User talk:Lincher/Archive 2

Your suggestions at Wikipedia:Peer review/Actuary/archive1

I have decided not to follow up on laes/problems pertaining to actuaries, for reasons I described on the peer review page Wikipedia:Peer review/Actuary/archive1. I'd like to know if you agree or disagree. Thanks, and thanks for your input. -- Avi 17:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Actuary: featured article candidate

Hello, Lincher. As you were kind enough to weigh in on the articles peer review, I would request you leave a comment (support, oppose, or neutral) on the article's candidacy page here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Actuary. Thank you. -- Avi 21:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Late Middle Ages

Hi, could you please elaborate on how the article fails to meet the Lead criterion? Eixo 09:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Eixo 23:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

GA

Thanks for your GA review and your positive comments on Iron Mike. It's really amazing how little information is available in books about these and other military statues. I've done a few articles on old memorials and I always come up against the same problem. I'm always on the lookout for old sources, but it seems they've either been lost to time or never existed in the first place. It's very challenging.

Anyway, thanks very much. I'm glad you enjoyed the article, and if I'm ever able to come up with more information, I'll be sure to add it. Kafziel 15:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Scheme programming language

I have responded to your comments at Talk:Scheme programming language. Ideogram 03:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Julius Cesear

I take no pleasure in failing articles this one deserved to be GA but for the references, this was highlighted in its FARC nomination in November 2005 and there has been no effort to address this which is a shame Gnangarra 15:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I had another look and fair comment on references, from what I have seen inline cites eliminate edits like User:68.170.60.173 recent change of son to son in law unless the editor can justify with another cite. The other issue I raised on the talk page was stability suggest that tis article gets semi-protection to prevent annon IP and new users from editing, this reduces vandalism. I cant fault the general prose so I'm happy to reverse my decision. Gnangarra 03:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard Nixon

Hi there, I don't have time to make the changes you suggested to this article so I would suggest that it is failed. One thing though having read some comments related to Trivia sections the current thought seems to be, yes, remove the section, but try to include the information into prose in the rest of the article. In enough cases, the trivia is what brings someone to the article, so it would be a shame to delete relevant information due to what is really a format issue. Regards. SeanMack 00:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Matsuo Bashō

Could you please revisit this? Ashibaka and I don't quite understand the point you are making. Thanks. -- Hoary 05:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hey, I was wondering, you seem like an expert wikipedian, and I have been writing some articles I have submitted for GA status on my favorite book series, Lone Wolf. I recently noticed the policy on writing about fiction, but I do not understand it. For example, I have an article on Gnaag, a villian from the series, and before all of my nominations get shot down, could you maybe take a quick glance, and tell me if it is in universe or out? Thanks much!Judgesurreal777 01:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination - Acne vulgaris

Hi Lincher. You've put the article Acne vulgaris on hold on the 23rd of June, but didn't leave any comments on the talk page what the hold was for. It's been a while, so probably about time to pass/fail it.--Konstable 13:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

Hi,

As I was looking over WP:GA, I noticed that you have put several articles, such as those on Nixon and Hoover, on hold soley because their lead is only one paragraph long. I just want to point out that a good lead can be a single paragraph, especially for good articles (which are theoretically supposed to be shorter, in general, than FAs). --Alex S 05:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Concise

Can I get a copy of your excel file for this project? --Nexus Seven 00:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

GA template

See Wikipedia:Deletion_review for 8 July. Rlevse 12:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

GA improvements - Newshounds

I've tried to make the improvements that you recommended, although I am having some trouble with the copyedit that you asked for. I'm not entirely sure what I need to do, or what a copyedit really is. Can you show me an example of a copyedit please? ISD 07:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this any improvement? I removed the "KPET started of as a small station…" to help improve the paragraph, and improved some of the grammar. ISD 16:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I included a reference to one of the Ernest and Julia Dilbrook stories. Is this what you meant? ISD 16:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I've referenced and dated both the minor and major characters in the section. Parts that come from the intro do not have a date, as none is provided, and also these strips where written several years after the comic was introduced. ISD 17:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! ISD 17:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Richard III (1955 film)

Hi Lincher. I think you were the person who sent this article up for GA. Would it be possible for you to look it over and maybe give a few copyedits to it? It's been on the FA board for a while and we're stuck right now. If you don't have the time, that's ok. Cheers.--P-Chan 03:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Christianity and GA

On the NPOV tag, as a signifigant contributor, I just thought i'd say, the reason there's an NPOV tag there is because a large part of that section has been the subject of a mediation and a several-month old dispute between two versions, most of the dispute simply has to do with words and what their connotations are. There was even an ArbCom request filed, but they rejected it for being a content dispute, im fairly certain one of the ArbCom people also said that "neither version was very good". Im just trying to say, that it doesn't refer to the entire section, and a resolution may not appear very quickly. Homestarmy 19:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

1911 verification

Saw your note on the Missing Articles talk page. Unfortunately there are one too many project and talk pages relating to the 1911 verification, and I didn't think anyone else was working on it. Are you working on the A's? I decided to start on the B's, and as a result I developed {{Update-eb}} (a less severe version of 1911POV) and {{Include-eb}} (a less severe version of ni-eb), and started using them on the B's. See my comments here (also here). I described them on Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/1911 verification. What do you think? David Brooks 20:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

P.N.03

Sorry to bother you, but when I checked this article, all I saw was Highway failing it, and there's no entry on the disputes page, why was this article relisted? Homestarmy 21:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok, it's just I didn't see another review and I was curious. Homestarmy 23:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

John Brooke-Little

--Forlornandshorn 16:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Page Blanking

On 29-July, you blanked ZT. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. In cases of vandalism, please check the page history and usually you can revert to an unvandalised version. If there is nothing to revert to, then see the deletion procedures. I have reverted this page to an unvandalised version. If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 23:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

GA Nominations/Makuhita

Could you please review Makuhita, it's the collaboration of the Pokémon Collaborative Project, and we're not changing the focus until it reaches GA. I failed the article prior to the second nomination because a section lacked refs, but I added them to it afterwards. I only asked a reviewer because I was wanting a new article as a focus, and I'm not neutral. If you don't think it's your cup of Frescatto, or you're too busy it's fine. Cheers, Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 21:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll add it WP:GA. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 07:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Jamie Stewart, no categories

Hi, added a couple of appropriate categories to this article, is that what you meant? thx Bawtyshouse 00:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Bulk tagging

Hello Lincher,

Thanks for your high level of activity in various areas of article improvement. I can see that you've been quite busy.

As you may be aware, Category:Category needed has a massive backlog. As such, dumping massive numbers of new articles into the category is neither constructive nor appreciated.

I would humbly suggest that you try to identify good categories for those articles rather than simply tagging them. This only takes a few extra seconds (in most cases) and avoids duplicate effort. Remember that it can be a lengthy process just to get to the edit screen duering peak load times; when you manage to get that far, why not make the most of it? -- Visviva 12:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

North Hollywood shootout

Why does Emil need his own article given the state it is in? Yes it would be nice to have biographical information on the gunmen, but the current article is completely useless. A redirect makes more sense.70.66.9.162 08:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

GA

Did you mean History of Texas instead of Texas? Joe I 14:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Could I ask you to...

Give your feedback on the Elizabeth Smart dispute on the GA dispute page, I tried to do an analysis showing how I thought it wasn't a GA due to NPOV problems, but myself and another editor can't seem to see eye to eye, and I don't want to archive it later and leave it delisted when it's a tied vote so to speak on an issue that seems somewhat controversial. Homestarmy 16:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you please review the article and see if all of the conditions you described were handled? As far as I know everything you mentioned as an issue is now resolved though I think so many footnotes make the reading rough. --Overdubbed 16:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

GA review of Manuel Chaves

Hi. Thanks for reviewing Manuel Antonio Chaves. I noticed you said that it didn't comply with the manual of style. Were you thinking of anything beside the lead? Also, you mentioned it was poorly written. Can you give examples of places that need work (additional to the sentence about Chaves's possible part in putting down the 1837 rebellion, which another reviewer pointed out) or a general description of what you didn't like about the writing? That information will be very helpful to me when I get back to the article (probably in the next few weeks) and to anyone else who works on it. —JerryFriedman 17:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:GA/D#Iglesia ni Cristo

A few weeks ago, Iglesia ni Cristo was put up for review for its delisting at GA. The consensus looks like the delisting was unjustified from what I see, is there a possiblity you can relist the article on GA again? --LBMixPro ^{<Speak|on|it!>} 21:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Starting some new articles? Our article structure tips outlines some things to include.
• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every biography article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! plange 02:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiCookie

for your behind-the-scenes tagging of articles with the WPBiography project banner and assessing, thanks!!! plange 06:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a wiki cookie? :) I think that ought to be a barnstar, and probably will be if this keeps up :) --kingboyk 22:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, this was before he started using AWB :-) I need to do another sweep through the membership and see how everyone's been doing since I last checked activity (and gave out a few cookies) plange 22:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Biorating (Jamie Carragher)

• "If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses."

