Archives:
I noticed that you went through the CD article and took the trouble to move all section headings down one level, that is =...= became ==...==, ==...== became ===...===, etc. and your summary described the edit as "fix structure". The outline numbering, of course, did not change, but I think the style applied to each heading changed as a result. Is that the current standard for articles, that top level sections should not be used any more? Or is there a subtler distinction involved?
-- AJim ( talk) 05:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. You clearly do a lot more editing than I do. So, it appears that top level sections don't exist in practice.
-- AJim ( talk) 05:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your constructive edits to Port of Albany-Rensselaer, however I am curious as to your putting in a dubious note on Albany being founded in 1609. In fact the earliest European settlement in the city of Albany (and in fact on the Westerlo Island that the port itself occupies) was in 1540 by French traders, should you need citation for that fact I have two books I can give you full citation for. I think a citation needed template would have sufficed and been more inline with the "good faith" values of Wikipedia. Albany is the 4th oldest city in the United States, why you would find the date dubious is unusual. Thank you for your other edits and I have already found several citations for 1624 to be the date to put in the article as it reflects actual settlers being in Albany as opposed to temporary trading posts with Native Americans and hunters of beaver skins who were not permanent settlers at Fort Nassau, and will add them at the nearest convenience. I also suggest you check the suggestions on the peer review page of things that needed (and have been changed accordingly), the changes that were suggested and were subsequently done may be changes that you do not agree with and why you think the article is not organized and is sloppy. I also disagree with you adding a new subsection regarding "accidents and incidents". That I have left alone until I can hear your rationale, hence "good faith". One of the points on the peer review was about short subsections and paragraphs of only a few sentences. There used to be more subsections but many were combined based on suggestions in the peer review and automated grammar review. Please look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Port of Albany-Rensselaer/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/December 2008#Port of Albany-Rensselaer that were done by two of the best reviewers and see if perhaps what you dont like was mandated by them. Camelbinky ( talk) 22:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, it will take me some time to look at all the points you raise here.
- Regarding Albany being founded in 1609: I honestly did not know that, and it sounded wrong. I grew up in the northeastern United States, and I learned in school that the English settlers came to Jamestown, Virginia in 1607 and to Plymouth Rock in 1620, and substantially all of the permanent settlement of the continental United States occurred after that 1620 date. I did not know that Albany was independently settled in 1609. I wasn't trying to assume that you put on the page something that wasn't true, but it didn't look right, so I marked it "dubious." Please accept my apology for the misunderstanding.
- I prefer subsections more than some other readers might. In my mind there is a distinction between the broad outlines of history and a single incident where someone got injured or killed in recent years. I don't feel strongly about it either way, and will probably remove that section heading since you want it gone.
- I will try to suggest improvements in the writing. The "sloppy" label was just a first impression, pending a closer look at what might be done to improve. Crystal whacker ( talk) 15:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
A problem with alot of textbooks on US history is that they are Anglo-centric (if that's not a word, my apology, but it gets the point across) and tend to skip over early New York/New Jersey history because they were founded by the Dutch. I agree with you on wanting more subsections, however the reviewer in the peer review had a good point about short subsections make an article look like it is lacking information. I am grateful for your help and have tried to put in more citations and fix sloppy writing as best as possible. I look forward to more help and suggestions. Thank you! Camelbinky ( talk) 19:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Camelbinky (
talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!
Camelbinky ( talk) 01:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for finding those pictures, I had searched everywhere and couldnt find any, you have a magic touch! Thanks so much for your hard work, at this pace we'll be looking at FA review instead GA review before you know it! ;-) Camelbinky ( talk) 01:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused by your use of the phrase "if your not done with your general education" in your review...I'm a grad student in history at MU (University of Missouri-Columbia), I have a bachelor's in Political Science from Rockefeller College of Public Affairs (the University at Albany (SUNY)). I've been published in peer-reviewed journals. I am a member of MENSA. What more education do you think I need? A doctorate? As for "teaching" me how to do <ref=name> the article already does have several already so obviously I know how to do it. I thank you for your hard work and help on this article but please be less condescending. Once I have implemented your suggestions I do wish for you to review this article again, I think having a tough, but fair, reviewer with high standards like you is a good thing. I like that you challenge me and others to continually be better and write better articles, I hope to ask you for your opinions on other articles I will be working on. However, I do think your attitude sometimes could be a little less abrassive. Thank you and I hope I have not ruined the chance to work with you again in the future.
Camelbinky (
talk) 01:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that I implied you were uneducated. It didn't come out the way I had intended. I'll be honest and admit that I thought you were a kid because of that shiny template you put here which seemed like a kid thing to do. I underestimated you, and I should have understood from the quality of the article overall that you are indeed well educated. I will try to improve my tone, and you can be sure that I will be willing to collaborate with you in the future.
- I was just pointing out a few grammatical errors. I tend not to make grammatical mistakes often, and I notice when other people make mistakes. Coversely, there's no way in a million years that I could write anything intelligent about the Port of Albany-Rensselaer. So each of us has our separate strengths. That's why collaborative writing works. Crystal whacker ( talk) 14:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, not to be knit-picky, but unless you have a dictionary that I don't, there is no word such as "coversely", there is conversely. I am sorry I didnt get to those citation needed spots quicker, I had gotten side-tracked saving Latham Circle from deletion (I was successfull). You have written quite intelligently about the Port and you were able to find those pictures. As I do not like people to put down others, I also do not like people to underestimate their own contributions. As for the "shiny template", I have recieved them (not from kids as far as I know) and have seen ones about beer, cookies, barnstars, etc. on other user pages; I happen to think it is a nice little way of showing appreciation and comradery (or camaraderie depeding on where in the English-speaking world you happen to live, though I think you said the northeast). I know better now. On a "work" related note- I have added citations for all the citation needed spots, added citations in other places as well, and have begun a sentence by sentence look at the grammar and spelling. I will let you know when I believe I have gone as far as I can, and I hope you continue to look in and contribute, your help is very appreciated and has motivated me. Camelbinky ( talk) 22:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I think I've hit a roadblock on getting this article any better. I've put citations just about everywhere and have done my best on the grammar. I was wondering if you could take a look. Also, how do i resubmit? Do I remove the old one and just put in a new GA nomination or is there a special place for resubmitions, and is there a limit to how often you can resubmit? Also, I would like to request that you do the GA review if you have the time again, it was thanks to your hard work that this article became 100%+ better than it was at the time it was first nominated. Even if it doesnt pass a second time at least it will get better again. Learn by doing and if you dont succeed, try again is my motto. Camelbinky ( talk) 22:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your replies. "Coversely" was just a typo, as I'm sure you guessed. I don't really care about spelling mistakes except in articles because our readers need to see a clean product.
- I thought briefly about whether I've edited the article too much to act as a reviewer. On balance, I think I'm still neutral enough. If you feel uncomfortable with me acting as a reviewer, you can request a second opinion. I will post any comments to the old GA review page. There is no need to start a new one. Crystal whacker ( talk) 00:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow! Thank you! That was alot of work! I will look into those dead links, I had not thought about the fact that the Times Union website would have those pages expire and put them into archives, which I believe you are correct about them being accessible through subscription. I am going to have to find alternative sources. I really should have thought ahead of time and realized that problem. I guess the source could be changed to a cite newspaper article template right? Even though I didnt see the print article the print article exists...Sort of like changing the Google books links to cite book? As for the John Rives on reference 5 I have to look that up, I have a feeling that perhaps that was the publisher or perhaps listed somewhere on Google books citation for that book. I am not sure at the moment. Oh, and no turf war with Stony Brook, we all know which university is better. This GA passing would never have happened without your diligence, honesty, and commitment. Thank you and perhaps in 6 months or so we'll be doing a FA nomination, who knows? I hope you continue to find time to check in on the article, contribute, and pass on suggestions and your knowledge. Everyone who has worked on this article owe you a debt, if you ever need any help on anything just ask. Camelbinky ( talk) 21:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Someone has just put a cleanup template on the references section. I have gone to their talk page to ask what needs to be cleaned up and why. I was wondering, since you spent alot of time working on the references if you might know why and what I can do to fix it. In their edit summary putting the cleanup template in they put "these sources need a major fixing, missing a ton of things) ".
Camelbinky (
talk) 19:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'll take a look. Crystal whacker ( talk) 21:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again for your GA-review of George H.D. Gossip. You mentioned at the time, "I would support this article at Featured nominations if it came that way." It has, so feel free to weigh in. Thanks. Krakatoa ( talk) 19:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I personally think your listing pages that have been courtesy blanked is rude. The people had their RfA's blanked for a reason, and now they are highlighted. Please consider redacting your edit to include just the count, we have no need to have a list. This is an intrusion on their privacy.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 05:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's a legitimate concern, but I don't think "deleting" the list is necessary. I'll put in a "Show/Hide" drop down box. I hope that will address your concern by removing the list from plain sight.
Crystal whacker (
talk) 13:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- thanks CW, not ideal, but I can live with it. I just could imagine the reaction of some of those people, to have their RfA's blanked thinking it might spare them a modicum of embarrassment, only to find out that months later, it was the root of further embarrassment.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 14:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: GA nomination of Optical properties of carbon nanotubes
Thank you for your help and continuous encouragement! NIMSoffice ( talk) 23:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I was hoping you could help me with this- is it "a historic" or "an historic"? I see both around and I always thought the "rule" was an if its followed by a vowel. But I guess some people pronounce history and historic as if it starts with an i. (I pronounce the h sound just fine in those words as far as I hear). Is there some exception making h words have an before them? Does it matter which is used "a" or "an"? Well, thanks for helping with everything before, couldnt have gotten the port article as good as it was without you, I hadnt realized how over my heard I was and how much I had to learn. If there's anything I can help research or do just let me know. Camelbinky ( talk) 06:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- "A historic" is American English. "An historic" is used in British English, but I think some of them go with "a historic" anyway. The reason for "an historic" is that some people drop the "h" in pronounciation, to say "an 'istoric." I'll consult one of our UK administrators to see if she knows more about this.
Crystal whacker (
talk) 21:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- The
Guardian style guide goes with "a historic"; the
Times style guide with "an historic". Take your pick. Personally, in the Wikipedia context I'd go with "a historic" every time, as it's a legitimate variant in every version of English, unlike "an historic". –
iridescent 22:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Iridescent. Crystal whacker ( talk) 22:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- The
Guardian style guide goes with "a historic"; the
Times style guide with "an historic". Take your pick. Personally, in the Wikipedia context I'd go with "a historic" every time, as it's a legitimate variant in every version of English, unlike "an historic". –
iridescent 22:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
|
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 80 support, 2 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the community has placed in me. R'n'B ( call me Russ) 21:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC) |
I just saw your message on Mount Huang; thanks for starting the review! I might be a bit busy on Monday, but other than that I will try to respond to any concerns you have within a couple hours. I'll look forward to hearing your comments/suggestions! Politizer talk/ contribs 19:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The citation needed tags should be resolved before passing the article. The lead should also be expanded, at least with an extra paragraph. A few references need publisher information, like reference 50. Gary King ( talk) 19:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- I will log this comment on the review page. Crystal whacker ( talk) 19:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I started editing Wikipedia when I arrived in my university to help me study chemistry. As I became more involved in reviewing articles and participating in behind-the-scenes politics, I lost track of my original purpose in editing here. Accordingly, as I begin a new semester in school, I am taking an extended leave of absence from Wikipedia. I will make an offhand spelling correction here and there without logging in, but I will not be active under this identity until I can redefine my involvement here, or until the semester ends. It's important to remember that this is a volunteer project: I don't need to contribute. I've enjoyed it so far, but I need a long break, and it's possible that I will be gone indefinitely.
