Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:22, 22 September 2008

Your entry on my talk page

Thank you for your entry on my talk-page. I'd say my posting was actually concerned with bettering the article, but in this post-modern world, who could tell right from wrong? Thanks for being so understanding and possibly handsome, you stud. Karoschne (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

(undent) Sorry, but I think going 1 step at a time is better;after first graduating this to GA, we should wait a month or two, then going to FAC.

I have removed your second GA nomination of the Huntington's article. When I left my message above (10 August) I really expected a better response. You have been asked directly by Lee to delay a further GA nomination until the ongoing efforts to improve the article have been completed. Your assistance in implementing my previous recommendations would be appreciated. JFW | T@lk 11:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I relisted, as "previous suggestions not implemented" isn't a quick-fail criterion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodone121 (talk • contribs) 07:11, September 7, 2008

Hi Goodone121, I think it's great that you're eager about getting this article up to GA status and about Bettering the Wiki! However, I agree with the others that the latest nomination is currently premature. It is important that concerns from the second GA nomination be dealt with--to ignore these is an insult to the reviewer, it could be interpreted as "I don't think your concerns are worth dealing with". Also, I think renominating the article without first discussing it with the other people who have worked hard on it is kind of disrespectful to them, and it could cause them stress (presumably they're going to want to spend time working on the GA review, what if now isn't a good time for them?). I'm going to fail the latest GAN; JFW's concerns from the last review really are important to fix, and surely we can all agree that if an article isn't up to the GA standard yet, it should not be rated GA yet. I'm respectfully asking that you not nominate the article at GAN again until you've gotten consensus with the others who've worked hard on the article, both out of respect for them and in order not to be disruptive (I feel that continually undoing other serious contributors' work by renominating would be considered edit warring). The disruption itself and the effort needed to deal with it will both take valuable time away from improving the article. Sorry, I'm not trying to come down hard on you, I just want us all to be able to cooperate smoothly. I'm glad to help however I can with getting the article to the point where everyone agrees it should be nominated, let me know if I can be of any help! Peace, delldot ∇. 16:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Huh. It's still nommed. Anyways, to fail with the above rationale would, IMHO, be outside proper process.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Done now, I'm just slow. :-) I'm not sure what you mean about being outside process, surely you agree that concerns from GA nominations should be met before passing as a GA? That is the GAN process. I appreciate that process is important, but I think we can all agree that it's the substance that matters most: articles that are listed as GA really should be of a high quality. I have no doubt that this one will be GA worthy as soon as those issues are dealt with. Anyway, thanks for being willing to discuss. Peace, delldot ∇. 16:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have renominated, for reasons outlined above (I am a strict constructionist, BTW).Bettering the Wiki (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm disappointed to see that. Can you explain which of the problems outlined by JFW you don't feel are important to resolve? Or why you feel it should be GA quality without having dealt with those concerns? I guess I'll have to take the matter to ANI, since as I said, I feel you're being disruptive, but I really hate to do it. As you've seen, I'm very slow at it so this will probably take me a while. I really don't think any reviewer is going to pass it without the previous concerns having been met anyway. I really would love it if you'd change your mind and undo your actions, that way I wouldn't have to go through the whole ANI thing. At any rate, I really hope we can find a peaceful solution to this rather than having blocks and drama. delldot ∇. 16:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I had one other question: I wondered if you could specify what part of process you thought JFW's and my closes were violating. Thanks much, delldot ∇. 17:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've brought the matter to WP:ANI#Reverting GAN fails, I hope if someone else gets involved they can help us find a solution that suits everyone. Peace, delldot ∇. 17:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• alright. I'm an outside editor (you can check my contributions, I've never contributed to the Huntington's disease article). there is no hard and fast rule as to when you may or may not renominate an article for good article nominations. This is done explicitly because GAN is meant to be an informal process without the imposing nature of Featured Article Candidacy. However, the social expectation is that if an editor puts hours of their time in a good faith review, that review should not be discarded. You are free, on the review page, to disagree with individual findings of the review, often reviewers aren't subject matter experts and so may not know what you know about a subject. If you

feel that a review was wholly wrong, you may ask for a review at Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment. I strongly suggest that you not do that with this review as it appears to be accurate, careful and made in good faith. As for the nomination, I am going to remove it again from the GAN page. If you feel that this is innapropriate, please say so here or on the article talk page. But do not replace the nomination without gaining consensus from reviewers AND editors who work primarily on the article in question. If you have any questions you can ask me here or on my talk page. Protonk (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Wow,Protonk, you're everywhere. However, delldot, I meant you shouldn't quick-fail a page without said page meeting the criteria explictly laid out on the associated page.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In this case, due process is surely less important than article content and the fact that we are wasting our time discussing your actions. You are not being constructionist, you are being disruptive. You were told essentially that on 10 August.

Will you accept that by renominating the article last night you were essentially discarding Delldot's and my previous review, as well as sidestepping Leevanjackson as the primary contributor to that article? If not, why? JFW | T@lk 20:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I will accept the former charge, but not the latter, as I am not nearly as active on that article as LeeVJ.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 20:28, 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)

The summary "rv" should have made it clear what I was doing. Again, please review what is being removed, and please don't place templates on my talk page. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Making a page protected

Hello, I may not be asking the right person but how do you make a page protected because I can't seem how to find out how to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John-joe123 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to ask an admin on WP:RFPP.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at WP:ANI

Hello, Goodone121. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic WP:ANI#Reverting GAN fails. Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

sig=

It is not a good idea to use a sig that has no relation to your user name -- it just confuses people. (the one you seem to be are currently using is "bettering the wiki") DGG (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is very confusing. --mboverload@ 05:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving Advanced Technology Attachment

Thanks! But, how did you do that? I thought it required an admin, b/c the redirect page already had more than one edit. Jeh (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Simple. There is a link, on unprotected pages, to "move". Bettering the Wiki (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but I thought... oh well, it worked. Thanks again! Jeh (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Please Stop

If you continue being an idiot you will be blocked from editing on Wikpedia. --J-love-lee (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A word of advice

Goodone121, I have reverted your listing of Huntington's disease as a good article. At the moment the article fails the good article criteria, and your insistence on using GAR as a back door to GA status is simply not supported by policy.

I am simply amazed at your lack of consideration for other editors. When you first made a snap GA nomination on 10 August I double-checked with Leevanjackson, the main contributor, whether he thought this was the right time. You hadn't consulted with him. I did a GA review, and eventually failed the article. You then renominated, again without checking with anyone. Many of the recommendations made earlier by Delldot and myself had not yet been implemented. When I removed the nomination for this reason, you felt this was not in keeping with policy. However, policy doesn't cater for situations like these and I'd rather ignore all rules and take the pressure off editors rather than have to perform a further GA review just because you feel like it.

You are wasting people's time. Not just mine, but also Leevanjackson's and Delldot's - two contributors well known for their dedication to high-quality articles. I request that you clarify with me what your intentions are, and stay away from the Huntington's disease article until you have done this. If I notice any further interference, I will ensure that an uninvolved admin reviews your case with an aim to blocking your account. I hope this is clear, but please leave a message on my talkpage if any further information is required. JFW | T@lk 19:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JFW | T@lk 19:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Listing articles for review without the agreement of the main editors is inappropriate, reverting was wrong, and so is giving a user an final warning when your uw-del3 was very questionable. Basicly, you have a lot to learn yet, so dont be so sure you are right. John Vandenberg 12:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hahahaha

Ohhhhh I'm scared now!!!!!!!! --J-love-lee (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)