User talk:Mr.Kennedy1

---

User page Wipe your feet before you come in.

Talk Questions? Comments? Advice? Talk to me.

Contributions See what i've been up to.

Guestbook Sign my guestbook.

Awards Thank you.

Sandbox Don't look! I'll show you when i'm done.

Edit count Where it stops, nobody knows.

---

Wikipedia ads	file info – #221

As of 2010-10-12, Mr.Kennedy1 is Active.
I'll reply to your message within 24 hours if possible.

I was making a new article on

gender double standards, and I am trying to up-load a free image, but I can't. Can you help me up load it? thanks.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you give me a URL of the image and what website you found it on? Also, do you have an acount Wikimedia Commons as you should upload it there instead of here. Do this and I will tell you what else you should do. Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 22:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's the link.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Christabel_Pankhurst.jpg Thank you. --Cymbelmineer (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I thougth you were trying to upload an image to commons, you just want to use the image, is it? Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 16:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I originally planned uploading an image, but was prosyltized in that attempt by finding archived footage of a noted feminist, which looked better. All I need is help with the gross business of downloadin gthe thing!--Cymbelmineer (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so what article do you want to add it to and where abouts in the article?

PS Please stop using those big words like "prosyltized" as I don't have a clue what they mean. I know I am meant to be your tutor but I am useless at English. You should probably be my tutor, eh? LOL. Oh, and thanks for signing my guestbook. :) Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 10:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You can get to it by typing into the search bar; User:Cymbelmineer/Gender double-standards. Thanks.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have added to the page and put it as a right-hand side thumb instead of in a gallery. If you want it changed, just ask. By the way, you don't have to say what to type into the search bar, you can just put [[]] at either side of the link eg. [[User:Cymbelmineer/Gender double-standards]] would look like this: User:Cymbelmineer/Gender double-standards. Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 14:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help; it looks perfect.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Phil Taylor

The article Phil Taylor you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Phil Taylor for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Brad78 (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

FC Barcelona GAN

Added some thoughts on the GAN page. Brad78 (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, when these are fixed, do you think I should pass it? Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 11:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It's close to a pass. If you want me to have a look once they are fixed, just send me a message. Brad78 (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 12:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you teach me how to archive my page?

I don't know how to archive my talk-page, it's getting unwieldy, you seem quite well-versed in wikipedia and I was wondering if you could help me archive. Thanks.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, i'll do it for you now and show you how I did it. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 14:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I have added the bot template and archive box which will add an archive when it runs again. Here are the two templates I used – Template:Archives and User:MiszaBot/config. You do not have to change any of these templates at all at any time as the archive box updates itself and the configuration does not need to be changed unless you want a setting changed (how often it archives etc.). Here are the main settings at present:

• Archives threads that are older than 31 days
• Archive pages has a maximum capacity of 100K

If you want any setting changed, just ask. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 15:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The settings are very good! They work well, thank you again.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:DARTS and lead formatting

Happy to help! I don't have any great interest in Darts, as such - though I've played and enjoy the game - but feel free to leave me a message if you need an admin for some heavy-lifting. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 16:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Your removal of the prod tag on Hybrid pheasant

You removed the prod tag I placed on Hybrid pheasant with the edit summary "This should not be deleted, it has three references and is a stub; why should it be deleted?". If you take a look at the sources that were there at the time, you will see that there were actually only two sources (one is listed twice) and one of those is not likely to be considered reliable for these purposes. The term "hybrid pheasant" is a generic descriptor of any hybrid involving a pheasant and does not refer to a specific breed or type of pheasant, which is not at all the impression the reader would get from that article. You should likely have taken more time looking at this.

On a related note, perhaps you can take a more active role your mentorship of User:Cymbelmineer? They might be advised to steer away from controversial articles and subjects until they are more familiar with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and norms. And not trolling would be good, too. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't start telling me what to do with my adoptee, did you ever think that I might not have time to constantly watch over my adoptees? As you can see from above, I give them help when they want help. Also, I was looking over your talk page and seen you have getting involved in personal attacks and giving cheek to people, maybe you should look at your own editing before you start critising mine. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 18:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What a delightful response, and what a positive attitude toward constructive critcism. I look forward to working with you in the future. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No, i'd rather work with people with a bit of decency. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 18:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

And I'd rather work with trained chimpanzees dressed in suits for comic effect, but on Wikipedia you don't get to choose with whom you collaborate. Perhaps when you stop being so indignant, you'll read reconsider my suggestion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:MSE

Was looking at WP:DARTS and I have to say its pleasantly organised. We can definitely pick up a thing or two from there. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 17:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

About the personal attacks by Delicious Carbuncle

I just wanted to bring to your understanding that I won't be responding to the attacks. It is abundantly clear to me, that quantity of admin> quality of admin at some times. Obviously, I would strongly urde you not to write any attacks back, more than what could be inferred to be an attack, already. The fact is, that the admin User:Delicious carbuncle might then wantonly attack your character, as he appears to be something of a possible assassinatory influence. I felt compelled to write a message to you, so that I don't harm you by proxy, thank you, --Cymbelmineer (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC) .

Thanks, I am just going to ignore them if they write anything to me again. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 10:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

GA reviews

Hi there, first I just want to say again that it's great you're doing some reviews. the GA assessment process certainly needs more reviewers! I'll go through each one you linked to and make some comments.

Atlético Madrid

• The first thing I thought was that the review is a bit sparse. GAN is not peer review, but I did wonder if you've gone through the article thoroughly.
• One of your first comments is "there are far too much bare URL's". This is not actually a GA requirement, so be careful about asking for things beyond those criteria. It's still a good idea to make suggestions for improving the article, but make it clear which ones are necessary for passing GA. You'll find that some editors have done just about as much as they want to do on an article, and want you just to tell them the things they need to pass GA. Others will be wanting to improve it as much as possible and see GA as a stepping stone on the way to FAC. They'll want more of a detailed review from you (if you're happy to do that - you don't have to!) If you're not sure, you can ask the nominator.
• having said bare urls are ok, the references need to have enough info to be verifiable. I see one reference (currently no. 44) is to the Guardian, but there is no other information, The link is dead (or moved), so it is very difficult for a reader to find that article. I don't know if that was the case when you reviewed it, but I would require more information in the refs - at least title, date & name of publication/work.
• This article had a failed GA nomination not long before your review. Did you check that the issues from that review had been dealt with?
• I can't tell from the review whether or not your concerns were dealt with. If they weren't, then I don't think you should have passed it. Bare urls are ok, but not enough references aren't. Particularly as you said there are quotes without references. Quotes need references per the criteria.
• I'm also not sure, did you put the article on hold? If there are issues, don't be afraid to put it on hold for about a week to allow the nominator to work on it. I think that happens more often than direct passes or fails to be honest. Far better that than to see that the article doesn't fully meet the GA criteria and pass it anyway.
• Overall, it'd be nice to see more evidence that you've gone through the article—and criteria—more thoroughly. Even if things check out ok, you can say so. You can comment that you've checked that images are appropriately licensed, or that links are working. This is helpful to you to, especially as you're starting out reviewing. Sometimes you see very short reviews from experienced reviewers reviewing nominations from experienced nominators. Both parties know the criteria inside out and there's nothing to be done, so that's ok, but when you're not so experienced, and neither is the nominator, its best to make sure you're covering everything.
• it's ok to make minor improvements to the article yourself. Some reviewers like to, copyediting or whatever, some prefer not to touch it and just make the suggestions in the review. For example, I personally hate bare URLs, but it's not really fair to ask for them to be sorted when that's not one of the criteria, so I'd probably put a bit of work into it myself to tidy them up. Or, alternatively, you could make a separate list of suggestions for general improvement beyond what is required to tick the GA boxes, just make it clear which is which.

Thomas Müller

• Ok, I'm glad to see you put this one on hold. It's perfectly fine to say that you're a new reviewer. Some nominators are very familiar with the criteria themselves and will speak out if they disagree with you. Others will simply do what has to be done to get the green circle, and won't question anything.
• I see this article uses a lot of German sources. If you don't speak the language, you really have to accept these on good faith, but careful checking of the other sources can help to reassure you that the ones you can't read are ok too. Again, try to be rigourous about the sources used. Here, it helps to have some experience writing articles on similar topics. I personally don't know much about the sources used for sports articles. Make sure that they would all meet WP:RS though. Things to look for are "is the source (eg. website) owned by a major company, or media network?" "is the source written by someone who is demonstrably an expert inthe field?" "has the source been used as a source by other sources that we know are reliable? Eg. has the source ever been used by the BBC, or the New York Times?" If you're not sure, ask the nominator what makes a source reliable. If they're not sure, you can always try asking at WP:RSN. At the end of it all, if there's still doubt, look for/ask for a better source.

History of FC Barcelona

• I see you asked for a second opinion; good for you! I think you're getting the hang of it, but if you're still unsure, one thing I have recommended to someone else in the past is to see if someone (a regular reviewer) will allow you to do a joint review, where you start the review off, and they come along and add any thoughts they have, and let you know how you're doing. I'd offer my services, but sports articles are really not my thing. I only reviewed your original Phil Taylor nomination because I could see it needed a lot of work before it got to GA. I hope you don't mid me saying that—I think you've done a great job with it now and hopefully will make it to GA before long! :)

So, well done, you're certainly getting there. I always recommend people read other GAs and FAs when they're working on their own. In this case, I'd recommend reading as many GA reviews as you can, to get a feel for what is expected. Watch the reviews that happen at WP:GAN, and some people have lists of reviews they've done that you can peruse: here, here, here or here, for example. Anyway, keep up the good work! :) --BelovedFreak 12:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm replyng here because.. well it goes with the big long reply above! :) I'm not sure what you mean by "changing the criteria"; do you mean the way you asked for a few more things to be fixed after you'd gone through it once? That's fine. I can imagine maybe someone getting annoyed if you say "just fix a, b and c and it's a GA", and then you go back and say "actually you need to fix d, e and f too", but the way it played out in that review didn't seem unreasonable at all. If anyone gets annoyed you can just say that you're still a bit new at reviewing and you just noticed a couple of things that you didn't notice at first, and you aren't comfortable with letting them slide. Another way around it is to state at the beginning that you'll go through it once, say what needs to be fixed and then go through it again after changes have been made, to tie up any loose ends. That gives you room to go back and see if you've missed anything. It's a good idea to do that anyway if nominators are making quite a few changes.--BelovedFreak 19:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Or... did you mean changing the symbols on the criteria list in your review? If so, that's fine too! --BelovedFreak 19:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

An update from adopt a user

Hi there Mr.Kennedy1! You may be wondering, what have I done to sound the alarm this time? Nothing. I'm messaging you in regards to the adopt-a-user program, which currently has a backlog of users wishing to be adopted. This doesn't make much sense, as we have a considerable list of users offer adoption, so there shouldn't be any backlog. I've begun to eliminate this backlog myself through a matching program, but I need your help to make it work. Of course, adoptees and adopters don't have to go through there, but I believe it helps eliminate the backlog because someone is actively matching pairs.

On the list of adopters, I have modified the middle column to say "Interests." It's easier working with other users that have similar interests, so if it's not too much to ask, could you add your interests in the middle column? For example, if I was interested in hurricanes, computers, business, and ... reptiles? I would place those in the middle column. Counter-vandalism and the like can also be included (maintenance should be used as the general term). The more interests, the better, since adoptees can learn more about you and choose the one they feel most comfortable working with. The information about when you're most active and other stuff can go into the "Notes" section to the right.

Finally, I've gone around and asked adoptees (and will in the future) to fill in a short survey so adopters can take the initiative and contact users they feel comfortable working with. We all know that most adoptees just place the adopt me template on their user page and leave it - so it's up to us to approach them and offer adoption. So, please take a look at the survey, adopt those that fit your interests, and maybe watchlist it so you can see the interests of adoptees and adopt one that fits your interests in the future.

Once again, thank you for participating in the adopt-a-user program! If you wish to respond to this post, please message me on my talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 05:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC).

Darts tournament tables/grids

Hi mate, im just wondering about the tournament grids in some darts articles. An example is the 1978 World Championship.

The grid is in order of the matches listed here, but this is the tournament grid. I dunno for sure how many more are like this, but I did notice one more, i think.

Do we correct this? Or leave it as it is? Thanks Vulgar Display Of Power (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)