This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dana boomer. 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.
I read an article to which you have made major contributions, Horses in World War I, and thought it ready for Featured Article status, and nominated it. However, I was informed that FAC is hostile to 'drive-by noms,' and that I should consult you. I could withdraw, if it would make it better for you. mynameinc (t|c) 20:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 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) 21:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Raid at Cabanatuan
Thanks again for taking the time to review the article. I have addressed the remaining issues with the images, and would appreciate it if you could take another look at your convenience. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Re:GAN Review
Hey Dana. When I did my initial review, the nominator indicated that he was going to be busy with exams this month, so I agreed to give him some extra time. If he still hasn't done any more in the next week or so, I'll probably end up failing it anyways, as I don't think it's GA material as-is. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about this being an "easy keep" per your comment to Ed. The content looks rather odd and the Vietnam section raised a few red flags for me, but it would be good to get people who follow US politics closely. In general I just think the layman reviewer is too reluctant to question anything at all about the content across all review processes. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Dana, this article is part of a student project, and she has been unable to get feedback from the project on it. Any good pointers you can give her will be appreciated. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about FAC, but if encouraged she might. She's done a good job. Initially she started on a different article, but got a lot of flak on it, so switched to this one. It could be an interesting FAC article, but it needs a lot of work before then. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner
I noticed the comment you left for Plotfeat at the FAR. I have raised some more FAR-worthy points about the article's content at the FAR (the usual: sourcing, prose), in case you haven't seen it yet. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)04:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I saw your comments. As I told Plotfeat, I'm planning on letting both FARs run their course - my main point to him was to limit his number of nominations and perhaps raise the concerns on the talk page first. Dana boomer (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
First off, on behalf of myself and my co-coordinator Wizardman, I would like to thank you for the efforts that you have made so far in this GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a success, and that is thanks to you. See this Signpost article about what this drive has achieved so far.
We're currently heading into the final week of the drive. At this time, if you have any GANs on review or on hold, you should be finishing off those reviews. Right now, we have more GANs on review or on hold than we do unreviewed. If you're going to start a GA review, please do so now so you can complete it by the end of the month and so that the nominator has a full 7-day window to address any concerns.
Hi Dana, I was dinking around a little with the horse portal, replaced that photo of the Mangalarga Marchador that got tossed, and added some new DYKs, please slap me upside the head if I messed up anything. You did SUCH a cool job with that, I didn't realize how well it is designed to just keep working in the background...wow! Montanabw(talk)22:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi if you find the time for it, please review Oba Chandlers GA review that i have placed on the articles talk page. I have seen you have shown interest in it before so. I also like your earlier reviews and I think you will find that all your concerns has been taken care of. Thanks.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in the April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive
GAN backlog elimination drives chart up to 1 May
On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, I'd like to especially thank you for your efforts over this past month's GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a complete success, which hopefully results in more expedient good article reviews, increasing users' confidence in the good article nomination processes. Even if you made just a small contribution, it still helped contribute to the success of this drive. Here is what we have accomplished this last month in this drive.
661 total nominations were reviewed. 541 of them passed (~81.8%), 97 (~14.7%) failed, and 23 (~3.5%) ended on hold.
Excluding extremes, the longest wait for someone's GAN to be review was about 11.5 weeks at the beginning. (I mistook the figure when I reported to the Signpost that it was 13.) At the end, with the exception of one that was relisted, the longest wait is now at 10 days.
63 different users participated, each having completed at least one GAN, with others also having helped out behind-the-scenes in making the drive a success.
The drive started with 463 GA nominations remaining and 388 unreviewed. At the end of the month, we ended with 89 remaining (374 or about 80.8% less) and 47 unreviewed (341 or about 87.9% less).
For those who have accomplished certain objectives in the drive, awards will be coming shortly. Again, thank you for your help in the drive, and I hope you continue to help review GA nominations and overall improve the quality of articles here on Wikipedia.
