User talk:Edge3/Archive 1

(from Tina rs)

Thanks, I appreciate that! Of course I will ask you whenever I need help with my own contributions. I hope you do the same thing. Greets! --Tina rs (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Edge3! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dabomb87 (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Thanks, Dabomb87, I appreciate that! I hope that I haven't wasted the community's time in bringing up a redundant topic, have I?--Edge3 (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Your input is always welcome, and it is true that the FA categories are a bit unwieldy at times. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I've granted your account an IP block exemption until the rangeblock has expired. You should be able to edit now.

Request handled by: Rjd0060 (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I SWEAR that I didn't do anything!!!--Edge3 (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your note

Thanks for your request. I'll take a look in the near future and post back here - probably tomorrow morning, as I have other stuff to do this evening (UK time). All the best, EyeSerenetalk 17:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the wait (busy busy busy!). I think you've done an excellent first review, and the article looks pretty good. I agree with your assessment, especially the point about the school's catchment area and student demographics (it might be enough to mention that the school serves an area that includes students from whatever various backgrounds, though obviously sources will be needed and we should avoid WP:OR). Prose and MOS compliance look good, the article is neutral and factual (which is nice to see and unusual in school articles!), and the other criteria seem fine. I'd have no argument with you passing the article when you feel it's ready. Thank you very much for your excellent work and your contribution to the GA WikiProject. All the best, EyeSerenetalk 07:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Only one minor thing... I'm a 'he' :) EyeSerenetalk 17:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, no worries :D EyeSerenetalk 19:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Sorry

Thanks for the apology. I implemented the changes suggested for New Jersey Route 68 and have renominated it for GA. Hopefully it will pass the second time around. Dough4872 (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sixteen (Chicago restaurant)

I have responded to your concerns at Talk:Sixteen (restaurant)/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for all your positive and thoughtful contributions to GAN. It may be worth revisiting carefully whether numbers of nominations are a problem or not. I will take a closer look soon, but not tonight. Geometry guy 01:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Please see. There are many reviews at GAN that do not perform a thorough sourcing check. Being one of the main requirements, verifying the sourcing is important. Please take note of what was brought up and please correct this in the future in order to help prevent such problems from carrying forward. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are six points that you can use as a checklist at Wikipedia:WIAGA. I would recommend writing each out and putting concerns under each section. Many people forget to check images, for instance. Whenever you see an html link, always check to see if 1. the page exists, 2. the page looks like it is reliable, and 3. what it actually says. Whenever you see an image, check the copyright. Many people forget to do this, and it doesn't take that much time. With a check of these you ensure that not only is the page better, but that your review holds up under scrutiny. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the dead links, but it is always nice to mention it so that the nominator knows that the link is dead and so people will know that the reliability is harder to check. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WT:GAN

Really thanks for your input but I think as far as the GA Reviewer we'll be all set with Hamiltonstone (talk · contribs). If you have other comments of course feel free to provide input, it'd be appreciated. Cirt (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Perhaps that could be taken up politely with him at his talk page? Cirt (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saw your note at WT:GAN. No worries; stuff happens. Keep up your valuable contributions to WP, including helping out with reviews. See you about the place. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re Congrats on the GA

Thank you very much! It was not easy. Cirt (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Flying Spaghetti Monster

Hi. I see that you quick failed Flying Spaghetti Monster approximately 1 hour after reviewing it. However, the reasons given for your failure are entirely unclear and do not appear to be meet the quick fail criteria. Please reopen this GAN and allow others to comment on it. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you have some free time, please take a look at this discussion. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of College of William & Mary alumni

