I like the Intrusive thoughts article — don't ask me why. Rintrah 07:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I got far enough that I felt I could remove the expand tag. I still have to find updated information on cognitive behavioral therapy (sources I have are outdated), and write descriptions of 3 types: inappropriate aggressive thoughts, inappropriate sexual thoughts, and blasphemous religious thoughts. But the basics are mostly there now. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm done - sick of that topic - you all can do anything you want now in terms of copyediting - thanks for getting me into that :-) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh ok. I thought the version with "|" was preferred. Thanks for telling me they are the same. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 01:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
What should I do now, that now I am back? Asher Heimermann 05:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I re-did the Scout Taylor-Compton article. I am sorry if her mother objects, but the event did happen. I put a link to IMDB to back it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.14.93 ( talk • contribs) Gzkn 06:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I suppose that I could say that, just as "db:bio" doesn't mean just "bio", so "it's not a bio" doesn't mean just "it's not a bio". The point is that it's a record label, and looking at other articles on record labels, none of them asserts the significance of the subject (any more than do articles on U.S. villages, geographical features, etc.). The fact that it exists, and that it really does release recordings is surely sufficient grounds for its being here.
I suppose that what we really need is a guideline linking the length of an article to its significance. It would be silly to have a long article on this label and a short one on EMI. Still, I can't see why this article shouldn't exist. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe some of the stuff on this article's page. I saw it as the result of your edit of another page. Ronbo76 11:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I was reading another article that had some spelling errors and questionable claims in it. User talk:Mel Etitis cleared my tags like he did with yours on this article Black Child. Doesn't seem right for someone to clear tags without appropriate action. Ronbo76 11:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello! The {{ unreferenced}} template goes to the end of an article, preferably in a "references" section; see Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles#Requesting sources. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 15:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Gzkn. Due to my set-up, I switch between three computers during most days of editing. The one I happen to be using now is slightly older and is running an old copy of Windows2000. It may be this computer that caused the display issue, but I saw one of your boxes at the top of this page floating over and partially obscuring some of the related text. I tweaked it so that the box displays above the text instead. If that caused it to look odd to you, please feel free to revert. I just wanted to let you know I had tweaked the code. Happy editing! SWAdair | Talk 10:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It is from a book. Anyway, opinions are welcome on Wikipedia as long as they are not presented as fact. Please leave this alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodstock2010 ( talk • contribs) Gzkn 13:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
I saw your tag regarding Suny Old Westbury about it being an advertisment. Since alot of it is stated as fact and per the different wikipedia articles I have seen on other colleges, I have to disagree with the article being written as an advertisment, however, I do believe it was written from a NPOV standpoint. So I am changing your tag from Advertisement to NPOV. Because I feel that it is more appropriate. Feel free to respond if you disagree with this. Mystify85JEC 19:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
hi - I'll do what I can to help to improve the piece too, but do you think "pitiful" is a fair assessment? Tvoz | talk 03:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the friendly note. It came at a time when some fellow editors were a bit upset with me. Barack Obama's is a fun article to work on. Steve Dufour 04:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For being an awesome Wikipedia Editor, even though we have disagreed on every articile we have edited together ;-) Mystify85JEC 16:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
im still researching info for it and ive been tied up. All though it lacks information i do not think it should be deleted. if somebody wants to look up info on it wikipedia is going to be the first place to come to mind, but lo! it doesnt have anything on it. (thats what happened to me) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allatropic ( talk • contribs) Gzkn 00:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for getting that, but I have to report it wasn't quite what I was after. Still, thanks. Steve block Talk 17:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
It's nice to know I get one day off from cleaning up after the 58.84.xx.xx vandal. That vandal is here on a daily basis, full details here. One Night In Hackney 14:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi - Can you take a look at Monty Hall problem and indicate (strikeout) the objections that have now been addressed from your list of random problems at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Monty Hall problem? Is there anything from this list or your initial list of issues that has not been addressed? Thanks. -- Rick Block ( talk) 19:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you could finish giving All Blacks a copy-edit? The FAC process is stalling a bit because of prose issues. I'd really appreciate your help because it's very hard for me to do this myself, having edited the article so much. Thanks. - Shudda talk 07:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Shh.... let's not tell anyone else... see how many more people fall for it :-) Mad Jack 19:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I'll help out; however, I'm thinking about taking a break from developing my copyediting skills to work on a few anticruft projects. — Deckill e r 02:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I am back here for a day or two. From now on, I'll let you know next time... Asher Heimermann 03:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
It looks quite well written; I edited the top, and found a few overly informal terms, though. Tony 11:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I have to teach myself the Order of operations.. anyway, it was a mistake on my part. Oddly enough, it has been wrong for quite a while, and nobody (not even me) has noticed. Thanks for the feedback, AZ t 00:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
On 24 December 2006, I put up the UW-Madison article for Featured Article. It failed miserably, due in part to the fact that I had almost no idea what the criteria were for FA. I have now made considerable revisions to the article. You had originally opposed FA status at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/University of Wisconsin-Madison/archive1. Would you please consider looking over the article over again, and tell me how you would vote this time if it were put up for FA again? University of Wisconsin-Madison Thanks! – Lordmontu (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Im thinking of running SL for FA again. Its been sourced and expanded thanks to the joint effort of some good wikipedians. Please can you comment. frummer 11:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Should be largely done, lumped into Jan, but it's relatively small. (Of course SmackBot will date any undated tags in the future.)