If I have reviewed and failed a Good Article nomination, (1) don't take it personally, and (2) ask someone else if you want advice. Crystal whacker ( talk) 23:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Enjoy your WikiBreak - I've taken a few extended ones myself over the years. Just be sure to come back - your work here has been a tremendous help. One thing I've done to help reduce fatigue is to almost exclusively focus on article improvement vs wikipolitics or running review processes. Again - thank you for your involvement and I truly hope you will come back after the end of the current semester; our chemistry section sure needs all the help it can get! :) -- mav ( talk) 19:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Crystal whacker, hiGary King; I tried to get the points you mentioned, the ref 50 and the open cite needed tags, do you think that re submitting it will make it a GA or are there other things in the article? I was on a business trip last week and was not able to do a lot on the article and feel sorry that it did not become a GAN.-- Stone ( talk) 06:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would be willing to pass the article, but I will not actually do it because I am no longer active here and will not do a full re-check. See fuller comment at
Talk:Vanadium/GA1. Stone, thanks for being a good writer, teacher and team player.
Crystal whacker (
talk) 21:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help! Have a nice wiki break and enjoy your new semester and I really hope it is not indefinit. See you sooner or later.--
Stone (
talk) 22:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- I hope so too, but I don't know. I have nothing to add to my previous statement. Keep up the good work that you're doing, and I will benefit as a reader, but will not contribute as a writer and reviewer. It's time for me to go. Crystal whacker ( talk) 22:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help! Have a nice wiki break and enjoy your new semester and I really hope it is not indefinit. See you sooner or later.--
Stone (
talk) 22:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
| My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology ( C)( T) 08:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |  |
{{ Recent death}}
Please see this discussion which is related to a proposed change to {{ Recent death}}. An example of how this change would appear is on this userpage. -- Brian McNeil / talk 00:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Nomination of Stein (journal) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stein (journal) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stein (journal) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn ( talk) 10:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Archives:
I noticed that you went through the CD article and took the trouble to move all section headings down one level, that is =...= became ==...==, ==...== became ===...===, etc. and your summary described the edit as "fix structure". The outline numbering, of course, did not change, but I think the style applied to each heading changed as a result. Is that the current standard for articles, that top level sections should not be used any more? Or is there a subtler distinction involved?
-- AJim ( talk) 05:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. You clearly do a lot more editing than I do. So, it appears that top level sections don't exist in practice.
-- AJim ( talk) 05:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your constructive edits to Port of Albany-Rensselaer, however I am curious as to your putting in a dubious note on Albany being founded in 1609. In fact the earliest European settlement in the city of Albany (and in fact on the Westerlo Island that the port itself occupies) was in 1540 by French traders, should you need citation for that fact I have two books I can give you full citation for. I think a citation needed template would have sufficed and been more inline with the "good faith" values of Wikipedia. Albany is the 4th oldest city in the United States, why you would find the date dubious is unusual. Thank you for your other edits and I have already found several citations for 1624 to be the date to put in the article as it reflects actual settlers being in Albany as opposed to temporary trading posts with Native Americans and hunters of beaver skins who were not permanent settlers at Fort Nassau, and will add them at the nearest convenience. I also suggest you check the suggestions on the peer review page of things that needed (and have been changed accordingly), the changes that were suggested and were subsequently done may be changes that you do not agree with and why you think the article is not organized and is sloppy. I also disagree with you adding a new subsection regarding "accidents and incidents". That I have left alone until I can hear your rationale, hence "good faith". One of the points on the peer review was about short subsections and paragraphs of only a few sentences. There used to be more subsections but many were combined based on suggestions in the peer review and automated grammar review. Please look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Port of Albany-Rensselaer/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/December 2008#Port of Albany-Rensselaer that were done by two of the best reviewers and see if perhaps what you dont like was mandated by them. Camelbinky ( talk) 22:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, it will take me some time to look at all the points you raise here.
- Regarding Albany being founded in 1609: I honestly did not know that, and it sounded wrong. I grew up in the northeastern United States, and I learned in school that the English settlers came to Jamestown, Virginia in 1607 and to Plymouth Rock in 1620, and substantially all of the permanent settlement of the continental United States occurred after that 1620 date. I did not know that Albany was independently settled in 1609. I wasn't trying to assume that you put on the page something that wasn't true, but it didn't look right, so I marked it "dubious." Please accept my apology for the misunderstanding.
- I prefer subsections more than some other readers might. In my mind there is a distinction between the broad outlines of history and a single incident where someone got injured or killed in recent years. I don't feel strongly about it either way, and will probably remove that section heading since you want it gone.
- I will try to suggest improvements in the writing. The "sloppy" label was just a first impression, pending a closer look at what might be done to improve. Crystal whacker ( talk) 15:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
A problem with alot of textbooks on US history is that they are Anglo-centric (if that's not a word, my apology, but it gets the point across) and tend to skip over early New York/New Jersey history because they were founded by the Dutch. I agree with you on wanting more subsections, however the reviewer in the peer review had a good point about short subsections make an article look like it is lacking information. I am grateful for your help and have tried to put in more citations and fix sloppy writing as best as possible. I look forward to more help and suggestions. Thank you! Camelbinky ( talk) 19:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Camelbinky (
talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!
Camelbinky ( talk) 01:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for finding those pictures, I had searched everywhere and couldnt find any, you have a magic touch! Thanks so much for your hard work, at this pace we'll be looking at FA review instead GA review before you know it! ;-) Camelbinky ( talk) 01:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused by your use of the phrase "if your not done with your general education" in your review...I'm a grad student in history at MU (University of Missouri-Columbia), I have a bachelor's in Political Science from Rockefeller College of Public Affairs (the University at Albany (SUNY)). I've been published in peer-reviewed journals. I am a member of MENSA. What more education do you think I need? A doctorate? As for "teaching" me how to do <ref=name> the article already does have several already so obviously I know how to do it. I thank you for your hard work and help on this article but please be less condescending. Once I have implemented your suggestions I do wish for you to review this article again, I think having a tough, but fair, reviewer with high standards like you is a good thing. I like that you challenge me and others to continually be better and write better articles, I hope to ask you for your opinions on other articles I will be working on. However, I do think your attitude sometimes could be a little less abrassive. Thank you and I hope I have not ruined the chance to work with you again in the future.
Camelbinky (
talk) 01:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that I implied you were uneducated. It didn't come out the way I had intended. I'll be honest and admit that I thought you were a kid because of that shiny template you put here which seemed like a kid thing to do. I underestimated you, and I should have understood from the quality of the article overall that you are indeed well educated. I will try to improve my tone, and you can be sure that I will be willing to collaborate with you in the future.
- I was just pointing out a few grammatical errors. I tend not to make grammatical mistakes often, and I notice when other people make mistakes. Coversely, there's no way in a million years that I could write anything intelligent about the Port of Albany-Rensselaer. So each of us has our separate strengths. That's why collaborative writing works. Crystal whacker ( talk) 14:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, not to be knit-picky, but unless you have a dictionary that I don't, there is no word such as "coversely", there is conversely. I am sorry I didnt get to those citation needed spots quicker, I had gotten side-tracked saving Latham Circle from deletion (I was successfull). You have written quite intelligently about the Port and you were able to find those pictures. As I do not like people to put down others, I also do not like people to underestimate their own contributions. As for the "shiny template", I have recieved them (not from kids as far as I know) and have seen ones about beer, cookies, barnstars, etc. on other user pages; I happen to think it is a nice little way of showing appreciation and comradery (or camaraderie depeding on where in the English-speaking world you happen to live, though I think you said the northeast). I know better now. On a "work" related note- I have added citations for all the citation needed spots, added citations in other places as well, and have begun a sentence by sentence look at the grammar and spelling. I will let you know when I believe I have gone as far as I can, and I hope you continue to look in and contribute, your help is very appreciated and has motivated me. Camelbinky ( talk) 22:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I think I've hit a roadblock on getting this article any better. I've put citations just about everywhere and have done my best on the grammar. I was wondering if you could take a look. Also, how do i resubmit? Do I remove the old one and just put in a new GA nomination or is there a special place for resubmitions, and is there a limit to how often you can resubmit? Also, I would like to request that you do the GA review if you have the time again, it was thanks to your hard work that this article became 100%+ better than it was at the time it was first nominated. Even if it doesnt pass a second time at least it will get better again. Learn by doing and if you dont succeed, try again is my motto. Camelbinky ( talk) 22:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your replies. "Coversely" was just a typo, as I'm sure you guessed. I don't really care about spelling mistakes except in articles because our readers need to see a clean product.