Because lists are not eligible for Good Article consideration, they cannot be failed. Such articles should simply be removed from WP:GAC, with an explanation given to the nominator so that there's no confusion. I've reverted your addition of the "fail" parameter to the above article's talk page. Just FYI. María (habla conmigo) 23:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, in your opinion, if someone improperly nominates a portal at WP:GAC, it should likewise be failed because it's not an article? Under what criteria? The fact that "is not an article" does not fall under the quick fail criteria, or WP:WIAGA for that matter, means that it's usually always a mistake, and should simply be withdrawn and explained to the nominator; such a fluke happens often enough, but since no proper review is possible, its illegibility should not be saved in the article's history. Not only is it unnecessary and confusing, but it's also a waste of time on the part of any potential nominator. In short, a "fail" is reserved for an article (not a list, portal, template, what have you) that does not fulfill the criteria, nothing more. I understand you may be new to the process, so I'm just letting you know for future reference. Hope this helps, María (habla conmigo) 00:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we're talking in circles, so I won't continue to repeat myself. However, I strongly disagree, and your way of doing things is highly unorthodox; if a portal or a list or a template isn't an article in the true sense, then it cannot be reviewed under the GAC criteria because that criteria is specifically for articles. If it cannot be reviewed under the GAC criteria, then it cannot pass or fail. Therefore, List of College of William & Mary alumni should not have been failed. It's since been fixed. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 12:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complete icosahedron

Thank you very much for your review of complete icosahedron. I am very pleased with the outcome, especially after the negative reactions to my nominations that I saw from other editors at WT:GAN. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review: "Two Fathers"

Main page: Talk:Two Fathers/GA1

I've finished with all the assignments you gave me on the "Two Fathers" article. --TIAYN (talk) 10:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tireless work on WP:GAN

The Original Barnstar
For the great comments and help in your wp:GAN of the Ling Woo article Work permit (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the response latency

I'm the GA nominator of National Debt Clock. Sorry for the late response. I'll check back to the article talk page as frequently as possible from now on. --78.34.110.166 (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment of Without (The X-Files)

Without (The X-Files) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. SnottyWong talk 16:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation - Cowboy creation

Howdy, you are cordially invited to give your input at the photo shop

Enjoy your day! --Scott Free (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Images

Hi Edge3! I just saw your note on the WP:VPC talk page. In the last months there has been a lack of "closers". Is pretty simple, only need to follow the steps as explained at WP:VPC#Closing procedure. If you need to see an example, all previously closed nominations are in Category:Ended valued picture nominations. Current rules require consensus support with a minimum quorum of 4 for promotion. Consensus generally has been interpreted as a 2/3 majority, but is up to the judgement of the closer to determine, based on the merits of the arguments presented. Important to know the criteria of course. Ideally each candidate is closed by an editor which was not involved in the voting, so that the closer's neutrality cannot be disputed. Candidates can be closed after one week, but often is worthwhile waiting a bit longer to establish clear consensus (for instance when a candidate already has three support votes). I guess if you would like to do a few of these you would get a broader understanding of the project and discover other areas you would like to be involved in. Reviewers with sharp eyes are also in demand :). Happy editing. --Elekhh (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Party in the U.S.A. GA review

Thank you so much for reviewing the Wikipedia article for "Party in the U.S.A.". I answered back to your comments and solved the simplest ones. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 23:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to all the different comments, the new and old ones. I think a wide majority are done. Please check. There are some we are still missing to discuss, though. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 03:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have a barnstar!

The WikiProject Barnstar
Thanks for contributing and helping out on Valued pictures. I'ḏ♥One 04:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The WikiProject Barnstar
WP:VPC --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 01:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of John Lynch (radio)

Hello! Your submission of John Lynch (radio) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Strange Passerby (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benny and Benet

Thanks for the note on my talk page. I applaud your efforts to bring Benny back to the project. Benny vanished after the last Benet FAC (where some of the reviewers were pretty harsh, in my opinion). Which is a shame. The comments suggested that with some mere polishing of the prose, it would have passed a second attempt. Hence my encouragement for Benny to take another shot. I was involved as a reviewer at the GA stage, and I know how much work went into it before and after that. I am tempted to take it back to FAC myself, but don't want to steal Benny's thunder. If you are interested in the article and taking it to FA, I will help you do it. But it sounds like you might not have the time. Thanks for your contributions regardless. And your interest in the article. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for John Lynch (radio)

Shubinator (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Nasty Housecat's talk page.

