User talk:Matthewedwards/Archives/2010/04

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thank you!

Hello, Matthewedwards. You have new messages at Talk:Body piercing/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you! I appreciate your walking me through it and helping improve the article. As much time as I spend on Wiki, I don't often experience this side of things. I've written over 300 articles now, but I seldom take them that far, and there are many processes and MOS requirements that are still a bit unfamiliar to me. As I said, I was halfway through linking the google books when it occurred to me that I had probably misunderstood you. By then, though, I figured it might be better to continue than to stop. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely (Desperate Housewives)

Hey Matthew. Thank you for your GAN review of Lovely (Desperate Housewives). Your review was extremely thorough and I found it very challenging to respond to, but I think the article is growing stronger as a result. I've made responses at the talk page and hoped you could take a look. I've made changes based on most of your changes, but a few I had some feedback and thoughts about. If I didn't agree with all of your comments, please don't see these as me being argumentative or uncooperative, and please don't see my disagreement as my final word on the matter. I'll be willing to make further changes and concessions if you are still not satisfied. (Also, I will try to respond to the rest of your GAN reviews by this weekend or before, but I am short for time this week, so if I need a few more than seven days, please bear with me. Thanks again!) — Hun ter Ka hn 03:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your comments over at the Bang (The Good Wife) article as well (as did, unexpectedly, another user I'm not familiar with! lol). Please let me know what you think there too. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 22:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for all your help with Lovely (Desperate Housewives)! The article is in much better shape now that it was before your efforts with it! — Hun ter Ka hn 05:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Same for Bang (The Good Wife)! lol — Hun ter Ka hn 01:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists and MOS

I'd like to help too. Where should we start? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Heh, I have no idea! I'm open to ideas. Matthewedwards : Chat 16:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've started here. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Boys from Baghdad High

The article The Boys from Baghdad High you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:The Boys from Baghdad High for things which need to be addressed. S Masters (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Boys from Baghdad High

The article The Boys from Baghdad High you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Boys from Baghdad High for eventual comments about the article. Well done! S Masters (talk) 08:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GAN backlog elimination drive - 1 week to go

First off, on behalf of myself and my co-coordinator Wizardman, I would like to thank you for the efforts that you have made so far in this GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a success, and that is thanks to you. See this Signpost article about what this drive has achieved so far.

We're currently heading into the final week of the drive. At this time, if you have any GANs on review or on hold, you should be finishing off those reviews. Right now, we have more GANs on review or on hold than we do unreviewed. If you're going to start a GA review, please do so now so you can complete it by the end of the month and so that the nominator has a full 7-day window to address any concerns.

See you at the finish!

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 16:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010 USRD newsletter


Volume 3, Issue 1 • April 2010 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup This month in USRD history	Features US Roads Portal celebrates April Fool's Day Portal selected article and photo	State and national updates Project reports
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

— JCbot (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Already Gone"

I've finally finished my PR of "Already Gone". Note some comments will be redundant as other editors have jumped in and made changes before I finished the process. Yet others have added material, including references, which will require further work. Enjoy.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of 2000 Summer Olympics medal winners/Sandbox1

The article List of 2000 Summer Olympics medal winners/Sandbox1 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This page was transcluded, but the contents are now directly embedded in the target article (it was only one target, so changes still only have to be made once if needed). Subpages are not allowed in the mainspace, and such transclusion has the disadvantage that e.g. tags like "orphan" show up on the target of the transclusion as well.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. (The same goes for Sandbox 2 and 3) Fram (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. There are two others, too: /Sandbox2 and /Sandbox3 that should also be deleted or prodded. Matthewedwards : Chat 14:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2010 April newsletter

Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to Hunter Kahn (submissions), our clear overall round winner, and to ThinkBlue (submissions) and Arsenikk (submissions), who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants Stone (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 17:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]