Care to place your comments on the talk page then? It'll help improve the article, cheers aLii 22:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Directive Principles in India

Please see reply to your review of the above article at Talk:Directive Principles in India. Sorry I'm so late, but I was inactive over the past few weeks. Cheers! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 10:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Dionysius Exiguus and Kidinnu

Lincher, you tagged these as bio's of rating B. Could you elaborate on what is good about the articles and what needs improvement for higher rating? On Kidinnu, not much more could be said; and Dyonisius seems complete too. 167.202.196.72 14:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Maxentius

As you added the bio rating to Maxentius, could you please give reasons for your rating, and how to improve the article? Thanks, Varana 13:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. :) Varana 14:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"Biotag with AWB"

Hi. I noticed you've tagged a lot of talk pages using AWB (which is great), but curiously a lot (maybe all of them) are tagged complete with assessments.

May I ask, have you been going through the stub categories automatically tagging articles as class=Stub? Or do you open up each page and inspect it?

If you've been doing the former it's not a problem - I'm planning to do the same - but you'll need to revisit the talk pages you've done and add an auto=yes parameter. This lets other editors know that the rating is due to the presence of a stub tag and the article hasn't been checked by a human. It also adds the article to an additional category. --kingboyk 13:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If you've actually been humanly assessing these articles, bravo! :)

Thanks for the reply. I'll reply on my talk page to keep things threaded. --kingboyk 14:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Beatles & KLF-related articles

Hi Lincher. A WPBeatles article has just popped up on my watchlist (Talk:Billy Preston). You don't need to tag articles which use {{WPBeatles}} or {{WPKLF}}, because those templates include the WPBio categories and I've assessed all articles in those WikiProjects. Best way to avoid them is to have a "skip page if contains..." regular expression, something like:

\{\{(template:|)(WPBeatles|TheBeatlesArticle|KLF)

That's off the top of my head but it looks about right :) Let me know if it doesn't work as I haven't tested it! --kingboyk 20:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

AWB

There must be some mistake, I did approve you. Are you sure you have the latest version? Also I notice you are making edits using AWB so it seems to be working??? Prodego ^talk 20:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes AWB is a very nice tool, the browser is actually MSIE based. (For general editing Firefox is best) We have Martin to thank for AWB, as well as a few others. I find it quite useful, especially the regex feature. BTW, I'm glad you like my userpage, I designed it myself. Happy editing! Prodego ^talk 20:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Frank Nabarro

I don't understand your rating. This is quite a substantial article. Nabarro is a very major scientist.--86.138.236.137 06:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

George Rallis

I believe that you should have another look at your assessment of stub class for this article. My opinion is that a start class is more fair to its authors (I only put 4-6 letters, so I cannot be counted among them).--FocalPoint 15:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The stub tag goes with the no sources added to the article which is a real problem on wikipedia. If references are added to go with the article or sources of the original material is given then start- or maybe B-class can be given. Lincher 15:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ted Grant

I was wondering why you considered this a low-importance article; Grant was a major figure in Trotskyism and is linked form Template:Trotskyism; he was the central figure of a reasonably sized international tendency; and he was a household name in the UK in the 1980s? Warofdreams talk 03:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply; I would say that internationally he was known primarily amongst Trotskyists. Mid-importance seems about right to me. Warofdreams talk 12:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Ioke (2006)

The WikiProject had been dithering on this storm for a while, it was being worked up in a user subpage. Its in mainspace now.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm its not GA material, WIAGA 5. Thanks for the approval though :P--Nilfanion (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yasser Talal Al Zahrani‎

I am not sure what kind of comments you were looking for.

Over a dozen articles related to Guantanamo detainees have been nominated for deletion -- unfortunately most of the nominations were, IMO, built upon serious misconceptions. If a classification by a member of a team of impartial observers makes the next person to consider nominating those articles for deletion pause for further reflection, that would be a good thing.

During the most recent {afd} discussion over Guantanamo detainees I realized I couldn't say, exactly, how many of those articles had not been expanded beyond the stub stage. So I went through them last night. Most of the stubs already contain quite a bit of information. But there are a few that don't yet contain very much.

Does your project contain any guidelines, or examples, over and above WP:BIO, WP:BLP and WP:DEL about which biographical stubs don't have enough information to remain in article space?

I have done my best to make my contributions to these articles pass the strictest NPOV test. Please let me know if you think my contribution, or someone else's contribution to that article, falls short.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 17:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about biotag

Hi, I can see you've been quite busy tagging new biography articles. I'm not really clear if you're expecting a reply or not. Do we, the original article authors, need to respond to you, or to put a comment in the article's discussion area, or what? The sudden and ominous appearance of the biotag makes me think I've done something wrong.Konczewski 11:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification posted to my talk page.Konczewski 13:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Same question from me on the Russell J. York page. The article is most he can carry as a subject. It's complete as is "stub" or not.Marky48 00:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently working on an AWB plugin which will make the biotagging easier. If you're working through a category where some params will be the same, you can click a couple of checkboxes to have the page tagged with those params (you'll still get to check and approve the edit before saving, of course). There will also be a right click menu in the text editor to insert params and values. The plugin will fix or flag broken tags and will know to skip pages with the Beatles/KLF templates on them. This should cut down on the amount of typing and pasting you have to do quite considerably. I plan to add support for MilHist and other large scale projects too (probably albums, songs and films). Anyway, will let you have a copy when I'm ready. --kingboyk 12:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

At last it's ready (I bet you were beginning to think it vapourware? :))

User:Kingbotk/Plugin - Release notes and download

User:Kingbotk/Plugin/User guide - The manual

I hope to add work on it some more tommorow (Martin's added a couple of extra properties to AWB for me which I need to test and make use of; I want to make the plugin useful for people doing assessments; and I want to add more templates. Of course I can't do all that tommorow but hopefully at least one of those can be released tommorow, along with any bug fixes etc.) --kingboyk 21:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I have the manual assessments nailed now, it's "just" a case of tying up the loose ends. I hope to be testing and releasing it later today. --kingboyk 08:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Clinton Bristow, Jr.

The article contains a stub template. You classified it as a start article. There might be a conflict here, but I don't know which is right. Just thought you might like to know. Badbilltucker 15:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

John Kerry on ARFA

Hi there... I delisted John Kerry from WP:ARFA because there are still uncited statements in the article. Feel free to re-nominate the article once the article is completely sourced (as well as neutral, readable, and grammatically correct). —this is messedrocker (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

re: Living people

I tend to hold off on that category, mainly because in a lot of cases I have no idea whether a person is actually living or not. Unless the category's defined as "people we don't know are dead yet", in which case it'd be okay. Crystallina 01:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Louis Jacobs

I think it is you who has rated this biography as a 'start', but you have not given your reasons for doing so on the comments page. Please do so - otherwise the rating appears purely subjective and meaningless. Smerus 05:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Lincher, thanks for your comments - please take a look at the article and the comments page as they now stand: I have tried to deal with many of the issues you raised. Btw as you porbably relaise I watch the LJ page and will continue to try to improve it. --Smerus 16:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your analysis of The Beautiful People - could you cite an example please of what a current GA song article ideally resembles please? Where to would the song sample go? LuciferMorgan 20:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the example. My main worries are that Sections 1.2 and 1.4 of the article will be considered original research and need extensive inline citations, especially with the comparison to Iron Maiden's "Running Free". I can't find the references, but have been trying to find out from the person who wrote it in. LuciferMorgan 21:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and don't worry about giving links I already have - I did it twice already. This is the following quote I'd like to find proper info on; "The Beautiful People is a statement on the fascism of beauty. With commercialism and television, everything's completely dictated to you, and if you don't fit into the status quo. You're made to feel not as good as everyone else." For some reason I can't access the link you gave me.

I found it on a website article (a secondary source) the quote, but can't find the original interview (the primary source) and that's why I was saying I couldn't find it. I'll endeavour to place it upon the talk page. LuciferMorgan 18:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Biography Newsletter September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Biography 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. plange 23:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

How can you rate things without even reading it?

The ratings have been added at such a speed with autobrowser that they are meaningless because you didn't even bother to look at the document. Do me a favor and don't give out fake ratings. Besides that ratings without comment are pretty meaningless anyhow. KittenKlub 06:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

See also the discussion above for Louis Jacobs where you gave an automatic negative start rating (because START is an insult!) without even reading it. And that was a reasonable article deserving a B-Class. You didn't even bother to tell the person above that you didn't read it before giving the rating, right? Please stop this fake show! KittenKlub 07:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, Lincher reads the article in a seperate browser window and only does the rating in AWB. A rating without a comment is useful enough. A comment might be better though (hmm... now there's a thought Lincher, perhaps I could add a /Comments feature to my plugin?)

Start class isn't an insult. Gradings aren't about insulting anybody. (I see he's upped the "grade" now anyway). --kingboyk 09:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Like said before, it is clear that Lincher did not read the documents and therefore ALL of his assessments are dubious, many are clearly incorrect, and therefore they ALL need to be redone or removed. To avoid double discussions: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Assessment KittenKlub 11:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Also once again given the definition and the colour coding, it means that start is an INSULT, because it clearly states that the page is useless to many. I consider that an insult. KittenKlub 11:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to User_talk:KittenKlub. Please use the project talk since this is a serious issue.

The current system of assessment is completely unfair. Start is NEGATIVE and so is stub. Just look at the definition. Also I am NOT convinced that you read those pages because they were edited 3 to even 5 per minute. There is significant doubt about the validity of your assessments especially since there were many pages who are CLEARLY not stubs and needed their stub removed. KittenKlub 12:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE LIST THEM AND I WILL AGREE WITH YOU THEN, else I just can counter-argument for nothing. And just for the sake of it, try a run at assessing articles for the GA or the FA process before trying to tell me how to assess articles, I, for one, have lend a hand in trying to help them and the quality of the articles needs to be top notch or else it doesn't pass. Lincher 12:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And so you know, when 60% of the material on WP is of Start class, then it isn't negative, it is the average. Lincher 12:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Frank Middlemass

Yes, can you please put your comments please (as I believe you are meant to when rating an article). --Berks105 10:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I re-evualated it and put in some comments. I think that it was already a B-Class and therefore overruled Lincher (for reasons mentioned above). KittenKlub 11:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Rigoberto Alpizar Article

You recently rated this article a start-class article (which I agree with) but neglected to provide any commentary as to why this rating was given; doing so will make editors aware of what needs to be done. Thanks! ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^(Talk) 22:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you clarify this one for me: "The image Image:Alpizar.jpg needs to state its rationale on the image page."? Thanks. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^(Talk) 03:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		In long overdue recognition for all your help with WikiProject Biography in tagging and assessing! Thank you!! plange 01:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Burn the Bastards

Thanks for your involvement in the GA review process. You raise an important point. I will modify the prose so that there is no word-for-word duplication. However, the strategy of including a brief history at the beginning of JAMs singles stems from the first GA nominations for The KLF singles "What Time Is Love?" and "Justified and Ancient". These failed on account of our assuming the reader's familiarity with the subject matter, which, due to the off-the-wall nature of JAMs/KLF activities, left the reviewer bewildered and feeling that the articles were incomplete. From that point on, our policy has been to include whatever context is necessary for the article to stand more or less alone. In particular, for JAMs singles, it's necessary to know that overt plagiarism was their business for the year 1987. And for "Burn the Bastards", the nature and consequent fiery destruction of the LPs is the principal origin of the song.

The inclusion of such context means that anyone reading their way through the singles chronology will encounter information they have seen before. But they shouldn't have to read the same prose, I completely agree. I'll ensure that "Burn the Bastards" is written differently to "Down Town", emphasising the relevance of the LP. Please let us know your thoughts on all this. Thanks very much. --Vinoir 09:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you be interested in/willing to take another look at this article Lincher? It's been a GA renominee since 20 August!

