Jump to content

User talk:Mr rnddude/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Hi Mr rnddude, hope you're doing well - thank you for helping deal with this legal threat. I'd just like to clarify a slight misconception you may have regarding the WMF's 'legal team' - the WMF very rarely gets involved in legal threats made on Wikipedia. As you note, the correct venue for these sorts of issues are AN/I. Thanks again -- samtar talk or stalk 11:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I became aware of this slightly too late Samtar, I haven't jumped in to help with a legal issue before. Thanks for stopping by to notify me of that, cheers. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

JohnHarold

Hi, per your suggestion have amended the close to include other actions taken, and for neatness have moved the additional comments inside the hat. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Euryalus, thanks for that, and thanks for moving the post-close subthread into the closed discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Histria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dardanians. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Milam Building/GA2

Thanks for the review. Will work on it and get back to you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Have addressed your issues. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

White Pine Village

Do you think this article could be rated more than Stub Class? It has been listed as one of four unique tourist attractions for West Michigan. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Doug Coldwell I'm pinging you since I updated my response. I'll take a look at it and do a B-class assessment for it, that's the lowest formal assessment and is used to assess Start, C and B-class articles. A thought has occurred to me, I can immediately amend your article to Start-class and have done so, however, B-class assessments should be reserved for the appropriate Wikiprojects, I noted that Wikiproject Michigan hasn't completed a B-class review since 2013 and couldn't find anything for Wikiproject Museums. Those will be addressed at the GA review. Sorry, I didn't think of it earlier on account of my doing the occasional B-class reviews for Wikiproject MILHIST. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Preparation (principle)

Is this section breakdown like something perhaps you had in mind? BTW, I live in Michigan. In this state we have what's called Michigan eLibrary ("MeL") = where I can order any book in any public library, high school, college, or university and have it sent here to my local library (1 block away). That gives me access to literally thousands of books = like having the Library of Congress in my front yard. All the pictures in the Michigan eLibrary article are mine and are books I have used at one time or another for various articles. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes that's a good breakdown for the article, there are two alternatives to section breakdown 1. is the type you used here, the other 2. is well illustrated at Penumbra (law) and arguably Caracalla with the use of subheadings under a main heading. I figured you live in Michigan based on your interest in White Pine Village. The MeL system you mention seems like an excellent idea, making all manner of knowledge so easily available. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you "professor". You may not be a university professor, but you are my professor. Yes, White Pine Village is 4 miles south of where I live. Luckily, it so happens that the state of Michigan is very big on education. Mel is an arm of the University of Michigan - so a lot of books I ILL are from Universities in Michigan. I also use the Library of Congress for really tough ones where I need specialized information, like the 30-in-1 DYK I created. I use their Ask A Librarian service.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Kaunakes/GA1

I like your table and the way you do GA reviews. I am trying to follow your example. Could you take a glance at above review I just did to see if it technically is correct. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Doug Coldwell; Yeah sure, will take a look at it. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! You do reviews very good. I'll see if I can't follow your examples.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I may have done something wrong, as what is edited on the GA1 page doesn't show up on the article talk page UNLESS I copy the contents and paste that onto the article talk page. Also it shows in the Categories as a red GAN error = apparently something I did! Is that fixable?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Doug Coldwell; Ah yes, I see, that's normal. I'm not sure how the transclusion works however I noted that most of my GA reviews don't show up on the talk page for many hours. Compare my most recent review Talk:Castellania_(Valletta)/GA1 with the talk page Talk:Castellania_(Valletta) and you'll find that my most recent changes haven't updated there either (GA1a passed on the review page but failed on the talk page). As for the GAN error, I don't know why that is showing up. I'll look into it. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. You are most helpful. I think I may have caused another error also as Kaunakes does NOT show up under Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Social sciences and society#Culture, sociology, and psychology for "On Hold" or "Review". Is that something automatic IF (notice big IF) I had done everything correctly in the first place, OR is it something I add myself? Thanks for whatever help you can provide. Obviously you are much more skilled at this than I am.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Doug Coldwell, normally it shows up automatically after a few hours. You can update the article talk page (through source editing) to read "GA nominee|01:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)|nominator=signature redacted|page=1|subtopic=Culture, sociology, and psychology|status=onreview just add the bolded bit onto the end and inside the }} brackets and it should then show up onto GAN page when a bot gets to it. It can take a full day for the bots to get to the correct page and update it. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I think I have added that to the place you suggested. Now it's just a matter for the bots to catch up. If I don't hear from you then I assume I am doing the right steps. Thanks again!!!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Doug Coldwell; The GAN page just updated, it doesn't recognize the reviewer. I'll look into it and see if it is fixable. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. As you can see I am learning the ropes. Eventually I'll get it.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Doug Coldwell; Unfortunately regarding the GAN error, I haven't been able to track down the cause, I've character by character compared the templates to other pages and there's nothing to suggest that an error should exist. I'll have to track it down later or perhaps one of the many page watchers will know how to fix it. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • A nice article, well written and properly referenced, if the large principle section were broken up into a few smaller sections it'd easily be B-class material. I have the quote on my userpage for a rather simple reason, in my own experience when somebody told me how to do something I'd be able to do it then and there but if you asked me to do it again a while later I wouldn't be able to remember how to (especially true for Maths and Physics). At school I may have remembered much of what I was 'taught' but it didn't impact me in any way, honestly couldn't have cared less about it just memorize material, answer in the test and whatever knowledge stays, stays. Not until University, when I started to teach myself and then also my fellow students, did I actually learn. Hence not only do I like the quote but have lived to experience precisely that. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for comments and suggestions for Preparation (principle). You are a University Professor? I notice also that you have an interest in Ancient Rome material. I created the article on Aemilia Tertia. Think about this and put on the back burner for the future = is it something that we could bring to Good Article status? Recently I have been putting in heavy duty work on the first article I ever created in hopes of someday it being a GAN.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Doug Coldwell; No, not a University professor, I was a tutor, hence "fellow students", while studying at University. I can take a look at the article and see what sort of sources and information I can find on it. The article looks relatively expansive already but in dire need of citations. I think it should be possible to get the article to at least GA material based on what is already there. As for White Pine Village, I'm not sure how much more you plan to add to it but it's also shaping up to be a fine article, but, perhaps with too many images. I'm not sure of any Museum GA/A/FA article's so can't actually comment on the presentation. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your answers and replies.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Any other comments for Kaunakes? It looks good to me and they have made the necessary corrections. If I don't hear otherwise from you, I am going to rap this up as a GA tomorrow. And thanks again for your help on this with your expert skills.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Doug Coldwell, if you'd like a proper second opinion to ensure that you have done the GA review well you can always request a second opinion on the actual review article. I would generally be happy to assist, however, right now I am preoccupied with another issue that also needs resolving and is also related to GA. To request a 2nd opinion update the nomination template on the talk page to change status=onreview to status=2ndopinion. From here on the actual nomination page update your review at the bottom to explain what your request is for. In this instance just write that you'd like a second second opinion to ensure that the article is indeed ready for GA. All of the instructions are available at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Asking_for_a_second_opinion. If I am able to resolve my issue before somebody takes on the 2nd opinion review then I'll drop by and check it myself. Sorry for not being able to assist, but, this issue involves my own nominations for GA and a further eight on top of that. Just look under Royalty, nobility, and heraldry on the GAN page and you might immediately be able to see the issue. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for reply and further instructions. I am fully confident that it meets GA standards, so was bold and just approved. I then replaced the template per Step 4 of the GA Instructions and it is marked on the article Talk page as GA. According to the Instructions then. "A bot will add the good article icon to the article..." I'm trying to learn the ropes and getting "involved" = so was bold and passed myself. Thanks again for your help and input on the various items. You are very knowledgeable on how GAs work and the processes involved. I have a good feel for DYKs as my list shows, however GAs are a bit new to me. I'll practice and eventually get that also. Keep in contact.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Doug Coldwell, Sure no problem, being bold is part of everything on Wikipedia, you were bold to start the review and so being bold and finishing it is the logical outcome. I have a relatively small amount of GA reviews under my belt, 20 I think at last count. One thing that I have noticed is that the easiest articles to review are of about a medium length (say 30k bytes). This is because there is clearly enough there to make a judgement on the information presented, isn't too big as to require many hours of reading and processing, yet isn't too short that you are required to do extensive additional research to ensure that everything that could be added to the article, has been added to the article. It's a sort of, this article is too long, this article is too short, and this article is just right balance. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Love your "just right" analogy and will DEFINITELY keep that in mind. Thanks again "professor"!--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Macrinus

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Macrinus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Emir of Wikipedia -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Caracalla

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Caracalla you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Emir of Wikipedia -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for closure.

Thanks for closing the thread. Sorry that I bought up an unnecessary matter to the Administrators noticeboard. TheGRVOfLightning(talk) 00:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

TheGRVOfLightning; Yeh sure no problem. I'm curious, why did you bring up an edit from late July to your userpage to the administrator's noticeboard? it's such a mild incident, I revert changes to my userpage all the time, granted my userpage is generally reserved for articles, AfD, AN/I and tidbits about myself so anything I revert is generally a closed discussion or whatever. As for RfA, since you mentioned you like to go at it eventually, the expectations of administrators are exceedingly high now. Consider Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Oshwah 2, a very well known editor around here with over 100,000 edits passed his RfA by quite possibly the skin of his teeth for three reasons 1. Way to interested in becoming an admin, 2. Involved in admin only activities when they shouldn't have been, and 3. Lack of actually improving the encyclopaedia. There is no expectation to have 100,000 edits btw, most of their edits came via semi-automated procedures leaving only 17,000 real edits and most of those were outside of article space. Also, as a heads up, note that someone may decide to revert my close on closer inspection, I hope that's not the case as it would prolong an unnecessary discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Because I thought I'd bring it up so that if it was found, There would at least be an explanation for it. TheGRVOfLightning(talk) 00:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

TheGRVOfLightning; Meh, it's not in article space and as such won't constitute vandalism. In any case, don't worry about it. Just make sure not to leave your account logged in at school for the future. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, Boeing 737? really? get with the times the 787 is far and above the 737. Well, at least you're a Boeing fan and not an Airbus one. Way too automated and asynchronous controls, an accident waiting to happen. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Since Gestrid decided to revert your perfectly reasonable comment, a heads up that the discussion has lightly moved to my talk page EEng and not the original poster's. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Your rang? EEng
Now I understand what you're talking about. I restored my comment -- it was nonsense that it was removed. EEng 03:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been more specific EEng. This is from mobile, I think I added a letter somewgere in your message but can't see if anything is misplaced. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Caracalla

The article Caracalla you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . 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:Caracalla for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Example -- Example (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Macrinus

The article Macrinus you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . 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:Macrinus for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Emir of Wikipedia -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Macrinus

The article Macrinus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Macrinus 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 Emir of Wikipedia -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Good Article backlog elimination drive barnstar

The Multiple Good Article Reviewer's Barnstar
Thank you for your participation in the August 2016 GAN backlog drive! For reviewing 17 articles, you get this award. Thanks again and hope to see you for the next drive. JAGUAR  14:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Jaguar, and indeed you will. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

More thanks

Not just for that single post, but for your other comments there as well; made me clarify my thinking about it, too, which is good in case I ever need it again. LaughingVulcan 23:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks LaughingVulcan, I too had to think about the comments in the sub-thread, especially when revisting Betty Logan's original comment after your last post. I had missed the connection that Betty Logan had made between CITEVAR and the infobox question, the reason for the CITEVAR guideline is because 1. it's a stylistic choice and 2. it takes hours to change the format. By comparison an infobox can be added or removed within minutes and is also a question of content as much as it is about style. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gaius Antonius Hybrida, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Decimus Junius Silanus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Macrinus

