User talk:Xtzou/Archive 1
 | This page 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. |
Altered speedy deletion rationale: Macaulay feltham
Hello Xtzou, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I deleted Macaulay feltham, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow and specific, and the process is more effective if the correct criterion is used. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. NW (Talk) 20:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Your maintenance tag for {primarysource} is inappropiate for the stub article and its content. The subject is a designer of typeface. Third party articles and cites are in trade journals and books which are cited.
In addition, "blitzing" a page under construction less than 1 minute after posting is considered inpolite. If you would have waited another minute or two you would have seen more cites. FYI, the primary focus of a stub article, which really doesn't need all the cites, is to introduce the subject. This is important on those people who are living since wikipedia is very careful on what can and can not be written for those who are alive and not concidered a "public person."
I understand your desire to participate in Wikipedia. However, please do not follow poor examples like "blitzing" new articles. Please review your maintenance tag for {primarysource} for the stub article Ron Carpenter (designer) and remove it.
Thank you, Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Michael Taylor (Ossett)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I have read your comment at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, in which you wrote I'm new. What about this article, created today: Michael Taylor (Ossett)? Seems dubious and badly sourced to me. Actually, that was not the right place for your comment, as Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion is for discussing possible changes to the page Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, not for raising queries about individual articles. However, don't worry about that: we all have to learn, and I remember making similar mistakes when I was new to editing Wikipedia - it gets easier after a little experience. However, I am inclined to agree with you that the article is not very good, and the sourcing is doubtful. My inclination is to leave it for a day or so to see whether it is improved (it cliams to be "in the middle of an expansion or major revamping"). If it is no better then it will be worth considering whether the article can be justified. However, I don't think it qualifies for immediate speedy deletion, as it does make some claims of notability. Please feel welcome to contact me on my talk page if you have any more questions about this. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. I have been confused and I appreciate your answer to my problem. My concern was that the articles is alleging rather serious things on the bases of Google book snippets. Just doesn't seem right if that person is a real, living person. Your suggestion is a good one. I was not sure how strict the blp guidelines were. Xtzou (Talk) 20:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Yakexi/亚克西
Um, look on the Chinese Wikipedia. I'm going to begin translating from there and using some of their sources. It is a relatively notable term, but mostly within PRC and Chinese netizens. If it doesn't have a notability tag there, then it should really not have one here. 华钢琴49 (TALK) 22:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I have no way of knowing. Looking at the Chinese Wikipedia isn't going to help me. As long as you support your statements with references, there is no problem. Xtzou (Talk) 22:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Mamouna (album)
About [1] Hey, I have placed 2 references for Mamouna. Allmusic and Rolling Stones
Do you want me to put more references. I can easily provide that if you like. Let me know. Abdowiki (talk) Thanks
I placed more references. Let me know if all good. Best regards. Abdowiki (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- That's great, except that Answers.com [3] is a Wikipedia mirror site, so it's not a good reference. (If you look at the site you'll see it includes articles from Wikipedia.) Xtzou (Talk) 10:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy tagging
Hi. Thanks for tagging Jack Saunders I just now, but after you tag a page for speedy deletion you should copy to the author's talk page the warning which is generated for you on the speedy template, towards the bottom. Otherwise the newbie author doesn't know what's happened, thinks he pressed the wrong button, and often just puts the article in again. Also, if it's a new contributor who has never had a Welcome message, it's useful to give one before the speedy warning - it makes it less BITEy, and gives useful links that may help him do better next time. {{subst:firstarticle|<article name>}} is a good one. Keep up the good work - New Page Patrol needs all the eyes it can get! Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, you don't have to type it all out - you were using a template, though you didn't know it. When you type {{db-person}} at the top of the article, that's a template; when you then press "Save page", it is expanded into the large pink warning box at the top of the article. Towards the bottom of that box are three lines like:
Please consider placing the template:- {{subst:nn-warn|Jack Saunders I|header=1}} ~~~~
on the talk page of the author.
- The middle line of that is another template (generally, anything inside double braces {{ }} is a template) and if you copy it to the article author's talk page it will expand into an appropriate warning.
- {{subst:welcome}} gives a general welcome message with some useful links, and {{subst:firstarticle|pagename}} is a more specific one for somebody whose first attempt is getting speedied. "subst:" at the front of some of those is explained at WP:Substitution, but you don't need to worry about it - just use it where it's supplied in the template you're using.
- Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
PRODs
I draw your attention to the wording of the PROD notice: You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason and If this template is removed, it should not be replaced.
