User:JoshuacUK/April 13, 2008—August 6, 2008

Synthesiser

Glad to see you're about, Brad. I don't usually copy-edit, and am fairly busy with rubbish at MOS, and FAC reviewing. And I'm about to enter another RL work phase. Let's see how time pans out. Tony (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded to Wackymacs for all of your valuable contributions, particularly significant improvements the Synthesizer article. Your work is seen and appreciated. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Beyoncé Knowles/archive1

Thanks for you input. I left comments there. --Efe (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

copyrighted image

Hi, you uploaded [1] - I asked where you have this from in the discussion page since it seems to be 100% the same as my picture, see [2]: even the position of the mouse cursor is the same. Since you didn't respond for over 4 months now I requested a speedy deletion.

Regards, Ghoffart (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

NeXT

		The Original Barnstar
		Wackymacs, I award you this barnstar for your hard work on the FAC nomination for NeXT. Thank you for keeping a great attitude throughout the process! Karanacs (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wackymacs, I sometimes dread returning to FAC noms after I've left such a long list of comments. I was pleasantly surprised to see that you'd already addressed just about all of my items and were very positive about it. Thank you!! Karanacs (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll have time to return to the FAC tomorrow evening, I'm going to be traveling most of tomorrow and will check on things at the hotel tomorrow night. Quick glance shows that they are probably resolved, but I'd rather take the time and do it right than try to squeeze it in tonight while packing and mess things up. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

FAR removed

Please don't submit multiple noms at once; I removed Delrina, the final one, but you can resubmit it in a few weeks, once the others have progressed (nominators are expected to follow the process and three at once is a lot even for experienced FAR reviewers, and submitting more than one at a time overwhelms the page). Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Rand review

I'm sorry to report that I'm currently too busy to take on additional review requests. Good luck with the article, though, and hopefully I can be of service in the future. You might want to ask WillowW, insofar as she's a fantastic editor and it might provide an enjoyable departure from her current hurleyburley. – Scartol • Tok 17:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

System 6

Just letting you know that I failed the GA for System 6. As someone who's used System 6 a lot, I feel that the article is under developed as far as the actual aspects of System 6 - things such as dialog boxes, Font/DA Mover, Control Panel, desk accessories, etc. etc. are barely mentioned, and overall it could use a bit more fleshing out. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would say put the citations over the table headers: the "System Version", "Release Date", etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Nice overhaul and a very fast turnaround too. I wish I could write that fast – it took me nearly half a year to get Diamond Rio to GA status. Anyway, I'd probably pass it as a GA now, but I don't know how listing it twice in the same day would fly. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, I passed System 6 for you this time around. Again, very nice turnaround on this article! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation in Wendy Carlos article

Please don't remove sources from articles. Just because you have to pay to read it doesn't make it "useless". People do pay for stuff sometimes. Besides, it would still be a reliable source even if it weren't on the web at all.—Chowbok ☠ 04:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S., the source wasn't "wrong"—an anon changed the date just before you came across it.—Chowbok ☠ 04:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is not censored, and that counts for links too. Playboy is a well-respected and professional magazine, or was, anyway, and is certainly a reliable source. It's especially crucial for the Wendy Carlos article, as that interview is the only time she has ever spoken publicly about her sex change.—Chowbok ☠ 20:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Paul Rand

Hi Wackymacs - I've provided feedback at the above-noted peer review. Thanks for asking me to take a look at it, Rand seems like a very interesting man and I certainly recognised a lot of his work. Apologies for the delay. Please let me know if you have any questions. Risker (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Synthesizer article

Nice work! :thumbs up: It's looking MUCH better. --Zubedar (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies once again

I hate to do this, but I'm afraid I just can't take on any more jobs right now. Good luck with the NeXT article, and hopefully I can be more helpful in the future. – Scartol • Tok 00:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

MacPaint GA Review

Hello. I have completed the review of the article MacPaint which you nominated for GA. I have placed the article on hold. Please visit the article's talk page to view my comments. will381796 (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• No worries. I gave you a two week hold so you have until May 15th. Unfortunately, if you are not been able to make the recommended changes/additions by that date then I will have to fail the article. But you will be able to renominate it at any time once you get the chance. will381796 (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Copy-editing NeXT

OK, will have a go at copy-editing this, should be done by the end of the weekend. I'm curious: why did you pick me to contact? Gusworld (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know I've done the copy-edit on paper (filled in a flight quite nicely), will incorporate my changes and a rather large list of comments ASAP. Gusworld (talk) 05:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries, glad to be of help. Will try and take a look at the revised version over the weekend. Gusworld (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Glad my review was helpful. I will make a few more comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/System 6/archive1 but I do not strike in peer reviews - feel free to do so yourself or to leave Done or other comments. Since you found the review helpful, please consider reviewing another article at WP:PR, especially one which has not yet received feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reviews! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes To Mac OS History

While I think the table is an improvement to Mac OS History, you broke a bunch of links and deleted a lot of information when you put it in there and now it can't be undone to fix them. You need to fix all the broken links. The information and references should also be put back. Major changes such as these should really be discussed on the page before being enacted.--Mac128 (talk) 06:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well I am going to put those changes back and I WILL cite official Apple website sources for them. The arrogance that suggests the research a third party website employs is somehow flawed simply because it is a personal website is surprising. That's like saying a New York Times article is not reliable because they tend to report with a liberal bias. Nevertheless, you also hold that Apple table up as though it is infallible. And that's like doing an article about George W. Bush and only using official quotes he has personally approved. I have no idea what your background is vis-a-vis Apple & Macintosh, but I lived those years and I can personally verify much external information, only Wiki's restriction against original research prevents me from simply stating it as fact. The truth is, much of Apple's TIL information and documentation is flawed and there are even articles to that effect. As for Eric Rassmussen's site, Eric has worked very closely with Apple on various matters and his research is imperial. By your logic, we would have to ignore information found on Andy Hertzfeld's personaly website AND by my logic we'd also have to be careful what we took as fact. I am also not thrilled by the limitations tables invoke on articles. By striping out the old format you have restricted the ability to link to future detailed article's about individual Systems and expanding the table based on other so-called "valid" data. So as much as I "am trying to help", your helpful contributions are going to have to eventually be modified n order to be more functional and to paint the full picture, not the myopically flawed one presented solely by Apple, Inc.--Mac128 (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • All is calm ans smooth here on the West side of the Atlantic. I respect that you want to improve the article in order to put it in better standing. As I pointed out above, much of the information added by the Macintosh enthusiast community IS verifiable. Simply posting a notice on the Talk page about your proposed intentions, in this case noble, would have given those of us who have contributed the opportunity to provide proper citations. Certainly a discussion of the best way to present the verifiable information available. I certainly do not have the WIKI experience you have, but when I began contributing to the page I was very careful to preserve the work of others unless it was egregiously incorrect. I also made sure to cite sources where there were none to support those corrections. My point is this page is FAR from ready to be NOMINATED for a FEATURED article by WIKI standards and as a result the time could have been spared to rally the troupes. Indeed there are errors even in your presentation of the data from the Apple site. Therefore I have corrected these to match the OFFICIAL Apple source, even though I know them to be personally incorrect, but cannot produce a reliable source to contradict the official source.--Mac128 (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC).
    • I'm not gonna intentionally populate Wiki with incorrect information. Clearly you missed my point. What I did do was indicate all of the glaring discrepancies from your table to the cited Apple source. Your information is essentially correct, though there are a few errors in your un-cited changes as well. However, you can't have it both ways: either everything in this article lives up to so-called verifiable and reliable sources (and therefore requires a legitimate reference), or it doesn't. I am the first to recognize that many good Wikipedians can be lazy and take shortcuts imparting general or expert knowledge sometimes without the proper sources (myself definitely included). Nevertheless if your stated goal is to make this a model Wiki article, then I am happy to help and to that end, I will help to verify any claim made in it within my areas of expertise and experience. So NOTHING goes in without a verifiable reliable source by those standards. And thanks to this little wake-up call, to be more dutiful in my other entries as well.

• I agree that we should not be publishing information that cannot be explicitly verified by some source, even if that source is the software itself (every disk has the creation encoded in it and is more readily available than most publications). Therefore, I am for Potatoswatter's suggestion that we not rush the process and only put information in the charts and articles that has a reliable and verifiable source as you initiated. What I KNOW and have LEARNED is that the paucity of good peer-reviewed material when it comes to some of these specific details is staggering and makes any kind of detailed fact checking when it comes to vintage Macintosh history is staggering. In many respects I see what we are doing as archeology (Macheology if you will). Sadly much of the imperial evidence we would hope to find is often conjectural at best requiring more than one source to verify some part of what we know to be true of the whole from practical experience. As I have pointed out, worse yet, much of the so-called reliable sources are often flawed themselves. As you yourself found by modifying the flawed Apple table, many of us have the expertise to correct the errors. However, the changes must be cited and it is possible to do – it's just going to be a lot of work! This has been an eye opening experience for me and a challenge I am will ing to rise to. So, yes, I think the less information, the better, for now. After all, which date do you use – the creation date encoded on the published software? The announcement date from Apple? The date it was shipped? The date it hit the streets? Usually these dates were all within the same month so your suggestion is by far the best solution: month/year with verifiable reference(s).--Mac128 (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Image fair use rationale

Hi, I just went ahead and fixed it because you weren't seeing what I was trying to point out. The "portion used" field is required and you didn't have it filled out. That's just where you state what portion of the whole copyrighted work (in this case, the entire OS) you are using. Good work on NeXT! At the risk of dating myself, I remember using those machines when I was an undergrad student. --Laser brain (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

I think that's fine. KansasCity (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Innerspaceposter.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Innerspaceposter.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ninja Gaiden FAC

Hi, Wackymacs. Thank you for your comments at the game's FAC. I had rewrote the article with the aim of reducing its Flesch-Kincaid and recommended grade level readings (aiming towards a United States 8th&ndash9th grade). I did that with the aid of grammar tools such as Microsoft Word, WordPerfect 12, and Spellchecker Online. I had worried that using the tools might overlook certain issues (since the tools are mechanical). No copyeditors joined in the peer review; I had requested a Marskell as a copyeditor to join in the peer review but I got no reply. BuddingJournalist later joined in but did not comment on the rewrite. David Fuchs was the only person who went through the article again after my rewrite and he found the language acceptable then. A fresh pair of eyes might catch errors that escaped his attention as you did. Hence, I would like to request your help in looking through the whole article and commenting if it is the whole article really lacking in language, or is it only in certain sections, or spaced out through the article. Thank you.

P.S. I will address the Itagaki quote and brevity of the lead issue in the FAC later. Jappalang (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I would to run the following by you.

Lead

Ninja Gaiden is an action-adventure game developed by Team Ninja for the Xbox video game console. It had gone through five years of development before its release by Tecmo in 2004. The game was a hit in North America; it sold 362,441 copies in the first month. Reception in Japan was however poor; consumers bought around 60,000 copies in the four months since its release.

Ninja Gaiden used the name and the main character, Ryu Hayabusa, of the 1990s series on the Nintendo Entertainment System. Those were however their only direct connections. The 2004 version of Ninja Gaiden has its own story and takes place in the settings of another Team Ninja game, the Dead or Alive series. In this version, Ryu sets off to avenge the deaths of his clan and reclaim an evil blade stolen from their care. The player controls Ryu from a third-person view and fights hordes of foes with various weapons and magic.

Ninja Gaiden was the focus of an online tournament spanning North America, Europe, and Japan. Record-breaking numbers of players took part and the finalists fought for the title of Master Ninja at Tokyo Game Show 2004. The game continued to evolve through content downloaded from Xbox Live and re-releases. Tecmo released Ninja Gaiden Black in 2005 and Ninja Gaiden Sigma in 2007. The Ninja Gaiden games received much critical acclaim; several critics called Ninja Gaiden as one of the best and most difficult games ever made.

Gameplay

Ninja Gaiden takes place within a single game world divided into several regions. The designs of the regions are usually linear; there is only one path connecting the entrances of a region. Scattered throughout the regions are enemy encounters and dragon busts that serve as save points. Most regions connect to one another via the city of Tairon, which functions as a hub. The game loads the world in stages and masks this operation with in-game cut scenes as players enter new regions. Players control Ryu Hayabusa from a third person perspective. They can make him run and jump through the streets, swing from pole to pole, and even run up and along walls.

The primary game mode of Ninja Gaiden is Story Mode. It controls the potential of the player character as in a typical action-adventure game; he is weak at the start and grows more powerful as the story develops. Furthermore, The Legend of Zelda video game series inspired Team Ninja to reward players for exploring and finding items; players search for keys or solve puzzles to remove obstacles in their path, and gather items to upgrade Ryu's skills and weapons. The game grades players based on four factors: time taken to clear encounters and stages, enemies killed, ninpos (magic spells) left unused, and cash gathered. The remakes Ninja Gaiden Black and Sigma introduced Mission Mode; it focuses on action and sets up players with short sessions of combat. The player's Mission Mode score is the total of highest scores for each mission. Players have to complete a difficulty to unlock the next harder difficulty in Story and Mission Modes. They can also upload their scores to online ranking boards.

Would these have satisfied your concerns listed on the FAC? As FACs have time limit, I am uncertain if a request at the LoC would be accepted and fulfilled in time. As such, I am taking it upon myself to address these issues at this time. Jappalang (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks Wackymacs for the very kind welcome, and for your suggestion that I check out Wikipedia:Peer review. I will definitely do that as soon as I get rid of my deer-caught-in-headlights feeling. :) Wikipedia is very large and I'm still trying to find my way around the editor help material. I love my 17" MacBook Pro btw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaFrance (talk • contribs) 18:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Myst (video game)

I believe I have implemented your fixes. Thanks for taking the time to review! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good catch! I found the other mentions of Myst where it wasn't capitalized. The other mentions mostly say 'island of Myst' or 'Myst Island' to help clarity; I also reworded the opening of the criticism section too. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Release dates added in. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Synthesizer peer review

I will look at it, but it may take me a day or two. Thanks for asking, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Peer review/Macintosh Classic/archive1 looks much better. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Macintosh Classic

Hello Wackymacs - Thank you for inviting me to peer review and/or copyedit this article. I copyedited it. Leoniana (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1995 Japanese Grand Prix

I've fixed several thing. Please strike points which are no longer concerns. D.M.N. (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added two (hopefully good!) images to the article, with proper FUR's. D.M.N. (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! Unfortunately though, the FAC hasn't had one nitwit of a comment since Wednesday. :( D.M.N. (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

System 6

Hi, Wackymacs - As per your request I copyedited this article.Leoniana (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Unreal Tournament

I'm hesitant to commit to any sort of collab because I got a shitload on my plate, both online and in the real world. But the article (drafted) already looks much better. When you get it to GAN or Peer review, be sure to drop me a line and I'll provide feedback. All the best, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Macintosh Classic

Hello Wackymacs - As per your request I did a bit more copyediting on it. (Do you think that the laudatory "Reception" section is a bit much? The Apple employees who are quoted would have been a bit prejudiced, I would imagine) Cheers - Leoniana (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:AppleIIGSOS.png

Thanks for uploading Image:AppleIIGSOS.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Apple Design

No, unfortunately. I have watched in amazement as those prices creep ever higher. The last two sold on eBay here in the states for over $100/ea. Seriously making me consider scanning mine and selling it. I was lucky enough to buy mine in 2001 when the prices were still in the 20's & 30's. Good luck.--Mac128 (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Navigation Box

Do you like the Macintosh Classic model navigation box? I had wanted something like that for quick browsing between related models, that was cleaner than a list of "see also" models that didn't necessarily immediately relate to anything for the reader. But after I switched the full timeline to the compact timeline (which all of the compact articles should feature), I started to think that maybe that timeline was the best for each family of models and the "see also" section can link to relevant models outside the family. So in that regard the timeline should always appear adjacent to the see also section and the navigation box would go away? What do you think?--Mac128 (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi. I'd like to say "yes", but I feel I should help first with the backlog of articles that have been waiting in line without a review. The waiting articles always seem to outnumber the reviewers, and reviews often take two or three hours to prepare. We could always use more reviewers. Finetooth (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I know that some of my advice goes unheeded, but it's only advice. It's possible that it (and yours) will do some good in the future even if rejected in the present. I'll keep your article in mind, although I hope someone with expert knowledge of Powerbook 100 will review it before it reaches the backlog. Finetooth (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

PowerBook 100 Rewrite

Definitely an improvement. Nothing looks incorrect, though some details of note should be added which I will do once I have my verifiable sources. I already added the info about System 6. In particular, you deleted an entire paragraph I wrote about the Snow White influences over design which was properly credited to Kunkle's Apple Design. Was this intentional or an oversight? I know it needed a little re-writing and formatting but otherwise notable with respect to the PowerBook design.--Mac128 (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to indicate this otherwise: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PowerBook_100&diff=212567549&oldid=212252548 but your comment really made me laugh. I will accept that YOU consider the addition of an external modem port to be trival and that it may well be in a general context. However, 1: This was a MAJOR concern not only for the 100 but also the Duo series, particularly among those who favored the Portable for MIDI applications. AND 2: How can you say the source is not verifiable! LOL It IS the company! This is the same defense you use for citing erroneous Apple sources: that Apple is the verifiable company! The company's contact information is right on the website. Anyway, I don't want to make an issue of it, BUT while I concede Wiki should strive to be a well referenced encyclopedia source, unlike most other published sources, there is a wealth of information available on those so-called "unverifiable sources" which, while not necessarily appropriate for primary article citation should be included as a way for people who use Wiki as a primary point of departure to discover these so called "trivial" details.--Mac128 (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand the value of verifiable info – and I agree: it is the only way to make Wiki a legitimate resource. And I appreciate your insights into writing better articles. However, I don't agree with the particular flavor of "be bold" I see taken in some of these articles. Particularly when perfectly documented sources are tossed out wholesale because the source is not readily available for review, or validity is not immediately clear. That's what the discussion page is for. Frankly nothing upsets me more on Wiki than incorrect information being posted from a so-called verifiable source and I've said as much. All I said about that last change is that the idea of what is trivial and what is not is in the eye of the beholder. Your response was helpful in that you are correct, more information explaining an entry is helpful. However, much of the information given about a computer is confusing without a context. In particular: why say the 100 only had a printer port and no external modem port at all? Seriously how does that impact the casual reader who has never worked on anything but a USB computer and broadband connection? It's just a fact with no particular meaning. In particular you felt compelled to include this part of a quote in the Reception section: Waters was disappointed by ... the omission of a monitor port". So what? Why was he disappointed? It makes no sense to the casual reader who did not understand the importance to a consumer in those days. But, to couch every article in detailed explanation of why things were important on a 20 year old computer not only makes the article difficult to read but quickly loses the focus. I am a big fan of a notes section per the Alcibiades article which provides a space at the bottom of each article to further expound on ideas which may be relevant or unknown to a particular reader. On the other hand, if that detail is left out, is the full picture of what the 100 really was being presented. I am not forcing these issues and am generally deferring to you because you have taken an targeted interest in getting this article shaped up for featured status, with which you clearly have considerable experience and accolades and I am only a casual Wiki contributor. However, I question what Wiki is really all about if in the end articles come down to a particular editor's focus vs. the accumulation of information that only a globe full of individual experience can bring to a subject unlike any published resource ever known. BACK ON TOPIC: with respect to my serial port reference, the correct way to approach it with your added insight is in a section about how the 100 was used and what it meant to the consumer: i.e. "the 100 was highly valued in the music community as it provided a means for live MIDI programming, however because it only had one serial port which was problematic with some MIDI applications, a third-party company offered a replacement ... yada yada", all documented of course. One other thing to consider with respect to the article is how important third-party products were to the Macintosh since Apple was fond of limiting the abilities of most models in some way, yet another reason they are worth mentioning – but in an understandable context. With respect to Sigma Systems: it is a legitimate company, with a fascinating historical look at what was being done in those days – to discount who they were and what they offered to the Mac community as a niche contribution of trivial nature does a great injustice to any reader of Apple history. Also the company's predecessor is listed in Apple's TIL, thus validated by Apple themselves. Notice I did not just undo your deletion, but am willing to discuss how the fact can better fit into the article, otherwise I feel it would escalate into the antics of immature teenagers which would be a waste of all of our time. On the other hand, I am not going to let uncited references go in the context in which I am contributing to such articles. If the goal is to make the article ineradicable, then I am going to insist any variation from a cited source be clearly documented. --Mac128 (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Rush Street

Thanks for the push to get with the program on the images. I have incorporated the {{multiple image}} template so that we can show the proper things without goofing up the text too much. Let me know what you think.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

DeLorean DMC-12 Euro-spec info

Hi Wackymacs,

I noticed you removed my additions to the DeLorean DMC-12 entry regarding Euro-spec tail lights on right-hand drive and European spec DeLoreans. Was this due to lack of references or some other reason?

Regards,

Phil Peters
Editor, DeLorean Owners Club UK
www.deloreans.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukdoceditor (talk • contribs) 11:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Master Juba

Hi, Wackymacs. Would you mind giving Master Juba another look and revisiting your comments on the article's FAC page? The prose and clarity problems you raised have hopefully all been dealt with in copy edits from Jmabel, Tuf-Kat, and myself. Thanks again for your help so far, — Dulcem (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to Civil Air Patrol

I reverted your edit to Civil Air Patrol, which changed the reference list in the notes section from one column back to two, which is a revert of my edit (which changed the list from two columns to one column). I changed it because there have been concerns about compatibility issues of a two-column reference list in various browsers, and that a one column reference list is preferable. —  scetoaux (T|C) 19:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to you. I have seen such discussions, sometimes in article talk, once at the Village Pump (although I rarely ever go there). I don't believe there's any consensus towards removing two column reflists, but I prefer to make the article as compatible as possible. —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

FAR backlog is down

The FAR backlog is down a bit now, if you want to bring in Wikipedia:Featured article review/Delrina; if so, just change your sig to update the timedate stamp, and remember to add it back to the article talk page and do the notifications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

Hey! Sorry I haven't gotten to editing any of your articles yet - first I was working on an FA project, and then I was offline for the past week. It's been so long that I'm not sure where your articles are in the FA/GA processes; if you drop me another note with the current priorities, I'll try to get to at least one in the next few days. Thanks Maralia (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Copy-edit

Hi Wackymacs - Was just looking over the Macintosh Classic and PowerBook 100 articles, and your user page. You obviously know a good article when you see one. I'd be happy to help out in any small way I can—thanks for asking. They go to the top of my to-do list. --AnnaFrance (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Just saw the Macintosh Classic's FA comment page. I'm not that familiar with this process, but shouldn't there be more comments by this time? Also, what is a "spit shine"? :) Anyway, I've taken a closer look at the lead section of this article and have come up with a possible rewrite, but since this is more a matter of personal taste/reorganization than correcting anything—and since this article is in the middle of a review—I hesitate to alter it. Is there some way of just sending it to you for your opinion? --AnnaFrance (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting request

Hi Wackymacs. Thanks for the compliment, but I'm overwhelmed at the moment with requests. Demand for copyediting seems to exceed supply by quite a bit, and I'm juggling writing and research projects as well as copyediting and peer reviews. Finetooth (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar! Muntz probably could have used a peer review in hindsight, but sometimes the best thing to do is just jump and and try to swim. I learned a lot and I hope I can make FA. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: BootX (Apple)

Thank you very much for fixing the grammar problems associated with the article, I have learned much about the MoS by looking at your edits. Just out of curiosity, how did you come to find this article? GAN? Special:Random? Watchlist?  Atyndall93 | talk  02:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Macintosh Classic

Thanks for the kind words. Your edits made me get out my college grammar text and study up on the use of colons. They are used in many ways (not just lists), but both of your edits were absolutely correct. My colons were graceless and out-of-place. That being said :) I've inserted another colon in the Features section, but I think I've done a better job of it this time. Thanks for helping me improve my editing. This is going to be one fantastic article! --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Macintosh Classic

A bit of space opened in my schedule, and I went ahead this morning with a light copyedit of the Classic article, as you have seen. The changes I made were mostly nit-picky; please revert any you find to be too fussy or not appropriate for a technical article. I didn't convert the 8 1/2" x 11" paper size to metric, but you might want to. I tried to imagine reading the article from the point of view of a non-U.S. reader largely unfamiliar with Macs or computer terminology, hence the concern about "bezel" and a few other terms. Good luck with the rest of the FAC adventure. Looks like it is going well. Finetooth (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Your comments at SS 88's FAC

Thank you for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SummerSlam (1988)! I've responded to your comments there. Nikki311 03:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you feel about this option for the results: User:GaryColemanFan/General#Results? It uses numbers and bullets instead of just bullets, which makes it easier to read. Also, I moved the match type (in this case only two matches were special/championship matches) to the beginning of the line. Nikki311 21:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I changed to that version in the article. Nikki311 21:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: BootX (Apple)

Just letting you know that it was make a GA about 5 hours ago.  Atyndall93 | talk  07:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Gilberto Gil

First of all, thanks for your comments and support on the recent Gilberto Gil FAC, which sadly did not pass. I was wondering if there is anything more you might be able to say with regard to a future FAC on the article's talk page, as new material has been added. Thanks, --Kakofonous (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

TCI GA Reiew

Hey there, and thanks very much for taking the time to GA review the Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company article. I've taken 20 minutes to follow your suggestions. The lead has been expanded to two comprehensive paragraphs and I've added more citations to the U.S.S. Corp section. I have two problems though. Firstly, I'm finding the "As Tennessee Coal & Iron Division: United States Steel Corporation" impossible to expand. The written history of TCI apparently ends after 1907, with no books or websites to be found on the subject. As far as I can determine, nothing of any excitement happened until 1952. The company merely operated as your common or garden subsidiary. The second is that I can't find any real sources (other than WP articles) on the towns of Fairfield and Alabama. Now, I'm more than happy to remove my unsourced claims regarding them if you would just take a second to glance over the article once more and advised me to do such. Thanks again grarap (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)grarap

PowerBook 100 lead paragraph

Hi Wackymacs

No, I really don't have an opinion about is/was; I understand both POVs. Let me try rephrasing the opening 2 sentences, however. Maybe we can solve the problem by avoiding it. --AnnaFrance (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Just finished up the Features section, which included changing several present tenses to past tenses. I checked earlier in the article, and kept things matching. (Except for the very last sentence about System 7 OS. I left that present tense, not being sure how past-tense that OS is.) Anyway, my point is that the article needs to be cohesive—either the Power Manager was this & that, or it is this & that, etc. So if somebody changes one instance, they'd better go through the article and change them all. --AnnaFrance (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"Baby Boy" FAC

I think Ive addressed your comments. I checked for misuse of commas as well as spelling (using Microsoft Word). If ever you have more concerns, you can highlight those offensive sentences for me to fix it. Thank you very much. --Efe (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed a lot of commas. Rewrded o avoid commas. And the like. --Efe (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Good day Wacky. I think I've addressed all you concerns and objections. A copy editor did his job yesterday. Please check. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Trebor left very substantial comments that really point out the remaining glitches of the article. I asked him instead to copy edit. Hopefully he'll do it. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 09:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, I really expected that you'll come across that comment of mine. Apology. What I really expected about reviewers is that if they oppose, be it strong or weak, they should at least point out what needs to be fixed. Yes I do believe that reviewers are under no obligation but there are times that an editor really wants to fix it himself but cannot because the glitches pointed out by a reviewer are only seen by the reviewer himself. I am surprised this morning with the many support and also by the struck oppose of yours. Thanks man. --Efe (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

re:Yazoo

Hi there. A lot of the Yazoo page has been there for a long while. The most I've done there was to add the charts table and some new info on the reunion tour and In Your Room. I'll look around tho and try to get sources for other things too. - eo (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review help

Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

PS I am spamming all the volunteers - thanks for all of your recent reviews! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

	<font=3> Thanks again for your support and comments - Cogan House Covered Bridge made featured article today! Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

PowerBook 100

Hi Wackymacs, you asked me to take a look, but I see that you started to work on the article during my CE and, although I don't mind reverts at all, the edit-conflicts were a pain. When I CE an article, I go through it many times, checking and double-checking what I have done. I wasn't able to complete my CE because you were "looking over my shoulder". Please, when you ask someone to help out—give them a bit of space. Graham. GrahamColm^Talk 16:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Re; change cripser to sharper – I'm fine with this ... but it is a direct quote, using MacWeek's exact word rather than substituting my own word and suggesting a different meaning than MacWeek editors intended.--Mac128 (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Image removal

I am not sure how to respond to your edits. At Trump International Hotel & Tower, the construction is still in progress. They are at about floor 80 of 92 as I understand it. Thus, construction progress photos are still very relevant. I would kind of like to leave the images in and await GA review. I will revert on this ground. Your type of editing would make more sense at something like One Museum Park which is now virtually complete from the outside. Did you move the images to commons or just toss them out.

In both articles, I think you took out way to many images that are extremely helpful to the reader for me to trust your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

First, don't make any presumptions on how I view other at WP. You have no basis to make statements on my view of others. I would prefer if you would take the time to counter my arguements with substantive statements. That is how we will improve the project.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes the article failed mostly for images. However, the reasoning was that people want to be able to view the page at less than full screen resolution or that they opposed before the reformat to eliminate clutter. I am of the belief that we are suppose to design pages for people viewing at 1024 not on iPhones.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's operate under the assumption that a picture is worth a few words (maybe even 1000). I.E., pictures provide information. Then lets read WP:PRESERVE. Is there a good reason to remove images?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Do the images really appear to be the same to you. Does a 15-story structure look the same as a 75-story structure on your screen. You requested that we come to some agreement that each image is identical. Why would I say a 15-story structure and a 75-story structure are the same. Look at my first , Campbell's Soup Cans, Would you say a sketching and a final portrait are the exact same thing?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer that you either take time to make substantive arguments rather than attempt to claim knowledge of my viewpoint. If you want to know my viewpoint is that 1.) we should adhere to WP:PRESERVE and 2.) Pictures provide information.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I never said Trump Tower was an exception. It is an example where WP:PRESERVE should be applied.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The article has extremely lengthy text surrounding the construction of a building in progress. The photos are commensurate with the text. If the construction was not interesting enough to write a legthy article about, I would not add the images. If the reader benefits with text detailing the construction, images add further information.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to your statement, no one has said X text is better without X accompanying photograph depicting the text. Could you please mention sections of the text that have an accompanying photo that detracts from it. Keep WP:PRESERVE in mind.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree because you have not convinced me that any photos don't add information to the text. When you convince me of that, I will alter the text or remove the photos.

As to your comment on those with FA-class articles. I have authored quite a few myself. Look at the top of my user page next time you visit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Laura Bush GA review

Hi there, I just wanted to thank you for the quick, yet very complete and thorough, GA review you performed on Laura Bush. I decided to improve the article after I had the honor of meeting Mrs. Bush last Friday, and I consider it's GA-standing a great accomplishment. My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know, but that would be cool to find out. Again, thanks for the review. Happyme22 (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Rust Street Images

I still had Rush Street (Chicago) watchlisted from the FAC and was saddened to see your helpful and prudent image reduction reverted. I went ahead and created the Commons category and included therein the images already present on the Commons. I don't know that it will be useful at this point, but I wanted to let you know it was there. Best, ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 22:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Powerbook copyedit

Hi Wackymacs. Sorry, I can't help with this just now. I'm traveling, and this reduces my on-line time drastically. Finetooth (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have an erratic Internet connection where I'm staying tonight as well, but it seems to be working a little better as midnight approaches. I want to congratulate you on the FA for Macintosh Classic. If you can wait about five days, I should be able to copyedit Powerbook. Please drop me a note on my talk page if a copyedit next Tuesday or Wednesday sounds useful. Finetooth (talk) 05:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

M-28 (Michigan highway)

This article is a future FAC pending a trip to the Library of Michigan to scan the necessary old state highway maps to replace/re-source the history. I was wondering if you'd be interested in giving the article a copy edit at some point in the future. I currently don't have an exact time-table on making the trip to Lansing, MI yet to complete my research, but any assistance you can give is appreciated. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Take your time with it. I don't have a timetable yet to get to the library to scan the map sources but if/when I do I will let you know. Imzadi1979 (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just in Lansing over the weekend, and the Library of Michigan should be sending me my maps they're scanning for me in the mail soon. Once I get them and you pronounce the article acceptable to you, I'll nominate it at FAC. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The article's is up for for a renomination at FAC. The first nomination was made by someone other than me a bit prematurely. User:Scott5114 and User:Davemeistermoab have each done some copy-editing tweaks, but it could use a good go-over by someone else too before I re-nominate it now that I'm ready to deal with a FAC myself. If you're not available, can you suggest someone else? Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

It's really great to get my first Barnstar, and I thoroughly enjoyed helping out with Macintosh Classic and PowerBook 100. Let me know if you think I can be of service on any other articles. Cheers! --AnnaFrance (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review limits

Hi Wackymacs, since you have several peer review requests currently open, I wanted to let you know about the new guidelines at Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy which places the following limits on peer review requests: "Nominations are limited to one per editor per day and four total requests per editor. Articles must be free of major cleanup banners and 14 days must have passed since the previous peer review, FAC, GAN, or A-class review. For more information on these limits see here." This was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits.

The current requests you have made can stay open (they are grandfathered in), but I wanted to make you aware of the new limits for future requests. Thanks for all your work here, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

PS You need to update your FA userbox to four FAs - congrats!

Montana class battleship FAC

Since you and I are involved parties in the FAC, and since the MILHIST cooridinators and I are somewhat bias insofar as we have something to gain in the promotion of the article to FA status I have asked about navweapons.com at the reliable sources notice board. As fair notice to an invloved party, I wish to inform you of the post (located here), and to suggest that we each wait until a genuine third party weighs in on the sites suitability for use here before taking action on it one way or the other. Does that sound fair? TomStar81 (Talk) 05:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Dear Wackymacs, thank you for commenting at the FAC. I need to know what you think of my response before I can proceed. I have also asked another top reviewer for guidance on this issue since we followed the FA Islam's citation model for quoting the Quaran. Our present Bibleref's allow the reader to go to a page that will let them pick from a number of Bibles - both Protestant and Catholic versions- to see the cited quote. All they have to do is click on which Bible to see the actual quote in the text. We felt this was the most NPOV way to do this since there are so many different versions of the Bible and we did not want to make the decision to use one over another source for the cite which would invite accusations of POV one way or the other depending on which one we used. NancyHeise (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Mac_specs Template

I just noticed you have changed convention within the Macintosh model pages by using {{Infobox_computer}} rather than {{Mac specs}} which is used for all of the other Apple models. Is it your intention to convert all of the other Mac model pages to {{Infobox_computer}} and do away with {{Mac specs}}, or should the Classic & PowerBook 100 model templates be changed to conform to the rest of the WikiProject Macintosh stated guideline goals?--Mac128 (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

PowerBook 100 copyedit

Done. Looks good. Finetooth (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

RCC

Wackymacs, Malleus is a FAC reviewer, not an editor of the RCC page. Gimmetrow is neither an editor of the RCC page but a very respected FAC reviewer as well. Johnbod is also a FAC reviewer and is not an RCC editor. I think there is confusion between this. These reviewers have responded to other FAC reviewers comments (and I appreciate their comments). NancyHeise (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Show me where?

See MOSNUM. TONY (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC) And you've reverted my other delinkings of the repeat links. It's overlinked. TONY (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

linking

Josh—I was about to post a note here when you reverted. Um ... yes, it was a little bold, but MOSNUM now doesn't mandate the autodud thing. This has been brought on by WikiMedia's persistent failure to respond to requests to decouple the dud from the linking function, with a petition from 85 WPians last year. Fed up. It's such an inflexible system, and frankly, there's quite enough bright-blue splotching in your article already. Only a tiny proportion of readers see the actual formatting, but everyone gets the blue and, unless disabled, the underlining.

So, what's your feeling? The raw date formatting that almost everyone will see is American, which is quite fitting for an American product. If you're really uncomfortable, tell me and I'll put 'em back in. Whatever you decide, it will need to be consistent. I suspect that no one would say anything in the FAC room ...

I think your writing has improved significantly, if it's not brash of me to say so. TONY (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Musical instrument

Thanks for your additions to the outline and bibliography. They will be immensely useful. I also ordered a book I found on Google Books named Musical Instruments – An Illustrated History from Antiquity to the Present by Mary Remnant. No idea if it will be any good, but it was cheap. Are you interested in helping write the article? I am in the History section right now, but could use another pen if you're up for it. --Laser brain (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Synthesizer is looking really nice. That's a very wide topic, much like Musical instrument. I have a feeling I'm going to be tortured by what to cut when it gets too long. --Laser brain (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Copy-edit

Hi, I noticed that you said you were listed at WP:PRV and willing to copy-edit stuff. I was wondering if you would be willing to help me out ? I have put the Doggystyle article up for FAC and it has been requested that it receives a copy-edit before it can pass as a FA. A partial list of what has to be changed is at the FAC page, but I think the article would need a complete copy-edit to ensure it has good grammer and that the prose flows well. I personally don't know what to look for, so I would really appreciate your help. Can you help me out ? Please get back to me soon :) - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy-edit man. I've tried address your concerns on the FAC page. Do you know another copy-editor who could help with the page ? Thanks again. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin?

One other thing: Have you considered running for adminship again? I think you'd make a fantastic candidate. I scanned the concerns people brought up at your original RFA way back yonder and I don't see that they would be issues almost three years later. Your edit summary use seems fine (although you had a long period of inactivity) and I'm sure you've learned volumes more about how Wikipedia works. I'd be willing to nominate you if you are interested. Let me know, or feel free to email me if you'd like to discuss it privately. --Laser brain (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do. In the mean time, check out Wikipedia:Administrators/Tools and think about them in context of your article work. I know admin tools always come in handy for FAC maintenance (deleting subpages, etc) and I'm sure Sandy wouldn't mind another administrator around and willing to help. The tools would be useful in other FA-related areas since that seems to be a primary interest of yours - for example, you can help manage featured articles when they are on the main page by watching and blocking vandals/SPAs/etc. Protecting or semi-protecting pages from vandalism and edit-warring is also useful. --Laser brain (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the whole "admin" thing is for me. I like writing and reviewing. Still, the tools would come in handy every now and again, I'm sure. Like you said, maybe a few months from now. By the way, there is a preference you can set to message you if you try saving an edit without a summary. Click "my preferences", click the "Editing" tab, and then select "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". --Laser brain (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Toyohara Kunichika

Thank you, Wackymacs, for your helpful edits to this article. I did change (as opposed to undo) your image edits for aesthetic reasons and for better alignment with relevant text. Your changes led to what I hope are overall improvements to my original work, so you were very helpful even where I did not agree with you. --Clhowson (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

copy-edit List of National Historic Landmarks in New York ?

Hi Wackymacs -- Your username leaps out to me from Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members, i think perhaps because i might have seen your signature on reviews in wp:PR, which i have been browsing recently. I wonder if you would be willing to copy-edit List of National Historic Landmarks in New York? It is a list-article under long development that went through peer review a while back. It was noted then that it would need a copy-edit, and it has been further developed. I believe it is nearly ready for nomination to Featured List status. Please let me know if you might be able to help. Thanks! doncram (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Another thing about musical instruments

The old version of the article before I started had nothing about this history of musical instruments. There is no article titled History of musical instruments. I can't believe no one has written about it here before. I expect that once we're done with this core article, the History section will be quite easily expanded into its own article that is just summarized in musical instrument. --Laser brain (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Re PowerBook 100 power supply edit

Hi, did not realize that you needed to verify this information. I know it because I had two power supplies replaced by Apple Canada and the mother boards of my PowerBook 100's modified.

http://www.kevinomura.com/powerbooks/powerbook100/index.html

What I don't have any longer are the paperwork for them, at least not in an easily accessable location.

Because the information could save someone from blowing a fuse on their PowerBook 100 motherboard, a part that will probably be difficult to find today I think you are doing the community a disservice.

Cheers

Niteshooter (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Kevin Omura EI Technician The Toronto Star Newspaper

Wikipedia:Peer review/Déjà Vu (Beyoncé song)/archive2‎

Hello Wacky. Before this articles pops up in the FAC room, can you take a look at it? Please visit on the article's PR. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I left a response. --Efe (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Montana class aircraft

In answer to your immediate question, no. I am, however, about to head back to school, and that means access to a large campus library with a didicated military history collection and JSTOR. My intention is to browse through there collection on Monday and see if I can nail down a source for the paragraph. If I still can't locate a source after the cruise through the library then I will see about removing the paragraph, or rewording in it in such a way as to make it clear that the section is based on photograph evidence and educated guesswork. I'm hoping that the sargent who runs the didicated military history section at our library can help, hes pulled through for me before, and we do have a decent collection on campus. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Another copyedit has occured, just in case you were not aware. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

Just to let you know that I might decide not to edit the article again, so it might not be for me to do the cleanup to the article. It's a great film, and I like it, but as far as the Wikipedia article goes, I've been doing lots of edits, but I don't think I'll be able to get it to FA status, without help (Nobody even seems interested). Appreciated comments, --EclipseSSD (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

1965–1966 Central African Republic coup d’état

Well, it seems I'm not getting any takers for copyediting 1965–1966 Central African Republic coup d’état. Since you brought up the concerns at the FAC, would it be too much to ask if you could copyedit the article? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Time zone added. Should I also mention the time zone in later references to time? I have also converted the article to Harvard-style referencing. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for copyediting the coup! :) Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

RCC FAC

This message is being sent to all opposers of the Roman Catholic Church FAC. Thank you for taking the time to come see the page and give us your comments. I apologize for any drama caused by my imperfect human nature. As specified in WP:FAC, I am required to encourage you to come see the page and decide if your oppose still stands. Ceoil and others have made changes to prose and many edits have been made to address FAC reviewers comments like yours. Thank you. NancyHeise (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!

		The Special Barnstar
		For getting Powerbook 100 up to FA, a barnstar given by Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Brian Horrocks FAC

Thanks for the advice. I have replied over on my talk page. Leithp 20:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Trump Chicago FAC

I have reduced the construction photos from 25 to 11. Can you tell me if there are still too many?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anna May Wong

Another copy-edit has recently been done on this article, and you might want to give it another look. Thanks. Dekkappai (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought you'd like to know this article just passed FA review. Thank you for your contributions to this article during the review, Wackymacs. Dekkappai (talk) 04:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

refactoring?

Wacky (if I may, heh...):

Pero Ceoil's recent comment, perhaps you could refactor your section heading at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Roman_Catholic_Church#This_FAC_is_pathetic.2C_uncooperative_and_pointless. I suggest a title along the lines of "Problems with this FAC." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Chevrons

		The WikiChevrons
		For being the driving force behind much of the early improvement work for the Montana class battleship FAC I herby present you with the WikiChevrons. Thanks for the help, and keep up the good work. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emmy Noether

Wacky, I know you're busy, but there have been a couple of comments/questions at the Emmy Noether FAC that we'd like to hear from you about. Thanks! – Scartol • Tok 12:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Try to add text to see the limit

I use Firefox. Perhaps that is the cause of the message. But try to add another citation or a lot of text and you will see the byte length increase and the message appear. The message will then suggest that the article be split, which is not in the best interests of the article. The cite template is bulky, I think you will agree. I was just looking at the {{harv}} template which appears to be less bulky. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Feature Article Candidate Roman Catholic Church

The nomination of the above article was archived by the Featured Articles Director, with the comment that the page had again grown too long. He has asked that all remaining objectors produce a list of their specific problems with the article in its current form. These will then be addressed by the article's editorial team before re-presentation for FA status.

Can you therefore please post a complete list of any specific remaining objections you may have on the article's talk page at: Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church. If possible can we have this list in by the end of June, so that editors can begin to address them all in detail in July. To prevent the nomination again becoming over-long, we would ask that you raise ALL of your remaining concerns at this stage, making your comments as specific and comprehensive as possible. It would help if all your comments were gathered under your name in a single heading on the page. Thank you. Xandar (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

RCC's fixation on sex (since the 19th century)

You may be interested to know that the flame of contention is still burning, and has perhaps focused more narrowly on critical ideological balance.

Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church#bibs_and_bobs

No email?

TONY (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Josh—yes, I agree, whether 10 or another number, as long as it's substantial. You might think of posting that opinion on the talk page of RCC. TONY (talk) 07:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit request

Hello macs, can you please take a look at the Sri Lankan Tamil people article. None of the editors of the article are native English speakers and we would love to have someone of your skills to do a copy edit of the article. This article is currently being peer reviewed and a comment has suggested that the article is in need of copy edit. Your help would be much appreciated. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Gomez edits

Hi Wackymacs, I see you are taking a whack at improving that article. The comments were so extensive, that I've been rewriting the whole thing in my userspace, and was about to finish off the last section in about two hours before moving my revision over top the article. Would you prefer to work on that version? I don't want to waste anyone's talents. :-) It's at User:Risker/Gomez2. Best, Risker (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Synthesizer

Billy Preston had one of the first Billboard Top Ten synthesizer hits with "Outta-Space" in 1971-72. Elton John's "Goodbye Yellowbrick Road" is a major milestone in popular synthesized music (especially "Funeral For A Friend/Love Lies Bleeding"). These two artists are crucial to understanding the popularization of synthesized music. Along with Stevie Wonder, they are indispensable to understanding the evolution of the use of synthesizers today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdrake2 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sad news about the League of Copyeditors

Hi Wackymacs, thanks for the advise. One note: the League of Copyeditors has just today been marked as "historical" as it is not longer active. We asked them for help a couple of months ago on Talyllyn Railway and never heard anything back. Just FYI, Gwernol 19:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Wackymacs, thank you for your kindness. I would like to reveal to you, Ragesoss, and Jbmurray, my motivation for working on the FARC article. As you know, I was merely one of a rather large group to work on the article, which was structured by Michael Hardy. After Taxman requested some references, I added some, and put the article on my watchlist. As events occurred, I would respond, and after some years, it appeared that I had something to do with the article, when in fact my attention and reason for working on the encyclopedia were elsewhere. But after the FAR event, User:Ragesoss notified a History of Science working group that I was working on the article. That put me in the hot seat, and my respect for Ragesoss dictated that I match his expectation. I hope that you forward this to User:Jbmurray as evidence for the reason that some people work on the encyclopedia: it is for the respect of the other editors. I look forward to the day when User:jnc (who was directly involved in the history of computing) will be enticed to return.

I sincerely hope that others will continue their efforts on the article. Thank you again, --Ancheta Wis (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)

You had made fairly significant critical commentary at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) without voicing an opinion. The discussion had to be restarted. I continue to believe that this is the best WP article ever written on a building under construction and hope you might consider voicing an opinion on the matter.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of acquisitions by Apple Inc.

I have responded to your oppose. Gary King (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll take a look at those. The list also had other companies before, but I removed them because I couldn't find them on the SEC. I still think that the companies you mention could be found in SEC filings if they were indeed acquired; the SEC filings also have the extra advantage of listing the date of acquisition and the value of it. As these types of lists are still pretty new and no real standard has been set, I think we should set some sort of precedence for future lists like this. The other ones I had used any reliable reference available, but some worded their news reports in such a way that you couldn't tell whether if it was 100% verified (such as, "Apple is thought to have acquired X company"). I would not include ones that don't seem completely sure, but many news reports, especially about Apple as you probably know, are usually more vague than others. Gary King (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No; I'm saying that all acquisition lists should ideally only use the SEC as a reference, so future debates similar to the one we're having don't spring up :) Do you mind if I move the discussion to the FLC's talk page (I'll add a link) and then we don't have to move between user talk pages and the nomination page? Gary King (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

FAR

You nominated Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of computing hardware; "Nominators typically assist in the process of improvement; ...". Have you ever checked in there? One person has been laboring away, with no guidance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything you can do to help bring it over the hump? One editor has put an awful lot of effort into it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wackymacs, I consider this to be 'our' article, to which we all contribute. Please feel free to add value to it as you see fit. Perhaps it will regain its star, in time. I am currently in a life change and am preoccupied at present. Thank you for all that you have done for 'our' article. I respect your concern and care for the standards of the encyclopedia. Regards, --Ancheta Wis (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

TFA!

Not sure if you've seen this or not: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 4, 2008 - congratulations! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Crom requests for a peer review

Hi Wackymacs. I am considering pushing Conan (2007 video game) for FA. However, I would like to get any serious problems with the article out of the way first. Could you take a look through the article and leave your comments at its peer review? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Copy edits and the massive backlog

Hey there!

I'm sending you this because I noticed you were active in the former league of copy-editors. I joined the LOCE something like a few days before it became historical, and have been making a lonely effort to reduce the copy-edit backlog, so I've been curious - why did the LOCE close, are there any efforts going on out there to reduce the copy-edit backlog, and do you think there's a point in establishing (and would you join) a wikiproject purely to maintain the category of articles needing copy edits?

I've been having a hard time getting people on related projects (WP:PR, WP:GAN, etc) to help with the backlog, so I'm trying to gather suggestions or help regarding starting a project simply to maintain the category of articles needing copy edit.

Thanks! ;) --Samuel Tan (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for contacting me. I think LOCE was ended (unfortunately) because none of the requests for copyediting were ever fulfilled, and the backlog continued to grow in size considerably. I thought the project still had some meaning because people were still signing names on the members list, which is a useful place for finding individual copyeditors to help out when working on an article. I would like to help clear the backlog (it's going to take months), and I'd like to suggest we start right back at the beginning of the backlog, clearing up the 2007 articles first. I think the oldest articles have been left because they are 1) very boring and 2) very long, but someone will have to do them at some point (maybe even me...) (copied from talk page of Samuel Tan (talk · contribs))

Yeah, I've gathered that one big reason was that the requests were not being fulfilled, which would greatly undermine the project, although I think that that will always be a problem on Wikipedia given that the people creating and changing articles vastly outnumber the people cleaning them up. For now I'm just trying to get something started that would focus on the backlog. Perhaps a taskforce of WP:PR or maybe even its own project. I'll see how many interested people reply my call. :) -Samuel Tan (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Jackson

Thank you for your advise, I will take advantage of it where possible, cheers. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 19:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Lisa Marie Presley

Can you take a look at this article. In the past Michael Jackson fans tend to make the article about him and not the subject.66.108.6.34 (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Before you listen/believe this IP please read this. Notice he has changed his IP now all of a sudden, he was using the same one for months. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 20:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Realist2 get over yourself I'm allowed to ask others for help since you have a mission of your own and are not open to discussion. I'm not hiding behind a new IP.66.108.6.34 (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are, you were using 66.108.106.248 for months. Why the sudden change? — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 20:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you help?

I see you were listed as a participant in the League of Copy-Editors so it seems likely. The thing is the Military history wikiproject urgently needs prose pros to help with our best articles. Milhist covers a broad range of interesting and varied subjects from film to biography, battles to weaponry, and Roman emperors to twentieth-century dictators. In Milhist, A-Class has become the last port of call before FAC and we are looking for people to help identify prose and MoS issues at A-Class A-Class Reviews and help fix them prior to featured article candidacy. We also have a copy-editing section in our Logistics Dept and that can always use experienced copy-editors. For most of our articles, you don't need to be a specialist in the subject matter, just good with words.

If you think you can help, please do! Thanks for your time, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: You've probably got your hands full at FAC but I thought I'd try anyway :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Phan Dinh Phung

Hi there. Can you explain why you think the examples are incorrect, for my learning experience? I've changed them anyway. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A copyedit has been done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit help

I am working on what I hope will be wiki's first ship-based featured topic: the Iowa class battleships. In the process though I have need to ensure that all the current FA rated Iowa class battleship articles are maintained to the current FA levels. This can be challenging (the oldest of the FAs both date back to 2005), so I have made a point to put all of these articles through a peer review at least once a year to get constructive feed back to help keep them current with FA standards. It was suggested to me that the three completed Iowa class battleships would benfit from a copyedit, and your name came to mind since I recall you being listed on the LoC members list and becuase you were a driving force behind the improvement of the Montana class article during its FAC.

At the moment you need not actually conduct a copyedit, but as a copyeditor I was looking for your opinion on whether the articles USS New Jersey (BB-62), USS Missouri (BB-63), and USS Wisconsin (BB-64) would benifit from a copy edit. I ask that you not copyedit the articles at the moment becaase I am in the process of adding material to all of the articles, so any copyedit would be null and viod if I end up adding material since I lack the ability to spell anything correctly. If you feel the article would benifit from a copyedit then I will make an effort to get the new info into the articles quickly and then request a formal copyediter. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Koji The Frog

A tag has been placed on Koji The Frog requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruining good prose

Hi. I infer from this edit of yours that in this series of edits I ruined good prose. I fondly thought I'd improved the prose. Of course different people have different ideas of good prose and I'm quite prepared to have my edits criticized and even reverted on stylistic (or other) grounds; however, I don't recall ever having been accused of ruining good prose. Have I lost my touch? It would of course be tiresome to explain just what is wrong with each of my little changes. However, do please choose any one or two of them and tell me how I screwed up. (Please explain here, on my talk page, or on the article's talk page, wherever you prefer.) Thank you.

(Incidentally, while reversing my ruination of prose, you also reverted what an unrelated editor claimed was an authoritatively sourced correction of fact. However, I haven't looked into the veracity of this claim.) Morenoodles (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Mac Classic

I realize this is going to sound like a downer, but... the Macintosh Classic article is, IMHO, has a serious problem, a sin of omission: there is no discussion of the history of the product before it was released. The earliest mention is a MacWEEK article from a few weeks prior. This is troubling; the Classic/LC/SI were the result of raging internal battles between the "high-right" crowd and the rest of the company that had been going on for well over a year, and is widely recorded as a seminal period in Apple's history. The Classic was part of an desperate attempt to regain market share after Gasse and the high-right group priced the lineup out of the market. Yet there's not a single mention of this.

I'd be happy to work on this. But again, it seems odd that no one noticed this during FA. Of course this just re-enforces my concerns about the FA process, that it consists largely of a ref-checking exercise, but that's me being grumpy. Maury (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to expand it, providing you have reliable sources. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

List of acquisitions by Apple Inc.

Hi Wackymacs. Can you return to the FLC for List of acquisitions by Apple Inc. and let me know if your concerns of incompleteness have been addressed? The list has now exceeded its 10 day limit and I'd like to either promote or archive - your concern is troubling and if it's not resolved, I will not allow the list to be promoted. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit

Hi Wackymacs! Sure thing; I'll work in some January 2007 articles whenever I have a spare moment. I've never proposed an AFD - this is a good time to learn - but I hope you don't mind playing mentor. Any article I think an AFD candidate I'll run by you first. Have a great week! --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Profile6.png

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Profile6.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)

I have replied to your opposition with explanation of my links and have removed some links. I have requested your opinion on the image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Flood FAC

I replace the Cmdstore refs with non-commercial sites, and I was able to find a scrap of reception for them, but not much. Regardless I think I dealt with your other concerns. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Neuroplasticity

Hi Wackymacs,

Thank you very much for your comments...!

I can tell you this: I feel like rewriting the entire page, and I'm capable of doing so, but I am hesitating because I feel it might garner many objections. I am not a neuroscientist. In addition, I believe that the original author(s) wrote in an intentionally abstruse manner, so as to "show off." For example, I see no reason for the use of statistical terms such as "independent variable" and "dependent variable." This is a Wiki article, not a peer-reviewed article in a Neurology journal.

Also - There are reasons for the problems involved in writing a cogent article about this subject:

(1) The field (neuroplasticity) is truly in the vanguard of neuroscience, and is changing virtually every day. The original authors have not kept up to date;

(2) All of the material on the subject is written either for the rank layperson (for example, the Doidge book and a PBS DVD) or for neuroscientists. It's difficult to reconcile the two ends of the continuum;

(3) The subject is difficult to comprehend out of historical context. I recently wrote a paper about neuroplasticity which included a short history of "localizationism theory" vs."neuroplasticity," and was soundly reprimanded by my psych professor for being too verbose. Perhaps I could include a very, very short section about the historical context, and could link it to a separate page created just for that purpose. What do you think?

Please advise me exactly what you find difficult to comprehend on the page. I understand it very well, but dislike the writing style (I agree with the person who said it had "no soul").

Your further comments are extremely welcome...!

Cheers, FrancineEisner (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar and Peer Reviews!

Thanks very much for the barnstar and for all of your own work on peer review. It is always nice when someone notices your work and I appreciate the barnstar very much (and the help reviewing articles even more). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your peer review for Joe Delaney

I appreciate your help in making this article better. I think I covered what you spotted and I'll look for a volunteer to help me further. Thanks very much! conman33 (. . .talk) 01:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Star Castle (concept house by Roy Mason)

I have a picture of Star Castle, a house designed by Roy Mason in 1984 that was modeled after Xanadu. It is about 5,000 square feet on top of a hill overlooking Candlewood lake in New Fairfield, Connecticut. I recently purchased the house and spent some time tracking its history -- which led me to your article about Xanadu and Roy Mason. If you are interested, I can e-mail you pictures and a brief background. The house is still in its original condition since it was built. It is well known within the community as the Igloo or Mushroom house, though the original owner called it "Star Castle." You may reach me via e-mail at [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryng5 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles needing copy edit (tentative name)

Hello there!

I have begun laying the groundwork for a new WikiProject that has a very simple goal, to improve Wikipedia by dealing with the articles tagged for copy edit, and I am wondering if you are interested in helping me start it. This project is not a clone of WP:LOCE because we will not deal with requests for review (that is currently handled by our good friends over at Peer Review).

I expect that this will be a relaxed, happy and casual WikiProject, because participants will be able to take things at their own pace and use the project page to ask other participants for help. The project proposal is here, and I have created an almost-functional project page in my userspace here.

There are now over 4000 articles needing copy edit, and very, very few people working on them, so any help, however small, is appreciated. If you are interested, please sign up at the proposal page. Once we have enough people, I will shift the project page, along with its subpages from my userspace into the Wikipedia namespace. For now we can use this section of my talk page to discuss the direction and details of the project, and, of course, its name. *grin*

Cheers! --Samuel Tan 12:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

More than 4000? Whoa! I'm getting tired just thinking about that. And these are not the top 4000 most scintillating articles on WP I bet. :) --AnnaFrance (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It's going to take some real collaboration to get through 'em. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! The project page is now up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles Needing Copy Edit. It's now a bit bland 'cos there are no pretty pictures yet heh... Feel free to sign up there, and discuss details and direction and what not at its talk page. Cheers! -Samuel Tan 03:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Vicious Pink

Hi, information about their records (labels etc) I took from my record collection. Other bits and pieces I found from various places on the net. I'll try to dig them out and put them in the article. Cheers. Dashwortley (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers

Thank you for voting to keep that article and I'm sorry if I rubbed you up the wrong way the other day. Thinks have gotten really difficult for me now, I have the Jackson FA review running and now I have to defend an article from deletion. I think I'm gonna quit before long. — Realist² (Speak) 08:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's just terrible, I have plans for other Jackson articles but it looks like they will be harder to set up than I thought. I cant believe it was an admin who made that deletion nomination. Just clear bias on his part. I also made 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson in my sandbox last week, which fared a little better, at least it wasn't nominated for deletion in 8 minutes. — Realist² (Speak) 08:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

The review has been going on for nearly a week and I'm tired and exhausted, I very much doubt that I can handle another week of this intensity. It has had a huge affect on my sleeping pattern. I have spent most of today deliberating whether or not to withdraw the nomination; the other deletion nomination of my other Jackson article didn't help. Depending on how things go over the next few days, I will likely withdraw the nomination. I want to thank you for your suggestions and improvements to the Jackson article in recent weeks, regards. — Realist² (Speak) 19:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Halo review

Oh, sorry about that. I've been real busy lately, I'll try to give them a look within a day or two. Thanks for the reminder. Blackngold29 20:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Halo (series) PR

We are actively working on your suggestions! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

KEEP

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical appearance, health and diet of Michael Jackson the vote was to keep, now hopefully I can get back to the Jackson article, thank you for your support. — Realist² (Speak) 19:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Janet Jackson

I've listed Janet Jackson for peer review to prepare for FAC. Link here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Janet Jackson/archive1. Would you mind contributing to the review? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Any chance you might nominate the article to WPP:COPY for a group effort? I'd really like to make sure the article is as perfect as possible before nominating. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Insane Clown Posse FAC

Because you reviewed the article during its May FAC, I thought you might be interested to know that it has gone through a thorough copyedit, and it should be ready for FA status. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC))

• Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC))

Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany

Need a second opinion. Do you think the words like Wehrmacht, Hitler-Jugend, Bund Deutscher Mädel, Schutzstaffel, Luftwaffe should be Italicized? Or these are good in their present form. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know :-). What do those mean? If anything, it would be useful to the reader to link them. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

These are name of Nazi German organizations. I have linked them. I am only confused if these should be Italicized or not. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No, since they are organizations. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Book of Love (album)

I'll look through my college online data base. do you have a sandbox I can cut and past information in? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

EBSCOhost is one. I hate that data base because they have REALLY good info, but the search engine is a piece of crap if you don't phrase your search properly. I found a few, will post in a bit. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I only found two, and they aren't all that great- they barely speak about the debut album. I thought the data bases would turn out more, but I guess not. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 07:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It's a well-written article, I just fixed a few relatively minor things. Besides, after reading it I wanted to create a page for "Boy (Book of Love song)" and wiki-link it to the page for the album. I loved them back when I was in school. Again, good job with the page! Zephyrnthesky (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Book of Love

I was going to suggest rocksbackpages.com, but they don't seem to have anything. You can ask around and see if anyone has any old NME or Melody Maker issues with features on the group. You can also try contacting NME and seeing if they can provide you with sources; they also own the rights to Melody Maker, which is now defunct. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

re: Music sources

I see you had other people on this project. :) Anyway, I did some searches and didn't find a whole lot. It's not helping that Ted Ottaviano also made news in 1986 for some project called DoublePlusGood. An April 1986 article in the DJ Times begins "Profiles the dance music duo DoublePlusGood, which is producer Ted Ottaviano, formerly of Book of Love ..." Anyway, I came up with some hits using Access World News and the International Index to Music Periodicals. Nothing looks thorough enough to be more than you already have. Just mentions of the album and some live shows. My next stop would be Ulrich's Periodicals Directory to look up individual magazines if you know of any that might have carried articles on that genre. Ulrich's tells you if and where they are indexed online. --Laser brain (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

NME is going to be tough because it is only indexed online back to 2005. That means if they had an article, you'd have to request a back issue or find a library that has it. I'm still looking—I'll send you an update if I find anything. Actually, if I find any good articles I'll just e-mail you the full text if you have your e-mail enabled. --Laser brain (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

We can't post full-text articles in Wiki space.. it's a violation of the GFDL. :) --Laser brain (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

FAC

Done sorry Taprobanus (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)