What do you think to the same for the templates: expand, verify, fact? Rich Farmbrough, 22:27 11 January 2007 (GMT).
FYI. -- HailFire 18:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing Lamest Edit Wars to my attention! Have you looked at Wikipedia:Unusual articles? Rintrah 09:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Another user got to that.
Glad the article is back up to speed, but I can only imagine that it will be a difficult page to manage as time goes on... Marskell 10:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Good idea! Tony 15:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
As you set out for
Ithaka, hope the voyage is long Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the
marvelous journey |
Thanks - I knew there had to be one and just didn't have a chance to look for it. Tvoz | talk 05:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Gzkn. You come highly recommended by User:Yannismarou! Yannis reviewed the Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan article in an earlier peer review, and after I exhausted his suggestions, he recommended that I solicit your feedback. I would really appreciate if you would take the time to read the article and provide your comments at the article's current peer review page. Kind regards Cimm [talk] 00:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello again Gzkn! I thought I would let you know that I have just nominated the
Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan article as a
Featured Article candidate. The feedback and encouragement from you and the other reviewers is what motivated the nomination. Thank you again for all your support!
Cimm
[talk]
23:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
If you'd like, I would be happy to help you with the reference problem. I can at least ferret out the NYTimes and Wash. post links. However, I understand if you'd rather do it yourself (edit conflicts). And just so you know, my comments about the refs come out of my own experience with an article I wrote that was made FA. Shortly after it was Featured, Sandy messaged me and implied it would go to review if I did not properly wikify the references. The refs were solid (and even clickable), but were not properly formatted. FAR better to clear this stuff up now, than be faced with losing the featured status later. Jeffpw 10:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Whoa - first, Jeff, to clear up a misunderstanding above - what you stated isn't correct. The problem on your FA wasn't wikifying of references or URLs: the problem was that full bibliographic info wasn't given for the references and the sources simply weren't locatable at all, because full info wasn't given (you might want to go back and refresh your memory). If a newspaper reference has an author (where provided), title, newspaper, and date, it's WP:V - the URL link is a courtesy. Many of yours didn't even have article titles. I agree that it would be a courtesty to provide URLs that work rather than the for-pay ones when they are available, but I don't think it's grounds for an Object. The hard-print biblio info is given - the sources are verifiable. I haven't had time to read Gzkn's article, but I did look at the refs, and they are verifiable. Gzkn, how about providing URLs for the easy ones, like NYT, Wash. Post, etc? As soon as I catch up, I'll weigh in on the FAC - the Objects are ungrounded, the article is verifiable. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, GzKN. You nominated this one at FAR; wondering what you think of all the work on the the review? I am considering closing it without the FARC period. Marskell 20:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I am the main writer of a GA called Wood Badge. I'd like to get it to FA but before that would appreciate the input of fine copyeditors such as yourself. I'd truly appreciate it. Rlevse 12:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear League member,
We've started a participation drive for the remainder of February. If you can, please help clear the backlog by adopting the following goals each week:
Thanks for your help! Rintrah 16:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I like the Intrusive thoughts article — don't ask me why. Rintrah 07:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I got far enough that I felt I could remove the expand tag. I still have to find updated information on cognitive behavioral therapy (sources I have are outdated), and write descriptions of 3 types: inappropriate aggressive thoughts, inappropriate sexual thoughts, and blasphemous religious thoughts. But the basics are mostly there now. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm done - sick of that topic - you all can do anything you want now in terms of copyediting - thanks for getting me into that :-) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh ok. I thought the version with "|" was preferred. Thanks for telling me they are the same. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 01:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
What should I do now, that now I am back? Asher Heimermann 05:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I re-did the Scout Taylor-Compton article. I am sorry if her mother objects, but the event did happen. I put a link to IMDB to back it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.14.93 ( talk • contribs) Gzkn 06:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I suppose that I could say that, just as "db:bio" doesn't mean just "bio", so "it's not a bio" doesn't mean just "it's not a bio". The point is that it's a record label, and looking at other articles on record labels, none of them asserts the significance of the subject (any more than do articles on U.S. villages, geographical features, etc.). The fact that it exists, and that it really does release recordings is surely sufficient grounds for its being here.
I suppose that what we really need is a guideline linking the length of an article to its significance. It would be silly to have a long article on this label and a short one on EMI. Still, I can't see why this article shouldn't exist. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe some of the stuff on this article's page. I saw it as the result of your edit of another page. Ronbo76 11:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I was reading another article that had some spelling errors and questionable claims in it. User talk:Mel Etitis cleared my tags like he did with yours on this article Black Child. Doesn't seem right for someone to clear tags without appropriate action. Ronbo76 11:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello! The {{ unreferenced}} template goes to the end of an article, preferably in a "references" section; see Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles#Requesting sources. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 15:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Gzkn. Due to my set-up, I switch between three computers during most days of editing. The one I happen to be using now is slightly older and is running an old copy of Windows2000. It may be this computer that caused the display issue, but I saw one of your boxes at the top of this page floating over and partially obscuring some of the related text. I tweaked it so that the box displays above the text instead. If that caused it to look odd to you, please feel free to revert. I just wanted to let you know I had tweaked the code. Happy editing! SWAdair | Talk 10:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It is from a book. Anyway, opinions are welcome on Wikipedia as long as they are not presented as fact. Please leave this alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodstock2010 ( talk • contribs) Gzkn 13:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
I saw your tag regarding Suny Old Westbury about it being an advertisment. Since alot of it is stated as fact and per the different wikipedia articles I have seen on other colleges, I have to disagree with the article being written as an advertisment, however, I do believe it was written from a NPOV standpoint. So I am changing your tag from Advertisement to NPOV. Because I feel that it is more appropriate. Feel free to respond if you disagree with this. Mystify85JEC 19:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
hi - I'll do what I can to help to improve the piece too, but do you think "pitiful" is a fair assessment? Tvoz | talk 03:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the friendly note. It came at a time when some fellow editors were a bit upset with me. Barack Obama's is a fun article to work on. Steve Dufour 04:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For being an awesome Wikipedia Editor, even though we have disagreed on every articile we have edited together ;-) Mystify85JEC 16:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
im still researching info for it and ive been tied up. All though it lacks information i do not think it should be deleted. if somebody wants to look up info on it wikipedia is going to be the first place to come to mind, but lo! it doesnt have anything on it. (thats what happened to me) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allatropic ( talk • contribs) Gzkn 00:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for getting that, but I have to report it wasn't quite what I was after. Still, thanks. Steve block Talk 17:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
It's nice to know I get one day off from cleaning up after the 58.84.xx.xx vandal. That vandal is here on a daily basis, full details here. One Night In Hackney 14:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi - Can you take a look at Monty Hall problem and indicate (strikeout) the objections that have now been addressed from your list of random problems at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Monty Hall problem? Is there anything from this list or your initial list of issues that has not been addressed? Thanks. -- Rick Block ( talk) 19:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you could finish giving All Blacks a copy-edit? The FAC process is stalling a bit because of prose issues. I'd really appreciate your help because it's very hard for me to do this myself, having edited the article so much. Thanks. - Shudda talk 07:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Shh.... let's not tell anyone else... see how many more people fall for it :-) Mad Jack 19:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I'll help out; however, I'm thinking about taking a break from developing my copyediting skills to work on a few anticruft projects. — Deckill e r 02:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I am back here for a day or two. From now on, I'll let you know next time... Asher Heimermann 03:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
It looks quite well written; I edited the top, and found a few overly informal terms, though. Tony 11:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I have to teach myself the Order of operations.. anyway, it was a mistake on my part. Oddly enough, it has been wrong for quite a while, and nobody (not even me) has noticed. Thanks for the feedback, AZ t 00:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 18:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
On 24 December 2006, I put up the UW-Madison article for Featured Article. It failed miserably, due in part to the fact that I had almost no idea what the criteria were for FA. I have now made considerable revisions to the article. You had originally opposed FA status at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/University of Wisconsin-Madison/archive1. Would you please consider looking over the article over again, and tell me how you would vote this time if it were put up for FA again? University of Wisconsin-Madison Thanks! – Lordmontu (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Im thinking of running SL for FA again. Its been sourced and expanded thanks to the joint effort of some good wikipedians. Please can you comment. frummer 11:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Should be largely done, lumped into Jan, but it's relatively small. (Of course SmackBot will date any undated tags in the future.)
