User talk:Homoaffectional

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

Signing[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. StuartDD contributions 16:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Article Classing[edit]

Just changed the template from stub to start classes. Where it says in the {{ }} - WikiProject Doctor Who|class=Start|importance=mid, you removed/changed the class=stub part, but looking at the classing/assessment pages, I just saw it to changed what would be class=stub to class=start, which changes the page classing, and the same goes for the importance rating. DeadDeers (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Donald Strachey[edit]

Thanks for the article on On the Other Hand, Death. When I saw it in the new pages, I looked at it and traced the link back to the main article -- just wanted to mention that I altered the entry for Ice Blues, since I saw it on (Canadian pay) TV last month I assume it's "out". Accounting4Taste:talk 22:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what skin you're using (I'm not vastly experienced with these matters) but mine, when you go to my user page or user talk page, has a link you can click that says "E-mail this user". I know it works, it's part of being an administrator to have it enabled. If you have trouble, let me know. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
My part of what we discussed will be finished today; possibly you will see some results in a week or ten days. Enjoy! Accounting4Taste:talk 20:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ice Blues[edit]

Homoaffectional, try not be disheartened. Wikipedia is so big with so many contributors that it is inevitable that sometimes people make mistakes. The AFD process is specifically designed to achieve consensus when an article's validity is questioned. I agree that LAAFan should have examined the article more thoroughly and looked for references prior to submission to AFD. As a group, we have recognized that the article is valid. Don't worry about it. Move on... and keep contributing. :-) Best wishes. Axl (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I appreciate the kind words! Thanks for stopping by and having positive things to say! It's nice when that actually happens. Best wishes yourself and feel free to stop by around these parts again, especially if you have more kind words to say. Hee-hee. OK see you around the Wiki pages! Homoaffectional (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hang-on tags[edit]

The "hangon" tag is used only in the case of a speedy deletion. The article in question has been taken to a full-blown Article for Deletion discussion; you would express your opinions there. A hang-on tag, even without a speedy-deletion tag, automatically adds the article back to the list of candidates for speedy deletion (I know, counter-intuitive). --Orange Mike | Talk 03:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, in other words, by removing the "hangon" tag, it helps keep the article from being deleted (or, at least, deleted faster). OK, in that case, thanks for the tip. And you're right... counterintuitive as all out... --Homoaffectional (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
And since AfD takes about 5 days, you can bring the article to the attention of the WP:Article Rescue Squadron (if it indeed is worth the trouble) by adding {Rescue}. Read the details at the ARS page first though. BMW(drive) 13:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the tip! Homoaffectional (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ice Blues AfD[edit]

WIth all due respect (and with my having just added an infobox and external link to the article), some editors may simply look at an article as first offered to AfD and vote accordingly. If the article itself does not show or claim notability, or is missing sources and external links... or is short and uninformative... they are not obligated to research it themselves. They may look at it just as it sits and make a judgement call about its worth. The AfD acts in that case as a motivation for the article's author and interested editors to do such research and improvement, if they wish. It is not a mandate. Wiki loves sources and links so that others can click them at the article and find the information and verifications right at their fingertips. Also more important to remember... avoithe use of phrases such as "suspicious and distasteful" when dealing with other editors here. Wiki encourages editors to Assume Good Faith and consider that an editor is making a change or a reccomendation with the best of intentions. Wiki encourages all users to be as polite and courteous as possible. Not doing so can get an editor in trouble. Again, an editor is mot mandated to improve someone else's article if it does meet Wiki requirements. That editor may thus tag the article for improvement or deletion. And if this same editor removes an improperly placed tag, do not take it personally. He's just following the guidelines that Wiki has here for everyone. Point of fact: the article was at first in need of help. At the AfD it received its help. Cliff Smith and OrangeMike are very experienced editors who can be a terrific allies in your corner. What they did here resulted in the article being much better than it was when first created. Yes? If an editor addresses the concerns voiced by Cliff Smith or OrangeMike, they are just as happy to come forward and say Good job! Many editors play Devil's Advocate and the results can be excellent. I admire your creating am article, and was glad to help it become better... but you may wish to go to the AfD discussion page and apologize. They are experienced. You are new. You want their kind of knowledge in your corner. Further, you can "publicly retract paragraphs or ill-chosen words (called a "strikethrough" by following the link to the strikethrough page and studying how its done. Example: Here's a line that has been struckthrough. Click on edit (above) to see the synbols and how they were used. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I came across as having a case of the IDONTLIKEIT's. My feeling is that we've got a problem across Wikipedia with a presumption that all new albums, movies, TV specials, etc. in the U.S. and other G-8 countries are inherently notable. There are theatrical releases that I earnestly believe in, albums that I've enjoyed, etc. that I would never create Wikipedia articles for because I don't feel they meet notability standards. I don't feel that most made-for-TV movies, episodes of sitcoms, etc., have any place here; and I don't think that's an IDONTLIKEIT, but rather an effort to apply the notability standards equitably across the board. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I don’t object to Ice Blues being placed in the AfD category – not at all. I don’t even object to a speedy deletion, although obviously I’m not exactly a cheerleader for the idea. Last time I checked, Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative project, and the more collaboration, the better.
My issue was with the lack of checking about the topic before placing either tag. I don’t expect anyone to work on this article if they don’t want to, particularly if they’re not familiar with the subject material. But I think it’s fair to expect that someone do at least five minutes of research to find out what exactly it is before deciding whether or not it’s notable and so the rationale for proposed deletion can remain consistent when defending one’s assertion that it isn’t notable. Otherwise one’s own long-standing reputation at Wikipedia can start to become tarnished.
No matter how long you’ve been doing this, it’s always good to check your facts before you click “Save Page”. I personally feel that that’s just as important for contributors as notability is for articles. Homoaffectional (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


Not CliffSmith[edit]

Please be careful whom you cite that I had a "problem" with or was addressing or ought to apologize to. I did not once cite him or any edits/comments he made when I weighed in on the AfD; I don't have the slightest objection to anything he did, and only see him as someone who was tremendously helpful, so please read something more carefully before you respond to it -- I just wanted to clarify that, and will issue a full response to this on your talk page. Homoaffectional (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

My bad. Please do not take offense. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken at all[edit]

Just encouraging people to be more careful before they hit "Save page" is all. Hope you are enjoying your weekend. Is your e-mail address set up?

Certainly I agree. The simple fact is that the article was tagged and the article was improved. I was glad to have been a part. Happy editing! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Got your email[edit]

I have no idea if you need a user page to request AWB. I think I'm the only one who watches for assessment requests, and I'm a little busy at the minute. You may be better off asking for re-assessment at WT:COMICS. Hiding T 16:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for getting back to me. I took care of it. Hope things get less crazy for you. See you around Wikipedia. Homoaffectional (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

B-class articles[edit]

Thanks for re-rating some articles as B-Class recently. Unfortunately when the B-class checklist is deleted, or if it was never filled in in the first place, it automatically displays the article as C-class instead. (See here for an example.) Richard75 (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Star Trek New Voyages: Phase II updates[edit]

Hi,

Just a quick thank you for updating and cleaning up some of the content on the STP2 page.

Best, Robert STP2: Production Team

RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 21:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Assessments[edit]

Democracy (Judge Dredd storyline) was assessed as GA in 2009 and I assessed Alan Class Comics back in January. (Emperor (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC))

Thanks[edit]

Thanks very much for taking the trouble to assess Democracy (Judge Dredd storyline), and for giving it a higher rating. Richard75 (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Jason Todd[edit]

Hey man, thanks for the congrats on the Jason Todd article. I thought it was A class now, but it's listed as B? By the way, how do I make a separate section for the "lost days" miniseries? Just like the above?

Your assessments[edit]

I wanted to flag some of your recent assessments as concerns have been raised about them:

  • Gabriel Vargas - I rated this as a B and am usually overly strict with my assessments, then you almost immediately marked it down to a C based on it not meeting the structure requirement. I not only can't see what the problem is, especially given that this is one of the easiest parts of the assessment to pass (articles usually miss the mark on the reference category). Could you explain your thinking behind this?
  • Rex the Wonder Dog - you passed this as a B despite it not having an infobox image (a pretty basic requirement for a B) and it is poorly referenced, with whole sections not being sourced (the "powers and abilities" section of a character's articles are usually the place they fall down and this is so here, although "other media" also has no source.
  • Jason Todd - you assessed this as an A, despite the fact it hasn't passed GA which is something you cannot do as the GA assessment is a very rigorous test of an article's quality and must be passed before an A-assessment can take place. Fram knocked it down to a B but again it is failing in the "powers and abilities" section, so I knocked it down to a C. This should be easy enough to fix though and get it back to a B but it needs a lot of work to get to the point it can be put up for a GA-assessment as it is largely based on primary sources and has a tonne of in-universe material in the FCB.

So your assessments seem inconsistent and have overlooked some pretty basic requirements (like needing an image in the infobox) and not following the general process (getting a GA-assessment before moving on to an A). Its not a big deal and it can take time to get your eye - hopefully the feedback above helps speed that process along as we do need enthusiastic editors helping with the assessments. (Emperor (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

I'm not inactive though, I do half a dozen assessments a day, and I know some of the others are active too. Thing is the assessment request page is only part of our assessment work - I keep an eye on new articles and also try and make sure any article I come across is assessed, others are working through the category for unassessed articles. So there is actually a lot more assessment going on elsewhere. (Emperor (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC))
It would still be best to speak to the relevant editors before removing them from the list - we all get sidetracked but it doesn't mean we've stopped working on that aspect. (Emperor (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC))

Assessment of Weathercraft[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to make sure of this, because I'm new to the world of assessments. The page was entirely written by me, and I'm also the one who assessed it for meeting the criteria for class B. Is that normally acceptable? I wanted to get a peer review to make sure I hadn't overstepped anything & jumped the gun (or let my ego assess myself too highly). Acidtoyman (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)