User talk:Gary

Warren NY FTC

I wanted to get your attention since you struck out your support that after a bunch of work - all articles now meet the criteria for a FT. If you could take a look and leave your opinion - it would be good.Mitch32 14:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of acquisitions by Apple Inc.

Gary, I've replied to your response and added some links to reliable sources you can use to expand the article. Hope it helps. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll take a look at those. The list also had other companies before, but I removed them because I couldn't find them on the SEC. I still think that the companies you mention could be found in SEC filings if they were indeed acquired; the SEC filings also have the extra advantage of listing the date of acquisition and the value of it. As these types of lists are still pretty new and no real standard has been set, I think we should set some sort of precedence for future lists like this. The other ones I had used any reliable reference available, but some worded their news reports in such a way that you couldn't tell whether if it was 100% verified (such as, "Apple is thought to have acquired X company"). I would not include ones that don't seem completely sure, but many news reports, especially about Apple as you probably know, are usually more vague than others. Gary King (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've replied too. I think that if anything can be found in the SEC from this will be very good, but otherwise things should not be included. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 16:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied again. Are you saying Macworld is an unreliable source? As the largest Mac magazine, in publication since 1984, I would always trust the information they report. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No; I'm saying that all acquisition lists should ideally only use the SEC as a reference, so future debates similar to the one we're having don't spring up :) Do you mind if I move the discussion to the FLC's talk page (I'll add a link) and then we don't have to move between user talk pages and the nomination page? Gary King (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've also re-replied. I don't know much about MacWorld, but it seemed to be a fan website which is not as reliable (correct me if I'm wrong). However as you (Wackymacs) mentioned, company websites would be good. [Please move this.] - tholly ^--Turnip-- 16:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Noble gas

Well, I took Chemistry my Junior year in high school. But yeah, I'll be happy to give the article a review. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, then. ;) Do you think you have time to review an article? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you review Survivor Series (1994)? Since, its one of the un-reviewed articles in the backlog at GAN. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't like to be selfish and stuff, but if you are still interested, can you look at Ben Affleck's article? Um, I personally don't know about the holds being "on hold" for too long, but there was a discussion at WT:GAN, see here. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you want me to do the review, even though there's a peer review open? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, just wanted to know. I'll hit you when I'm done with the review. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Question: Have you been aware of this? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

After reading this, it seems the article has improved beyond it and I agree, the article should pass to GA. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You should be glad. ;) Oh, I forgot to ask, is 'History' a better header than 'Discovery', per here. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I just wanted to know. Do you want me to review Radon instead? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• It is called co-nomination :). Go ahead and type/fill in the nomination. Nergaal (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, with your writing, I think the article can be written as well as Noble gas. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. I'll give the article a review, once I'm done with your GA review of Ben Affleck. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'm done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead and add the template and review the article. I've had to do that with couple of articles that I was reviewing. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Question: For Liv Tyler's article, what exactly is wrong with the book ref.? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll review it. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

re:FLC

how is it now? Nergaal (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Noble gas

Hi Gary, I like the article v. much. It's on my watchlist—more suggestions to come and I foresee my support at its FAC. It's past my bedtime, but I look forward to reviewing Noble gas on Friday. Best wishes, Graham. GrahamColm^Talk 22:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a new siganture

I am trying on a new look for my signature. How's everybody like it? :) Gary King (talk) 05:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. giggy _(:O) 09:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You changed your sig ! I am so happy; better than chocolate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The slanted K was making me woozy, especially when I lacked sleep. Gary King (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess this is better than your last new signature, as the 'K' is the same size as the rest. The last effort had the 'K' still big, and that was too like your old one. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 18:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Halloween (franchise)

Hello Gary. I removed some contents in this article because of some issues regarding citations/sourcing. See here. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

GA passes

It seems you left several of the GA passes incomplete. I am a main editor of Cloud Gate, Wrigley Square, Harris Theater (Chicago), and Boeing Galleries. I noticed that you did not pay attention to the passing procedures at WP:GAN. In particular, step 3 was not followed correctly so the review date is wrong. Step 5 and 6 seem not to have been followed correctly. I am attempting to clean up the work, but I think you may have been involved in several other reviews that were not properly completed. You may want to pay closer attention to the procedures. I just modified them slightly to make the steps clearer.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I will ensure that when I pass or fail an article for a Good Article nomination in the future, I will update the timestamp to reflect the date of the review. Gary King (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

ICP FAC

Hi. I don't know if you've noticed or not, but I responded to your comment at the Insane Clown Posse FAC a couple of days ago. (Ibaranoff24 (talk))

Review of First-move advantage in chess

Many thanks for your constructive comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First-move advantage in chess, which helped to improve the article and reach the FA level! SyG (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Reviews

hi, yes, the new GA template should automatically transclude the review into a new section on the article talk page but there seem to be problems. i have had to manually transclude once, i'm guessing you mean cologne mosque project so will go and manually write again if necessary, thanks Tom (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

at the top of wp:GAN it has a note about the revised GAN template but then on the fail instructions a little way down state: 'state which criteria were not met on the article's talk page' which seem inconsistent with the notice. i've just seen that the notice is wrong: 'using the new this discussion for more information'Tom (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

i've just corrected it which is why it will look better now. were there any particular articles you think the explanation had been missed on? i quick-failed a couple. was going to quick fail Michaelangelo but saw you'd covered that.Tom (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

yes i know and have been attempting this. were there any where you think it has not been transcluded? there must have been at least one which prompted you to alert me. Tom (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

regarding leaving space. the transclusion automatically writes the message so there's not really any option to leave space, unless i is missing something? Tom (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

SENS

Hi, per your suggestion, I would like to withdraw my nomination. Not sure how it should be done though? --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)