![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
LaraLove, recent unsigned posting was originally posted by user Onefortyone. Has a history of dubious and disruptive editing and discussion, especially relating to unfounded or tenuous homosexual claims. Cleverly, he makes occasional valid obsservations, and can cry fowl if his comments are summarily dismissed (as some editors, understandably angered, have done). Rikstar 08:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey Lara, how's it going? Someone's just passed Crowded House to GA with a very brief explanation, I was wondering if you agreed with the assessment. There are huge swathes of the article without citation which I think needs to be fixed before I would have passed it myself. I didn't want to put it up at WP:GA/R minutes after it'd been promoted, but I may have to. I'd be very interested in your opinion. Cheers! The Rambling Man 12:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, some days ago you started reviewing Bobby Eaton to see if it was GA worthy or not, the comments you've made have been acted upon and there's even been some copyediting done by someone not directly involved with the Bobby Eaton article so I was hoping you could give it another look since the GA review is still pending. Thanks in advance MPJ-DK 14:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, not for nothing, but someone just deleted half the criticism section at this page, which was perfectly sourced and relevant. Am I losing my mind, or is it odd that in the past three days, all of these people who claim to have extensive knowledge of the inner workings of the record industry (and Paul McCartney's personal life) cropped up out of nowhere? Whatever your opinion is on this is probably best. Layla12275 03:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't rule out losing your mind, Not from the Pang page at least.
Sixstring1965 03:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I have closed the AN/I with another block on SixString for the behavior demonstrated above, among many other things. But I also want to remind you to act your age now that you're 25. You don't need to rub it in his face every time he does something wrong. Just report it. I think you may have needlessly aggravated him more than he already was. OK? Daniel Case 04:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I certainly can understand that you took his insults personally, but civility is always a two-way street. You owe it to him even if it he wasn't giving it to you. See especially WP:CIV#Reducing the impact. Daniel Case 02:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
![]() | Just a happy birthday message to you, Indubitably, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!-- User:Indubitably ( talk) 17:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC) |
Have a wonderful day! um drums 05:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Er wait, that didn't come out right... ;-) thanks for your support on my RFA. Balloonman 15:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thanks for opposing me. :( MMAfan2007 21:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Lara! I just wondered if you would mind giving a thought on this one. I'm really not sure how to interpret the comprehensiveness criterion for current and future avents, and I'd be delighted to hear you on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by $yD! ( talk • contribs) 12:52, August 17, 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for stupidly attacking your qualifications to make a decision just because you're a Fall Out Boy fan. However, I would appreciate you to cite how Fall Out Boy is an alternative rock band. They may get play on so called alternative rock stations, but they do not have the qualities that make them an alternative rock band, ie their overt commercialism and the one dimensionality of their music. I suggest just placing "Rock" as their genre until the dispute regarding their actual genre (something like Pop punk/emo) is settled. And, I take exception that you're letting the band decide what their genre isn't. Bands are biased to avoid what they know could interrupt their image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpacePope ( talk • contribs) 15:50, August 17, 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but again even the genres in dispute are not the sub-genres Wikipedia associates with
Alternative rock. There really is no evidence to suggest calling them Alternative rock. Rock or Pop are much more accurate.
SpacePope 20:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Very reasonable; I just got into this little spat, and I already want it to end with a firm decision. Thanks for hearing me out. SpacePope 20:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the Virtual classroom's main discussion area. The previous one got chopped up into student coaching pages.
The current topic of discussion is Trends on Wikipedia and where we are heading. Please come and join us.
