Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Cheers for your comments, all addressed now I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 11:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your review!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't if its my browser, since I got the stuff at the review and hasn't been shown, but I got your concerns at both reviews. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, you'll know this sooner or later, so I might as well tell you the news now. There won't be any GAN backlog elimination drive until GA Sweeps is over. You can see the explanation on Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/Fall 2007 and its talk page. But in short, we won't have it because such drives will add a lot more GAs than the current rate, which will create more burden towards the already-shorthanded Sweeps. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the praise. I will hopefully be able to help out in the near future (probably early November), but right now my schedule is full packed. TheLeftorium 14:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Please accept this notice to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving five articles to GA status every month. We hope to see you there!--LAAFansign review 02:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC) {{{1}}} |
Lisa on Ice has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.
I have addressed the overwhelming majority of the issues you raised at Talk:Bob Miller (1957–1974 pitcher)/GA1 and I think it may be ready for a second look. I appreciate the comments, and the changes triggered by your input provided useful guidance on both policy and content issues that have clearly improved the article already. At your convenience, can you please review the article and make sure that I am heading in the right direction. Alansohn (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't if you've noticed, but I've made my best to address your concerns there. Maxim(talk) 20:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Someone appears to have translated the whole article into Polish for the Polish Wikipedia, references and all. Absolutely fantastic. I can't understand a word of it, but I'm sure it is spot on! Should be a shoe-in for GA (or "DA" as I believe it is in Polish) over there I'd have thought. --Jameboy (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Elipongo/SmileyAward--Unionhawk (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The Excellent Userpage Award | ||
Wow... Epic User Page Unionhawk (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
I've addressed all your points in the GA review. Thanks for reviewing it. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I've done my best to address your concerns; I hope the prose is better now, if not, I can find another user with fresher eyes to look over it. Maxim(talk) 02:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I addressed all of the points you brought up, although it doesn't show up on the talk page for some wacky reason. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
The Good Article Medal of Merit | ||
For your excellent work in GA reviewing. Giggy (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
I'm surprised that no one else has done this, specially considering all the other "concerned editors" that have been editing the bicycle kick article along with me. I would like to thank you for all your improvements and input for the bicycle kick article. Your neutral edits have certainly made quite an impact. Please do continue with your edits if you see them fit and necessary. I will continue to add more sources, but at this moment have to take some time to concentrate on some "real life" work. Once again, thank you for your edits and all your help.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, noticed that you have done some editing to the article. I have just done some copy edits on the article but wondered if you could shed some light on the sentence "The first investigation was in 1952, following the 1946 Burnden Park disaster, which resulted in the closure of the stand". The word investigation does not appear to be explained and the the resulting sentence does not make sense to me in its context. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Cool, cheers. As I was discussing with Struway, I had some doubts about my Matthews book in the case of Horsfield, so if you can find some decent sources with correct dates we can adjust the article and infobox accordingly. --Jameboy (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I attended a conference. Thanks for the review. --Efe (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Woops! Should have made myself clearer, that fact tag was referring to the claim that he was without a club for some time, which Soccerbase cotradicts. Regards, HornetMike (talk) 08:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'd read that, but not sure it does help... It could imply either he was only there for five months in total, or it could imply it was five months from picking up the injury that he went to Halifax, but either way there are time-gaps which remain to be filled. At the moment, I've written in the article that he joined Halifax in Oct 96, but am about to try to check that; he made his debut in Oct, but might have joined sooner and been getting fit. Safest to be vague, I think. Thanks anyway, Struway2 (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing and passing Grampa vs. Sexual Inadequacy! =) I hereby award you with
The Good Article Reviewer's Medal of Merit | ||
For your excellent work at WP:GAN! |
OK, now undo your edit on the talk page. You know which one. Gimmetrow 21:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
This is just a note to say that I have set up a GAR for Brenda Song here. This would seem the right way to air any differences that there may be concerning that article's recent GA review. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you copyedit No Way Out (2004)? If possible, thank you.--SRX 21:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you mind if I ask you to take a look over the page again? It has undergone a fairly vigorous day of editing, and I feel that we can't have missed anything major. I am pretty new at these shenanigans (I'm sure that's not how you spell it) so if I am being presumptuous here I apologise in advance. Apterygial (talk) 11:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Again, I think we are there now. Apterygial (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC) This page really is not going to change. It had no bearing on the Championship result and what you see now you'll probably see in a week from now. Apterygial (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC) OK. Thanks. I just wanted to make sure you weren't waiting on us to let you know when the article was ready. Apterygial (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts on “natural-born citizenship.” I know you don’t want to get bogged-down in an extended discussion at WP:GACC/Nominations, but why not comment on the article talk page instead? If you do so, then please feel free to overwrite my most recent comment. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing. I'm the editor who placed it at nomination. Anyway, before I had a chance, Alientraveller and another editor addressed your concerns. I think it's ready. Cheers. Wildroot (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I already replied there, and I'm doing what I said I would. Tezkag72 (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you moved FA Cup 1955-56 to FA Cup 1955–56, which given the policy sounds fair enough - I assumed that that would happen at some point! However, if this is important, would you mind please moving the rest of the pages and also update the Template too, as the template now isn't bolding the 1955-56 article as a result of the move? Cheers. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 11:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 06:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
You might have noticed a new button appear on diffs and page histories. After looking to see whether some of the most trustworthy WPF regulars have it, I've just boldly given you the rollback tool for quick vandal reversion (see WP:ROLL for details). In fact rather than just rollback, you're a longstanding contributor with a fine track record, would you find admin tools of use? If so, I'm more than willing to nominate you. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for organizing and overseeing this initiative. I learned a lot while doing it, and it encouraged me to finally review articles in areas that I had previously avoided. I just wrapped up my final review today, so they're ready for you to take a look at when you have a chance. Please don't feel rushed, as I'm in no hurry. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I see you prefer the earlier description of Paul Henderson (which I typed in early 2008), instead of the recent version I did in an attempt to make it easier to read and understand. But may I know what is "in line with MOS" and POV?
Hi, and thanks for the review. I've had a bit of a fiddle with the lead section and was wondering if you could have a quick glance when you have a moment to see if it's improved at all. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I have moved this back to Leeds Road because that was the name of the stadium; it was never known as Leeds Road, Huddersfield. There are numerous precedents - Brisbane Road etc. Also, Leeds Road was the result of a WP:RM. If you are unhappy please raise a further RM. TerriersFan (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your fixes, not having such a good day today! Might do something else for a while, like wash the dishes! EA210269 (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I just nominated the article and your already reviewing it - thanks! A talk 03:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Josh Gray, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Dicklyon (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed the WP:ATHLETE exception to the usual WP:NOTE rule that significant coverage in independent sources is required. It seems odd that a person can be deemed notable simply by virtue of playing on a team, even if nobody notices them enough to write about them. Ah, well, nobody ever said wikipedia was fair or sensible. Dicklyon (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I believe we've addressed all of your concerns. I left some notes and a couple questions for you on the review page. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again! mitico (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that you did some edits on the RC Strasbourg page following my request for an assessment of this article. First of all, thanks for these edits, I am not yet totally WP-litterate so it definitely helps to have others people taking the time to check my work. However, I'm a bit disappointed because the article is still rated as a "start". If you have some time to spare, perhaps you could tell me what I should do to improve it and obtain a better status ? Zitelli67 (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I apologize - I mainly use that to tell myself I've completed those tasks. I'll use the check mark next time. By the way, thanks for your review - it was unbelievably thorough. A talk 01:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I think I've addressed most of the points you raised in the GA review. Off the top of my head, the only outstanding issue is overlinking which I'd appreciate your advice on. Nev1 (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks mate. Good idea. I usually change the links on my subpage to match the players' actual articles anyway, but thanks for the thought. – PeeJay 22:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Any help would be appreciated here. Libro0 (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I replied to your question/concerns/et cetera.--Maxim(talk) 00:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
Weekly Delivery |
---|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 42 | 8 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 43 | 10 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 4, Issue 44 | 17 November 2008 | 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 (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Greetings, Peanut4. I see you have written a couple of FAs and several GAs, mostly about Bradford City A.F.C. Well done - your contributions are greatly appreciated!
I am writing several GAs about Singaporean sportspeople, mainly footballers. However, I need a copy-editor as my English is only at a near-native standard. Your high-quality contributions to articles about Bradford City A.F.C. suggest that you are British and thus a native speaker of British English. So could you be my copy-editor?
While most article writers submit complete articles and then have them copyedited, I prefer "interactive copyediting", where after telling you the article to copyedit:
If you are interested, please let me know so we can exchange IRC/MSN/GTalk handles and get started. I already have a complete draft of a short article about Singaporean Paralympic swimmer Yip Pin Xiu; a few copyediting sessions for that article would let us get to know each other and get used to each other's style.