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 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) 19:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I did get it to load but it's ultra slow. Also, Dana, I'd think you'd know by now that I know to notify others of FARs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)12:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I also got it to load by going to the article talk page, clicking on the WP, and then clicking on its talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
TPH, you didn't list the notifications correctly on the FAR; others need to see the links to the talk pages where the FARs were notified, so they can be verified. You should include direct links to the listings of the FAR messages on WP and user talk pages at the top of the FAR. I used to check all of these, and have stopped doing it, so perhaps procedures have slipped, but just saying "WikiProjects notified" isn't helpful, and you should link to the user talk page where the notification is made, not the user page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that all of the projects and users notified should be listed. As SG says, this makes it much easier for delegates and other users to double check that notifications have been made. Dana boomer (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
FAR, general stuff and guidance
Dana, I apologize for not having given you better guidance at FAR-- you're doing great! I guess you can probably detect that going to FAR these days just depresses the hell out of me, and with the backlog at FAC and reviewers lacking everywhere, depressing Wiki pages are not what I need more of! I'm glad to see SV popping in to try to help out, and sorry that the page has trended so far away from Marskell's very good management, where it was rare for FARs to drag on so long, and article improvement was the norm. I have a very full day, and will be out most of the day, but soon, I will put here for you a list of the things I used to do as backup for Marskell, so that he could stay out of the minutia, and hopefully you will be able to locate an active FAR participant who will do similar things to help you out. I'll get back to you, and I apologize again for not having been more help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Sandy! I look forward to reading the list, and any other guidance that you may have. Please also feel free to e-mail me if you wish, although I know that you usually like to keep Wiki stuff on-Wiki. Dana boomer (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Horses
I've made some shouty inline notes on the article here. They are only in caps because it's easier to spot them and I'm too lazy to do a proper review with bullet points and quotes and all that stuff. Yomanganitalk00:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I really really think we should allow at least one in each section, and just leave it at that. Makes things a bit simpler as far as operation. We are already changing things by stricter enforcement, etc etc. Thank you! :) -- Cirt (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
As I said on the FAR page, I think it should depend on the backlog. That would prod reviewers and editors into doing more to get articles moved through the process more quickly (hopefully to better keep rates, as articles that have consensus to keep can be moved through in less than a month, while articles that are delisted have to be on the page at least a month). However, before I comment more, I am going to wait and see what the disussion seems to be on the FAR page, as this really goes by community consensus, not what my personal feelings are. Dana boomer (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Dana, thank you so much for being patient with this, its been a slow slog - I am a naturally lazy slob! Also just to congratulte you on taking on one of the most thankless but necessary jobs on wiki -FAR delegate - it will be a rough ride but I get the impression that you are though and cool enough to meet it. Ceoil (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but where would the second one be? I see one by Malleus about half way in, and then another one by Cirt at the bottom that cites Malleus' reasons. Am I missing something? Dana boomer (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
You're right (I've got to slow down ... still haven't caught up to give you my long response) ... it was Cirt's mention of Malleus that I misread as signed by Malleus. Whew. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Re: Half-Life 2
Dana, before I give the examples of what sections or parts in the article that needs fixing, I need to know if Subzerosmokerain is still gonna work on the problems. Do you get me? GamerPro64 (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I posted my comments. Also, I got your message after I posted it. However, I don't think I was too nit-picky. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I actually do have a question, that last section of the article, concerning mods, really has little to no references as i've been searching over the internet. I really believe that section is a lost cause. Is there anyway to simply remove that section? The rest of the article, personally, looks to be shaping up and I think i'll be finished with it at the end of the week (even though my fixes are minor). Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I doubt this will help but I was on an extended Wiki (rather, technology) break from June 21st up until now. I hadn't worked a lot during the month of June up until June 20th, so that's my fault. But I hoped to expect that my inactivity would tell you it wasn't laziness but a break. Reworking it and resubmitting it to FAC isn't much work but I just wanted to explain my actions. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes I will continue working on it as I have time, I'm a bit busy at the moment, so I'm only doing major things where people have specific issues. Some of the requests (eg reformatting the references to be consistent) are time-consuming mechanical work, although I will get to it eventually if nobody else does it. NicM (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC).
Re: Legend of Zelda
I've got to hunt for jobs and housing in the coming weeks, and I've got a wedding, graduations and other stuff on tap this weekend... honestly I don't think I'll have the time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)18:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Suomi, I'm not sure why you think nominating FARs is so controversial - it happens on a regular basis with little drama. Yes, there is occasionally an editor who finds it an affront to their pride when one of their articles is nominated at FAR, but for the most part editors simply fix up the article and are done with it
This is mostly true but not completely true. I know of a case where it isn't. I only know because some of those bad people have briefly crossed editing paths with me. I only edited a question on a talk page about a peripheral issue. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but one case should not be the reason to completely change an entire process. Perhaps you should get more involved in the FA and FAR processes, to see how much work actually goes into these, and how the editing environment in generally collegial? Featured articles do have conflicts just like any other article on WP, and it sounds like you had a bad experience on the talk page of a featured article, rather than on a FAC or FAR page specifically. There is really no such thing as "bad people" here on Wikipedia, simply people with differing (sometimes wildly differing) opinions. You seem to be mainly discussing one article in your examples, although you won't name that article specifically. As I said on the talk page, if you don't want to name the article in the WP space, send an e-mail to an editor that you trust, or one of the FAC or FAR delegates, detailing your concerns about the article. Or just go ahead and nominate it for FAR yourself - there is nothing that people on Wikipedia can do to you other than type "loudly". Dana boomer (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your invitation to get involved in FAs. I will accept. I transformed a stub to an article to GA almost single handedly (of course, giving thanks to advice of others along the way that I've asked to help). I would like to make it FA. I will first just make limited comments about other FAC then when I have sufficient experience will make more substantial comments then make my article an FA. Thanks for the encouragement! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that Dana makes her own luck as far as FAC is concerned. How many editors were invited to comment on every aspect of the article before its nomination? How much better prepared could it be? MalleusFatuorum20:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks you two. Malleus, I really try to invite as many editors as possible, just because I hate being stressed during the FAC process. I would have been tearing my hair out at Yoman's list of issues if they had come up during the FAC, but since I had all the time in the world to work on them before the FAC it was really no big deal. Same with the image issues. I really appreciate all of the reviewers who put time into it before-hand - there's no way I could do it without all of you! Dana boomer (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it's a lot easier to deal with the inevitable when there isn't a time crunch to get things done. It's a good lesson for all of us! Montanabw(talk)17:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for volunteering to help with that Good Article student assignment project. This is just the heads up that students have begun to work on the article. The aim is to have the article ready for GAN by June 5; feel free to wait till then - but also feel free to comment on their progress and offer suggestions before that date. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, the article I am working on, Stephens City, Virginia, just received GA status. I was wondering. What is the next step? Do I immediately take it to FAC? Do I work on it? I am unsure what to do next. Help? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Annoyingly, the FAC has closed while I was reviewing it, but one comment I was going to make there (which wouldn't have detracted from the support); how confident are you for "Cavalry fired the first shots of the war for Britain" (currently uncited)? History books (and Wikipedia) generally name Alhaji Grunshi as having fired the first British shots of the war; Edward Thomas fired the first British shot in France, not in the war as a whole. – iridescent20:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Although I'm happy the FAC was closed, it's too bad you weren't allowed to complete your review - I always welcome more comment on the article. As far as your comment above goes, I have removed that partial sentence. It was supposed to be showing that cavalry was there from the beginning to the end of the war, and was a summary of the (sourced) statement above that clarified that it was the first shot in France. After a second look, however, it was actually rather redundant, and so I have removed it. I would love to hear any further comments you have on the article, either here or on the article's talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
AND HOORAY for one heckuva accomplishment! This was one tough row to hoe for you! Mega congrats, I hope you are popping the cork of your favorite beverage to celebrate this FA! Kudos! Montanabw(talk)04:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, guys! The FAC was actually quite a bit easier than I thought it would be - I kept expecting someone to find some aspect that I had missed completely or ask me to re-write the entire article or something. Yay - now on to another horse breed or something! Dana boomer (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Or Horses in World War II, which despite being long and referenced needs improvement... I honestly saw the FAC, but never commented because after two reviews of the article (GA and A class), what more could I have said? Good work, Dana- I knew there was an FA in there way back at the GA review. Courcelles (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 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) 20:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Portal
Hi Dana, I added more of the GAs and FAs to the Horses portal, hope I did it right and that there aren't getting to be too many random selections. (That feature is SO cool). I had a question on the DYK section, though, what does "seed=5" mean in {{Random subpage|page=Portal:Horses/Did you know|start=1|end=15|seed=5}} ? Montanabw(talk)19:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I have yet to figure out what "seed" means. I've read the documentation on it multiple times, but it just keeps flying over my head :) I won't remove them now, but don't be suprised if a bot removes the pictures from Easy Jet, etc. They're fair use, and they were bot removed as non-necessary the last time I added them. Maybe they'll stick this time... Dana boomer (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, they did. Oh well. Who are we to question the wiki-gods. So the "seed" thing doesn't limit the rotation to only five DYK's, does it?? Montanabw(talk)23:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't think it limits it to only five, because I've seen way more than that on there. At some point I'll have to find the editor who wrote the documentation for that little thing and ask them what exactly it does. Dana boomer (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
It's an optional parameter, and for the way you're using {{Random subpage}} it doesn't matter what it is. Most random number generators are just complicated functions, but they need some number to start them off. This number is the seed. If you use the same seed every time you get the same sequence of "random" numbers. The only reason you would want to use the seed parameter with {{Random subpage}} is if, say, you had each of the DYK statements on its own subpage (rather than four to a subpage as it is now). Then putting
{{Random subpage|page=Portal:Horses/Did you know|start=1|end=15|seed=5}}
{{Random subpage|page=Portal:Horses/Did you know|start=1|end=15|seed=5}}
{{Random subpage|page=Portal:Horses/Did you know|start=1|end=15|seed=5}}
{{Random subpage|page=Portal:Horses/Did you know|start=1|end=15|seed=5}}
on the portal would give you four copies of the same DYK fact, whereas if each of the above had a different seed you would get four different DYKs. (Well, probably different, that's why the example on the template documentation uses different start and end values for the separate invocations of {{Random subpage}}). Hope this helps :) Dr pda (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
So, pda, can you verify that we have the DYK's working right in the portal? It seemed to me that the rotation with several reloads DID seem to keep bringing up the same ones...we now have about 19 sets of four we can rotate...I know squat about using this stuff, and would it mess up anything to toss the "seed" parameter? it isn't on the other random subpage generators...??? Montanabw(talk)06:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes the DYKs are working fine, and all subpages are eligible to appear. No it wouldn't mess up anything to toss the seed parameter :) (If you wanted to check the effects without editing the Portal, you could paste {{Random subpage|page=Portal:Horses/Did you know|start=1|end=18|seed=5}} into the box on Special:ExpandTemplates and play with it there). Dr pda (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I know you primarily work on FA articles and reviews, but I was wondering if you could re-review this GA review. I am asking as User:Risker has blocked User:Xtzou as a sock of a blocked account. This is a problem for me as Xtzou was my GA Reviewer. Since Xtzou was blocked as a sock, I want to make sure this doesn't void my GA review, hence my request. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks...I will alert the other user I asked as well that putting his name on the review (just for the sake of having someone else's name there, so there was no question) isn't necessary. Hope all is well with you. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, let me piggy-back on this: your voice is needed at Picture of the Year 2009 before the voting is over tomorrow. You are eligible and I believe it's a great opportunity to show contributors of quality free content that we treasure their photos, so support your favorite. Best Hekerui (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
No kidding. The only thing I can think of is my edits to ship articles when I review them for GA, but things over water and things on the water are two very different categories... Dana boomer (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Sandbox invite
onetwo
?
