User talk:Marcia Wright

Please do not use a talkback template on this page. Thank you.

Greetings, Marcia Wright. Thanks for the comment on my talk page.

Hey, do you have a photo of BK that would be appropriate for his article? If you have one that you took yourself, you could upload it and give it a license that would allow it to be used on Wikipedia, and add it to the article. Be aware though that if you do that, it would generally mean that you're giving people permission to use the image wherever they want, not just on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#For image creators. (If you reply here I will see what you wrote.) — Mudwater 02:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mudwater for your reply and yes I have a bunch of em. I understand about the licensing and would choose a photo with that in mind. I am brand new here at this so please bear with me. There are alot of details that could be added to that page-just from Dennis Mcnally's book alone. Marcia Wright (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I forgot to say, welcome to Wikipedia. Take your time getting comfortable, and practice editing on your user page, like I can see you're doing. On the other hand, don't be too shy about editing articles. You can start with small changes and build up from there. Have you read the Tutorial yet? That's a good, quick introduction to the basics, and it has links to more information too. See also Wikipedia:How to edit a page andWikipedia:Writing better articles.^[1]

Notes

Thanks for the photo! See also my reply to your post on my talk page here. Unless you'd rather that I reply on your talk page, I'll reply to any of your posts on my talk page there, under your posts. — Mudwater 16:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Re "Snow Mountain Wilderness", I've replied here on my Talk page. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 06:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied here on my Talk page. (If you'd prefer that I not leave you these little alerts when I reply on my own Talk page, let me know.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marcia. I was looking at your user page and I noticed the "user committed identity" template. I hadn't seen one of those before. Pretty cool. Also, you may know about this already, but try adding "{{User WPA}}" and "{{Wikipedia:WikiProject_California/Userbox}}" (without the quotes) to your user page. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedians in Northern California" is a category. You can see it displayed right near the bottom of your user page (because categories are always displayed at the bottom). That's cool, but the two templates I'm talking about will add "user boxes" wherever you put them on your user page. Those are little rectangles that, in this case, will say that you're a member of WikiProject Protected Areas and WikiProject California, respectively. Try them out and see. Not a big deal but I think you might like them. (Just to make things a bit more complicated, each user box template will also add a category to your user page.)

Yeah, the notable peaks table was fun. I've edited tables before, but this might have been the first time I wrote one from scratch, so I learned more about them.

I too find being an editor to be quite addictive. But at least it's a somewhat constructive addiction. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about those boxes that run down the right side of users pages that say things like " this user speaks English" and "this user lives in the United States" etc etc., I think they are referred to as baubels?? and I care not for them. They waste space and are just eye candy. If a user wants to tell about themselves, pull out the keyboard and type a graph or two. I would much rather read original thought than look at a graphic, OK I will step down off my soapbox now-sorry if I sound too opinionated-nothing personal, I just believe a user page should give a good sense of that user-where are they coming from, what are their likes/dislikes/what are their goals etc.and most importantly-why ? (Whew! I need to get out more) Sincerely, your opinionated new user :Marcia Wright (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. And, your user page does say that you're a member of those WikiProjects anyway. Yes, artistic control over one's own user page is a good thing, and so is having a strong opinion about it. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Here's an article about Wikipedia, from the New York Review of Books. I really enjoyed reading it, and you might too. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that either method is acceptable for Wikipedia. I was being bold and changing it because I prefer the reflist template which sets the footnotes in smaller type, much like the footnotes in a book. If you prefer the references tag, feel free to revert my edit. I hope that clears things up. Stepheng3 (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for letting myself overlook responding to you. It seems to me that we've found way to handle reservoir articles within the lakes project, especially with the geobox template. Daniel Case (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marcia,

Some questions for you if you don't mind. What does it mean to expand? Broaden one's horizons? Educate one's self, or simply view new perspectives?

The questions are left vague by intention, but the original question spawned by the fact that we are both new Wiki users. I do not have an account, however.

You like so many others today were not raise with computers, yet succeeded in keeping pace with the incessantly new environment. It's like a tread mill that seems only to speed up. Where did we come from? Where are we going so quickly? More importantly, why aren't we really moving? These aren't things the average person thinks about when on the tread mill, I suppose. Does it mean they should? Why is it they jump on? To fit into a stereotype, or to explore what it feels like to ride a new wave of energy?

The Information Super Highway.....I can't help but think: "Where's the toll and what's it going to cost?" We've seen computers change the world before our very eyes. We strive to keep pace teaching our children about what life used to be like before even we forget. We cling to folk-tails that once enraptured us, but push away our young. We try to be the bigger person and compromise, desperately trying to learn as much about this world as they already know. My God, they learn so fast, yet it still seems like so little. Life isn't just an On-Off switch.

I cannot express how elated I am to discover new places in this infinite realm, especially when I see people who still treasure what's not displayed on an LCD. It's a genuine travesty that some people believe they can gather a complete experience of natural phenomenon through Google. No high-definition monitor, regardless of size, or Bose surround sound system could every replace what it truly feels like to stand beneath a redwood tree and absorb it's life. It scares me to think about how numb and removed they can be. It's as though they no longer have feeling. What will become of the trees when there is no one left to care for them?

