Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:50, 10 July 2009

Talkback

The Earwig 21:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

— raeky  01:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

GA review of Tom Vilsack presidential campaign, 2008

Hello - I have reviewed Tom Vilsack presidential campaign, 2008, which you listed at the Good Article nominees page. My review of the article can be found here. As you can see, I've raised quite a few issues with the article. Before you panic/become depressed/burn me in effigy, though, here are some things to bear in mind:

• The points I raise are not necessarily all things that need to be addressed before I list it as a GA. Instead, they are things that I think could improve the article. In my view, the actual GA status is of secondary importance in the GA process; what's more important is improving the article, and I think that goal is best served by making as many suggestions as possible.
• In my experience, I'm among the most stringent GA reviewers out there, especially in the "well-written" category, where I tend to review GA and FA candidates in essentially the same way. Again, I do this because I think it's best for the article; however, if you think the points I've raised are too nit-picky or minor and you'd rather not address them, I may be willing to promote the article without them all being addressed.
• The opinions I express in my GA reviews are just that - my opinions (I also express some things, like grammatical rules or the requirements of WP:V, that are not my opinions). If you disagree with any of my opinions, please say so; you don't need to convince me that you're right, just that your position is a reasonable one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You're it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Eugene McCarthy presidential campaign, 1968

On June 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eugene McCarthy presidential campaign, 1968, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Evan Bayh presidential campaign, 2008

On June 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Evan Bayh presidential campaign, 2008, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for One Iowa

Hello! Your submission of One Iowa at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

Re: Wikiproject invitation

Thanks, but I think I'll decline. What edits have I made that led you to invite me? Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll decline as well, I'm afraid, as I don' have any particular interest in working on such articles (I focus more on Canadian politics, generally). I'd be happy to provide copyediting or peer reviews of such articles on request during periods in which I'm not too busy, however. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for One Iowa

On June 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article One Iowa, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Backslash Forwardslash 20:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ronald Regan. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Thanks. Mattnad (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am currently awaiting information on the appropriateness of the above warning. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Edit_war#What_is_edit_warring.3F. If you think I'm unique in my interpretation, see this other editor's warning to your counterpart on his talk page. Anyway, I'm not planning to debate semantics of what constitutes a "content dispute." You can do whatever you want, but think about it. Mattnad (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Geraldine Ferraro/archive1 section headers

I won't press the issue any further (because it's a silly thing), but please see WP:FAC instructions: "Please do not split FA candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings)." The FA delegates may remove them anyway, though. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see what you did. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Public_image_of_Barack_Obama

Strange that you are lecturing other editors about possible 3rr violations given your behaviors on other pages. Just a friendly reminder.RTRimmel (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? Because I made one revert? --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• ]
• ]

There are two. And against consensus and the talk page because you believe a policy is being violated when 4 editors have told you it hasn't. One more and are you could be blocked and that would be unfortunate. You may want to read up on Disruptive_editing#Signs_of_disruptive_editing to avoid future problems. Just as a friendly reminder. Have a nice day. RTRimmel (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The initial edit is not a revert.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

But wholly against consensus, which is a sign of disruptive editing. Just as a friendly reminder. RTRimmel (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. It was an attempt at compromise. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ice Cube 2000

Alright, I'll report him now. Thanks for the heads up. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 18:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

routine notice of Obama article probation

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Public image of Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- guyzero | talk 00:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)