Misplaced Pages

Criticism of weak GA for article: Green Marketing

It seems a bit ridiculous to even have considered as GA an article with such obvious flaws:

• Wiki Text:
  • A recent survey discovered that 94 percent of all consumers prefer to do business with companies that demonstrate that they care about the environment. Almost 80 percent said they would pay more for environmentally friendly products.

• Supporting Reference text:
  • A recent Gallup survey discovered that 94 percent of all consumers prefer to do business with companies that demonstrate that they care about the environment. Almost 80 percent said they would pay more for environmentally friendly products. In other words it would appear that going Green, and promoting this commitment, can be a profitable marketing strategy.
    • Supporting Reference Author: Ed Newman Marketing & Advertising Manager, AMSOIL INC.

Where does one start? Plagiarism, Copyright Violation, Advertising, Empty Reference, Hearsay ....

Was it granted GA because it looked nice? Did anybody even bother to read it? If read, did anyone consider and think about the content?

Your tutorial

A suggestion - you might want to mention gadgets, since that's an alternative (and easier) way to install some user scripts. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfB

I wanted to personally thank you, Nouser, for your support in my recent RfB. I am thankful and appreciative that you feel that I am worthy of the trust the community requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I hope I can continue to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Haha

Yeah - the script edit conflicted, but somehow I beat you to the actual article. That was odd. :-) Hersfold 00:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

GA review of Donegal fiddle tradition

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 | Talk 16:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Survivre Avec les Loups

I hate to mention it, but the redirect you created today was supposed to be Survivre Avec les Loups, not Suvivre Avec les Loups. (The former is the correct spelling.) -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

...

If you read this, Xinrui want to know if you still remember her from school. Dattebayo3... 2...1! 21:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTD

Congratulations on your recent successful WP:FL promotion. You may be interested in taking part in our experimental procedure for the selecting lists of the day and lists of the month at WP:LOTD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Keewassee

On 13 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Keewassee, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Riana's request for bureaucratship

Dear Nousernamesleft, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight. I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community. I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Maths competitions

All the best and enjoy yourself. I won't be doing the GA review, since I have a policy of not doing re-reviews - since GA only has one reviewer, I think it's better to have a fresh set of eyes. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 00:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

My revert

Rollback is generally only for vandalism. Using it for good-faith edits isn't really within the boudaries of policy. I'm not criticizing you, just informing you that you should usually use the button in the future. Nousernamesleft 21:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I considered it as vandalism since those links were to unknown airlines, like poodleair (returned no google results: here). I believed that these were false airlines, google search did not return a result, and there is no article named Poodleair. Therefore I considered it vandalism. Thanks for keeping users in check and notifying me of these edits. Please let me know if you have any further questions regarding that particular edit.  :-) Have a great day! - Jameson L. Tai 01:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

blocked editor requesting deleted article copies.

I would not. Who is the blocked user? What are the articles? Who blocked him? I would ask the blocking admin and/or run it by WP:AN/I]]. Might be OK. I be a big mistake. Sorry I'm not more helpful. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand

Content is released under the GFDL. That probably does not terminate with deletion of the article. Still, I'd run it by AN/I. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)