User talk:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: Difference between revisions
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah/Archive 6) (bot |
→Request for comment: new section |
||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
}}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYKNom --> [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 00:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
}}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYKNom --> [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 00:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
||
::Congratulations! Now we need to improve Thomas Affleck. Will you be able to see my e-mail address if I enable it, or just send me a file/message via this website?[[User:Zigzig20s|Zigzig20s]] ([[User talk:Zigzig20s|talk]]) 08:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
::Congratulations! Now we need to improve Thomas Affleck. Will you be able to see my e-mail address if I enable it, or just send me a file/message via this website?[[User:Zigzig20s|Zigzig20s]] ([[User talk:Zigzig20s|talk]]) 08:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
||
== Request for comment == |
|||
There is a proposal for a merge of certain information in the article Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) to the Steven Emerson article, and then deletion of the IPT article because there is no such entity. The article was created and includes information based on the pretext that the Investigative Project on Terrorism actually existed as a non-profit entity. It did not, and still does not. What did exist is Steven Emerson's think-tank, The Investigative Project, and Steven Emerson as a CNN reporter and later as an independent terrorism expert. He founded the Investigative Project on Terrorism FOUNDATION years later - April 2006 - which is the only official non-profit foundation organized legally. Unfortunately, editors are trying to combine all of Emerson's past work as a CNN reporter, and individual terrorism expert (dating back to the Oklahoma City bombing and before) into one big hodge podge of inaccuracies in the current article, IPT. Please read the discussion at Talk:Steven_Emerson#Merge and delete the IPT article. Thank you in advance. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>[[User:Atsme|Atsme]]</b></font><font color="gold">☯</font>[[User talk:Atsme|<font color="green"><sup>Consult</sup></font>]] 18:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 18:33, 30 June 2014
 | Alf.laylah.wa.laylah is away on vacation and may not respond swiftly to queries. |  |
No RfXs since 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online |
|
|||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Hello again. Feel free to expand Mustang wine with referenced if you can. I have nominated it for DYK, but someone said it was a bit too short. Also, would you be able to find a bottle of mustang wine, take a picture, and upload it to Wikimedia Commons/the article? I can't remember if you said you were living in Texas or not. The wine was made and promoted by Affleck, so I thought you would be interested. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. I commented at the DYK template.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- PS, totally not in TX, sorry (but not for me!)— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- What is QPQ please?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Quid Pro Quo... after your 5th DYK you're supposed to review one for every one you self-nominate. But other people can donate ones they've done, which I did for you just to help the process along. Good article, by the way.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- OK, thank you. I have submitted a few more--about Beverly Hills for the most part (like Lili Bosse, the Beverly Hills 9/11 Memorial Garden, Felisa Vanoff, etc.)--feel free to review them if you want. You'll find them on the DYK page. Do you know where the instructions to review DYK's are? I have never done it.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Also, I created Hugh Wilson yesterday, but have found nothing on slavery so far.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oh Lord, it's super-complicated. First of all, you don't need to do a QPQ for your first five, but you should note in your self-nomination that you've done under five so people don't worry about it. You should also read this: Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide, and follow the instructions to install this script, which will show up in your tools section on the left: Wikipedia:Did you know/DYKcheck. Also, for the first few you review, you should mention that you're learning to review and ask for a second opinion, because it's very tricky. You can review as many as you want in advance and keep track of them. Check my user page under "Done" for how I keep track of them; I do them as they interest me and then strike them on the list when I use them for a QPQ, because it doesn't matter if it's a lot later that you use them. I don't probably have the time to review many right now, but you should keep trying, it's complicated but it is actually possible to get the hang of. Also, maybe ask Maile66 and/or BlueMoonset if you have questions too. They were very helpful to me while I was learning the process.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- It sounds like a bit of a waste of time?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Quite possibly, but it's fun to have your article on the front page for a few hours... anyway, that's how it works...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Mustang wine is on the front page! My main hope is that more people will see it and thus expand the page.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- It sounds like a bit of a waste of time?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oh Lord, it's super-complicated. First of all, you don't need to do a QPQ for your first five, but you should note in your self-nomination that you've done under five so people don't worry about it. You should also read this: Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide, and follow the instructions to install this script, which will show up in your tools section on the left: Wikipedia:Did you know/DYKcheck. Also, for the first few you review, you should mention that you're learning to review and ask for a second opinion, because it's very tricky. You can review as many as you want in advance and keep track of them. Check my user page under "Done" for how I keep track of them; I do them as they interest me and then strike them on the list when I use them for a QPQ, because it doesn't matter if it's a lot later that you use them. I don't probably have the time to review many right now, but you should keep trying, it's complicated but it is actually possible to get the hang of. Also, maybe ask Maile66 and/or BlueMoonset if you have questions too. They were very helpful to me while I was learning the process.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
DYK for Cotton Plantation Record and Account Book
 | On 29 June 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cotton Plantation Record and Account Book, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the antebellum bestseller Cotton Plantation Record and Account Book taught plantation owners how to use modern cost accounting principles to measure the productivity of their slaves? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cotton Plantation Record and Account Book. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Congratulations! Now we need to improve Thomas Affleck. Will you be able to see my e-mail address if I enable it, or just send me a file/message via this website?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Request for comment
There is a proposal for a merge of certain information in the article Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) to the Steven Emerson article, and then deletion of the IPT article because there is no such entity. The article was created and includes information based on the pretext that the Investigative Project on Terrorism actually existed as a non-profit entity. It did not, and still does not. What did exist is Steven Emerson's think-tank, The Investigative Project, and Steven Emerson as a CNN reporter and later as an independent terrorism expert. He founded the Investigative Project on Terrorism FOUNDATION years later - April 2006 - which is the only official non-profit foundation organized legally. Unfortunately, editors are trying to combine all of Emerson's past work as a CNN reporter, and individual terrorism expert (dating back to the Oklahoma City bombing and before) into one big hodge podge of inaccuracies in the current article, IPT. Please read the discussion at Talk:Steven_Emerson#Merge and delete the IPT article. Thank you in advance. Atsme☯Consult 18:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)