User talk:Sailing to Byzantium/Archives/2013/July

Your GA nomination of Yarborough v. Alvarado

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Yarborough v. Alvarado you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, okay, I finished up the review and put it "on hold". It's close, but needs some issues resolved before it makes GA status. I'm a pretty tough reviewer, and I hope my criticisms are constructive, rather than discouraging! I'll leave it on hold for 7 days, to give time for changes to be made. At the end of that time, I'll either pass it or fail it. All the best! – Quadell ^(talk) 17:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A fantastic review! I found the criticisms very instructive and I will spend the next week improving the article per your feedback. Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Leal Garcia v. Texas

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

On-hold review

Hey, I just wanted to remind you about Talk:Yarborough v. Alvarado/GA1. I don't mind leaving the review open for few days longer than usual, if you think you'll get to it soon. Otherwise, I can just close the nomination as "not passing GA"; then you could work on the changes at your leisure, and renominate it whenever you think it's ready. Either is fine with me, just let me know. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 13:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Although this article is well on its way to attaining GA status, the issues were not resolved in the time that the review was open, so the nomination has failed. If you later resolve these issues, feel free to renominate the article for GA status. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 14:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Sailing to Byzantium! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleting my wikipedia page

Hello. I am the person who wrote Gray Charter School's wikipedia page. I don't understand what is wrong with my page. I cited my work, but couldn't figure out how to change them into footnotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattie604 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, nice to talk to you! Subjects must meet a standard of notability in order to be included in Wikipedia. You can read more about notability at Wikipedia:Notability. For schools, the specific notability guidelines can be found at Wikipedia:ORG. The general rule is that elementary schools and primary schools should be merged into an article about the school district that operates them. You can read about that at Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Schools. Elementary and primary schools of unusual notability sometimes have their own article. So in short, nothing is wrong with your page! The content just likely belongs in an article about the school district. You can view the discussion on your article here. Please let me know if I can help in any way. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 19:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Mattie604 (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Hello. The Wikipedia pages I created seem to be redirected to another page. Why is this happening?

Hi. Gray charter school is still there. Several editors have expanded the article. You can see the differences here.-- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 03:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Hi Sailing to Byzantium. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC) }

Your GA nomination of Yarborough v. Alvarado

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Yarborough v. Alvarado you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 3 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Connolly15 (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for volunteering to take this nomination on! I'm quite excited to hear your feedback. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 15:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem - I have now completed the review and placed the article on hold. I've flagged a few issues that are relatively minor, but that I can't correct myself as I am not familiar enough with the case. I've left it on hold for 7 days to allow you to make comments / amend as necessary and hopefully we can get it up to good article status together.Connolly15 (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yarborough v. Alvarado

The article Yarborough v. Alvarado 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:Yarborough v. Alvarado for things which need to be addressed. Connolly15 (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your feedback! I will implement the proposed changes within the next 7 days. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 17:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yarborough v. Alvarado

The article Yarborough v. Alvarado you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Yarborough v. Alvarado for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? Good job! Connolly15 (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Lyubomir Mihalev

Never mind - if & when he makes his pro debut we can re-evaluate. Thanks, GiantSnowman 20:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm guessing there are players that sign but then never get to play in a game. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 20:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Sailing to Byzantium for helping to promote Yarborough v. Alvarado to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give someone a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Perhaps you could take a look at the Sarah Marie Johnson and Murder of Casey Kearney article.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You said I was vandalizing the page.

I tried to edit an article that has incorrect information about the color Rabicano of horses and your site said I was trying to vandalize the page. Why do you not allow correct information to be brought to your site? I am an avid equine genetic researcher of Criollo horses and I know something about this topic.

Wade Rose

david.rose@sw.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.77.172.89 (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wade! Sorry about the misunderstanding. From my perspective it looked like vandalism because the meaning of the page was being changed significantly without an edit summary and with broken reference tags. Edit summaries are really useful in explaining to other editors why you are making specific changes. Again, sorry about that! Please let me know if you need any help formatting references or anything like that. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 06:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thompson v. Keohane clarification? Shirt58 efforts = TEH FAIL

Looked for clarification of the decision in Thompson v. Keohane, but all the GNews mentions are behind pay-walls. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately that tends to happen with cases this old. Law review articles are usually the best bet here, but often those are behind a paywall as well. Of course, according to WP:PAYWALL this is ok, but it does make it a pain for most editors. You could try looking through Google scholar citations and see if anything is available. I do have access to LexisNexis and once I get some free time I'll had relevant law review articles. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 12:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to collaborate

I saw your nomination of United States v. Jones (2012) today (which looks quite good, btw). I'm helping to clean out another reviewer's backlog at the moment but I may try to review that one soon. Thanks for your work on this and other cases--it's much appreciated!

I also wanted to extend an invitation--I'm currently working to bring Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution up to GA status. Would you have any interest in collaborating on that one? Obviously, I'd be glad to share the glory, publicity, and vast financial rewards that such an undertaking would involve. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! I'm definitely interested in collaborating on that article. I'll do my best to contribute something valuable! -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 19:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks--I'm not an expert in this area (I know the history half better than the law half) so anything would be a huge help. My main goals right now are to improve the article's organization/flow and to added secondary sourcing for interpretation of court decisions, mostly by double-checking everything in the Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

That's perfect because I know more about the law than the history. I'll keep my focus on that. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 19:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Alleyne v. United States

Hello,

I am new to the importance scale mentioned on the talk page, but why would Alleyne v. United States not be considered start class?

ModelUN (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I labeled this article stub class because there is a stub tag in the main article. You can WP:BEBOLD! If you think it is start class and not stub class, feel free to remove the stub tag from the main article and change the importance label. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 02:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)