| Revision as of 23:57, 6 September 2008 editGoodone121 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,815 edits →Huntington's disease← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:29, 7 September 2008 edit undoLeevanjackson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers6,619 edits →Huntington's diseaseNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| Thankyou for your enthusiasm on the (possible) GA quality this article: I see that you have nominated it again - but there are still issues left unresolved from the previous GA review, more time is needed to address these - then I think it should sail through a GAR. ] (]) 23:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC) | Thankyou for your enthusiasm on the (possible) GA quality this article: I see that you have nominated it again - but there are still issues left unresolved from the previous GA review, more time is needed to address these - then I think it should sail through a GAR. ] (]) 23:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :I think you mean GAN-GAR is for articles that either failed, but remain largely similar, or passed;''Huntington's disease'' satisfies neither criterion.] (]) 23:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC) | :I think you mean GAN-GAR is for articles that either failed, but remain largely similar, or passed;''Huntington's disease'' satisfies neither criterion.] (]) 23:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::I guess I did mean that... but also I meant please hold off GA nomiination for a little bit whilst I catch up with the last one - assuming other editors don't fix anyhissues first ...? I did have the crazy idea of fixing all the issues (and a couple of unlisted improvements) and going straight for FA as the next step considering the in-depth critique by delldot and JFW = what do you reckon? ] (]) 02:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Mediation Cabal template == | == Mediation Cabal template == | ||
Revision as of 02:29, 7 September 2008
Huntington's disease
I'm a bit puzzled that you nominated Huntington's disease for good article candidacy despite the fact that you have had little involvement with that article. I see that Leevanjackson (talk · contribs) has done a lot of work on it recently, and I also see that it was failed a GA candidacy in the past. Could you clarify whether you will be involved in this? I will ask Leevanjackson if he thinks the article is ready. If not, then I am tempted to fail it again until he thinks he can carry the workload of GAC. JFW | T@lk 10:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- On an unrelated note, you should fix your signature to include a link to your userpage. JFW | T@lk 10:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I generally only nominate pages if I don't work on them.Bettering the Wiki 16:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou for your enthusiasm on the (possible) GA quality this article: I see that you have nominated it again - but there are still issues left unresolved from the previous GA review, more time is needed to address these - then I think it should sail through a GAR. LeeVJ (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think you mean GAN-GAR is for articles that either failed, but remain largely similar, or passed;Huntington's disease satisfies neither criterion.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- I guess I did mean that... but also I meant please hold off GA nomiination for a little bit whilst I catch up with the last one - assuming other editors don't fix anyhissues first ...? I did have the crazy idea of fixing all the issues (and a couple of unlisted improvements) and going straight for FA as the next step considering the in-depth critique by delldot and JFW = what do you reckon? LeeVJ (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Mediation Cabal template
Your thought processes baffle me. What was the reason behind putting that template, apparently intended for use with specific articles, on my talk page? Wjmummert was the one who posted the WQA, you should be bothering recommending him to MC. dfg (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- So, how's bettering the wiki going? You never alerted me that you posted a WQA about me (whoop whoop! Wikiquette violation on your part!), but I do find it soooooo telling that no one bothered to respond to it. Have a day. dfg (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I was leaving that to the 3rd party, to not have this escalate. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:WQA#Instructions_for_users_posting_alerts, bullet #5. For future reference. dfg (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about?
I'm not using that for chat. I'm simply asking a question. Besides I read the article and I didn't see anything about what I asked, so there.
You were, even though you didn't realize. What you said was connected to the article's subject, but not the article itself. BTW, sign your posts .Bettering the Wiki (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Neopets
Please actually see what was removed and why before leaving inappropriate warnings. Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTAFORUM and not the article talk page is not the place for general discussion of something not specifically related to the article. Hence the comment was removed. -- ] (] · ]) 17:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Care to explain
Please explain your edits in an edit summary. What is the point of adding next to the reference which states the fact? :) - xpclient 19:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC) I explained on its talk.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Cory In The House
Please do not add deleted content or images from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Cory in the House, without giving a valid reason for the reissue in the edit summary. Your content reissue does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.--Cory Malik (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Total Drama Island
Copied content from the main article isn't discussion, nor is it any more relevant on the talk page than it is on the main page. Neither is chat about myspace. I also refactored an excessively long header. Please check the edit before reverting. Thanks. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Erm, you failed to supply a reason in your edit summary. That's why I warned you.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, the lack of an edit summary should not stop you from checking what was removed. Also see WP:DTTR. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- I prefer following User:DESiegel/Template the regulars.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)