|Welcome to Protonk's talk page. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your talk page (or the article's talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or let me know where specifically you'd prefer the reply.|
I'll be working offline on draft Snapdragon (system on chip) and Paul Jacobs articles over the weekend; then I have meetings on Monday for Heather Bresch and Qualcomm, so I'll take a shot at the Yelp controversy re-organization if we don't hear back from Coretheapple by Sunday if I can finish these articles or Tuesday at the latest.
I've also been looking for help on the RealPlayer page if you're interested. Not bringing it up to GA, but just asking for some cleanup of junk sources in the second half of the Controversies section and in the RealAlternative section. I've been forum shopping a bit, but getting a lot of "I'm busy IRL" type stuff. Even though I have a reputation for not being your typical spammy or spin-doctory COI, I think it is still not the kind of thing many editors take an interest in doing. CorporateM (Talk) 22:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- @CorporateM: I'm happy to leave the Yelp review on hold as long as you need. I'll take a look at the real player page, but (unfortunately, given your other requests!) I can't promise I'll be able to spend too much time with it. Protonk (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The draft is de-annotated. I can do some of the tedious stuff in article-space afterwards if you like, like making sure the cites still work and trimming some of the redundancies pulled from other sections. CorporateM (Talk) 21:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Justa Punk ban
I've noticed that you blocked one of his State Library of Victoria IP's for six months. Could you please extend it to a year to be consistent with Material Scientist (see the other IP banned at the same time - last digits of both are 26 and 22). Curse of Fenric (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Curse of Fenric: Can you point me to the other IP? Sorry for making you search for it but it's hard to track down disparate blocks for the same editor. Protonk (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately I am way busier than I would like to be at the moment and as such I'm worried that I won't have enough time to get everything done by tomorrow (7 days after the review) – so I'd like to request it remain open for another week, when I will very likely be able to return to last month's activity level on WP. Sorry for the inconvenience. Double sharp (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Double sharp: No worries. I should put this disclaimer at the top of my reviews, but I'm happy to leave the review open for as long as you need to improve the article. This is especially true for Radium as not all of my suggestions are line-by-line improvements. If you prefer I can change the status to "on hold" but I don't think that actually matters so long as both of us know what's going on. Protonk (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
GA Cup - Round 1 Newsletter #2
Hello GA Cup competitors!
The judges have learned a great deal in this first part of the competition, and we appreciate your patience with us as we've figured out what works and what doesn't work. As we reported in our last newsletter, an inadequacy in the scoring system has been illuminated in the past 15 days, which has resulted in a major change in the rules. It has also resulted in one withdrawal.
To ensure fairness, we've decided to further increase the number of participants moving onto Round 2. Everyone who has reviewed at least one article will automatically be moved forward, and will be placed in pools. You have until October 29 to take advantage of this opportunity. It is our hope that this will make up for the unforeseen glitch in our scoring system.
Best of wishes to all of you as you continue to help improve articles and make Wikipedia a better place.
Cheers from, , and .
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Please comment on Talk:Gernatt Family of Companies
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gernatt Family of Companies. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I've been working on another magazine article, and I wondered if you'd be willing to take a look at it before it goes to FAC, since you've been so helpful on the other articles. No problem if you're too busy, of course. The article is on a pair of related magazines: Cosmic Stories and Stirring Science Stories. There's no hurry; it'll probably be weeks at least before my current article at FAC is done, and I have others ready to go. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Ford Island ACR
- @TParis: I did. Sorry for not responding directly because I suspect that question was one of the reasons you had to hit the library. :) I think that supports the claim in the text (I'm always a bit worried with cultural anthro statements). Two thing I'd suggest thinking about are (because Kane is not explicitly invoking other literature) attribute it to Kane in text and call it a "courtship game" rather than just a game (I realize the previous sentence indicates it is about courtship, but that's a clearer compound noun. However that's at your discretion. Thanks for following up! Protonk (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Helping Hand Barnstar|
|Thank you for helping a group of students in my Crowds, Communities and Technologies class! By monitoring and guiding their contributions, patiently answering their questions, and accepting their newbie mistakes, you made a difference in their first experience as Wikipedia editors. Here is an excerpt from one student report who worked on the Cheshire Cat article: