User talk:Robo Cop/2009/July

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome

Hello Robo Cop/2009/July andwelcome to Wikipedia! I am Ukexpat and I would like to thank you foryour contributions.

Getting Started First steps • FAQ Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page •upload an image Getting help Community Portal • Help desk • Village Pump Where to ask questions or make comments •Request administrator attention Wikipedia: The Missing Manual Place {{helpme}} on your talk page and a small message explaining the problem The Commmunity Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith •Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks •No legal threats Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists		Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view •Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not •Biographies of living persons Manual of Style •Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links •Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy •Conflict of interest •Notability Things to do Be bold in editing •Help develop an article Pages needing attention •Peer review Join a WikiProject •Translating articles Cleaning up: General •Spam • Vandalism User pages • Talk pages Useful templates •Tools • User scripts

Click here to reply to this message.

ukexpat (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Geocaching and Geosexing articles (fromUser talk:Smashville)

Hello! You recently undid my edit of removing the Geosexingreference from the Geocaching article. I deleted it mainly because the activity is not real, it's just a page someone made up, and is listed for deletion. The article basically states that 'it is an activity the creator would like to create, but hasn't yet.' I figured that if it isn't real, why should it be placed in the article. I now realize I didn't make it clear those were the reasons I removed it in my log :). I would appreciate if you would reconsider your decision. Thanks! MobileSnail 15:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and re-remove it...I admit I didn't check the geosexing page, as I'm on my work computer :)--Smashville^talk 15:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, understandable. That's a good laugh! I could only imagine... Thanks! MobileSnail 15:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

If you must do tests such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:Mobile Snail/Sandbox, please cleanup after yourself properly: the article should have been tagged {{db-author}} and the in the AfD log should have been removed. —RHaworth (Talk |contribs) 16:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it was a mistake. I regret my decision in the first place. I thought I had cleaned it up completely and I just left this out. I appreciate you notified me and you wont have to worry as I have no plans to do it again in the future. Thanks! MobileSnail 16:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Your GA review of Golf

Hello, Mobile Snail, welcome to Wikipedia. I see that you are relatively new to reviewing Good Articles, and I just wanted to give a few pointers. From just a quick glance at Golf, I see that there are some issues that you did not address in your review. The Manual of Style is not adhered to in several key ways; for example, the lead section is not comprehensive, quotes are incorrectly presented (there should be no italics unless it's part of the original quote), and citation styles are mixed; I see both in-text inline citations ("(Rule 18-2)") and<ref>-style footnotes; it should be one or another, with preference given to the latter. References are also not up to par (pun intended). Not only are some of the references not formatted correctly, but there are entire paragraphs (one entire subsection) that are unreferenced, a huge red flag. There is even one {{fact}} tag in the "Popularity" section.

These are all things that will become more apparent to you once you have more experience editing articles, so no worries. However, I believe this particular article needs some serious clean-up andresearch work before I would consider it ready for GA-status. If you could give it, as well as other articles you decide to review, a more thorough look, that would be great. Also take a look atWikipedia:Reviewing good articles if you haven't already. If you have any questions, let me know. María(hablacon migo) 17:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind, helpful remarks. I will do so. I made sure to get a second opinion on another review I did, one on Seattle Sounders FC. MobileSnail 17:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and great idea. I transcluded the reviews to their respective talk pages for you, just refer tothe diff for future use.María(hablacon migo) 18:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Seattle Sounders FC GA review

Hey thanks for getting to this so quickly. Based on the size of the queue, I suspected that it would take a month or more. Even if it takes a while to get the second opinion, I appreciate your efforts with the quick first review. Thanks!--SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 06:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely welcome! I'm happy to do it and get some GA Reviews under my belt! ('Course it probably doesn't hurt I passed the article either! :)) I'm hoping to get Geocaching passed as a GA as well, and it's in the queue about where your nom was right now.Mobile Snail 04:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, the level of my attention to detail is directly proportional to the level of interest I have in an article. This is why it wouldn't be wise for me to be a WP:GA reviewer. That said, I did take a quick look at Geocaching and would say that it needs more references. The rule of thumb for I try to follow is if you have a complete paragraph with no references, that's a problem. Geocaching has a few sections without any references. Hopefully that will be something that can be improved while waiting for an "official" review (which I don't consider myself qualified to give).--SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 05:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Chris Turner GA review

Thanks for reviewing this article. Since I nominated it, I obviously thought it GA-ready, so I'm glad you agreed. :)Strikehold (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)