User talk:Jayron32/Archive2
January 2007
[edit]NFL Playoffs
[edit]Nice work on NFL Playoffs. Just a little more work, IMHO, and you've got a good article. My suggestions for the final push are on the talk page. Kghusker 16:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I did some more work on the article and finally nominated for FA review here. Drop by and sound off! I think that it turned out ok :)) Happy New Year by the way! Baristarim 06:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm Back
[edit]I have another article for you to look over, Ben Stiller. I have all the sources, citations, and fair use rationales. I think it could probably use some better headings, so let me know what you think. Also let me know if there is anything else standing in the way of it reaching GA. Thanks again.--Nehrams2020 06:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- I put it up for GA, if it does/doesn't pass, can you still look it over if you get the chance so I can further improve it if necessary? Thanks. --Nehrams2020 09:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Ga on hold
[edit]You On Hold placement of Assata Shakur has expired. Please pass or fail the article as a GA now. Thank you. Diez2 16:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
February 2007
[edit]Rose Bowl
[edit]WRT to stadiums hosting the Super Bowl without hosting a pro team, Stanford Stadium was actually the home for the 49ers for one game in 1989, following the earthquake. (And, I'll try to resist the opportunity for a cheap shot at the Detroit Lions and Ford Field) :-) Neier 06:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
U.S. Roads Newsletter Issue #1
[edit]   The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||||||||||
| Volume 1, Issue 1 | 10 February 2007 | About the Newsletter | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
How far is far enough?
[edit]Sometimes it is a puzzle to find the last 'good' version of an article. The article GunBound had to reverted farther back to get rid of all the recent vandalism. It gets really fun when there are three different schoolkids who have been playing for 15 or so minutes already! ;-) Thanks! Shenme 04:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Vandal warning
[edit]I was just about to warn that ip. Great job getting in there before me! Keep it up Import007 05:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Once again thank you! Import007 06:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
U.S. Roads Newsletter Issue #2
[edit]
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.
Apologies for the late delivery. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
March 2007
[edit]User Talk
[edit]Mind telling me why I will be blocked? I still haven't seen any rule that states blanking my own page is a crime, it seems rather that arbitrary decisions are made by those in power who abuse their authority. It's my page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.137.175.59 (talk • contribs)
The article that you linked to deals with ownership of articles not userpages. The userpages are very different wiki articles, the user pages and discussions are used to identify a particular user, so in the case of Usertalk:209.137.175.59 page this is not a wikpedia article hence does not fall under the "rules of ownership" page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Socko123 (talk • contribs)
This debate only comes to an end because people refuse to address it. I've asked for it to be addressed quite a few times and it never has. --Socko123 06:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
New sig test
[edit]--Jayron32talk|contribs 06:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Your note on IP page
[edit]With reference to this edit, I think the {{repeat vandal}} banner covers the issue. Regards --Golden Wattle talk 00:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- While we have a tendency to post warnings at the bottom of the page, I think the warnings are hard to find for the intended reader if the page gets too lengthy, this is depsite the use of headings - more than a screen's length and expecting someone to navigate down to the bottom of the page is not reader friendly. Some IP addresses are used by many individuals. By their nature they are not experienced wikipedians. We need to make the warnings clear for the person to whom they are addressed. "Other users and admins" are secondary readers only. If they are in the warnings sphere and are interested in the extent of damage a vandal has been doing, I would expect them to be familiar with the banner and /or use of the history tab plus of course looking at the IPs contributions. My two cents Regards--Golden Wattle talk 00:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Your experience of vandalism may vary from mine. You said: Again, if the IP is used by many people, then it is unlikely that the same vandal will use the same IP over and over. Messages left will not reach more than a page long; if they are more than a page long, it is evidence of a single-user IP, and should be treated accordingly.
