User talk:MacDaid

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

Welcome[edit]

Hello MacDaid, and welcome to Wikipedia. I hope that you have enjoyed contributing and want to stick around. Here are some tips to help you get started:

If you need any more information, plenty of help is available - check out Wikipedia:Questions; ask your question here and attract help with the code {{helpme}}; or leave me a message on my talk page explaining your problem and I will help as best as I can. Again, welcome! strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 16:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Editing Pages[edit]

Hey! I saw the edits you made on the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine article. Please always leave a edit-summary so other editors can see what you have done! It makes it easier for other people. Thank you! :) Esuzu (talkcontribs) 17:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll use edit summaries from now on. I read up on them. Thanks! MacDaid (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Great! Also, you are now the nominator of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine's GAN. Please check my initial comments. Esuzu (talkcontribs) 16:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I have been working on your initial comments. MacDaid (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


Review[edit]

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for about seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page 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 comment 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. Good luck!

Why would you want a second opinion? The second opinion is for the reviewer, not the nominator. If the article fails you may take it to Good article reassessment but it will probably be better to just address the issues I have written down since I am quite sure they will say the same.Esuzu (talkcontribs) 21:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I think your notions of what should be in the article are rigid. You want me to write the article your way. The article merely has to fulfill the GA criteria, which are not as strict as the criteria you are applying. Please fail the article. Thanks! (When free labor is no longer fun, and article writing is a chore, then it is time to stop. I don't mind fulfilling reasonable suggestions. I would continue implementing your reasonable suggestions, but I feel it would be wasted effort on my part, as you will fail it anyway.) :) Best wishes, MacDaid (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep the discussion on your talk page it is easier. I will watch it. It is on hold for a week, then it will fail if the problems are not addressed. And if you re-nominate it without fixing those comments the next GAN will most likely be a quick-fail. I am no against you here, I am trying to help you with the article. I am not being overly harsh or anything. My only reason for reviewing is to help the article attain GA status if possible. If there are problems with the suggestions I say you can put them under my comments. Esuzu (talkcontribs) 21:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Someone other than you might fix the problems. I will not fail it until the on hold period is over. Esuzu (talkcontribs) 21:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
OK. Then I will follow your suggestions and remove the info sourced to Nobel.org. MacDaid (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no need to remove it. Simply finding new references will do. Esuzu (talkcontribs) 22:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I cannot find other references for that specific information. I work from the references to the text, not the other way around. I have put a lot of work into this article and been through the sources multiple times. I am trying to fulfill your requests, since I wrote most of the article, and would rather try to fix it according to your demands. Best wishes, MacDaid (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I aggree with MacDaid that many of the comments in the first GA review concern matters of personal taste and do not demonstrate failure on part of the articel to meet the GA criteria. I also think it was a good idea to request that the comments are rephrased to better show their relations to the GA criteria. --Ettrig (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space[edit]

Information.svg Hey there MacDaid, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:MacDaid/sandbox 1. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

  • See a log of files removed today here.
  • Shut off the bot here.
  • Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Quick-fail remark[edit]

I'm confused by what you wrote at Talk:Ann Romney/GA2. The only quick-fail in that area I see today is this one of a different article. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. I make a mistake. I have tried to fix it be deleting the review page I opened. So the next review that comes along will have a clean review page. My apologies. I'm very sorry. MacDaid (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, no problem ... Wasted Time R (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

GA pass for Abyssal plain[edit]

I have located and added appropriate inline citations for both of the items in question, and accordingly removed the two {{citation needed}} tags. Thank you very much for your strict attention to detail. DiverDave (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Great! Thank you very much. Best wishes, MacDaid (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, MacDaid. You have new messages at Belovedfreak's talk page.
Message added 20:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.