User talk:Dom497

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

User	Talk	Promoted Content	Contributions	Guestbook	Awards

Barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

I award you, this, the original barnstar, because you're an original and deserve the first and the best! Dom, this is a long-time coming from me. And I don't completely buy into the whole barnstar thing, so you know it's heart-felt. ;) I remember the first time I interacted with you on this project, when you asked me to review one of your roller coaster article. I went, "Who the heck is this young guy?" at first, and to be honest, I was a little worried because I made some assumptions about you, which I quickly figured out were unfair and very wrong. You're an impressive young man, and I'm sure that you'll knock it out of the park at university and end up being more successful than the rest of us. Keep up with the work ethic and have fun! I hope that you'll be around to at least check in and keep us updated about how you're doing. Good luck! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Figureskatingfan: Thanks so much!--Dom497 (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey Dom! Thanks so much for being so awesome and interacting with me during these 2 years. I remember working with you on GA mentoring and now I've become a GA Cup Judge. Good luck with university and thank you for being such a great friend. MrWooHoo (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@MrWooHoo: Thanks!--Dom497 (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)

The article Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Hello, Dom497. You have new messages at Astros4477's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I replied there. Hope u can when you have time bro. From a Packer fan. My Pack won today. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikiclaus Cheer !

		Wikiclaus greetings
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you the happiest of Wikipedia Wikiclaus' good cheer. This message is intended to celebrate the holiday season, promote WikiCheer, and to hopefully make your day just a little bit better, for Wikiclaus encourages we all spread smiles, fellowship, and seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings and the happiest of holiday spirits from Wikiclaus !

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 9, 2016

Dom, a summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. It mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? One question: Drop tower#Tallest vertical drop towers says this is the 3rd tallest tower in the US, but your article says it's the tallest. Do you know which is right? - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The claim that it is the tallest "free-standing" drop tower in the U.S. is correct. The other two that are taller were built onto the frame of existing roller coasters. A technicality of course, but correct nonetheless! By the way, I removed the amusement park wikilink from the lead, since it was unnecessary and contributed to a bit of overlinking. Perhaps the same change should be made in the FA summary. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've looked into both and I get it now. - Dank (push to talk) 14:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Precious again, your Falcon's Fury drop tower attraction!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Adlabs Imagica Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Adlabs Imagica Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

GA queries

Hi Dom497. As a novice reviewer, I still have few doubts about reviewing GAs. I am also writing an essay where your answers will be summarised. Considering you seem to be experienced, would you kindly answer some questions I have regarding them in general? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: Sure! Ask away!--Dom497 (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Here:

1. Criteria 2c, 2d requires access to sources: should a reviewer avoid an article where they have not much access to any of the sources given? or fail it if the nominator has partial access themselves?
2. Criteria 3 requires subject knowledge: does that mean one being unfamiliar with the topic should not review it? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: My answer to your first question is that even if you don't have access to some of the sources, you can still review and pass the nomination. Part of this reasoning comes from good-faith as I trust that editors aren't adding fake sources. A good example is a book reference. Many articles may reference a book but I may have no access to that book to verify that the user isn't making up information. Instead, I would google the book name and take a look to check if it seems like a reliable source. There are also cases where some sources require a fee to be paid to view the source. This sometimes is the case for archives of newspapers. One editor (the nominator) may have paid that fee and therefore has the access to view the article while another editor (the reviewer) may not have paid and therefore does not have access. In the case where users must pay to view a source, you only need to ensure that the source is reliable (example: the source is the New York Times and not some personal blog).

For your second question, being familiar with the topic is NOT required, however, if you are just starting to review nominations for your first time I would suggest only reviewing nominations that cover a topic you know about. Doing so will make the review easier (in my opinion). As you gain experience you can start reviewing nominations that cover topics you have no knowledge in. I've done this a few times and I actually learn a lot about different topics and it keeps things interesting for me. Remember, being familiar with the topic is NOT required, I just personally think it would be better to start with topics you know about. If you have any more questions or need clarification, feel free to ask!--Dom497 (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hope you don't find if I add another follow up question: then sometimes if in good faith the citations are accepted, how are we expected to verify no original research and copyright violations? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: You assume there is no original research and copyright violations. I know it sounds crazy but it is ok to assume so long as you have tried to access the source (for example if the source is a book, you have tried to find an online copy or check if the book is available at your local library). If the source requires you to pay a fee, no one should expect you to pay just to verify it. (sorry for the late reply)--Dom497 (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)