- School children and perhaps other students, for example at college, would seem to not fit your model. I have met plenty of pages with messages more than a page long and would not assume a single user, but there may indeed be among the users returning vandals. For example a page I have done a fair bit of reversion on is Ned Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); it was the one the IP address whose talk page you annoated as referenced above had vandalised: 203.144.20.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - as I read the Whois info for that the IP address is associated with Bond University. For an example of a talk page of another recently reverted Ned Kelly editor there see 203.208.66.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I would make no assumption that it is one user - IP addresses by Telstra are not usually assigned that way over time as I understand it. For an example of one of the many IP addresses of schools that has vandalised Ned Kelly see 203.208.91.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Regards --Golden Wattle talk 20:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Experimental Edits
[edit]Thanks for editing my edits, JJJJJJAAAAAAAAAYAYYYYYAYAYYYYYYRRORRRRRRRRROOOOOOOON!NNNNNN!!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.228.24 (talk • contribs)
 The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||||||||||
| Volume 1, Issue 3 | 10 March 2007 | About the Newsletter | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.
Active user verification
[edit]Hello, Jayron32. Due to the high number of inactive users at WP:USRD, we are asking that you verify that you are still an active contributor of the project. To do so, please add an asterisk (*) after your name on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/List. Users without one by the next issue in 2 weeks will be removed off the list and off the respective road projects as well. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: Harry Potter fandom
[edit]Jayron, thanks so much for your kind words in passing the article as a GA. Yes, I have a feeling there may be some deep "cruft" opposers at FAC, but I'm hoping to aim there soon -- but possibly waiting until after the release of the seventh book. Anyway, thanks again! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Heterodontosauridae
[edit]Thank you for reviewing Heterodontosauridae! They say that good articles don't just pop up out of nowhere anymore, but I found that one after a WP:DINO review of article size. All I really had to do was a copyedit, add a couple of references, and make reference formatting changes. J. Spencer 05:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Rainham, London
[edit]I know you said that the only thing stopping Rainham from becoming a good article was the fact that the history section is totally unreferenced, however I used the only source available to me, the book ‘Bygone Dagenham and Rainham’ which is actually listed in the references section. How do I reference one source for an entire section? It’s not like there are loads of sources out there with info one Rainham. Could you give me some advice? Max Naylor 18:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Cheers for the advice dude ;). Max Naylor 19:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Reply
[edit]I see your point, if they get reported one more time, I 'm sure someone will block them for an extended period of time (I will if I handle it). It's important to try and use warnings everytime because vandals often stop after seeing a final. John Reaves (talk) 05:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: User MVP5 is back at his old tricks
[edit]Feel free to go through the whole set of warnings (minus one if it becomes severe) and list on AIV/block as necessary. I don't hold back when someone I unblock comes back for more. ZsinjTalk 11:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Assessing article on Leonard Orban
[edit]You have assessed the article on Leonard Orban as not meeting the GA criteria because it has "Non-free images without fair-use rationale". If this is the only problem of the article, I believe I can fix it in a couple of days and provide a fair use rationale. Is it possible to change your assessment and put ii "on hold" for a few days? The whole process of GA nomination takes a lot of time and a lot of waiting and maybe it can be made shorter, if the fair-use rationale is the only problem in the article. BTW, is there any other similar cases of fair-use images for a politician I could consult? Many thanks in advance, --Michkalas 15:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you assess this article for GA? You assessed Romanization of Chinese, and this article is similar (although in my opinion it is of much higher quality). User:Ndsg has spent 252 edits improving it, and I suspect it is close to passing FA, let alone GA. I would appreciate your input. Thanks. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 12:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for images in "Leonard Orban"
[edit]Thanks for your help! I think I have fixed the problems with the fair use rationale and I have left relevant comments at Talk:Leonard Orban. Some elaboration may be needed, so let me know if there is any problem. --Michkalas 13:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the GA review. I have listed Taiwanese aborigines at WP:GA/R for review of the Failed Ga. Thanks again! --Ling.Nut 23:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi---
- Errm? Eh? Ug! I could swear I saw that GA review on my watch list just this evening! But it is from days ago. I dunno how I confused myself...
