This is an archive of past discussions with User:Miller17CU94. 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.
Archive information from July 31 to October 13, 2009.
Gottfried Kottmann
I see you merged the bobsledder to the rower, that's great. But then you cut/pasted that article back to Gottfried Kottmann. Do you mind not doing any more edits until I can restore the history of the article? Tassedethe (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
It was a good catch - I had moved the rower to create the disambiguation page but I failed to see they were the same person. Bobsleigh and rowing don't seem that similar! In the future you can add the template {{db-move}} to enable the final move. Tassedethe (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The German canoeist Sebastian Brendel was wrong spelled on the page of "2009 Canoeing Championships". The first name was spelled wrong. The correct first name is Sebastian. Therefore a correct page is existing.
I found, that is existing a wrong Wiki-page "Sebastien Brendel".
I wanted to delete the wrong Wiki-page "Sebastien Brendel", but I am not able to do this. There is existing a correct Wiki-page "Sebastian Brendel".
Are you able to delete the wrong page ???
Jarszick (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Canoeist "Sebastian Brendel"
It is just otherwise: The correct page is "Sebastian Brendel" - the wrong page was "Sebastien Brendel"
You have misunderstood me.Jarszick (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Again "Sebastian Brendel"
It must be just inverted !! The correct page-name is "Sebastian Brendel", not "Sebastien Brendel".
Please change the headline, I have tried it with "redirect", but I am not able to do it successfully. Jarszick (talk) 10:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I've fixed some misspellings in the names of canoeists you've created articles about: Teppo Salmisaari (not "Salmissari"), Kaj Sylvan (not "Kai") and Otto Schindler (not "Schnidler"). The first and third one were easy for me to spot, because I speak Finnish natively and have a fairly good knowledge of German. You've provided links to a canoeist website in all canoeist articles you've created, with the correct spellings, but somehow you've still managed to spell the names wrong on Wikipedia. JIP | Talk19:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Elke Felten, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Erika Felten. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
GAN notice
Hi Miller17CU94, you currently have at least one article up a WP:GAN in the Sports and recreation section. In an attempt to clear out the backlog there, User:Wizardman asked all sports WikiProjects to review at least two articles from that section. I'm now going around and asking anybody with an article nominated under Sports and recreation to review at least one article in that section to help us clear the backlog out so your articles can finally be reviewed faster! iMatthewtalk at 15:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Note
Sorry for the delay in completing your request; I've been busy for the past week or so, but should be able to get it done tomorrow. Cross-posted to a few talk pages. –Juliancolton | Talk03:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Ozark Jubilee review
Thanks for all of your detailed suggestions and for reviewing the article. I will do what I can to improve it. I'm glad you posted the info tonight -- I was scratching my head last night! RadioBroadcast (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Chris,
I have fixed several issues you raised, but I have a response and two questions about your review: regarding #11 (Move the portals in the "See also" section to the "External links), I note that See Also says portals are usually listed in See Also. My first question is about #2, "images seem forced." I'm not sure what you mean. You say "If they are in thumb, the size shown will take care of itself," but the size must be specified somehow, which I did. My other question is about #8, "list when the final Jubilee USA ticket date took place." The date is shown clearly on the ticket, and the final show's date is referenced twice in the article, so I wonder if it really needs to be repeated in the caption? Thanks, RadioBroadcast (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
RE
Doing so right now, saw it was created. Thank you for the review, all concerns will be addressed in 5 minutes.--WillC22:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking them, especially as they're groundbreaking - no article of either of those types has been nominated for GA before. Unfortunately, you took them at the worst possible time for me (I was mugged two Fridays ago and had my computer stolen, only now am I back), so hopefully there's still time for them. My to-do list suddenly got very huge and very urgent! Time to live up to my username and tackle this stuff. Alex finds herself awake at night(Talk · What keeps her up)06:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand your plight, but there are rules within WP:GAN that if you do not follow up with the suggestion to correct your respective article(s) within a week for GA, then I have to fail that article. Sorry, but rules are rules. Chris (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Well that's awfully disappointing. It's entirely up to you when and if to fail an article - nothing says when you "have to" fail it. Seven-day hold is just very common. Articles have been on hold for months at a time before. Not that I necessarily agree with that, but you don't have to immediately fail the articles just because I haven't been able to get to them for a little over a week. Alex finds herself awake at night(Talk · What keeps her up)20:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey there - you did the right thing by dropping in to WT:GAN to get some advice - a couple of us have given some feedback there, and I've also made a suggestion if you want to change tack with the decision to close the review. Ping me at my talk page if you need help with any of that. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for my action on this because of my uncertainty toward the enforcement of the seven day rule. If you would like to resubmit them for GA, I have no problem with that. I will not review them if you do resubmit and will let another user do so. Again, I apologize for this. Chris (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, it's all right. Chalk it up to a learning experience. I was maybe a little too snippy in some of my messages to you, hopefully no harm done. One other thing to keep in mind is that most editors who nominate articles at GAN have a pretty fair understanding of the GA criteria, so (this part is my opinion, but I think it makes logical sense) articles should really only be failed if they are "quick failed" or otherwise show an obvious lack of understanding or application of the GA criteria, or the author has not responded to points of concern for at least a couple of weeks. Alex finds herself awake at night(Talk · What keeps her up)14:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I am still learning on how to do this. It will take time for me to do GA Reviews effectively just as it was to do the GAs themselves. FYI. I am entering the submitted comments on your talk page to my talk page to ensure that this in on the record for both of our pages as a learning experience for both of us. Chris (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
hamiltonstone
I got your comment and read them at the WT:GAN section last night. After some thought and review, I apologized Nosleep for my lack of experience on the review of his comments for his time issue and my overly strict enforcement of the seven-day rule and advised him to resubmit his articles for GA with me not acting as a reviewer in the future if he does. Even though I ruffled some feathers on this, I think this is the right thing to do. Chris (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
OK. Just one thing though - Nosleep is a 'she'. And I don't think you have to excuse yourself from being the reviewer - it was just very bad luck on nosleep's part that she went through what she went through at that particular moment. regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Re: GAN
Sorry for the delay. Anyway, I've just taken a quick look at the review, and given the circumstances I think it was reasonable to provisionally fail the article. However, now the main contributor is back in action, you might want to provide some more feedback that would help him/her get the article through GAN next time. –Juliancolton | Talk22:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Ewa Kamińska-Eichler, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ewa Kamińska-Eichler. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Regarding your suggestion to use "USD" in the Ozark Jubilee article, I note that the Style Guide for that says that "Use the full name of a currency on its first appearance (52 Australian dollars); subsequent occurrences can use the symbol of the currency (just $88), unless this would be unclear. The exception to this is in articles related entirely to US-, EU-, or UK-related topics, in which the first occurrence may also be shortened ($34, €26, and £22, respectively." My reading indicates that "$" would be acceptable. Your thughts? Thanks again, RadioBroadcast (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, sure I guess I can. It may be a while. I'm in the middle of a project for a friend and got a review to finish. I may get to it around Saturday at the least.--WillC23:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, sorry man. I would have done the review if I did not have so much on my plate at the moment.--WillC23:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I have resolved all of the issues you mentioned except for two involving the statement of principles (which I would like some clarification on; see my comments on its GA review page). Thanks for your time! Stonemason89 (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, 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 strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark 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. Ealdgyth - Talk18:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
5000+
The Running Man Barnstar
For your constant effort to keep improving. And for the 5000+ articles you have made.- BennyK95 - Talk 18:12, October 12 2009 (UTC)