Benet Academy FAC

I think the article is ready for another run at FAC. Thanks to your contributions, I think it is a stronger candidate than it was the last time and am optimistic that the reviewers will agree. Do you have any substantial additional changes you want to make at this point? Can you take another careful run through it and correct or point out any issues (I will do the same)? Most importantly, will you have time over the next several weeks to watch the FAC page and respond to comments there? If you are ready to proceed, I will make the nomination with yourselves and Benny as co-nominators. And I will drop Benny another heads up just in case he is checking in again. Let me know what you think. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you have caught me at the least opportune moment. :( I'm currently getting ready for final exams next week, but I should be more available the week after! Does that work with whatever you have planned for the holidays? And yes, another message on Benny's talk page is definitely in order. (Although if he or she is still a student at Benet, then given recent events regarding employees editing the article, the possibility of repercussions from the Benet community might be quite discouraging) :(
I'll keep looking through the article to make sure we're ready for FAC, especially fact checking. All book sources from the University of Chicago Library are a priority right now, since I have to return them by the end of the quarter (next week). As for additional changes, I really would like to see more info about Sacred Heart Convent and Academy. Unfortunately I haven't found much information on that; the book sources lean heavily towards the abbey and mention the convent only in passing. Anything you could do to change this would be great! Edge3 (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What happened with the employees? I had not heard. I will be completely unavailable the week after Christmas, but have time before that. So if you want to nominate it in a week or so, that would work for me. Why don't you drop me a note when you are up for it and we will go from there. I will look for more stuff on the Convent, but my experience has been similar to yours. Good luck on your exams! --Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The atmosphere at Benet tends to be anti-Wikipedia. Teachers discourage students from even consulting Wikipedia to acquire a basic knowledge of the subject matter before conducting more serious research, and Wikipedia was blocked on Benet computers for some time when I was a student there. And perhaps you've noticed that employees have edited the article before... those incidents really didn't end well. :( And the faculty probably isn't flattered by the fact that we mention the U of I clout scandal in the article. Of course, this is all speculation, and may not have been the primary cause of Benny's departure. I'll keep working on the article when I can, and I'll contact you when I'm done with my changes. Edge3 (talk) 07:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a lack of review activity at FAC at the moment due to the upcoming holidays. I think it will be better to wait until after the new year when there is more activity to post the nom. I'd hate to list it just to see the nom stall. Hope that works for you. Have a great holiday. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I hope you have a great holiday yourself! Edge3 (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Monadnock Building FAC got very busy for a while and I was distracted with that. But it finally passed now. I plan to nominate Benet Academy after the weekend. I think the article is well prepared but I expect a lot of comments regardless. (See Editing Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Monadnock Building/archive1 for a sense for the commentary I got there). I can field most of the prose and style comments. You are much closer the the sources and will need you to jump in on those and respond to any objections as best you can. It should a fun challenge and I am optimistic we can get the FA this time. Let me know if you want to hold off for some reason or want to make more changes. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Extra999 (talk) at 04:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Liberal Education

Hi Edge3,

Many thanks for your valiant contributions to the Liberal Education article. Yesterday I heard a program on BBC Radio 4 - Alain de Botton giving a critique around the possible demise of humanities in education. I copied the soundtrack and added it to You Tube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPbR0n2CPPk with a view that it might be of interest to you. He specifically mentions LE, John Stuart Mill and Matthew Arnold at 4 mins, but his whole attitude in the talk suggests his appreciation, knowledge and value of LE past and present, and its personal development ideal for public good. I hope you find it useful.

Best wishes,

--Acabashi (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the video! I should be able to incorporate it into the article soon. :) Edge3 (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Archives of Malta

Thanks for your review - I appreciate it! Arctic Night 18:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
Edge3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
128.135.100.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Chaboi". The reason given for Chaboi's block is: "Vandalism".

Accept reason: Autoblock lifted. –MuZemike 07:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]