P.S. In case you were wondering, I noticed you during your GA reviews of several articles about Singaporean Olympic sportspeople written by my Wikifriend, Jacklee, for which you deserve a barnstar.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Cheers. I've done a few PRs before, which gave me an idea of how to look at an article. I'm interested in doing more reviews, but at this stage I'm just trying to move the queue on a little (I've got an article near the bottom!) Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 00:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 00:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, if you have time, would you mind taking a look at Stephens City, Virginia. I nom'd it for Good Article Status a couple days ago. It is under "Places" on the Good Article Nom page. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 2, 2008 @ 19:32
I didn't reply at WT:FAC (I need to see more support, and gather some statistics), so I'll reply here: I basically agree. People at FAC have generally decided that any article that is good enough for WP:N is good enough for FA. The question is what kind of shape the article is in, how engaging it is; that's not a settled question. I'll go gather some data. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Peanut, listen, I want to ask a favor, do you remember saying this ---> "Everything looks good now and a sound basis for expansion and a possible future FAC bid"? If it comes back to you, do you think you might have time to comment on Maggie Gyllenhaal's FAC, since there has been no feedback for a while. I would appreciate your comments, since you did promote the article to GA status, regarding the article, and anything that needs to be fixed. :) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
My Norwegian's not what it might be (or at all), but I think this says that Rosler and Halle have gone to Lyn as manager and assistant, or manager and coach, or something. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've just responded to some comments from the peer review, I was wondering if you could get back to me on them. Sunderland06 (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and trimmed it down as suggested, cheers for your time. Sunderland06 (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The article Eddie Johnson (English footballer) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Eddie Johnson (English footballer) for things needed to be addressed. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I've fixed some of the minor issues on the page. Can you give your opinion on the article's rating? Aaroncrick (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Just to say cheers for helping out with the page move admin re: Football League play-off articles. I have a thumping hangover and am finding everything difficult and slow today so the help is appreciated! --Jameboy (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I don't know how willing you would be to look at another of my Grand Prix pages :), but the above article is currently up for PR here. I would really appreciate any comments you could have on it, and am more than willing to return the favour on anything that you are working on. Cheers, Apterygial 02:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you put reference tags on sections of Shaun Goater, or rather I didn't notice, seeing as you did it a month ago. The article is of my hand (almost literally - its my hand he's shaking in the photo :) ), but it was promoted in 2006, which probably makes it prehistoric in GA terms and accounts for the lower citation density. Could you perhaps slap a few {{cn}}s on it so that I can bring it in line? Oldelpaso (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I have started the abovementioned article, which is already fairly substantial (at least, better than stub quality) and hoping for your peer review and input please. I have already gone around to check in the football wiki but have not found anything similar. Thanks. Veinofstars (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Looked at the link rules page.
What should be linked: 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues.
The footage, being a live news report, is certainly a neutral and accurate source that cannot be directly inserted into the Wiki. Coolgamer (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, according to the book I've referenced it was City. Possible that he was only there a short time if he's not in any of your books, but generally the joyce book is better than most. WikiGull (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas to you as well, much obliged for the Barnstar. And you're right - shame about the draw, but at least we're still in the playoffs...GiantSnowman 16:12, 27 December 2008 (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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Hi Peanut4, I am new to trying to edit a Wikipedia article so please bear with me! There are some factual errors in the article about John William "Jack" Barker, which have been noticed by his son, Jack Barker. I have tried to edit these to correct them but the changes are being undone! How I do I go about ensuring that the article is correct? Did you write the original article? Thanks David Shn606 (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi again Peanut4,
His son Jack Barker is my Father-in-law; is he deemed a reliable source about his father's life? e.g. the information about his "Family" is incorrect (he didn't have a younger brother Jeffrey nor a nephew John).
I also have his father's birth and death certificates.
Cheers
David
Shn606 (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi again, Well, the problem is his son hasn't written a book about his father and the birth certificate obviuously isn't in a book either. I would have thought that somewhere along the line Wikipedia could recognise that errors can be made in a book and also that there should be some mechanism of correcting such inaccuracies. Have you any suggestions about how we can get these inaccuracies corrected? I presume that if you have written a large part of it, you too might want to see the article factually correct! For example have you actually checked on the club 'Denaby Rovers' which Jack Barker is supposed to have played for? At best it is perhaps a Junior Sunday side. Denaby United was the club with all the history in Denaby and is the one he played for. I realise that you have now way of knowing who I am, but if there is a way of posting to you his birth certificate or some photographs his son has of his father (for example shaking hands as captain before the Wales match in Cardiff in 1936) or even photographs of his 'caps' you will perhaps accept he is a valid source of information about his father! I hope you can help. David Shn606 (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.