User talk:Marskell/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Big cats

Hi, Marskell, I know you're quite active in articles about big cats. One thing I feel is inadequately covered in some of the articles about larger mammals, especially the carnivorous ones, is the question of how dangerous they are to man. Lion and Tiger cover the topic, both seeming to imply that the reputation the animals have for attacking humans is unjustified, or at least exaggerated: in fact the Tiger article implies that only old or injured tigers would be likely to attack a human. (I'm afraid that wouldn't make me feel at ease if I met a young, healthy one!) Cougar covers it as well; Jaguar doesn't seem to mention it. If I'm correct in thinking that you're interested in large feline mammals, perhaps you could add that information, where appropriate. Hope Bobcat makes it to FA status. (If the article is correct in saying that he's about twice as large as a domestic cat, he probably wouldn't eat me!) Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

OK - have done quite a bit of rearranging to make Lion format out like Jaguar...have a look. I worry if I leave it like this then someone will come along and revert it or something..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Clayoquot has offered to give it a copyedit down the track when the content is stabilised. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Topic?

How's this then - get Tiger, Leopard, Lion - and Panthera to GA for a Featured Topic....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


...........or a lion FT! - lion as FA, all lion subarticles - cultural/heraldry/subsp./lionbaiting and liontaming all GA (or FA). Maybe good as a beacon for other pop cult articles too....(just got home - had a margerita while out - pardon the spelling..) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Christmas stocking

I'm thinking Santa will leave you a big lump of coal this year. ;-) Tom Harrison Talk 00:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scholarly sources in the sciences

Hi Marskell, thanks for your thoughtful comments on WP:AN about sourcing for science articles. I'm staying out of the battle for as long as I can, but I am very grateful that you and others take care of it for the rest of us. Cheers, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts on WP:V

The page has only just been unprotected, could you discuss this on the talk page and hopefully we can avoid re-protection? Addition or removal of this summary of another policy isn't a big issue surely? Tim Vickers 18:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belgium

Back to you: [1]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've made a start of Lion...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting Brock University Students' Union

Hello. You semi-protected Brock University Students' Union in May because it was getting lots of vandalism, specifically some defamatory statements. However, I suspect the vandalism is unlikely to occur again, at least anymore than any other page, as school is out for summer and the only controversial edits were by one person, who was blocked and registered on an account that semi-protection wouldn't have applied to anyway. As per policy, I'm asking the admin who made the protection to unprotect it; since I'm not really following that article and am just trying to clean out semi-protections that seem no longer needed, I'm unlikely to pay attention to this again, so thanks in advance. However, if you think BLP violations may occur again with any reasonable likelihood (I'd suspect not, but I don't follow these things as much as others), I'll trust your judgement and you can keep the page semi-protected. Cheers! Telso 04:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warsaw

It seemed to have stalled, so I didn't bother going back, but I see some work is being done now. I'll have another pass on Monday if I get time. Yomanganitalk 22:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bobcat

Thanks for the great work on Bobcat, it's always great to see cool articles like that get featured. -Ravedave 18:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Thirdchimpcover.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Thirdchimpcover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pride before the fall?

I started a new section just for that heading. :) Quite a few editors working on Lion... can I help too? I came across some zoology journals in my wanderings and was reminded of your mammalian efforts. (Yeah, still here.) –Outriggr § 03:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha the more the merrier - there are truckloads of cite tags and I could have put a whole bunch more in. I reckon Lion needs a good 100-120 refs and be a monster 60kb article......regarding individual life forms vs. groups, dunno the individdies are more fun. We have the same problem - with Banksia - the main article has been on the backburner for yonks yet we got 3 taxa to FA so far. i can see the same has happened with whales too. I'd reckon Felidae is the best bet of an FA as it is a nice well-circumscribed group - and a great place to dicuss the status of teh individual genera. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Okily-dokily. See ya there. (In case I'm expecting too much RBTL: "pride before fall"=Featured Article success before autumn, a "pride" of lions=increasing number of editors, etc.) –Outriggr § 05:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Lady lions line up at the Serengenti's only PC kiosk, hoping to find out from Wikipedia that their numbers have tripled.
Lady lions line up at the Serengenti's only PC kiosk, hoping to find out from Wikipedia that their numbers have tripled.
"Male lions spend most of their life resting." As opposed to ... ??? Sorry, guys, have fun with this one! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
ROFL...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
With a few more cups of morning coffee, I might have had a better comeback :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Aha, but what you have here my dear Sandy is female lions snoozing....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Let's not get hung up on the small details ... that's because they've been doing all the work !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yomangani, male "lion and cub [feasted on] a Cape Buffalo" while the females kept watch and got the scraps, and now you want them to wake up, hungry, and clean up the aftereffects? Harumph ... my point precisely ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Bhutan

I've cleaned up the external links and have applied some citations to the article. I understand it cannot be kept open indefinately. Here's what I plan to do: Revert back to the featured version, and include the current updates in history & economy. I'll need a bit more time as I am down with a bad cold since last week. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please remove Bhutan from the FA list. I won't be having the time to take care of it. Regards, --Nichalp 16:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ID

RE== What happened == To lead to this edit summary? I had just started editing. I don't think it's hopeless at all. Marskell 16:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the opinions in the FAR are all over the map, so to speak. I don't think it serves the goal of honest reporting on a controversial topic to be playing around with so many varying interpretations of the FA criteria. I think it's in the nature of a controversial, complex topic such as ID. ... Kenosis 16:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Whoarewehuntington.gif

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Whoarewehuntington.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animals in 500 most popular articles in May 2007

1st is cat, then dog, then human then....lion (!) then spider, then animal, then shark then tiger...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If lion got up it would be the only FA, though Cat is a former FA and spider has been a candidate (and looks in the best shape for another tilt sometime).cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Update - if you look at June's figures - [[2]] then German Pinscher is the top animal article (?!), followed by Owl, Ammonite, Pangolin and baboon....weird....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

So, you are coming to India in two days! Welcome. And enjoy! Can do some original research on everything, besides rail system :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yeats

Hello. I'll start on the copy edit and final tidy-up today and nofity on the FAR when I'm done. Thanks for allowing the time on this. Ceoil 20:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievably, Filiocht had left an entire literary analysis section on the articles talk page, and as you'd expect, its very strong.[3] I just need to verify the page numbers of Fosters two books and tomorrow I'll update the "FAR urgents" box. Ceoil 18:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gimmebot

Ack—GimmeBot's gone on break. I didn't hear from him (I've been otherwise tied up with *that thing*), but I hope all is well with him. I can handle manually all the steps involved in closing and converting the articlehistory on FARs and FARCs, but the volume on FAC will be too much. I've left a note for Raul. Unless you disagree, keep doing what you usually do, and I'll do the rest of the steps on the FARs manually. Stay tuned to User talk:Raul654. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No response from Raul; a glimmer of hope at User talk:Rick Block#Houston, We've got a problem. I'm quite undone over this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD discussion

Given your original interest in lion you may want to have some input here.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Uuugh..capitalization. I think the only thing is to raise it on the talk page as a vote/discussion on the talk page and notify all interested parties as there are a few. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ID FAR

That's it for me for now. Appreciated the exchange; thanks. ... Kenosis 06:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me adding comments under the sub-headings, despite your attempts to remove them initially. I think categorising discussion by criterion helps editors to focus, and has the added advantage of segregating out the "neutrality" arguments. DrKiernan 08:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seen this one?

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gray Wolf - Capitalisation against consensus at WP:MOS. Now you know I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other, but this is a ridiculous waste of time. Yomanganitalk 16:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAC and FAR closings

Sorry, our posts "crossed in the night". I was just re-opening as you were moving to archive (different time zones and all that). I consolidated all the comments at WT:FAR. I'd hate to see the process destabilized. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

I have two beloved creatures myself, and I understand the cats thing. However, Yeats has reignited a spark; any interest on helping working up a few poetry articles to FA. I'm thinking both Keats and Blake could be ready after a few weeks. Both have fascinating bios, and it would be very satisfying research. I'm particularly interested in Blake, I visited the Tate during last winter and it was my first time seeing, in the flesh, his engravings. So perfect. Ceoil 21:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North American cats FT

Obvious really -never thought of it. Well, I must say it's the most cohesive FT we're in striking distance of and with just one little pussy cat to go....I just gave it a tidy up along the lines of Bobcat. I dislike using Physical Characteristics but do like conformity. WRT 'Phsyical' adjective - I concede it is needed for Characteristics but not so for description, which is one reason why I like using the latter word for headings in bio articles I work on - (for birds (but not whales) usually includes the vocalization as well...)cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: I prefer Cats of North America as it is geographical rather than political (the CL occurs in Alaska anyways), mebbe I can interest one of the usual suspects inta it......cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ug, so we bung in Ocelot and Margay....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hippos FAC

Hi Marskell, thanks for the great comments on the Hippopotamus FAC. I'll be working today to address your concerns. I did have a quick question however: I read the article on Even-toed ungulates and it actually does mention that hippos and whales are close relatives within artiodactyla, hence their membership in cetartiodactyla. But it's not as detailed because the article is short and the hippopotamus article is written with the most recent scholarship. Do I need to make changes to the Even-toed ungulate article, in order for hippopotamus to get through FAC? --JayHenry 15:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You do have sources for it on the Hippo page and the Taxonomy section is quite robust. My point was in part that "The Hippo is the closest land relative of the cateceans" and "the cateceans are the closest living relatives of the Hippo" are two distinct points. You need to source the relative unrelatedness of the Hippo to Ruminantia and Suina as much as its relatedness to cateceans. Hope that makes sense.
Also, I'm concerned that after ref 10 no more research papers appear. For generic descriptions (e.g. oldest Hippo turns 55) newspapers are fine, but for facts of biology you ought to have scientific sources. Good luck, Marskell 07:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean re: evolution and that's a good point! I will address it by this evening. I should note that Eltringham, "The Hippos" is an academic-level summary of the literature up to 1999. So is it acceptable to say things like "experts are split on whether white rhinos or hippos are bigger" and cite "The Hippos," which seems more authoritative to me anyways than citing three or four sources that simply disagree? The general point, that more sources are still needed, is one that I will follow up on quickly. It's my first FAC, and it's sort of like learning a new language! So far it's been fun! --JayHenry 13:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ID - FAR

Hi. Regarding your post on my talk page that follows:

===To be clear=== :As you have asked in a couple of different ways about the FAR process, note that there is a procedure detailed on the main review page. It asks that we not !vote for the first to two to three week review period, to allow ample time for comment. Consensus won't be ignored, to be sure. And if FAR regulars appear to be "conducting" things, do consider the opposite perspective: that someone fresh to the article finds hostility from page regulars. That's what I'm seeing. I'm presently having my good faith impugned by Filll and Jim and it's not particularly fun. I mention it to you because you have maintained civility. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 12:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll drop an email to Jim and Filll regarding the assumption of good faith, asking that they not confuse tendentious opponents of the article with reviewers and others who may have advice, comments, preferences about the article, etc. As to conducting things in the FAR, and alleged hostility to newcomers by page regulars, these are two entirely separate issues that should IMO not even be in the same sentence, other than, say, to illustrate a range of problems that one may confront. FOo's beliefs, which s/he stated both explicitly and implicitly, unfortunately are simply incorrect. The resentment began after FOo's preferences for the article were refused by longer-term participants, including myself, and allegations of WP:OWN (against a very amorphous group no less) began to be alleged. This came with other snipes arising out of FOo's failure to gain consensus, and attempts to browbeat various participants both on the talk page (characterized as "you", meaning "people who edit this article") along with a set of individual gambits such as that posted on my own talk page. As I said on the FAR page, I thought it was a bit overly self-centered to expect the results s/he sought based upon the length of time between initial proposal (several days) and the unilateral outcry about WP:OWN rendered against the collective participants in the article and individually on their talk pages and elsewhere. But, I don't want to spend the time to collect this information into one place unless it appears important to do so, and would prefer that FOo merely begin to see that there is a momentum involved in WP articles, and sometimes one's newly introduced preferences simply don't succeed in persuading the "regulars" that they're an improvement. It goes part and parcel with WP:Consensus, I'm afraid. Incidentally, Marskell, I appreciate your note about my having "maintained civility"--to be sure, this can take extra effort at times. ;-) ... Kenosis 17:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

I don't know how to do that, as I've not been involved in this before. I'd appreciate it if you would do it for me, if you have time. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Bhutan