Macrinus, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

...for "he often extends good faith to editors who otherwise would have received none." I like to think that's true. It made me a bit sad that you struck it. Ah, well...
What I don't do is pander to folks who bring the silliest, trumped up little bit of butthurt to ANI and engage good caring folks like you in reams of their own self-absorption. I think that's selfish and rude, and, yes, when I see it, sometimes I mock it mercilessly. Indulging it encourages it, and promotes an overly litigious environment where he who speaks longest wins by exhausting everyone else. There was nothing "disingenuous" about it. My message was: "This is utterly without value or importance. Please get over yourself and stop wasting people's time". It was delivered with biting humour, yes, but that in itself is a statement. I know you don't operate that way, but sometimes it's valid. Some folks are so far "up themselves" they need a jolt. Anyway, just thought I'd explain. Cheers. -- Begoon 15:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Sorry Begoon, but I didn't recognise you from that description ;) Muffled Pocketed 15:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
When I'm nice, I am very, very nice - when I am not, I am not. :-) -- Begoon 15:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Begoon, if it makes you feel better, I do actually still think that. I actually meant to strike the part about sarcasm not the whole comment, an error on my part. I'll have it saved for when you're actually extending the good faith further than other editors (though fair enough all things considered). Believe me by the end of that discussion I too was feeling like hitting my head against a wall. I've been there where I see a comment and think that I literally have no more good faith to extend here, I tend to just recuse myself from the discussion or join in on any interesting tangents that develop. Add; So we're clear [1], I did indeed mean it. :) See ya around the noticeboards Begoon. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
It's all good. We are all different. I think perhaps I've seen more abuse of AGF than you may have, so I'm a bit more cynical, but if I think someone deserves defence I'll turn that cynicism on the attackers very quickly, regardless of who they are, or who their friends are. I guess I'm an equal opportunities cynic. (...and I knew you didn't mean to strike that bit - I just couldn't resist ribbing you for it...) -- Begoon 15:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Surat/GA1

Mr rnddude, I've put this nomination up for a speedy deletion under G6, since it's completely out of process and has to be deleted regardless. Generally, it's best not to write anything on these mistaken review pages, but since you're talking about having it deleted, I doubt an admin will have any qualms with deleting it. Once the deletion is done, I then adjust the article talk page. (If you try to adjust it before the page is gone, the bot will just retransclude the review simply because the review page exists.) Please let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for catching this one. I've placed a note on the nominator's page explaining the error. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks BlueMoonset and wilco; you mention adjusting the talk page, you mean the GA nomination template? or the transcluded review? or both. I presume with the nomination template you amend the "status=onreview" to "status=" and the transcluded review is deleted since the page is deleted, or does it need deleting separately. On that note, I just looked at the article's talk page and it's also been nominated for FA. I can tell you right now that it doesn't stand a chance for GA let alone FA - I skimmed the article to see what kind of condition it was in.
Well, drive-by FACs are not allowed, and FACs submitted by first-time IPs are definitely not allowed, so I've removed the FAC. (An FAC is also not allowed when another nomination has been made, such as a GAN or Peer Review, so that's another reason not to leave it there.) By adjusting the talk page, I mean both removing "onreview" from the status field of the GA nominee template and deleting the transclusion of the GA review page, which will now be a red link. Sorry to hear the article isn't even close to being GA ready, but that's not unusual for new submitters who don't understand the process very well (as witness the opening of the review). BlueMoonset (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes I figured doing an FA and GA simultaneously was not going to fly. I presume at least GA status must already be acquired before even submitting for FA is considered. Thanks for the instructions BlueMoonset, if I come across a similar issue like that I can deal with it myself now, rather than having to ping you every time. I'll let the reviewer decide whether the article can achieve GA in a reasonable amount of time or whether they will quick-fail it on its current shortcomings. I'm pre-occupied with many other tasks including learning how to inkscape maps myself. I have a map in an article that makes no sense, a map in a source that also makes no sense (but for different reasons) and now have to use three different sources to amalgamate them into a single logical and consistent map. Great fun when I don't know how to create maps let along good ones. I could ask the Graphics Lab, but, I'd like to be able to do it myself. Thanks again, Mr rnddude (talk) 06:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually, while the FAC rules forbid simultaneous GAN or PR, there is no rule that says you can't take an article straight to FAC, skipping GA entirely. It's generally not advisable, unless you're a very experienced contributor who has a number of successful FACs and know the very high standard required, but it can be done. (Odd fact: if the article was a GA and gets promoted to FA it loses its GA status, so that if the article is subsequently demoted from FA, it isn't an FA or GA. A new GAN would be required for it to get GA status again.) I noticed that the Surat GA1 page was deleted due to the red link in this section header, so I went over and edited the Surat talk page accordingly; it's all set. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Huh, I didn't know that about FA/GA. Makes sense on one hand, FA standards are generally well above those for GA but I've come across quite a few editors who think that a GA should really be about 90-95% of the way to FA while others think it sits more around the 65-75% mark. So in the respect that a GA should be 90-95% of an FA it makes sense that if it gets demoted from FA it will also be at a lower standard than a GA. Personally, I think some articles are capable of achieving GA that will never be able to achieve FA. This is mostly due to the expectation that an FA article will be thorough in all aspects, whereas some GAs are so short they're barely able to attain GA status (3k-7k bytes in length). I find GA useful for those sorts of articles and also as a step to getting to FA. A single thorough review versus the three necessary ones for an FA. I have a couple articles I'm slowly working to FA-status, I'd most like to get Caracalla there. Once somebody gets round to doing the GA for it and presuming I can fix up the identified problems, I'll be moving it to MILHIST A-class, if it makes it through there, I'll punch for FA. That may be months away though. Thanks for setting the page up BlueMoonset, I'll be keeping an eye on it just to make sure the editor doesn't make the mistake of restarting the review again (on the off-chance they never saw my comment to them). Perhaps I should leave a talk page comment explaining it? in any case; cheers for helping out, Mr rnddude (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
My opinion is that anyone who uses a percentage regarding GA versus FA doesn't really understand the specific criteria for either. A GA should be 100% of the GA criteria, without respect to FA. Take prose, for instance. GA wants "clear and concise" and free from grammatical errors; FA wants "engaging and of a professional standard". There's no way to do a percentage of that: clear and concise can also be dull or dry, and a copyedit isn't likely to fix that, only a rewrite. (My prose, as I discovered a few years back, is certainly GA level, but falls short of the FA standard.) And broad at the GA level is frequently nowhere near comprehensive as required at FA, not to mention the FA "well-researched" criterion, which doesn't come in to play at GA to anything like a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" requirement. As to the Surat nominator's talk page, I did leave a note there the other day about not self-reviewing. Take a look, and if you think more is needed, or a separate section should be used for a new message, by all means feel free. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hmm... I hadn't thought about the "engaging and of a professional standard" prose for FA. I myself would have to do a thorough review of my own prose to see how it stacks up. I agree with you on the topic of metrics between GA and FA, I don't bother to measure a GA against the FA criteria. If it meets the GA criteria then quite simply it's a GA. I didn't realize you'd left a message to the editor, no need for me to leave my own message. My relative lack of an ability to be concise would mean that by the time I'd conveyed the message the editor would probably be asleep. Besides, your concise explanation and guidance is exactly what I would have said to them, although, in far fewer bytes than it takes me. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mr_rnddude/Archive_3&oldid=1085974938"