If you continue to breach Wikipedia rules, you may be blocked from editing. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'll add to that in case it is unclear, that anyone, including the article creator, is allowed to remove a prod for any reason. Once it has been removed, the article can never be prodded again. LadyofShalott 00:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- To make matters worse, not only were you replacing a removed prod tag, you actually violated WP:3RR to do so repeatedly. I'm not going to block you now as it seems the warring has stopped, but know that was enough to earn you a block for 24 hours or so. LadyofShalott 01:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 15:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
OlYellerTalktome 15:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Jon Nelson
An article that you have been involved in editing, Jon Nelson, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Nelson. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion contested: Two Seasons (retailer)
Hello Xtzou, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Two Seasons (retailer), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Theleftorium 20:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Asking questions on talk pages
In regard to your edit summary in this reversion. I'm sorry, but that doesn't matter. The talk page of an article is not a place to discuss the article's topic, it is a place to discuss improvements to the article itself. That's the reason the box at the top of the page include the text "this is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject". I've added the standard {{notaforum}} template to the top of the talk page to make it even clearer.—Kww(talk) 05:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently you did not understand my comment. I have tried to explain more.[4] Good song articles that I have seen cover the song's lyrics. This one does not even mention them. I think they are a major topic that should be covered. Xtzou (Talk) 12:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Michelle Rafferty
Hello Xtzou. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Michelle Rafferty, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It's not a BLP, it's a fictional character. Thank you. GedUK 16:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
This article is GAN. Thank you very much for the editing. It will help greatly in the review. I have rectified the dead link with a new url (now ref 5). Just before that I have added another reference (ref 4), which is from the Ramsar Convention website (The Ramsar Library) from where the dead link document can be retrieved as it is marked for downlaod as pdf at the bottom of the page. I have made the needed changes. I hope you are able to access the two files now. Please let me know if there is still a problem. Even some of the internaional files go dead, probably due to shifitng the document to the library section. Thanks--Nvvchar (talk) 07:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- It is a very interesting article. I didn't know about Phumdis at all. Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 13:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the careful review of Edmund Evans and the useful feedback. I enjoyed writing the article, and will tweak the prose some, based on your comments. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Cloud Backup
Hi There, thanks for your input. The backup and recovery industry is huge and cloud backup is currently reaching an inflection point. We therefore believe that Cloud Backup should be an article in itself. DIsaster recovery is too important a domain to be merged into Cloud Computing. Yes, it needs to be a part of it, but ideally must exist by itself. Just my #.02
Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asigra (talk • contribs) 19:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Being Tom Cruise
Hi Xtzou, I hope you are doing well. Thanks very much for doing the GA Review for the article Being Tom Cruise. Per your GA Review suggestions, I have made modifications to the article. Thanks a lot, you brought up a lot of good points for improvement. I responded, at Talk:Being Tom Cruise/GA1. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the additional suggestions. I responded to them, and addressed changes to the article, at the GA Review subpage. Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Dignity
I'm sorry, I was busy last night and therefore unable to stop the addition of original research and such. I have since reverted it and thanks for passing the article! :) –Chase (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for proceeding to review the above article, which is much appreciated. However, just wondering, any reason why you de-capped "EARACHE RECORDS"? Reason I placed it in caps is since the source's title is in caps, something I also did with four FAs I wrote. If the source de-capped the label's name, then I'd use it de-capped. Just wondering mate, and thanks again. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, I decapped it because somewhere in the MoS it says that names should not be all capped unless they are initials or the source uses all caps for it's name. And titles should never be all caps, unless they are composed only of a name that is formatted always in all caps. I have seen this mentioned. However, I would have to search for the exact reference. Where your four FAs recent, as the standards may have changed? I am (almost) positive I am right. Xtzou (Talk) 19:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- I found a reference: MoS - All caps
- Avoid writing with all capitals. Reduce them to one of the other title cases.
Thanks for the reference. I'm asssuming this is enforced at FAC nowadays too then? Seems like I have some work on my hands to do... LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Most likely it is. Xtzou (Talk) 19:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- I actually took a look at one of my old FAs, and it seems one of my Wiki-friends took care of the capping issue before the FAC process, hence why I never picked up on it. Thanks for the heads up on that. I'd like it to FAC soon - are there any article issues you feel will be a stumbling block in that? LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert on FAC. I can give the article another once over for small, overlooked errors. Xtzou (Talk) 20:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- That'd be much appreciated. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert on FAC. I can give the article another once over for small, overlooked errors. Xtzou (Talk) 20:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- I actually took a look at one of my old FAs, and it seems one of my Wiki-friends took care of the capping issue before the FAC process, hence why I never picked up on it. Thanks for the heads up on that. I'd like it to FAC soon - are there any article issues you feel will be a stumbling block in that? LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
|
On 11 April 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Upper Big Branch Mine disaster, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page. |
--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for passing this article! but can you update everything now? (The WP:GA, the talk page itslef ect...)--White Shadows you're breaking up 22:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think I did. Wikipedia is very slow today. Xtzou (Talk) 22:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks man!--White Shadows you're breaking up 22:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the review! — Hunter Kahn 01:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Bobby Deol
No, I am the article writer. That was another account I used for sometime. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about creating an edit conflict. I was working in a sandbox and saw the edits and wasn't aware you weren't finished.Your suggestions are welcome: this has been a very difficult article to write because of the complicated publication history; and quite honestly nothing with Hemingway is ever as it seems, hence the title of the work. I'll see what I can do to improve it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
GAN
I've responded to your GAN reviews for Sexual Healing (South Park) and Hunting Trip. I appreciate the reviews, especially for the Parks and Recreation reviews, which sometimes take longer to get a reviewer than South Park and other shows I work on. Thanks again! — Hunter Kahn 21:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate that you can write engaging plots that I can understand! Xtzou (Talk) 22:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! And I've responded to your Ron and Tammy comments. — Hunter Kahn 18:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Labinsky
Thanks--Olab2000 (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Now. Labinsky Oleksandr - CEO List
Re: Larry King
I am if you are. :) You're the one that makes the decision. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Appreciation
|
The Good Article Reviewer's Medal of Merit | |
| This is for your reviews of Edmund Evans and True at First Light; and more importantly for the necessary help to get an article about an Ernest Hemingway work to GA status. Thanks for the effort, and for all the good advice. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC) |
Thank you so much! Xtzou (Talk) 22:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy tagging
Hi there, I just wanted to let you know that I changed the CSD criteria of Donkey punch donna to that of an attack page, as the page only serves to attack another person or entity, and is not just simple vandalism. Please keep in mind that if you see a page who's primary purpose is to attack someone or something, such as an organization or group, it should be tagged as an attack page, the CSD-G10 criteria. Thanks. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 14:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I thought about attack, but who is it attacking? Can attacks just be general with no target? Xtzou (Talk) 14:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Flying Pig Productions
Hi there I'm wondering why you deleted this page with the particular reasons that you did? I would like to know what the crtiteria for you saying that Flying Pig Productions is not relevent since we have recorded three nationally broadcast radio shows, regularly play to audiences in HMT theatre of over 10,000 people and have considerable coverage in the local and national press about our upcoming TV pilot? Thanks Steverance (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, I didn't delete it as I am not an admin. User:Tnxman307 did. The reasons, I believe, are that the company is not notable and the article did not have reliable sources, according to wikipedia policies. Xtzou (Talk) 15:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
QUite clearly our ideas are different about what is notable and what is not. Thanks for your assistance I shall contact Tnxman307 about it. Nationally broadcast programmes in Scotalnd clearly don't merit being notable then? Steverance (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
(Unsigned comment added by Steverance (talk • contribs) 15:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC))
Tenaille
In stead of making edits such as this to a very small stub, how about looking for a source instead? See WP:PROVEIT, as none of it is a quote and a Google search returns "About 273,000" pages, there is no reason to place such a template at the top of a stub. -- PBS (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Those are either dictionary definitions, references to Wikipedia or refer to people with the last name of Tenaille. Any other ideas? Cheers, Xtzou (Talk) 12:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have the background to assess. I went to that article to find out. Blows my mind that people put information into the encyclopedia with no references at all. Why don't they at least say where they got it! Why don't you add the references you found that pertained? Xtzou (Talk) 12:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Bison Strength Equipment, LLC
Hello, I have added a 'hangon' tag with explanation on the article's talk page. Please advise of the outcome for the dispute.
Thanks,
--Jason J Holmes (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
GA for Punakha Dzong
Thank you very much for the thorough review and then upgrading it to GA. Nice feeling, since I have lived in that country and seen these Dzongs for 8 years in 60s and early 70s.--Nvvchar (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello there, Xtzou! I realize you will be reviewing E. gigas article in the near future. I'm looking forward to working with you. My sincere greetings, and best wishes!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hi! Yes, I will be reviewing it tomorrow. It looks like an interesting article and I am looking forward to reading it. Xtzou (Talk) 23:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the revision, Xtzou. That was one of the most pleasant GA reviews I have participated! I'm really happy about what the article turned out to be in the end. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I responded to your GAN comments. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 19:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- This site sort of explains it. It's just a bit cleaner than the standard GA template, that's why I usually swap it out. Also, don't forget when you pass something as GA, you need to change the B or C grades in the WikiProjects to "GA". It's not really too big a deal, but it does affect how the articles within those wikiprojects are organized... — Hunter Kahn 20:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Great! Thanks, that is very helpful. You just substitute that for the regular GA wording, you're saying? Seems like I could get the hang of it. Xtzou (Talk) 20:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, pretty much. Just check out how I did it and follow that same kind of format. The trickiest part is finding the "action#oldid" number, but all you have to do for that is go into the article's history, click on the date and time of the most recent link, and copy the number that's at the end of that url. If you don't want to do the article history though, you certainly don't have to, it's not the end of the world. :D — Hunter Kahn 14:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I can't believe I forgot to put the ratings info in the lead! lol. Thanks for catching this. I tried beefing up the lead a bit, let me know if it needs further tweaking. — Hunter Kahn 14:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Brian Griffin's House of Payne
I've responded to your two concerns about the article. Gage (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
SMS Zrinyi
Sorry for the big orange line at the top of your screen, but are you reviewing this? It's a GA nominee, and it's the last one before a GTC. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Pells Manny is copied from History of Stephenson County, Illinois by Addison L. Fulwider. Since the book is copyrighted 1910, that seems to be okay, but there should be some sort of notice of where the material came from, correct? Woogee (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, theoretically nothing should be copied from anything, as the encyclopedia is supposed to be our own work. There are those who say even PD work should not be copied word for word. And yes, you should give credit where credit is due. The article needs to reference reliable sources, as does any article. Xtzou (Talk) 20:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
BLP prod
Suggest,: most of tyour BLP prods and other prods are very good, but I do havea suggestion: when the notability for someone is very questionable based on what is claimed, even if the article is unreferenced, it is often much simpler & less disputable to remove the article under an ordinary prod--because finding a single actual reference to the person providing WP:V is enough to defeat BLP prod. We don;t really have any good way or coordinating this yet. DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! Good suggestion. A regular prod is more flexible allowing more to be pointed out. Will do. Xtzou (Talk) 12:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
GA for Alchi Monastery
Thank you very much for the fast review and aproving GA status to the Article. --Nvvchar (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
LiMo Developer Connection
Hey, just a note about the LiMo Developer Connection article which you tagged for speedy deletion under G7 (non-notable website). I've redirected it to the LiMo Platform article and merged the content into there. I had previously done this but somebody came along and re-populated the article after me. While the LiMo project itself is certainly notable, I agree with you that there is no need for a separate article on the Developer Connection website. BlairSpeak to Me/Breathe 22:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Pure+simpleBeautyInc
How can I delete the Pure+simpleBeautyInc article it was saved by accident. I have reformatted it and re-edited it to the Pure + simple article and am working on making that one ok for Wikipedia. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pure+simpleBeautyInc (talk • contribs) 20:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- You can put {{db-author}} on it. If you are the author, you can get deleted anything that way. Xtzou (Talk) 20:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much Xtzou! Have a great weekend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pure+simpleBeautyInc (talk • contribs) 20:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for making Dubai a GA.