It's ok, I'll retry again after a few months. I had posted a message about defeaturing Bhutan earlier up in your talk page, though I had logged in anonymously. Nice to know you're in India... Bangalore I heard. Enjoy the sights and sounds of South India. Traffic must seem all chaotic to you I guess ;-) Do try out different cuisines when here. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 02:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sysop request

Hi Marskell,
Could I ask a favor from my friendly neighborhood admin? Can you delete User:Outriggr and then reinstate only the current diff (or, I can do that second part--I'll save it offline)? I'm not "vanishing", just tidying up. Thanks. –Outriggr § 03:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, if this isn't straightfoward in terms of policy or whatever, forget I asked. –Outriggr § 03:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much. (Me an admin? I don't think I'd reach consensus--one can dig up too many opinions of mine that would make me look anti-something. Sure, I'd become more measured and responsible as an admin, but that's the whole point--40 hours a week of such behavior is enough for me. :)
Oh yeah, still the king of FAR are we? I'm reminded of the Who: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!" Kidding of course--I can't imagine how such a difficult operation would work better under the alternative plans proposed by anyone recently. I think wider participation under the existing system would help [hides], but the same can be said for anything on wikipedia. –Outriggr § 19:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the barnstar buddy

It was nice to see you here again. It was a real morale booster; I haven't had a good time on Wikipedia recently. Serendipodous 12:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Discussion of import?

Fancy adding something here? See first item. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Planetary things

Marskell, I know you've worked on planets before; do you have any sources handy that may be of use at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saturn? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

And speaking of your multi talents, do you know the answer to MYA or mya? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you were sick: no fun ! MYA/mya is solved, and Saturn was switched to mostly reliable sources just before Raul promoted it, so I'm not sure it still needs help. I don't know what to do about Austin Nichols; I found so many problems that I was surprised it passed FAC. I'm no copyeditor, so when I can correct ce errors, we're in trouble. I don't know if it's passable now. I fixed as much as I could, but would like for someone with better ce skills to have a look. If the prose is OK, it can get by, but I'm not a good prose judge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hippopotamus FAC

Hey Marskell, just wanted to come by and thank you for all your great input on the hippopotamus FAC. Even though the article has successfully passed, if there are still issues you feel need addressed, please let me know! Also, if you'd like to jump in there and improve the lead section a little bit more, I'd really appreciate that. Cheers, and I look forward to interacting with you at FAC in the future. (There's still a little hippo and a herd of rhinos that I might try to drag through there!) Cheers! --JayHenry 22:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bird collaboration of the month

As a member of WP:BIRD you are invited to this month's collaboration

The current WikiProject Birds collaboration article is White Wagtail.
Last month's winner was: Cockatiel.
Feel free to cast your vote for next month's article

Shyamal 02:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big Cats

I was hoping to get Leopard over as well and had rearranged it a bit. Lion is a biggy and the more hands in the better. I am not sure I'd have the time just by myself to do it so if we both get stuck into it and keep the communication lines open I think is the best way. I'll try to write as much as possible in my edit summaries - let's go for it :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: I've had good experience when 2 or 3 editors are doing multi-edits and you see the article evolve at a cracking pace before yer eyes. I don't think anyone else has prioritised it and my free time is a bit variable at the moment. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Re Polbot - I was taken aback at first as there were a few glitches but realised it was alot easier to fix than to start from scratch. Put it this way, easeir to gt to DYK or GA or FA from there....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Little bit stuck

Bit of a standstill on lion as I really think it needs a couple of book refs which I don't have - tried finding the other recommended book in the library unsuccessfully and needs teh MSW input at some stage before going further......cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belgium

I will take a look. Will probably close it later today. Joelito (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not forgotten your request. I am reading the article in detail and reading all comments with cautiousness. I will make my decision soon. Joelito (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FT Cetartiodactyla

An' pretty soon at this rate we could have FT Cetartiodactyla as Jay's just nominated Pygmy Hippopotamus at FAC....oh heck..forgot about all the friggin' dolphins/porpoises........zzzzz. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha, I just saw this comment. FT Cetartiodactyla, eh? Unfortunately, the only thing I know about dolphins is that sometimes they get stuck in my tuna! Personally, I was thinking Featured Topic UN Secretary Generals might be my next project. Anyways... I'm planning on finally doing a thorough copy edit of pygmy hippo tonight. Stay tuned! --JayHenry 18:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common sense