The Transhumanist 22:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Doing some housecleaning at GAC and noticed that you have a few holds that have expired. Be sure to check them out... -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 02:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, could you lend a helping hand with a current FAC that I have? The article is History of American football and the FAC is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of American football. I have done my best to meet requests as they come up; but it looks like there is a need for a set of fresh eyes to give it a general copyedit from top to bottom. Could you perhaps add it to your queue to take a look at it when you get a chance? Thanks! -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 01:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, what do you think about a GAR for Darth Vadar? Eh? IvoShandor 07:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Nope. Btw, you can add me on msn. It's the same one as my email. OhanaUnited Talk page 15:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll look at the article more in depth later today, but I think the best thing to include would be the band's influences. It's sometimes difficult to describe an artist's sound in much more detail than a genre, and trying to analyze how many music critics think it's genre X ends up close to original research. But naming the artists that were influences for the band's work or to whom its work drew comparisons can better contextualize how it sounds. 17Drew 20:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for your work there! The article looks a lot better (particularly on the edit tab, with the reference cleanup). Great job! Metao 04:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Please remember that the history of articles needs to be maintained, even on the project pages, so when doing page merges, just keep a redirect on the old page. Also, if you're going to archive a page like you did for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Uncategorized Good articles task force, and that page is not going to be used again, you should use the move tab. Thanks. --- RockMFR 05:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
In recognition of your endless edits to Wikipedia, which are all very, very useful, I award you this shiny barnstar. Keep up the good work. Happy editing! Lra drama 13:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
Hi LaraLove, before you ask I have read the thing about the GAC's at the top of the page, however, I was wondering whether you could review Randy Orton for us. It has been on the GAC page for two weeks and yet no ones reviewing it. I would be very greatful if you could review it for us - you have reviewed other professional wrestling articles before, thats why I have asked. Thanks. Davnel03 16:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
So what good faith was that comment meant in? You seem reasonable in most contexts, so I was very surprised to see this comment. Septentrionalis has a long and varied editing history, any attempt to reduce him to a sound byte or epithet seems doomed to fail. -- nae' blis 15:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC) (not logged in at present)
Hi Lara, --> Only if you have free time <--
Poor Ronald Reagan is at FAC and is being nickle 'n dimed to death by a million reviewer requests. If you have a moment to spare for your copy editing magic...
Thanks either way.. -- Ling.Nut 05:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 34 | 20 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Would you consider registering a support on Ronald Reagan's FAC page here? Happyme22 06:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I will vent some steam off the IMHO bogus GA retraction of
Red Auerbach, in which you defend OhanaUnited. I speak with the authority of being the main author of 1 FA (
) and 15 GAs (
). I find your currently enforced "snipe-first-ask-later" mode of targeting GAs highly problematic. OhanaUnited pointed out a problem at the Red Auerback talk page. But he
This unilateral thing is highly disturbing, to say the least. Who gives you the authority to be judge, jury and executioner? Communication is what holds Wikipedia together, not some participation in some WikiProject. If he had contacted ME first, I would have been happy to fix this in 2 seconds, but no, he gave the maximum punishment, and still claimed "he did anything possible to make the errors known". Nonsense, see above. He was over-zealous and he acted in bad faith. I prefer a CONSTRUCTIVE way to deal with things, not DESTRUCTIVE. I have a problem with latter, and if this is the new GA ideology, I will not be a part of it. — Onomatopoeia 08:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright, first thing. Like I said, it wasn't unilateral. That implies that it was a lone decision. He did it on my recommendation, so put that on me. Second, regarding the notification being solely on the talk page. That's appropriate. The recommendation to notify Wikiprojects has been suggested (by me, actually), but the idea was shot down as unnecessary as it is generally the case that custodians watchlist their articles. If 16 articles is too much for you to keep an eye on then, I'm sorry. I have almost 200 pages on my watchlist, and it's not a hassle to me, but everyone's different. It's been my intention to notify Wikiprojects for articles nominated at GA/R, but not all articles have to go through GA/R. The procedural recommendation found at WP:GA/R was followed to the letter by Ohana. Notification on the article talk page and enough time for the issues to be addressed. WP:GAC on hold periods are no less than two days. He waited four. The issue is with the reviewer that listed this article. He did not do an adequate job of reviewing it.
With that said, I apologize for your article being one that failed the GAC backlog elimination drive quality reviews. This was not your fault, but the fault of the reviewing editor. Hundreds of articles were reviewed and I personally reviewed over 100 between my reviews in the drive and my quality reviews after (which I still have more yet to do). This does not include articles I've reviewed for GA/R during this time, requested FA reviews and copy-edits for FA noms. So this is all on me. I'm consumed by article reviews right now and felt it more appropriate to delist articles that were inappropriately listed and have issues that are not being addressed rather than overload GA/R.
On a side note, how long was it from the time it was delisted and the time you realized it? Lara ♥Love 14:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
With regards to the Canadian VC, you seem to back me up that it was removed on a technicality.It was not delisted because of problems with the article. All i now want, is the reasons that it should not be GA. I accept that its promotion was a mess but that is hardly the fault of the contributors to the article. By delisting it without going through WP:GA/R there was a complete disregard for due-process, be that by OhanaUnited or by the project in general. (I understand the irony that it was promoted without due care to process). Woodym555 10:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I just figured you might want to create a separate "decorations" page, and didn't have enough of these to fill it yet, so I give you...
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
I hereby give you this (awful looking) Barnstar, for keeping a smile in your edits while coping with the often-unreasonably stressed out WP:GAC and WP:GA/R contributors, as well as for helping out every time you can. SidiLemine 12:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
To tell you the truth, I really didn't like the idea of GA/R in the beginning, and my guess is that I still wouldn't like it ("these people are unable to make GA's, so they pick on other people's articles" way of thinking) if you weren't there. What you and the GA WP are doing is definitely a good thing, specially if we can get all GAs to level while keeping their numbers rising. Keep it up and have a blast!--
SidiLemine 12:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi - someone just created an account on wikibooks using your name & with a link here. We have had imposters in the past & it doesn't "feel" like you!! Cheers (same on any person on any wiki mostly) -- Herby talk thyme 15:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Think it looks sorted now. I actually blocked them before I contacted you as they had a sandbox where they were practicing you sig - I felt you might not need to do that!!! Let me know if I can help tho - cheers -- Herby talk thyme 16:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Since you weighed in last time, thought you may want to know that the Mother Teresa article was referred for review...again! Stubborn editors want another try. -- Anietor 00:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello!! I am RS2007. I looked at your contributions and I think you have done a great job. Why don’t you request for adminship? I will support you. Thank you! RS2007 03:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you? -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 17:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
This thread needs less trivia and more cowbell! WoooHoooo! the_undertow talk 07:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I was just reviewing some of my contribs and noticed I never mentioned my reversion of this edit to you (possibly because I was sitting in O'Hare International Airport at the time). If you look at the the site you mention on archive.org, there is no trace of the supposedly infringing content until 9 January 2006, and in fact the content on that website is an exact copy of the Wikipedia article as it was from 07:36 16 November 2005 until 12:59 10 December 2005. Thus, it is obvious that that site copied the Wikipedia article and not the other way around. Anomie 19:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey Lara. Baring in mind your exceptional copyediting skills, I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look at John Frusciante for me. It's currently a GA, but we have intentions of a future FAC, following the article's second PR. If you decide to review it, you could post it at the PR or the article's talk page. Regardless, thank you for considering! Best wishes, NSR77 T C 01:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you going to finish off the Randy Orton GA review. It seems like you just haven't gone to the article to finish it off. Davnel03 15:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 35 | 27 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Nice progress on the lesson!
By the way, in the first sentence you mentioned "Good articles are those that have not reached the featured article standard or are unlikely to reach this high standard soon due to a variety of reasons".
What are some of the reasons an article might not be destined for FA status anytime soon?
The Transhumanist 20:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I think Bart133 is ready for the mop. What do you think? The Transhumanist 23:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
LaraLove, recent unsigned posting was originally posted by user Onefortyone. Has a history of dubious and disruptive editing and discussion, especially relating to unfounded or tenuous homosexual claims. Cleverly, he makes occasional valid obsservations, and can cry fowl if his comments are summarily dismissed (as some editors, understandably angered, have done). Rikstar 08:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey Lara, how's it going? Someone's just passed Crowded House to GA with a very brief explanation, I was wondering if you agreed with the assessment. There are huge swathes of the article without citation which I think needs to be fixed before I would have passed it myself. I didn't want to put it up at WP:GA/R minutes after it'd been promoted, but I may have to. I'd be very interested in your opinion. Cheers! The Rambling Man 12:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, some days ago you started reviewing Bobby Eaton to see if it was GA worthy or not, the comments you've made have been acted upon and there's even been some copyediting done by someone not directly involved with the Bobby Eaton article so I was hoping you could give it another look since the GA review is still pending. Thanks in advance MPJ-DK 14:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, not for nothing, but someone just deleted half the criticism section at this page, which was perfectly sourced and relevant. Am I losing my mind, or is it odd that in the past three days, all of these people who claim to have extensive knowledge of the inner workings of the record industry (and Paul McCartney's personal life) cropped up out of nowhere? Whatever your opinion is on this is probably best. Layla12275 03:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't rule out losing your mind, Not from the Pang page at least.
Sixstring1965 03:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I have closed the AN/I with another block on SixString for the behavior demonstrated above, among many other things. But I also want to remind you to act your age now that you're 25. You don't need to rub it in his face every time he does something wrong. Just report it. I think you may have needlessly aggravated him more than he already was. OK? Daniel Case 04:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I certainly can understand that you took his insults personally, but civility is always a two-way street. You owe it to him even if it he wasn't giving it to you. See especially WP:CIV#Reducing the impact. Daniel Case 02:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
![]() | Just a happy birthday message to you, Indubitably, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!-- User:Indubitably ( talk) 17:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC) |
Have a wonderful day! um drums 05:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Er wait, that didn't come out right... ;-) thanks for your support on my RFA. Balloonman 15:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thanks for opposing me. :( MMAfan2007 21:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Lara! I just wondered if you would mind giving a thought on this one. I'm really not sure how to interpret the comprehensiveness criterion for current and future avents, and I'd be delighted to hear you on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by $yD! ( talk • contribs) 12:52, August 17, 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for stupidly attacking your qualifications to make a decision just because you're a Fall Out Boy fan. However, I would appreciate you to cite how Fall Out Boy is an alternative rock band. They may get play on so called alternative rock stations, but they do not have the qualities that make them an alternative rock band, ie their overt commercialism and the one dimensionality of their music. I suggest just placing "Rock" as their genre until the dispute regarding their actual genre (something like Pop punk/emo) is settled. And, I take exception that you're letting the band decide what their genre isn't. Bands are biased to avoid what they know could interrupt their image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpacePope ( talk • contribs) 15:50, August 17, 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but again even the genres in dispute are not the sub-genres Wikipedia associates with
Alternative rock. There really is no evidence to suggest calling them Alternative rock. Rock or Pop are much more accurate.
