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 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
Hi Khazar, I though it only courteous to inform you of a complain that I have lodged at WP:ANI#Wikihounding from אומנות regarding a user who I feel has been purposely hounding me for sometime now. The most recent being at the GA review for ESC 2011 which you kindly reviewed. I've had to address evidence to support my complaint, and as the GA review is mentioned in that, I think it is only fair that you should be aware, in case you wish to address any observations of your own. Sincere regards, Wesley Mᴥuse 18:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The article Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mark Miller -- Mark Miller ( talk) 22:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey. I am the student that wrote the behavioral sections to the army ant article. One of my classmates nominated it without consulting me and I know you failed it. I was wondering if you could give me some other suggestions other than adding sources on the section that the pervious author wrote. I'll be working on expanding the sections and citations in the coming few weeks. Thanks! Pocketkings ( talk) 22:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The article Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mark Miller -- Mark Miller ( talk) 04:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I've placed Portal:Freedom of speech up for portal peer review. Comments would be welcome, at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Freedom of speech/archive1. — Cirt ( talk) 23:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks very much for taking on the GA Review for this article!
I've read through your suggestions at Talk:Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World/GA1.
They were all good recommendations so I just implemented them all, and noted it point-by-point back at the GA Review subpage, Talk:Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World/GA1.
Perhaps you can revisit at your convenience, no rush.
Thanks again,
— Cirt ( talk) 06:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Hope you're doing well. I hate to bother you with more questions about GA reviewing, but I still consider you my mentor and I hope it's OK to pop up every now and then. I was doing an initial reading of a nominated article Scottish literature in the Middle Ages, when I realized that it's almost completely a copy-and-paste of an extract from another WP article Scottish literature#Middle_Ages. Is this grounds for a quickfail? It's not the first time I've come across one article that cannibalizes another article, and I often wonder why there are two articles when one would suffice. On the other hand, I suppose it's possible that the shorter article came first and was copied into the longer article, but the edit history appears to indicate the opposite. Also, I've found at least two instances where there's extended cut-and-paste from a third, independent source copyrighted 2006, and therefore predating both articles which contain the apparently plagiarized lines. So I'm a bit uncertain how to proceed. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks. Jburlinson ( talk) 20:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I've been trying to complete a little bit those articles. The classics always deserve a fair treatment.-- GDuwen Tell me! 18:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
...@ User talk:Go Phightins!#Idea. ``` Buster Seven Talk 08:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Khazar! Just to ask, can you close the two discussions about reassessing the Iced Earth albums? I've informed both reviewers and the nominator two weeks ago, but they appear to be inactive this time around. However, there has been some debate regarding the issues and I believe you can make a decision based on the arguments from both sides. Thanks and everything best. Postscriptum, the links: Talk:The Dark Saga/GA2 and Talk:Something Wicked This Way Comes (Iced Earth album)/GA2.-- Вик Ретлхед ( talk) 22:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt ( talk) 18:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I hope you are well. I nominated this article which was viewed 136,166 times in the last 90 days for GA. I have tried my best to improve this article. As the top-of-the-queue article under 'Law' subtopic was nominated on 27 July 2013 to GA, I think it would take 4 months from now for this article to be even considered. I wish to shift my attention to another article. I would very much appreciate if you could take a look, if it's in your area of interest. It's not urgent at all. Thank you so much for being so kind and accessible. -- Seabuckthorn ♥ 00:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Can you please teach me its features? I know how to disambiguate and fix typos using regex typos but nothing other than that. Sohambanerjee1998 09:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Khazar2 thanks for undertaking the Ip Man 2 review, I have just read it and I will try and fix all the points you have raised. Thanks Kelvin 101 ( talk) 19:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I hope you are well. I hope it's okay if I seek your guidance every now and then and appear on your talk page, as I consider you my mentor. I have a doubt. I wish to take up one GA nominee for review. I haven't done any before. The nominator/contributor has a long list of GAs and also few FAs. The subject matter of the article interests me and I think I can pull it through with some background research. Should my lack of experience with GA reviewing deter me from taking an article nominated by much more experienced Wikipedian? I would really appreciate if you could offer some tips based on your experience. -- Seabuckthorn ♥ 14:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, do my sights dumbfound this scriptor? A plot summary, doubling that lipogrammatic limit in A Void? Forsooth, it is amazing! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 13:49, 26-11-2013 (UTC)
Salutations, I've been interested in this for quite some time now and thought I'll ask you for guidance first. I want to learn to review general topics, and not restricted to any area. Currently, Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Recruitment Centre/List of Recruiters has only three recruiters available where two of them review only particular topic ranges and the third one is 'available' but has quite a bit of students to deal with.
