With Ruslik about to get the fourth of the seven FA'd, I think the best thing to do right now is to go balls out on Europa, since that's the closest to completion; all it needs are a few citations. Triton and Ganymede are eons away from acceptance. Since planetary habitability is your forte, would you care to join me on a minor crusade? Serendipod ous 16:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
For the formula, see: User:RJHall/temp#Barbard.27s_Star. For an FA star, I would have liked to have seen all of the data in the infobox be cited, as was done for IK Peg. SIMBAD doesn't carry some of the information in the Details section, for example. The WP:MATH page suggests either form for the fomula (if it is sufficient), so I think that is fine. But an alternative is to bracket the formula in small matrix format, thus:
Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 17:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes I believe so. Stars between 2.6 and 3.5 are third magnitude. — RJH ( talk)
I know, and it was the FA process for IK Peg that kicked it off in my head. Sorry. I can help with that if you need it—I've had some practice. — RJH ( talk) 20:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
B magnitude is the blue light magnitude in the UBV system. I normally use V for the apparent magnitude and then compute Mv from the parallax. — RJH ( talk) 21:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, well for absolute magnitude I just compute it manually. You'll need a calculator with a base-10 log function. (See my example at: User:RJHall/temp#Barbard.27s_Star) There is documentation for the templates on the template pages. For example: {{ Starbox_astrometry}}. For color indices, try SIMBAD's (hidden) measurements section and select "display all measurements". There's a bunch under ubv, and I usually pick the latest. — RJH ( talk) 21:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I can't say that I care to read profanity on my talk page either. But so it goes. Anyway, you're welcome. Here's a form that will compute absolute magnitude: http://www.munee.info/jp30prt3.htm — RJH ( talk) 22:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I know I can be a little terse in my writing, but it's really not me being unfriendly. Sorry if there was any misunderstanding. It can be easy to gain a false impression from a written message sometimes, and I know I have to catch myself on occasion from reading the wrong tone in a note. As for the cussing, well I guess I was raised a little strictly in that sense. To me it just seems crude and uneducated. (Often a false impression, I know.) Thanks. — RJH ( talk) 15:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I took the liberty of inserting the parallax error value from the source into the infobox. (To me its an important value to include.) — RJH ( talk) 22:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll do this bunch. I travel Fri–Monday, and depending on the hotel, I'm not sure what kind of internet access I'll have; definitely I'm in the air Friday, Monday, and busy most of Saturday. If you have to botify anything in my absence (that is, if I don't get to them), see User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm really sorry I never got to Ebionites; I'm still swamped, behind after my travel, and concerned about a couple of other big picture items that are sapping my time. I'm ready to dig in to the Content Workshop, but it's progressed so far that I'm not sure where to start; there are many pages. Where is my input needed ? Do I just start through the talk page? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Marskell, you're welcome to edit User:SandyGeorgia/Content review thoughts, particularly if I made any spectacular gaffes. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I think I'm done with referencing (and improving, I think) Lutosławski: thanks for your help and patience. What now? -- RobertG ♬ talk 11:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Pagrashtak ( talk · contribs) left a nice surprise here; your review is needed. Maybe you can decide on Matthew Brettingham. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Marskell, I've been watching the content review workshop and also following discussions at WT:FAC, WT:FA and other places about all the issues regarding improving PR and clarifying the role of GA. The discussion has been happening for a long time and though I don't agree with everything that's been said, I think it's important that we try something. So rather than jump in there and prolong the discussion, I just want to let you know that I'm available to help implement just about anything. Particularly at PR where there won't be lots of resistance from an entrenched community. With PR I think it's safe to try something -- anything, really -- and just revert back if it doesn't work. -- JayHenry 17:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Marskell, I have been pretty busy the last few days in real life, and my current FAC absorbed the little WP time I had available, so it's been nearly a week since I've been able to post to the workshop. I have tried