- Yes I am editing at the moment, but am quitting again in ten minutes or so. I was editing again for Spring Break, which ended today. :-)
- Thanks! --Ling.Nut 01:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi again; last message, I promise. :-) It's completely up to you: You can review Taiwanese aborigines if you like, or don't review it if you don't. :-) I actually left a note on Homestarmy's talk a while back asking him to review it. He hasn't replied yet. That may perhaps be because at the time I wrote the note, the article wasn't even WP:GAC. Or it may be because he's too busy, I dunno. I'm sure he wouldn't mind if you reviewed it... it would save him the trouble. :-) All in all, I have been more than a little confused about what was done where :-) But I am done now. Need to study. Please feel free to review the article if it pleases you to do so, but don't feel obligated. Thanks! --Ling.Nut 01:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Aha! User:Jerrypp772000 put the failed GA on the talk page today. That was what I saw. No drugs involved. --Ling.Nut 05:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Jayron32, Thank you for your kind words and support. Your encouragement has been an inspiration for us to continue refining this article. This has been a rewarding project all around and a pleasure to be a part of.Maowang 15:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
GA for East Carolina University
[edit]Would the best thing to do is rewrite the whole page? Is there specific subheadings that need addressed? I am the majority writer and everything looks fine to me, but thats because I wrote it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PGPirate (talk • contribs) 04:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
Thank you for the review. I've just fixed some links to citations, and moved the controversial stance section next to position section. However, the huge amount of references take a lot of time to fix. I'll probably do it later gradually. You may fail it as you wish, but I might renominate it after the fixing is done. Wooyi 04:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
"Leonard Orban" renominated for GA
[edit]I have just renominated "Leonard Orban" for GA. Please check with my comments above and at the article's talk page and notify me if there are any problems with the current fair use rationale (or anything else). Many thanks in advance. --Michkalas 20:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||||||||||
| Volume 1, Issue 4 | 24 March 2007 | About the Newsletter | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
New article on Steve Omohundro
[edit]I found some new information on Steve Omohundro that was not brough up in the original AFD discussion - 17 publications and a US patent - and thought this significant enough to warrant restoring the article. After restoring it, I made enough edits that I feel it's a new article rather than a restoration (it would have been easier to start from scratch than to restore), so I have removed the CFD tag. However, I wanted to invite you to take a look at the article as you participated in the original AFD discussion. --Zippy 00:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
RIAA
[edit]Learn to see who did what vandalism is moron. This IP vandalized the page once fricking idiot. --209.137.175.59 18:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Biased biography
[edit]Why is the criticism of the Finkelstein bio much larger and more detailed than the praises?
I have read his books and they are all well documented with loads of footnotes to back up his conclusions. Of course there are going to be more criticisms than praise because he is taking a position that isn't politically correct. But that doesn't mean its not justified. Please make both the praise and criticism sections equal in length. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.239.138.147 (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
- Removing large chunks of the text without explanation is not the way to address this. You have already been reported to WP:AIV for vandalism. Can you please bring this to the article's talk page and discuss these concerns with the other editors there. Thus, you all can work together to achieve consensus - Alison☺ 05:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
regarding your comments made on FLC
[edit]Hi, I just read your comments on this FLC, and I've made some edits to the image caption and the DPRK note. Is this what you wanted me to fix?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 22:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- I ended up putting up that image for CSD I3. The UN Photo Library hasn't responded. :( Ed ¿Cómo estás? 18:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Ronda Storms
[edit]Everything is now done. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 22:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
TQ for your kind protection
[edit]Revision as of 04:49, 1 March 2007 (edit) 124.107.2.74 (Talk) (←Blanked the page) ← Older edit Revision as of 04:56, 1 March 2007 (edit) (undo) Jayron32 (Talk | contribs) (rv blanking) darzkkg 03:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