Ah, another tangent. I will cut this short, as I have a real habit of going off for extended periods. For some reason, I feel assured that you will read this in it's entirety, and for that I am thankful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.15.99 (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I userfied it to User:Marcia Wright/Justin Kreutzmann. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 18:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the visit, Justin is a great videographer and Who expert. Wikipedia deleted the page I created for him in 2005 as they've become very persnickety about who gets in. I think all his billboard chart and Who work warrants another try though. Best wishes and happy wiki-ing!

You uploaded an image to an article and to commons which has this copyright:[1]

Using this photo This photo and associated text may not be used except with express written permission from California Native Plant Society. To obtain permission for personal, academic, commercial, or other uses, or to inquire about high resolution images, prints, fees, or licensing, or if you have other questions, contact California Native Plant Society.

File:Loch Lomond button celery.jpg Yet you state it can be used in the article because it "The thumbnail photo (128x192 pixels) on this page may be freely used for personal or academic purposes without prior permission under the Fair Use provisions of US copyright law as long as the photo is clearly credited with © Rick York and CNPS." Your usage is not a thumbnail, and does not qualify. --Blechnic (talk) 06:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Individual photographers do sometimes give permission for image use on Wikipedia, as I have seen a couple before. Just to be clear, though: you may have thought you uploaded the thumbnail to Commons, but you uploaded the full size image. In addition, Wikipedia does not qualify for educational or personal usage for the thumbnails. Most Calphotos images allow generous personal and educational use of the thumbnails, Wikipedia uploading does not qualify. Useful article, though. --Blechnic (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can use e-mail, but the requirements are strict. Some photographers will balk, others say yes. See Wikipedia:Permissions and [2]. When you ask for the use of native plant images do point out to the copyright holder how important it is to have a good source of information about the plants, and ask if they have another image, other than the Calphotos one, that they would consider offering. It's worth a try! --Blechnic (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first project I've joined to say "Welcome" how refreshing!

A little background on this question first- I wrote a short article on Loch Lomond Vernal Pool Ecological Reserve and asked CNPS permission to use their photo of the Loch Lomond Button Celery (and made the dire mistake of uploading it before I had a response-won't do THAT again :)got seriously yelled at by your ole friend Blecknic-and rightly so).

OK, now (as of last night email download) I have a response from CNPS with a 2.5 mg photo attached of this lil cutey

BUT, he, Mr Jensen says I can use it, and to attribute to Rick York and state the copyright: CNPS.

My question: should I try to explain to Mr. Jensen the licensing details/requirements of Wikipedia? (I was assuming that the California Native Plant Society CNPS was already familiar with Wikipedia.)

P.S. I had not used Wikipedia's permission template/sample letter as I didn't know they existed then.

Sincerely, Marcia Wright (talk) 05:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Marcia! It's great to have you with us here on Wikipedia. I made a similar mistake when I was first starting out. There's quite a learning curve for newcomers here, and usually people are pretty pleasant and understanding. We even have a guideline for such cases: "Please do not bite the newcomers". Anyway, on to the question. I would say that some people are familiar with Wikipedia and it's image guidelines, but I would go ahead and try to utilize one of the sample letters. It contains all the key points. Most people, when approached, would say yes, assuming that they're releasing the photo for educational use only without any downstream usage, but Wikipedia considers such restrictions "not free enough". Upon hearing that, most image owners will decide not to allow the use of their photo. So I would say definitely ask for clarification from Mr. Jensen regarding the nature of the agreement. And then if you have an affirmative that he agrees to Wikipedia's license that allows commercial use, etc., I would follow the directions at WP:COPYREQ#When permission is confirmed. Alternatively, you might ask your fellow Californian Wikipedians to take a photo of this particular plant. User:Stan Shebs has taken many wonderful photos of California native plants and I know he has a backlog of photos to upload - he may very well already have a photo. User:IceCreamAntisocial is another user you might want to introduce yourself to; he's been making his way through a list of California plant species, creating short articles for them, including Eryngium constancei. Sometimes it's frustrating to get public domain images of plants. I'd eat my left shoe if someone would hand me a thumb drive full of Utricularia and Stylidium photos for each species. Well, best of luck! If you run into any further problems or have followup questions, feel free to ask. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 02:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've removed your recent report at WP:AIV because that IP address hasn't made any edits yet today. Once they become active again, please feel free to report them, as they have received a final warning within the past day. Also, when making reports, please use the {{IPvandal}} or {{vandal}} template to make reports, as this provides us with easy working links to pages we have to check before making a block. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Redwood National and State Parks" is today's featured article on the main page. I think you should go out and celebrate with your buddies in WikiProject Protected Areas and WikiProject California. (I'm kidding around, but I do think it's kinda cool.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a cool glass of vino under a giant Redwood tree would be the perfect celebration.  ;-) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I really appreciate it. I hope you won't think me immodest, but I moved it from my talk page to my main user page.
 :-)  :-)  :-) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Lookin' good on the New Orleans situation!
(2) For the navbox of articles you've created, you can complete the navbox and go back to regular formatting for the rest of the page by adding this after the last link (the link to "Snow Mountain Wilderness"):
|-
|}
— Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

I'm curious about your two recent edits to this article. You deleted the ref tags from the infobox, which means that the elevation and coordinates are now unsourced. You also deleted a bunch of unused fields in the infobox, which means that future editors can't use these fields without knowing their exact names. What's your rationale for these edits? Stepheng3 (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Stephen,

I do not have an acceptable rationale to offer. I was trying to determine the source of coord. at the title line and should not have saved anything. I have restored the article to your most recent version. I did however, learn a good deal about what a transcluded page is, what it does, and what it does not allow an aditor to do. The amount of transcluded templates in this article seem to slow down the load time of the page (for dial-up users at least) which is a concern.

