User talk:Yash!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:TheSpecialUser)
Jump to: navigation, search
AfC submissions
Random submission
Highly backlogged
918 pending submissions
Purge to update
Wikipedia Meetups
   March 2017 +/-
Women's Herstory @ Fresno State March 1, 2017 (2017-03-01)
Art+Feminism @ Univ of Waterloo March 1, 2017 (2017-03-01)
Art+Feminism & The Women
You Have Never Met @ Women in Red
March 1–31, 2017 (2017-03-01 – 2017-03-31)
Role Models @ Women in Red March 1–31, 2017 (2017-03-01 – 2017-03-31)
Art+Feminism @ Ohio State Univ March 3, 2017 (2017-03-03)
Art+Feminism Pre-session @ UW Seattle March 3, 2017 (2017-03-03)
Art+Feminism @ Temple Univ Lib, Philly March 3, 2017 (2017-03-03)
Art+Feminism @ UW Seattle March 4, 2017 (2017-03-04)
Art+Feminism @ Cal Poly Pomona March 4, 2017 (2017-03-04)
Art+Feminism @ Univ of Illinios March 4, 2017 (2017-03-04)
Art+Feminism @ AGO Toronto March 4, 2017 (2017-03-04)
Art+Feminism @ Royal Academy of Arts March 5, 2017 (2017-03-05)
Black Women's Herstory @ Spelman March 5, 2017 (2017-03-05)
Ireland WikiWomen @ Maynooth Univ March 8, 2017 (2017-03-08)
Women in Science @ Rockefeller March 9, 2017 (2017-03-09)
Ireland WikiWomen @ NUI Galway March 9, 2017 (2017-03-09)
Art+Feminism @ Saskatoon Pub Lib March 9, 2017 (2017-03-09)
9066 Edit-A-Thon @ Fresno State March 9, 2017 (2017-03-09)
Palo 2 March 10, 2017 (2017-03-10)
Art+Feminism @ Emily Carr U, Vancouver March 10, 2017 (2017-03-10)
Human Rights Edit-A-Thon @ Grinnell Coll, IA March 10, 2017 (2017-03-10)
Art+Feminism @ MoMA March 11, 2017 (2017-03-11)
Art+Feminism @ Cornell, Ithaca March 11, 2017 (2017-03-11)
Art+Feminism @ Minneapolis Central Lib March 11, 2017 (2017-03-11)
Art+Feminism @ SAIC Chicago March 11, 2017 (2017-03-11)
Art+Feminism @ NM Museum of Art March 11, 2017 (2017-03-11)
ART+COMMUNITY @ PES, Newark, NJ March 11, 2017 (2017-03-11)
London 116 March 12, 2017 (2017-03-12)
Edit-a-thon @ Silver City New Mexico USA March 13, 2017 (2017-03-13)
Art+Feminism @ Vanderbilt Univ Central Lib March 14, 2017 (2017-03-14)
GLAM workshop @ Trinity College Dublin March 15, 2017 (2017-03-15)
Black Lunch Table @ Univ of Toronto, Scar March 17, 2017 (2017-03-17)
Art+Feminism @ Moore Coll of A&D, Philly March 17, 2017 (2017-03-17)
Art+Feminism @ Univ of the Arts, Philly March 18, 2017 (2017-03-18)
Johor 2 March 18, 2017 (2017-03-18)
Art+Feminism @ Univ of Toronto March 18, 2017 (2017-03-18)
Art+Feminism @ Vancouver, BC March 18–19, 2017 (2017-03-18 – 2017-03-19)
Oxford 48 March 19, 2017 (2017-03-19)
Art+Feminism @ Gardiner Museum, Toronto March 19, 2017 (2017-03-19)
Art+Feminism @ HCC, Tampa, FL March 21, 2017 (2017-03-21)
Art+Feminism @ SF Art Institute March 25, 2017 (2017-03-25)
Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon@IU March 25, 2017 (2017-03-25)
Art+Feminism Edit-a-Thon@ Stride Gallery March 25, 2017 (2017-03-25)
Black Lunch Table: All Rise @ UNC Chapel Hill March 25, 2017 (2017-03-25)
Art+Feminism @ Philly Museum of Art March 26, 2017 (2017-03-26)
Art+Feminism @ Washington U Libs March 28, 2017 (2017-03-28)
Bay Area WikiSalon @ Noisebridge, SF March 29, 2017 (2017-03-29)
   April 2017 +/-
Black Lunch Table @ UNC Chapel Hill April 1, 2017 (2017-04-01)
WikiSalon @ Chemical Heritage Fdn, Philly April 8, 2017 (2017-04-08)
London 117 April 9, 2017 (2017-04-09)
Art & Social Justice @ CSU Northridge April 17, 2017 (2017-04-17)
Black Lunch Table @ Boston U, Day 1 April 21, 2017 (2017-04-21)
Black Lunch Table @ Boston U, Day 2 April 22, 2017 (2017-04-22)
Oxford 49 April 23, 2017 (2017-04-23)
Full Meetup Calendar
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 15:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

The Signpost
27 February 2017

GA review review?[edit]

Hi! I just did (or am doing? :) my first GA review, here, after submitting my own first GA request today. Any thoughts/suggestions on the review are welcome. In particular I'm not sure if I'm inserting too much of my own opinion into 1(a) and 4, and how to proceed if "?" really is the right assessment for those planks of the assessment. Thanks! —Luis (talk) 02:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

