User talk:Maralia/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Maralia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Greetings (and some Milhist business)
First, happy new year!
Second, I've raised a couple of things here which could use swift responses. May I trouble you please to check them out?
Thanks! --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
No content in Category:ASCB 2008 Wikipedia workshop articles
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:ASCB 2008 Wikipedia workshop articles, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:ASCB 2008 Wikipedia workshop articles has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:ASCB 2008 Wikipedia workshop articles, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Maralia, why is {{DANFS}} italicizing DANFS? Wishing you a very Happy New Year!! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- DANFS is a book series, the Dictionary of Naval Fighting Ships. Is that really the whole question, or am I missing something? Happy New Year to you as well :) Maralia (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- ah. No, that answers the question :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Turret explosion
Thank you for the copyedit to USS Iowa turret explosion. Cla68 (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Iowa_turret_explosion&diff=262362487&oldid=262265889
- Thanks for noticing :) I can barely fathom the work that must have gone into the article; I commend you and everyone else who worked to put it together. I was really surprised, though, to find lots of MOS and (to a lesser extent) prose issues this morning, after it had passed FAC. It seems that the review processes (both MilHist A-class and FAC) dropped the ball in supporting this one without picking up on those issues. That being said, I'm confident that those issues are now fixed and the article is fully deserving of FA status, but I remain concerned about the failure of reviewers to pick up on them in the first place. Given that we are otherwise experiencing problems at both FAC and A-class reviews, it seems likely that this concrete example might be a good catalyst for a discussion, but first I'd like to be sure you understand where I'm coming from: this is not a problem with your article per se, but rather a failure of reviewing. Would you understand my raising this issue in that context? I have a lot of respect for your work and don't want to cause any hurt feelings, but I'm concerned that the review processes seem to be going a little soft. Maralia (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- For the record, I've noted several times (somewhere on the MilHist talk pages) that the quality of A-class reviews there has declined. A year or so ago, an A-class from MilHist meant an article was FAC ready and very few issues could be found; lately, they just seem to receive automatic supports. (Not commenting on this article, just in general.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I suspect that most of the MILHIST A-class reviewers are checking for completeness, organization, and any obvious typos or grammar problems. The detailed MoS criteria such as using "pp" vs "p." in the footnotes probably aren't what they're watching out for, but perhaps it should be. A post on the project's talk page pointing out the MoS issues that are leaking through the project's A-class review forum would probably alert everyone that they need to pay more attention to MoS items. I guess I myself need to go back and review the MoS. Cla68 (talk) 06:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously a FAC fav that you get praised to the hilts for that little edit. Shows the difference between the faves and the rest of us. A caste system. All my edits, i know I know, Sandy proved in the RFC that my copy editing was worthless and "crap" if you pardon the expression - I guess all of it I have ever done - every bit as I have only received criticism and never a word of prise from Sandy. Shows the difference in how she treats people. Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 09:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Seriously, what? What happened above is:
- Cla68, who nominated the article at FAC, posted a single sentence thanking me for copyediting an article;
- I responded with praise for the work that went into the article and concern that issues were missed at FAC and A-class review;
- Sandy mentioned that she has previously raised concerns about a decline in the quality of MilHist A-class reviews;
- Cla68 responded suggesting a post on MilHist's A-class review talk.
- Nowhere in there did I get "praised to the hilts". Nor was it a "little edit", but rather several hours' work comprising over 30 edits . Nor does this exchange "show the difference in how she treats people" or "the difference between the faves and the rest of us". How could you possibly come to these conclusions from reading the simple "thank you for the copyedit" from Cla68 and the 3 sentences Sandy wrote that are entirely about the quality of MilHist A-class review and not about me or my work or this FAC in any way? Maralia (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Seriously, what? What happened above is:
- Obviously a FAC fav that you get praised to the hilts for that little edit. Shows the difference between the faves and the rest of us. A caste system. All my edits, i know I know, Sandy proved in the RFC that my copy editing was worthless and "crap" if you pardon the expression - I guess all of it I have ever done - every bit as I have only received criticism and never a word of prise from Sandy. Shows the difference in how she treats people. Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 09:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I suspect that most of the MILHIST A-class reviewers are checking for completeness, organization, and any obvious typos or grammar problems. The detailed MoS criteria such as using "pp" vs "p." in the footnotes probably aren't what they're watching out for, but perhaps it should be. A post on the project's talk page pointing out the MoS issues that are leaking through the project's A-class review forum would probably alert everyone that they need to pay more attention to MoS items. I guess I myself need to go back and review the MoS. Cla68 (talk) 06:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- For the record, I've noted several times (somewhere on the MilHist talk pages) that the quality of A-class reviews there has declined. A year or so ago, an A-class from MilHist meant an article was FAC ready and very few issues could be found; lately, they just seem to receive automatic supports. (Not commenting on this article, just in general.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Paracetamol
I have nominated Paracetamol for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.
Not sure who all were editors. But just though you would like to know. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
TfD nomination of FS1037C-related talk templates
Template:FS1037C talk and Template:FS1037C MS188 talk have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Eastlaw (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the copyedit to this article. I thought that this time I hadn't missed anything but I was surprised by how much you found that needed to be corrected. Thanks again and I'll keep working on trying not to miss so much detail. Cla68 (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Don't worry much—quality is the only hard thing to fix, and your prose is always fundamentally solid. Many of the tweaks and fixes I made there mirrored edits I had made to USS Iowa turret explosion. Thanks for always being appreciative; it's a pleasant change from being ignored or reverted :) Maralia (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Image dispatch
Thanks for doing this, Maralia. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Canvassing
Hi - Re this edit. To avoid an appearance of inappropriate canvassing you should have made the same edit at talk:Chevrolet Corvette. I've done this for you, but next time please make sure you think about whether such a notification may be construed as an attempt to influence the outcome of a discussion. It's fine to notify folks who may be interested, but you need to make sure you're notifying all "sides" equally. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate your concern, but someone proposed renaming a ship category to add a disambiguator, so I notified...the ships project. No one had suggested renaming a Chevy category to take its place, so it didn't seem relevant. In any case, I did not !vote or even express an opinion in either discussion, other than to point out the correlated article name and the recent discussion regarding it. If not !voting while giving a neutral notice to the only apparently relevant party is canvassing, then I'm guilty as charged :) Maralia (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)Huh? Looks like she was responding to the person who started that thread. Since when is responding to someone else's comment a potential inappropriate canvassing? --Kralizec! (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Wow. If neither of you can see how this might have the appearance of canvassing let me spell it out for you. The post was made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships in a thread pertaining to an identical proposed rename (usurping Corvette to mean the car and relegating the ship to Corvette (ship)). I think most people would assume the folks paying attention to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships are more interested in ships and less interested in cars (as a group) and would be more likely (as a group) to be against such a rename (of either the article or the category). The link to Chevrolet Corvette was right there, in the same thread, and it seems like it would have been fairly natural to assume the folks paying attention to that article might be interested as well (and might, as a group, have a different opinion). I'm distinctly NOT saying there was any ill intent here and not charging anyone with anything, just suggesting in what I meant to be as gentle a way as possible that such things are worth worrying about. Whenever notifying any group about anything take a minute to think about whether there might be some other group (particularly a group that might have a different opinion) that might also be interested. This is not a big deal, but "buzz off" isn't the response I was expecting. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Rick, I interpreted your note as a friendly 'hey be careful, someone could see this as canvassing'; thanked you for the comment; and explained why I did what I did: essentially, I saw a ship category name discussion. Category names nearly always follow the pattern of article names, and a very recent article rename discussion overwhelmingly concluded with keeping the status quo. Since there was no mention of shuffling categories related to the car models, it didn't seem relevant to take things there. I can see why someone could feel otherwise; just explaining why I didn't. I'm sorry (and, frankly, a bit puzzled) that you got 'buzz off' out of my reply above; I was going for 'thanks for thinking of me, but my conscience is clear.' Peace? Maralia (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK. So you do know about canvassing and it was not your intent to try to affect the outcome of a CFD by selectively notifying only one "side" of the discussion, but you understand how it might appear otherwise (and you'll be more careful about such things in the future). I'm quite peaceful, perhaps all the way to serene. Happy editing! -- Rick Block (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Rick, I interpreted your note as a friendly 'hey be careful, someone could see this as canvassing'; thanked you for the comment; and explained why I did what I did: essentially, I saw a ship category name discussion. Category names nearly always follow the pattern of article names, and a very recent article rename discussion overwhelmingly concluded with keeping the status quo. Since there was no mention of shuffling categories related to the car models, it didn't seem relevant to take things there. I can see why someone could feel otherwise; just explaining why I didn't. I'm sorry (and, frankly, a bit puzzled) that you got 'buzz off' out of my reply above; I was going for 'thanks for thinking of me, but my conscience is clear.' Peace? Maralia (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Wow. If neither of you can see how this might have the appearance of canvassing let me spell it out for you. The post was made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships in a thread pertaining to an identical proposed rename (usurping Corvette to mean the car and relegating the ship to Corvette (ship)). I think most people would assume the folks paying attention to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships are more interested in ships and less interested in cars (as a group) and would be more likely (as a group) to be against such a rename (of either the article or the category). The link to Chevrolet Corvette was right there, in the same thread, and it seems like it would have been fairly natural to assume the folks paying attention to that article might be interested as well (and might, as a group, have a different opinion). I'm distinctly NOT saying there was any ill intent here and not charging anyone with anything, just suggesting in what I meant to be as gentle a way as possible that such things are worth worrying about. Whenever notifying any group about anything take a minute to think about whether there might be some other group (particularly a group that might have a different opinion) that might also be interested. This is not a big deal, but "buzz off" isn't the response I was expecting. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)Huh? Looks like she was responding to the person who started that thread. Since when is responding to someone else's comment a potential inappropriate canvassing? --Kralizec! (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
<3
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
| Thank you for your copyediting efforts on Alaska-class cruiser; they are so appreciated over here. You've just got to hog the glory...show up during this FAC and help me respond to Sandy's comments, show up during the FAC for Nevada and literally save the day...;D Thank you so very much! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 07:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC) |
Proposed deletion of Nazi belt buckle pistol
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Nazi belt buckle pistol, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
- <article appears to be a hoax, with no verifiable sources possible>
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Yaf (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
medvandal (another hop)
90.193.250.91 blockedLeadSongDog (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey Maralia
I see that you've been helping with USS Connecticut (BB-18)...do you think it's ready to undergo a FAC? I know that it isn't ready now, but I'm counting on reviewers to help with the comments they put up...an you know why I have to nom it today or tomorrow. :/ Thanks, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Tomorrow, please. I haven't even made it all the way through with a rough copyedit; there are missing conversions, and seemingly some overlinking, and of course some prose work to be done. I *really* don't want the FAC to get tripped up by prose issues—a single serious prose oppose from a studious FAC reviewer could really stall things, as it's difficult to get a reviewer to re-read an entire article after an oppose on prose grounds. I'm nearly done for the night, but I'll be back at it in the morning. Maralia (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oh gosh. I totally forgot about convert templates when writing. Arghhh...
- Sounds good. Thank you so much Maralia! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
SS Kroonland
Sigh… I finally got around to nomming SS Kroonland for FAC after writing it last June. I've gotten an I-don't-like-it from Tony and an oppose from Laser brain on prose issues. I hate to ask you, but would you mind terribly taking a look at the article for both prose and length? Your copy-editing magic will be most appreciated… — Bellhalla (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sure thing; I had noticed the FAC and planned to give it a once-over anyway. Your writing is usually very solid but Tony and Laser brain know what they're talking about when it comes to prose :) I'll try to get to it later tonight or tomorrow. Maralia (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Oops...I just forgot it. I have added it. Actually the article failed last time only and only due to Sources and Images. There was hardly any review on the Prose and context. The only review was regarding sources and Images. If there was a review done on the Prose and context, I would have surely nominated it after a month maybe. But the only review was regarding sources and Images which I think I have resolved. Thanks, KensplanetTC 05:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Operation: Trailblazer
After a straw poll on the matter I have initiated the FT nom for the Iowa-class battleships. Since your name appears on the list of major contributors I am leaving this message here to inform you of the nom's opening and to offer you a chance to chip on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
FAC archival needed
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peel P50 is a driveby nom. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just sat down—will take a look at it now. Thanks for the ping. Maralia (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, never mind, Sandy took care of it. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ha! Ships crossing in the night :) I have an all-day Dr. app't tomorrow, so wont' be able to fully catch up 'til maybe Wednesday, but I did happen to notice that one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hope all goes well! Will try to help hold the fort til then :) Maralia (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you; you're a dear :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hope all goes well! Will try to help hold the fort til then :) Maralia (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ha! Ships crossing in the night :) I have an all-day Dr. app't tomorrow, so wont' be able to fully catch up 'til maybe Wednesday, but I did happen to notice that one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, never mind, Sandy took care of it. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Loves Art: DC
See:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art
The Smithsonian American Art Museum will be having a Wikipedia Loves Art! meetup on Friday, February 27 from 5-7 pm in the Kogod Courtyard. Come share your experiences, meet the other teams, and take some photos! While RSVPing isn't necessary drop Jeff Gates an email if you're planning on attending so he can get a head count: gatesj (at) si.edu. (Note: The SAAM is located in between Metro Center and Gallery Place (closer to the Gallery Place/Chinatown metro), and is convenient to all 5 metro lines.) ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Overdue thanks…
|
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
| Sincere thanks for your extensive copyedit to SS Kroonland. Your efforts helped to overcome prose-related concerns at its FAC and have helped to almost make it a Featured Article. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC) |
Re:FT
Its been an honor to have your assistance with the nom. It is my hope that with this nom's passing other FT noms on ships will arise. Still, it feels good to be the plank owner of this particular achievement :) I look forward to working with you in the future. Sincerly, TomStar81 (Talk) 22:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
|
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
| For your oustanding efforts during Operation Trailblazer, culminating in the 2009 Featured Topic nomination for the Iowa-class battleships, the passage of which resulted in the first ever Wikipedia Featured Topic concerning ships exclusively, I herby present you with The Teamwork Barnstar. Thanks for all of your help, this is as much your Featured Topic as it is mine. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC) |
- LOL ! :) Yep, that needs to be fixed. Good catch :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Went back and fixed them all. Thanks for checking my typing, as always i apreciate it :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've learned to read over the typos, but that one changed the actual meaning, so I figured I should speak up :) Maralia (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Went back and fixed them all. Thanks for checking my typing, as always i apreciate it :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Connecticut
We did it, my friend! Thanks for your help throughout - it was invaluable! :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 18:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
CE Request