- I thought briefly about whether I've edited the article too much to act as a reviewer. On balance, I think I'm still neutral enough. If you feel uncomfortable with me acting as a reviewer, you can request a second opinion. I will post any comments to the old GA review page. There is no need to start a new one. Crystal whacker ( talk) 00:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow! Thank you! That was alot of work! I will look into those dead links, I had not thought about the fact that the Times Union website would have those pages expire and put them into archives, which I believe you are correct about them being accessible through subscription. I am going to have to find alternative sources. I really should have thought ahead of time and realized that problem. I guess the source could be changed to a cite newspaper article template right? Even though I didnt see the print article the print article exists...Sort of like changing the Google books links to cite book? As for the John Rives on reference 5 I have to look that up, I have a feeling that perhaps that was the publisher or perhaps listed somewhere on Google books citation for that book. I am not sure at the moment. Oh, and no turf war with Stony Brook, we all know which university is better. This GA passing would never have happened without your diligence, honesty, and commitment. Thank you and perhaps in 6 months or so we'll be doing a FA nomination, who knows? I hope you continue to find time to check in on the article, contribute, and pass on suggestions and your knowledge. Everyone who has worked on this article owe you a debt, if you ever need any help on anything just ask. Camelbinky ( talk) 21:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Someone has just put a cleanup template on the references section. I have gone to their talk page to ask what needs to be cleaned up and why. I was wondering, since you spent alot of time working on the references if you might know why and what I can do to fix it. In their edit summary putting the cleanup template in they put "these sources need a major fixing, missing a ton of things) ".
Camelbinky (
talk) 19:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'll take a look. Crystal whacker ( talk) 21:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again for your GA-review of George H.D. Gossip. You mentioned at the time, "I would support this article at Featured nominations if it came that way." It has, so feel free to weigh in. Thanks. Krakatoa ( talk) 19:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I personally think your listing pages that have been courtesy blanked is rude. The people had their RfA's blanked for a reason, and now they are highlighted. Please consider redacting your edit to include just the count, we have no need to have a list. This is an intrusion on their privacy.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 05:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's a legitimate concern, but I don't think "deleting" the list is necessary. I'll put in a "Show/Hide" drop down box. I hope that will address your concern by removing the list from plain sight.
Crystal whacker (
talk) 13:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- thanks CW, not ideal, but I can live with it. I just could imagine the reaction of some of those people, to have their RfA's blanked thinking it might spare them a modicum of embarrassment, only to find out that months later, it was the root of further embarrassment.--- Balloonman PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 14:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: GA nomination of Optical properties of carbon nanotubes
Thank you for your help and continuous encouragement! NIMSoffice ( talk) 23:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I was hoping you could help me with this- is it "a historic" or "an historic"? I see both around and I always thought the "rule" was an if its followed by a vowel. But I guess some people pronounce history and historic as if it starts with an i. (I pronounce the h sound just fine in those words as far as I hear). Is there some exception making h words have an before them? Does it matter which is used "a" or "an"? Well, thanks for helping with everything before, couldnt have gotten the port article as good as it was without you, I hadnt realized how over my heard I was and how much I had to learn. If there's anything I can help research or do just let me know. Camelbinky ( talk) 06:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- "A historic" is American English. "An historic" is used in British English, but I think some of them go with "a historic" anyway. The reason for "an historic" is that some people drop the "h" in pronounciation, to say "an 'istoric." I'll consult one of our UK administrators to see if she knows more about this.
Crystal whacker (
talk) 21:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- The
Guardian style guide goes with "a historic"; the
Times style guide with "an historic". Take your pick. Personally, in the Wikipedia context I'd go with "a historic" every time, as it's a legitimate variant in every version of English, unlike "an historic". –
iridescent 22:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Iridescent. Crystal whacker ( talk) 22:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- The
Guardian style guide goes with "a historic"; the
Times style guide with "an historic". Take your pick. Personally, in the Wikipedia context I'd go with "a historic" every time, as it's a legitimate variant in every version of English, unlike "an historic". –
iridescent 22:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
|
|
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 80 support, 2 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the community has placed in me. R'n'B ( call me Russ) 21:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC) |
I just saw your message on Mount Huang; thanks for starting the review! I might be a bit busy on Monday, but other than that I will try to respond to any concerns you have within a couple hours. I'll look forward to hearing your comments/suggestions! Politizer talk/ contribs 19:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The citation needed tags should be resolved before passing the article. The lead should also be expanded, at least with an extra paragraph. A few references need publisher information, like reference 50. Gary King ( talk) 19:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- I will log this comment on the review page. Crystal whacker ( talk) 19:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I started editing Wikipedia when I arrived in my university to help me study chemistry. As I became more involved in reviewing articles and participating in behind-the-scenes politics, I lost track of my original purpose in editing here. Accordingly, as I begin a new semester in school, I am taking an extended leave of absence from Wikipedia. I will make an offhand spelling correction here and there without logging in, but I will not be active under this identity until I can redefine my involvement here, or until the semester ends. It's important to remember that this is a volunteer project: I don't need to contribute. I've enjoyed it so far, but I need a long break, and it's possible that I will be gone indefinitely.
If I have reviewed and failed a Good Article nomination, (1) don't take it personally, and (2) ask someone else if you want advice. Crystal whacker ( talk) 23:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Enjoy your WikiBreak - I've taken a few extended ones myself over the years. Just be sure to come back - your work here has been a tremendous help. One thing I've done to help reduce fatigue is to almost exclusively focus on article improvement vs wikipolitics or running review processes. Again - thank you for your involvement and I truly hope you will come back after the end of the current semester; our chemistry section sure needs all the help it can get! :) -- mav ( talk) 19:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Crystal whacker, hiGary King; I tried to get the points you mentioned, the ref 50 and the open cite needed tags, do you think that re submitting it will make it a GA or are there other things in the article? I was on a business trip last week and was not able to do a lot on the article and feel sorry that it did not become a GAN.-- Stone ( talk) 06:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would be willing to pass the article, but I will not actually do it because I am no longer active here and will not do a full re-check. See fuller comment at
Talk:Vanadium/GA1. Stone, thanks for being a good writer, teacher and team player.
Crystal whacker (
talk) 21:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help! Have a nice wiki break and enjoy your new semester and I really hope it is not indefinit. See you sooner or later.--
Stone (
talk) 22:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- I hope so too, but I don't know. I have nothing to add to my previous statement. Keep up the good work that you're doing, and I will benefit as a reader, but will not contribute as a writer and reviewer. It's time for me to go. Crystal whacker ( talk) 22:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help! Have a nice wiki break and enjoy your new semester and I really hope it is not indefinit. See you sooner or later.--
Stone (
talk) 22:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
| My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology ( C)( T) 08:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |
{{ Recent death}}
Please see this discussion which is related to a proposed change to {{ Recent death}}. An example of how this change would appear is on this userpage. -- Brian McNeil / talk 00:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Nomination of Stein (journal) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stein (journal) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stein (journal) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn ( talk) 10:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)