided that you no longer want to participate, please remove your information from the table. Please watch the pages associated with the project. Students will contact you via your user page and as soon as my students have user pages, I will put them on the navigation bar associated with the project.

I don’t need to remind you that your job is NOT to write their assignments for them, of course. I certainly will tell my students that… and the fact that you are volunteers that don’t have to help them… so they need to be nice. If any students misbehave (tho I don’t expect it) don’t hesistate to contact me and I will take care of it. The goal of this project is to integrate successfully into the Wikipedia community. Anyway… what I really need your help with is helping students get oriented to Wikipedia, make appropriate changes and write about appropriate topics (see Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/Syllabus for assignments). I also need your technical expertise… I am only an English teacher after all! I appreciate what technology does for us but I am no technical expert!

Again, thank you for volunteering and you will hear from us again soon! Thelmadatter 20:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter reply

This is what I was wanting you to look over. Comments and opinions appreciated. LARA ♥LOVE 03:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I notice that you are a frequent contributor for good articles. Could i ask that you look at the nomination for Victoria Cross (Canada) on the GA review page, and act as you see fit. The reason that i ask is the Featured Topic nomination cannot be restarted until the situation has been resolved. Thanks in advance. Woodym555 22:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC) reply