User talk:Steven Walling/Archive 10

On the page Queen of Wands, the discussion of the characters is lifted almost completely from the text on the webcomic's site. What can be done about this? Narmowen 04:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome and thanks for signing up at WikiProject Agriculture. Please take a look around our project page and talk page for things you can do and add ideas of your own. I notice you have an interest in livestock, please let me know if you think a Work Group or Task Force for livestock makes sense at this point. I tend to think the earlier we start such sub-project areas the better organized the entire project could eventually be. I look forward to editing with you in the area of Agriculture.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've begun working on the article and have addressed some concerns. Since this is a huge subject could you suggest more specifics in order to improve and expand it?
With Regards,
Havelok ۞ 20:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Van,

I think that your recent move of the material concerning the McLoughlin House into the article on Officers Row, is incorrect.

As I understand how things are, the "hierarchy" of Fort Vancouver includes:

• Vancouver National Historic Reserve--the whole area around Fort Vancouver. Includes:
  • Officers Row
  • Pearson Air Museum
  • Fort Vancouver itself

• The Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, administered by the National Park Service. Includes:
  • Fort Vancouver
  • The McLoughlin House/Barclay House
  • Does not include other parts of the Reserve, such as Officers Row, the air museum.

At any rate, it is my understanding that Officers Row has little to do with the McLoughlin House. Let me know if you think I'm in error.--EngineerScotty 22:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted myself and explained on the FVNS talk. It was a simple confusion, I failed to notice that it was a McLoughlin House in Oregon City that the passage covered. VanTucky ^Talk 22:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. --EngineerScotty 00:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been poking around in the dog domestication section of the Dog article, and have come to the conclusion that it is has collected a lot of pure speculation and breed-hyping. People are referencing sources that say the opposite of what they are claiming. Fixing all of it is too much for me to do alone. I think it would be best if the entire domestication of the dog section was merged over to the domestication of the dog article, and in the process purged of hopeful speculation. In fact, what would be good is a Speculation section where each myth about the domestication events was labeled a speculation. What do you think? Speciate 05:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think an entire speculation section for each theory is necessary. What it should do is give an overview of the whole Domestication article, give a {{mainarticle}} link, and leave it at that. At the most, a sentence or two about "a proliferation of various minority scientific and popular theories on the domestication of the dog and breed development" would suffice. VanTucky ^Talk 05:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No, no, not for each theory. What I would like is your input on the changes I make. How about I make a few changes at a time, paring down the domestication section, and then wait for dissent? For example, what did you think of my adjustments to the DNA evidence bit? Speciate 00:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Do I remember correctly that you used to have a note saying that you never intent to accept a nomination for administrator on your userpage? If that is not true, would you consider allowing me to nominate you? Tim Vickers 23:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

First off, you flatter me! Actually, I removed it not long ago. I've tempered in my attitudes towards adminship, and understand that it really is no big deal. Keeping that in mind, I'd totally let you nominate me. Though I'm not sure if I really need admin tools for what I do. What do you think? VanTucky ^Talk 23:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely that people get too worked up about it, with partly that in mind I'm in the middle of a modest recruitment drive to expand the pool of admins a bit - I think any reliable editor should have the tools, even if they will only use them occasionally. I do think you would be an excellent candidate, particularly since you have no strong desire to become and admin for its own sake! Tim Vickers 00:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I know for sure there are things people could quibble about that I've done. Sometimes I get hot headed, and three months ago I was blocked for violation of 3RR on Mike Godwin. I honestly think this (other than me not being smart enough to not revert) was a simple confusion over the difference between adequate references and adequate citations. I haven't been in a good-faith edit war since, just warning you though. VanTucky ^Talk 00:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look through that discussion and I think people are generally sympathetic towards editors who try to insist that bio articles are carefully referenced. With an otherwise clean block log in over a year of editing I think if you note this specifically and discuss it in the nomination in light of WP:BLP it won't be a major problem. Tim Vickers 00:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good then. Thanks for the offer Tim, and I humbly accept! VanTucky ^Talk 00:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll write up your recommendation. A point people are sure to make is the proportion of your edits without an edit summary, could you turn on the "Remind me if I forget" option in your preferences? Tim Vickers 00:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. One other point to: my total edit count is like 17,000, but at least a 1,000 of those are to my own userspace (before I learned to use the preview button). It may be better just to give counts for mainspace, xfd, etc. VanTucky ^Talk 00:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Support! What, I'm too early? Open the damn door and lemme in! =) -Pete 00:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks pete :) VanTucky ^Talk 00:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Good luck mate, AfD transcluded. Tim Vickers 01:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