LuisVilla, I just noticed something that is a big red flag for me. Earwig's tool yields concerning results about possible close paraphrasing with this at 49% confidence. I always jump on the tiny box on the upper right side and use it before even beginning my review. About 1a and 4, even I would not be sure if the article meets 1a yet. I noticed a few vague terms such as "currently", "formerly preached" with no description about when, listing of awards received without mentioning the year, and a few issues here and there. 1a is not perfectly met but also it is something that can be fixed easily in this case. I have doubts about 4, especially after seeing the close paraphrasing flag. Close paraphrasing is almost always accompanied by POV statements. For example, "an organization dedicated to helping young African American men stay away from gang activity and prison." - nothing particularly wrong with this one but it is not as formal (or encyclopedic) as one would expect from a GA. I believe the article outright fails 2d but I would not fail it either as the article or the issue of paraphrasing is not too big and it can be fixed in some days or weeks maybe (that is me though. I can think of a few editors who would fail the article right away if such issue came up and they are not wrong either. It is just that I am a very patient person and I am willing to prolong the review process if the issues look fixable in a month's time, and if the nominator is motivated enough to solve them). I think you did a pretty decent job at describing the issues that you saw with 1a and 4. If you see a problem or if something bothers you, just write it up - it can then be fixed in the article or discussed on the review page. If you still feel, after an initial discussion, that the article is at "?" with any of the criteria, have a go at describing particular things that you feel need attention. Sometimes the nominator does not exactly see what is wrong and writing specific portions help. About this review, you might want to start a GA reassessment page (individual) and notify the original nominator about the issue of close paraphrasing. It absolutely should be fixed if the article were to remain a GA. Let me know if I can assist you and feel free to leave me a message about anything that crosses your mind. Regards, — Yash talk stalk 01:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the commentary, Yash!. I assumed the copyvio link in the standard box was the same linked to from the standard instructions (sorry, can't find link right now), which I had run, but this is a more useful link. Most of the supposed paraphrasing is literally just titles ("president of such-and-such", etc.), which makes the output mostly useless, but there are a few bad sentences. I'll flag them on the talk page and suggest the proposer revise before formally going into a re-evaluation. —Luis (talk) 04:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is not that big of an issue, LuisVilla. The ones that are there can be fixed with ease. You are doing a great job BTW - your GA nominee looks in good shape. The GA process will surely benefit from involvement of editors like you! :) — Yash talk stalk 05:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Followup question: is there a Village Pump/central talk page just for GAs/GA reviewers? A new question about a different article came up, and I'm wondering if there is a better way to discuss than 1:1 talk page chats with specific active GA meta-reviewers. I didn't see an obvious one linked to from the documentation, but there is quite a bit of it so maybe I missed it. Thanks. —Luis (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
WT:GAN is the place where most of the important, as well as casual discussions are held. You can drop by there and expect a good enough response as it is heavily watched. The page is not frequently used to resolve minor specific questions but you can certainly try. While reviewing, 1-1 talk is the primary way, although you can also seek a "second opinion" (by altering the talk page template) if you are unsure while reviewing - it will generate a nice little message on WP:GAN and someone will see it soon enough. LuisVilla, since we are on the topic, I was always in favour of having an IRC for DYK/GA/FA related things. Regards, — Yash talk stalk 00:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I haven't been regularly on IRC since 2006 but I suppose I could drop by from time to time ;) Thanks for the WP:GAN pointer.—Luis (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
As a followup, the primary editor of the reviewed article points out that those phrases were in the WP article before the press release was published, so the copyvio is on their end, not ours. Happy ending, I guess? :) —Luis (talk) 04:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see LuisVilla. All's well that ends well! — Yash talk stalk 04:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jimmy Boyle (record producer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hole (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

10:42:26, 19 March 2017 review of submission by[edit]

Dear Yash!, thanks for reviewing this article. I really appreciate the time and effort you have invested in this. That said, the review you left seems to highlight the exact same points as the previous one, without addressing the fact that the entry has been quite substantially altered. In the light of this, I am wondering if you could make some specific suggestion as to how I need to change this entry, to get it out in the open? Thanks again for your time and all good wishes, Felix

Request on 00:32:19, 20 March 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Acel17[edit]

Australian Council For Educational Leaders

Hi, I would like to find out about the page I am working on which you have recently reviewed. If I am able to put in more references from reliable third party organizations and not from Aust. Council for Educational Leaders [the organization the article is about], will that be sufficient for the page to be accepted into Wikipedia?

Acel17 (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Evening song[edit]

I nominated Bleib bei uns, denn es will Abend werden, BWV 6 fo GA, the last minutes of Bach's birthday where I live ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Re-initiating INCOTM[edit]

It's been almost an year since "Indian collaboration of the month" was active. Firstly we need to restart this as soon as possible for development of India-related articles to greater heights. The members page was blanked, where many of them are inactive. This mass message is to all the members of WikiProject India, about this and interested editors interested will sign up. After this message gets delivered, we'll wait for 7 days before we start a discussion under a thread on the collaboration's talk page, among the members. The discussion will include what to clean-up of sub-pages, a new set of guidelines for smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the collaboration etc. Please keep all the discussions under this thread only, so that it will easier for future reference. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Indian military history[edit]

You are invited to join the Indian military history work-group, an initiative of the Military history WikiProject. This group is to exclusively deal with the topics related to Indian military. If you're interested, please add you name to the participants list. Ignore if you are already a member. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)