User talk:Giants2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Your GA nomination of 1938–39 Oregon Webfoots men's basketball team[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1938–39 Oregon Webfoots men's basketball team you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1938–39 Oregon Webfoots men's basketball team[edit]

The article 1938–39 Oregon Webfoots men's basketball team you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:1938–39 Oregon Webfoots men's basketball team for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1938–39 Oregon Webfoots men's basketball team[edit]

The article 1938–39 Oregon Webfoots men's basketball team you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:1938–39 Oregon Webfoots men's basketball team 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 Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

closing of featured list nom?[edit]

Why was this nomination closed? I continued working on the article, but the reviewer never responded. Was it my fault for not mentioning on the review page when I finished making the changes?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Some falafel for your Featured Article success![edit]

Falafel award.png Hi, Giants2008. Wow, that was quick! Congratulations on a smooth promotion to Featured Article status for History of the New York Yankees. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 6, 2016[edit]

Hi Giants, would you like to take a whack at this? I don't think I could do it justice in 1075 to 1175 characters. - Dank (push to talk) 00:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Precious again, your history of one of the most successful teams in North American sports and the "almost three years of editing to bring the article to this point"!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: List of best-selling albums in the United Kingdom[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Giants2008. You have new messages at A Thousand Doors's talk page.
Message added 23:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I've added a further update of this issue at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yankees History[edit]

Thank you for replying to my post. I was unaware of the controversy surrounding the beginning of the Yankees franchise. I thought someone had just made a mistake in editing on Wikipedia. I saw that baseball-reference, in the last few years, made the change of recognizing the original Orioles and Yankees as two different franchises. Before that, however, they recognized the two as the same franchise, and that's probably where I got my info from. I really have no reliable source on my side, so I'll have to back off, although my opinion is still the same. (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The Baseball-Almanac website still lists them as one continuous franchise, but that might not be enough. (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a little lower on the reliability scale than many of the sources that split them anyway. I don't think the FAC folks would look kindly upon using it, for example. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Proof-reading and pre-FLC review[edit]

Hey, I want to thank you again for proof-reading Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Special Guest Performer in a Drama Series, it meant so much! and it was truly appreciated! I was wondering if it was possible for you to do the same with Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Game Show Host, a page I recently revamped? Do you mind to correct all the mistakes, help modify sentences to make the article have more sense and thst are stronger? Also, give me some feedback? I understand you are busy person, and if you can not do it, please do not feel need to! I do not want to bother you! Thank you and hope you are enjoying your summer vacation! Thanks again! I might later on nominated the article for a FL, so maybe you can also do a Pre-FLC review for me? Again, if you can do it, that's great! If you can not, that's fine! Thank you!  — JJakathestrength (talk, contribs) 16:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

FLC review request[edit]

Hi! Since you participated in a previous similar FLC, I would like to request you to review the List of Padma Bhushan award recipients (1980–89) as well and give your comments here. Thanks! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

FLC delegate changes[edit]

@WP:FLC director and delegates: I'd do this over email but Giants doesn't have one linked, so if you (Giants) want to move the discussion there feel free. Given that Gavin (SchroCat) is leaving at the end of October, and Chris (Crisco 1492) hasn't closed a nomination since August 2015, we're a couple months away from having only 2 people working on things at FLC. As I mentioned at the FLC talkpage, that's a problem- we had a pack of 10+ nominations at the bottom of the queue with 2 reviews each for a few weeks, which was fixed by me reviewing them... but there has to be someone else to promote them, according to the current rules/norms, and 6 just stalled out even though they were ready to be promoted. Changing it so that we can promote nominations that we've reviewed alleviates this a bit, but ideally I think we need more delegates. Probably 2 to replace Gavin and, honestly, Chris. You two were brought on in late 2013 through elections, and since I took 3rd place I got added in mid 2015 after a brief ratification. I don't think that any of us would be comfortable extending that to the last 3 candidates from that ballot, both in terms of time elapsed and the votes they got, so I think the options are to either run another election or just pick someone to be ratified. I don't have anyone in mind; do y'all? Do you have any other ideas? --PresN 02:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree on not going to the election results. The three that became delegates had 100% ratification with good numbers behind them, the three that didn't make it had low levels of votes going in. There is possibly one name I could think of (I'd rather not name them in public without at least one other person chippping in beforehand to confirm they think they are OK), but outside the private nomination route (which I think is how the FAC delegates have been selected recently) the election route seems to be the best. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but between the BS over September Morn and starting a doctorate degree, I have had reduced time and interest for Wikipedia. I agree that it is best to find someone to replace me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
And Gavin, if you're thinking the person I'm thinking, he'll be okay. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear about this, Gavin. These are the horrible things that happen when I go on a break! :-( I'm on board with the idea of an election. It's been long enough since the last one that it makes sense to just do a new one and open the field to a new generation of FLC contributors who are interested in the job. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Email one of us and we'll copy you on the conversation we've been having off-wiki about this. --PresN 03:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@Giants2008: ... --PresN 00:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't do anything related to Wikipedia by email. Anything good enough for me to hear is good enough for the rest of the community. That's been my belief since joining Wikipedia, and I'm sticking to it come hell or high water. Sorry, but I just don't do well with off-Wiki business. It's a rabbit hole I'd rather not go down for a variety of reasons. If you're serious about a particular candidate, let them know and bring it up on FLC talk so we can have a !vote. If not, I trust you guys to come up with a good election format to bring to FLC when the time comes. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
That's reasonable, I just didn't know it was deliberate. The discussion was just that Gavin had two editors he wanted to propose directly, which Chris and I agreed with; I wanted to know if you were fine with us talking to them and proposing them directly at WT:FLC like I was, or if you wanted an election regardless. I wanted it off-wiki so that your opinion of the specific editors didn't have to be public prior to any proposition. Sounds like you're fine with it, so I'll follow up with the two editors and propose them to the community, and if one or both declines I'll make an election setup. --PresN 21:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of members of the 14th Parliament of Pakistan/archive1[edit]

Sorry for bothering you but I would greatly appreciate it if you kindly give me some feedback on this list. This list is ready in my opinion. --Saqib (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Featured article candidate: Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album)[edit]

Hi there! My mean is not to bother you, but I was wondering if you could find time to comment on my FAC above and even support or oppose to it. Face-smile.svg Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: List of New York Mets seasons[edit]

Thank you for your feedback.

I'm not quite sure what the issue was with the edits I made, considering what I did made it look more like the vast majority of other teams list of seasons pages. Most other teams bold the years when the won the division, pennant and World Series (see List of Atlanta Braves seasons for example). IMO, that makes it look nicer, it helps it stand out. I removed the links to MLB seasons overall in each column because it isn't really necessary to include it, about half of the other pages don't have it either. The symbols that indicate wild card, division, pennant and World Series look junky; and most other teams don't have them on their pages. Finally, almost every other team I've seen bolds the word won when they win a playoff series in a particular season.

I'm not trying to argue here, but I'm not quite understanding the inconsistency here? Bbob221 (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eega/archive2[edit]

This candidate is open since the first of September. It could gain benefit from few constructive comments. Would you like to provide some? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album)[edit]

Hi there! You have left comments on my FAC above, but could you return in order to support or oppose to my nomination? This would be appreciated. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

PR request[edit]

I know you're not an avid follower of cricket, but would you be interested in taking part in this PR? Thanks, Vensatry (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)