This is an archive of past discussions with User:Shudde. 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.
Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1743 submissions waiting to be reviewed.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New Zealand national rugby union team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Carter (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.
Hello Shudde. You recently applied for a Wikimedia IRC cloak, but it looks like you forgot to register your nickname first. Could you please log on to IRC and do:
/msg NickServ REGISTER <password> <email>
where <password> is a password of your choice and <email> is your e-mail address? After you do that, please follow the instructions that are e-mailed to you to confirm your e-mail address. When you're done with that, I just need you to confirm your cloak request:
Shudde, I disagree with your decision for immediately fail Carte Goodwin, and insist you change your decision and actually allow me some time to improve it based on your suggestions. It meets no quick-fail criteria, and it deserves an appropriate amount of time to be improved like any other GA candidate. Grammarxxx(What'd I do this time?)04:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Also in your suggestions, you say "You never say who appointed Goodwin to the Senate seat? I'm assuming it was Manchin." In the very first sentence of the Senate section "On July 16, 2010, Manchin appointed Goodwin to the U.S. Senate seat," so I don't mean to be rude, but I don't feel you spent an appropriate amount of time on this article. Grammarxxx(What'd I do this time?)04:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I spent a lot of time on the article — the fact that there is an error there does not prove otherwise. I read the article before deciding to review it, and then another 30 minutes going through the article once I decided to give it a review. It was about 500-600 words of prose (excluding the lead); which just doesn't take as long to review as an article of greater length. The article did not meet the quick-fail criteria, but that doesn't mean it meets the WP:GACR! Also please keep in mind that WP:GAN is not a substitute for a peer review; it is not about submitting an article for review that clearly doesn't meet the criteria, having someone then spend the time saying why, and then giving the submitter time to bring the article up to standard. I don't think the article was broad enough (among other less significant problems), and that sufficient expansion of the article is not practical in seven days. Remember, that once it has been expanded, I have to review it again like a new review — it's not a trivial change to the article we're discussing here. You're welcome to submit the article to WP:GAR, but unless you think the article is actually broad in coverage, you may be better to spend your time expanding it, fix the problems I mentioned, then resubmit it to WP:GAN. - Shuddetalk05:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
While the article may not be the longest, I feel you're overestimating his political career. Even so, I can expand this article and address every comment you made well within 7 days. As for GACR, it does meet 3b, so I believe it at least deserves a review rather than a rubber-stamp fail. And although you're correct GAN isn't a place to submit non-quality articles, I disagree with you that this one is one of them. Grammarxxx(What'd I do this time?)00:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I am repeating myself here, but I did a full review — please stop saying otherwise; it was not a "rubber-stamp fail". It was reviewed fully and I believe it fails criteria 3, and that the problems are substantial, not a case of the article being 90% there and only having a few things to fix. To quote Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles — "If the problems are substantial or extensive, the nomination can be failed. In the latter case, the editors at the article should be invited to renominate the article once it has been improved". This is what I have done. Like I said above, if you believe the article meets the Good Article Criteria, then take it to WP:GAR. That is the mechanism that the community has in place to resolve a disagreement like this. - Shuddetalk08:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
Cheers! Reviews can be quite rewarding when the nominator and reviewer see the process as collaborative, which it should be, rather than adversarial. Congratulations again. - Shuddetalk00:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Autopatrolled
Hi Shudde, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! INeverCry19:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
(Sorry if that came across as a "why haven't you reviewed this yet!?" demand - I only noticed the page numbers had been added (and the article expanded again) a few minutes earlier myself, and though I'd let you know just in case you hadn't seen it. I realise now that it sounded a bit petulant; not the intended effect at all, I assure you! Yunshui雲水10:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC))
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tom French Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Passchendaele (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.
Hope you find the cites acceptable, the Aukland Star report probably gives us enough to write up a report on the match, a game which historically seems to be clouded in mystery. Cheers FruitMonkey (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. No problem, I was a couple of days away from closing it, but if you're back editing then I'll leave it on hold. Would be good if we could get it done relatively promptly. It might be a good idea to add a note to the GA review page so that any readers see that you are back. Sorry to hear about your Uncle. - Shuddetalk06:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for taking this on and doing a comprehensive review. I've replied to all of your concerns and comments - most have been dealt with, but I have given a couple comments as well. ToaNidhiki0521:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I respectfully ask that you please reevaluate your position here.
I've done a good deal of research on this article.
It does provide a worldview.
It is drawn from multiple different secondary sources, the majority of which are not from Australia itself, but are independent reliable secondary sources.
Cool. I've read your comments and replied at the discussion page. Not sure why you are mentioning the use of secondary sources, this was never a problem, rather it was a broadness/POV issue (rather than any probs regarding RS or OR). Anyway hope you're satisfied with my response. I wasn't aware that you (the original nominator) hadn't been notified about the GAR, otherwise I would have let you know myself! - Shuddetalk11:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I probably should have phrased it more carefully, but what I was saying is that some statement on the terms use (ie frequency) in NZ would be nice—I believe it is common, but am happy for a statement saying otherwise, as long as there is something on how common or not the term is! As there is a reference regarding its migration to NZ, I was hoping that ref's "Cryer 2006, p. 139" or "Hoffmann 2009, pp. 119–121" may say something, even if only that the term is used 'commonly', 'frequently', 'rarely', 'occasionally' etc. Maybe [1] will help—I don't have access to it unfortunately. [2] may be useful, but it's obviously intended for international students and I'm not sure how reliable it is. Even less reliable is [3]. Anyway hope those are useful. - Shuddetalk09:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I promise this will be the last message I will leave you. On the review page, you left one comment out of the "resolved comments" box. I don't know if this was an error by you or you think that it hasn't been addressed, but I did fix it as Rambling Man mentioned the same thing in his review.--Dom497 (talk)19:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if you had finished responding at the FAC. If you ping me when you are ready, I'll have another look. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Changes looking good. If I get chance, I'll have another close look this week and maybe a little copy-editing myself. But I think we're getting there. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Matt Burke may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
I'm not sure why, considering the article is so short (and you were welcome to do this yourself if you thought it would improve it), but ok. - Shuddetalk11:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Shudde. So i am going to add the controversies you removed into the relevant sections of SBW's playing career. Is that what you had in mind?Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, i see what you have done. You added them in the Personal life section. But i think some more detail should be given like his tryst with the ironwoman - which was pretty big news.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Now, some of you might be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with, the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.
A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Waisale Serevi may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
of Fiji's matches – including wins over [[Namibia national rugby union team|Namibia]] and Canada).<ref name="Teivovo"/>
} Of their rugby matches, they won 78, lost 23, and drew 6.{{sfn||2008 Inductee: J Warbrick ...}}}} The team played three internationals: a heavy loss to [[England national rugby union team|England]]
Thanks for completing the review of the 1877 Wimbledon Championship article and passing it for GA status (only the 10th GA article within the tennis WikiProject). I thought it was a good and thorough review and the points raised have certainly improved the article. It was fun working on it. I'm considering if it might be worthwhile to pursue it further and aim for A class status and finally FA but I'm unfamiliar with that process and unsure if the article would qualify. Any thoughts on that? Cheers, Wolbo. --Wolbo (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
