User talk:TheQuandry/Archive/2007 March
CHICOTW
[edit]
|
| |
|
Last week you voted for the Chicago COTW. Thank you! This week Timothy Blackstone has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list.
| ||
|
| |
TonyTheTiger 18:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Moscow
[edit]You are a member of WikiProject Russia. I wanted to let you know the article Moscow is in Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Moscow list now. --Hirakawacho 10:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 8 | 19 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
CHICOTW
[edit]|
|
| |
|
Last week you voted for the Chicago COTW. Thank you! This week Chicago Board of Trade Building has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list.
| ||
|
| |
Thanks for the hard work. I am sorry. I am on the road. I am a bit late, but here is your official notice. TonyTheTiger 19:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
GAC
[edit]What do you think about the past two WP:GAC failures? Among the problems were copyediting. TonyTheTiger 19:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- I never thought Washington Park, Chicago (racetrack) or Washington Park, Chicago (subdivision) had a chance. I was submitting those to get feedback. I was disappointed in Washington Park, Chicago (neighborhood). However, I was asking about Hull House and Near South Side, Chicago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 20:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
- Apologies. We all earn our pay around here. You included. I was not challenging you. I was hoping you would independently come to the conclusion that I did, which is that the last two weeks were held to higher standards than our two successful GAs. I did not want to put the words in your mouth so I asked you for your opinion. Do you think the two that have made it are better than all of the other nominees? I ask you because as our best veteran copyeditor you could better answer this question than me an information hound and reference stickler. TonyTheTiger 23:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- As I understand it there are about three ways to get feedback on an article:
- My thinking was that we should shoot for something quick and dirty. We are only evaluating topic needs for a week at a time. The GA process gives us really brief feedback that we can incorporate without too much work as I see it. It also gives us something to say for our successes. In truth, if we wanted to prepare a GA We should first go to PR and then nominate a WP:GAC after following the suggestions. However in a week this is too much and after the week is up the article is no longer the focal point. I am sort of struggling with how much effort to put into an article after its time is up. Pretty much any thing that is not FC could use some work. The purpose of the CHICOTW is to fix glaring omissions. It is the 80/20 rule where we can get an article 80% towards a FA with about 20% of the work. The other 20% takes 80% of the work. I think prior attempts at the CHICOTW may have failed to keep the ball rolling because people could not maintain the intensity required to take things to the FA level. I think we will do best focusing on things that require little effort to make vast improvements on. When we start jumping through a lot of hoops that is a project than a different spirit than I think will be a success here.
- The long and the short of it is if we have to do all kinds of extra things to get FAs it may change the type of effort we are doing to a point where it becomes burdensome. TonyTheTiger 07:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Apologies. We all earn our pay around here. You included. I was not challenging you. I was hoping you would independently come to the conclusion that I did, which is that the last two weeks were held to higher standards than our two successful GAs. I did not want to put the words in your mouth so I asked you for your opinion. Do you think the two that have made it are better than all of the other nominees? I ask you because as our best veteran copyeditor you could better answer this question than me an information hound and reference stickler. TonyTheTiger 23:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I have taken as stab at responding to Near South Side, Chicago WP:GAC criticisms. I am not able to be objective about the picture criticism since I am their author. Let me know what you think. TonyTheTiger 15:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 9 | 26 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
CHICOTW copyedit
[edit]I guess that sentence comes from the 2nd paragraph here looking at the online version of the encyclopedia. It seems your former interpretation may be more correct.
Also, your absence at Chicago Board of Trade Building is conspicuous. I think we may have a future WP:GA there with some good copyediting. There is a lot of meat in the article. TonyTheTiger 15:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'll plow into CBOT this evening, I'm just waiting to be sure that the main writing is mostly wrapped up. TheQuandry 15:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Your copyediting was up to its usual high standards. I was just wondering if you intentionally removed the open forum vs. structured debate point intentionally. TonyTheTiger 18:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Do you think Hull House is ready for WP:GA or should we wait until we stumble upon architectural info? TonyTheTiger 21:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
CHICOTW Nominations
[edit]Please rephrase your Northerly Island nomination in 25 words or less. TonyTheTiger 00:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
CHICOTW
[edit]|
|
| |
|
Last week you voted for the Chicago COTW. Thank you! This week Chicago Theatre has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list.
| ||
|
| |
TonyTheTiger 02:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Graceland
[edit]March 21st is open for nominations. If you want you can nominate Graceland there if you feel it is a stand alone nominee. TonyTheTiger 06:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 10 | 5 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Hull House renomination.
[edit]I added some architectural info on Hull House and renominated it at WP:GAC. Feel free to take edit it before anyone gets a hold of it. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Martial arts classes
[edit]If Fitzgerald's is not your cup of tea, check out Bally's on 47th. They have some pretty extensive classes. I think both places should have adult classes. Check more closely. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
New Picture excitement
[edit]I have to share my excitement about a new picture I added to Washington Park (Chicago park). Look at the sheep. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 03:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
CHICOTW
[edit]|
|
| |
|
Last week you voted for the Chicago COTW. Thank you! This week Union Stock Yards has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list.
| ||
|
| |
TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration re: Abu badali
[edit]Hi. I am writing you because you were one of the respondants on the RfC about Abu badali that was started back in November. There has been no substantive comment there for over a month and User:Abu badali has never bothered to respond to the RfC. The last comment on the talk page of the RfC was a suggestion to take it to arbitration, which is what I propose we do. Accordingly, I have created a shell/draft listing to add to the list of Arbitration Committee matters here. I've listed your new there, preliminarily, as a complaintant. If you are not interested in participating, please remove your name. If you are, please add your comments as we must prepare a 500 word summary of the case. Thanks for your attention - Jord 15:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 11 | 12 March 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
You helped choose Vladimir Lenin as this week's WP:ACID winner
[edit]
AzaBot 01:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
CHICOTW GA
[edit]|
|
| |
|
You were a contributing editor to Near South Side, Chicago during its tenure as CHICOTW. It has successfully achieved Good article status thanks in part to your efforts. See its GA Review and help us raise it towards the featured article classification level. Recall that during its tenure as CHICOTW we achieved the following Improvement. See our CHICOTW Improvement History. Note our good articles.
| ||
|
| ||
 |
| |