SpacePope 20:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Very reasonable; I just got into this little spat, and I already want it to end with a firm decision. Thanks for hearing me out. SpacePope 20:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the Virtual classroom's main discussion area. The previous one got chopped up into student coaching pages.
The current topic of discussion is Trends on Wikipedia and where we are heading. Please come and join us.
The Transhumanist 22:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Doing some housecleaning at GAC and noticed that you have a few holds that have expired. Be sure to check them out... -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 02:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, could you lend a helping hand with a current FAC that I have? The article is History of American football and the FAC is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of American football. I have done my best to meet requests as they come up; but it looks like there is a need for a set of fresh eyes to give it a general copyedit from top to bottom. Could you perhaps add it to your queue to take a look at it when you get a chance? Thanks! -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 01:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, what do you think about a GAR for Darth Vadar? Eh? IvoShandor 07:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Nope. Btw, you can add me on msn. It's the same one as my email. OhanaUnited Talk page 15:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll look at the article more in depth later today, but I think the best thing to include would be the band's influences. It's sometimes difficult to describe an artist's sound in much more detail than a genre, and trying to analyze how many music critics think it's genre X ends up close to original research. But naming the artists that were influences for the band's work or to whom its work drew comparisons can better contextualize how it sounds. 17Drew 20:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for your work there! The article looks a lot better (particularly on the edit tab, with the reference cleanup). Great job! Metao 04:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Please remember that the history of articles needs to be maintained, even on the project pages, so when doing page merges, just keep a redirect on the old page. Also, if you're going to archive a page like you did for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Uncategorized Good articles task force, and that page is not going to be used again, you should use the move tab. Thanks. --- RockMFR 05:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
In recognition of your endless edits to Wikipedia, which are all very, very useful, I award you this shiny barnstar. Keep up the good work. Happy editing! Lra drama 13:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
Hi LaraLove, before you ask I have read the thing about the GAC's at the top of the page, however, I was wondering whether you could review Randy Orton for us. It has been on the GAC page for two weeks and yet no ones reviewing it. I would be very greatful if you could review it for us - you have reviewed other professional wrestling articles before, thats why I have asked. Thanks. Davnel03 16:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
So what good faith was that comment meant in? You seem reasonable in most contexts, so I was very surprised to see this comment. Septentrionalis has a long and varied editing history, any attempt to reduce him to a sound byte or epithet seems doomed to fail. -- nae' blis 15:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC) (not logged in at present)
Hi Lara, --> Only if you have free time <--
Poor Ronald Reagan is at FAC and is being nickle 'n dimed to death by a million reviewer requests. If you have a moment to spare for your copy editing magic...
Thanks either way.. -- Ling.Nut 05:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 34 | 20 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Would you consider registering a support on Ronald Reagan's FAC page here? Happyme22 06:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I will vent some steam off the IMHO bogus GA retraction of
Red Auerbach, in which you defend OhanaUnited. I speak with the authority of being the main author of 1 FA (
) and 15 GAs (
). I find your currently enforced "snipe-first-ask-later" mode of targeting GAs highly problematic. OhanaUnited pointed out a problem at the Red Auerback talk page. But he
This unilateral thing is highly disturbing, to say the least. Who gives you the authority to be judge, jury and executioner? Communication is what holds Wikipedia together, not some participation in some WikiProject. If he had contacted ME first, I would have been happy to fix this in 2 seconds, but no, he gave the maximum punishment, and still claimed "he did anything possible to make the errors known". Nonsense, see above. He was over-zealous and he acted in bad faith. I prefer a CONSTRUCTIVE way to deal with things, not DESTRUCTIVE. I have a problem with latter, and if this is the new GA ideology, I will not be a part of it. — Onomatopoeia 08:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright, first thing. Like I said, it wasn't unilateral. That implies that it was a lone decision. He did it on my recommendation, so put that on me. Second, regarding the notification being solely on the talk page. That's appropriate. The recommendation to notify Wikiprojects has been suggested (by me, actually), but the idea was shot down as unnecessary as it is generally the case that custodians watchlist their articles. If 16 articles is too much for you to keep an eye on then, I'm sorry. I have almost 200 pages on my watchlist, and it's not a hassle to me, but everyone's different. It's been my intention to notify Wikiprojects for articles nominated at GA/R, but not all articles have to go through GA/R. The procedural recommendation found at WP:GA/R was followed to the letter by Ohana. Notification on the article talk page and enough time for the issues to be addressed. WP:GAC on hold periods are no less than two days. He waited four. The issue is with the reviewer that listed this article. He did not do an adequate job of reviewing it.