to keep up but the volume of posts is pretty high; I'll see if I can figure out what would be helpful, but if you have a suggested direction let me know. I will also drop Sandy a note since I promised I'd look over her comments, though it appears she's now an integrated member of the group. Mike Christie (talk) 03:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Slp1 ( talk · contribs) has done a tremendous amount of work on it, but it still has a lot of issues. I need to look at it tonight and see if we can "get there from here". The lead needs to be rewritten, cultural aspects is still uncited, Classification is not classification, I need to see if it's comprehensive, and I need to check if it still needs to be copy-edited. The bigger problems are 1) we have to rely on one editor only as to accuracy, as Slp seems to be the only subject expert involved, and 2) s/he is citing the entire thing to textbooks rather than the peer-reviewed journal literature. That's unfortunate, and I'm not sure how to handle that; it's better than nothing, and much better than what was there before, but is it good enough for FA? I'll drop a note to Slp. [1] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm doing asteroid belt's FAC and Tony has requested that I find someone new to copyedit. I thought might be amenable to the idea. Serendipod ous 07:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Slightly surprised (but not unhappy!) to see this saved, as I never quite finished on the refs! Regarding use of UK English: it's been discussed several times, but we've always concluded that US English is not appropriate, for the same sorts of reasons that it wouldn't be appropriate to write the Wikipedia report on the recent Dolphins vs Giants NFL game at Wembley in UK English. To do so would mean using language different from that used by those involved (F1 had only one North American driver ( Jacques Villeneuve) at the time, and there was only one other named American individual, Tony George, involved). Strictly speaking it's not just a case of substituting 'tire' for 'tyre', but also 'straightaway' for 'straight', 'push' for 'understeer', 'drafting' for 'slipstreaming' etc etc; and then you have an article about F1 that's not written in the language of F1. To my understanding, such would not meet the Wikipedia guidelines on use of national varieties of English. Hope that's convincing ;-) Happy to discuss if not. Cheers. 4u1e 13:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
PS: What else I was doing was polishing up Variegated Fairy-wren and Amanita ocreata....currently at FAC (given you missed lion...). Circeus noted the sorry state of the destroying angel article when I did Amanita phalloides, so I got round to developing Amanita virosa (I like 'em in FA sets...) as I had to brush up on some mushroom knowledge..., but the taxonomical headache around that species and Amanita bisporiga dampened my enthusiasm, however I quickly built up Amanita ocreata as it is fairly well circumscribed...thought the death cap was lonely as the only fungal FA....let me know if there's anything I missed. cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 08:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I know you don't want to see Exploding Scattergories, but do you think one for Biographies would be appropriate? Good work! -- Ling.Nut 05:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
(undent) Yes, everything that deals with sex and/or violence of any kind is huge... Video games on Wikipedia? Cursed hoi polloi! Back, I say! Begone, foul beasts! -- Ling.Nut —Preceding comment was added at 06:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Great idea; if I were retired, I'd do it. At the moment, I can't service FAC and FAR/C a tenth as much as I should. It's a madhouse.
Ezra Pound: extraordinarily elegant dirty old man? Tony (talk) 13:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to drop you a note thanking you for your participation in my RfA, which was successful (137-22-5). I'm sure that sounds sarcastic, considering, but it's actually not. You presented a valid concern and I appreciate that you dropped the strong from your oppose. I look forward to proving to my opposers that I have learned from that situation, and hope to get involved in the workshop. Thanks for your consideration and best regards. Lara ❤ Love 19:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
You appear to be the main editor of this article, so in case you didn't notice, I thought I'd let you know that I left some queries in HTML comments after I copy-edited it earlier. I'm informed by one of the esteemed admins that I shouldn't add these, as although "no one is ever going to read hidden comments…[they] detract from the quality", so I thought I'd point it out before somebody removes them in the name improving the encyclopedia. They are minor points, but things I couldn't clarify without some knowledge of the subject. An interesting article and certainly one of the best of those recently featured. Andplus 16:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Marksell. I thought one was supposed to get a consensus to have an FA removed, rather than obtain a majority ("The featured article director or his delegates determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly.") As a matter of fact, the vote came to 9:4. Isn't this a lack of consensus rather than the contrary? PHG ( talk) 06:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