This was a low profile, limited edition single, and I think it's as comprehensive as can be. We've also addressed the issues of the last reviewer. If, on the other hand, you think it's not up to scratch any feedback would be most welcome. (If you don't want to, that's fine, I won't be offended, I can wait a few more days/weeks for another reviewer to come along :)). --kingboyk 08:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. I have a question: I see you've also re-reviewed What Time Is Love? (I've answered you there, by the way, and thanks again). Are all GAs getting rereviewed and if so where can I read about this? --kingboyk 12:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday, there was a big discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article candidates. The only thing that has been changed is stated in this section Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_candidates#Wait.2C_what_has_changed_exactly.3F, and it is about citations (a bit more strict). Join your voice in the different polls/consensusly-driven changes that could occure on GA. Lincher 12:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. I saw that section but it looked like a work in progress rather than an end result. No bother, I don't have time to assess at the moment, and The KLF articles (13 GAs now!) should be safe because they all have citatations. (Actually, it might be 12 because one of them got FA recently). Thanks again. --kingboyk 12:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The re-assessment will be done, for now, at page User:Lincher/GA. Lincher 12:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

How about this

1. Sound prose: The article is grammatically sound and there are no obvious copy issues. It flows on a paragraph level but may require work on sentences/clauses for brevity and ease of read.
2. Broad-level coverage: Every major topic is covered though detail may be lacking. As a rule of thumb, there are no significant subjects absent in the level two headlines but there may be some at level three.
3. Factually accurate: At the level of section it is sourced, though specific sentences may require further sourcing.
4. Neutral (no change)
5. Stable (no change)
6. Images not required though desirable.

This wording, of course, could be changed, but this is what I imagine as intent (if we aren't splitting things). Advantages:

• This may better reflect what GAs are rather than what people want them to be.
• Crucially, GA and FA are distinguished.
• I will finally shut up, because if the GA criteria looked like this the idea of GA would make more sense to me.

I post it here because I worry I'm annoying people too much there. Marskell 20:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful, wonderfully thought (though I don't understand the level two/three thing). I have to say that it would be a major change to the criteria if what you are mentioning is to be happening but it would reflect the current way people assess articles

On the fact that you could sound annoying. I don't think so for you had legetimate reasons for thinking a GA was unnecessary but we have changed you view on that. You are also bringing, if I may say, newbie experience into the project which is what we should always consider, the people that come to the project and don't know what has happened in the past year or so. Lincher 23:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Level two/three refers to the headlines in the article. On an animal article, say, ==Biology== would be a level two section and ===Reproduction=== might be a sub-section, or level three, below it. Thus, per above, there would no gaps in coverage for something as broad as the level two but there might be for level three.

To be honest, I don't have the energy to post this today. If you like it, or some tweaked version of it, perhaps you can suggest it yourself at WIAGA or GAC or whereever and let me know. People might respond to you better; at least Pschemp might, whose saddle I seem to have placed a burr beneath. Marskell 09:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I shifted gears slightly after further consideration. Any comment on this idea would be most welcome. Marskell 13:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Kingbotk/Plugin

The latest version of my plugin has just been released. It includes support for reviewing articles, rating them, and optionally leaving a comment. I hope you like it. --kingboyk 18:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Demosthenes

Hi! I remember you had passed Demosthenes, when it was GAC. You'd also made some suggestions. I tried to address them and I asked for a peer-review (Wikipedia:Peer review/Demosthenes/archive2), before going for FAC. If you have any further suggestions or ideas etc., please shoot. Cheers!--Yannismarou 15:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

WPBio assessment log

Why are you blanking the assessment log mate? If you think it's presence on a particular page is unneccessary, remove it from that page. Please don't blank the log as I (and probably others) use it. For example, I check it every day to make sure none of our templates have been incorrectly removed. --kingboyk 13:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It is ok to have one to go to from the assessment page but the assessment page takes around to 1 minute to load everytime I load it. Everytime a new day is added by Mathbot, the other days should be removed because it is really taking longer and longer to load the page. Lincher 13:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

By all means remove the transclusion from the assessment page, but what you're actually doing - probably inadvertedly (sp.?) - is blanking the underlying log :) --kingboyk 13:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I didn't notice that. Lincher 13:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Album Infoboxes

Do you know if there's been a consensus to change the infobox colours on album? They used to be orange but are now this other blue/grey colour (at least on my screen) - is it an error or an actual change? LuciferMorgan 18:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)