Is there anything to improve before I nominate it for a featured article? I believe if Bangalore can be a featured article, so can Dubai.
Winjay (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am not an expert on what it takes to be a featured article. The criteria are different than for a GA. (See Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. You might take it to WP:Peer review and get some more eyes on the article first. Xtzou (Talk) 13:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As a Knight Bachelor, Sir Donald Cruickshank is inherently notable. His original page was far more detailed but was deleted due to unintentional copyright compliance vios. Thus the rewritten version is somewhat truncated. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, you need to make sure that the page shows that he is notable on its own by providing proper references. Thanks, Xtzou (Talk) 13:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think these refs should be satisfactory: [5], [6], [7], although I still hold that being knighted is notable in and of itself just like high schools, colleges and universities are, not to mention elected politicians, war medal recipients, et al. Anyway, thanks for your advice. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Notability (people). Very few, if any, people who have not been significantly covered by reliable sources are inherently notable by Wikipedia standards, Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 14:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion contested: Shilav Group
Hello Xtzou. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Shilav Group, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Okay. The article looks much better now and so I am glad you contested it. Best wishes, Xtzou (Talk) 12:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
A pass was made to clarify wording within the article and use wikilinks to explain jargon. If this isn't enough, point out what terms you believe are jargon, and I'll clarify the situation. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- The recent review by Atmoz shows there is a lot to be done with this article. It is nice when someone with a physics/meteorology background pops out of the woodwork and supports the GAN/FAC process. If you want to fail it, go ahead. I doubt I'm going to be able to fix all those problems in the next six days. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Emma Marrone
Hi! I fixed the sources in Emma Marrone voice; before there was a problem in the link cause in the addres is present a "[ ]" simble. About the biography's notability, i read the guideline and i think that the singer can be considerated notable. Excuse me for my english, i'm from Italy ;) --Mats1990ca (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Post a article
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — e. ripley\talk 19:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I did not write that article. I am not sure why you think I did. I have never created an article. Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 19:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion
Thanks for the message -- although you did indeed create the article; see [8]. Perhaps it was in error and you didn't realize it had created an article with that title, it looks like through some kind of page move? :) Best — e. ripley\talk 19:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I moved the article to Aripra where, indeed, it resides today. Please be more careful in the future. Xtzou (Talk) 19:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I don't really see what there is to be careful about. Maybe I'm missing something, but why is it important to have the article Post a article redirect to Aripra, which is apparently about some sort of place in India? — e. ripley\talk 21:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Because the article creator should have titled it for the place. He made a mistake. I should not be blamed for an error when all I did was move the article to where the article creator meant. Xtzou (Talk) 21:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm. Okay. Well, in any case, the notice left here wasn't meant to assign any blame or judgment per se, only to let you know that it was a candidate for speedy deletion. Since you did the page move, it erased the old page's history, which means you're now listed as the "creator" of the page. So my script sent the message to you. No harm done though, and I didn't mean to alarm you. Best — e. ripley\talk 21:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Because the article creator should have titled it for the place. He made a mistake. I should not be blamed for an error when all I did was move the article to where the article creator meant. Xtzou (Talk) 21:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I don't really see what there is to be careful about. Maybe I'm missing something, but why is it important to have the article Post a article redirect to Aripra, which is apparently about some sort of place in India? — e. ripley\talk 21:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Ruth Cohen (economist) and inappropriate use of templates
You have tagged this article as having multiple issues.
- This biography of a living person needs additional references or sources for verification.
She is dead
- It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications.
It has references
- The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed.
I think the notability is clearly established
I think this is not helpful tagging! (Msrasnw (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC))
- Sorry about that. The point is that you are using primary sources, e.g. her books etc. and are not using sufficient reliable sources. Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 17:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
There are four refs!
- Harcourt, G (1972) Some Cambridge Controveries in the Theory of Capital
- ^ a b c d Johnson, H (1978) Ruth Cohen: a neglected contributor to contemporary capital theory . In E.S Johnson (1978) The Shadow of Keynes
- ^ a b c d http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/cohen-ruth-louisa#bibliography Natasha Lehrer, Natasha Obiturary Ruth Louisa Cohen Jewish Womens' Arhive
- ^ Deane, Phyllis - Cohen, Ruth Louisa: In The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics.
(Msrasnw (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC))
Speedy deletion of Carly Beaker
Hi. You placed a speedy deletion tag on Carly Beaker. I'm just notifying you that I removed the tag and replaced it with a redirect, as the inappropriate tag was placed (Carly Beaker is a fictional person) and because the redirect was appropriate. db-person should only be used for real people. Thanks Claritas (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I never would have known that! Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 17:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Phyllis Deane and, in my view, an inappropriate use of templates
Dear Xtzou, hi. I have removed your templates from Phyliss Deane on the grounds that she seems to me to be a clear pass of WP:prof via Highest-level elected and appointed academic posts: She was president of the Royal Economic Society from 1980–82 and is a fellow of the British Academy. And two refences one to a peer reviewed acadmic journal and one to NIESR. Best wishes,(Msrasnw (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC))
- That's fine. We can vary in opinion. I figure that a template never harms if the goods are there, as templates are easily removed. Those references were added after I placed the template there. Originally there was only a reference to her self published work. However, if you think my placing a template to remind the author that more is needed is awful, then you are free to do so. Cheers, Xtzou (Talk) 00:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- I do not find your approach to templating constructive. Notability was clear via the NIESR source which was there when you tagged and I think that is a valid ref - a small biography in an annual report from a reliable source (a third-party publication). Asking for further references is fine but did you really doubt notability or are just tagging for fun? Your earlier attack on Ruth Cohen was similar in nature (but worse - ignoring her death and all the references). This article may be of interest to you Wikipedia:Tag bombing. I particularly think
- Tag bombing has been thought of as a form of disruptive editing.
- If you can tag an article, that means you can also edit it in other ways, other more potentially helpful ways.
- Does it help Wikipedia's credibility to have an article's top screenful taken up by tags proclaiming the article to be practically useless?
- might be relevant.
More constructively these also may help: Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems and particularly Template:One_source may be what you want.
Best wishes(Msrasnw (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC))
- Thanks for cleaning up your original message and assuming good faith a little more and adding constructive rather than blaming so heavily which is not good on a volunteer project. One template mistake does not justify 13 posts on my page. That is 13 orange banners! I appreciate that you got a grip on yourself. Yours is the first complaint I have received regarding this issue. I will take into consideration what you say, especially if I receive another complaint from someone else on the subject. Unwarranted templates are very easy to remove, as you as an experienced editor must know. Please do not become unduly upset. I apologize for causing you to become discombobulated. Cheers, Xtzou (Talk) 11:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Mefistofele
Hi.. Why did you nominate my user page for speedy deletion? Am I doing something wrong? Any pointers would be appreciated. Thanks! --Mefistofele (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, I didn't intentionally nominate your user page for speedy deletion. It somehow ended up in the main space and appeared in "New pages" which does not include user pages. Do you think you accidently placed your page in the main space? In any event, if you want the page back, you can ask the admin who deleted it to "userfy" your page. Or just recreate it, but make sure it is a user space page and not in the article space. Best wishes, Xtzou (Talk) 15:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmm.. very odd. I didn't modify my user page at all, to the best of my knowledge. Instead, I recently created a page for Interpals, but that was deleted (as far as I can tell, without warning or explanation). So maybe this is somehow related? I'd like to get the text of that page back so that I can try to create a page that has a shot at not being deleted (I didn't use references, so I think that was a problem). How can I see which admin deleted that page? Thanks! --Mefistofele (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- The admin who deleted it can email it to you. User:Decltype deleted the Interpals this last time. It had already been deleted twice before. As far as the User:Mefistofele page, I see in my contributions that I did request its deletion and you have contested it. I'm not sure how it ended up in the "New pages" patrol. Ask that the page be "userfied". Or easier, copy its contents and put the contents on your user pages in your user space. Don't put it into any article categories. It sounds like this was all a huge mistake. Best wishes, Xtzou (Talk) 15:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
G.D.N. Worswick and, in my view, an inappropriate (but better!) use of templates
Dear Xtzou,
I guess you are just having some kind of fun - I think I narrowly beat you with the second ref though - even if only in one place. Is this something you might like from the top of new page patrol?
"cleanup tagging within minutes of creation can put new users off" - consider instead the template: {{new unreviewed article}}
Best wishes, :) (Msrasnw (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC))
The person complaining above, has written also: "cleanup tagging within minutes of creation can put new users off - consider instead" :
In the British Islands, when someone in the family wants something quickly, mother usually say: "Good Heavens, boy, will you be as quick when I am ready for my grave?". Calm yourself, if you can. Only 12 minutes after my first trial and while working on a Friday, when Internet hangs can occur and are to be expected, and while trying to save my just started work on someone who died, some 439 years ago and on who, not too much is to be found anywhere till now!!!.
By the way, things are never quite finished on Wikipedia, thank goodness, for generous, no-fees required people ranting for some creativity, not as those working for printed Encyclopediae, having to be ready to be sold on scheduled times and with the so called copyrights. I found, basically, many of those books, repeating word by word, what other copyrighted Encyclopediae used to say some 100 years ago if no more.
Have a good time, and relax also.--Aecharri (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
A new article awaiting inspection! Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC))
- No thanks! You have made it unpleasant enough. I will stick to the speedy deletions but leave article clearance and betterment suggestions to others. Cheers, Xtzou (Talk) 20:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Why did you delete Chris Millson?
Type in Chris Millson to Youtube and you will get an online song that he did, which makes him a singer.
