Revision as of 07:30, 13 October 2007

Template:CurrentRxCOTW

This is my user talk page. Please add any messages for me here.

Archives: 1 | 2 | 3

GAC expedited evaluation

I know you have reviewed a few of my WP:GACs and you are a decorated reviewer. Do you have any advice on my request for an expedited GAC review?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood.

Read my expanded comments at Misplaced Pages talk:Content review/workshop. Your response was in NO WAY my proposal. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Workshop

Hi Derek. It wasn't removed but moved to Misplaced Pages:Content review/brainstorming, the idea being that we shouldn't get to specifics until the scope has been settled on. OK? Marskell 18:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought "cut for a general brainstorming page" was intuitable enough :). Or perhaps I should just move it to the talk page to avoid having two pages? Marskell 18:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree it's pertinent. It's just that before quibbling over what this or that process does, let's first establish what the workshop is meant to do. The brainstorming page is perhaps best—it's linked at the top of the workshop and thus won't be forgotten about; we can reincorporate those points when we get to each of the three processes (personally, I'd like to start with PR). Marskell 19:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		Congratulations, I have chosen you as my GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending 6th October 2007. Epbr123 09:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reviewing the article Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami. This is my first effort to create an article and have it proceed to Good Article Status. I moved the references for entire sections to the end of the section. I thought it looked better that way. Most of the references pertain to the entire paragraph, not just a sentence that is why I thought they should be moved to the end of a paragraph. I will be repositioning them per your request. Thanks again for taking the time to come and read this article and give me your opinions. NancyHeise 15:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please come and see the article Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami and give my your opinion as to whether I have addressed all your concerns with the exception of the mediation? I have made the changes you suggested and I just want to know if I have missed anything. Also, the mediation does not seem to be going anywhere. The one editor who was trying to add content that all the other editors objected to was blocked and told not to keep putting that stuff on the page because it violated many Wikipolicies. I don't know why the mediation tag remains if the issue was already settled. Could you please look into that issue too and help me get this article back on the WP:GAC list? Thanks for your help!NancyHeise 17:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to leave you so many messages but this is relevant to the article and is on the talk page below your comments. I wanted to make sure you saw them. I have made the changes requested by Dr. Cash and added the GA tag with a request for a 2nd opinion and reviewer. The mediation situation does not reveal a lack of stability. One editor of this article wanted to add material that violated many wikipolicies. Two admins have already blocked that editor and asked him to respect the consensus of editors. See talk pages of Roman Catholic sex abuse cases and this mediation page:view. Also see talk page of DominvsVobiscvm (talk · contribs) NancyHeise 17:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Miami" NancyHeise 17:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank You even more

For taking the time to read the article Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami and provide crucial comments on needed improvements to get it into WP:GA. I have addressed all your comments and made appropriate improvements. The only thing left that I was not able to do today is correct the references that are repeated. I was not doing something right there and I was messing all the references up by trying. I am going to hope for another editor's help or I will have to figure it out another day. Thanks again.NancyHeise 22:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made all corrections per your comments. Please come see the page again at your convenience. I was helped by an experienced editor (ArielGold) who you will see on the discussion page of Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami. I don't know how to give her an award but maybe you can tell me how to do that. She certainly deserves one for her many instances of help on this page and obviously on many other pages too. Thanks.NancyHeise 18:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the advice on the Auckland GA Nomination and we shall be working to get it up to standard and I hope you will review it again soon to find out if its up to scratch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.115.27 (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:GAN

I didn't want to mess with what you did, but why did you completely remove 2005 USC Trojans football team from the nominations list instead of putting it on hold? Cheers, CP 04:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Preity Zinta

I'd just like to thankyou for taking the time to review this article. It was a long time coming and I was starting to think it would be monts before anybody looked at it and I appreciate it. With some minor corrections I think it could become A-class and eventually FA with some work. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 10:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I thank you too Derek.cashman! I'm happy that so much of work was worth of making! Thank you! --Shahid • 10:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

GA review of Muscle relaxant

Hi there, I'm sorry but this article didn't pass GA this time. If any parts of my review are wrong or seem unclear please drop me a note on my talk page and I'll take another look at it. All the best Tim Vickers 02:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I just noticed your post on CapitalR's talk page. I suggest you tone it down just a tad. Asking someone the way you did with CapitalR isn't going to get you anything. If you look at the edits of the bot, these changes appear to be made to small towns and it also appears that towns with more than one zip code (ex: Winchester, Virginia) have none listed. Zip Codes and Area Codes are encyclopedic.

Again, threats and speaking the way you did to CapitalR will get you nowhere. Please curb this before it becomes a problem. Take Care....NeutralHomer 06:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, if you notice, the towns that have zips listed are VERY small, with only one zip code. In most cases, this information was once part of the infoboxes, but moved to a large list that later deleted, hence the zips being readded. There is no rule against it and I do believe that consensus has to be reached before a bot takes on any task...I THINK, please don't quote me on that last statement. Either way, it's a zip code, let it go. You won't get anywhere ranting, raving, and making threats. - NeutralHomer 07:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

CapitalR is a very well-respected and knowledgable editor and I am almost 100% sure he would consult with other editors and admins before going into a massive project like this. - NeutralHomer 07:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I am going to have to suggest you very quickly change you demanding tone on CapitalR's talk page. You are not showing good faith. Also, if the tone continues, I will have to dole out warnings. - NeutralHomer 07:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the first message was a Warn1 Vandalism Warning...below is a Warn2. You don't want to get to Warn4. - NeutralHomer 07:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did to Richmond, Virginia, you will be blocked from editing. NeutralHomer 07:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Richmond, Virginia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. NeutralHomer 07:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)