User talk:PrairieKid/Archive 1
 | This 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Sosthenes12
Hi PrairieKid,
Thanks for the tip. I didn't know that box existed. By the way, how did you find out I made many short edits in a span of time?Sosthenes12 (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes 12
I looked at the Wikipedia Recent Changes Page and found the edits. The article you are working on (Oswald J. Smith) has a few other minor issues. I have labeled those and hope you will fix them. Thanks again! PrairieKid (talk)
I'll try to get to it today. So is it generally better to make all the edits you are going to do in another place and then do everything in one edit? Thank you! Sosthenes12 (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12
It really is up to the editor. It is fine to have a few edits, as long as you don't leave an awkward space for a long time, without going back and finishing the work. As long as the banner is up, the hope is people will understand. Even if the edit is only half over, it is still half an edit better than it would be without the work. PrairieKid (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again. And LOLs, we gave each other a barnstar! I was deciding whether to give you a kitten or the special barnstar. Hope to work with you more in the future! Sosthenes12 (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12
A barnstar for you!
|
The Special Barnstar |
| Thanks for teaching me something new! Sosthenes12 (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification for February 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Velichko Minekov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bulgarian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted photo
Hi, just letting you know that File:Massachusetts State Senator John Keenan.jpg appears to be a copyrighted photo and can't be used on this site. It's up for deletion. —Designate (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello Designate. The website that I retrieved the image from does allow for Fair Use, for "activities such as comment, news reporting, criticism, teaching, research, and other related activities." That is at http://www.malegislature.gov/Site/TermsOfUse . The website does say that an email asking for permission may be necessary, but I didn't think that this was one of those instances. I would be more than happy to send the proper email, if you think it is necessary. Sorry for not being clearer in the original description. Thank you for bringing this to my attention! PrairieKid (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- The wording is tricky, but the first paragraph (requiring permission) seems to be their policy on photos, while the second paragraph (outlining fair use) seems to focus on "the design, layout, and other features of this website," i.e., anything other than photos.
- In any case, Wikipedia has a pretty tough policy on fair use, which is intended to be stricter than the legal definition of fair use. Generally fair-use photos of living people are not allowed even if they would be legally permissible. We could e-mail the site owners for permission, but we need them to explicitly say that they will allow the photos to be published under a free license (check out Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission). It can't just be "I allow Wikipedia to use this photo". —Designate (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I understand. Sorry for originally using the photo. Thanks for your help! PrairieKid (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ann Rivers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pages (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
A cheeseburger for you!
|
For being willing to not following the majority of the internet, I present to you this cheeseburger. Almost the most "All American" WikiLove item that can be given other than apple pie. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I notice that you added {{cleanup}} to the article without a reason parameter. Would you mind taking another look and adding the reason if you remember it? —rybec 04:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
GA nom
Hi PrairieKid, when you nominate an article for GA, please do not create the GA review page. This makes it look like the article is already being reviewed, and makes it less likely that an outside reviewer will get involved. If you wait for someone to open the review, they should get to it reasonably soon, though there is often a wait. I moved your comment to the talk page for now. Let me know if you have any questions, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Mark Arsten. I was not sure of the process. Thank you for noticing. PrairieKid (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject C-SPAN?
Greetings fellow Wikipedia editor -
I am leaving you this note because I have reason to believe that you are interested in C-SPAN. (I may have made this assumption based on your C-SPAN user box, or perhaps for some other reason.) If this is not an interest of yours, please feel free to read no further and delete this message.
If you are in fact someone who is interested in C-SPAN, then let me put forward an idea that I have been kicking around for a while. What if we started a C-SPAN WikiProject?
The parameters of this (potential) project are up for discussion, but it could include some or all of the following (as well as things that may occur to you that have not occurred to me):
- Creation, maintenance, and improvement of articles and lists directly related to C-SPAN and its programming.
- Use of C-SPAN programming in citations for various topics
- Inclusion of unique and targeted C-SPAN video links for various articles. (Doing this with respect for established guidelines at Wikipedia:External links.) (Example: If you are interested in the submarine USS Wyoming (SSBN-742), then having easy access to the eight hours of programming taped while a C-SPAN crew were guests on that submarine could also be of interest to you.)
- Inclusion of (and possible further creation of) templated links such as {{C-SPAN|laurabush}}, that will easily take article readers to a link of all C-SPAN Video Library links for the person about whom the article is about.
- What else?
I don't know exactly how far we may want to go, nor in what directions, but I do believe (as I have long noted on my user page) that C-SPAN and Wikipedia are both...
...fantastic vehicles for the free exchange of ideas and information in a non-sound-bite manner, and they both invite the participation of any parties (expert or amateur) who are interested in taking the time to absorb and/or contribute to the ideas and information offered. C-SPAN and Wikipedia go together like peanut butter and jelly, and I want to help give other Wiki users easy access to the great work that C-SPAN has done on a variety of topics.
Now, I should mention that I have never started a WikiProject before, and I do not know the best way to go about it. (Perhaps one of you do?) Let me offer one of my sandbox pages, User:KConWiki/sandbox/Wikiproject C-SPAN?, as a gathering area for comments until such time as we gather enough steam to start our own WikiProject page.
Thanks for reading this far, and I hope that you will give some consideration as to whether this is something we ought to attempt. Please feel free to pass this message on to others you know whom might be interested, and please let me know your thoughts and comments.