I apologize for this mistake. Marcia Wright (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Marcia,

Thanks explaining what happened. I know you do lots of good work, so I was reluctant to revert without checking with you.

I'm very sympathetic to your confusion. Wikipedia has a long learning curve, and there are many things I still don't fully understand. Other than keeping articles reasonably short, I'm not sure what we can do about long load times. Since I'm unsure when and how transclusion takes place, I can't say whether it has a big impact on load time. Stepheng3 (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marcia! I answered your note on my talk page, and then noticed this -- I'm also interested in working on these articles, and have written a bunch already (besides LPNF, the San Rafael Wilderness, Dick Smith Wilderness, Chumash Wilderness, and some others). Let me know also if you need maps -- that's something else I like to do from time to time and would love to help out. Cheers and happy hiking! :) Antandrus (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marcia,

I raised the issue of page load performance at Template talk:Convert. Thanks for your response on my talk page pointing out that you might accept the template conversions. However, I am a bit confused by your removal of template conversions after that comment. If you are still worried about the performance of the template, would you be kind enough to join the discussion at Template talk:Convert? If you have identified a problem that they are unaware of, then they need to know. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the issue of page loading, things like this violate the MOS. Look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Longer periods. The second last line indicates it should be 1930s not 1930's. Also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Unit conversions indicate that there should be a conversion in one form or another. One way to cut down page loading times is to remove the several lines of whitespace and duplicated Wikilinks from within articles. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marcia, you are right about my edits being less than constructive, taking away information, etc. I'm sorry, I had only just discovered the way the geobox can make automatic locator maps via Template:Geobox locator California and was overeagerly trying it out, without taking enough care to ensure I wasn't doing more harm than good. I was partially just seeing if it would work at all, and didn't take the time to check my edit thoroughly. Please feel free to revert my edit. The geobox 2 has tributary fields, but in a different places and I didn't take the time to moev the info over corrrectly. Anyway, if I get a chance I'll revert or re-add lost info to the new geobox style, but please feel free to undo it if you want or I don't get to it. Pfly (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just fixed it myself, hopefully correctly. I'm about to post a few comments about it on the talk page. Pfly (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from WikiProject California!

As part of a recent update to our project main page we are conducting a roll call to check which members are still active and interested in working on California related content. If you are still interested in participating, simply move your username from the inactive section of the participant list to the active section. I hope you will find the redesigned project pages helpful, and I wanted to welcome you back to the project. If you want you can take a look at the newly redesigned:

• Main Page
  
• Talk page
  
• Cleanup listing
  
• Template list
  

As well as the existing pages:

• Assessment
  
• Article Worklist
  
• Deletion sorting
  

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, and add it to your watchlist, if it isn't already.

Again, hi! Optigan13 (talk) 00:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove my additions without stating a case in Talk. It is most unusual to remove an infobox. Norcalal 15:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

We literally bumped into each other. I was trying out an infobox and decided against it as I wanted it to show both the total area of the forest AND the acreage of the reserve. I also had just uploaded the photo (which is of poor quality). Also the lat/long coords I could not get any closer than Little South Fork Elk River. I thought the "edit conflict" alert was from my own editing. I did not mean in any way to disturb you and as soon as I realized there was another entity there(this is my firest conflict-will remember to clear cache in browser!), I stepped aside. Again, please don't yell as I did not know you were there. I am currently reading the BLM's business plan for the forest from the Arcata site. Would this be of help to you? Regretfully Yours, MarciaMarcia Wright (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

PS Here is the link to the coords:[3] and the business plan:[4]

Thanks for catching the infobox problem! I fixed it.

I guess my definition of city is a bit warped by too much time in the Sierra --- Oakhurst seems like a city to me :-). The problem with Bishop as a closest city is that, to drive there from the SNF, you have to drive clear out to the Central Valley, up and through Yosemite, and then down 395 for another hour. Oakhurst, while much smaller, actually does serve tourists in the SNF.