WikiThanks

Thanks for using common sense and restoring the image to today's featured article. You may or may not have been aware of the discussion here; the anti-fair-use crusaders were tying themselves in knots trying to justify excluding the image. I had previously attempted to restore it, but was reverted, and I didn't want to edit war. It's good to know that not all Wikipedia admins value "free" over "encyclopedia" on the rare occasions when the two come into conflict. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As as fan of linking to the image, I must point out that One was being bold in implementing what I believe is a Condorcet winner -- it excludes and includes the image simultaneously. MessedRocker (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
What Josiah said. Thanks for applying some reason to the discussion. Ceoil 20:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] you're immortalized

Hi Marskell. I suppose it would be polite to let you know that I referred to you here, only for dramatic effect of course--those couple of lines wrote themselves! –Outriggr § 02:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William the Silent

Ta. BTW, I'm working on George I but I'll probably need another two weekends to do the sourcing, and then my edits will need copy-editing and reviewing by another hand. DrKiernan 08:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Austin Nichols

I just wanted to thank you for your work on Austin's article. I salute you for your work on them, especially as you have no kind of vested interest in few of the articles. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FairTax

Wikipedia:Featured article review/FairTax needs a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAR clarification

Would you mind commenting on Joelr31's talk page? Thanks. --RelHistBuff 11:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK with Cleveland; had to do a lot of it myself <grumble>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Flag of Hong Kong looks to be satisfied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't help with Sverre (not sure what to do), although I suspect it needs to go. Casablanca isn't stellar, but I don't oppose it, it's good enough I guess. Spoo makes me crazy, but I don't want to oppose it as consensus is in favor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I know it is no longer on FAR, but I just wanted to mention that I have had it with Belgium. The editor thrice surreptiously (without noting in edit summaries) put back in the table that you took out (Vb and I also had to take it out) and he fails to respond to my calls on working together. Even DrKiernan commented on it. And then just look at the incredible lengths of text on the talk page... from just one editor. He must have a lot of time on his hands. It is a serious WP:OWN problem. --RelHistBuff 20:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Schwarzenegger: I'll be back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe. But do we want it back? He is now claiming that since the article passed FAR twice, this supports his judgment that the table should stay in (whilst ignoring the criticisms made during the FAR, of course). I don't think FAR can help. It has to go to another process. --RelHistBuff 07:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguating UAE emirates and capitals

At several of the talk pages for the individual Emirates of the UAE, queries or proposals have been put forth for having separate articles for the emirates and their eponymous capitals (e.g. here and here. As of now, two of the emirates have been disambiguated from their capitals: Abu Dhabi (emirate) / Abu Dhabi and Ajmān / Ajmān (city). If you are interested in discussing a comprehensive approach to the issue, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Asia#Disambiguating UAE emirates and capitals. — AjaxSmack 19:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lion (again)

OK, now stop mooning around for a tic ( ;) ) and lemme know how far off the grinder this one is...I've left a message with Kla'quot too as I'm about 90% happy with content....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep - I reckon this one (Titan, that is) is almost ready for FAC - will leave a note on the talk page.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Re Lion - I reckon the content is almost right but for the holes regarding subspecies -like to know more about West Africa but not much around, - we need refs and I can't find the frigging book Schaller. Have a play and I'll keep in the loop. I'll have a look at Titan later too. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] al/though

Hi Tim

My personal preference, and that of my desktop US Encarta dictionary, is for although in formal contexts, such as WP articles. Here's what Encarta says on the matter:

USAGE Although and though are interchangeable in the senses listed above, the only difference being that use of though tends to be less formal than that of although. In formal writing, although tends to sound better than though as the opening word of a sentence. Some uses of though, however, are not interchangeable with although—e.g., adverbial uses (it was nice of him to phone, though) and uses in conjunction with ‘as’ or ‘even’ ( | she doesn't look as though she's listening).

I add al when I'm copy-editing. In 20 years, though might well have taken up the formal sense, too, but for the time being, it looks better, IMV. Tony 01:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)