VanTucky, thanks for your vigilance on go articles, especially, go shape. With this years experience you have blossomed into a fine editor. Perhaps we can play go some day. I am variable in fighting strength, between 3Q and 1D. Larry R. Holmgren 04:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Larry. I'd love to play sometime, though I fear you're much stronger than I (10kyu at best). VanTucky ^Talk 04:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Howdy VT. I was wondering if you forgot that you claimed this article? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, but thanks for the reminder. I'll get right to it if you're anxious :) VanTucky ^Talk 00:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not that anxious. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I'm doing it now. VanTucky ^Talk 00:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've made a follow-up. Thanks Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey man can you please remove that banner you put on my page?I don't think it is neccessary as people just forget to remember things.I do know how to sign my posts and fill in the edit summary.

Thanks. Jc4k 05:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• RE. Alright man, I thought you were having a go at me. I just guess I like to learn things myself! But thanks for your help, I had a quick read of the links you provided me. Peace. Jc4k 05:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Q5 added. Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The proposed pocket pets group is now active at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/Pocket pets work group. John Carter 16:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Why have you reverted my edit to Lawrence of Arabia? How and why do you think it was "not constructive"? The intolerance and animosity of people like you towards homosexuality is simply wrong and very disappointing. Lawrence of Arabia was a proud homosexual (have you even bothered to study his writings and letters?) and the homosexual movement is likewise proud of him as an icon. But by deliberately keeping this truth out of the spotlight in Wikipedia you are depriving future readers from knowing the truth! "Neoconservative" (read: intolerant and fanatic) people like you are causing great harm to Wikipedia's reputation, I am sorry to say. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.95.130 (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I knew there was something funny about you! You're a damn neocon and a bigot -- how did I not see this before? ;) -Pete 02:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Lord, I better get used to this (per my RFA). VanTucky ^Talk 02:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just stop hiding the truth, dood. ;) the_undertow ^talk 02:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You morally degenerate Southern Californians! wink, wink VanTucky ^Talk 02:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right about that. I got this last week in case I forget where I live. the_undertow ^talk 03:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

hardcore undertow. congrats. VanTucky ^Talk 03:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's what makes me the good administrator that you soon shall be. I'll come up and well get some ink. the_undertow ^talk 03:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha! So that's the secret! I'll be damned. VanTucky ^Talk 03:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent) You'll need a bathrobe soon. Inquire within. the_undertow ^talk 07:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha. I didn't come up with the 'fuckpooling' centers - the other cabalist did! As an admin, you learn to dodge things. the_undertow ^talk 05:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, best of luck with your Rfa, and thank you very much for reviewing Dyer Lum. I've left some comments in response to your concerns at Talk:Dyer Lum. Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 17:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The article has been nominated for WP:FA. Kindly take a look here for details.
Havelock the Dane ^Talk 19:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw your comment, added the age data and passed it as GA - hope that's OK Jimfbleak 16:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, first time I've done a GA, better make it the last too, since I seem to have trodden on too many toes. I misinterpreted your comment and thought you were just waiting for survival data to pass. Please delist it if you're not happy with the GA status, I won't interfere again. Thanks, Jimfbleak 20:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been an admin a long time, but I've tended to try to help bird articles in particular to GA/FAC status, not review them - basically on this occasion it was a case of fools rush in. I see now that what I should have done was add the lifespan stuff and the tweaks (int units first, sex not gender, bird species capped etc) and refer it back to you - I feel like a real newbie (: Jimfbleak 20:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said in my last (which will be my final) note to him, I'd never interacted with you before this RfA. I just never like to let good editors like yourself get smeared with unfair criticism at RfA. There are definitley some RfAs worth opposing--mostly those that are snow-closed--without having people taking one mistake made during the heat of an argument an opposing on that alone. Again, I will retire from the discussion, per your wishes though. Best regards, K. Scott Bailey 00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, my apologies. I had already posted my ... umm ... terse reply to Alison's patent nonsense when I received your note at my talk. I will completely retire from the discussion, if that's what you wish. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 02:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Good call, sir. And please refrain from attacking other editors re. their opposes off the RfA. That's not a good thing at all & I'll pretend I didn't see you calling me a dick just now, okies? - Alison ^❤ 02:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Alison - he referred to his reply as dickish, not you kiddo. You're not a dick ;) the_undertow ^talk 02:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I'd recommend you not follow me around to other user's talk pages, per WP:STALK. I'd also recommend you reread my post. I was referring to my reply to as falling under that essay, not to you. In other words, I was saying I was being a jerk (per WP:DICK). Also, I'd recommend that you not threaten me with "I'll pretend I didn't see" type statements. A bit unbecoming, don't you think? Also, there's a difference between WP:DICK (which I candidly I admit I did) and WP:NPA (a line which I completely and totally deny that I've crossed). In other words, leave me alone. I've already stated I'm withdrawing, and you come here to do a bit of a "victory dance"? Irony much, Alison? K. Scott Bailey 02:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

K. Scott Bailey, a clarification: I was actually on your user talk page having followed your signature links from an RfA, and saw the bottom thread. I linked it to Alison because it was about her, who has since replied here. She isn't stalking you, I don't think. Daniel 02:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, then. It felt like stalking to me, but that was probably a bit of an emotional reaction. I apologize to Alison for that part of my post, and retract it. K. Scott Bailey 02:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Accepted. Please understand that I'm not stalking you. Please also, in the interests of your friend, back away from this nonsense. I'm done commenting, suggest you do likewise - Alison ^❤ 02:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

VT is not my wikifriend (though he may be after this mini-ordeal). I had never met him on WP before this RfA. I have simply judged him to be a GREAT editor, and a superb RfA candidate, and defended him as such. K. Scott Bailey 02:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Blanket notice: talk pages have transparent histories for a reason. This page isn't a private conversation, and all are welcome to comment on my talk. VanTucky ^Talk 02:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, as an experienced reviewer, I wonder if you would comment on these. I’ve been working on Aerodramus, but basically it's impossible to get photos of even the common species of these small, fast-flying swifts. Is there any point trying to upgrade the article without more images? Secondly, I've been working on List of birds of Thailand. What do I need to do to get it to a higher grade (the featured lists for North America and Nicaragua might be helpful)?. Thanks Jimfbleak 11:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that, Jimfbleak 18:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope my support did not act as a Jonah to your RfA. It seems to have gone downhill since I participated. Oh well, I've seen people promoted with worse !vote counts. - Crockspot 20:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Insert non-formatted text here

I trust you. You seem to be running into the same problems that I did at my RFA. People opposing you either based on comments made months ago or opposing based on other peoples oppositions. Some of the supposedly "rude" or "incivil" comments that are cited are nothing compared to some of the comments that some administrators make and no one says anything about. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. It's difficult to keep from jumping back in as I see some of the opposition, but I think it's better to simply let it ride, and if it becomes clear that it will not result in promotion, gracefully withdraw. K. Scott Bailey 14:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that water, having flowed under the bridge, seems here to end in some sort of never-draining reservoir. Let me know when you run again. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 19:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I think you've gotten a bum rap as well, but best of luck on your next attempt! — Coren ^(talk) 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This shows all the worst traits of Rfa and shows the clear need to reform it. It seems like teenagers are more easily able to become admins than adults, as if the whole process has been designed for them, and that concerns me, as indeed do certain implications of the whole 2-tier system. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's also easier for non-qualified editors who have edited for a few months and who have stayed under the radar become administrators than it is for highly qualified editors who have rustled a few feathers in the process of editing highly controversial articles. I get kind of weary seeing editors who have been here 4 months and made a few edits become administrators but editors who have been here for over a year or two but have said a few things that upset people here and there never make it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well put. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Van Tucky, just a moment before this wallowing in self pity and talk of water becomes a mass drowning in tears. Amongst the opposition were some very long standing editors and Admins all held in high repute on the encyclopedia. I think the conversation here could be a little more introspective. SqueakBox is partly correct it is "all too easy for teenagers are more easily able to become admins than adults, as if the whole process has been designed for them" but that is not the reason your FA failed. One of the interesting things I have learnt here (actually it is a fact of life) and I will share the secret with you, you can get away (just) with being rude about another editor but never insult their work. It is their baby - their creation - there is always something positive to say before the "but" and even them temper it. Never criticise work unless you are able to effect and/or advise on the solution yourself. You've probably learnt one of the most valuable lessons of your life today. So move on, it can only get better. Giano 20:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your point Giano, and it might be a good one. But in practicum, the line between constructive criticism of work and an insult is often non-existent when it comes to the feelings and subsequent reaction of editors. Playing politics with bad writing isn't something I care to do, and I'd honestly rather never be an admin if it means I have to be falsely complimentary of poor work. That said, I'm usually harsher than most people (maybe it's because I write and copyedit for a living, or maybe I'm just a dick), so making an effort to be extra nice couldn't hurt. VanTucky ^Talk 20:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• If you believe that "'the line between constructive criticism of work and an insult is often non-existent'" then you probably are a dick. Writing an encyclopedia is about content and knowledge the information and the facts are the important things that must be encouraged - putting them into acceptable English is also a talent - but trust me, the editors that can do both are few are far between. So wise up and get real and you may be an Admin yet. Giano 21:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstood what I said. I'm not suggesting that the line between them actually is thin, but that people sometimes react badly whether it's constructive criticsm or an outright insult. Do some GA reviewing and find out. VanTucky ^Talk 21:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought to cut your teeth writing and commenting on FAs before becoming a one man GA reviewer. FAC can be a pretty tough and hostile place, but generally the criticism is constructive and helpful Giano 22:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I have done extensive collaboration on a couple FA candidates. I just prefer GA. VanTucky ^Talk 23:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think our journeys through wikipedia are full of life lessons, really that is what has kept me here through the dark times (of my own experiences here). Thanks, SqueakBox 20:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that too, all the time. That is what is so rewarding about editing here. Giano 21:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Best of luck next time. I think the ungainly comments that you made were magnified far far more than is the norm. Keep your chin up! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey there Van Tucky,I just wanted to wish you good luck on your next RFA. I think you are a great contributor and asset to this community and hope that this one doesn't prevent you from coming back stronger in a few months. I know that it is easy to loose your cool and say things that you don't mean to, but that is how people get judged here. Think of it this way, a failed RFA wipes the slate clean. When you go up for RFA again, which I hope you do, the comments that you made previously will be discounted. Your slate is clean and now you know what people are looking for. Prove everybody wrong and when go for for Admin again let me know. I would love to support you! I do think you'll be a hell of an admin---the transgressions were just too recent. I know you think 3 months is a long enough time, but most people believe 6 months to a year is more appropriate.Balloonman 20:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

VT...next time you are up for RfA, please drop me a note. I've given up looking over the applicants because they're mostly not worthy of the admin tools. You are. Your transgressions were minor and irrelevant. You are a credit to this project. Semper fidelis. (No, not a Marine, but it's apt here). OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, many of the best admins had to go through RfA twice. You'll join their ranks next time around. Cheers. Majoreditor 21:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Excelsior! Bearian 21:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Remember, being an admin isn't the be-all and end-all of being a valuable contributor. You have certainly been the latter, and I and I think everybody else hope that you don't let this example of criticism, which is known to get rather brutal toward several people, influence your future actions. John Carter 21:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto all the above. I'm disappointed on your behalf, пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. Anthøny 21:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll keep my eye open to see you on RFA next time round. — BillC ^talk 21:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This RfA shows one of the major problems with the process: those who keep their heads down, and avoid controversial articles have a simple time at RfA, while those who dive into the deep end of the pool, editing articles many won't touch get brutalized. Unfair? Probably. But perhaps for a few months, you can "keep your head down" (similar to what Giano was talking about) and just get through the next one. The project needs admins like you. K. Scott Bailey 21:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you didn't win your RFA. If you ever run again, drop me a line and I'll be happy to support. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't criticise this comment but the use of "win" kinda makes it clear that it's a contest (a beauty contest?). As I see it, that's not what consensus should be about. But you dealt with some heavy flak with dignity. Next time, hey? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 22:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Heya Van, just want to echo what's said above. It got kinda brutal over there, but it looks like you may have been gaining some insight even through all the negativity, into what the community wants. Hopefully it ends up being a net positive for you, even though it probably really sucks right now. I haven't been through an RfA, but I had a conflict a while ago where an editor chose to go through my life with a fine-toothed comb and draw all kinds of outlandish conclusions, and I remember the sick feeling in the pit of my gut that followed me around for a few days. So I can relate, but I can also tell you that if you have that, it will pass. All the best, -Pete 22:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Damn. I had stopped watching your RfA while I was on holiday since I thought it was sure to be successful. To be honest I'm a little flabbergasted that it was not. I still have 100% confidence in your good judgement and must apologise for persuading you to attempt such an disheartening exercise. If you want to forget about the whole idea that would be understandable, but if not, I would still be willing to nominate you again early next year. All the best, Tim Vickers 22:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

One last possibility. There is the last option of Wikipedia:Admin coaching. You might take that as an insult, but it isn't intended as one. I know from personal experience that there are a number of extremely contentious issues out there, and that it sometimes helps to have a helping hand give one an idea how to handle them. I know that the backlog right now is pretty big, but you might be able to find someone listed as a coach who might be willing to offer a hand. It couldn't hurt, anyway. John Carter 23:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not an insult at all. I'll give it some thought. VanTucky ^Talk 23:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My wife and I both used Firsfron as our admin coaches and would recommend him... But in all honesty, I think what you need most isn't coaching but time... you have the skills/knowledge. I think you have the trust of everybody (including those who opposed you this time) their concern was that you recently had a major transgression. I think in 3-4 months, if you keep you nose clean, you should fly through the process.Balloonman 05:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

VanTucky: I am sorry you did not succeed on the first try. You have received some very sage advice during this process, and here on this page... as I said during the process itself, I sincerely believe that you will take it on board. You are clearly an intelligent and competent contributor here, and if you do take it on board, you will do fine in your next RfA. It takes a very deft touch to be a good admin here, for reasons that are complicated, and I think that's where you need most to focus. The advice you get sometimes will come from people who themselves could benefit from it, to be sure. But it is valid advice just the same.

You have an opportunity in your work at GA to interact with lots of editors, far more than most editors do. Some are poor writers, and some are great writers, but all are participating in GA because they really want to make better articles and make this remarkable project better. Never forget that. If you are tempted to merely point out the flaws in their articles, remember that. Try to make your words, no matter what bad news you are delivering, such that your colleagues here are glad that you took the time to write them, glad that you and they have interacted. That is a touch I myself do not always have, I am quick to take offense and speak harshly sometimes, but I know that touch when I see it. Our best admins never have to raise their virtual voices. It is something to strive for.

You have also received some not very good advice, those telling you that the system is flawed, that you were robbed, that you need not change... they are doing you a disservice, I am afraid by glossing over the things that need attention. They are correct when they say you have many virtues, though. That is why some of us have dumped a fair bit of effort into this. In particular I'd highlight Giano's input to you... if he thought you were irredeemable he would have acerbicly cut you off at the knees and been on his way to write more featured articles instead of returning here afterwards. But he did not, he has invested considerable time in counseling you, even though he opposed you. Take all of this on board. You have the potential to be a remarkable editor and admin here and I wish you all the best.

If I can ever be of service, you know where my talk page is. ++Lar: t/c 23:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your heartfelt advice. VanTucky ^Talk 23:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent comment Lar... couldn't agree with you more!Balloonman 00:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well said Lar! I hope to support you in a future RfA, VanTucky. Hopefully the constructive ideas will be useful. ~Eliz81^(C) 00:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yours was the best counsel he received during the RfA (some were simply "oppose because he was mean/incivil/cursed/whatever"), and this post continues your great advice for VT. K. Scott Bailey 00:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(my one comment, okay?) I also agree with Lar here. From this point, the reset button gets pushed & next time around, I'm looking forward to supporting your next nom - Alison ^❤ 00:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That RFA thanks really has class, and is extremely funny. Sorry I had to vote against you this time. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

yes, I thought the image was particularly applicable in its irony here. VanTucky ^Talk 00:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the toolbar images at the talk of your talk and user page link to the images, not to the relevant pages in userspace. Is that intentional? Avruch^Talk 22:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Check out User:ArielGold - all but one of her buttom images are links to the appropriate page. Avruch^Talk 01:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You can steal User:Alison/Imagelink to get images clickable, if you like. I stole it from someone else :) - Alison ^❤ 01:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Alison, I just went to your navbar page and stole the click template format. Seems to work. Thanks again for the tips! You're now both my a party to my aesthetic anal retentiveness (ala the completely ridiculous userpage I forced Phaedriel into slaving over). VanTucky ^Talk 01:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry your request for adminship didn't pass. I plan to support you next time. Don't worry, I didn't pass my first RfA either. Best wishes. Acalamari 23:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the card about your RfA. I know that you're probably feeling discouraged right now, but please keep in mind that this RfA isn't meant as a condemnation of you as a person, although it probably feels that way right now. It's merely the opinion of interested editors about your suitability for becoming an administrator at this time. If you continue your hard work, and address various issues raised in this RfA, I'm sure that your next attempt will be successful. --Kyoko 01:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Even though we did not always see eye to eye I thought you should be trusted with greater responsibility. There is a paradox here: people young enough to be willing to take on more work are likely to be more fiery than we might like, but those mature enough to be more level-headed are likely to be too busy. I thought you were a good bet, but I guess this was not the moment. Well, the real work is in the writing anyway, isn't it? Regards, Haiduc 01:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup, well put Haiduc. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Cruciblecover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Elseused 03:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. It's a shame you had to withdraw. I'm sure that, if you take note of all the pointers left down by other voters, you'll be more successful next time. :-) Lradrama 11:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a shame you had to withdraw:-( Big deal, you were uncivil to someone back in July! That was a isolated case. We all make misstakes. All that matters is if you learned from it. Have a nice day:)--SJP 11:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Keep up the excellent work; my first RFA didn't pan out either. The fact that you haven't let up on your diligence immediately after your RFA withdrawal demonstrates your dedication to Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My guess is the one in green...Balloonman 05:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't DESERVE to be there, if it actually had ANY helpful information at all, it would have every right to stay there. But it doesn't. All it says is that Banksy's British and likes to stencil. Big deal. It shouldn't be there at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel Surette (talk • contribs) 20:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you,
My PC has been giving me a hard time and those calls to the helpline are really not helping.
I remember reading about the environmental_issues/trade_routes subject, especially the oil slicks in maritime routes and such, so I'll try to and get to that soon as well.
With Regards,Havelock the Dane ^Talk 06:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, You recently reviewed Straight Outta Compton but could you please review Curtis (50 Cent album)‎, another article which i've been working to a WP:GA. Please get back to me. Thanks! --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 19:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate it. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 20:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, did you get round to reviewing it? Thanks --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 19:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that – I speedy-deleted GAList3 after making GAList2 the exact same thing. If anyone else was likely to use GAL3, I would have done a redir, but I think you're the only person who even knew about it (and GeoGuy, but I doubt it). Sorry for the confusion! I fixed the page of your review by changing the 3 to a 2. (Also, it's a good idea to sign inside the template, at the end of the 7com line. Otherwise, if you leave a space after the final }} symbols, it will show up as pre-formatted text.) Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 23:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Duh! thanks for fixing the docs. I owe you one. – Scartol • Tok 00:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, VanTucky. Responded to your GA review at the talk page. Beagel (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, When you get a chance could you take a look at the subject article, specifically regarding a series of recent edits by user:Piercetheorganist. You've made some very nice edits to the GSD page and I'm interested in your opinion regarding these edits. Thanks! --Tom (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help although it continues. He seems to really be pushing an agenda with his edits. He makes assertations about working dogs living miserable lives in cages when they aren't in the back of a patrol car which is not very accurate. I know lots of police and military dog handlers whose dogs reside with them and their families when they aren't at work. A well trained GSD can switch from a work environment to a non-work environment. And the part about them being euthanized at the end of their working careers is blatantly erroneous. I have two 12 year old GSD's retired search and rescue dogs living out their old age in my house as proof. Anyway thanks again and sorry to vent--Tom (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I'm still thinking about getting the CJ article up to GA. The main hurdle in the last review was the "Hippies" section, because you thought it wasn't NPOV, or possbily offensive. I understand what you're saying, so I renamed the section, but I haven't found a word to replace the word hippie within the section. I looked for synonyms, but only found "beatnik, Bohemian, drop-out, flower child, freak, free spirit, freethinker, and yippie," which don't really work. I looked at hippie, but I think using "youths" is OR, and "counterculture youths" is OR and unwieldly.

You mentioned removing the section, but I've lived in CJ off and on the past 34 years, and the hippie influence is really important to the town. More important than even the refs I found indicate, though I only included what can be reliably refed. Basically, it's more important to me that it be a good article than a "Good Article," but I would like to make it both. It's kind of like writing the New York City article; you may have many things you can add based on refs, but a knowledgable editor needs to make decisions about what to include.

Do you have any suggestions on what I can do? I liked your review because I felt you were holding the article to a high standard, which is what I aspire to. Just so you know, I'm not asking for a GA review, or comments on the writing/formatting (it's under construction once again), just suggestions on the single section. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on the review, especially after my transgressions! I did think of double columning refs, wasn't sure if there were enough to justify. The predators were listed, but in a silly place (status) now moved to breeding. I've fixed refs 18 (and 14, which pointed to the wrong source). The refs you have identified as not academic enough (12, 13, 22, 23), I should be able to find alternatives like BWP for the first three - pity about the airspeed calc though, that won't be in an academic journal - What can I do about the swallow tattoo bit, it's clearly true and oft-repeated on the web, but is never going to be in an academic journal - do I just take it out? Jimfbleak (talk) 07:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Also the Estonia national symbol - I've sourced to the Embassy, which should know, but it's not an academic ref. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've dumped the gallery (kept images though, I hope that's OK), replaced ref 12, used the UMich suggested citation for 13, fixed 14 and 18. I've moved the predators and brood parasites to a more sensible place, and tightened the text. I don't know what to do about Estonia or tattoos. If they are unacceptable because paras too short/non-academic refs, just chop them. Jimfbleak (talk) 10:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation - I thought I must have misunderstood because otherwise non-scientific articles would be in real trouble! Jimfbleak (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wanted to let you know that the photo you swaped out doesn't show the breed characteristics of a Belgian horse so I reverted it. Not that the other photo is perfect, if we did find a better one, I wouldn't complain, but in this case, nearly all Belgians are chestnut or roan, and they don't have heavy feathering on their lower legs. The photo you used does appear to have something to do with Belgium, based on the caption, but the horse doesn't look like a purebred Belgian. (For one thing, I've never seen a Bay Belgian, and compare leg feather on the two horses. Photographer captions aren't always accurate) By the way, though, I DO appreciate the eye you cast on these articles and much of what you have to offer is very helpful. Montanabw^(talk) 17:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there IS a difference between the official "Belgian" breed of horse found in North America, and a draft horse that happens to be in Belguim! (grin) As for the Flickr shots, yes, those ARE "real" American-style Belgians, though the last one, labeled "Nephron's profile" might be a crossbred, the head is chisled like a lighter horse, so I wouldn't use that one, though I notice they do promote that "look" in artwork of Belgians.

Without being able to read Dutch, or Flemish, or whatever language those commons photos are in, I don't know what they really are, but none of them could be considered a registered Belgian in the USA, they may be a different breed native to Belgium, or horses derived from the same foundation stock as the American Belgian, but bred in a different direction; I honestly don't know. The Belgian association site in the US says, "Along with these changes in conformation has come a color change. The original imports came in many color coats with a predominance of bay. About half of the first imports were bay and bay-brown, followed by roan, chestnut sorrel, black, and even a few greys. There was no particular Belgian color at the outset."

"By the 20's and 30's, when the breed really hit its stride in this country the breed had pretty well become the "sorrels and roans." Now there are a few roans and even the odd bay now and then, but for all practical purposes, it is a chestnut-sorrel breed today.""This has long been the preferred color by Americans . . . the Cadillac of colors being a chestnut or sorrel team with snow-white manes and tails, with a white strip in the face and four white socks. This is the ultimate in draft horse style.""The fact that Belgians are by far the most numerous of all draft breeds in this country, plus the fact that they are pretty much a one-color breed, makes it easier to mate a horse when you need to and offers you a much bigger market when you wish to sell."