Thanks again! hike395 (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI...I am waiting for the appeals process in October to finally determine what the future will bring. I hope it will mean closure for the past nonsense around PALCO and the suffering of the region. Immediately following that I have intended all along to create the Humboldt Redwood Company article and make many adjustments to the PALCO article related to the end of the era, etc. The appeals process instigated by the annoying Bank of New York Mellon Trust Bank Corporation will get underway around October 6. It is highly unlikely the court will undo the current situation, but one can never fully know these things until the court rules. I wait with bated breathe. Regards Norcalal 06:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten this piece, still need work under history,but it is better than it was. My question is: what Wikiproject would it fall under? It kind of fits into public land legislation and history of US geography and protected areas, etc. I can't find a comparable article that has a project banner for guidance about this. Please respond on my talk page. Best Regards, Marcia Wright (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Protected areas would be my guess, but only because I participate there. It is much better now, although I take issue with idea that forests aren't herded: haven't you heard of the Shepherds of the Trees? Acroterion _(talk) 17:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marcia:

Dunno, but it seems remotely possible due to your Wikipedia work that you'd be interested in trying to save an article of potential interest to hikers in North America and elsewhere.

Wilderness Diarrhea is getting merged into Travelers Diarrhea by a couple of zealots who seem to have no concept of outdoor interests and a narrow, clinical orientation toward medicine.

I get around a lot in the outdoors and rarely treat water, but WD article had some good stuff.

After a couple of weeks of calm discussion, I went ballistic and no longer want to participate. Rational voices might help.

These guys have irrationally convinced themselves that WD isn't a legitimate topic for a Wikipedia article.

I've pointed out several bomb-proof arguements to no avail. I'd say the strongest is the rather vast number of published articles that discuss WD as a separate concern from TD. They are both environmental health topics, and obviously the context of each are far different.

Calamitybrook (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read both articles and the merge discussion and, unfortunately I think the merge is a good idea although as a separate section. I just wanted you to know. I am not going to post at all in the discussion. It will all come out in the wash anyway. Calm down, life is too short to get hyped over Wikipedia -we have much bigger problems on the horizon. A second Great Depression for one and a pretty VP candidate with the brains of an ant for another.

A nice long stroll with your dog is highly beneficial. Good Luck, Marcia Wright (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick thank you for writing the article on him-(I didn't think I'd find anything.) Good work Sincerely, Marcia Marcia Wright (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. After I saw the obituary for him, I couldn't believe that I had never heard of him, I couldn't believe that there was no article for him and I couldn't believe that the only existing articles where his name was mentioned were about the World Series of Poker and not about the Grateful Dead. It was truly fascinating to me to learn about Kant and to fill a hole that existed in Wikipedia. My read of your user page only makes your thank you that much more meaningful. Alansohn (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, Marcia. Can you nominate it for a DYK? Got a new editor adding some Bay Area water bodies.[3] Nice to see so many editors working on California Natural History articles. --KP Botany (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marcia, I am a little confused by your request. I do know that the National Landscape Conservation System is run by the Bureau of Land Management...as shown here...whereby the National Wilderness Preservation System is a joint effort by four federal agencies as you mentioned. Provide me with a link to the exact template that needs adjusting and I can better examine what the issue is. I don't know if the BLM's landscape conservation areas are different or overlapping or the same as areas designated by congress as wilderness areas.--MONGO 14:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem...let me know if I can be of any assistance...and thanks for doing some new articles...nice work.--MONGO 18:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like it says at WP:REFNAME, to create named refs -- where more than one citation uses the same footnote -- you add name="whatever" inside the ref tag. In one of the references with that name -- generally the first one, but it doesn't have to be the first -- you write out the reference inside the two ref tags like normal. That would look something like this: <ref name="mcnally">McNally, Dennis. ''A Long Strange Trip'', Broadway Books, 2002.</ref> In the other citations using the same reference, you don't write out the reference, you just end the first ref tag with a slash, and leave off the second ref tag. That would look like this: <ref name="mcnally"/> Make sure the names are exactly the same as each other. Below is an example -- if you edit it you can see exactly how I did it. Or, if you have one that you can't figure out how to fix, just save it and give me a link to it, either here or on my talk page. Let me know how it goes. :-)

Arrows of neon and flashing marquees out on Main Street.^[1] Chicago, New York, Detroit, and it's all on the same street.^[1] Your typical city involved in a typical daydream.^[1] Hang it up and see what tomorrow brings.

— Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See Marble Mountain Wilderness for the named ref attempt.

Check your email. :-) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 14:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thank you Mudwater-you saved the day-AGAIN! Ever consider an admin position?

I notice that you put one of them back. Does this mean they're good to go now? - Stepheng3 (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of King Range Wilderness at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Art LaPella (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to check out Google Books [4], I often do that for WP research. There seems to be some promising material there. Good luck! hike395 (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Marcia. I did notice your footnote, before, but I deleted it because it no longer supported the material in the article: Michael changed the number and identity of the conifer species, based on his personal experience. Now it either needs a new reference, or we have to go back to the old material. I was reluctant to revert, because Michael seems like an expert. Let me see if I can wordsmith the paragraph. —hike395 (talk) 07:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right: editors cannot cite to their own personal experience, it's against WP:NOR. If the material seems dubious, we can revert. In this case, I thought Michael was an expert, so the material was not dubious to me (although it does contradict the map that you cited).

In fact, it's somewhat dodgy to cite your own book or web site, it's a conflict of interest. It's only OK if there are third parties who review the book, otherwise it is not a reliable source.

If you'd like to revert back to 17, while citing the map, that would certainly be within your prerogative as an editor: a published map from the government certainly is better than personal experience. —hike395 (talk) 08:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after writing this all up, I'm leaning back to saying 17 and citing the map after all. —hike395 (talk) 08:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a more detailed ref for the USFS map? I can't find it online, just put in a (not very good) ref to a commercial web site. —hike395 (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now these are my kind of conversations. There are, indeed 18 identified species of conifers in the wilderness, though that fact is probably best left out of the discussion of the Marble Mountain Wilderness on Wikipedia -- the best two wilderness areas in northwest California to discuss conifer diversity, and numbers of species, are the Siskiyou and Russian Wilderness. Sorry for jumping into the wiki-experience a bit too fast and furious. I did not want to edit out all that was said, only try to reshape...which was a poor effort on my part. Lastly, those forest service maps are infamously wrong. After reading this post I will back off a bit on my editing.Michael E. Kauffmann (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Disambiguation. I agree that the current article name is misleading. There are at least four Cache Creeks in California, two of which have Wikipedia articles, so Cache Creek (California) would be even worse. I reccommend Cache Creek (Sacramento River). --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did not know that fact. How interesting...has anyone cared to count the Mill Creeks? (just kidding, my guess would be at one per county). But, seriously, if our Cache Creek is the only one that is a trib to the Sacramento R., then that name you suggest would indeed be more accurate and I vote yes to that.

Also, in a related note, then is there a disambig for Bear Creek? Marcia Wright (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to count features with a particular name using GNIS.

Bear Creek (California) currently resembles a hybrid between an article and a disambiguation page. This causes problems for categorization, among other things. I'd like to see it trimmed down to a disambig list, with all the substantive material split out to separate pages. --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcia, you don't need my permission to move the page. I'll back you up if need be, but I encourage you to be WP:BOLD. The Bear Creek article would be low on my priorities; you might consider tagging it with {{split}} for awhile and see if that generates any reaction. --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your question at User talk:dmadeo and commented with a link for you there. Also, i've liked previously what you've done on some other protected areas in California. I wonder if you would like to join a somewhat related new task force on California historic sites, of new world-wide Wikipedia:WikiProject Historic sites. Shortcuts are wp:CALHSITES and wp:HSITES. Even if your interest is mainly in visiting and describing natural areas, there are some overlaps between them. For example various obscure ranger stations and fire towers are NRHP-listed and are wikipedia-notable, but can be very hard to get to, and there are entrance signs and rustic park structures which are NRHP-listed or California Historical Landmarks, too. It would be great if you'd be alert to opportunities to get pics of such when in the same natural area, and belonging to the Task force might help. Also i and perhaps others in the task force also are interested in natural areas, too. Anyhow, keep up your good work! doncram (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm not even formally a member of WikiProject Protected areas but my feeling is that the infobox can be used for any site that is protected. It seems this rule, if it is a rule, is interpreted in a very broad scene. I've just gone through every page that uses the infobox and there are many articles which are not about sites that are not protected by any government agency and that is OK by me. It seems that even the use of the IUCN categories labels are frequently misapplied. In my opinion if the fields fit your needs then use it. I'd be a little cautious about using the IUCN field but if you think it fits use it. There are about 3,000 articles that make use of this template and they include articles about parks (national, state and local), historic buildings and ghost towns. Just about any site that someone is trying to protect. --droll [chat] 07:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire. There is need for a cleanup campaign to go through and rip out the infobox from areas which are not IUCN protected areas. It was missapplied to many U.S. historic sites that have no natural area whatsoever, early in the WikiProject life and before there was separate WikiProject NRHP about U.S.-designated historic sites (which overlap sometimes, but sometimes not). And need to work with IUCN to update its list both to remove bad info and add good info about formally protected state and local preserves that it doesn't have. It would be great to have 3 active people in wp:PAREAS though, Droll, would you please join up? :) Sorry, i was just watching here. doncram (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, I'll comment on your talk page. --droll [chat] 21:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The men have Left The Building..all quiet on the Western Front, whew, that was a close call. Just kidding ya'll!

Hi Marcia,

Thank you for reminding me about this merge suggestion; I left it so long that I forgot about it! After doing a bit of research, I do feel that Bushy Island is notable enough to have its own article. One book, Corals of Australia and the Indo-Pacific, states that Bushy Island lagoon is the only area where Acropora bushyensis is common. Another book, The geomorphology of the Great Barrier Reef, provides various geomorphological statistics about the island. A third, The gazetteer of the world, prepared by a staff of eminent geographers, can be used as a reference for the geographical coordinates. They can't be accessed online, but there seems to be significant information about the island in the following two books: Atoll Research Bulletin, Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts; perhaps something to request via inter-library transfer. What are your thoughts?

Neelix (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marcia,

In revisiting the two stubs, I think I was mistaken in suggesting the merge. Bushy Island and Bushy Islet are two distinct geographical locations. The only link between them, so far as I can see, is that they have similar names and are located in the same general area. I'll try to expand and properly source both stubs in the near future. It may be in a couple weeks, but I should be able to spare some time soon.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most useful thing is to find sources to back up the statements in the article. Ideally everything in the article should be sourced, but even a few would help a lot. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you created a couple of state park templates for California. I thought you might be interested in this discussion I started on Template talk:Protected Areas of California#Breaking into sections. I posted on WT:CAL about the post too, trying to get input. Just wanted to let you know in case you were interested in collaborating. Killiondude (talk) 07:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check out Wikipedia_talk:OTRS, although no-one's chimed in yet. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put in my comment, but I can also think of a bunch of problems coming out of this, well anyway, best of luck!Marcia Wright (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marcia, as much as I would like to help you, I have no experience whatsoever in article writing :) You found one of the few editors who never wrote a single line in mainspace, so you're way more experienced than me, sadly :( Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to help as much as I can. I suspect that all the answers are buried in [this document]. If you're not comfortable dissecting this sort of legal material, let me know, and I'll put more effort into it. (Even though I'm distracted by other Wikipedia projects at the moment, this is indeed "right up my alley," so don't be embarrassed if you want to ask me to finish the infobox for you ...) Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 04:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• With my brain running in autopilot, I copied an immense amount of public domain content into the article, and I'm afraid that might have ruined what you're after. In fact, it's so much STUFF that it might best belong in a new article, "history of the Environmental Protection Act," containing everything prior to the signing by Richard Nixon.
• Let me know if you'd like that, and I'd be glad to help you with it. Again, this stuff is right up my alley -- I just need to be asked to do it.
• As for the sidebar, though -- I've got an allergy to sidebars. However, if it's something you'd really like done to make the article feel perfect, let me know and I'll gladly set aside some time to do it. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 05:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem -- my edits were sloppy. However, I do believe that the content belongs somewhere on Wikipedia. If you give me the go-ahead, I'll spend tomorrow working on the article Legal history of the Endangered Species Act, which would incorporate much of the content which was deemed disruptive in the main article.
• Of course, I recognize that your main interest is to fix the "legislative history" in the sidebar. I looked at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_U.S._legislation, and some good examples appear at Defense of Marriage Act, Superfund, Clean Water Act, National Security Surveillance Act, Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009.
• Tomorrow, I will make a concerted effort to fix this content in the sidebar. "promise." Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 06:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Lukens kicks butt. Both as a person and as a Wikipedia article. Good work. P.S. Looks like someone requested that the article be reassessed, and it has been. Nice. What's next, I wonder? I don't want to get greedy here. Maybe we should take a little time to stop and smell the roses, so to speak. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I was unclear, but I meant you should put the short choppy paragraphs from the lead together, not necessarily remove material. A longer lead is better for an article of this length. Hekerui (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DONE Marcia Wright (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of nominating "Theodore Lukens" for Good Article status. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious what you mean by this comment in your edit of the Kern Plateau Section of the Golden Trout Wilderness:

Removed self-portrait-No original research allowed HA!Corsair1944 (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for annoying you, but I wasn't asking you for information about how to view the history of an article's edits. I wanted to know what you meant by "No original research allowed HA!" I'm not sure what you mean by vandalism. I added a picture of the Guard Station at Casa Vieja Meadows in the Golden Trout. This is a meadow that is very representative of the terrain of the Wilderness. What is the problem with it?

- The Boggys Pass Trail, (also known as Blackrock Saddle Trail) at the end of Forest Road 21S03, provides relatively easy access to Casa Vieja Meadows, which has several campsites, and Jordan Hot Springs.

Dear Marcia, Thank you much for you kind words. I think that your edits are quite good. I would be happy to work on this article with you. As to Tunnel Meadow GS, it was destroyed in a fire (structure fire, not a forest fire) sometime around 2000. It was quite a nice structure in a very scenic spot. I might be able to get some pictures of it from friends. There were also a number of Guard Stations on the western part of the GTW (I am only familiar with the eastern part). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corsair1944 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've nominated Bonny Doon Ecological Reserve, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. DYK rules call for at least one footnote per paragraph. So, if you're interested in seeing your work featured on MainPage, please put in more footnotes and refs. Thank you. Happy editing. --PFHLai (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Marcia. What usually happens at T:TDYK is that nominations stay there till [1] the suggested hook is used for DYK, or [2] some admin or DYK clerk thinks there are unfixable problems (article getting too old, copyvio, edit wars...) and the nomination cannot be accepted. Missing footnotes is a fixable problem, but this should be done soon. New articles are supposed to be used for DYK within a week of their creation. Please leave a note there on T:TDYK when you're done with the referencing. Someone there will then review the nomination. I am usually not around during the work week. I hope this article of yours will get on MainPage before I come back next weekend. Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote a very kind note to me, signing it, from a total stranger, having migrated from Mudwater's page. I hope this intrusion is welcome! I just wanted you to know my computer (of which I'm hardly literate) was offline for a couple of months, so this is a very tardy introduction. I am trying to find some editors to whom I can turn with questions since I edit, make infoboxes, and provide photos, but actually am clueless about many things here (even after a couple years) so, can I turn to you when I need info, or instructions? It would be well appreciated.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to thank you for the nomination of this article. As you know it made it on the 25th. The funny thing is, that piece I would call a "rushjob" , not as extensive as it could have been. If you ever get the time and interest, may I refer you to Theodore Lukens ( bio of a conservationist) that is currently waiting for GA status, as an example of what a Wikipedia article should be.

Again, *bow* thank you very much. Best wishes on your Wikipedia work. Sincerely, Marcia Wright (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're very, very welcome, Marcia. You did a good job with the article, and your good work deserves the spotlight on MainPage. We should all thank you for the nice new article.

DYK is meant to feature new additions to the encyclopedia. No one expects perfection out of brand new articles that are merely a few days old. There are minimum standards, and your Bonny Doon article is more than good enough for DYK. Your efforts to make things as good as possible are very much appreciated. Please be encouraged to self-nominate your next good wikicontribution for DYK. All the best with the GA review. Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marcia, I was wondering. I see lovely pages, but many of them use colours all over the infoboxes-- ones that are, were or should be GA-ranked pieces. Like Pink Floyd's discography article. It's confusing to others who email and ask me, and in some cases, like the album page from Pink Floyd- Ummagumma --take a look. The infobox just below the photo has colour smudged on it, etc. I don't have the answers and increasingly I see people trying to be creative, snipping faces of artists to make montages, and scrapping perfectly good ones we have already.. (Suede67 is an excellent editor, and made an outstanding piece, but knows the law, and is waiting for a photographer to change his photo to GDFL b/c I asked for the photo for his Snow Patrol articles, and it's the only one of the five he'd snip up that hasn't the license to allow him to do so, so he's waiting. (I just know it's killing him to wait while this poor soul tries to figure how to change a Creative Commons license, but he's hanging in there. Should anything be said? Done? I am too unsure of those things. Crowded House has multiple creativity issues with the artist having left it half-done. ?? thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leahtwosaints. I happened to notice your post here. I'm not sure I can address your larger concerns, but I can tell you why there's a "smudge" of color in the Ummagumma infobox. The album infoboxes are color coded -- blue for a studio album, brown for a live album, green for a compilation album, and so on. But Ummagumma is both a studio and a live album, so the infobox says "studio album and live album". The predominant color is blue for a studio album, but the words "live album" have the brown color coding for live album. I know that some other kinds of infoboxes are also color coded, for example the musical artist infoboxes, which may explain the other varicolored infoboxes you're seeing. Hope this helps. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 18:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mudwater for jumping in here-the question is out of my area. You are the Master of Music-related Wikipedia articles!!! I hope the issue is resolved. Oh and a sad good bye to a great human being by the name of Safire.Marcia Wright (talk) 03:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. And for more information about the color coded infoboxes, see Template:Infobox album#Type and Template:Infobox musical artist#Parameters. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, about those list-defined references. I love 'em! As explained at WP:LDR, they're really similar to regular named footnotes, but the text giving the reference is placed into the Notes section of the article, instead of being embedded within the text of the article. When the page is displayed the footnotes look exactly the same, but when editing the article the text for all the references is together, in the Notes section. As a demonstration of this "great leap forward" in Wikipedia footnotes, I've taken the liberty of changing the footnotes from "regular" to list-defined in the Bonny Doon Ecological Reserve article, with this edit. So, check it out. If you hate it, feel free to revert the changes, I won't mind, and either style of footnotes is considered fine to use. I think you'll probably like it though. (If you reply here I will see what you say.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 19:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit, changing to new style of inline citations looks real good, it is indeed a "great leap forward". As far as the Pulitzer Prize-winning article on SBM, we are still mostly in research-mode, as the reading is so much fun too! I have at least two hooks for DYK as well-here's one: Did you know that John Parot, president of X Mining Company, intentionally got himself arrested in defiance of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Law? Well, needs some work. Also, good job on making Wikipedia THE SOURCE for NRPS albums information. :) There should be a Barnstar for that effort

Marcia Wright (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for your kind words regarding this article, Cbben and I have worked hard to ensure that it's as good as it can be. Yes, I think that a hatnote would be a very good idea...especially since the Sweethearts of the Rodeo are actually mentioned in this article, in the "Legacy" section. By hatnote, you mean the tag at the top of the page that says something like "This article is about the album. For the country music duo, see Sweethearts of the Rodeo", right? I'm actually doing an edit on the article now, as we speak (type?), so I'll add a hatnote tag at the same time. Many thanks for the suggestion. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a big fan of water conservation. However, as long as water is so underpriced, it's perfectly understandable why people use it thoughtlessly. Of course, if ag users had to pay the true (environmental) cost of their water, they'd all fold, so I don't have all the answers yet. Cheers, --Stepheng3 (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In response to your query on my talk page, I can't claim to be an expert on the taxonomy of protected areas. However, the in the context of Wikipedia as a global encyclopedia, I think it's best to define terms like protected area and nature reserve broadly. The rules can differ radically from one jurisdiction to another, but the basic concepts (e.g., that a location is protected by law and/or ownership to preserve something, or that an area is protected specifically for a natural value) exist globally. Neither IUCN nor any other organization has exclusive right to define generic terms like "protected area."

