User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2006/04
I've not had a good look through Hurricane Pauline, but I noticed in your reason for objecting to good article status, your sole criticism was its length. I just thought I'd give you a heads up that in the criteria for good articles, length is not an issue per se, rather, it should be sufficiently comprehensive that there are no major omissions. So, when you reject an article on insufficient comprehensivity grounds, you should say what major part of the topic it is that the article has omitted. One of the reasons for the founding of WP:GOOD was actually for short articles that, as a result of their shortness, will not get featured status, even though they are about as good as could possibly be expected (e.g. if there isn't much information about a topic, or it's just not a sufficiently "big" one to go into depth to). Oh, I just noticed that you were one of the writers of the "pencil lead" article - I learnt a lot from that one, it's one of my "I'd only have come across it on Wikipedia" favourites!:) TheGrappler 03:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- One of the criteria is "covers all major aspects of a topic", but the article has little on the after-effects of the hurricane. It only talks about the history and direct impact. -- King of Hearts talk 03:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Looking at it, that's spot on :) Objections should really be specific and actionable, so that editors know exactly what your complaint is. You have to remember that people spend days and days getting articles anywhere need "good" standard, and it's not like FAC where they get lots of different comments to work with. Here, one comment is all they get to go on, so something like "this article is a bit short", after all the effort they have invested, might come as a big kick in the teeth. Something like "this article is well-referenced and well-illustrated (and the copyright tags seem appropriate), and it has good content about the history and direct impact. However, the after-effects are a major facet of this hurricane and need more material, and there should be more about the retirement of the hurricane" doesn't take much longer to write, is more instructive (tells them what is going right and what, in particular, needs more work), tells the editors that you've been paying attention to their work, gives them praise for the good hard work they've done (praise is a really important currency on Wikipedia - it's not about sending people on ego-trips, but there is alot of unpleasantness here, and it is nice to be reminded that there are people who read and appreciate your work!) and also gives them a target for the next stab at a good article or featured article nomination. It also reduces the temptation to contest the failed nomination at the good article dispute page (averting disputes is even better than cooling them once they occur!). It's not that many more words to write, and compared to the effort of actually reading an article, thinking about how it matches the WIAGA criteria, checking image tags etc it's really no effort at all. To be honest, I probably tend the other way and write far too much in some of my reviews, but I guess there is a happy medium! TheGrappler 05:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry about sounding a little harsh. If the after-effects and other details are expanded to cover the critical ideas, then the article can be renominated for GA status. -- King of Hearts talk 05:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- No worries, it's not my article :) Basically, the trick is to let the editors know precisely what you'd be looking for on a renomination - then hopefully they will do it and we get another good article on the list! TheGrappler 15:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry about sounding a little harsh. If the after-effects and other details are expanded to cover the critical ideas, then the article can be renominated for GA status. -- King of Hearts talk 05:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Looking at it, that's spot on :) Objections should really be specific and actionable, so that editors know exactly what your complaint is. You have to remember that people spend days and days getting articles anywhere need "good" standard, and it's not like FAC where they get lots of different comments to work with. Here, one comment is all they get to go on, so something like "this article is a bit short", after all the effort they have invested, might come as a big kick in the teeth. Something like "this article is well-referenced and well-illustrated (and the copyright tags seem appropriate), and it has good content about the history and direct impact. However, the after-effects are a major facet of this hurricane and need more material, and there should be more about the retirement of the hurricane" doesn't take much longer to write, is more instructive (tells them what is going right and what, in particular, needs more work), tells the editors that you've been paying attention to their work, gives them praise for the good hard work they've done (praise is a really important currency on Wikipedia - it's not about sending people on ego-trips, but there is alot of unpleasantness here, and it is nice to be reminded that there are people who read and appreciate your work!) and also gives them a target for the next stab at a good article or featured article nomination. It also reduces the temptation to contest the failed nomination at the good article dispute page (averting disputes is even better than cooling them once they occur!). It's not that many more words to write, and compared to the effort of actually reading an article, thinking about how it matches the WIAGA criteria, checking image tags etc it's really no effort at all. To be honest, I probably tend the other way and write far too much in some of my reviews, but I guess there is a happy medium! TheGrappler 05:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
[edit]
|
Hi King of Hearts. Just a quick note to thank you for your support in my RfA, which recently passed 62/13/6. I will do my very best live up to this new responsibility and to serve the community, but please let me know if I make any mistakes or if you have any feedback at all on my actions. Finally, if there is anything that I can assist you with - please don't hesitate to ask. Cheers TigerShark 03:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC) |
Sorry
[edit]I did not see what i said as biased but i won't argue so i will be more consicous while i edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CBPRS (talk • contribs) 03:44, April 5, 2006
Thank you for reviewing my article - it's good to have feedback. I do have some questions for you to make sure I understood you correctly - could you reply on the article's discussion page?
Thank you! -CF
CasualFighter 15:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Green Day article
[edit]Good catch. I was about to rv back to Kuru's version myself. :)
Yansa 02:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
(Untitled)
[edit]are you laurap? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.23.92.104 (talk • contribs) 04:19, April 8, 2006
(Untitled)
[edit]Hi,
I don't quite understand what you mean by the message you sent me? Could you please clarify.
Thank you.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.219.174 (talk • contribs) 17:35, April 9, 2006
My RFA
[edit]
Hi, this is Matt Yeager. I wanted to thank you for your vote on my request for adminship. The count was something like was 14/20/5 when I decided to withdraw the request. My decision was based on the fact that there are enough things wasting people's time on the Internet that doomed RFA's shouldn't be kept up for voters to have to think about. Regardless of the rationale behind your vote, I hope you will read this note for an extended note and discussion on what will happen before I make another try at adminship (I didn't want to clog up your userpage with drivel that you might not be interested in reading). Thank you very, very much for your vote and your time and consideration of my credentials--regardless of whether you voted support, nuetral, or oppose. Happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you
[edit] |
Thank you! Hello King of Hearts/Archive/2006/04. Thank you for your support in my RfA! It passed with a final tally of 91/3/5. I am quite humbled and pleased by the community's show of confidence in me. If you need help or just want to talk, let me know. Cheers! -- Fang Aili 說嗎? |
Sig
[edit]Can you please adjust your sig so that it's easier to click to your user page.--Barberio 09:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Ozone
[edit]I've added a couple of maps (one zonal, one global) of ozone to its article. Let me know if that wasn't what you were thinking of.--NHSavage 12:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
User:Steward
[edit]Hi King. You created User:Steward and tagged it as a doppelganger account, but you apparently never actually registered the account! Needless to say, that kind of defeats the purpose ... User:dbenbenn 02:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Master Jay's RfA
[edit]Thank you King of Hearts for your show of support at my recent RfA. At anytime, I can be reached here. Regards, Jay(Reply) 00:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC).
RfA nomination
[edit]As stated a month or two ago, I would like to nominate you for adminship. What are your thoughts now? Werdna648T/C\@ 00:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Probably I'll accept around early May; you can nominate me then. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Heh, that's when mine is pencilled in. Werdna648T/C\@ 02:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
PUERTO RICAN SPANISH
[edit]I don't know if you speak spanish, but I do. Puerto Rican spanish at that! And the additions I made were true and accurate, admittedly the words are not of the classiest nature, however they do exist and are frequently used among puerto ricans and cubans. I feel that to call my addition vandalism is an exaggeration, but since the site does not belong to me I leave things as they are. It is a shame however to see such a close-minded approach to an open-source enviroment!! I didn't curse or use and type of profanity and both my statements can be verified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.214.138.30 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Username
[edit]Hello. I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but your signature links not to your user page, but to the King of Hearts article. I don't know if this was intentional or not, but it is preferred that it links to your user page. Acetic Acid 07:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Your sig
[edit]I noticed you sig has no link to your userpage. Is this how you want it, or have you not noticed it? The Republican 17:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
SCOTW
[edit]| File:Chemistry-stub.png | You voted for Ammonia and this article is now the current Science Collaboration of the Week! Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article. |
sprotected
[edit]It was probably put there by a user without admin priveleges (like me). I started by thinking this was a useful anti-vandalism tool that anyone could use, and put it up on a few pages before discoving that there is more to using it than that-- there's a whole process, part of which requires admin privs. Nevertheless, it can actually stop vandals because it looks like the page is locked, so I sometimes still use it briefly. Personally, I think it would make sense to have it work just by placing the template on the article (though I'm sure some think it would lead to overuse). -- Mwanner | Talk 01:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
tag unreferenced
[edit]You have put the unreferenced tag on the Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 article. Could you, on the relevant talkpage, describe which part of the article you find is unreferenced? Then it will be a lot easier to fix. And I would also like you to put "This article was VfD'eed ..." or whatever it's called on the talk page, as it is normally done (as far as I know). Thanks a lot and happy thursday. EyesAllMine 16:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I have asked you a question here. I would like you to respond, thanks. Also could you put the ususal VfD- keep tag on the talk page as well? EyesAllMine 13:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
iPod lowercase hack
[edit]Unfortunately, your method doesn't reliably replace the title on all skins. On Cologne Blue, for example, it replaces the "Wikipedia" header messily. I've reverted it. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)