Hi Dana, will you peek at User:Montanabw/Sandbox2 and tell me if you think the article in there is ready to go live? Other than the Piber article I worked on with Andreas, my last new article was that Colitis-X one, that brought you-know-who out of hiding to attack it, so I am really jumpy about putting forth a solo effort. Comments and critiques are welcomed! Montanabw(talk)21:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Dana. I don't suppose you have time to look at all the FAR/FARC discussions, but I thought you might be interested in Risker's[5] FARC comment and mine.[6], at the end of the page. Bishonen | talk02:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC).
Thank you for keeping the review open this long. We were trying to put together a template to ease citing technical specifications of legacy models. That fizzled, and the FAR followed. I'll try to revive activity and see if we can make some headway in the next few days. If not, we can close and delist. HereToHelp(talk to me)04:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I have switched over to {{cite mac}}, which appears to be the best solution for legacy models. I am ready, as always, to cite or remove (potentially sandbox) any specific unsourced material you can point to. HereToHelp(talk to me)04:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I like to get at least a couple of editor's input before closing, hence the reason I asked the editor to ping some of the biology editors that are active at FAC. Also, would you please expand on your previous comments at the Half-Life 2 FAR, as your comments before were rather vague and quite a bit of work has been done since then. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Sandy! I've spammed the talk pages of those four, so hopefully the review page will get some more comments before the next round of closings this weekend. Dana boomer (talk) 01:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Greetings. You were the GA reviewer for the Battle of Wanat article. I initiated a community reassessment since I think it has drifted away from the GA criteria. I invite you to provide input on the reassessment at Talk:Battle of Wanat/GA2. Thanks.
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
Dana, I'm about half-thinking about trying to take that Sheila Varian article to GA. I don't really think it could ever go clear to FA, but I'd like to stick a toe into trying a GA again. Can you give the current version there a look and let me know (on the talk page there) where improvements may be needed, especially as it is a BLP? As you are not an Arabian horse person, you will probably have enough neutrality to see if there are problems. Thanks! Montanabw(talk)06:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Dana, could you let me know if you can't do it in the next six or eight hours, please? The whole publication is ready and waiting. Tony(talk)09:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Dana, this is a real mess. I had no idea you'd be offline all this time. I've had to ask someone else to do it, without knowing whether he is online and willing. Please email me when you come online. Tony(talk)11:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
(undent) SO sorry, Tony - I was still assuming it wasn't due until today, and hadn't checked my e-mail/WP last night. E-mail sent. Dana boomer (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
←Dana, now it's my turn to apologise. After last week's tsunami of 15 promotions, this week the cupboard is bare. Having asked Brianboulton to do the honours, we've had to postpone his involvement until next week (2 August). I presume it will be OK if we also postpone your involvement to 9 August, i.e., the Monday week deadline. By then, the "window" for choosing will have settled at Saturday to Friday UTC, so you'll have Saturday to decide and write your para. Since we'll need to tweak the page on the basis of your choice, Saturday night (or early Sunday morning) your time would be good. Thanks! Tony(talk)08:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Heh. Real life has been keeping me insanely busy. I've been keeping an eye on everything Wiki, but have had little to no time to contribute, much to my dismay. I should get back into the full swing of things in late fall/early winter (possibly earlier), but will keep checking in until then. Please ping me if there is anything urgent that needs my attention at FAR - I've do check my messages and watchlist once or twice a day and FAR every few days but I may miss something! Thanks for taking up the slack in the meantime, and sorry for leaving much of the pinging and begging for reviews to you for the moment... Dana boomer (talk) 10:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Nine months of winter and three months of too busy for words? It's like that where I am, only we call it "nine months of winter and three months of tourists!" LOL! Montanabw(talk)20:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
For reviewing my Good article nomination, Pichilemu. I know that more than 6 months have already passed, but I couldn't have said this before (I was community-banned). But well, thank you for everything on your review and I'm taking all of these comments/suggestions in account to make it a GA soon. Thanks again :) Diego Grezwhat's up?22:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Signpost "F and A" guest judge
Dana, it's the coming week, and we should have the list complete on the SP page with links by Friday UTC. The window is last Saturday to next Friday. There will be a prepared space for your choice and reasons. Saturday is the best day to do this, although if you're super-busy on the weekend, late Friday is fine if you can see nothing much more will be promoted by midnight UTC. I'll email you a reminder on Friday. Thanks! Tony(talk)04:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good, Tony. I'll keep an eye on the promotions this week, and try to get it done last thing Friday night or first thing Saturday morning. Dana boomer (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Putting the Sheila Varian article up for GA. Any help or advice appreciated. As you know, I have a bad habit of drawing the petty, annoying people to review and then getting hooked by their nonsense, so your sense of what's a legitimate beef I need to fix versus a person who is just trying to be annoying will be much appreciated. I value your view on these... wish me luck! Montanabw(talk)20:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I asked for a clarification on an FAC-related issue here. That talk page is not frequented much by users, so I'm sending out some messages in the hope that one of you can shed some light on this. Prime Blue (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Trait du Nord
Ok ! I understand easily when I read un english, but when I write i'ts really difficult for me to make me understand. Thanks to you for your work, and for the Trait du Nord too, the breed is really endangered. --Tsaag Valren (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Tooltips and collapsible text (2nd notice)
This here really is a pressing issue given the length of the discussion – and the virtual inability to continue without having this issue clarified. Those proposed solutions would directly affect FAC candidates if they are impossible to use, so you FAC delegates are propably the only ones who can answer this. Please help. Prime Blue (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
Hi Dana; re this edit - I originally put the template as Equine, because the infobox says "Breed: Thoroughbred Cross" and I couldn't find anything to suggest that the horse was a full Thoroughbred. Also please note that since 26 July 2010, {{WikiProject Thoroughbred racing}} respects the usual |class= and |importance= parameters. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello + Fermi Paradox
Hi Dana,
Thank you for the message at the Fermi Paradox FAR. It's also good to see that the FA review has a new delegate!
I'm not sure when I can work on the page itself -- hopefully in September and October. The best look at this topic is Stephen Webb's: "Fifty Solutions to Fermi's Paradox and the Problem of Extraterrestrial Life". In fact, the science has advanced enough on the topic that the answer is actually in his book: at least as far as the Milky Way Galaxy is concerned, human beings are the first extra-terrestrials capable of inter-stellar travel.
But I don't know how to get that across on a Wiki page without starting a mad editing spree! A lot of people gravitate to the topic. If I don't edit the FAR soon do try to find a copy of the Webb book; it's a great read.
Yes -- if you loop back through the various FAR edits you'll find myself and a few Wiki-friends started the current review process in 2006. It really is good to have new editors settle into old processes so that the old editors can try new things.
Hi Secret and Courcelles! Thank you for your interest - I am honored by the faith it shows in me. I have considered running in an RfA. However, I don't really want to self-nominate - it just doesn't seem like me for some reason. Also, if someone else does nominate me, I would like it to be someone that I've worked with in the past, so that they have a more "personal" picture of me to present to potential voters. Since I have such stringent criteria for my own nomination, I'm fairly sure it will be a while (if ever) before I run :) Thank you again, though, for your interest. Dana boomer (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I would nominate you, but our only interaction was back with the Horses in WWI GA/ACR. (Yes, I've changed names, and why I still have this page on my watchlist). RFA is fairly laid-back lately; not that you'd need it, but the tendency not to play twenty questions with qualified candidates is nice. Courcelles18:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Twenty letters of reference, including hand written letters from HM Queen Elizabeth II and HH Pope Benedict XVI. Exceptions will be liberally granted, however (They'd better be, else where's the boot to kick me out?) Courcelles22:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
It apparently doesn't say much about my memory that I didn't remember working with you on HiWWI, Courcelles. If you have had a name change though, that might be partially to blame - those always tend to catch me by surprise. Fainites, I don't know if you meant that to be humerous, but I laughed out loud when I read "act normal". Since most of my RL friends/family think that regularly editing wiki is the very definition of not acting normal... I still don't like the idea of nominating myself, though. Courcelles, despite the insult that I have offered by not remembering you, would you offer still be open? It's working on content creation/review processes and the like that I was getting at in my earlier post, and it seems like you're just the person :) If so, do you like to have co-noms or not? If yes to that, does anyone else offer? (Why do I suddenly feel myself sounding like an auctioneer here? Anyone else, anyone else, annnyyyyone ellllssseee? Sold!) Fainite seems to already have found my letter from dearest Lizzie. Dana boomer (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Note I only said act normal. My bid for co-nom would be a dip into a horse article and one tricky GA review. I'm sure you can get a better offer though. (off to bed now - UK editor).Fainitesbarleyscribs23:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd nominate ya, but it's a nasty thing to do to a friend! LOL! Take a look at the hammering Cgoodwin got when nominated (by someone else) and see if you can run that gauntlet. I'd say you have the right temperament (I don't, I'd just want to hammer the assorted miscreants and pretty soon my talk page would look worse than Lar's! To abuse and paraphrase the immortal words of LBJ, if nominated, will you run? If elected, will you serve? Montanabw(talk)23:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) With RfA, nothing is ever certain, but if you ran, I'm sure you would pass. Of course, if you would rather not go through such an intensely stressful week, I can certainly sympathize with that (I didn't want to either for a long time). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
And replied, although I don't know how coherant it is (it's getting a little late here, and it's been a loooonnng day!). Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
You should definitely run! If I can make it (and thanks very much for the support, by the way - my RfA just closed as successful), then you definitely will! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Most of the prep is done - it's mainly just a matter of crossing our fingers and hoping everything goes as planned now. But, I figure, get all of the stressful stuff out of the way in one swoop and then be able to get down to the nitty-gritty article writing afterwards :) Dana boomer (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
On the other hand, after the wedding, who knows when we would have talked her into an RFA? Strangely, though, despite the reputation, I didn't find RFA any more stressful than an FAC or FLC; they're both putting up your words and letting all and sundry come and comment on them, in an environment where you can be forced to discuss at length things you thought were no issue at all. </end run on sentence> Courcelles20:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Dana boomer. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bot requests. Message added 20:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I will have to think about that. I'm not really sure I'm involved enough in MILHIST things for me to actually have a shot at being elected, although I do enjoy reviewing the project's articles... Dana boomer (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dana, I checked the images and didn't find any issues (I'm thus leaving this note here, as a new talk page section just saying "no image issues" would be odd). The article does have a few images with some combination of the following: no EXIF data, low resolution and "drive-by" uploader (red link user with minimal contributions). I don't see evidence these are copyvios, but those attributes (or lack thereof) can sometimes be red flags. You might just want to keep an eye out when/if you're perusing PRE-related internet sites. Эlcobbolatalk15:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
As you asked, I've had a look through and it's perfectly understandable to me, a horse ignoramus. There's the usual MoS/prose stuff of course, but that's fairly easily dealt with. MalleusFatuorum02:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I had no idea. In the future, I'll definitely take note of that. I've never nominated articles for FAR before, I guess it was beginner's mistake. Thanks for telling me. --TheTaerkasten (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Congrats
Well, it's all over but the celebrating. And the work, oh, did I forget to mention that? The work comes now. Long, hard hours of wondering just what people were thinking. Deleting things, cleaning up messes, history merges, orphaning stub templates. And on and so on. If there's anyone qualified, though, it's you. (P.S. For at least one day you're the junior-most admin. That means coffee and doughnuts in the morning, please.) Courcelles20:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Future FARs
Hi Dana. Congrats on the adminship!
Just to let you know, if users ever trouble you in future at FAR about older reviews you can always contact me on my talk page. Sometimes a review can reopen old wounds from a previous review. Cheers, Timothymarskell (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Level One of the Cabal… Now, go perform the traditional first act of a new admin and get in an argument with Malleus. – iridescent21:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Why thank you, Tom! It is much appreciated. Errr, was there a backlog of these to be awarded? (See the award 6 or so sections up for the source of my confusion...) Dana boomer (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The military history wikiproject will soon open the September 2010 coordinator elections to determine who among us will serve on the X Tranche, the coordinator tranche beginning 28 September of this month. The current coordinators have offered up the names of a limited number of editors who we believe would make good coordinators, and your name was included in the list. Therefore, I am leaving this message on behalf of the current milhist coordinators to encourage you to run for the position of coordinator. If you have any questions or comments about the position you are welcome to ask any members of the current coordinator tranche, we would be happy to answer your questions. Note that while this message is being left to encourage you to run for the position you are under no obligation to do so, and if you decide not to run this decision will not be held against you now or at any point in the future.
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Gliding
If someone forcibly removed the copyright failing article anyway, it would remove the conundrum of de facto being able to have any old photo for non FAs where nobody uunderstands/checks YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't really understand your comment. I haven't seen anything on the gliding FARC about the article having copyright problems, just the images. And I'm not sure what removing "bad" (improperly licensed) images from FAs would have to do with using other "bad" images in non-FAs. Dana boomer (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
FFA
Dana, I've had in the back of my mind for days to call your attention to something, but haven't had time to do the research, so hope you, Gimmetrow, and YellowMonkey can sort it. Gimme recently adjusted the count at WP:FFA to account for an article which was featured, then de-featured, then re-featured. I can't recall how we do the tallies in those cases, but it will have to be sorted if Fermi Paradox is de-featured. You may need to review the edit history at FFA, and decide in discussion between the three of you how we handle those in the numbers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, I really don't know, as this isn't a situation that has come up since I became a delegate. I'll look into the history tomorrow though - it's getting late here. Dana boomer (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, sorry to be so little help, but look for Gimme's adjustment, and then you may need to confer among yourselves-- I just can't remember how we did it either. (I think Baseball may have been a similar case, as well.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Sandy, it looks like what Gimme did makes the most sense, and the count just got mixed up someplace. It also looks like Pashtun people is the only article so far that has been promoted and demoted twice. Max Weber and Fermi paradox are two more that look to be delisted soon that are in the same boat. By following how Gimme has it, the article will be counted only once in the main count (despite the fact that it has been demoted twice), but will still be counted (and listed) in the "repromoted" section. Dana boomer (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
Done! Also, Dana boomer, I wanted to thank you for the courteous, polite, and kind way in which you have approached me to inquire about this - it is a rare and most appreciated quality. -- Cirt (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Monty Roberts
Dana-
I just left a note on the talk page for the Monty Roberts article further explaining my concerns about the source if you want to check it out.
Dana, a couple thoughts on the PR: Take a look at the photos now in the Haflinger cat at commons, maybe one more image could be added and a couple of the head shots swapped out for body shots if licensing checks out? It would be nice if we had a full body shot for the lead photo. The head shot is nice, but if the image File:Halflinger 3607.jpg could be flipped to make the horse face left, it might work better. Another pretty cool image, if not a full side shot, is File:Vain Horse.jpg. There are also some fun baby photos, I liked File:KiraElayneSprung.jpg and File:Haflinger mare and colt.jpg. Plus another stamp design: File:Haflinger mare and colt.jpg. Anyway, there are more decent images over there than there used to be. What to add is your call, though, which is why I posted here and not at the PR. Montanabw(talk)22:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Meh. I've looked at most of them, and although there are some decent ones, there's not a full body shot that I really like. The one that you linked above is OK, but the horse is dirty and the halter doesn't really fit. I love the Haflinger mare and colt one, except that the foal has diarrhea on its back legs (I know this is a common foal thing, but I'm not sure if our readers would). The other foal one is cute - do you think this would be better than the current fuzzy baby pic currently in the article? The second stamp design is cool, and I debated using it, but wasn't sure if we wanted multiple stamp images in the article. It would be great to have a nice full body shot for the lead photo, but I can't find one that I really like. I added in the "vain horse" one - it's pretty, although I don't know how much it actually adds to the education value of the article. It would be better if we had more of a description (location, what the horse is doing, etc), but it's still a nice image. I agree that there are more decent pictures on Commons then there used to be, but it still hasn't gotten to where I would wish. Oh well, maybe someday in the future someone will get around to going to one of the shows and getting some nice photos...(the national show was actually last weekend, LOL). Dana boomer (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a challenge, isn't it? Heck, I fully intended to try and drive a whole hour (easy in MT) to hit the MT draft horse expo and it didn't happen! I kind of favor body shots over head shots when it can be done, maybe the baby photos could be swapped. The other thought would be to kill two birds with one stone and replace the drawing stamp with the photo stamp, which happens to have a cute baby (provided the licensing thing is OK). I think "vain horse" is probably in the Tyrolean Alps, at least it looks like them. Montanabw(talk)19:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
Hey Dana, you might have a fast solution to two of the recently-tagged dead links in the Arabian horse article, the FEI links to Olympic champions went kapooie. I need a link to th 1948 Olympics, naming the horse Harpagon as a medal winner in Dressage. Also need a new link to the FEI level wins of Theodore O'Connor. I'm stuck on the dialup this weekend, and just getting the Appy rule book downloaded to update the Appaloosa article's dead link just took me 30 minutes... :-P, :-P, :-P. If you haven't the time, I may get to it next week, sometime... Montanabw(talk)03:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
WebCite it if you can, the two sites I know of that are actually reliable for pulling Olympic results out of do not include information on the horses, and the IOC's database is even sketchy on them, not to mention just being plain difficult to get anything out of. Courcelles04:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the original footnote that Harpagon was an Anglo was from one of the Anglo-Arabian web sites that Ealdgyth made us toss as not an ideal source in that big citation improvement push we did when under the impression that we might take the article to FA. For now, if we have a cite to Harpagon by at the right Olympics, I'll find the breeding info, somewhere... Montanabw(talk)02:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
You are welcome! Please let me know if/when there are other articles you would like extra eyes on - I'm not the best copyeditor, but I can usually find a few things to complain about :) Good luck at GAN, Dana boomer (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
biography page
Hi Dana boomer,
i coincidentally have chosen you, from the list of about 1800 wikipedia's administrators, To ask you if you want to see my biography page that i created it. To move any thing in Wikipedia i must have administrator's help or send it by my self but unprotected there is alwais chanses for vandalism.
So, my name is Igor Manev from city of Skopje, Republic of Macedonia. If you see on map my country is near Greece in Europe.
I am journalist who finished medical school.During my studies i have worked in the field of journalism, in tv medias and news pappers.
My intention, latter, is to publish it in the article: Skopje/culture/people from Skopje/list of people from Skopje/movie, television figures, models and journalists.
Dana boomer, are you willing to see my biography page?
Igor Manev - Manka 00:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Igor Manev - MankaIgor Manev - Manka 00:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor manev (talk • contribs)
Hi Igor - I'm not sure what you mean by "seeing" your biography page. Any registered user is allowed to create articles on WP - you don't need an administrator's help for that. Also, articles are relatively rarely protected. Vandalism must be seen at a higher than normal level for an administrator to protect an article. If you post your article, please check to make sure that it meets the notability criteria and also adheres to the requirements for reliable sources. Biographies of living persons (even if you are writing on yourself) are held to an especially high standard for sourcing. Despite all of the above, however, contributors are discouraged from working on articles about themselves, as it tends to create a conflict of interest. Please let me know if you have further questions. Dana boomer (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dana boomer, from the (how to create an article) on wikipedia the advice is to ask a administrator to see = read any article and latter, from a sender ex. me, and with your permission to add it in to a appropriate subject on wikipedia. I already have the page with all preferences and i think it is ready to publish it in the article: Skopje/culture/people from Skopje/list of people from Skopje/movie, television figures, models and journalists.
I have the page stored in my user page: igor manev.