Hello Maralia; hope the computer woes are gradually fixing themselves. I'm wondering; if you have time, would you be able to do a copyedit of Japanese battleship Haruna? I'm hoping for an eventual FAC, but I recognize that there are some prose issues that just need a fresh set of eyes. Best regards, Cam (Chat) 05:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm so sorry I've taken so long to get back to you; I was away from home for a week and missed your post in my less-frequent checks of my talk page. I'll be out this afternoon but will try to get to it tonight or tomorrow. Maralia (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- No biggie on taking long. Thanks in advance. Cam (Chat) 23:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
MilHist FACs
Maralia, as if you don't have enough to do :)
I'm concerned that several FACs haven't gotten solid reviews; the prose could use tightening, and I'm unclear on the use of hyphens (for example, when referring to an x mm something, shouldn't it be x-mm something?) Would you be able to glance at SMS Moltke (1910) and M249 squad automatic weapon with an eye towards the quality of review? They have support, but mostly from MilHist, and I'm concerned we need independent review. Perhaps this could be raised at MilHist if you think there's an issue? They were theoretically ready to promote, but I think more eyes could be needed. Also concerend about Heinrich Bär, which has support, but some rough prose. I'm not sure this is necessarily a MilHist issue, rather it could be a more general lack of solid reviews at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'll start looking through those when I'm done re-doing my changes to the Ships/FT/GT dispatch; in G guy's reorg edit (which was sorely needed) all my copyediting changes somehow got lost. Maralia (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for this and for taking it forwards. Geometry guy 00:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's better for it anyway. Thanks for the reorg. I know nothing about FT and GT, so I hope the two remaining paragraphs are at least accurate, if not exhaustive. Maralia (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for this and for taking it forwards. Geometry guy 00:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- and...an edit conflict. Should I throw something out the window, or just cut right to the chase and leap? Maralia (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Don't leap: I need you :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- That drink looks delicious, thanks! I'm working on Moltke now. The hyphenation (for this and any weaponry-related article) is a bitch, frankly. The problem is that "12-inch gun" requires a hyphen, but hyphens are not used with abbreviations, resulting in the ugly (and misinterpretable) "12 in gun". Maralia (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's really stupid (no wonder I can never remember) !! Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Done with M249. Going to hold off on Heinrich for now, since I see Laser brain just got to it. Frustrated about M249—the article is good, but how on earth did references in this kind of shape make it through ACR? Will tackle that beast when I am less cranky. Thanks for pinging me; it's much easier to leap in where needed than it is to keep track of everywhere help might be needed. Maralia (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry about that; I've been trying to do a reference MoS review on every ACR not nominated by YellowMonkey, but I either didn't get to that one or wasn't trying to get to every one at that time... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Criminy, way back then I had barely managed to beat reference formatting through your head :) Maralia (talk) 05:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- LOL no, I had most of it by then. Watching you work on Nevada was a ... minor tutorial, you could say. (alright, so it was a major tutorial. :P) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Criminy, way back then I had barely managed to beat reference formatting through your head :) Maralia (talk) 05:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry about that; I've been trying to do a reference MoS review on every ACR not nominated by YellowMonkey, but I either didn't get to that one or wasn't trying to get to every one at that time... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 04:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Done with M249. Going to hold off on Heinrich for now, since I see Laser brain just got to it. Frustrated about M249—the article is good, but how on earth did references in this kind of shape make it through ACR? Will tackle that beast when I am less cranky. Thanks for pinging me; it's much easier to leap in where needed than it is to keep track of everywhere help might be needed. Maralia (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's really stupid (no wonder I can never remember) !! Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- That drink looks delicious, thanks! I'm working on Moltke now. The hyphenation (for this and any weaponry-related article) is a bitch, frankly. The problem is that "12-inch gun" requires a hyphen, but hyphens are not used with abbreviations, resulting in the ugly (and misinterpretable) "12 in gun". Maralia (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Don't leap: I need you :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Pattont/c 11:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
There has recently been some conjecture as to how to describe the victory by the German forces. Can you or other members of the project group please assist in the discussion on the talk page. I intend to call for a consensus decision in order to establish the infobox statement regarding the outcome of the battle. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC).
Maybe you can explain it better. I've been attempting to explain my references concerns for a while and no luck. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've cleaned it up; how is it now?--Pattont/c 21:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Are you going to run for re-election? Even if you are not it would be nice for you to indicate as such on the table at the election page. -MBK004 02:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I do hope you decide to run, Maralia. — Roger Davies talk 05:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- You should run, Maralia. You have a knack for this, and it would be nice to see you back. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Huzzah! — Roger Davies talk 16:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- I *hate* writing about myself, plus I never feel like I accomplish enough, and it added up to a pitiful case of writer's block. Thanks for the encouragement. Maralia (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Huzzah! — Roger Davies talk 16:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- You should run, Maralia. You have a knack for this, and it would be nice to see you back. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Maralia, do you have time to glance at the comments at the bottom of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Osteochondritis dissecans and possibly work on a MoS cleanup? I saw overlinking and all sorts of other issues, left sample edits. The nominator mentioned contacting you, but apparently hasn't done so. I'm busy all day tomorrow, and had a full weekend, so if I have to do this cleanup myself, I can't get to it until Tuesday. Best, as always, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, just got back home tonight, and will take a look at it now. Left a note at the FAC. Maralia (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Maralia; between the two of us, we got it mostly cleaned up, but it's still not to my level of expectations for medical articles, so I've left notes at WP:MED asking others to go through. (I do hold medical articles to a high standard because it's my "area" and I believe medical featured articles have a "moral" obligation to be scrupulous.) A rather sloppy, uncited sentence was added post-FAC, so the article may need extra eyes, in case you want to keep it watchlisted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not done with it either. There is a fair amount of unnecessary content repetition, and a lot of redundant wikilinking—yet a lot of missed opportunities (mosaicplasty?) and some botched links (effusion in the lead). Some things just don't compute (if arthroscopic staging is "considered standard", then why is "the Anderson MRI...the main form of staging used in this article"? why does the article state—twice—that "pain killers" are used to control pain...and inflammation and swelling? why does the content of the Full thickness lesions section appear to have little correlation to the section's introductory sentence? what does OATS stand for?). There are many medical terms that could be better explained in-context rather than relying on readers to click wikilinks. I left four inline comments yesterday; I'll start listing some of these issues on the talk page. Maralia (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- What troubles me is the sub-par review that it got at FAC: I do expect more from medical articles, and I hope that Project doesn't believe that article represents our FA medical standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not done with it either. There is a fair amount of unnecessary content repetition, and a lot of redundant wikilinking—yet a lot of missed opportunities (mosaicplasty?) and some botched links (effusion in the lead). Some things just don't compute (if arthroscopic staging is "considered standard", then why is "the Anderson MRI...the main form of staging used in this article"? why does the article state—twice—that "pain killers" are used to control pain...and inflammation and swelling? why does the content of the Full thickness lesions section appear to have little correlation to the section's introductory sentence? what does OATS stand for?). There are many medical terms that could be better explained in-context rather than relying on readers to click wikilinks. I left four inline comments yesterday; I'll start listing some of these issues on the talk page. Maralia (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Maralia; between the two of us, we got it mostly cleaned up, but it's still not to my level of expectations for medical articles, so I've left notes at WP:MED asking others to go through. (I do hold medical articles to a high standard because it's my "area" and I believe medical featured articles have a "moral" obligation to be scrupulous.) A rather sloppy, uncited sentence was added post-FAC, so the article may need extra eyes, in case you want to keep it watchlisted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Another MilHist issue at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Byzantine navy; see notes at bottom (am I the only person who reviews for MoS?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks a lot for looking over those articles - I appreciate it. Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Nevado del Ruiz
I've resolved a good amount of your comments. Can you check to make sure I've done them satisfactorily? Ceranthor 23:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Have they been fixed to your content? Ceranthor 15:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ruslik fixed your concerns. Ceranthor 19:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Manners maketh man
Charming note on my talk page - bless you! Where would we elves be without wise reviewers? Tim riley (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
"Let it develop"
The template was/is still completely under development. Going to the template alone does not provide a full sample with parameters, for example: I hope this current full example clarifies that this template has a specific purpose, to avoid an immediate AfD by inviting editors to an appropriate place for community dialog. Thank you. PetersV TALK 17:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Election
Good Luck on the election for Coordinator! I Hope you Make It! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver The Olive Branch 21:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you—and good luck to you as well :) Maralia (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- And I was wondering since you haven't yet, at least at the moment, voted on it, What is your Opinion on Having a C-Class for the WikiProject? Lord R. T. Oliver The Olive Branch 02:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
invitation
You're invited to sign up as a founding member, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Historic Sites ! :) doncram (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
It's a race :)
We were both on it at the same time :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have no idea how we didn't ec at the article talk page. Notices left at article and user talk :) Maralia (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think between the two of us, we got it all :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
FAR
Thanks, hopefully I survive the upcoming bloodbath FAR. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 06:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Cleanup
yeah, no worries, i think i need to get a life man, Tom B (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
With Thanks
|
The WikiProject Barnstar | |
| For your leadership of The Military History WikiProject from September 2008–March 2009, please accept this WikiProject Barnstar. Cam (Chat) 00:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC) |
Coordinator
It seems we have our twelfth official candidate with 20 or 20+ endorsements, congratulations! Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver The Olive Branch 21:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Coordinators
There are currently 12 members with 20 or 20+, and it has been less than a week so far, that means there is two spots left. The turnout has been great. Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver The Olive Branch 21:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Pattont/c 16:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Date linking
I've responded to a comment you made at User talk:KokkaShinto. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Noel Coward
Noel Coward has been promoted to FA. Your excellent comments really helped us improve it - Thanks! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
FA categorization of Warfare
Hi Maralia. Sandy and I noticed that the warfare category of FAs has reached over 200 articles. Usually at this point we begin to subdivide the category. Could you please give your opinion on whether or how we should do this? Wikipedia talk:FA#Warfare.3F Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Greetings from WikiProject Medicine!
|
Welcome to WikiProject Medicine! I noticed you recently added yourself to our Participants' list, and I wanted to welcome you to our project. Our goal is to facilitate collaboration on medicine-related articles, and everyone is welcome to join (regardless of medical qualifications!). Here are some suggested activities:
Join in editing our collaboration of the week (the current one is Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) Discuss with other members in the doctor's mess Have a look at some related WikiProjects Have a look at the collaboration dashboard If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, or please feel free to ask for help, on talk page. Again, welcome! |
|
I see you've been an editor for a couple of years, still the above gives our standard greeting :-) David Ruben Talk 18:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
American forces casualties
I have given my reply and my reasoning at the page for the discussion. I think I have stated a fairly solid reason why the article is needed.BobaFett85 (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Congrats!
Military history Project
March 2009 — October 2009
Congrats on your election as a Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject! In keeping with the tradition of the project and in honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am honored that I was elected to my new position of assistant coordinator, and look forward to working with you for the next six months. Lord Oliver The Olive Branch 01:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thank you very much for your support for me in the Military History coordinator elections. I am honored that I was elected to my new position of assistant coordinator, and look forward to working with you for the next six months. – Joe N 01:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
|
Milhist Coordinator elections | |
| I wish to thank you for your gracious support during my bid for a position as Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject in the recent March 2009 elections. I was initially apprehensive to stand for election as I was unsure on how well I would be received, but I am pleasantly surprised and delighted to have been deemed worthy to represent my peers within the project. I assure and promise you, I will strive to do my upmost to justify your trust in myself with this esteemed position. Thank you, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Soldiers of the 4th Australian Division crossing a duckboard track through Chateau Wood, Ypres on 29 October 1917. |
Thank you
|
I seem to have drawn a crowd of support! |
I'm honored to have been elected as a coordinator of the WikiProject Military history and most sincerely thank you for your vote of support. I will endeavor to fulfill the obligations in a manner worthy of your trust. Many thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC) | |
| A World War I U-boat draws a crowd after grounding on the Falmouth coast in 1921. |
Explanation
Wrong template, I meant to igve him {{subst:uw-vandalism1|Ronald Reagan}} instead of {{subst:uw-vandalism2|PageName}} since this isn't the first time time he's done this. Soxwon (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
New FAC rollout
Maralia, Gimme has a plan to roll a new FAC template, explained at Template talk:FAC. I don't completely understand all of it, and am heading out to dinner now, home in a few hours ... maybe you'll get a chance to look at it? He was thinking it could run as this week's Dispatch. I suspect it will make sense to you since you speak bots and scripts and all that ... best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wait wait wait. FAC is merging with AfD? Or am I missing something? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Maralia, query for you at User talk:Gimmetrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions about User:Maralia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |