User talk:Mojska

[[{{{1}}}]]

Help

Judging by your edit history, you're familiar with Wikipedia beyond your edit count. Could you help us and explain your comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings and structures in Salford please? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but "weak oppose neutral Support Oppose (che furbata...) " doesn't help. Please consider that this is English Wikipedia. What is your concern with this list? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never "undone" any support you may have offered. Please clarify. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Blue

OK, thanks. JGHowes ^talk - 18:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anfield

You cannot just move the name of the article to a different one because it suits you, if you wish to discuss proposals to move Anfeld to Anfield Stadium pleas discuss them first at WP:FOOTY. NapHit (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but you have to discuss these changes first, you cannot just decide yourself they are necessary, especially as the article is at FAC, your actions, although in your mind correct, may jeopardise the nomination NapHit (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought this up at WP:FOOTBALL. Please head there to centralise your discussions. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should also know that cut and paste moves (i.e. copying from one page to another) are not to be done; if you want to move a page, use the move button. If it won't move, take the issue to WP:RM. Regardless, the move was not a good one, as Anfield is correct per WP:COMMONNAME. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 20:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mojska, I oppose your actions in renaming 'Anfield' to 'Anfield Stadium'. I've never heard anybody refer to it as 'Anfield Stadium'. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Hi, Mojska. It appears that you are reviewing articles at WP:FAC a bit fast, and possibly not giving a thoughtful evaluation to articles that you are Supporting and Opposing. Please remember that nominators put a lot of work in to these articles, so your considered review relative to the actual criteria is welcome. Review of six articles in fifteen minutes is a lot even for experienced reviewers. Also, you've been asking for "controversy" or "criticism" sections in articles, which is not a valid consideration or oppose. If you would like any assistance (incluso en español), favor de avisar. Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:EL; external links are not a requirement for any article, should be minimized in featured articles, and are not part of WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mojska, when reviewing four articles in six minutes, it is hard to do justice to the featured article process; please take some time to review WP:WIAFA.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mojska, I am still concerned that you are entering declarations at FAC without understanding WP:WIAFA or en.wiki guidelines. Please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/This Charming Man. I'm glad to see that you are now entering Comments instead of Support or Oppose; that's a better way to start while you learn the criteria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Caledonian in the 1970s

Have read your comments but still feel that most of them aren't justified and that the tags should therefore be taken out. I've outlined the reasons on the relevant article's "Discussion" page. Please have a look at it before accusing others of 'vandalism'. Thanks. ttd_369 13:10, 4 March 2008 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.210.36.140 (talk) comment moved from user page by Onorem ♠Dil 13:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi user MOJSKA. Many thanks for responding to my message. Noted your comments. Please note that the computers from which I'm occasionally editing some of the articles in Wikipedia belong to a shared environment. Hence, as you may have already noticed, it isn't always me who is eding. ttd_369 14:35, 4 March 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.210.36.140 (talk)

Good article nominations

Hello Mojska, you may not be aware but good article nominees are not !voted upon like WP:FACs or WP:FLCs. And please try to remain civil, the tone in your note to Mike is bordering on unpleasant. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomical Netherlands Satellite

No joke, but sort of a test. As far as I can tell, the article meets all of the Good Article criteria. Note that the GAC say nothing about the length or depth of the article; the closest it gets is broadness, which I believe this article meets. Mike Peel (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tyrone Wheatley

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tyrone Wheatley has been restarted. Your renewed support would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: DotA FAC

I was hoping you could swing by the article again and see if you might refactor your comments, given my response and the changes to the article since the oppose. If not, well, then don't. :) Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is Defense of the Ancients is not DotA. All the relevant impact and recognition is in the current section. It's a lean article because as of currently it hasn't penetrated pop culture (at least in the Americas, which may be the issue). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Way Out (2004) FAC

With regard to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No Way Out (2004), would you please be able to explain what you mean by "Objections"? The primary editor is willing to address any concerns but several of us at WP:PW are unsure of what you are looking for. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of International Mathematical Olympiads

Hi, I responded to your comment. Would you reconsider your opinion? It seems that you're used to the standards of WP:FAC, well, WP:FLC is very different. Lists are entirely different from articles. Additionally, as I say in my response over on that page, the number of references is not important at all. What is important is that however many references there are, the entire article or list is verifiable from those. Thanks, Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 20:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured content reviews

Hello, I noticed that you have been providing a lot of comments lately on featured content candidates (or removal candidates). On the whole, your "votes" either provide no reasoning, or they provide reasoning that I, for one, cannot understand. It is becoming disruptive because other editors have to take time to review and/or respond to your comments. May I ask you to stop posting unreasoned or incoherent comments to candidate pages? I would be happy to answer any questions if you are unclear about the process. --Laser brain (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how to place the messages in archives. Please help me.Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning messages on user talk pages

Hi. Per WP:TALK, removal of warning messages from user talk pages is permissible. I've reverted your changes made to User talk:Simon Cheakkanal. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning message

I don't know what the purpose of this warning message is. I have clearly not done any vandalism, and I am not even aware what you mean by a sock puppet. Please look more into any matter before you start throwing out warning messages. Nick Garvey (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad start

I think we misunderstood each other. I made a bad joke is all; and I'll work on your comments. Ceoil (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D'accord, je peux chancher votation. (ok, I can chance my vote) MOJSKA 666 (msg) 19:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad to worse. What gives. Bite? I did what? Bite? Please explain. Ceoil (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that WP:BITE (even if it applied) isn't a valid reason to oppose, don't you? Although I see that has been suggested already, if you genuinely feel you are a newcomer and wish to avoid being bitten, you should take a look at WP:WIAFA before commenting on FA candidates. Yomangani ^talk 22:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are other motivations - valid, actionable points from the FA criteria - then list them. If you feel that Ceoil's attempts at levity are bitey then take it up with him on his talk page (or here where he's already attempted to start a dialogue). Don't oppose an FAC over a personality clash with another editor: such opposition is invalid, will be ignored, and looks like disruption merely to make a point. Yomangani ^talk 09:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was just tactless, I sometimes am, and I did not mean offence. Support or oppose, I don't want any hard feelings. Ceoil (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cluj-Napoca

Please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cluj-Napoca, I answered to your comments.--Danutz (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I wikified those titles also. If you find further comments that maintain you oposing vote, please let me know. Best regards. --Danutz (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Warner

Hi Mojska, Thanks for your support on the Jack Warner FAC. I just wanted to let you know that the article was recently promoted. With appreciation, -- twelsht (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery gets promoted

Discovery Expedition is now FA. Thank you for your support getting it there. Brianboulton (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Toshack

Hi there. Can you check the changes I made? I added more alternative sources from two books and an obit. Thanks, Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 04:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Treehouse of Horror V

Moved feedback to Peer review please reply there. Buc (talk) 12:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the correct Peer review. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep undoing a new and relevant addition to the Team Fortress 2 entry?

"Added "Web Sites" Section, along with info about RED website. This section will expand, as there are at least two others in production. These sites serve to provide a backstory for the TF2 universe."

You don't see any value in listing hard-to-find, hidden web sites that help 'provide a backstory for the TF2 universe'? I mean , seriously. What's the point of having a TF2 entry then?

I hope you reconsider.