From first iteration, I checked them all for oldest FA:
I didn't check history inbetween Sanger's first iteration and the Jan 04 RBP; that would be way too much work since there are no good records and it would involved stepping through WP:FA diffs one at a time. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I vote for option 1. The beautiful article stays as is, it is just not an FA, but who cares? Also, it avoids double standards of option 2. As you say it will save a month of arguing which is guaranteed with these participants. Well, just MHO. -- RelHistBuff ( talk) 17:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
When editors I hold in high regard supported my outside view on the Durova matter, I was very pleasantly surprised; in fact, I was fully expecting to be ignored, or at best to have a few nods of agreement from the editors whose paths I had crossed. To see my view referred to in what I suspect will be a very important Arbcom case has encouraged me to believe that perhaps my "little" contributions are seen to have value here. Thank you for bringing those views to the table. Risker ( talk) 14:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Saying that another editor "sounds like a spokesperson for the Stasi" isn't really in the spirit of WP:CIV and WP:NPA. [2] . Cooler heads all around would be helpful (and yes, I need to cool down too). Raymond Arritt ( talk) 06:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Tim. Eurocopter's latest comments pretty much show his reasons for initiating that review. I don't mind leaving it open, and have tried to constructively address any relevant points he made, but the whole thing's pretty pointy and bad faith. Neil ☎ 17:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi RJ. I don't know if you noticed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Asteroid belt. It's Serendip's nom. I did a ce but it's still in limbo after a few weeks on FAC. Cheers, Marskell ( talk) 19:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It does get easier with time; lots of time. More time than I should mention :-) But the adage is true. I wish poetry worked for me, but this analytical, synthesizing brain needs facts, and the facts are sometimes in short supply when it comes to life and death. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Just writing in to say that Europa is likely to be my next project (never rains but it pours- ESA just decided to dump a year's worth of Venus Express findings in our laps, Neptune is still a sore, and of course Ceres needs attention too, but I think I can keep my eyes on Europa if I have a little help). I still intend to move forward with the plan to get all of the seven great moons included in the Solar System topic. To do that, they all need to be GA or higher. Four already are. I'd be happy to see Triton and Ganymede as GAs, but Europa should be an FA on principle. Given your interest in ET life, I thought you might want to give it a go with me. Serendipod ous 16:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This user told me yesterday he was dealing with vandals and sockpuppetry, but as I am not an admin, I thought I'd refer the incident to you to help him out :) Here it is:
"I've been dealing with vandals for a long time. I'm thinking that you've come across your fair share. Nihiltres has been helping me out but I'm afraid he's a bit caught up, possibly on a wikibreak. I'd like to bring the following to your attention:
Suspected Sockpuppets of Omnifish Suspected Sockpuppets of Hargon10 the most recent vandalism stab at my Talk Page Please help me block these users once and for all. They're all mean spirited. They obviously don't WP:AGF, and don't know how to become a positive contributor to the 'Pedia we have running here. If you could help me I'd be much obliged. User:RatedRestricted" Judgesurreal777 16:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Marskell, I posted some comments here; perhaps you can offer insight. I have posted the same inquiries to the other users involved. Thanks, -- Daysleeper47 ( talk) 21:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers it says you are available for peer review requests. Would you mind reviewing Wikipedia:Peer review/The World Without Us? I'm working on another version at User:Maclean25/sandbox to see if a "Genre" section will work. Which version do you think works best? Should there be any further revisions to the content, style or structure? -- maclean 00:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your inquiry about my WikiStyle, as it were.
I'm not exactly sure what I'm doing, but I know I want to keep wikipedia clean, vandals out, and articles good. I know how to write basic wiki, but maybe my writing style is a bit creative. If you have any tips, just throw 'em out. I'll try to catch them.
Thanks again! :: RatedR Leg of Lamb 03:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
But there was a vandal that I cannot block or forcefully reprimand, so I thought, who better than you? :) [ [3]] Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 21:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Marskell. Would you mind giving a quick look to Wikipedia:Peer review/Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale? I'm rather lost as to what I need to do to improve the article, and pointers would be nice... Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 22:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Tim, I've done a little on it. Seems pretty good to me (i.e., I made a few changes only). Tony (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way, FAR let down a good faith editor on Swedish language. The fellow has been asking for help on that article for a very long time, in several places (including my talk page and the FA talk page), and I've encouraged him throughout to first attempt to work out the deficiencies on the talk page, and to bring it to FAR only if it can't be worked out. The article has issues, and panda's attempts to fix them are being reverted. So because a pointy FAR pre-empted a necessary FAR, a necessary FAR wasn't done. If the issues continue, it will probably be back at FAR. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It has just been changed from "As part of the Manual of Style, this page is ..." to "This page is a style guideline". This is another attempt to water down the status of MOS: the edit summary says, possibly deceptively, "tweak cat entry". It's not a tweak, it's a major change that has not been (specifically) discussed on the talk page.
If there's a need for a separate template for style guidelines that are not MOSs, one should first be created. I'm sure there is one, anyway. MOS certainly needs one through which its own submanuals can announce their MOS status. Now all of the MOSs are suddenly merged into the larger set of mere "styleguidelines". If you look down the list at top right of MOS, you'll see that MOSs are under "Supplementary manuals", and the others under other lists beneath this category. Until an hour ago, the MOS submanuals had distinguishing templates at the top of their pages.
Tony (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Tony is a hard nut to crack, and thank God I had you on my side. I didn't have you for JK Rowling and it's been a much tougher ride. Serendipod ous 16:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Marskell, I recently requested a peer review for this sports-related piece that is now a solid B-class article. I have received encouraging and helpful feedback from User:Roger Davies, whose comments are on my talk page. He recommended that I expand the article to at least 1,500 words and go straight for an FA nomination. This is prudent advice, and I certainly intend to act on his suggestion to enlarge the piece. On the other hand, I sense that the article would be on stronger ground if it were first upgraded to GA standards. Any recommendations on ways to promote this article to GA status would be much appreciated. Sincerely, -- twelsht ( talk) 17:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
If finding one article in Sandy's edit history, which I checked for other purposes, interesting, and commenting on the related AfD, is to be considered WP:STALKing, then the policy would require considerable tightening. This is not "following a contributor around the wiki" in any rational sense of the phrase. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Marskell, I've responded on my talk page to your message there. Carcharoth ( talk) 10:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
How can I tell from the history who closed the Edward Teller FAR?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTD) 22:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. Since my command of English is limited, it is much easier to create lists than articles :-)-- Legionarius ( talk) 14:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
What exactly did you mean by "adminstrator warnings"? Did you intend to write "administrative warnings?" Thanks. Swarm Internationale ( talk) 18:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you didn't see an admin (thats me) removed the warnings from the user's talk page. Please stop harassing other users. John Vandenberg ( talk) 23:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
For the record, users are allowed to remove warnings, whether from administrators or not. Also, users should not remove content from another person's user page or talk page, unless it is simple vandalism. ~ UBeR ( talk) 01:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Marksell, I would appreciate if you would not get an edit war with me. It's inappropriate to revert a good faith edit that is not vandalism without first discussing it, especially if there is a discussion on the talk page. Various policies and guidelines urge us to discuss before reverting. I hope we can discuss this in a reasonable matter on the talk page. I hope you can understand I would much rather focus on what the IPCC has to say about mitigation rather than the IPCC itself, in the mitigation section. It would be appropriate to do so. I changed the entry so we can focus on the actual topic, in such a way that I think readers interested in mitigation and adaption topics will get some actual information of substance. I welcome you continue editing and adding to the mitigation section, but please don't change it back to discussing the IPCC. That would be more appropriate elsewhere. Thanks for understanding. My regards, ~ UBeR ( talk) 20:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Gettysburg needs attention; I'll try to look tonight. Do we need to revisit timing on some of the noms, considering the number of reviews? Kaypoh currently has four noms initiated; Chess was reviewed less than a year ago. Two of ALoan's FAs appeared almost simultaneously, raising questions about the unfortunate timing. One article that could have benefitted from review was removed because it was a "bad faith" "pointy" nom, and others are being flagged as bad faith (what happened to AGF?) How do we figure out which noms need to run their course? I can understand two Emsworth noms at once, but two ALoans?? I would want to work on his articles, but two over the holidays isn't going to happen. For that matter, considering the holidays, even one may not happen. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Three hours and counting, and I just finished processing today's watchlist, and caught up on yesterday's AN/I, which got closed without my final comment. Some strange assumptions there. Oh, well. I see the "bad faith" FAR issue also surfaced in that discussion; I have put many hours into Mav's National Park FAs at FAR. Do you think either Mav or Mongo would be willing to help on ALoan's Park FA, since that is their territory? I haven't had time to look closely at the Lisbon FAR yet, but perhaps I could ping some Portuguese-speaking friendly friends for help? The timing stinks, because when I have a house full of people over the holidays, I can't keep the same pace I maintain at other times. I'll finish up looking at Gettysburg because it seems close, but I'll have to back off on others until mid-Jan. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Because BBC and the other news stories are being updated constantly, what was verifibiale yesterday may not be so today where they drop particular sentences. Are you telling me that BBC changes their content after the fact? I've never encountered that, but I cite them a lot on Chavez, so this could be a problem. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, 5 nearest star systems as a Featured Topic? I'd say Sirius and Alpha Centauri could be gotten up to FA and Wolf 359 and...the other one...could be GA (or FA if ambitious....). cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I am leaning toward keep on Riel if some paragraphs such as "Riel reconsidered" are cited. Overlinking is a concern but not major in my opinion. Joelito ( talk) 15:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, got distracted. But I'll give it a last throw tomorrow, and thanks for your patience on this one. Problem is I just don't like GM (I actively dislike him); but I just don't want one of Filiocht's demoted. Ceoil ( talk) 16:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan at FAR, when it just passed FAC. Since I passed it at FAC, I don't want to be the one to explain the rules. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, could you restore this to my user space? Thanks, Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 04:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Marskell! In order not to mess up your painstaking work on the refs for the Battle of Musa Qala could you please go to my Talk page and e-mail me a contact e-mail contact address. I want to provide you with some confidential details and refs to enable an error on the article to be corrected. Richard Harvey ( talk) 22:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Long range TFA requests and Wikipedia talk:Long range TFA requests. Sarsaparilla ( talk) 03:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't miss User talk:Ceoil, viewed in the context of losing Outriggr. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Marskell Hi Thanks for the info. I have done a couple of changes - some spelling errors - updated the aerial image I created with province borders and included Bahgran location, you may need to refresh your cache to see it. I have also moved it further down and to the right of the page as it detracts from the layout of the start of the article, clashing with both the infobox and the content box. I've also deleted two duplicated casualty reports - children killed in cross fire and child hanged. They are already stated in the article in other places but worded differently. I have included a Videolink from an independant Journalist shown on the BBC News, by Stephen Gray, who was attached to the Yorkshire Regiment during the battle, it shows the incident with the 2 children injured in the car when the driver was shot and also the one of the soldier, Sgt Lee (Johnno) Johnson, killed by the landmine explosion. I have also replaced the image of Sgt Johnson with a better one as per comments on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Musa Qala Richard Harvey ( talk) 13:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Marskell, recently the Lead(II) nitrate article was demoted from FA class, for reasons pointed out in a FA review process. In this review process, you commented that there are wrong facts in the said article. Would you please be so kind as to assist in a small clean-up action for the article, and add some pointers to the wrong facts on the article's talkpage, please? I would highly appreciate your support. Merry Christmas. Wim van Dorst ( Talk) 21:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC).
Hey Tim, did you see WP:BABS and WP:FABS? cool aren't they? I did ask Betacommand to do one for mammals too but his talkpage gets so swamped so quickly it disappears like quicksand...cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher 00:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey Marskell. I guess BJ is fine, heh. I took another look at the article, and it gets my support. Good work. THanks for the kind words too. I finally have some time to be active for a bit, although come January, I fear this will not be the case. Budding Journalist 17:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Marskell, I've copy-edited the lead(II) nitrate article from the Chemicals wikiproject, after it was recentely demoted from its FA-status. In this, you contributed to the voting process. Would you please be so kind as to provide feedback in its now running FA re-candidacy? Wim van Dorst (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC).