User talk:Giggy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:22, 10 March 2008

A noob's guide to GA reviewing

Hey, your essay's interesting. I plan on reviewing some GA noms once the article I nominated is reviewed (whether it gets accepted or not, at least I'll be familiar with the process!). Had a question about something in your essay though - footnote 8 refers to a Veropedia parser. What's that and where is it? Thanks. :) Somno (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in a hurry, but check out Veropedia. Register on the site, and it should be in your userlinks at the top. If you can't work it out (I couldn't for a while either), bug Riana, and tell her I say hi. :) Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 12:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I went to the site before but didn't know I had to register to see the parser thingy. Thanks! :) Somno (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No probs; I'll try and take a look at your GAN soon. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 23:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry, there are plenty of noms that have been there longer than mine (and it's moving a lot faster than WP:RFF, which isn't moving at all). Somno (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: DotA FAC

Thanks for the heads-up. Sorry you don't like the game, though- and Warcraft III in general. :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard FAnning

Bad joke, couldn't resist. Nice job on that one! --Kakofonous (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot about OMGdyssey Number Five. And in retrospect, I can see why you would...! Thanks :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 04:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My request for bureaucratship

Dear Giggy, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

H-twenty?

Hello, DHMO! I was curious how you selected your signature text. As I’m sure you know, the chemical formula for water is H₂O (with the letter “O” representing oxygen), not H₂0 (with a zero). Did you substitute the numeral for the element deliberately? — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that it's all an elaborate typo! Time to fix it. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 06:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I’m glad I spoke up then. I’m a chemistry major and a typography nerd, so I tend to have an eye for these things. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very much appreciated :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA reviewing

Hi DM, do you fact check when you review articles in GAN? --Efe (talk) 07:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I try to. Why - did I miss something major? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. You asked me before to review articles in GAN but I was a bit hesitant to pick one to fully review it because of this "fack checking" issues. Though it is not required to fact check (can be traced from older discussions in GAN), I have this feeling that I need to do so. But I have no time, and you know, we have no internet connection in the house. Thats partly why I missed to do your request. Maybe someday I can help reduce the backlog. For now, song-related articles improvement. =) --Efe (talk) 07:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see your point. I sometimes will click the link if I find the claim being made suspicious, but I generally just hover the mouse over and glance at the publisher - if they're an RS then I'll take my chance. Yeah, it's not the best ethic, but I haven't blown the Wiki up yet (+AGF and all). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. I thought Bernard Fanning already got the little star. Anyway, I partly read your user page and its entertaining. --Efe (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rawlins

Prove that Rawlins has not written an autobiography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.223.218 (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on you to prove that he is "known for his vanity page", using a reliable source. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The biography consists almost entirely of quotations from Rawlins' own site, www.dioi.org. The rest is mostly from Pickering, a friend of Rawlins. Even a small amount of Pickering's own scientific work is praised. Wikipedia rules ban links to a site connected to yourself. Rawlins used numerical sock-puppets, to hide the fact that he was writing a banned autobigraphy. They are registered to an American uni but used by Dennis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.223.218 (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in this sockpuppetry stuff, but if the content I revered is backed up by RS, feel free to add it back in. Citing ones' self is not an RS. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "revered" seems to be a mistake for "reversed". Rawlins' citing his own web-site, i.e. himself, is certainly not a reliable source. It is not wise to get near Rawlins.