User talk:Kaypoh

Welcome!

Hello, Kaypoh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! howcheng {chat} 07:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

David Mestel^(Talk) 18:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

regarding Wikipedia:Esperanza

Hi, Kaypoh. Don't worry, the whole Esperanza debate thing is not your fault. In fact, I really don't know whose fault it is anymore. You did bring up a good point regarding community bulding, though, and I do thank you for your support for my paragraph.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 19:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, your first contributions are amazing! You look like you've learned the ropes really quickly. Would you like to consider adoption? I would be happy to adopt you.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 19:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read a lot of policy pages before I made my first edit, but I want to learn more. Go ahead and adopt me. :) When will the paragraph on community building be added? --Kaypoh 07:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 23:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

See the reply: no action. Keep up the vandalism correction :-) Sancho 15:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning vandals

Hey there. Thanks for wanting to help out fighting vandalism. If you're going to spend some time doing this, I think it's important for you to read over Wikipedia:Vandalism. It will help you recognize vandalism more easily, and just as importantly, recognize when something was not vandalism, so that you don't end up scaring away a potential editor.

The warning system is explained on that page as well. If you use Firefox, the WP:TWINKLE script makes vandalism reversion and warnings almost automatic. It's what I use. It also automates the reporting of the vandal at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. (I'll be watching this page, so you can continue a conversation here.)Sancho 15:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. I need to sleep. We'll continue the conversation tomorrow, OK? :) --Kaypoh 16:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See you later. Sancho 16:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Per Sancho. :) Will ^(talk) 10:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar. :) I tried to warn two vandals with the warnings at the link you gave me, did I do it right? I have a question about RC patrol. Every time I go to RC patrol, I always have to set the namespace to main and hide logged-in users. Can I make Wikipedia remember it so I don't have to keep changing the settings every time? That would make RC patrol much faster. --Kaypoh 15:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things... you're using {{subst:uw-vandalism1|PageName}}, but you should actually replace PageName with the name of the article that you're correcting for, like {{subst:uw-vandalism1|Ross Anderson}}. That will make the correct link in the message that appears on the editor's talk page. Also, it looks like the correction you made at [1] was actually not vandalism... I think, and you warned the user that you reverted back to [2] (see 91.152.231.40). You're on the right track though :-) Sancho 16:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what happened. 88 wanted to add some info, that I didn't see. I only saw the whitespace he added in that edit. He removed the whitespace and I reverted his edit at the same time. So I removed the information he added. I think I have to be more careful to make sure I revert the correct vandal. :( --Kaypoh 23:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried warning an IP user who vandalised the PARAM article. There's so much vandalism from IP users, I read somewhere that they do 97% of vandalism. Why do you allow IP edits? And how do I make Wikipedia remember that I want to hide logged-in users and only show mainspace edits when I RC patrol? --Kaypoh 13:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can use this link [3] instead of the default recent changes link to get the subset of changes that you're interested in. As to why we allow IP edits... there are probably a few reasons. It is principle decided by the foundation (see Foundation issues), and the fact that "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. (from User:Jimbo Wales). This project was supposed to avoid as much as possible having a hierarchy of editors or elites. Giving anonymous users as many privileges as can be given without doing irreparable harm to the project is in line with this goal and demonstrates the openness of this project to newcomers. Sure, this is a trade-off between openness of the project and leaving the project susceptible to vandalism, but I think it is worth it. The continued efforts of editors like yourself make this trade-off possible. That statistic of 97% of the vandalism being from IP editors is interesting, but it would also be important to know what percentage of constructive edits come from IP editors... and how many long-time registered users began as IP editors. Sancho 22:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your comments on jimbo wales' talk page

i have responded on jimbo wales' talk page to the questions you asked. (Mandy122 10:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Plot references

Hello. Plot sections do not need references. The primary source is clearly the the subject of the article. The JPS^{talk to me} 10:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't have to start bloody FARs. Alientraveller 11:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's one way of putting it, yes ;) The JPS^{talk to me} 12:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised when I saw no references in the Plot sections of movie FAs. The policies are confusing. :( So Plot sections don't need references, because we assume the movie is the reference? Then how does somebody who did not watch the movie check whether the info there is correct? What if some crank adds nonsense to the Plot section? Alientraveller, you don't have to be bloody incivil (or uncivil?) :P --Kaypoh 12:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's like citing a book, and then complaining that how is someone who hasn't access to that book supposed to know it's correct. Sources must be verifiable, and the primary sources here are. Someone might not have seen the films, but they have the ability to do so if they so wish, just as someone who really wants to verify a print reference might have to take a trip to a large library. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some aspects of a plot summary would need references. Commentary about the plot or interpretation about the state of mind of the characters would need reference. For example, if you add "surprisingly", or "to his amazement", etc. For example, in the story summary of The Terminator, I would support changing the line, The key difficulty in Reese's mission is that beneath the Terminator's organic shell lies an extremely durable artificial skeleton that can sustain a considerable amount of damage to beneath the Terminator's organic shell lies an extremely durable artificial skeleton that can sustain a considerable amount of damage. There were other difficulties for Reese... how can we say what the key difficulty is? Sancho 16:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answer really is to keep the plot purely descriptive and avoid such adjectival phrases, or what alludes to OR. Interpretation shouldn't really be in the plot section. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course plot sections need references. Otherwise what is written would be original research. Everything needs a reference if it is challenged by another editor. Until(1 == 2) 19:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT

You accused me of a violation of WP:POINT here. Where have I been disruptive? What point do you think I am trying to make? Please explain this accusation. I will do my best to address your concerns. Until(1 == 2) 18:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No response? Fine, if you don't want to explain your accusations, then please keep them to yourself. Until(1 == 2) 13:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced

I made a post to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced that you might be interested in. Jeepday (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page

Hi Kaypoh: I noticed that you decided to take the Village Pump discussion of the "+" to the next stage and to effect the change proposed. Did you actively decide not the do the name with the other proposal in the same thread, to change "Discussion" to "Talk", or did you not find a consensus to change? (I apologize, but I don't know how to link to the specific archive.) I'll watch here for an answer. Thanks you. Bielle 16:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your question is confusing. --Kaypoh 01:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the question is confusing because I was/am confused myself. Bureaucrat Andre has explained what I needed to know, though I didn't much like the answer. Thanks anyway Bielle 02:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email?

Hi, Kaypoh; would you be willing to enable your email briefly? I'd like to ask you a question that I'd prefer not to post to Wikipedia. If not, no problem -- it's not urgent. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I will not get spam for enabling my e-mail, OK. --Kaypoh 14:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parapsychology

[4]

You could have done this yourself, if you wanted. Just letting you know (; Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't strike it out, He did. You should re-strike it out. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strike out my oppose again. OK? --Kaypoh 14:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin erased your strikeout and I was telling him that he should add it back, however since you added it back yourself there's no problem. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created_on_July_27

You've got comments here. Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie 13:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied. :) --Kaypoh 13:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again. Thanks for the help :-) --Boricuaeddie 13:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. :) --Kaypoh 07:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert Report FAC

Hi, I've been working on The Colbert Report featured article nomination. I've tried to address your expanded objections to the article, and wondered if they had been entirely addressed, or if there is anything else in the article that needs work. Thanks, --Jude. 15:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email again

Hi, can you enable your email again? You can use a throwaway Hotmail or Yahoo! account if you're concerned about spam or privacy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Go ahead and spam me. :D --Kaypoh 09:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have any mail! Our servers are feeling unloved. (I seldom check. Post here after you e-mail me.) --Kaypoh 04:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking Revert

Thanks for staying vigilant and reverting vandalism on the smoking article! TeamZissou 04:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. :D --Kaypoh 04:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question. If an IP user keeps vandalising an article and does not listen to warnings I give him, what should I do? --Kaypoh 05:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond

Just a note to let you know I have now broken out a separate "Reception" section in the Beyond Fantasy Fiction article, as you suggested at the FAC discussion. I also found one more source that gives a critical opinion of the magazine and have added that. Would you take another look and let me know what you think? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaypoh, I see you haven't been very active recently, but if you do log on, this is another request for you to let me know if I've managed to answer your objections here. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Make-Up FAC

You commented a while ago on The Make-Up FAC (nom page), but merely added a comment rather than give a support/oppose vote. I'm having trouble getting the article looked at (so far it's only garnered one support vote), so I was wondering if you could look at the article again and maybe vote one way or the other if you feel strongly about it. I know you don't owe the FAC anything, and I appreciated your initial comment very much, but the FAC has been going for a month now and I'd like to get it wrapped up. No pressure, just thought I'd ask. Thanks either way, and keep up the good work! Drewcifer 00:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"party 2"

In response to your procedural question on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, terms like "{party 2}" are just placeholders in the template. Sometimes a case is based on a dispute between two editors, and it makes sense for the statements by those two editors to come ahead of statements by third parties (unless they are responding to allegations by others, in which case what they are responding to might be left first to make the thread easier to follow). In other cases, where one editor's or administrator's conduct is at issue, it really makes no difference who writes what in which order. Basically, any editor with something to say can add a statement or comment and the arbitrators consider them all. So in answer to your original question, there is no specific person designated as "party 2" in this case, but I see that several editors have offered their opinions, which is fine. Regards, Newyorkbrad 13:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination of "Flag of Singapore"

Hi, you failed the GA nomination for "Flag of Singapore" on the following grounds: "Lead section is too short. Some sections, like 'Display of non-Singaporean national emblems', are very difficult to understand. Good references, but no references in 'Other flags of Singapore' section."

My comments are as follows:

I disagree that the lead section is too short. It is meant to be an overview of the article, not to repeat substantial portions of what is in the article.
You say that "[s]ome sections" are "very difficult to understand", but have not explained which sections (except for one) and why. In my view, they are understandable, including the section "Display of non-Singaporean national emblems" that you singled out.
I do not think references are needed in the "Other flags of Singapore" section. For more information, readers can click on the links to read other articles, such as "President of Singapore" and "Republic of Singapore Navy".

Pending your further comments on the matter (please post them at "Talk:Flag of Singapore#Failed GA.", kindly put the GA nomination on hold rather than failing it. Thanks. — Cheers, Jack Lee ^{–talk • contribs • count–} 13:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

Please only nominate one FAR at a time. We do not have the resources to cope with more than one per nominator. Thanks. DrKiernan 10:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, I should also have said: Can you please follow the instructions at WP:FAR to notify involved editors and relevant WikiProjects with {{subst:FARMessage|Articlename}} and leave a summary of notifications at the top of the review page? Thanks. DrKiernan 12:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. :( How do I find who to notify, and how to notify them? --Kaypoh 15:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions are at the top of the WP:FAR page. You notify (with the subst message) all WikiProjects listed on the talk page, the original nominator (identified in the FAC in the article history) and all involved editors (identified in the article stats link supplied in the instructions). Then, following the sample on other FARs, list the notifications back at the top of the FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming here to request the same; Kaypoh, you've nominated three articles at FAR, but you haven't done the notifications. Also, one FAR at a time is the norm, so that you can keep up with the notifications, followup, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Four nominations at once is a lot for anyone to follow: I removed the last one (Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)). Please consider re-submitting it after the others are processed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How long do you take to process a FAR? Moreschi said "Edit-warring will not be a problem." So if that article is OK, you can process that one faster and put the Mass Rapid Transit FAR back. Do you agree that the Premier League, Macintosh and Mass Rapid Transit articles have big problems? --Kaypoh 15:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each FAR is at least a month; we don't process any of them "faster". Some FAR regulars may be able to follow and shephard four FARs at once, but it's a stretch for just about anyone. I'm not questioning whether the article is within featured status (in fact, I haven't even looked yet); the problem is that you've nominated four at once, and haven't yet done the notifications on even the first one, so you haven't shown that you're able to shephard four nominations at once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notify because I did not know how to. I will go and notify the editors and WikiProjects now. Check that I do it right. --Kaypoh 15:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Premier League FAR:

OK. Now I will notify the editors and WikiProjects for Macintosh. For India, I'm not sure because Moreschi says "Edit-warring will not be a problem" and if he is correct then we can process the FAR faster and put the FAR for Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) back (and I will do the notifications for that). For now, can you please comment about the article and the problems? --Kaypoh 15:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What has this got to do with the article? Is this in the right place? Woodym555 15:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaypoh, we don't process any FAR "faster"; all FARs last a least a month, with the goal of improving the article so it can retain featured status. We notify all involved parties with the goal of improving the article. The notifications so far look good. FARs take a month at least; we will all have time to comment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I need to sleep now, so I cannot do the notifications for India. Can you do them for me? I don't know if I can go online tomorrow. I hope you can comment about the articles and the problems. And if its clear that edit-warring is not an issue and the India article meets FA standards, do you really need to wait one whole month to finish the FAR? --Kaypoh 16:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another question. I see you removed the FAR for Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) because I nominated too many articles for FAR at once. When the three FARs finish, how do I continue the Mass Rapid Transit FAR? The problems are still there. And good night. --Kaypoh 16:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We never speedily remove featured status; please review the instructions at the top of WP:FAR. I don't know if I will have time today to do the nominations for you; I've already spent a lot of my morning trying to clean up these noms. I'll try, no promises. When you're ready to re-nominate Mass Transit, the process is the same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean, can you speedy keep featured status if the concerns are wrong or the problems are small and faster fixed? I think you can as Joelito just did that for India. What do you mean, the process is the same? I have to go and add the FAR tag to the talk page again, type out all the problems in a new page again, put a link to the new page in the FAR page again and notify the editors and WikiProjects? --Kaypoh 06:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunately, although you wouldn't need to type out or create the page again, as you could just use the old one with a new timestamp. DrKiernan 09:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the India FAR. I do not feel that arguments warranting a FAR had been brought. Furthermore, FAR is not mediation. We can discuss this further if you like in my talk page or in the FAR talk page. Joelito (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Mass Rapid Transit

You should have brought the concerns to the article's talkpage before going straight to FARC. Whilst it is not currently on FARC, a few other editors and myself would like to like to address your concerns here first :

The "Station facilities, amenities and services", "Fares and tickets" and "Architecture and art on the MRT" sections have only 2 references. FAs need more references.
- IMO "Station facilities and services" is sufficiently referenced. (At least 5) - Mailer Diablo (talk) 08:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For the rest, working on it. - Mailer Diablo 13:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The current MRT network" section has a huge whitespace and no text, only images. Move the images somewhere else.
- It should also show the list of current lines, are you able to see in your current browser? Anyway, Done I've stripped some of the redundant images. - Mailer Diablo 13:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead section is weak. For example, these two sentences: "While this figure pales in comparison to the bus network's 2.785 million, it was a 76% increase on 1995 (0.760 million), while the bus network saw an 8.1% drop in ridership in the same period. This trend is expected to continue as current policies promote the expansion of the rail network at the expense of bus services, which are withdrawn or reduced to avoid duplication of services." And this one: "These operators also run bus and taxi services, thus ensuring that there is a full integration of public transport services." Why are
- In what way it is weak? And please complete your question. - Mailer Diablo 13:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done Removed. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there a section named "Safety on the MRT" and a section named "Security on the MRT"? Can you make these two sections into one section?
- Not done Safety ≠ Security! Safety is w.r.t. to how action is taken to prevent accidents within the system, while security is w.r.t to issues such as terrorism and crime. Besides, to merge the sections would be too long and these two sections have their own separate articles. - Mailer Diablo 13:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The section names are too long.
- Done Stripped of "on the MRT" et ali. - Mailer Diablo 13:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some references, for example 6, 34 and 43 have formatting problems.
- Done Fixed. - Mailer Diablo 13:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The green and yellow logo, the image of the farecard and the image of the ez-link card has no fair use rationale. And why is the image of the sign placed in the References section?
- Rationale to be added. For the sign, Done see point 2.
  - Done Rationales added. Magnetic farecard substituted by another free-use. - Mailer Diablo 13:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Best regards, Mailer Diablo 13:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you fix all the problems, there is no need to put the article back on FAR. My question is "Why are these sentences in the lead section when the rest of the article does not talk about it?"

And maybe the section name "Station facilities, amenities and services" is too long. --Kaypoh (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Reduced. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 08:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The referencing is GA standard, but not FA standard. The article also needs a copy-edit, especially the lead section. Please don't ask me to copyedit, I suck at English. --Kaypoh (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Copyedit requested. Will perform one myself. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You improved the article a lot. Now add a lot of references. FA standard referencing = almost one reference per sentence, all paragraphs must have references. If you add enough references, after a good copy-edit, I think there is no need to have an FAR. --Kaypoh (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll need to drop by Victoria Street this weekend. I recall certain sections rely heavily on paper sources that are included in the References section, it just need to cite the page numbers properly. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preuss School Peer Review

Hi. You recently added a number of useful comments to the peer review for The Preuss School UCSD. I have since responded and was wondering if you could take another look and either make further suggestions or reconsider your oppose. I understand if you are unable to at this time, don't sweat it. At any rate, cheers! SorryGuy 18:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In just realized I said peer review. I meant FAC if it were not clear. At any rate, that has now been closed. However, I would still be interested in your response to my responses and if you have any further ways to improve the article. Thanks. SorryGuy 07:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USS Illinois (BB-65)

I have taken a stab at addressing you concerns on the FAC page, but there were a few I could not answer because you did not specify exactly what was wrong. Could you clarify you objections on the FAC page so I can address them? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as the user who nominated the article, I'd also like to ask you to revisit your objections here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Illinois (BB-65). Thanks, -MBK004 (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of the Nine FAC

You did not say much, and I did not say much in return. I ask for clarification; without clarification, nothing can be done. Thank you for your time! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More FARs

Hello, I see a few more FAs which are not FA standard and I created FARs for them. But I did not put the FARs on the main FAR page or do the notifying because Macintosh is still on FAR and Premier League is on FARC. When can I put the new FARs on the main FAR page? After Macintosh moves to FARC or after Macintosh and Premier League finish FARC? I think I can try to shephard three FARs at one time. --Kaypoh (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the FAR page gets up around three dozen, it becomes hard for reviewers to give quality attention to each article. It's at 37 now, and I see Marskell added a backlog template. Another thing to consider is the topic area of the article, so you don't overextend the same group of editors who might want to restore the articles. If there are other noms in the same topic area, it's better to hold off. I have run three at a time at times when FAR was very slow (under 28 or so) and when the articles were in different topic areas, not already present at FAR, and after I had given prior notification on those article talk pages. I suggest waiting until the other two are well into FARC to see if there are attempts at improving them, in which case you may have to do more "shepharding". Have you left a list on the article's talk pages, detailing issues that should be addressed, to see if editors will begin the work without a FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you added a FAR to Talk:FIFA World Cup that is not listed at WP:FAR. It's either under review or not; if it is under review, it needs to be listed at FAR. If it's not under review, the template should be removed from the article talk page. I suggest the latter, and that you instead list those issues on the talk page. You may find involved editors cooperative if you first list the issues at the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of problems with the article but I already filed two FARs. So I thought I can prepare a FAR, and wait until the FARs for Macintosh and Premier League finish, then put the FAR for FIFA World Cup on the main FAR page and notify the editors. --Kaypoh (talk) 12:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo 3

Can you check an see if your concerns have been addressed? David Fuchs^(talk) 20:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Premier League FAR

Hi there, as part of the FAR ofPremier League has undergone some editing by three separate editors, and all your initial problems have been dealt with. Have you got any more problems? Thanks. Woodym555 22:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Beckham

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Victoria Beckham, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Kaypoh (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 wtf? If u LOOKED bc 4 leaped u 'd see there is an explanation.

Re:Hindu-German Conspiracy FAC

Hello, I have left some replies to your comments at the Hindu German Conspiracy FAC Please have a look.Rueben lys (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

regarding "Advice for Jimbo"

Regarding "Advice for Jimbo" - Replace "Checkuser" with "Oversight". WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Hindu-German Conspiracy FAC

Hello, I believe I have addressed your concerns in the Hindu-German conspiracy FAC. Could you please revisit the nomination page to revisit the improvements?Rueben lys (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jimmy McAleer

Hello, I took steps to address your concerns. The language has been pared down considerably. In addition, I created a "Personal life" section. I would appreciate it if you were to revisit the nomination page and give the article a second look. -- twelsht (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Carpenters

Thanks for the clarification! How do you personally feel about the article? — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 02:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 19:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Gohde 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 06:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAN

There's nothing happening at WP:GAN, and it's boring me... a lot. Does anybody ever do anything over there? — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 06:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAN has many articles waiting for a review and not enough people to review the articles. So it can take a long time for someone to review your article. --Kaypoh (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USS Illinois (BB-65)

Last year you voted oppose to this article's FAC, but changes to the article have been made to address the concerns you brought up that could be addressed. Would you consider taking another look at the candidate? TomStar81 (Talk) 10:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy McAleer FAC

Kaypoh, Jimmy McAleer has been revised since you posted your review. Five reviewers now support its promotion. You are the only opposed reviewer. Not a single phrase or sentence cited in your review is included in the latest version of the article. I think you will agree that I have taken all steps to address your concerns. Sincerely, -- twelsht (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead(II) nitrate

Hi Kaypoh, I have responded on the (first) issue you brought forward on the lead(II) nitrate FAC page. I would your appreciate your feedback on that, either by striking out the Oppose or pointing out the addressable rationale why you wouldn't, as is defined in the FAC procedure. Wim van Dorst (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Good Article Nomination of Degrassi: The Next Generation

Hello, I will be reviewing Degrassi: The Next Generation as a good article candidate. Just give me a few days as I'm making some notes and putting together a review. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it didn't take me as long as I thought, mainly because I haven't been to bed. The review is posted, though. Let me know if you have any questions. Redfarmer (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme More FAC

Thank you for you support on Gimme More's FAC process. The result was not promoted. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to Evolution

Your commentary on the Introduction to Evolution featured article attempt is actively being discussed on Talk:Introduction to evolution. It would be most appreciated if you would be kind enough to contribute to the dialog there. It may be that your concerns have been addressed. If not, then further guidance would be appreciated. The page should be well organized; if you go to the bottom and scroll up you should be able to locate your specific concern which I took the liberty of copying/pasting to this page. Many thanks for following up on the discussion.--Random Replicator (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude: I looked at you contribution pages and your critiquing 4-5 articles a day some in 5 minute time spans. That is not the way it works. Your commentaries should reflect careful analysis of the entry. You then have to follow-up to see if your concerns have been addressed. Your standard response --- meet GA first --- didn't even apply to this article. It was already GA --- did you even read it? --Random Replicator (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ayyavazhi

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Ayyavazhi you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. There are to begin with some spelling and grammatical errors. And the Manual of style issues on the peer review also need to be addressed. How much time do you have, or do you see the grammar corrections as minor or major for your time frame? I am trying to determine whether to continue and place the article on hold or whether to fail the article as the improvements needed are lengthy. As you can get to them, you or I can place a ~~strike~~ through the completed ones. If you wish to re-nominate later, I can step down as reviewer and assist with grammar, Manual of Style and spelling if you wish and you can place it for GAR to a different reviewer. SriMesh | talk 04:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Controversy over Wikipedia's biography of John Seigenthaler Sr.

The article Controversy over Wikipedia's biography of John Seigenthaler Sr. you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Controversy over Wikipedia's biography of John Seigenthaler Sr. 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. Cheers, CP 07:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution

Hi, Just wondered if your oppose still stands. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review of Flag of Poland

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.Ealdgyth | Talk 15:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of USS Illinois (BB-65)

An article that you have been involved in editing, USS Illinois (BB-65), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Illinois (BB-65). Thank you. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review of William Adam (architect)

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.Ealdgyth | Talk 15:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Hindu-German Conspiracy

The article Hindu-German Conspiracy you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Hindu-German Conspiracy for eventual comments about the article. Well done! jackturner3 (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imagination nom restarted

Kaypoh, the FAC for Imagination (magazine), which you commented on, has been restarted. Would you mind commenting again on the new page? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parâkramabâhu I :GA review

I have some doubts about the refs. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is on hold.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_posts_the_Jyllands-Posten_cartoons_on_the_talk_page_of_a_muslim

I demand a retraction and an apology immediately. Corvus cornix_talk 03:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. Corvus cornix_talk 05:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Manga

The article Manga you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Manga 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. Before doing so, however, I would strongly recommend discussing things with the editors that are involved with that article. Looking at the talk page, it seems you caught them by surprise, and the article definitely shows that it was by no means ready for a GA nomination. I would also encourage you to be involved in the articles which you nominate - this will help prevent failures such as this and improve the articles, which is really what the GA process is all about. Happy editing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art Houtteman GA review

I have placed this nomination on hold with a few minor prose and citation concerns that need to be sorted out. I wanted to inform you, as the nominator, that I have placed a list of these concerns on the article's talk page. I will check back in seven days to see if they have been completed (or sooner, if you get in touch on my talk page). Thank you, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your GA nomination of Geelong

Just thought you ought to know that several of the links quoted are not looking too hot! You might want to take a look at: 404 Not Found Geelong tramways - a short history [tmsv.org.au] 302 Redirect Sale of Harding Park, Geelong [vic.gov.au] Changes sub-domain 302 Redirect Sale of Harding Park, Geelong [vic.gov.au] Changes sub-domain 404 Not Found Historical perspective [geelongbusiness.com.au] 301 Moved Permanently Geelong [monash.edu.au] Changes path 110 Connection timeout Greater Geelong Planning Scheme (Section 21.22 INDUSTRY) [vic.gov.au] 110 Connection timeout State Election 2006 Results: Electorate swings [vic.gov.au] 110 Connection timeout About Geelong Ring Road [vic.gov.au]

--Seahamlass (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Geelong, Victoria

The article Geelong, Victoria you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Geelong, Victoria for things needed to be addressed. Somno (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gifu, Gifu GA

I've passed the Gifu, Gifu article which you nominated. Notes are on the talk page; please let me know if you have any questions. – Scartol • Tok 00:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination

I've noticed that you've nominated a large number of articles for GA. As I'm sure you know, there is a large backlog at the GAN page. If you could, say, review an at least one article every time you nominate an article, that would help a lot. Thanks. Noble Story (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You now have 15 nominations for GA. Do you mind taking on just one review or so? Noble Story (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I do is find articles that just failed FAC, or passed A-class review in some WikiProjects, then read the articles and check whether the articles are good enough for GA. If I think the articles are good enough for GA, I nominate the articles. Yes, I know there is a backlog at GAN. I try to nominate more when the backlog is smaller and less when the backlog is bigger. But my English is not that good and I don't know anything about how to review articles. --Kaypoh (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bring this back up, but your nominations have been discussed once more by the people at GA Nominations. I have to question, that you say you do not understand English well enough to review an article. But if that is so, how do you know if an article is good enough to be nominated for GA? Certainly your lack of English skills would prevent you from fully understanding the article, especially its grammar and such. So how can you actually judge if an article is worthy of being nominated for GA? The359 (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hubble Space Telescope

For this article, in Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hubble Space Telescope, you stated: "Referencing is not FA standard". The referencing looks very good to me, better than most FA. Could you perhaps explain further? Thanks, LouScheffer (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better than most FAs? Most FAs have references for every sentence. That article has many unreferenced paragraphs. Of course referencing is not FA standard. If that article is not a FA and you nominate it for FAC today, it will sure fail. --Kaypoh (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Future of Air Transport white paper

Out of curiosity, do you know any editors that may have worked on the article briefly that can help with the good article nomination? —Rob (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factotem? --Kaypoh (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Weapons of Resident Evil 4

The article Weapons of Resident Evil 4 you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Weapons of Resident Evil 4 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. Epass (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Hurricane Barry (1983)

The article Hurricane Barry (1983) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Hurricane Barry (1983) for things needed to be addressed. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Loose (album)

I have placed this nomination on hold for one week or until my concerns are addressed. As you are the nominator, I would like to see you help out with the remaining issues. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor volunteered to address these concerns. I have passed the article despite no help from you, the nominator, in making the fixes brought up in the GA review. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Nhat Hanh for GA review

I noticed that you nominated the article about Thich Nhat Hanh for Good Article review. As a person who has spent a great deal of time on this article, I appreciate that you feel it's ready for this review. However, I had not asked for a review for GA or FA yet because my schedule doesn't allow me to fix up the details that would need to be done to qualify it. The article now is on hold for 7 days to allow these fixes - was it your intention that you would be making these fixes (references, links, etc.)? Please leave me a message on my talk page so I'll know what to expect (or if I need to figure out how to free up some time to do this). Thanks, Nightngle (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Jackson

I have completed my review on Fort Jackson (Virginia) as a good article candidate. Please see my comments on this subpage: Talk:Fort Jackson (Virginia)/GA1. Thanks! --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive GA nominations

Hello Kaypoh -- It seems you've nominated about 20 articles under the Law category for Good Article Nominations. I'm a bit concerned about this, especially about how you can respond to 10-20 simultaneous article reviews at the same time. I'd suggest removing most of the GA nominations, and focus on two or three that you are really working on. I hope this helps ease the process in improving your articles! Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And another 8 under Politics and Government... - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 20:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Group Representation Constituency/GA1

Hello Kaypoh, I just reviewed Group Representation Constituency, an article that you submitted to the GAN. I have a few issues that prevent it from reaching GA at this time. However, after you fix them, I will be willing to pass. My comments can be read here: Talk:Group Representation Constituency/GA1.--12george1 (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Group Representation Constituency a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 13:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind postponing some GA nominations?

Kaypoh: You've nominated 20 or 30 articles for GA at WP:GAN. I'm glad that you are contributing so much. However, that volume of articles is clogging up some parts of GAN, and other articles are waiting in the line behind yours. Would you mind reducing the number of nominations down to a smaller number, like 4 to 8? Then, as some articles are promoted to GA, feed more nominations in, gradually? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I have mentioned these nominations at the WT:GAN page again. It is more a statement than a discussion, but thought I should let you know as you are mentioned by name. AIRcorn (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down? Can. What is important is help articles that already GA standard or very close, get GA status. For Wikipedia, not for me. Can help fight systemic bias, ask Law WikiProject to help and ask Singaporean editors to help (Hildanknight say on Jacklee talk page that he can help, Chensiyuan has honours degree in law). Not fair to call me the disruptive user and disqualify articles that already GA standard or very close, only because I nominate the articles. --Kaypoh (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]