What do you think to the same for the templates: expand, verify, fact? Rich Farmbrough, 22:27 11 January 2007 (GMT).
FYI. -- HailFire 18:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing Lamest Edit Wars to my attention! Have you looked at Wikipedia:Unusual articles? Rintrah 09:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Another user got to that.
Glad the article is back up to speed, but I can only imagine that it will be a difficult page to manage as time goes on... Marskell 10:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Good idea! Tony 15:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
As you set out for
Ithaka, hope the voyage is long Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the
marvelous journey |
Thanks - I knew there had to be one and just didn't have a chance to look for it. Tvoz | talk 05:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Gzkn. You come highly recommended by User:Yannismarou! Yannis reviewed the Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan article in an earlier peer review, and after I exhausted his suggestions, he recommended that I solicit your feedback. I would really appreciate if you would take the time to read the article and provide your comments at the article's current peer review page. Kind regards Cimm [talk] 00:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello again Gzkn! I thought I would let you know that I have just nominated the
Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan article as a
Featured Article candidate. The feedback and encouragement from you and the other reviewers is what motivated the nomination. Thank you again for all your support!
Cimm
[talk]
23:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
If you'd like, I would be happy to help you with the reference problem. I can at least ferret out the NYTimes and Wash. post links. However, I understand if you'd rather do it yourself (edit conflicts). And just so you know, my comments about the refs come out of my own experience with an article I wrote that was made FA. Shortly after it was Featured, Sandy messaged me and implied it would go to review if I did not properly wikify the references. The refs were solid (and even clickable), but were not properly formatted. FAR better to clear this stuff up now, than be faced with losing the featured status later. Jeffpw 10:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Whoa - first, Jeff, to clear up a misunderstanding above - what you stated isn't correct. The problem on your FA wasn't wikifying of references or URLs: the problem was that full bibliographic info wasn't given for the references and the sources simply weren't locatable at all, because full info wasn't given (you might want to go back and refresh your memory). If a newspaper reference has an author (where provided), title, newspaper, and date, it's WP:V - the URL link is a courtesy. Many of yours didn't even have article titles. I agree that it would be a courtesty to provide URLs that work rather than the for-pay ones when they are available, but I don't think it's grounds for an Object. The hard-print biblio info is given - the sources are verifiable. I haven't had time to read Gzkn's article, but I did look at the refs, and they are verifiable. Gzkn, how about providing URLs for the easy ones, like NYT, Wash. Post, etc? As soon as I catch up, I'll weigh in on the FAC - the Objects are ungrounded, the article is verifiable. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, GzKN. You nominated this one at FAR; wondering what you think of all the work on the the review? I am considering closing it without the FARC period. Marskell 20:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I am the main writer of a GA called Wood Badge. I'd like to get it to FA but before that would appreciate the input of fine copyeditors such as yourself. I'd truly appreciate it. Rlevse 12:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear League member,
We've started a participation drive for the remainder of February. If you can, please help clear the backlog by adopting the following goals each week:
Thanks for your help! Rintrah 16:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)