At this point, I don't think you should create an article on yourself, or add your name to the List of people from Skopje. Please read the links I provided above about notability, coi and reliable sources. At this point, the draft in your user space does not show notability - have you had any newspaper articles written about you? Any journal articles? Been mentioned in any books? While I'm sure you are a great TV host, just that does not confer notability. Dana boomer (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
You are right Dana if i publish it that will be conflict of interest. Macedonian newspapers wrote about me several times. What should i do with those articles ? igor manev —Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC).
If large newspapers wrote full stories about you (passing mentions or low-level stories in very local newspapers don't count), then you may have a case for an article. I would suggest posting at a related wikiproject to see if there is someone interested in helping you create an article about yourself. The Macedonian Wikiproject and the Biography WP might be of help here. I don't really have the time to help create an article at this point, but if you have the sources then either of these two projects (the biography one is more active) may be able to help you. Wikipedia:An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of may also be an essay that you'd be interested in reading - it details many of the problems that people have with articles about themselves. Dana boomer (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Dana, i will follow your advices and will write to you about what i did Igor Manev - Manka 23:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor manev (talk • contribs)
logistics
Hi, I would be happy to do the revision you outline needs to be done on this quote. Sorry I got carried away with the story of Tammuz.--Rskp (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Roslyn! I've readded a little bit of information and the reference that you provided. I've left out the entire quote, however, for a few reasons. First, the article is already fairly long (60+kb) and so we have to be careful what we add in, so as to not end up with a bloated article. Second, we want to make sure that we're not placing undue weight on a certain person or event. A multiple paragraph quote on the death of one junior officer's horse is placing too much weight on that event, especially when millions of horses died in this conflict. Third, we deliberately made sure to not go into too much detail about too many individual horses in this article. Although many officers and men loved their horses and gave them honorable burials when they died, not all of these can be, or need to be mentioned in the article. Thank you for providing the source, though, as that made it much easier when I went to readd the information that I did - this was not a corps that I had seen mentioned before, although there were many "native" units that had mounted British officers. I see that you've been doing some great work on articles related to the Palestine and Sinai campaigns - keep it up! Dana boomer (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
<image moved to barnstars page>
Congrats on your election as Coordinator of the Military history Project! In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Re: Image review at FAR
Dana, I believe the key review points for images are whether their copyright status or licensing are correct, and if they are a user's constructions, whether the sources used to construct the diagram are provided and the diagram is true to the sources. That said, I think synthesis for diagrams and use of original drawings (creations) are more content issues and not in the realms of copyright checks or image data verifiability. Jappalang (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Template:Infobox revolutionary
Hi -- the deletion proposal was for the original template for {{Infobox revolutionary}}. What you just deleted was the redirect to {{Infobox person}} that I created post-deletion. Would you undelete it? Thanks! Tim Pierce (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The consensus in that discussion was for the template to be deleted - not redirected. Therefore, the creation of the redirect was going against community consensus. Was there another community discussion somewhere else that negated the deletion discussion and decided to turn it into a redirect? Dana boomer (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
There wasn't such a consensus, no. However, I was trying to write a tool that would turn the template into {{Infobox person}}. I didn't hurry to do it before the template was deleted because I thought that Special:WhatLinksHere would still allow me to find all pages transcluding {{Infobox revolutionary}} even after it was deleted, but apparently I was mistaken. This was my bad for assuming poorly, but if you would be willing to undelete the original template for just a couple of days, to give me time to finish the translation work, it would be very helpful! Tim Pierce (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
When you say "all pages transcluding {{Infobox revolutionary}}" do you mean all pages that used this infobox, and so were linked to it? If so, these were already taken care of (I'm assuming through changing the articles over to Infobox Person, although I didn't do it myself) - you can see this at [[13]], and according to this tool there are no transclusions of the template. I'm really not trying to be difficult, just having trouble understanding why the page needs to be undeleted. Dana boomer (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I see, you're quite right. When I saw the transclusions disappear suddenly from WhatLinksHere, at about the same time the template was deleted, I assumed that the renames had not been done and that Mediawiki just wouldn't list transclusions for deleted templates. It just didn't occur to me that someone might have gotten there before I did. :-) Thanks for helping clear that up, and I'm sorry to waste your time. Tim Pierce (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Definitely not a waste of time (or at least no more so then the rest of the time I spend on wiki when I really should be doing something else!), and I'm glad we got things cleared up. Dana boomer (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dana. It seems to me that User:Yogesh Khandke is now being disruptive at the FA review page for British Empire (not to mention at Talk:British Empire). We had a stable featured article for a long time, now this user (and User:Zuggernaut - both Indian editors with an apparent bone to pick with the British Empire) are coming along and making edits without consensus and demanding this FA review. What are your thoughts on whether this has crossed the line from reasonable debate to disruption? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt03:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
At this point, the best way the FAR can move forward is to get outside opinions and resolve the comments brought up by the outside commentors so far. The image review is the biggest of these. We have had other FARs brought by users trying to push a point, and these are usually closed after a couple of outside opinions. After the FAR, however, it is up to the involved editors to say where the article goes from here. It may be that an RFC on the article or RFC/Us on various users might be in order. I'm sure you would all prefer to keep this from going all the way through dispute resolution, but that may be where it needs to go, if the disruption continues. Debate is not a problem, but changing the article against consensus even after being asked not to is disruptive. Dana boomer (talk) 12:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
