Archives

March 2005 to May 2009 June 2014 to current

Please stop bulk changing tons of article classes from their specific class to list. It is up to specific projects whether lists are rated as list class or on the scale, so many of your changes have been done in error and are having to be reverted. Thanks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Collectonian. I have noticed your work before and I understand you are a talented and experienced editor. I will stop moving the lists to the list-class. I can fix any errors but you may have to be more specific on where they occurred. maclean 23:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The main one that I noticed is with Anime/manga project templates, such as at Talk:List of The Mysterious Cities of Gold characters [1] :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For providing several articles that aided me in bringing the Jarome Iginla article to featured status. Cheers! Resolute 23:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey maclean, I've made a few changes to the list - would you be kind enough to let me know if I'm heading in the right direction? Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The WikiProject Novels Newsletter Issue 30 - June 2009

Archives  |  Tip Line  |  Editors The Novels WikiProject Newsletter Issue 30 - June 2009 Member news Coordinators election. An election has been long overdue, and therefore one will begin shortly. If you wish to stand, please put your name in by June 28, when voting will start. Members are encouraged to vote for the candidate they wish to support by July 21 at the Coordinator Elections. The Ed17 has decided not to stand for re-election. His work as Assistant Coordinator, along with Kevinalewis, since the last elections in October is highly appreciated by all members of the project. The Novels Project now has 128 active members. 17 positions remain unfilled at the Job Centre. Members who are active project contributors are encouraged to apply even if they can only fill a position for a short time. The His Dark Materials task force has been set up, and the role of coordinator has been undertaken by Pmlinediter. Project news On April 7, a fact about novelist Karin Bang appeared on the main page in the DYK section. On April 10, a fact about Pride and Prejudice and Zombies written by Seth Grahame-Smith appeared on the main page in the DYK section. On April 23, a fact about the protagonist Cousin Betty in Honoré de Balzac's La Cousine Bette appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column. On April 25, a fact from the article Blanca Olmedo written by Lucila Gamero appeared on the main page in the DYK section. On June 9, a fact from The Fox and the Hound by Daniel P. Mannix appeared on the main page in the DYK section. On June 15, a fact from The Road to Yuba City by Tracy Kidder appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column. - Contributors are Alan16, (who searched the archives). Task force and related news His Dark Materials task force has begun. This task force is dedicated to improving all articles in the scope of Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy. The main purpose of this taskforce is to expand, cite, and promote all articles in scope of the series. They welcome any advice or help that members of WikiProject Novels may be able to offer. If interested, drop a note on their talk page. – Position of editor for the task force has been undertaken by Pmlinediter. Peer review and assessment news Peer Reviews are still open for seven articles – The Last of the Masters, The Kindly Ones, Flowers for Algernon, World War Z, Sector General, Petals of Blood, and Scenes of Clerical Life. Feel free to submit any novel-related article that you are working on for review, and please consider stopping by and reviewing an article, as we need more reviewers for our articles! – the_ed17 (talk) and Alan16 (talk) Member in Focus Hi, I have been a member of this project for a few months now, and after finally gotten to grips with Wikipedia I have decided to take on the role of writing this newsletter (currently by myself, but any help would be appreciated) with some helpful tips from The Ed17. After undertaking this I realise why it was so difficult to keep it going. I will, however, persevere. From the members, I would encourage you to vote in the Coordinator elections, and take up roles at the Job Centre. The project has struggled recently, and I am hoping to try and revive it. If, with the publication of this newsletter, there are a couple of things that aren't quite up-to-date (like the Collaboration part), you can be certain I am working on it. I will be trying to get a newsletter out on around the 21st of every month. Finally, thanks for the help Ed. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply] Current debates A Kenneth Oppel task force has been proposed. You can comment here. Oppel is a Canadian author who specialises in Young adult fiction. Novel related news American writer Michael Hemp wins the 2009 Next Generation Indie Book Award in the Action/Adventure category for his novel, The Nadjik Pheromone. From the Outreach Department This is my first attempt at the newsletter, and I hope it at least gets close to the previous high standards set by Kevinalewis and The Ed17. I will once again encourage you to vote in the Coordinator elections, as I hope it could be the springboard to revitalise the project. I'll keep working on the newsletter, partially because I like the stress, and partially because we need it to get members and would-be members interested. Hopefully the start of great things. Regards, Alan. Collaboration of the Month Because there has been little activity on our Collaboration page for a long time, I have made an executive decision, and chosen The Tin Drum as our Collaboration of the month. All members are asked to assist where they can. The next collaboration is due for selection on 21 July, 2009 so nominate and vote. Newsletter challenge This month's article is Mindplayers by science fiction author Pat Cadigan. It is a previous, uncompleted challenge. Announcements and open tasks WikiProject Novels • (inc. novellas, novelettes & short stories) Announcements and open tasks (watch • edit • discuss • changes) → Please help with tagging articles! Critique (Featured article): 33 achieved Novels WikiProject Peer reviews: • Sector General • Petals of Blood • Flowers for Algernon Improve: Oberon Old and New • The Age of Reason • Furies of Calderon • Wolf Brother • The Monk • The English Patient • Bones of the Moon Create: To the Vanishing Point • Spoilt City Recently a new worklist had been created and quietly arrived, the Cleanup listing which gives a fairly comprehensive hit list of "novels" related articles that have been tagged for something or other. Since then a new Article alerts listing has also been added of more topic and "urgent" items worthy of our attention.

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thanks for your help finding sources for The Time Traveler's Wife and The Historian! I really appreciate having sources appear in my inbox. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. To begin, every member of WikiProject Novels will be getting this message (the joy of macros) so if you wish to get in touch with me, please post a message on my talk page. I would encourage anyone who so wishes, to stand in the Coordinator Elections. If you wish to stand, please do so by 23:59pm, June 27. Voting will the continue to 23:59pm, July 21. Can everyone please check-out the Coordinator Elections page. Also, the collaboration of the month is The Tin Drum, so if you have any spare time, please check it out. And I apologise to the seven of you for whom this will be a repeat message. Regards, Alan16 (talk).

HI; I gather from your work and previous comments elsewhere that you're from the Peace....as you probably know I started a geographic-category system for BC based on the "traditional regions" - Okanagan, Cariboo, Omineca etc. although in smoe cases I've just left it at Category:Northern Interior of British Columbia, or used the relevant mountain range as a category (e.g. for Thutade Lake, Category:Omineca Mountains will suffice as it's not really in the Omineca Country as such. I've put off for a while now creating Category:Fort Nelson Country (a term heard commonly enough in weather reports, no?) partly because I don't know where the division point with Category:Peace Country would be; somewhere around Pink Mountain I'd think. Also pondered Category:Liard Country but wonder if maybe Category:Alaska Highway Corridor might not work better....if either do. Also have pondered what to do with Fort Ware/Kwadacha and Mackenzie and can't qualify as Category:Greater Prince George (which is where I think I put McLeod Lake and Summit Lake...before Lake Williston came along, that area had been the "Finlay-Parsnip Country", focussed on now-vanished Finlay Forks). Also given your expertise in that area please note the creation of Rocky Mountain Foothills and the expansion of Monkman Provincial Park et al.....anyway your thoughts on the Fort Nelson/Peace distinction requested; for now things up by Fort Nelson, unless they're in th Rockies (e.g. Muncho Lake), I've just put in teh Peace category; I know that's not right - or is it acceptable from the perspective of Fort Nelsonites?Skookum1 (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The administrative boundary between the Peace and the Northern Rockies/Fort Nelson area is the 58th parallel. However, the geographic boundary (using the watersheds of the Peace River and Liard River) would be a little south of that. I've heard of "Fort Nelson area" for the lack of a better description of the area, but I can't recall ever hearing "Fort Nelson Country", though I rarely pay attention to that area. "Liard Country" sounds better but I wouldn't be able to back that up with a reference. Technically, Fort Ware is in the Peace River Regional District, but being on the flip side of Williston Lake, it may as well be in the Stikine for all anyone cares. Mackenzie? Definitely not in the Peace. --maclean 02:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exactly why I think using regional district categories as geographic classifiers is an absurdity and a fool's errand; Atlin in the Stikine Region? Port Renfrew in Nanaimo or Cowichan Valley, whichever it is? Yuquot/Nootak Sound and Bute Inlet in the same region? Other provinces which don't have county systems doo't even have region categories (Alberta, Saskatcehwan, Manitoba, Newfoundland & Labrador). What I think went on in the early days of wiki is that somebody was looking for something to equate to counties in BC and made a lot of wild assumptions, and also honed in on the idea that regions should have asbolute boundaries and no room for overlap; never mind that they'r complete politicail fictions, and only one of MANY ways of cutting BC up for administrative purposes; even the regional districts, though, are based on teh traditioanl regions, at least in name (Bulkley-Hechako, Columbia-Shuswap, Squamish-Lillooet etc). It's not just Fort Ware that's in the PRRD - so's Tatlatui Park and Thutade Lake. I'm slowly adapting the categories and purging RD articles of county-esque language (such as referring to a town as a "seat" of the regional district); I rewrote the lede to the main regional district article because it had so many wild equations to county-type powers; fire suppression, emergency services, even health and schools...somebody was cribbing from Coles Notes I guess. Avoidi9ng too long a digression, I note that most of the traditional regions tend to be defined by basins, though not always; the Omineca includes things in the Peace basin (e.g. teh Nation and Omineca Rivers, and I'm unclear if where the dividing line, or even the overlap, with the Nechako Country is....the Shuswa Country is the basin of Shuswap Lake except upstream from Mara Lake; the Shuswap River country is in "the Monashees" (I asked someone who'd lived up there...). The Boundary Country is eseentially the Kettle River and its tribs...though not their upper reachs, the Skeena Country though is really obvious, so pretty much is the Stikine Country except for bits of overlap such as at Dease Lake. I'll go with the Liard/Peace basin division, then, following your suggestion; things in the upper reaches of the Muskwa only need the mountain range category, though I guess I'd better make Category:Northern Rockies (Canada) as a subcat of Category:Canadian Rockies. The "country" system really only applies to settled areas, or partially-settled areas like the Cassiar, Stikine and Atlin; the deeper cores of the mountain ranges and coastline are just what they are. This has been condemned as original ressarch but it's all over materials written about BC, especially historically; to me, the classification-by-regional-district is original research as nobody else uses it but Wikipedia (and people who learn things from Wikipedia)...Anyway thanks, don't mean to rant just type too freely...for now I'm till doing "settlements in XXRD" but I'm uncomfortable with putting IRs and reserve communities in those, so there's things like Category:Settlements in the Chilcotin and Category:Settlements in the Similkameen as subcats of the settlements in RD cats....BCGNIS and CGNDB classify everyhing by land district, which while eminently citable is just as absurd as regional districts; Jervis Inlet is in the Lillooet Land District, for example; Moricetown is in the Coast LD, Range 3 etc...Skookum1 (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fine with those. Should I let the FAC sit until some other voices come in on the Usenet issue, or take any preemptive measures? ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 21:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Got to work on the article and posted remaining references at FAC for further review. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 04:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GimmeBot relegated the second FAC to the graveyard, so I restarted, but only added my last comments. I'll go notify Eagdylth as well. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 20:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. The Coordiantor Election has begun. All members are encouraged to vote by the deadline, July 28. To vote simply add support to the comments and questions for.. section of the member of your choice.