George Albu
[edit]Dear Jayron32, Thank you for your comments on Albu. However, I must express surprise that you feel removing 2 images from the page (repeatedly) and rearranging the rest, does not constitute vandalism. If Berks had discussed the issue before his summary edits, which are simply labelled "not necessary", there might be some justification for his actions. See Lady Phillips and Lionel Phillips for similar behaviour. Unfortunately Berks has decided to target me and will carry on with his harassment until he is stopped or grows bored. Paul venter 05:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This is getting too much - Berks ignored a tag on the above article which I started this morning, leading to an edit conflict which caused a loss of about an hour's work. Get him off my back or you will lose my contributions permanently. Paul venter 13:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well I apologise for that. Firstly, your work shouldnt have been lost, it should have been in a section on the bottom half of the page, which you then could have restored to the top part of the page and saved. Secondly, it is because you have over used these templates that I assumed you weren't editing it. --Berks105 13:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes Jay, I have to agree with your comments on this, the referencing thing is a major problem on these Top Gear related pages, I had to go through and add the unreferenced bar to at least half a dozen pages today within this section, although strangely not Top Gear Dog, which although fully referenced was vandalised by our friend User:DrFrench. The referencing added today to the Jon_Bentley_(TV_presenter) page is pathetic and is just a blatant excuse to avoid it being AfD'd. At that rate, there's no wonder this article failed the good article criteria especially when some of the best parts of the Top Gear section are unnecessarily vandalised, aka deleted by biased admin. Davesmith33 21:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
April 2007
[edit]talk page comments
[edit]hey jayron, i was just removing personal attacks (people calling me a troll, discussing plans to revert me, etc). its not vandalism to remove those is it?
thanks 71.112.7.212 19:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- This User has again reverted discussion page on Afro, has engaged in repeated disruptive editing, was already the topic of an Administrator block for suspected sockpuppetry (and disruptive editing), refuses to not sign their comments despite repeated Bot requests telling her to do so, has offended or upset virtually every person she has come in contact with, and shows absolutely no ability to "grow" and improve their behavior on this site. A casual review of their Talk page history, where she removes virtually every warning and request to stop as a "personal attack." Few, if any, constructive edits. --David Shankbone 20:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree
[edit]Those were my last comments, and I made them in good faith. I suppose I naively hope they will actually make a difference. After I wrote those, I took the User off my watch list. Thanks for your advice and assistance. --David Shankbone 02:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Please observe Wikipedia polices, and do not make false allegations
[edit]Asserting that a rule has been broken when it has not is a breach of Wikipedia:Civility, as is making a false claim that changes are not being discussed. Please observe Wikipedia policies in future. Thank you. Dominictimms 19:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Hull House GA on Hold status
[edit]I think it has now been over 7 days. I am curious about your current evaluation. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
GA Guide
[edit]I hope you don't mind me moving it to the Wikipedia space, I also left a notice on the WP:CBB so hopefully well will get more input. Tarret 01:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- No objections at all. It was userfied because it was still a draft proposal. If you think moving it to the Wikipedia Namespace is a good idea, by all means do it! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jayron, thanks for adding a warning at [User talk:72.223.1.37]]. A couple of small comments, if I may. Most importantly, you should sign warnings when you leave them. The second is that if a user has already received a {{uw-vandalism4}} warning, it doesn't generally help to immediately add a second such warning to the user's talk page. Thanks, Gwernol 02:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Re:
[edit]I perfectly know how to use GA/R and have been using it for several months which is much longer than most. Please do not come on my page and tell me how to use it like you're quoting a sermon - some of the cases I put there aren't clear cut, and even the ones that are can be disputed by anyone who wishes to do so. Only very very recently was one lone person allowed to delist an article again, until that was re-reverted, and some still dispute there should be a better process to list and fail GAs.