- I didn't. I am not able to delete articles. I am not an admin. In fact, it has been deleted twice, once by User:Rd232 and most resently by User:Malcolmxl5. Go heckle them about it. Cheers, Xtzou (Talk) 20:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Love on Ice
Hello Xtzou. Just to let you know, I declined the speedy deletion you suggested for this article. Regards, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Sarai Alamgir (gUJRAT)
Hi - besides the typo, we already have Sarai Alamgir - I've turned this into a redirect. Dougweller (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- The two articles refer to different things. Sarai Alamgir refers to the town, and Sarai Alamgir (gUJRAT) (despite the problems in capitalisation) refers to the tehnsil. Please do your homework. I thought I explained this in my edit summaries. Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 14:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- I've replied on my talk page. I missed that, but my homework has involved adding the correct category and suggesting that we rename it so the name falls in line with other tehsils. I don't understand why, since you clearly know so much more about this than I do, you didn't add the category and fix the name. Do you object to it being moved to Sarai Alamgir Tehsil and if so on what grounds? Dougweller (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- I did add a category. Further I added the project name on the talk page. Thank you for restoring the name. I really feel that we fortunate editor should go the extra mile for editors from disadvantaged places who try to write articles, like Pakistan. I thought of moving it to the correct spelling, but the last time I did that while a page was on "New pages" I got blamed for the articles sins by a bot and called the article creator. I take enough grief as it is, so I didn't want to chance it. I agree that the article should be properly names. I'm not sure what the proper name is e.g. Sarai Alamgir (tehsil), although I have never seen an article named that way. Gujrat is the name of a city and a district. So maybe Sarai Alamgir (Gujrat District), or Sarai Alamgir (Gujrat district)? Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 14:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Deletion nomination of Talk:Arzignano Grifo
Hi Xtzou, this is a message from an automated bot, regarding Talk:Arzignano Grifo. You blanked the page and, since you are its sole author, FrescoBot has interpreted it as a request for deletion of the page and asked administrators to satisfy the requests per speedy deletion criterion G7. Next time you want a page that you've created deleted, you can explicitly request the deletion by inserting the text {{db-author}}. If you didn't want the page deleted, please remove the {{db-author}} tag from the page and undo your blanking or put some content in the page. Admins are able to recover deleted pages. Please do not contact the bot operator for issues not related with bot's behaviour. To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=FrescoBot}} somewhere on your talk page. -- FrescoBot (msg) 09:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- The automated bot is incorrect. Xtzou (Talk) 12:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hi! It was not incorrect, here is the recovered history:
09:00, 1 May 2010 . . FrescoBot (80 bytes) (Bot: blank page meeting G7 criteria for speedy deletion)
16:27, 25 April 2010 . . Xtzou (empty) (remove mistake)
16:26, 25 April 2010 . . Xtzou (14 bytes) (project) [ {{blp}}{{bio}} ]
- As you can see here, when a page is deleted, all edits disappear also from user contributions page. Please note, the bot was not blaming you for anything: there is nothing wrong in what you do. Don't worry. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 06:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Ga reviews
Hi, can you, after passing an article as GA, add the GA rating to the banners? Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Message
thank you for your message, I am still getting use to wiki, have got around to uploading pics etc,
regards,
(moved here by Xtzou (Talk) 20:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC))
Great Auk
Thank you for reviewing Great Auk. I think I've answered your remaining qualms. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Removal of PROD from Anne H. Charity Hudley
Hello Xtzou, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Anne H. Charity Hudley has been removed. It was removed by Profch with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Profch before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 09:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The one I encouraged him to nominate was history of malaria, which did pass GAR. I'll take a look at this new one, but I can't really provide an independent review since I've worked very closely with Ernst over the last few years. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Platine War
Xtzou, I would like to thank you for taking your time to review the article. It is very kind of you. Don't worry about the present discussion on the talk page. It is harmless. But I can make a simple summary of the matter.
There is an editor called Belgrano who insists that it is necessary to add more and more information on the Argentine civil wars. The other editors, such as I, do not agree because there is already an article about that: Argentine Civil War. The focus of the present article, as you may have noticed, is about an international war. If we follow Belgrano's wishes, it will take away the focus of the article. That's it.
Anyway, thank you once more. If you need any help, just tell me. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- As you can see on the history log, there is no edit war. There is, indeed, as I explained to you, one editor who insists at all cost to turn the Platine War article into an article about the Argentine Civil War and also wants to use sources that sponsor minority view in Argentine historiography and that is ignored by Brazilian and any English-speaking country, such as U.S. and Britain. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, my friend, for taking your time to review the article. You made an excelent work there! Best wishes, --Lecen (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I thank you also. You may have noticed that the person who had previously quick-failed the article has now removed the GA for one of the categories. Though even Lecen (however grudgingly) had tried to work with concerns raised by this editor, it seems s/he "owns" anything to do with Argentina. I've never seen this type of blanking occur, and though it seems disruptive to me, I don't know if this is just to be expected or how it is handled if not. • Astynax talk 17:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that is considered vandalism and is not usually tolerated. You can revert him, once or twice. However, since he only removed it from Brazil, if I were you I would ignore it for now. You would need a sympathetic admin who would be willing to look at the evidence and warn that user. At least he is not taking his warring to the article content. Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 18:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The edit I performed only seems to be what you had said, because of technical issues. Check the page in the history: what I had actually done was simply to remove the Wikiproject Argentina banner from there. I did not touch the others, nor edited the class field. The diff makes it seem that way because all banners have similar lines.
In all this process, I always did what I considered to be correct and within the rules. When I pointed mistakes or things to fix, I noticed the bibliography I used to state so. When reliability of sources was questioned, I provided all the needed information that justifies the academic prestige of said authors. When disputes were rejected as "minority viewpoints", I pointed the academic disputes present at non-involved sources. When I was accused of bias towards Rosas, I pointed that I was requesting a balance between both rosist and anti-rosist authors, as requested by policies, and I didn't remark very much that he, on the other hand, made it explicit his anti-Rosas bias. When Lecen insulted me, I kindly requested him to stop. When he doubled the insults, I ignored him. When IANVS claimed that he wanted to report Lecen's attitude, I suggested to avoid such steps while possible. When Lecen started to give speeches to the other users to tell them how "evil" I was, I did not do the same. When he reverted all my edits back to his favourite version, even with no one supporting him, I avoided reverting back to prevent making things get worse. When Lecen started to try to mislead newcomers to the discussion by comparing Rosas to Hitler, I merely stated the obvious: that Rosas is not Hitler, Rosas is Rosas and Hitler is Hitler.
I accept the critics. Next time I see someone writing things that are in open contradiction with what other books from reliable authors state, I will do nothing. However, I will take into notice that, if I'm wrong here, then the logical outcome is that Lecen is right, so I will consider learning to use myself the procedures he employed to face this discussion and achieve GA status for an article he worked at.
By the way, removing the wikiproject banner of the wikiproject I work at (and where there are 3 or 4 active users to say much) is much more discrete, undisturbing and unprovocative than making a big scene about removing the article from the watchlist and never working at it again, like someone did a pair of times somewhere. MBelgrano (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- I am sorry and apologize. I have noted that you never edited the article disruptively. Meanwhile, someone else has changed the articlehistory. I am fine with your removing a wikiproject banner. Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 19:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I responded. Thanks very much! — Hunter Kahn 20:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for the review. By the way, in case you were interested in doing more South Park reviews, I will be nominating 200 (South Park) and 201 (South Park) very soon, probably in the next day or two. They are longer, but comprehensive and I think in pretty good shape... — Hunter Kahn 00:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Malaria
Yes it is the late comers ( independent researchers ) who write reviews of the topic that we should be using per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
No problem, glad you liked it! :) I just nominated 200 (South Park) and 201 (South Park) if you're interested in checking those out. They are quite a bit more controversial than "Sexual Healing" turned out to be, so much so that "201" isn't even available to view at the moment! — Hunter Kahn 12:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- "201" was shown once (heavily censored) then cut from repeats and removed from the South Park Studios website. I haven't even seen it myself! lol — Hunter Kahn 13:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Re:Edward Elric
Thanks. Responded to the comments.Tintor2 (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I responded to all your concerns at Talk:Hubert Humphrey 1968 presidential campaign/GA1. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I responded. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I added a fair use rationale. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Logos. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- All the necessary information is found in the box. The difference between the logo and the image you provided is that all the necessary information is written in prose. See File:Dr Pepper modern.svg. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Logos. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I added a fair use rationale. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi thanks for the review. I made some changes and then significantly expanded the central parts of the article when i got some books i hadn't been aware of. See what you think. Ta, hamiltonstone (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, thank you very much for the second glance - see what you think. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)- Wow that's fast. Thank you! hamiltonstone (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Brian & Stewie GAN
Your concern has been addressed. Gage (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Nature fakers controversy at FAC
Hello, Xtzou, thank you again for taking the time to review nature fakers controversy for GAC several weeks ago. Because of your interest in the subject matter, I thought you may wish to know that not only has the article grown somewhat sense you last saw it, but it's now listed at FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nature fakers controversy/archive1. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 16:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
My favorite picture! Xtzou (Talk) 16:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't that great? The book is a hoot; it's available from Gutenberg if you're interested. :) María (habla conmigo) 17:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. All comments have been addressed. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- I removed the cquote from the article. Do you have any other concerns? --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
World Open Snooker
Get a life and don;t suggest deleating something that will hapen later this season, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westhouses18b (talk • contribs) 16:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westhouses18b (talk • contribs) 17:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
April in Quahog GAN
Your concerns have been addressed. Gage (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your improvements to the above article. I have just nominated it for GA status so they couldn't have come at a better time. Best wishes, Jprw (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:Kia ray phevconcept2010 01.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Kia ray phevconcept2010 01.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the media description page and edit it to add
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 21:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I think responded to all your concerns. I really appreciate your work on all these reviews. Thanks big time. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You placed a BLP prod. I found multiple good news sources for his college career, which had not been actually described in the article), but could not document the remainder except by extremely weak web sources. I accordingly took it to AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Reece, for in context this seems rather odd. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, that is exactly what I was trying to encourage by placing the prod on the article. Good job. (I have found a prod tage is an excellent way of encouraging this work.) Best wishes, Xtzou (Talk) 12:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
U-40 GAN
I've fixed all of the problems, as I am a dedicated talkpage stalker of WS. Please reasses. Buggie111 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, there is currently an error. I don't think it is in the article. Someone has changed a function used within the convert template. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- I recommend reverting to the version before AWB was used. That version seems ok. Xtzou (Talk) 00:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Your right...goes to investigate. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I don't understand AWB, so I can't explain anything! Xtzou (Talk) 00:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Looking at history pages now they all are correct without error, so was some temporary issue(in convert template) while something was being amended. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I don't understand AWB, so I can't explain anything! Xtzou (Talk) 00:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Your right...goes to investigate. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Replied over on my talk page. Thanks for the review! Pfly (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hello, thanks for the comments this morning. I agree with you on all points. It's been a week as of today I think, right? I probably won't be able to do much for a few hours, but will have a good bunch of free time later today. Is that alright? Pfly (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, thanks very much, for all the time, help, and for the encouragement. Perhaps I will try a peer review sometime. Still can't imagine trying to do an FA by myself, heh. Pfly (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome. FAC is probably not worth the heart ache and stress. I feel as if I should warn people, as many go from GA to FAC, thinking they are prepared. Best wishes, Xtzou (Talk) 22:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Wood turtle review
Hello Xtzou...are there more concerns with the article and do my explanations make sense?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, I was under the impression that you had not answered them all. Give me a little bit, and I will check again. (I can't remember what my hesitancy was!) In general, I think there should be no problem. Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 22:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for that. Thanks!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Re: South Park question
Hey, sorry it took me a while to respond. The episode you are talking about I believe is Crippled Summer. You can see it at the official South Park Studios website here, but I don't believe it's available for viewing yet. After it first airs it is available on the website for 7 days, then they take it off for 30 days, then they put it back on permanently. Hope this helps! — Hunter Kahn 00:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
GA
Thank you so much for your review and accepting my explinations. It was nice working with you, hope we meet again.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Replied. Xtzou (Talk) 18:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
XB-21
Thanks muchly! - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 19:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Battle of the Chongchon river GA
I just want to apologize that I sounded very rude on the GA. Everyone around me always commented that I am very blunt when raising objections and asking questions. I guess this is why I always rub people in the wrong way in life. I hope you can forgive my replies on the GA review. Jim101 (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Just few heads up. Since this review could be dragged on for several days, I just want to tell few things about myself so we won't have the same misunderstanding again. I don't mind people asking me hard questions, and I don't mind engaging in debates, because this is the only way I could learn stuff. So if I shoot a objection/question back, it by no means a sign disrespect, it is just the way I learn about how to better improve things. If you find my questions somewhat blunt/rude, just state your reasons and quote guidelines and I'll back off. Jim101 (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
And thank you for being such a patient reader that waded through one of the most important, confusing yet least documented episode of the Korean/Chinese/US history. I want thank you again for your patience with my less than polite first response. Jim101 (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
GAN
Hi Xtzou. I saw that you tagged SMS Posen for GA review, and I wanted to let you know that I'll be out of town starting tomorrow, through Monday night, and busy most of Tuesday. If you get to the article today, I should be able to address anything you find, but after that it'll have to wait until probably Wednesday. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
James Dudley GA review
Thanks for the review. I have expanded the article a bit, but I'm not sure if I included everything that you wanted. Please let me know if anything else needs to be done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have expanded the lead and added another source that I found. Please let me know if you have any more concerns. Thanks again. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- The quotation box is a great idea--I was having a hard time figuring out how to capture the message from the WWE site while maintaining neutrality, but that works really well. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
GAN
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 00:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Ernest Brooks
Thanks for the comments. I've left a reply and I've ordered some books from the library to chase up your outstanding point about sourcing commentary on the widespread use of his images. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to raise. Shimgray | talk | 22:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks muchly! The library books are still winding their way through the system, so I'll get them incorporated later as well. Shimgray | talk |
Hey Xtzou, I noticed you put that template in the wood turtle article that places the GA logo in the top right corner. I've never seen that before, is it common?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- It was recently decided by consensus that the GA symbol would be used for article that had passed GA. See part of the discussion at GAN - Good article template. Best wishes, Xtzou (Talk) 20:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, cool.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
GAN Question
Hello, I was wondering...do you know who normally does the Geography/Places reviews? I have seen several on there for a couple weeks (some almost a month) and it seems other sections are getting attention, but not Geography/Places. Are there some more editors that could be rounded up to clear up the backlog on GAN as well? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Anyone can review a GAN. There is no one person who is assigned to produce reviews for a particular section. Reviews are dependent solely on the willingness of individual editors to review specific articles. I know for me many factors go into selecting an article to review. Does that answer your question? Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 00:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yup :) I thought reviewers were assigned certain areas based on knowledge of the subject. Like people who knew mold, spors and fungi would review those, for example. That is how I thought it went. :) Learned something new today. Thanks! :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I know for me selection of an article to review is dependent on how well the article is written and my judgment of how willing the editor is to take advice. If an article is quite far from bening a GA, I will usually avoid it. Xtzou (Talk) 00:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I have had GAN on my watchlist long enough to see some of the people who aren't willing to take advice. I, on the other hand, worked with others on the advice my last reviewer gave (about a year and a half ago). So I take advice seriously (just so you know) :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I should add, familiarity with a certain category of articles also plays a role. The last time I reviewed an article from Geography/Places, I got grief as another editor challenged my passing of an article. So, I will be very carefull about selecting someting from that category in the future. Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 00:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, gotcha :) I will be honest, I haven't reviewed an article cause I don't know many subjects. They don't have articles to review about radio stations. :) That is my area of expertise. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I should add, familiarity with a certain category of articles also plays a role. The last time I reviewed an article from Geography/Places, I got grief as another editor challenged my passing of an article. So, I will be very carefull about selecting someting from that category in the future. Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 00:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I have had GAN on my watchlist long enough to see some of the people who aren't willing to take advice. I, on the other hand, worked with others on the advice my last reviewer gave (about a year and a half ago). So I take advice seriously (just so you know) :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I know for me selection of an article to review is dependent on how well the article is written and my judgment of how willing the editor is to take advice. If an article is quite far from bening a GA, I will usually avoid it. Xtzou (Talk) 00:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yup :) I thought reviewers were assigned certain areas based on knowledge of the subject. Like people who knew mold, spors and fungi would review those, for example. That is how I thought it went. :) Learned something new today. Thanks! :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)