3 users are standing:

• Alan16 (talk · contribs)
• Kevinalewis (talk · contribs)
• Pmlinediter (talk · contribs)

Regards, Alan16 (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]

On July 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Post-American World, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject DYK 17:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, not a problem, anywhere where it will get more eyes. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for adding the banners to appropriate talk pages. Just note that the official banner is ((NovelsWikiProject)). Regards :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've noticed you switching them but I continued to use the WPNovels banner because it is just really easy to remember and type. But now that I have NovelsWikiProject written here, if I can copy&paste I will do so from here. maclean 15:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The July 2009 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Alan16(talk)

Talk:The_Post-American_World/GA1 - it is close to passing and only a few minor things. When the above is corrected, I will be listing it under "Politics and government", as it is a non-fiction work discussing politics. Cheers. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Responded here. --maclean 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From what I can see, the page reads cleanly and the sources check out. It is now a "good article". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thank you for your time in reviewing. --maclean 19:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm sorry that it took so long before someone reviewed your page. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! You would be glad to know that a new wikipedia ad has been created by Srinivas to encourage users to join Chronicles of Narnia Task Force. You can display that ad on your user/talk page too using the following code: ((Wikipedia ads|ad=190))

Wikipedia ads	file info – #190

-- Alan16 (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The August 2009 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Alan16 (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On August 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 17:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This text actually describes the contents of the book in general. So in my humble opinion it would not violate any guidelines. It is like the preface of a book saying that E=MC², and we repeating it in a different context. Regards

Thanks for that GAR, I enjoyed it! Now I must get to work and review someone elses... Sasata (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excellent. You are an good editor to work with. If no one else does, I may pick up a few more reviews of your articles. Mushrooms are oddly kind of interesting. maclean (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On September 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article How the Scots Invented the Modern World, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 17:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if you have time to do a copy edit on Davenport, Iowa. I'm almost ready to renominate it for FA, and need some good copy editing. Thank you! CTJF83Talk 20:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Maclean25. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Thanks for the head's up. Sure, I'll approve the nomination. I'm especially interested to see what you believe is most in need of specific citation. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• What should I do to help with the GA Review process?----occono (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Okay, I'll try searching for Citations tomorrow. (It's late here now. :) )----occono (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • This is too hard for me, sorry.----occono (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks very much for your careful, insightful review of the article. It was a real pleasure working with you. All the best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the info. I removed the request MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In regards to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Review_of_Books, I am able to supply you with the WSJ article. If you still need it, please email me using Special:EmailUser/ThaddeusB & I will be happy to reply with either the text. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On October 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Who's Your City?, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (see the pageview stats(?)) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 13:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		But I really wanted to show my appreciation for the in-depth reviews you gave to the 2009 Giro d'Italia articles. I had intended to get 2009 Giro d'Italia up to FA after passing GA, and your fine review gets it a lot closer already than I'd have thought possible. Thanks so much. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 02:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I addressed your issues in the GA review. I also added a print source to verify the chart positions and Grammy wins. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems like you only had one concern at Talk:Encyclopedia of Chicago/GA1, which has now been addressed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I passed the above article. It was a good read. I liked it. I left only one suggestion at Talk:How the Scots Invented the Modern World/GA1. Cheers. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, that's it. I must have just forgotten the template. Sorry. Geraldk (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice catch. My constitutional law prof'd have my head if he saw that. Steve Smith (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Er, actually, I take that back. The Constitution Act, 1867 didn't actually exist until 1982, so in that article BNA Act is correct. Steve Smith (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I was aiming for the links, rather than the name. BNA Act redirects to British North America Acts, whereas the Constitution Act, 1867 article is actually about the document in question. -maclean (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Right so. Using British North America Act, 1867, which redirects to the correct article, seems to be the solution. Thanks for your work on this article so far, by the way; it's been very helpful, and I look forward to reading your comments. Steve Smith (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may be disappointed with my comments. So far I don't have anything to say except fro the article is passing all the GA criteria as far as I've read. --maclean (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there - The JMA released their best track information on Etau and have downgraded it to a tropical storm. Whilst the primary author has updated the infobox he has not yet corrected the MH.Jason Rees (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a past WP:FOUR awardee you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've taken care of the review comments there. Feel free to continue it. The Flash ^{talk} 16:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Back in July you posted a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive_103#Review of Books for some articles related to The Post-American World. I can provide those if you still need them; just drop me an email. Dr pda (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've just emailed them to you. Let me know if you don't get it. Dr pda (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On November 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Acquainted with the Night (book), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am notifying you that since you were a discussant for my last successful Michigan Wolverines football/National Football League player FAC (Tyrone Wheatley - see FAC here), you may want to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cato June/archive1‎, which currently is in need of further commentary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		WikiProject Vancouver
		You have been invited to participate in Operation Schadenfreude to restore the article Vancouver back to featured article status.

- Mkdw^talk 11:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Maclean25. You have new messages at Nbahn's talk page.
Message added 23:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

no sweat <br. />--NBahn (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maclean25: I just prepared my first article in my user sandbox (link in User Page), and I was hoping you could kindly give it a quick peer review. Thank you /User:RickardA /User talk:RickardA —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickardA (talk • contribs) 22:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Looks like a good start. I think you can put it in the mainspace at Takanoyu Onsen. --maclean (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Maclean25: Thank you! RickardA (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Maclean25! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,894 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the ((unreferencedBLP)) tag. Here is the article:

1. Anita Romaniuk - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In December 2008, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 8#SPoT Coffee was closed as allowing your userspace draft to be restored to the mainspace. Having looked through the draft, I believe that it's ready to be moved. Best, Cunard (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, thanks for passing this. Since you reviewed it quite quickly, i thought I'd let you know about User:Wizardman/GA incentive, where if you have an article or two that you think should be reviewed at GAN, I'll gladly take a shot at it to help reduce the backlog. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did the Ed Blake review qualify for the incentive? If so, please take care of User:Jack1755's nominations in Royalty. maclean (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wondering if you might have sources that would improve the article referenced here. --KenWalker | Talk 19:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to disturb, but I just wanted to say thank you for your nice message on my talk page re passing Talk:Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester/GA1 the other day. I was a bit distracted by an unforseen development. I also restored a sentence in the article to your version, of which I mistakenly believed there was a third way, when it was the old one ... Thanks again and cheers! Buchraeumer (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for carrying out this review. I believe that I have fixed all the issues. I have itemised the cases where I have acted differently from your recommendations as Talk:Twice Through the Heart/GA1.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And thanks again for passing it. BTW, that's a nice array of featured and good content you have on your user page.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On February 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Twilight Zone: 19 Original Stories on the 50th Anniversary, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem - it took me a while to understand how to process it.Jason Rees (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Maclean25. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
Message added 14:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

Dabomb87 (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi just saw your removal of the notability tag, and I don't understand your edit comment "again". yes, I see all the references, but those are local-news and also industry-media, partly based in th company's own press releases. I know of a chain of candy shops that once had four outlets in Merritt, Lillooet, Hope and Princeton, and they had some press copy in local papers - does that make them notable? This page has been conflated and expanded by a COI contributor who has also taken out stuff "not submitted by the company". e.g. this edit. Also see User_talk:Ctremewen#COI_on_Saltspring_Coffee.Skookum1 (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also the edit comment re a deleted section titled "Controversy" this edit which Cmtremewen also deleted, with the blatantly COI edit comment "This page is assigned for a company description and historical background as placed here by the company itself".Skookum1 (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I basically don't understand what you want notability warning tag to accomplish. If you don't think it is notable, then nomitate it for deletion (as the tag instructs you to do), or propose another action like merger, redirection. --maclean (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I didn't notice that in the tag; which I'd been misunderstanding to mean to launch debate on whether something is notable or not, but I see the place to do that is an AfD, which I'll do.Skookum1 (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just tried to start an AfD but because of its previous AfD that's what I get on "this article's entry"....how do I relist it?Skookum1 (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The instructions are here: WP:AFDHOWTO. Just like the first time but put in a "2nd" parameter. maclean (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't get to that because of ongoing page-load problems due to a really slow connection (REALLY slow), and dozens of other pages I monitor/edit and other parts of my life, but just now I had a look at Cmtremewen's blanking of my warning on their talkpage so took it to the Conflict of Interest noticeboard; - see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Salt_Spring_Coffee_Co._and_User:Cmtremewen. Should I wait to see if an admin will launch the 3rd AfD and whatever other action, or would you tend to agree with me now that this page is problematic in its instigation and ownership by someone from the company - who thinks that people not FROM the company should not be editing the page? :-| Skookum1 (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blanking a warning on your talk page is an acknowledgment that you know it was there, so don't worry about that. I would like to see how the Noticeboard deals with this. His actions do seem to point to an affiliation with the company. maclean (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

His words baldly state that....Skookum1 (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I completed the GAN, and I placed it on hold pending one small prose error I found that needs you to correct. See Talk:Twilight Zone: 19 Original Stories on the 50th Anniversary/GA1 for details. –MuZemike 23:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I am awaiting an official peer review, but was told by a FAC delegate to get as many people looking at the page as possible. The page just received GA status today. At your earliest convenience, could you take a look at the Stephens City, Virginia page and review it (placing it on the page's talk page or mine is fine) independent of the official peer review. I would open to any and all requests during the review. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeesh Thanks. How silly. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have finished up with the changes you suggested I make to Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass in order to get it ready for a GA review. Though I did have a question on one of your points on the talk page. Could you go take a look at it? And, please let me know if you think there's anything else I need to change or add in the article. Silverseren^C 21:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I've finished with your new set of things. Go take a look? Silverseren^C 17:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a reviewer at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tyrone Wheatley, I thought you might consider commenting on another FAC of a Michigan Wolverines star from the early 1990s at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juwan Howard/archive2.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your review of the GAN for 2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl. I believe I've addressed all of your concerns; please review and let me know. –Grondemar 15:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have finished the review and made notes on the GA review page. --maclean (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks again, I believe I've addressed all of your new concerns as well as the one left over. Let me know if there's anything else I need to take care of. –Grondemar 05:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Maclean, thanks for your review, I think I've addressed all your concerns. Cavie78 (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the review! Cavie78 (talk) 09:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Maclean - many thanks for the review of Zaculeu - it was helpful and constructive! Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, you do a lot of these GA reviews! Thanks for taking on another. I'm not hugely familiar with what makes a fair use justification acceptable, so I may well have fallen the wrong side of that rule. I thought that image was quite central to the plot and showed the aesthetic of the attic room, and it was an image used in promotion of the film too, but if it doesn't add understanding then it can certainly go. I've removed it, and instead I've add a couple of screenshots showing the use of lighting in the attic room to indicate the 'correct' placement of objects as Marie prepares her suicide room (Image:Story of Marie and Julien lighting.jpg). I think the fair use justification for this new image is OK - what do you think? Fences&Windows 20:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

p.s. Great to see that you wrote a good article about the inspiration for my username! Fences&Windows 20:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have replied at Talk:The Story of Marie and Julien/GA1. I did noticed your userpage while I was searching 'what links here' with the Fences and Windows article. --maclean (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on November 15, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 15, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 06:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Chetwynd is a small town in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains in northeastern British Columbia, Canada. Situated on an ancient floodplain, it is the first town encountered after emerging from the Rockies along Highway 97 and acts as the gateway to the Peace River Country. The town developed during the construction of infrastructure through the Rocky Mountains in the 1950s, and was used as a transshipment point during the construction of hydroelectric dams in the 1960s and 1970s and the new town of Tumbler Ridge in the early 1980s. Home to approximately 2,600 residents, the population has increased little in the last 25 years but is significantly younger than the provincial average. Chetwynd has dozens of chainsaw carvings displayed throughout town as public art and is home to the weekly newspaper, the Chetwynd Echo, and a Northern Lights College campus. Nearby, there are four provincial parks, two lakes, and several recreational trails. Highways 29 and 97 intersect in town with Highway 97 connecting it to Prince George and Dawson Creek and Highway 29 to Tumbler Ridge and Hudson's Hope. Its economy is dominated by the primary industries of forestry, fossil fuel extraction, and transportation. (more...)

Thanks for your assessment just now of Handbook of Religion and Health. I was wondering if you could put on its talk page a sentence or two or three about what changes you saw as needed in order for it to make class B? Is it primarily more description of content, or do you see other issues? Many thanks -- Health Researcher (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Responded at Talk:Handbook of Religion and Health#B class check list --maclean (talk) 02:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks, that is very helpful! Health Researcher (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congrats on getting Chetwynd, British Columbia to FA and TFA status. Good to see more smaller town articles being moved to FA. :) There is just one more step in your "journey" with the article though....WP:DYK. Since you have taken it from new article, to GA, then FA and now TFA, it wouldn't hurt to give DYK a go. Let me know if you are able and I will nominate you for a FOUR award. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. It was a surprise to see it as the TFA; I'm scrambling to update it. I created the article early in my wiki-career, before I knew what DYK was, so I think it is too late for that. But I do try to get my new articles now through DYK. --maclean (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never too late for DYK. There have been articles that have gone from FA to DYK, so give it a shot. :) Again, congrats! :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great article! Chetwynd on the main page, had to do a double take. The Interior(Talk) 07:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I'm glad you recognized it. I wonder how many British Columbians are aware of Chetwynd's existence. --maclean (talk) 08:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably not too many outside of the Peace, but I spent a great summer there treeplanting. Seeing a small-town article get the feature-length treatment is what's great about this place. The Interior(Talk) 11:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there Maclean, I will try to keep this short. I noticed your rewrite and you did some good work (and a lot of it too) and thanks for that: plenty of review references also. Although I actually prefer the original but this is probably a matter of style and preference. The good side is that now the original is defunct and no longer published at Wikipedia I can effectively take it back for myself at least by fact although I know not really by law. I am going to move on from Wikipedia into my own blog... Things have a habit of getting dumbed down here particularly into mediocre and ineloquent English. It is a bit cookbookish now: section by section of the Author's book... Also I don't actually like the Background paragraph style as this should go into the Author Bio page otherwise you would have repeat it for ever Article for every book by that Author!? Hence the downside of a cookbook or templated approach. Question: are foootnoted references to say comparison with other Authors considered original Research? Also I couldnt find your original ref online but Martin Scoresse does not appear on Cinemaginaire's page for the film as an executive producer - given his preemminence I would pretty much take this as indicating that he is no longer associated with the project? Also although you keenly summarized/precis some of the quotes (particular the first intro one) there were a few bits (perhaps cut down) I would still like to see in the article particularly from his concluding remarks "an ice age hunter gather, clever but seldom wise" etc and the last Easter islander bit as they are muost poignant and expressive rendered thus in the authors own words than in a cookbook summary of the book. (I had this same difficulty once summarizing Nietzsche for an essay and in the end largely used the authors own words: how can one after all precis Nietzsche!) Please don't be offended. Maybe we should collaborate a little as I have no doubt that we will get a better result than either of us would otherwise on our own. Respond here or at my User Mattjs discussion page. (I rarely log in any more but will do so to check.) I will check back here in a few weeks or so (maybe longer) and make a few changes above after your feedback. Regards 122.148.41.172 (talk) 10:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC) (Now i'm off to print and save an older copy of the original Article (and largely mine) for myself ;-))Reply[reply]

• The "Civilization is a Pyramid Scheme" External Link is an example of the sort of stuff that gets trampled on: it must have become a dead link but obviously no one bothered to search for a replacement until now.122.148.41.172 (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It actually would be better to discuss this where it is most appropriate: i.e. on the Article's "Discussion" page I usually do so but most of the trampling followers on many of the pages I have edited do not...122.148.41.172 (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks for building up and maintaining the article over these past few years. My re-vamp is intended to add additional perspectives from outside sources. I used the standard WP-book format: Background (where the book came from, at what point in the author's career it was written, etc), Content, Style, and Repection. You're right that the writing can come off as cookbook-ish (I call it 'matter-of-factly' or structured). On the Scoresse involvement, the last mention of him was in the May 2010 news article referenced but he doesn't seem involved anymore. If you find the time, please do continue editing. I'm sure we will be able to produce something better if we are able to correct each other. maclean (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Maclean25, there is quite a bit of detail you deleted out of the original article that could go back in. The only debate is over the number and extent of quotes: sure I had a lot of them, but given Wright's use of rhetoric the only way to get any appreciaition of that is through judicious quotation. You will notice in Nietzsche's The Birth of Tragedy and Thus Spoke Zarathustra quite a few more quotes than we have. So two questions: Firstly, the Wright's concerns and exhortations quotes like before but in the smaller neater text boxes; and, Secondly how much detail in the description from the original article to go back into this one. In a number of places the old text elaborates where as the new text doesn't really say very much in the Synopsis about the actual book text!?: all the article is in Background, Style, and Publication and Reception? Have a think about it and maybe look back at the old Synopsis to see how much useful review has been deleted in the new version. Regards Mattjs. 122.148.41.172 (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maclean25 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as Maclean25's Day! For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian, enjoy being the star of the day, Maclean25! Signed, Neutralhomer A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congrats on your awesomeness, and thanks for the nomination to have this honour bestowed upon me. Mindmatrix 15:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yah, I was just thinking about how long we have been here. Almost 5 years now? About time the youth started appreciating us old-timers. maclean (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings! I've requested a peer review of the Warren County, Indiana article. Your name is on the list of volunteers for geography-related articles, and I wondered if you would have any interest in providing some input. I and another editor have spent a lot of time improving it, but we need other experienced eyes on the it at this point to ensure that it is as good as possible. Thanks for your consideration. Omnedon (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the award! May we all be Determinators. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 02:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Maclean25. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

On 4 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Empathic Civilization, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in The Empathic Civilization, author Jeremy Rifkin argues that extending empathy to subsequently larger groups is paid for with increasing entropy in terms of environmental problems? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks from the DYK project and me Victuallers (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Interior cordially invites you to the Vancouver Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Meetup! It is being held at Benny's Bagels at 2505 W Broadway. Meetup will start at 6:30pm. Drop by for some Wikipedia-style conviviality and free gear! Feel free to forward this invitation to any Wikipedians who might be able to attend, and visit the discussion page to suggest activities. Hope to see you there and have a Happy 2011!

Template:Election FPTP 1 begin has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 21:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a question: how recent do some of the improvements have to be. I just recently changed The Hunger Games trilogy from Stub to Start, and then it was reassesed at C. Thanks, Glimmer721 ^talk 16:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The intent is to motivate (or provide a push) to editors to created/improve articles, so anything that is a result of that 'push' (in January) could be listed on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Collaboration page. Thanks for adding to the Improvement Drive. maclean (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 17 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Player One, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Douglas Coupland's Player One: What Is To Become Of Us is the first entry in the Massey Lectures series to be a work of fiction? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HI Maclean25, thanks for reviewing our article, Rebecca Harding Davis, our group has gone through and hopefully fixed all the mistakes with citation etc. Genesse23 (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Maclean25. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Distribution is done, Sadads (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you everyone who participated in the January Collaboration, it was quite a success with 5 new C class articles, 3 stub kills and several articles were removed from our backlogs. In support of the Great Backlog Drive, the WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February is going to help remove backlog candidates in the backlogs related to WikiProject Novels. Please join us, and help us wikify, reference, clean up plot sections and generally improve Novels content, Sadads (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are recieving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Novels according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Members

Hello Maclean25, Thank you for your quality assessment of Kristubhagavatam, here, in which you rated it class C. To help with further improvements, I was hoping you might put a few remarks on the talk page HERE about what specific features the article lacks that could enable it to become a class B article. Hopefully this will not require much time for you to do, because I see from your contribution log that you performed your original assessment amazingly quickly (it seemed to me), on 12 Feb 2011 between two other edits at 19:07 and 19:08, in less than a minute! Many thanks in advance -- Health Researcher (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Health Researcher, for building the article; that is what should be appreciated (I just merely added one letter to the talk page). As you mention, my assessments are quick overviews, not in-depth analysis. As requested, I will provide a more in-depth review on the talk page today. -maclean (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Maclean25, many thanks for all your thoughtful suggestions for improving Kristubhagavatam! Please have a wonderful day and week! -- Health Researcher (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello User:Maclean25, and thanks for your rapid quality assessment of Mantram Handbook. When or if you get the time, I would be interested in your appraisal (e.g., added to the book's talk page), of what changes/fixes you think the article would need in order to qualify for the next higher quality level, i.e., B-class. (NB: Though I've so far only partially implemented your suggestions for Kristubhagavatam, the remaining suggestions you offered are like precious money in the bank that can be turned to when next addressing the article!). Many thanks -- Health Researcher (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David Yates is now being renominated for GA status. If you have any comments on the article, feel free to add them to the review page linked above. Geometry guy 20:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Literary Barnstar
		Thank you for participating in the WP:Novels February 2011 Backlog Elimination drive. Keep up the great work, we always need help working on Novels articles! Sadads (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on April 12, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 12, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 22:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am soliciting opinions on how percentages should be shown in electoral district results tables here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Electoral_districts_in_Canada#Formatting_results_tables. Your opinion would be welcome. Regards, Ground Zero | t 02:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've started the review for Enemies & Allies. -- James26 (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great. I can provide (email) you any of the offline references you wish to see. If you come across any other sources I can incorporate into the article please let me know. maclean (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sources seem fine. My main issues were the ones I mentioned earlier in the review. -- James26 (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated this for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Knowle West, Bristol/archive1 as I would like to take it to WP:FAC. Any comments that would help achieve this will be most welcome. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for the Booklist review you emailed me. I'll probably be adding some more to the article later (it's currently at T:TDYK), so I'll keep this review in mind. But of course you're welcome to add to the article yourself if you want to. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the referencing adjustments you've made on Moonrise (novel). I really appreciated it. Here's a kitten for you.

Brambleclawx 17:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that your are one of the peer review volunteers for geography. Can you do a peer review on Wikipedia:Peer review/New York City/archive2. thanks, OpenInfoForAll (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user helped promote The Ash Garden to good article status.

Well done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Maclean25 for helping to promote The Ash Garden to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give someone a pat on the back today. Sp33dyphil © • © 08:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Maclean25/Archive 2! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

That was nice of you to give Astrocog the barnstar for reviewing Blair Waldorf, and to make the comments that you did. Cheers. -- James26 (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much for choosing the article "Reservation in India" for review. I am working on it with one of my classmates on the article for a class at Mills College and all your reviews are appreciated. Thank you and hope you find the article interesting. Kkhari29 (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for adding to the article. I have left some notes on the review page which can be addressed at anytime. maclean (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Payback Atwood.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a ((helpme)) template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add ((bots|deny=DASHBot)) to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry bout that Maclean25, I didn't mean to template you. Any chance you'd consent to using the other cover? Gobonobo ^{T C} 18:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see what the advantage is of replacing the cover image. The image parameter of Template:Infobox book states "prefer 1st edition - where permitted" and the File:Payback Atwood.png image is from the first edition. maclean (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are, of course, correct. The balloon/tack cover does seem to have been released first (at least in the US). My preference for the other cover is aesthetic; it just feels more like Atwood to me. I believe the other cover is the first edition released in hardback, but I wouldn't want to jeopardise a future FA and in any case would defer to your judgment. Cheers, Gobonobo ^{T C} 00:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 29 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Winter: Five Windows on the Season, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Winter: Five Windows on the Season by Adam Gopnik was the 50th Massey Lecture and occurred on the 75th anniversary of the CBC? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Winter: Five Windows on the Season.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Payback Atwood.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Maclean25!

Congratulations! Your application to join the Wikipedia Education Program as an Online Ambassador has been accepted. We honored to welcome you the Ambassador team!

The information below is provided to ensure that your new role as an Online Ambassador is a successful one. There are tasks listed, as well as reading material. Please make sure to complete the actions presented below, as quickly as possible.

The Wikipedia Education Program is a relatively new program that is continuing to experience change and transition. Our goal is to be better than we were yesterday. For this reason, please remember to check the information and talk pages of the United States Education Program and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program often. If you have any questions, please contact one of your fellow Ambassadors or one of the members of the Ambassador Steering Committee.

Please complete the following, as soon as possible

1. Add your username to the official list of Online Ambassadors;
2. Add a profile for yourself here; and
3. Read and review the Wikipedia Ambassadors Principles;
4. Read the United States Education Program's Memorandum of Understanding (provides list of current courses); and
5. Select one (or more) of the courses from the MOU and add your name to their Online Ambassador slot.
6. Sign up for the Wikipedia Ambassador Program announcements email list.

Support Structure

Online Ambassadors serve as a vital link in the Wikipedia Education Program, assisting new student editors transition into the Wikipedia editing community. They serve in a leadership role alongside the course instructor; local Campus Ambassador(s), who work with the class in person; and the Regional Ambassador, who checks in periodically with the pod to make sure everything is going well. Together, the instructor, Campus Ambassador, Regional Ambassador, and Online Ambassador encompass the course "pod".

The pod is the term we use to refer to the group of individuals that work together to help the students in a particular course successfully contribute to Wikipedia. A prototypical pod might look something like this:

• A professor or course instructor who is fairly new to Wikipedia, leading a class of 20–30 students, who have been assigned to make significant contributions to new or existing articles related to the course subject.
• Two Campus Ambassadors, one of whom is an experienced Wikipedian and one of whom is new to the encyclopedia. The Campus Ambassadors are provided with training to learn the basic policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and how to help students contribute effectively.
• Two Online Ambassadors, one of whom is a moderately experienced Wikipedian, while the other is very experienced. Both have knowledge of community policies and guidelines and are available to provide editing guidance, answer questions, and assistance navigating the community. When needed, Online Ambassadors are also available for one-on-one mentorship.
• One Regional Ambassador, a moderately experienced Wikipedian who coordinates assistance and support for universities and courses based on a large geographical region.

Role and Responsibilities

The list of the responsibilities of the Online Ambassador are presented in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). In essence, the role of the Online Ambassador includes:

1. Helping students in your class(es) when they ask for it and answer their questions;
2. Serve as a liaison between the professor/student and the community;
3. In general, keep an eye out for the students and professors and help them navigate the community;
4. Helping students get feedback on their work (whether from you or other editors with an interest in or knowledge of the subject area)
5. Be a good example for students, modeling good faith communication and editing practices; and
6. Communicating regularly with the other members of your pod regarding the progress of the student, along with any issues that come up.

Online Ambassadors can also assist students that are outside of their pod. Generally, Online Ambassadors represent the Ambassador Program and provide assistance for students whenever encountered. While feedback on the style and formatting of student articles is essential, assistance may also be needed to review the articles substance and content. When needed, the Online Ambassador may request the assistance of WikiProjects that focus on technical issues presented in student articles.

Communication Channels

There are four main places for news, updates, and discussion about Wikipedia Ambassadors and the Wikipedia Education Program:

1. Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors
2. Wikipedia talk:United States Education Program
3. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program announcements list. This is a low-traffic email list that is used for significant announcements that are relevant to the whole program. Please sign up as soon as you get a chance.
4. Internet Relay Chat (IRC). If you use IRC, please consider adding #wikipedia-en-ambassadors and #wikipedia-en-classroom to your channel lineup. The latter is the main help channel for the program, where students and instructors seek live help.

Future communication tools are being developed. Newsletters about the program or messages for Online Ambassadors may occasionally be delivered to your talk page. If you have any questions, please let me know.

Again, welcome to the Ambassador team! We look forward to working with you!

--Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 11:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Soon I Will Be Invincible you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Soon I Will Be Invincible for things which need to be addressed. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the information. I'm just a little confused by it all. Why are some: Sanctuary (season 2) allowed as GA but others are "featured lists"? Also, shouldn't the previous article I nominated be listed as "list class" and failed on the same grounds? 90210 (season 3). New to all of this, but any help would be greatly appreciated! Jayy008 (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, right. Thanks so much for all of your help. As a final note, in your opinion, all individual television seasons should be list-class? I'll make the changes now. Jayy008 (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there! I came across your comments about GA reassessment at Talk:Object permanence/GA1. I see the article still has the GA icon despite lacking a full review, and was planning on removing the icon until I saw your note. Was this brought to GA reassessment and I missed it, or did you decide it should stay listed? I just want to make sure it is not inaccurately listed as a good article. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 04:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did an individual reassessment and removed the icon here. It was later re-nominated and passed. See Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Object permanence maclean (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your review of this article. I appreciate the care you took in specifying the weaknesses in the article. I am a bit surprised by the clear expectation many contributors have that articles on language processes should cross writing systems. My preference would be to specify a writing system. That will give me food for thought. I wanted to express my appreciation for the review and in general for the way that Wikipedians are welcoming student editors and writers. This is an excellent experience for them in terms of writing for the general public. Paula Marentette (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much for your feedback on the GA nomination of the RHD article. Since I'm the teacher of the SFSU class, and since the article is a student project, I can't really make any edits. However, I can guide and nudge - - and I'll point the RHD student group to some additional sources etc. As a scholar of American literature, with a speciality in working-class lit - - I can assure you that Life in the Iron Mills is regarded as a pioneering work in American realism. This judgment of Life in the Iron Mill is so ubiquitous that it's almost become common sense - - and hence not something that's argued or even addressed explicitly. Likewise, I can't think of one literary critic who wouldn't agree that Life is Davis's most significant work - - though folks are trying to recover and re-value her other work. In any case, I'll point the students to some general treatments of the book that laud its importance for American realism and its status w/i Davis' resume.

Again - -thanks for the time and labor! You've really helped the students - - who are now getting very excited about contributing to Wikipedia and the elusive grail of GA status! Profhanley (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. In The Sex Party, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Gregor Robertson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Surrey Central, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Langley, British Columbia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I am in Jayzzee's class. Thank you for your great intro to Wikipedia.Kasob (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As Kasob said, I'm currently in Jayzee's class, and thanks for the intro! Reading over your user/talk pages, I see that you're from Northern BC. I'm from Fort Nelson, so...it's always nice to meet another Northerner around here! Matthew.murdoch (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for participating and giving editing a try. I've never made it to Fort Nelson, I tend to go south, rather than further north, when I got time. maclean (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HI! I am also in Jayzzee's Psychology class and looking forward to editing on Wikipedia! RaeD09 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Hello on-line ambassodor. I am also in Jayzzee's personality class. I look forward to editing articles on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owleye769 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Owleye769 (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

QUESTION: I am in Jayzee's university class. I am wondering if you recommend articles to have some points/bullets in them to make them easier to read - as opposed to "standard" university style essays - in terms of structure? Thanks. Owleye769 (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Maclean. I've started an article for Gibson's new nonfiction collection, Distrust That Particular Flavor. I'm going to try get it to DYK, but time's running short. I know you're well versed in things Gibson, if you want to help out, please do. I think I'm going to do a "Background" section first, maybe talk about Gibson's reticence about non-fiction writing. I haven't read it yet, but the reviews have a lot of notes about the individual pieces. We could do a run-down of a few notable ones. Lots of sources out there, new ones appearing daily. Anyways, best to you, The Interior (Talk) 22:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't actually have much interest in Gibson. I read Pattern Recognition at random (it was one of a couple books I got from a dollar bin of closing business and I only vaguely knew who Gibson was) and developed the WP article as a curiosity (my own personal book report). Regardless, I will try to give this new article a boost where I can. I have added a list of references to use [2]. maclean (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks a lot for the refs. I got it nommed with just hours to spare. Would like to expand it a bit more with a "Reception" section, and maybe flesh out the existing sections. Cheers, The Interior (Talk) 21:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Student check in

I remember that there was somewhere that my students need to check in (or sign ~~~~) to declare that they are part of my course. Do you know where that is? And will it work retroactively in accumulating stats (they started editing Wikipedia two days ago).Areil314 (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Responded on your talk page. maclean (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Maclean25, a few other editors and I have been working on Voluntary Human Extinction Movement and I'm trying to get it up to GA or maybe even FA standards. I saw that you got The World Without Us up to FA, I recall reading our article on the book a few years back and finding it very interesting. Do you think you could take a look at Voluntary Human Extinction Movement and give us some feedback about possible issues/ways to improve the article? That would be much appreciated, thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Maclean25! As you may know, the Wikipedia Education Program has instilled a new set of standards that courses must meet to officially join the program for the semester. As you can see, one of the requirements is that at least one ambassador or professor is a Wikipedian, as this should give students more access to helpful information about contributing to Wikipedia and creating good content. You are listed on the Online Ambassador page; are you still interested in remaining active this semester? Some of these classes will have to remove themselves from the program should they fail to meet these standards, but we would like to ensure that new students are receiving proper support during the editing process. Please let me know if you are still interested in mentoring these students this semester and/or visit the Online Ambassador talk page to select a course that still needs an Online Ambassador. Thank you! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Maclean25: Thanks very much for volunteering to be an online ambassador for my environmental history class. The students are just getting organized into their teams now and I'm sure they will be in touch with you in the following weeks. They are newbies to WP and will appreciate your help - as will I (I'm a newbie too). --Greentina (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there! When using certain templates on talk pages, such as welcome templates and user warnings, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use ((subst:welcome)) instead of ((welcome)). This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. If you need any further help on the matter just ask me on my talk page. Cheers.·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Dawson Creek former logo.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Norm Macdonald (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Historic Site (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

is this the right place to ask question about wiki? I am wondering how to make sandbox visible to everyone. How to create sandbox? --Catetoma (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have responded at User talk:Catetoma --maclean (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Maclean25 -

I'm a grad student at The New School in New York, taking a class on Urbanism. My class has been assigned the task of creating a new wiki page on "Urbanism" and my role is figuring out the best way to go about this. I saw that you're interested in cities and so I was wondering if I could ask you a few questions about what you think makes some wiki articles more legit than others. Our goal is to provide expert information while keeping the article accessible. Please let me know if you're interested and we can go from there. This could be via e-mail, phone, skype, or whatever works best for you.

Thanks.

Pukekom (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have replied on your talk page at User talk:Pukekom#Urbanism —maclean (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Users Armsbf11 (talk · contribs) and User:Matthew.murdoch (talk · contribs) both seem to have the same topic for their respective Education Program courses. How should this be handled?Smallman12q (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Maclean25. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 05:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

Hi, what's up? The books of Professor Shonku are not novels, in fact, they are collection of short stories. --Tito Dutta ^Message 19:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hello, thanks for starting articles on the Professor Shanku series of books. The NovelsWikiProject includes "short stories" within its scope. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels#Scope, it says "Novels" are deemed to include all works of narrative fiction that exhibit novel-like structure, regardless of length and genre. (This includes full novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories.) —maclean (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• Account activation codes have been emailed.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing ((User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox)) on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Maclean25. You have new messages at Greentina's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Thanks for the heads up, pal. I've promptly notified in a review that I've written on the page. Associate J. (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI... WikiProject Biography should be the first WikiProject banner on talkpages. Bgwhite (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, will do. I'll take this opportunity, if you do read this reply, to say you do an outstanding job at WikiProject Biography. I noticed what you do a couple of months ago. Its comforting to know someone is completing those parameters. maclean (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I believe you should have said, "Its comforting to know someone is crazy and stupid enough in completing those parameters." Bgwhite (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you not add any new WP Biography banners for a few days. Your articles take more time as they are not the standard footballer or Olympic athlete. I'm getting swamped and need time to catch up. 300 new articles (including yours) to be tagged came in today. Boy, I was caught up Monday and actually did something else besides Wikipedia for a change... fleeting memories. Normally 80-100 articles would come in a day, but starting two months ago, it is now averaging ~185. Bgwhite (talk) 06:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was wondering how long it would take to exhaust your patience. There are a few other things I've been meaning to do, so I can slow this down for a little while. maclean (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks a lot for taking the time to do the GA review for Louis Riel (comics), and for the encouraging words! CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 03:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Maclean25. You have new messages at Talk:Pure (novel)/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Nikthestoned 09:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about the delay also, I was in Athens for a week! Nikthestoned 12:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Just a friendly reminder to put |living=yes or |living=no to the Biography templates you're adding. It's a required field and otherwise shows up on the backlog. I've been adding them to the WP Israel biographies you're doing, but it's important to have it. Thanks! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI... for awhile, I've been taking care of any biographies that don't have living set. I got the backlog from 10,000 down to 0. I don't mind Maclean leaving these off as I add other parameters to the biography template. We have been in communication about the biography template. Other editors that I don't know about or don't have good communication with would be a different story. It would also be a different problem if I get hit by a bus tomorrow or decide to do a permanent solution to my mother-in-law problem, thus having no computer access for 20 to life. Bgwhite (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for taking the time, Mscuthbert. I used to add the living parameter but then I noticed the ones which skipped (because I couldn't tell if they actually were alive or not) were getting filled in much more completely with other parameters I didn't know about. Turns out Bgwhite is monitoring this category and completes templates in less time than it takes me to put an empty template on there. I watch the category fill and empty. If Bgwhite wasn't there to complete the templates, I probably wouldn't be adding so many. Wow, 10,000? maclean (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You both are extremely awesome! that's all I can say. I just figured I'd try for the first time to get a maintenance page emptied -- great to know that this one is being watched out for so well. (And I learned quite a bit about some Israeli politicians!). Do you know if there's any way to figure out if someone is watching another maintenance category closely? I've decided to take a stab at the "dubious" backlog (some have been thoroughly discussed and concluded as erroneous but the attached statement was never removed; others were a drive-by tag that were refuted at the talk page with RSes but which editors were too shy to remove) and would love to know if I'm doing that right. Best, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Dubious" is a difficult one because it often isn't clear what (if anything) is wrong. I've been going through Category:Unassessed Book articles; it's been about a year and I'm only in the T section. maclean (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi I am not too sure how the students carry out their research prior to making radical changes to aerticles, but sometimes it would seem questionable. The Agosia articles reflect this lack of basic understanding of the overall picture of the related scientific issues, and related articles. So far the students have focused on apperceptive and associative visual agnosia, but have almost completely ignored apperceptive and associative Auditory and Tactile Agnosias. Would it be possible to correct this position in the next round of assignments. dolfrog (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They have a bot going thru and tagging all biographies without WikiProject Biography. So, I guess your work is done. It was interesting how you skipped around countries. There's going to 55,000 of these articles.... without living or listas. Guess I'll have work to spare. Bgwhite (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that. Guess I'll have to find something else to do. Good luck with that backlog. maclean (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wanted to say thank you for giving a GA review to my page at The Archaeology of Ritual and Magic; I intend to submit it for FA review next. All the best. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Hi Maclean25, I'm afraid it's going to be a couple of days before I can give you a substantive response to your GA review of Cyrus Cylinder, but I'll pick it up shortly. Thanks very much for your assistance and patience! Prioryman (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. Thank you for keeping me informed. I have it on my watchlist. maclean (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to let you know, I've tackled most of the issues you've raised and will sort out the remainder this weekend. Prioryman (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your help with this; I'm aiming to get the rest sorted out this evening. Prioryman (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I'm done. Please take a look and see what you think. Prioryman (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks very much for your help with this article! Prioryman (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar. I'll probably get around to doing Category:Unknown-importance novel articles and the wp:lit backlog too. I finished up the unassessed novel articles the other day, and thought there might be just a few unknowns... ;) INeverCry 07:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd rather propose that the NovelsWikiProject get rid of the Importance ranking. Or at least reduce it to two levels (say Top and N/A). I find it is getting increasingly difficult to see its relevance as time goes on. maclean (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with getting rid of the importance rating. 95% or more of those articles are low-importance anyway, making it a bit of a formality to rate them. The top/na idea might work, though it would still create a backlog. Most of the articles that would warrant a top-importance rating already exist and are rated, so eliminating the parameter altogether might be the way to go (out of 500 new articles there may very well be no top importance ones at all or just one or two). The issue behind these assessment backlogs is the way these articles are usually tagged; someone just goes thru new articles and adds blank wp temps without rating them, often with AWB. I give a complete rating when I tag articles, but most of the people doing the tagging aren't members of the projects they tag articles with, and probably aren't familiar with doing actual assessments. This is why we have a 140k backlog on wp:bio. I'll keep on with the ratings, as low-importance and na are basically interchangeable. I actually enjoy doing assessments, if you can believe that. INeverCry 17:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed alot of author bio articles are tagged with wp:lit. I've removed a few, as I don't see where wp:lit covers authors, but I'd rather have a second opinion before removing hundreds of them. I know wp:poetry covers poet bios, but wp:lit would have to be hugely expanded to cover all other authors. Is there any way we could explicitly state this one way or the other on the wp:lit page? INeverCry 23:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to the Scope section "the project currently does not devote much attention to individual authors and works" and specifically that "Authors are covered by the Biography project, and books are covered by several other projects". Also, according to the intro, "We call special attention to our current effort to gather new members and determine project scope". Sounds more like the project was set up to deal more collections, movements, or literary concepts (like Restoration literature and Allegory. However, I must say that I've never paid much attention to WP:Lit. I've treated it as a "doesn't fit anywhere else, so put it in that project" project (like Talk:Nurse writer). It seems to be a project that never really caught on. maclean (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Something tells me if I remove all the wp:lit tagged authors, I'll get some one who wants to have a nasty argument about it. I'll have to prepare myself. ;) In regard to the unknown novels articles, what would you suggest on that? Should I go ahead and assess them? Or do you want to go about proposing to get rid of the param? INeverCry 19:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Wikiproject tag isn't worth arguing over. If someone asks you about it, you can point them to the Scope section which says the project doesn't deal with individual authors. If someone reverts or re-adds the project tag, just let it go. In regards to the unknown-importance of novel articles, I wouldn't (and have not) been assessing them. It has, thus far, been easier to ignore them, rather than try to get rid of them but I do intend to propose that the importance levels be removed. maclean (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me know when you start the proposal. INeverCry 16:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Maclean25. I'd like to thank you for your comments on the talk page of A Thousand Plateaus, they were very welcome. For what it's worth, the IP editor who was trying to get rid of the material you commented on is now asserting that there is a "consensus" for removing it, and is trying to use your comments in support of that. As I read it, that's a misunderstanding of what you wrote: you did make some criticisms of the way Sokal and Bricmont's views were presented, but saw nothing wrong with including them in some form. I have taken your criticisms into account and modified the material accordingly, but the IP is still trying to use your comments in support of outright removal. I've started a discussion at the neutral point of view noticeboard about this. I can see from your edit history that you are the kind of editor who prefers to avoid getting bogged down in disputes and arguments over content. I understand and completely respect that; I'm not asking you to enter into a conflict over this article. If you felt like commenting on the noticeboard it might help, however. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I noticed you added the WP Project:Biography tag to my new article Bernard Marshall. I write articles about children's writers and their books, and I'm fairly new to WP, and am trying to get up to speed. Should I add the biography tag to every article I write about a person -- no limits or restrictions? Sounds like a huge project. But I could add it along with the Children's Lit tag if it would help a bit. Thanks for the info. Tlqk56 (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correct, authors fall under the Biography WikiProject. They have guidelines specifically relating to writing and organizing biographies. If you write an article about a children's book, then add the WikiProject Children's literature tag and consult that project for how to write and organize articles about children's books. maclean (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi;

Thanks for your feedback on the review - glad I made someone other than the nominating editor happy!

Regarding your statement "it must pass all the criteria to become a good article", I think you're misreading the document "compare good article criteria v featured article criteria". Only featured articles have to pass all the criteria. Whilst the page then says that "A good article must comply with only five style guidelines", it also says that a good article is an article that is considered "satisfactory". Now, I passed the article on four guidelines (and I think in the second criterion - factual accuracy and verifiability - I only failed it because of a possible instance of original research which I wasn't sure about), but I considered the article to be of a satisfactory quality to pass the criteria.

The Historian 16:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehistorian10 (talk • contribs)

Hello. You have a new message at Accedie's talk page. Accedie^{talk to me} 02:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've put Berlin up for peer review. Comments would be appreciated. Kingjeff (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi maclean! Are you interested in being the Online Ambassador for any classes this term? We've got a few classes that are looking for ambassador right now (Canada, US), so if you're up for helping any, please do! Let me know if you have any questions, or if you'd like me to pick a course for you.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I signed up for one. I am open to picking up a second later if needed. maclean (talk) 03:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Awesome, thanks!--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, I can't believe I missed that. - Theornamentalist (talk) 04:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Your recognition for 4 GA reviews at the last June-July GAN Review Round. Regards. Pyrotec (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Maclean25. I'm the instructor for a section of students at Ball State University who are beginning a collaborative research project on Wikipedia for our Introduction to Digital Literacies class. I've been teaching with WP since Spring 2011; from my user page you can see a few example projects highlighted. We are currently in need of an online ambassador to advise five class groups on selecting topics and putting articles together: this means there will be five topics for an ambassador to assist with. Might you be interested in helping us? You can see the project timeline in my user area project subpage.

I have gone through the appropriate channels and application documents with the Wikimedia folks in charge of education programs, but have not heard back in nearly two weeks (I've emailed Jamie Mathewson twice). But time is getting short and we must begin—thus I'm taking the liberty of contacting potential ambassadors directly. Thanks for your consideration and good luck with your projects! (Pardon the duplication—I will also send this by email). –Webster Newbold (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Responded to the email. maclean (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Maclean25. I have posted two comments in your sandbox regarding Woodstock Library commentary. If I said something offense, please accept my apologies. I am interested in working together to improve the article, and would like to see the article promoted to GA status. Would it be possible to transfer your article-related concerns to the regular GA review (rather than your sandbox), perhaps leaving the personal matters aside? --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope you are able to find someone to work together with. However, I clearly stated that I wanted to end my involvement with the article. I moved your comments from my userspace to the talkpage - you are free to edit your comments if the move made something unclear. maclean (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I totally respect your decision to dissociate yourself from the article and/or its review, but I feel obligated to inform you that a third reviewer has looked at the article and addressed your concerns (I hope). Since I believe the concerns of all three reviewers have been addressed, I went ahead and renominated the article for Good status. You, of course, are more than welcome to add comments to the new review if you feel so inclined. Thanks again for your assistance with the first review. Best, --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maclean25- I am approaching you for some advice and help since I notice that you are an online ambassador, and I like the way you have responded to folks on your talk page. (I have not found this friendly, helpful tone in dealing with some of the Wikipedians with whom I have crossed paths recently, so I am a bit ‘gun-shy’). I came across your name in the article on ‘The Ingenuity Gap’, on which you did several major and well-crafted edits. Lately, I noticed that you had to revert some damaging edits of this article, which has so far, thankfully, been left intact. Your work on this book was the pattern I used for my recent edits of “The Upside of Down,” another important Homer-Dixon work. I thought I had created a useful article adhering to NPOV. I admit I am new at this, and seem to have ruffled quite a few feathers along the way. One thing I have learned is that many of the crucial ‘guidelines’ in Wikipedia do not become evident until you break them. I am in the process of dealing with the COI issues, but feel that ‘The Upside of Down’ may have been unfairly treated. (I personally think that in the interest of maintaining a comprehensive, inclusive, and useful Wikipedia of impartial articles, time would be better spent monitoring WHAT is in the articles rather than WHO edited them.)

So, as someone interested in good articles on worthy books, would you please try to find the time to take a look at this one and do what you can to salvage it? Thanks. Jbghewer (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll take a look into it. Give me a couple days. maclean (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article was reasonable but after doing some research I've made some edits. maclean (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow! Thank you for making it so much better. I appreciate the improved rating, but wonder what would have to be done to upgrade it...or is it worth it? I suppose I cannot be the one to do the improvements, though I would appreciate the chance to practice my Wiki skills. I enjoy working on Wikipedia, and sure, right now I am a 'one project' editor, but the learning curve involved in learning the Wiki ropes is huge so one or 2 projects are all one can handle. I do have other project ideas I would like to work on. Very interested in reading and books, as well as the authors who create them. I'd like to make sure some prominent authors are well represented in Wikipedia, especially Canadian ones. I started with the Homer-Dixon projects since they were pretty lame and needed improvement, and I knew enough about them. Too bad about the COI mess! Can you steer me to someone who likes working on BLP that might help with the Thomas Homer-Dixon article? My efforts there were decimated by COI and BLP watchdogs. Again, thank you for coming to my rescue. You are indeed a praise-worthy Wikipedian. Jbghewer (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. The grading scheme can be viewed here: Template:Grading scheme. To rank it B-class (mostly complete and without major issues) I'd expect a Background section, more on the style/genre, and an improved lead section. There is indeed an over-zealousness regarding COI here. The zealousness regarding BLP, in my opinion, is justified. For help on the biography, you can try Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. I'll make you a deal: if you improve an article (of your choice) to B-class level, I will finish with The Upside of Down to get it certified GA-class via WP:GAN. maclean (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds fair, and it would give me a chance to practice more Wiki skills. As to the Background and Content /Style sections of The Upside of Down, if you check back to some of the work I did on it in July of this year, before Rrburke did some reverting, there were such sections. They were likely faulty as to types of sources and NPOV, as I was in the early stages of editing, but could be useful. I get the COI issue with the BLP, but still hope to find someone to help fix it. As it stands, it is a pretty useless article for any researcher. I will seek out an article on a book needing upgrading as soon as I get a chance. I appreciate your help. Jbghewer (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

coming soon --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	autobiography
	Thank you for quality articles on people and their stories, such as David Suzuki: The Autobiography and Race Against Time: Searching for Hope in AIDS-Ravaged Africa, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (7 December 2010)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A year ago, you were the 305th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've started a review at Winter: Five Windows on the Season; it's a very well done article, and only 2-3 tiny issues need attention. Thanks for your work on this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks for your work to promote Winter: Five Windows on the Season to Good Article status. Keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! You're getting this message because you are or have been a Wikipedia Ambassador. A new term is beginning for the United States and Canada Education Programs, and I wanted to give you an update on some important new information if you're interested in continuing your work this term as a Wikipedia Ambassador.

You may have heard a reference to a transition the education program is going through. This is the last term that the Wikimedia Foundation will directly run the U.S. and Canada programs; beginning in June, a proposed thematic organization is likely to take over organizing the program. You can read more about the proposal here.

Another major change in the program will take effect immediately. Beginning this term, a new MediaWiki education extension will replace all course pages and Ambassador lists. (See Wikipedia:Course pages and Help:Education Program extension for more details.) Included in the extension are online volunteer and campus volunteer user rights, which let you create and edit course pages and sign up as an ambassador for a particular course.

If you would like to continue serving as a Wikipedia Ambassador — even if you do not support a class this term — you must create an ambassador profile. If you're no longer interested in being a Wikipedia Ambassador, you don't need to do anything.

Please do these steps as soon as possible

First, you need the relevant user rights for Online and/or Campus Ambassadors. (If you are an admin, you can grant the rights yourself, for you as well as other ambassadors.) Just post your rights request here, and we'll get you set up as quickly as possible.

Once you've got the ambassador rights, please set up at a Campus and/or Online Ambassador profile. You can do so at:

• Special:CampusAmbassadorProfile
• Special:OnlineAmbassadorProfile

Going forward, the lists of Ambassadors at Special:CampusAmbassadors and Special:OnlineAmbassadors will be the official roster of who is an active Ambassador. If you would like to be an Ambassador but not ready to serve this term, you can un-check the option in your profile to publicly list it (which will remove your profile from the list).

After that, you can sign on to support courses. The list of courses will be at Special:Courses. (By default, this lists "Current" courses, but you can change the Status filter to "Planned" to see courses for this term that haven't reached their listed start date yet.)

As this is the first term we have used the extension, we know there will be some bugs, and we know the feature set is not as rich as it could be. (A big wave of improvements is already in the pipeline. And if you know MediaWiki and could help with code review, we'd love to have your help!) Please reach out to me (Sage Ross) with any complaints, bug reports, and feature suggestions. The basic features of the extension are documented at Wikipedia:Course pages, and you can see a tutorial for setting up and using them here.

Communication and keeping up to date

In the past, the Education Program has had a pretty fragmented set of communication channels. We're trying to fix that. These are the recommended places to discuss and stay up-to-date on the education program:

1. The education noticeboard has become the main on-wiki location for discussion of the Education Program. You can post there about broad education program issues as well as issues with individual courses.
2. The Ambassadors Announce email list is a very low-traffic announcements list of important information all Ambassadors need to be aware of. We encourage all Ambassadors (and other interested Wikipedians) to subscribe to the list; follow the instructions on the link to add your email address.
3. If you use IRC regularly, or need to try to reach someone immediately, the #wikipedia-en-ambassadors ^connect IRC channel is the place to find me and fellow Ambassadors.

Ambassador training and resources

We now have an online training for Ambassadors, which is intended to be both an orientation about the Wikipedia Ambassador role for newcomers and the manual for how to do the role. (There are parallel trainings for students and for educators as well.)

Please go through the training if you feel like you need a refresher on how a typical class is supposed to go and where the Ambassadors fit in, or if you want to review and help improve it. If there's something you'd like to see added, or other suggestions you have for it, feel free to edit the training and/or leave feedback. A primer on setting up and using course pages is included in the educators' training.

The Resources page of the training is the main place for Ambassador-related resources. If there's something you think is important as a resource that's not on there, please add it.

Finally, whether or not you work with any classes this term, I encourage you to post entries to the Trophy Case whenever you see excellent work from students or if you have great examples from past semesters. And, as always, let students (and other editors!) know when they do things well; a little WikiLove goes a long way!

--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 22 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Tower of Babble, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in his memoir, The Tower of Babble, Richard Stursberg reveals the details of his negotiations with Gary Bettman to extend Hockey Night in Canada's NHL broadcasting rights? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Tower of Babble. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

KTC (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

• • Then go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
  • Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  • Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  • You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (Your account is now active for 1 year!).
• If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelpcengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing ((User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox)) on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the disruption but apparently the email bot failed. We'll resend the codes this week. (note: If you were notified directly that your email preferences were not enabled, you still need to contact Ocaasi). Cheers, User:Ocaasi 21:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check your email. Enjoy! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello MacLean25, I notice you offer to do peer reviews of towns and settlements. I've listed Giffnock for a peer review and would appreciate if you could take some time to have a glance over it. Cheers, Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day Maclean25. I've finished the article "Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors". What do you think? The summary is a little longer than your recommended five paragraphs, but I worked tirelessly to condense the most important points into eight paragraphs. Since the nature of content could be seen as controversial, I felt it was necessary that some of the points be explained. I haven't seen any Wikipedia style guides that rigidly prescribe the length for a non-fiction book summary – plus I've seen articles with longer ones – so hopefully it is acceptable. Many thanks, Hayden120 (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article is looking great. The only further suggestions I can make are to add more sources, like [3] [4] [5] (I can email you more offline sources), and adding a Style/Genre section explaining how the book is written (eg, popular science, audience, research/organization, etc.) I have watch-listed it and look forward to seeing it reviewed. maclean (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I'm mulling over how to integrate those sources without upsetting the balance/length of the article. How would I go about writing a Style/Genre section? I'm not sure if there would be enough references to substantiate it. Hayden120 (talk) 09:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I've made a considerable addition to the Disco Demolition article to cover the points you've raised, see here. Could I ask that you revisit your comments at the FAC, to indicate if you feel this adequate or if not, what more you would like to see? Oddly I never thought to check JSTOR … so I'm grateful for your pointing out an oversight on our part. It's a little wordier than it was but I think it's a much better article for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Maclean - I appreciated your discussion comments on some of my edits to J.D. Salinger's A Perfect Day for Bananafish (talk section) and thought I'd ask for your evaluation of another of my recent submissions: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chappaquiddick incident conspiracy theories

Here is an exchange I had with one of the Help Desk reviewers: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk :

Hello - My recent submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chappaquiddick incident conspiracy theories was rejected by reviewer User:GAtechnical on the grounds that the article "reads like an essay". I understand the difficulty in evaluating these postings, but I wonder if you'd look at it to determine if it's fundamentally flawed in that respect.

The subject of "conspiracy theories" no doubt raises red flags with some editors, but as encyclopedians, we should maintain a dispassionate approach. Can you give me a frank evaluation of the article? I would encourage you to take a look at some existing articles - John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories and Robert F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories - for examples of "essay"-like contributions. I feel fairly certain that the article I've submitted avoids these "literary offenses" and provides adequate secondary sourcing.

36hourblock (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tend to agree with the reviewer that the draft would, at the very least, need serious work. In particular, the "Official findings - conspiracy hypothesis" format is hardly what I'd expect of an encyclopedia article, and the various side remarks in square brackets don't belong. It would make much more sense to detail the different conspiracy theories one after another than to mix them up in this fashion. In fact, the lead section alone reads much more like what I'd expect of an article.

I'm also not all that impressed by the sources. At times you even cite the conspiracy theorists as if they were reliable - not just for their own theories, but for unrelated facts. That seems problematic. Huon (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There seems to be some confusion on the part of Huon regarding the "conspiracy theorists". One is required to present their published analysis if one is to write an article on the conspiracy theories they've presented on the Chappaquiddick Incident. This is necessary even if Huon holds them in low esteem. Does Huon want editors to cite sources "as if they were not reliable"? What nonsense! Huon wishes to introduce his/her own bias into the article - this won't do. Knight, and others cited in the article deal with the topic objectively; so has 36hourblock.

The "Official findings - conspiracy hypothesis" is used for clarity - a touchstone for encyclopedians. In fact, the format does anything but "mix them up". What is Huon talking about?

It is our responsibility to present the material so it can be understood, not as advocates for or against the "conspiracy theorists". That Huon is "not impressed" belies an attitude towards the topic which lacks objectivity. I would request that a less biased editor (and not an ally of Huon) take a look at the article and read it for comprehension.

Regarding the "square brackets": these can be removed if they are deemed objectionable.

36hourblock (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you offer any insights? 36hourblock (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Is there a single reference that addresses these conspiracy theories, or is this article an assemblage of such theories? The JFK/RFK articles have a reference that compare the various theories (which, arguably, makes the topic notable). I cannot tell if any one of these EMK references is comparable. Alternatively, you may orient/summarize the content as more of a list. Regarding the 'official findings' section, that should not be referenced to the conspiracy theory references, but to more reliable (independent) references. Statements like Look made two observations around 12:45 a.m. [59][60][61] is a red-flag for original research (why are 3 cites required for that?). I don't have much experience with AfC but I hope that helps. maclean (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maclean - Thank you for your thoughtful commentary. Here are my answers:

There are TWO references that recognize the "conspiracies theories" - Knight el al, and Lange & DeWitt. Knight provides summaries of three of the general theories. He "compares various theories". Does this meet the standards of the JFK/RFK articles?

Mainstream publishers have recognized the existence of the Chappaquiddick conspiracy hypotheses. But a "catch-22" prevents the material from being presented here: Not only must the "theory" be acknowledged by a mainstream publisher - it has - but in addition, the "theory" must be win the seal of approval of a "non-conspiracy" interpreter and thus be elevated to non-"conspiracy theory" status. In other words, the "conspiracy theory" must have "legitimate" credentiasl bestowed upon it before it can be presented in a "conspiracy theory" page! As far as "independent" references go, there is never likely to be a so-called "reliable" book that recycles the information presented by the "conspiracy theorists", unless a publisher considers this profitable to do so.

Keep in mind that the caveat already exists, in that a separate article is provided - labeled "conspiracy theory" - i.e. it doesn't posess the credentials of the main article, according to Wiki policy.

This amounts to Medieval-like ordeal in which "theory" in question can never be presented as such, even when it's existence is acknowledged by reputable sources. Why have a "conspriacy theory" article, in that case, when the "conspiracy theorists" are deemed so thoroughly disreputable? This appears to be more than simply maintaining high standards for an encyclopedia, but a form of unreasonable censorship.

I agree with you that the "official findings" should be linked to non-conspiracy sources. The "conspiracy theorists" compare and contrast the official and non-official material to support their analysis of the event. I can substitute mainstream sources for those.

On the matter of the "red flag" and multiple sources, I agree that this may appear as "pileing on". I included them simply as a courtesy to those who wished to check the sources. (In the Look example, the reports of his observations vary a bit). I have not gone to the Inquest records or exhibits myself and cited them. That, of course, would be an egregious example of original research. 36hourblock (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Maclean. Thanks for all your patience! I realize the review is probably a bit burdensome with my editing so cautiously on account of having a COI and would be interested in any feedback on how I can go through the GAN process where I have a COI better in the future. Thanks again! CorporateM (Talk) 13:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw you had the COI notice but in the end I only judge based on the quality of the work. If I felt the writing was promotional or was hiding something I would say so. Your work and attitude is professional and this is appreciated. Looking to the future, the only piece of advice I can think of right now is to caution against being emotionally invested into the topics you're writing - you or your work will inevitably be attacked or demeaned and you have to be able to cope without losing patience. That will be difficult if you're invested in the topic. maclean (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

just saw your update; I'd had this page open last night, looking it over and trying to wade through the verbiage.....is this normal for a legislative sitting article? Seems full of too many particulars, almost like a throne speech done into detail........or an advert for "what this government has done"....or not done, I suppose. Another thought I had was about the listing of members; I think the "house" layout I used on the early elections articles may work better e.g. British Columbia general election, 1898 to pull one out of the hat; shows government members on the left, opposition/non-gov on the right, and better visually represents the House, no?Skookum1 (talk) 05:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Maclean25. I just started reviewing the article you nominated for GA status. See you there! ComputerJA (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Grass Jelly Drink.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 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Congratulations for promoting The Sex Party to Good article status! It was a pleasure working with you. Keep up the good work. ComputerJA (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Maclean25. I see that you're an online ambassador. I'm the Professor for Aaron Frank's environmental law class, and while you're not signed up for my course, I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a look at any or all of the articles my students are working on. One of the aspects of this sort of course is that students understand that they are putting their work out before the wikipedia community for review. In the past, there hasn't been that much activity on their pages as they were working on them. I was hoping that if you get a chance you can take a look.

The students now have draft articles in mainspace and are starting to review each other's articles, and they could also use a preliminary review by an experienced Wikipedian in this area. If you get a chance, ideally sometime before Thursday or so, please take a look at the following list of articles and leave feedback on the talk page:

• Federal exemptions for hydraulic fracturing
• Storm King Mountain: Consolidated Edison v. Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference
• Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill
• American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut
• Sierra Club v. Babbitt
• Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. NRDC
• Hazardous Materials Transportation Act

Thank you!Aarf613 (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there,

I picked up your account details from the list of Peer Review volunteers and if you get the opportunity to look at an article I've been working on it would be very much appreciated! Wikipedia:Peer_review#Crystal_Palace, London, article at Crystal Palace, London. SheffGruff (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Maclean,

Because you were the good article reviewer for the John Edward Brownlee article, I thought you might be interested in contributing to the relevant current featured topic candidacy. Any constructive contributions you would be willing to provide would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dawson Creek Rage may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]