User talk:Aunva6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Face-angel.svg This user tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake, please let them know.

Please keep discussion related to article content on the article talk page, thank you. -- Aunva6talk - contribs

Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
The Signpost
20 August 2014

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote[edit]

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Steam (software)[edit]

thanks. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
That's okay, but you don't have to press the 'thanks' button every time I make an edit. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
yeah, is suppose it spams up the notification list. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 00:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes; it's also annoying to check notifications every few minutes. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


Hi Aunva6, Thank you for your interest in the Pothole article, where I note that you placed tags for ref improve and undue. This suggests that you felt that the article "needs additional citations for verification," in the first instance and "lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies," in the second instance. I was surprised to see the ref improve tag, since I have used a reference for every segment of the article covered. Perhaps, if you see gaps in places, you could call them out with a citation needed tag. Otherwise, I feel that everything that you see is properly and adequately referenced. As to the question of "undue weight." it's hard to respond to that tag without any corresponding discussion in the Talk page. Perhaps, you would be so good as to provide some context for that tag in the Talk page, so that I or other editors can address the problem that you perceive. I'll look forward to your clarifications at Talk:Pothole. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 01:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

well, the exact wording of the tag was not exactly what I intended, however, I meant that the article seems to focuse a little too much on how potholes are fixed, and need more on the rest of it. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I very much appreciate your reply, Aunva6. Perhaps you could expand a bit on "the rest of it." Bear in mind, there is a section on pothole formation before the discussion of how they are fixed (Formation, Prevention and Repair are the three main sections). My feeling is that the principal mechanisms of formation are well-covered. I'm interested to know what additional information you would find helpful on behalf of the reader. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 12:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
My thinking is to await some actionable suggestions on the article at its Talk page until 1 June. If I receive none, I'll remove the tags. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 20:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Steam FAC[edit]

I don't want you to feel discouraged, Aunva6. Just dedicate yourself to making the Steam article fantastic and as the person who made it a Good Article, I'll be willing to back you. ;) DARTHBOTTO talkcont 20:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

yeah... i would have done a peer review first, but past experience tells me that nobody reviews them. vaypertrail has also been pushing the phishing crap, which is clearly not notable. nothing ventured, nothing gained. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 22:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, he's right that you should be a significant contributor before nominating a page. However, his reviews are often impossible and unrealistic, so it's difficult to judge. Just work on making this page your objective- that's all I can really say on the matter. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 06:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Bump. ResMar 05:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
On a related note, if you have trouble garnering attention while sitting on one or any of Wikipedia' many content review heaps, I recommend you try tit-for-tat tactics. Editors just like you too worry about whether or not their article will or will not get reviewed before archival, and appreciate the attention of experienced content editors; if then at the end of your review you ask them to reciprocate in your favor, they are likely to do so. Do your homework, though, and make sure the editor from whom you are soliciting a review is a sufficiently experienced one to provide a strong review. This bit of social engineering brought to you by ResMar 05:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)