I think this is probably the reason there has been a preference for the other recruiters but I don't mind be recruited by anyone, just that I'm interested to be able to review general topics. Is this important while selecting a recruiter and I put my name in the waiting list or choose someone now...What do you recommend? Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 18:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Theres some massive instability going on there now (and largely off the news radar). We need an article on this. But I was wondering what to call it? There is one about the 2012-2013 conflict but thats seperate and leading to Bozizes removal.
Would CAR conflict under the Djotodia administration work? ( Lihaas ( talk) 12:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)).
Giving me a smile | |
Thank you for nominating me for Editor of the Week. I couldn't be happier about it. It was very unexpected--especially after a 6 hour drive from home! Thanks for being around and spreading your kindness on Wikipedia. You are an example to all of us. ComputerJA ( ☎ • ✎) 23:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC) |
Khazar, thanks for the Molina page GA eval. Now that is out of the way, I'm thinking about translating the page into Spanish. I was very surprised to learn none exists for him. I don't know how good you are with your Spanish, but once I get that rolling having your input would be great. Re the Freese trade, it will be a great opportunity to reset for him and should be a great trade for the Cardinals. With the Peralta signing, the Cardinals are nearly set for next season. If anything more needs done, it would be great to see a right-handed power bat for the bench. -- Elcid.ruderico ( talk) 14:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
So, looks like it's on! My #1 goal for December is to do one review a day, the same as your 2013 goal. (My #2 goal, of course, is to force you and Edge3 to have to take out second mortgages to fund your pledges. ) Best of luck! – Quadell ( talk) 18:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I need advice based on your experience on Wikipedia. It's about this GA nominee. If you check the edit history of this page, all of a sudden this user is making substantial deletion of content which appears to me vandalism. On checking the contribution page of this user, it appears that s/he has been deleting content quite substantially to other pages also and has been involved in conflicts. This user doesn't have a user page, the contribution list has a lot of red marks and also the account is about two months old. Although I contributed significantly to this page, I don't consider it as 'my' page so there are no personal issues. However I also don't want to involve in any discussion due to time constraints. Also if I keep on reverting the deletions it would also lead to so called 'edit war'. Should I leave the page to the good judgement of Wikipedia administrators and other users. I would very much appreciate if you could advise me the best approach in such a situation given the time constraints. -- Seabuckthorn ♥ 06:24, 4 December 2013 (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 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
Hi Khazar, I though it only courteous to inform you of a complain that I have lodged at WP:ANI#Wikihounding from אומנות regarding a user who I feel has been purposely hounding me for sometime now. The most recent being at the GA review for ESC 2011 which you kindly reviewed. I've had to address evidence to support my complaint, and as the GA review is mentioned in that, I think it is only fair that you should be aware, in case you wish to address any observations of your own. Sincere regards, Wesley Mᴥuse 18:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The article Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mark Miller -- Mark Miller ( talk) 22:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey. I am the student that wrote the behavioral sections to the army ant article. One of my classmates nominated it without consulting me and I know you failed it. I was wondering if you could give me some other suggestions other than adding sources on the section that the pervious author wrote. I'll be working on expanding the sections and citations in the coming few weeks. Thanks! Pocketkings ( talk) 22:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The article Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mark Miller -- Mark Miller ( talk) 04:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I've placed Portal:Freedom of speech up for portal peer review. Comments would be welcome, at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Freedom of speech/archive1. — Cirt ( talk) 23:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks very much for taking on the GA Review for this article!
I've read through your suggestions at Talk:Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World/GA1.
They were all good recommendations so I just implemented them all, and noted it point-by-point back at the GA Review subpage, Talk:Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World/GA1.
Perhaps you can revisit at your convenience, no rush.