With that said, I apologize for your article being one that failed the GAC backlog elimination drive quality reviews. This was not your fault, but the fault of the reviewing editor. Hundreds of articles were reviewed and I personally reviewed over 100 between my reviews in the drive and my quality reviews after (which I still have more yet to do). This does not include articles I've reviewed for GA/R during this time, requested FA reviews and copy-edits for FA noms. So this is all on me. I'm consumed by article reviews right now and felt it more appropriate to delist articles that were inappropriately listed and have issues that are not being addressed rather than overload GA/R.
On a side note, how long was it from the time it was delisted and the time you realized it? Lara ♥Love 14:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
With regards to the Canadian VC, you seem to back me up that it was removed on a technicality.It was not delisted because of problems with the article. All i now want, is the reasons that it should not be GA. I accept that its promotion was a mess but that is hardly the fault of the contributors to the article. By delisting it without going through WP:GA/R there was a complete disregard for due-process, be that by OhanaUnited or by the project in general. (I understand the irony that it was promoted without due care to process). Woodym555 10:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I just figured you might want to create a separate "decorations" page, and didn't have enough of these to fill it yet, so I give you...
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
I hereby give you this (awful looking) Barnstar, for keeping a smile in your edits while coping with the often-unreasonably stressed out WP:GAC and WP:GA/R contributors, as well as for helping out every time you can. SidiLemine 12:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
To tell you the truth, I really didn't like the idea of GA/R in the beginning, and my guess is that I still wouldn't like it ("these people are unable to make GA's, so they pick on other people's articles" way of thinking) if you weren't there. What you and the GA WP are doing is definitely a good thing, specially if we can get all GAs to level while keeping their numbers rising. Keep it up and have a blast!--
SidiLemine 12:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi - someone just created an account on wikibooks using your name & with a link here. We have had imposters in the past & it doesn't "feel" like you!! Cheers (same on any person on any wiki mostly) -- Herby talk thyme 15:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Think it looks sorted now. I actually blocked them before I contacted you as they had a sandbox where they were practicing you sig - I felt you might not need to do that!!! Let me know if I can help tho - cheers -- Herby talk thyme 16:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Since you weighed in last time, thought you may want to know that the Mother Teresa article was referred for review...again! Stubborn editors want another try. -- Anietor 00:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello!! I am RS2007. I looked at your contributions and I think you have done a great job. Why don’t you request for adminship? I will support you. Thank you! RS2007 03:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you? -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 17:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
This thread needs less trivia and more cowbell! WoooHoooo! the_undertow talk 07:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I was just reviewing some of my contribs and noticed I never mentioned my reversion of this edit to you (possibly because I was sitting in O'Hare International Airport at the time). If you look at the the site you mention on archive.org, there is no trace of the supposedly infringing content until 9 January 2006, and in fact the content on that website is an exact copy of the Wikipedia article as it was from 07:36 16 November 2005 until 12:59 10 December 2005. Thus, it is obvious that that site copied the Wikipedia article and not the other way around. Anomie 19:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey Lara. Baring in mind your exceptional copyediting skills, I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look at John Frusciante for me. It's currently a GA, but we have intentions of a future FAC, following the article's second PR. If you decide to review it, you could post it at the PR or the article's talk page. Regardless, thank you for considering! Best wishes, NSR77 T C 01:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you going to finish off the Randy Orton GA review. It seems like you just haven't gone to the article to finish it off. Davnel03 15:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 35 | 27 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Nice progress on the lesson!
By the way, in the first sentence you mentioned "Good articles are those that have not reached the featured article standard or are unlikely to reach this high standard soon due to a variety of reasons".
What are some of the reasons an article might not be destined for FA status anytime soon?
The Transhumanist 20:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I think Bart133 is ready for the mop. What do you think? The Transhumanist 23:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)