So, given that this IS English Wikipedia, and that the Belgian horse, as understood by English speakers (at least in North America) is the slick, no-feather sorrel (chestnut), I think we'd best stick with that standard. Check out these URLs for more info: [1] and the association site: [2] My take on the existing photo is that while the horse is not stood up and the background is less than ideal, it is at least an animal which is representative of the breed standard, prepped and conditioned for show and has reasonably decent conformation. Better might be out there, the Flickr photos are worth uploading to commons, maybe plop the two conformation shots onto the talk page for the article along with the existing photo and we can compare them side by side. Lighting is better, anyway... Montanabw^(talk) 23:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't know you were a breeder. Not to pry, but I'm interested in it myself somewhat. I recently devoured all the literature on it I could find. What breed do you keep? VanTucky ^Talk 06:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nubians (or Anglo-Nubians, if you prefer), small-time, just a few does right now on a very small parcel (the good thing about dairy goats is they don't take a lot of space since they aren't grazers. Hoping to expand, very interested in silvopasture possibilities with goats.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Interesting. Yeah, I can't think of a much better animal for silvopasture than goats. They'd love it. Apparently pigs free-ranging in fallow orchards used to be quite popular, but I can't particularly see them being as useful as goats in naturally forested land. VanTucky ^Talk 20:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that it needs to wrap things up better. Right now that section is very fragmented and needs to be combined into coherent paragraphs. One thing that might help would be cutting some of the longer quotes short. Also, quotes under four lines long are often best combined with the text rather than separated into block quotes. Wrad (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for all your help, I'm particularly impressed that you took the trouble to find better images! With most bird species, other than ducks and birds of prey, the problem is to find any usable pics. I note the comment from Wrad above, good point.

The majority of birds are not as well studied, and do not have the wealth of literary associations of Barn Swallow - is there a minimum recommended length for GA? I'd like to work up some of the other bird articles to GA, and it would be helpful to know whether I should stick to species where I know there is masses of info (eg Winter Wren, Nightingale, Blackbird, Skylark]] or if I could work up something like Kentish Plover or Great Grey Shrike, where I have good biological sources, but there won't be as much behavioural research, and virtually no cultural significance. Thanks again for your much appreciated help. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

VT, would you have any time for a quick look at Arthur Morris? At the FAC I'm the only one opposing, and I trust your judgment. I know you're busy, but having your initial impressions would help me considerably. Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 12:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for giving it another set of eyes. – Scartol • Tok 00:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi VanTucky. Apart from the general stuff about my dour writing style, I think I've addressed the other points. Per what I said on Scartol's page, I tend to write with the book open, so my info normally is a subset of the book page I was using, so often, there is only a need for one or two book cites at the end of the para, since the info matches up well (being a subset). In any case, just feel free to {{cn}} anything and everything and I will move the ref up from the bottom of the para as needed. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I have enhanced the general idea you had by finding more anecdotal type evidence about his life that would dilute the emphasis on statistics and the bottom line [runs]. Please take a look. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, yer too durn quick, I was going to do my first GA. Actually, I was going to quick-fail, because of the multiple questions about bias and neutrality that have surfaced on the talk page. It's not technically an edit war -- way too polite for that -- but it's clear that there are significant disagreements about content that will take some time to resolve. Curious what you think of this reasoning, as I'd like to do GA's in the future. -Pete (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, technically the instability criterion of WP:QFC really only refers to outright reversion wars and impending future events (like elections). Personally I wouldn't quick-fail it just yet, I'd wait and see what happens. It doesn't seem to contentious at the moment. Do you really want it? You can have it if you want, I just barely started my review. VanTucky ^Talk 00:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you should stick with it, and I'll sorta watch from the sidelines, and maybe chime in if I see the opportunity. It will be good to see one that I'm not too involved with. I have probably edited Hillsboro too much to take that one on, but I'll keep my eye out. Thanks! Will I see you Friday? -Pete (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yikes -- hope she's OK. Strangely, that makes you the second person who will miss the party on account of eye surgery. I'm hoping we keep that to two! -Pete (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If the second paragraph was phrased in a more NPOV and a section was added on the deniers would the article be ready for Class A nomination? Alatari (talk) 03:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to thankyou for your review of Batwoman. Despite my best efforts, there are certain resources I simply do not have or cannot find for the article at this time. Thankyou again. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you passed this for GA, a map has been added along with some more detail. I've sent it to peer review with a view to FAC next. Since you know the article, I'd be grateful for any further input. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I recently adapted this code to produce a mini card, I hope you don't mind, For example:

Click there to open your mini card! → → →

~ This user hasn't included a message so thank you for what ever it was from PhilB ~

From Someone who hasn't signed their name...
_{Send someone else a mini card}

There are also some other versions, including a christmas version

I hope you don't mind! Please get back to me, Cheers PhilB ~ ^T/_C 22:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks for supporting me! Please find your thank you card here, should you wish to see it. I'm honored to have received your support, and I'm looking forward to your next RfA as well. All the best, ~Eliz81^(C) 23:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)