Furthermore, I do not need to leave "extensive notes" for others to be able to work an article back up to GA, since most are forgotten and unloved, and secondly it's up to an editor to bring an article they wish to GA and not myself, and furthermore if I did that with every GA that needs delisting I would be here until Doomsday. Good day, and please remember this if anything - quoting Wikipedia text to other editors sometimes comes across as offensive and smarmy, so please reconsider when attempting to use it again. LuciferMorgan 19:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. I overreacted anyway, so it's me who needs to apologise. Accept my humble apologies. I hope you see why I nominate even obvious fails for GA/R though, as some editors tend to contest their failure with you even if it's clear. When three or four people quickly say fail it tends to lend more weight to a failure. LuciferMorgan 23:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm bit of a picky person so I don't tend to review articles at GAC. Usually though, reviewers tend to end up specialising in areas which helps I find - mines Music personally. I can review a Music article much better than I can other articles. When reviewing a GAC, be very specific in what you think should be improved, but most of all make a flatline call - is this article way from GA, or can this be improved to GA if I place it on hold for one week? WP:PR is a good place if you wish to brush up your reviewing skills, and there's many eager for their articles to be reviewed. LuciferMorgan 00:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I can see why you'd get irked, but some cases are such a pain - no citations, prose problems, missing info, the works, and in those cases it's best to just tell them to look at a recently listed GA in the same category. When delisting GAs etc., it doesn't bother me about leaving extreme in depth reasons, as any interested editor can request such if they need it. If you think I accused you of not taking GA reviews seriously then my apologies - in your last message (which started "PS." it seemed you asked for my advice about reviewing GAs, so I just gave it. We didn't start out in conflict as such - I just find it very annoying when someone quotes from Wikipedia pages half the time. Anyway, that's all under the bridge now. LuciferMorgan 02:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Minnesota Vikings seasons
[edit]Hi! I just wanted to thank you for taking time to review and giving support to Minnesota Vikings seasons on the WP:FL candidate list. Thanks again! RyguyMN 03:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thanks
[edit]thanks for taking the time to look thru my contribs and thanks for the apology.
71.112.7.212 15:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if you saw, but large changes were made per your extensive comments. They were consistent with a short comment I had previously received, but yours were detailed enough to act upon. See if the changes made (and the subarticles created) were along your line of thinking. Thanks for taking the time to review the article. Thegreatdr 21:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've renominated it for GA. =) Thegreatdr 20:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for the kind words about the article!
The pictures are from 1896, so I put PD-old on them. I think that's OK..
Thanks again! --Ling.Nut 20:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||||||||||
| Volume 1, Issue 5 | 5-8 April 2007 | About the Newsletter | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 00:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Re:
[edit]Hey! no problem thanks for contacting me about the issue, cheers. Lakers 04:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to review this article, I have tried to address some of the points you have made. If you have any other suggestions it would be awesome. I quoted the books used at the bottom of the article instead of in each paragraph-oops. Will get them out again, and re-read and properly reference them. --SriMesh|talk Julia 05:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Me again...I worked on the lead paragraph somewhat...I followed the WP:LEAD and showed progress on the discussion page for Agriculture in Canada...I have been practising on Geography of Saskatchewan and so far 2 or 3 of the neighborhoods. How does an article progress in status on wikipedia ? ..I am still fairly new to Wikipedia...thank you for your help BTW
Editing Wikipedia was a mistake I will not repeat
[edit]- I came here to make simple improvements. I am not interested in all the stress and nonsense you are suggesting. Wikipedia is obviously disfunctional, so I am no longer interested. The bad things I have heard about it are true. Dominictimms 09:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Me
[edit]Why do you care? You do not know me. Does helping me give you a feeling of self-rightousness? I cannot comprehend your human feelings of caring and compassion. Why do you care? -PatPeter 18:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't any more. Read this if you want more information. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Look PatPeter, people mail you (or post comments) because they obviously care - as human beings, we're not unfeeling brutes. Maybe you'll learn that someday - but posting attacks to the very people who post concern for you makes absolutely zero logical sense. People care, sure, that's why they post comments to you. We have no secret agenda. It's called basic human concern. You could at least say 'thank you' to us but no, you decided to be a dick instead. Skult of Caro (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I consider the matter closed now. I will have no further dealings with Pat. I have much better things to do with my time than feeding trolls.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. I suppose that's all he is. Hope you didn't mind my comments (or delete them if you do). Skult of Caro (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I consider the matter closed now. I will have no further dealings with Pat. I have much better things to do with my time than feeding trolls.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Look PatPeter, people mail you (or post comments) because they obviously care - as human beings, we're not unfeeling brutes. Maybe you'll learn that someday - but posting attacks to the very people who post concern for you makes absolutely zero logical sense. People care, sure, that's why they post comments to you. We have no secret agenda. It's called basic human concern. You could at least say 'thank you' to us but no, you decided to be a dick instead. Skult of Caro (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles example reviews
[edit]- I think putting up an actual example of a bad review is probably a bad idea. :-( people could take that personally. Outlining typical pitfalls of reviews should be enough.
- As for good reviews, ask User:Homestarmy who he thinks were the best two or three reviewers. I always liked to read User:RelHistBuff's reviews. I put a lot of work into some of my reviews, but they were kinda scattered/unorganized. Not concise examples, probably.
- Did you mention something about seeking others' input/opinions for tricky cases..?
- KUTGW! --Ling.Nut 13:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Flagstaff, Arizona: GA nomination]]
[edit]I noticed you reviewed the Flagstaff article on March 16. I've recently added references and additional details per your comments, and renominated the article at WP:GAC. Dr. Cash 03:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
ga review page
[edit]- Perhaps there's a catchy phrase or two here that might seem appropriate. It's possible for a review to skate within WP:CIVIL and yet be unnecessarily harsh. --Ling.Nut 03:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank You Again
[edit]
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
| Hello. Jayron32. Thank you for your reply. I am following up on the numerous links you have dropped off. There are good suggestions, and I am going back to some of my first articles and refining them now, and they feel better at least to me. SriMesh|talk Julia 03:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC) |
Saint Louis Rams season
[edit]- Just wanted to thank you for cleaning up the lead in the St. Louis Rams season list. --Pinkkeith 13:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
"Jihad (song)"
[edit]Can you take a fresh look at the article and give your thoughts? Thanks. LuciferMorgan 21:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. "Gag order" has been changed to "censored" now in the body and lead of the article, so that issue has been addressed also - I think "censored" makes the prose run smoother. LuciferMorgan 00:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Triple crown
[edit]
Your Majesty, I am honored to present these three crowns in honor of your achievements as a Wikipedia editor. May you wear them well. DurovaCharge! 15:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I added the seasons, league awards and team awards. Don't know if team awards could be there, but I thought I would give it a try. Thanks for all your help. --Pinkkeith 01:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
GA
[edit]
|
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
| For your work at Good Article Candidates and Good article review, helping to clear the backlog, thanks :) M3tal H3ad 07:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC) |
- Thanks!!! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Timeline of chemistry bondstar
[edit]Jayron32, thanks for the chemistry bondstar. I wish I could have contributed more during the buildup, but I'm knee-deep in finishing the wrap-up details for the publication of new 500-pg textbook on human chemistry; it's quite interesting how mathematically-thick it turned out to be. See the new webpage I started last week to get a loose idea: www. humanchemistry. net . The webpage is only one page presently, but maybe down the road I'll be able to make it into a multi-level education-type website on the subject. To note, the timeline of chemistry needs a section on 21st century contributions. We might want to check out the Nobel Prize in chemistry during the last decade to get an idea or put something in there about nanotechnology or drug design, which have been big topics recently. Talk soon: --Sadi Carnot 08:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- As an example, I had added an entry on the invention of Chemical ionization mass spectrometry, which has become one of the most important "soft" ionization techniques, and is used in many diverse areas of analytical chemistry. However, I later removed it, because I realized that the addition was purely personal. One of the inventors, Burnaby Munson, was my advisor and mentor in college; though this does not undervalue his role or the importance of his discovery, its inclusion here was probably a little TOO esoteric for inclusion. Likewise, another close mentor of mine, J.L. Burmeister, has been cited as the "Father of ambidentate ligand chemistry". Fairly big in its field, but not really valid inclusion in an omnibus timeline like this.
- The key is finding discoveries whose importance has been noted so often that it has become pervasive in the literature. Discoveries of the past 10 years MAY someday reach that level of import, but it is hard to decide which recent discoveries will seem important say, another 10 years from now, and which ones will look out of place in a list like this.
- I have added some nanotechnology related discoveries, such as Kroto et al. and fullerenes, and its offshoot discoveries related to carbon nanotubes. Still, if you have specific examples you would like adding, please feel free to add them yourself, or if you are short on time, drop a note at the article's talk page. I can do the research and add more entries for you if you have specific things. Thanks again for all of your help! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Jyron, I agree about the 10 year waiting period, sometimes it’s even 30 years. I’ll try to keep my eyes open for possible recent innovators in chemistry. Soon as I get caught up, you’ll probably see me back digging around in the table, trying to tighten it. P.S. what gave you the urge to make the timeline? Talk soon: --Sadi Carnot 13:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- I hope you are watching my talk page. Makes it easier to keep the conversation going. Well, several things: 1) I noticed it was missing and probably needed, since there were smaller timelines dealing with specific chemistry fields, but no omnibus chemistry timeline. 2) I have always been very interested in History of Science type stuff. I majored in chemistry and minored in history in college, and was very close to a double major(B.S. Chemistry/B.A. History), but that would have required staying an extra year, and events conspired to make that unlikely. 3), I was eager to see what it took to get an article featured. I have never had the gumption to nominate any of my articles for feature status, and it wasn't much of my intention of getting this one there, but as it started to develop, I realized that this might be a good shot for my first test case. It worked out pretty good. My second attempt at a feature, one on Plymouth Colony, isn't going as well. It seems featured lists are much easier than featured articles.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, good work. I see your perspective better now. I've had similar thoughts about FA status, many times people have suggested this option to me on some articles I've wrote, but from other experiences in Wikipedia, it seems like it's more of mental strain than it's worth to push out FA's. --Sadi Carnot 19:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: revert of vandalism to Burmese Indians
[edit]Some information in the above articles have no verifiable facts, hence I have removed them. It is not a vandalsim nor am I a vandal. I have requested the person who is disputing this to provide "verifiable facts" according to Wikipedia policy. I hope you understand. Okkar 16:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have no connection to the article or the subject matter at hand. Have a good time! Peace out --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Being bold and overdoing the AGF thing on Talk:Brian Wilson
[edit]Reviewing, you were one of the more concerned people, so I thought I should ask your blessing (or other). If you review the history for Talk:Brian Wilson you see the former miscreant wanting very much to hide. Hopefully, they simply want to let the misdeeds be in the past. I've been thinking about this for awhile, that we should archive (not disappear) the threads so that they can be less embarrassed. I've created an archive for the talk page and moved those last two threads into there. I updated your links to your WP:ANI postings so they can be found in those archives. And, of course, I have the new archive on my watchlist, as is proving to be necessary more and more. (Did you know AN/I archives aren't protected?!!) Any severe objections? I've already mentioned to one person I'll either get an AGF badge, or a multi-pointed something applied rudely if the miscreant reverts to old form. (sigh) Shenme 01:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I see no problem with archiving the talk page. To make it appear as though you are not merely archiving the "evidence", it might be a good idea to archive all posts older than XXXX, where XXXX is the date of the last bad post by the prodigal editor in question. That way, we don't have to keep this stuff in his "face", while also being able to make the whole archiving appear neutral. You have my blessing. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Andreas Thorkildsen
[edit]Could you pass or fail Andreas Thorkildsen, its on hold is up today. Thank you sir. IvoShandor 13:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- OOPS... Forgot that one. SORRY!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The City of Peterborough
[edit]I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to give such constructive criticism/ feedback for the GA nomination. I have to say that when I first saw it I was horrified, but after reading it I appreciated your comments very much. 163.167.129.124 13:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, don't mention it. I always try to give thorough notes on how to fix a failed GA article. My goal in a fail review is to give you enough fixes that I would pass the article if they all were made.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 15:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hello. I've done as you suggested, (except the lead) and re-nominated. However, another editor has now come along and "moved the goalposts." Can you please have a look and let me know what you think..? Cheers. 163.167.129.124 09:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Mom and Dad
[edit]Not sure if you're still monitoring it, but I have answered your questions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
NFL stadiums stuff
[edit]I withdrew the nomination and split the list into Chronology of home stadiums for current National Football League teams, and List of current National Football League stadiums, with notes explaining the messiness with the FLC page that created. I'm fixing redirects now; both lists are usable and could eventually go back to FLC, the pros e will need to be looked at, since I just cut it where I saw fit from the former list. -Phoenix 17:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | |||||||||||
| Volume 1, Issue 6 | 21 April 2007 | About the Newsletter | |||||||||
| |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 22:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Teacher professional partnerships article proposed for deletion
[edit]Hi. You tagged this article as reading like an {advert} over 5 months ago.[1] Nobody's done anything with it since then other than a spammer and some bots so I tagged it today with a {{prod}} tag. I thought I should let you know in case you disagreed and saw potential in the article (and wanted to work on it.) --A. B. (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- If no one else thinks the material is academic enough to make a real article about the subject, it apparently won't be missed. You have my blessing.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Phil Mitchell seems to be at an impasse. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks, Ling.Nut 04:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I looked at it, and it seems to be about a fictional character. I usually avoid commenting on such articles except to refer people to WP:FICT. I have tried to review fictional articles in the past; but I have found that I am not good at reviewing them. Sorry I couldn't be more help. I will gladly help out in non-fictional articles, but I am no good at reviewing this kind of article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Italian football champions FLC
[edit]Hey Jayron32, thanks for your comment at the FLC for Italian football champions. I've responded there and hopefully addressed your concern. Could you cast your eyes over the changes when you get a chance, and perhaps suggest more or support the promotion? Thanks for your time and interest. The Rambling Man 07:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Mind? Your edits? All fine by me! Thanks again for your time and energy invested in (hopefully) making this article featured. Cheers! The Rambling Man 21:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Your comments on Norwich City F.C. at FAC
[edit]Thanks for your detailed comments. They were really helpful. While I've not currently agreed with all of your criticisms, I've made some definite improvements to the article as a result of your contribution. On the comments where I've not agreed with you, it could be that The Rambling Man or other contributors at FAC will agree with your arguments and I'll happily go with consensus. Furthermore, please do take a look and (if appropriate) feel free to debate with me... I am always open to good argument and certainly appreciate people who take the time to help improve articles by constructive criticism in the manner you have done. Cheers! --Dweller 11:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- All of your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norwich City F.C. have now been responded to. I'd welcome your review of our responses... and hopefully your support. --Dweller 15:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I think I've dealt with the concerns you've raised on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of counties in Delaware. Could you have another look and see whether or not it meets your aproval? Tompw (talk) (review) 21:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
108 N. State Street
[edit]Thanks for contributing your time to the consideration of Talk:108 North State Street. I agree with almost all of your suggestions except for the unnecessary external links. I think both links serve important purposes. I think for an article about a {{Future building}} it is a service to have an image of the final plan. I also think that since the lot was left vacant for a generation of political turmoil it is important to show this visually. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I can respect that. It was a minor issue. The rest of the fixes, especially the POV language should be cleaned up, however. Let me know when this is complete and you wish a final review. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I just finished it, I believe. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)