I don't think that hunting is necessarily incompatible with an area's being a "nature preserve" or "ecological reserve" (or whatever), particularly because hunting can be a management tool. For example, in the eastern U.S. where I live, hunting of large herbivores like white-tailed deer is generally considered to be necessary to control their population in the absence of large predators. Uncontrolled, deer would wipe out a lot of native plants, and could lead to starvation and/or disease among the deer. In a completely different example, I believe that limited hunting is allowed in some African game preserves in order to give indigenous people a vested interest in preserving those areas for the benefit of wildlife. --Orlady (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcia, thanks for your inquiry on my userpage.

In response to that inquiry I should apologize and advise that I'm not in any way affiliated with the IUCN, nor am I in any way an authority on the IUCN protected area categories.

I is true, however, that I am interested in the subject, and will, therefore give brief, personal bare bones understanding as follows:

1. the IUCN protected area categories we've now go have a history going back to to 1959, at which time UNESCO decided to create an international list of Nature Parks and equivalent reserves, and the United Nations Secretary General asks the IUCN to prepare this list

2. the IUCN protected area categories have been variously reviewed, amended and changed over time with the aim of being maximally useful for describing:

".. clearly defined geographical space[s], recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values"

3. generally the concept of 'natural state' is at the core of a scale .. such that you have the 'most undisturbed, most natural condition' at one end of the scale (ie Category 1) .. and 'most disturbed, least natural' condition at the other end of the scale (ie Category VI) ...

4. as one moves along the scale from most undisturbed (I) to most disturbed (VI) .. you will see:

• the levels and nature of protection varies with the access and use most restricted at the Category I end of the scale .. and access and use least restricted at the Category IV end of the scale; and

• and in the middle you will see the spatial scale and degree of specificity varies from more specific (Category II) to less specific (Category V) lifting upwards in scale from features (Categories III) to habitats (Category IV) to whole land/seascapes (V).

I hope this general schema assists .. noting:

• an ecological reserve / protected area in need of being restored to it's 'natural' condition ought not be categorized Ia (Strict Natural) ... and if not a specifically bounded, controlled access Category II

Park .. then might indeed be best considered Category IV (habitat)

• an ecological reserve that allows and includes indigenous hunting .. where people and hunting are regarded part of the ecology and natural condition of the area ... might still make it as a Category Ia (wilderness) .. if it is otherwise largely 'undisturbed'!

Cheers Bruceanthro (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about your question. There is no need to create a new category for every photo. In fact the categories in Commons are not aligned with the ones in the English Wikipedia and generally not very well maintained. A category of only one item does not seem too useful, unless you are volunteering to reclassify others into it (which would be a great idea). One can always add more categories later to an image. There already is Category:Philanthropists from the United States for example. Although that is another question, was she really from the US or from the Kingdom of Hawaii (when she was born it was an independent country).

The real question is if the image is copyright free. By my account it is not yet 70 years from her death, but it is never clear to me who owns the copyright of photos. Usually the photographers think they do. The family shot in the HJH paper is clearly more than 70 years old, and probably the photographer was, but not sure. If the person who took the picture or wrote the pamphlet is still around, you would need their permission, I think. W Nowicki (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: if you have not noticed, I finally got around to starting articles on Annie's father and grandfather. She had other notable relatives. If you ever watch PBS, a big sponsor is the Wallace Alexander Gerbode foundation which was funded by her neice (also early environmentalist of note). Her cousin was Charles William Dickey, etc. the story for the 1904 trip where she had to deal with the death of her father and that of Tom Gulick (himself from a family of scientists) probably worth mentioning in the article. W Nowicki (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And sure, I can do a quick review of Joseph Grinnell. It looks like I only fixed a few links early on so am a fairly fresh set of eyes. I am not as picky as the GA reviewers I think, but have some of the usual copyediting that could be applied. An obvious question from a brief look is if the two Pratts are related. W Nowicki (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might want to know I've started adding issues of The Condor from when Grinnell was editor to Wikisource: see s:Author:Joseph Grinnell. —innotata 23:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, what do you think? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that you had a cat and a bird. I've always been pretty fond of both. What kind of bird is it? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice cockatiel. Sounds like he or she has a fine ear for music. I had a cockatiel for a little while, back in the mid-'80s. They're good pets. How tame is yours? Mine was pretty tame. His wings were clipped, so he couldn't fly, and he spent a fair amount of time outside his cage, when I was home. But I didn't have a cat, or a dog. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My cockatiel's name was Jackson. After having him for six or eight months I decided that I didn't have enough time to give him the attention that he liked, so I found a new home for him. Yes, it might be better to conduct non-WP-related conversations via email. But, can you provide a link to the discussion of the secret page game? I haven't seen anything about that. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the "tip of the day", although as far as I know it's not a new feature. To see counts of article page hits by day, do this: (1) Go to an article. (2) Click the "View history" tab. (3) Click on "Page view statistics" (a couple of lines above the "Compare selected versions" button). Check this out, it might cheer you up a bit. Since Wikipedia gets a lot of traffic, even "less popular" articles get a decent number of hits. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* moved award to user page*

I am honored, thank you very much. Marcia Wright (talk) 03:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lookin' good! Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ust a box of rain - wind and water - Believe it if you need it, if you don't just pass it on Sun and shower - Wind and rain - in and out the window like a moth before a flame

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pony Express has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Epicgenius (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]