This is an archive of past discussions with User:Gazimoff. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Do you have any intention to work on this article? It was userfied for you several months ago, and you've made no edits to the page. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd completely forgotten about that. I had a look round a while back and wasn't able to find any mroe reasonable sourcing to describe each of the elements in depth. As a result I've removed it from my userspace. Thanks for the prod, I appreciate it. Gazimoff23:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 08:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on my RfA (which passed 70/7/3). I do take your concerns about my experience seriously, and even partly agree with them, and can assure you that I will act with due circumspection on all matters administrative while I figure things out. Thanks! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 00:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Just to reiterate, I have no problem with your conduct or behaviour, and I'm sure you'll do well. I did feel though that you would have benefited from further experience in the AfD arena. I'm sure you'll tread with care though, and wish you the best of luck with the mop. Many thanks, Gazimoff23:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
This issue we are trying a new type of newsletter feature: "Featured editor". This is a chance to learn more about the various editors who contribute to the Video games project as well as the roles they fill. If you enjoyed this new feature and would like to see similar interviews in future issues, please drop us a note at the VG newsletter talk page.
David Fuchs (also known as Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs), is a long time video games editor that has written a large number of the project's Featured articles. He has been ranked high on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations, and has assisted in reviewing and editing more many. Recently David has begun to assist with image reviews for Featured article candidates, and branched out into other types of articles in addition to video games. He can normally been seen on the project's talk page offering advice and his input on the various discussion taking place there.
What drew you to Wikipedia, and what prompted you to begin editing?
I got involved due in part to (I believe, my memory is fuzzy) finding the site while doing research for Advanced Placement Europen History during high school. My earliest contributions (in December 2005) were creating topics based on what I learned, as well as creating an article for my high school with another friend. I soon became involved with editing topics related to Halo video game franchise, specifically the article on the parasitic Flood.
What got you involved in writing Featured articles?
I think for most editors it's a shiny accomplishment you are striving for, and natural for most editors to try and get an FA. I first nominated an article for FA in 2007, after about a year of inactivity onwiki; it didn't pass as it was poorly written and didn't follow our guidelines for writing about fiction; I also took a couple of tries to get my first video game FA (Halo 2).
What article(s) are you most proud of writing or exemplifies your best work?
I suppose Myst is a sort of accomplishment I can point to; I started work on the article on May 2 2008, when it looked like this, and submitted it to Featured Article Candidates one day later. I think that's some kind of record, but I dunno. In terms of being a good read or something I'm very happy with, however, I'd have to look at my more recent work, specifically Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Bone Wars.
How do you pick the articles you work on?
Whatever hits me. There's many articles I haven't gotten around to editing and improving as planned because another article has caught my fancy.
What advice would you give to editors seeking to write quality articles?
In the words of one of my favorite cartoon characters when I was a child, "We must do reeea-search!" Even in video games, online sources don't usually cut it. Even after getting an article to FA, make sure you continually trawl the internet and elsewhere for more information to add to the topic.
Note: This is an abridged version. To read the full interview, click here.
RiskFactorsfor AdolescentProblemBehavior with Depression.pdf
Hello,
I understand that you deleted the above mentioned file which had been tagged for speedy deletion because it apparently had no encyclopedic value.
I had entered a message on that file's talk page explaining that it is an essential part of the article, Communities that Care Promotes Positive Youth Development. It is a graphic which helps to illustrate the relationship between risk factors and several youth problem behaviors. It illustrates in a single graphic what reams of scientific, peer-reviewed articles tell us. It's value is similar to that of a picture of a famous person - it helps the reader appreciate the information in a visual way.
If your problem with the file is that it is a .pdf rather than some other file format, please let me know and I will have it changed.
I am an inexperienced Wikipedia user and may have stumbled in my attempt to address this issue. Please advise on next steps.
The main problem is the article being a PDF, rather than an image (as done so here). It's also preferable to use table format to store tables in-line with the text, as this means that they can then be read by a multitude of devices (Wikipedia also aims to be readable on mobile and portable devices). You can find more information on tables [[1]]. By using the inline table format, you can also use inline citations to show where the data is sourced from. Hope all this helps, although feel free to ask if anything is unclear. Many thanks, Gazimoff23:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh! So it appears that the graphic currently in the article is in the correct format, although it might be better to use table format. I will look into that option. Thanks for your explanation! Preventionbetterthancure (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Alas, it was a rather spontaneous affair, I wasn't expecting it when the day started. I don't suppose you'd want to try getting The Orange Box through FAC in the next few months? Third time's a charm! I'm currently involved with Sam & Max: Freelance Police at FAC, once that's closed, I'll be able to work on it. Its been a long while since the last attempt, we should be able to come to it with a nice fresh perspective. -- Sabre (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure, that sounds like a plan. Drop me a note when you're ready. Things are going through a bit of a crunch at work, and I'm doing some miscelleneous bits and bos round here to keep things ticking over, but it'll be great to get that one in the can finally. Gazimoff00:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
I saw you in peer review/volunteers, so I don't know if you can help me to review at a tennis biography? It is Mario Ančić. I just need some input from somebody, or you know someone who's better qualify for this. Thanks! --Göran S (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks and a request
Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch><>°°03:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