Thanks again,
— Cirt ( talk) 06:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Hope you're doing well. I hate to bother you with more questions about GA reviewing, but I still consider you my mentor and I hope it's OK to pop up every now and then. I was doing an initial reading of a nominated article Scottish literature in the Middle Ages, when I realized that it's almost completely a copy-and-paste of an extract from another WP article Scottish literature#Middle_Ages. Is this grounds for a quickfail? It's not the first time I've come across one article that cannibalizes another article, and I often wonder why there are two articles when one would suffice. On the other hand, I suppose it's possible that the shorter article came first and was copied into the longer article, but the edit history appears to indicate the opposite. Also, I've found at least two instances where there's extended cut-and-paste from a third, independent source copyrighted 2006, and therefore predating both articles which contain the apparently plagiarized lines. So I'm a bit uncertain how to proceed. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks. Jburlinson ( talk) 20:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I've been trying to complete a little bit those articles. The classics always deserve a fair treatment.-- GDuwen Tell me! 18:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
...@ User talk:Go Phightins!#Idea. ``` Buster Seven Talk 08:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Khazar! Just to ask, can you close the two discussions about reassessing the Iced Earth albums? I've informed both reviewers and the nominator two weeks ago, but they appear to be inactive this time around. However, there has been some debate regarding the issues and I believe you can make a decision based on the arguments from both sides. Thanks and everything best. Postscriptum, the links: Talk:The Dark Saga/GA2 and Talk:Something Wicked This Way Comes (Iced Earth album)/GA2.-- Вик Ретлхед ( talk) 22:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt ( talk) 18:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I hope you are well. I nominated this article which was viewed 136,166 times in the last 90 days for GA. I have tried my best to improve this article. As the top-of-the-queue article under 'Law' subtopic was nominated on 27 July 2013 to GA, I think it would take 4 months from now for this article to be even considered. I wish to shift my attention to another article. I would very much appreciate if you could take a look, if it's in your area of interest. It's not urgent at all. Thank you so much for being so kind and accessible. -- Seabuckthorn ♥ 00:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Can you please teach me its features? I know how to disambiguate and fix typos using regex typos but nothing other than that. Sohambanerjee1998 09:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Khazar2 thanks for undertaking the Ip Man 2 review, I have just read it and I will try and fix all the points you have raised. Thanks Kelvin 101 ( talk) 19:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I hope you are well. I hope it's okay if I seek your guidance every now and then and appear on your talk page, as I consider you my mentor. I have a doubt. I wish to take up one GA nominee for review. I haven't done any before. The nominator/contributor has a long list of GAs and also few FAs. The subject matter of the article interests me and I think I can pull it through with some background research. Should my lack of experience with GA reviewing deter me from taking an article nominated by much more experienced Wikipedian? I would really appreciate if you could offer some tips based on your experience. -- Seabuckthorn ♥ 14:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, do my sights dumbfound this scriptor? A plot summary, doubling that lipogrammatic limit in A Void? Forsooth, it is amazing! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 13:49, 26-11-2013 (UTC)
Salutations, I've been interested in this for quite some time now and thought I'll ask you for guidance first. I want to learn to review general topics, and not restricted to any area. Currently, Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Recruitment Centre/List of Recruiters has only three recruiters available where two of them review only particular topic ranges and the third one is 'available' but has quite a bit of students to deal with.
I think this is probably the reason there has been a preference for the other recruiters but I don't mind be recruited by anyone, just that I'm interested to be able to review general topics. Is this important while selecting a recruiter and I put my name in the waiting list or choose someone now...What do you recommend? Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 18:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Theres some massive instability going on there now (and largely off the news radar). We need an article on this. But I was wondering what to call it? There is one about the 2012-2013 conflict but thats seperate and leading to Bozizes removal.
Would CAR conflict under the Djotodia administration work? ( Lihaas ( talk) 12:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)).
Giving me a smile | |
Thank you for nominating me for Editor of the Week. I couldn't be happier about it. It was very unexpected--especially after a 6 hour drive from home! Thanks for being around and spreading your kindness on Wikipedia. You are an example to all of us. ComputerJA ( ☎ • ✎) 23:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC) |
Khazar, thanks for the Molina page GA eval. Now that is out of the way, I'm thinking about translating the page into Spanish. I was very surprised to learn none exists for him. I don't know how good you are with your Spanish, but once I get that rolling having your input would be great. Re the Freese trade, it will be a great opportunity to reset for him and should be a great trade for the Cardinals. With the Peralta signing, the Cardinals are nearly set for next season. If anything more needs done, it would be great to see a right-handed power bat for the bench. -- Elcid.ruderico ( talk) 14:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
So, looks like it's on! My #1 goal for December is to do one review a day, the same as your 2013 goal. (My #2 goal, of course, is to force you and Edge3 to have to take out second mortgages to fund your pledges. ) Best of luck! – Quadell ( talk) 18:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I need advice based on your experience on Wikipedia. It's about this GA nominee. If you check the edit history of this page, all of a sudden this user is making substantial deletion of content which appears to me vandalism. On checking the contribution page of this user, it appears that s/he has been deleting content quite substantially to other pages also and has been involved in conflicts. This user doesn't have a user page, the contribution list has a lot of red marks and also the account is about two months old. Although I contributed significantly to this page, I don't consider it as 'my' page so there are no personal issues. However I also don't want to involve in any discussion due to time constraints. Also if I keep on reverting the deletions it would also lead to so called 'edit war'. Should I leave the page to the good judgement of Wikipedia administrators and other users. I would very much appreciate if you could advise me the best approach in such a situation given the time constraints. -- Seabuckthorn ♥ 06:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)