KConWiki (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Rand Paul GA nomination
Hi, I've written a review for Rand Paul. It needs some work, so I put it on hold. Let me know if you have any questions/comments. Thanks! —Designate (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- There's still one thing (in my opinion) that should be addressed, but others may disagree, I don't know. Otherwise it meets the criteria. Designate (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 01:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Gold Standard 01:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks, you too. :) Keep up the good work. —Designate (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
GAN's
Hey, I've improved Cory Booker to they point where I think it's up to par. I've reduced the Obama association section so it's not as heavy, and added to the senate run section, but there isn't much to add as he isn't actually running yet.
I'll be getting to the Niki Tsongas article soon, and thank you for reversing your decision! Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 03:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- I did quite a bit of reworking to the Cory Booker article... hopefully they aren't too dramatic. I tried to improve much of the prose and rearrange it so his whole Mayoral association was together in one big, happy place. I reread the Obama association, and I think it might actually be OK. Congrats, it passes. PrairieKid (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I feel I've made Niki Tsongas more neutral, and I've significantly added to her family life, along with fixing the prose. At this point and with the amount of research I've done I feel it's now up to par, could you please come give it a second look? And thank you for taking up the Mike Capuano nomination! Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 03:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Richard M. Daley GA review
Hi PrairieKid! Thanks for taking on the GA review of Richard M. Daley. Please be aware that there is currently a Contributor Copyright Investigation regarding the main editor (and GA nominator) of this article, and his edits to this article have not yet been checked, as can be seen at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/HughD. I enquired previously about how this affects GA nominations, and was told that if there are outstanding instances of close paraphrasing (see WP:PARAPHRASE) or other copyright violations, then the article should not be passed as a GA.
So, you may wish to keep that in mind when reviewing. Equally, if you are able to check some or all of the material (the diffs listed at the CCI link above) against the original sources, and are happy that specific parts do not infringe the copyright guidelines, you may wish to mark them as OK on the CCI.
Sorry that this is a bit out of the blue - feel free to ask any questions either here or at WT:CCI if necessary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for taking up the review, please let me know if you have any questions. Hugh (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. Rough week-end! I'll take your notes, nothing to lose: the nom was in the queue like one day before you picked it up, and I can always re-nom and be back where I was yesterday, maybe with some good edit ideas. My 2 cents: asking another editor not to do any GA reviews is a harsh, but I think it is good advice to get more experience on the receiving end of GA reviews after working hard to get an article ready. Thanks for asking. Hugh (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Bad GA review
I have to say that this is the sloppiest GA review I've ever seen. The article was nominated for speedy deletion once (not "a dozen times") by an single-purpose account who was subsequently topic-banned for violating arbitration sanctions. I've no idea why you think it's been "nominated for deletion over a dozen times." It's frankly crazy to reject references on the grounds that they are "pages in books, which I am not able to check on". I've never seen any reviewer in any GA or FA nomination using that argument. Rejecting the nomination outright without even allowing a chance to amend the article is also unacceptable.
In short: please don't do GA reviews in future; if that's the quality of your reviews, you really need to raise your standards. I see that you are a relatively new user so I suggest that you spend more time creating good and featured articles (of which I have nearly 40) before you start reviewing others'. Prioryman (talk) 08:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- This user did the same thing to me. Told me that my article was not normal and criticised the use of offline sources. Did not offer seven days either. Waste of time. They have removed my comments and those from another user. Hiding concerns from other editors. Maybe there is some intent here.Rain the 1 10:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- It seems that in my reviews, people look at the thing that I simply said wasn't exactly all there, and they say that my entire review sucks because of them. I simply said "it worried" me that there were about a dozen citations to books. These citations, as they should have, went to a single page in the book. Often times, these single pages were used 2 or 3 times throughout the article. A single page in a book being able to account for so much in the article just seemed a little shaky. BUT, knowing our policy (because, believe it or not, I have actually read through all of the pages suggested on the right side of the good articles page, and have done a lot of studying on good articles,) I was going to be fine with it, with a simple note. Now, that was not the only problem with the refs. As I said on GA Review page, there were 6 paragraphs I mentioned (5 in a row) that did not have enough citations. Beyond that, I do apologize for not looking closer at the article deletion nominations. But, again, neither the book refs or the speedy deletion noms were the reason I failed the article. It was the lack of other refs, the neutrality of the article, and the prose, all of which would take a major rewrite in order to fix.
- Raintheone, I have already explained to you why your article failed several times, and I was personally tired of arguing with you. I really appreciated the contributions you made, and am still surprised at how much is on that page. However (one more time), the way the page is written and divided up, the refs were not perfect (and I never once said anything about online citations... going by your accusations, I would neither allow outside, written sources or online sources. How would that work?), and I didn't think the images provided were enough. If you would like to see this in further detail, I have already explained it on both of our talk pages, as well as on the review. I deleted the stuff on my talk page from you, again because I did not want to argue, and it seemed every time I reloaded the page, I had a new message from you. In all honesty, I took your point, appreciated the feedback (what little of it was constructive) and moved on.
- I am sorry neither of your articles meet the criteria and that I didn't feel a week was enough time to fix them, considering all the other projects you are working on. Feel free to renominate, as I see Prioryman already has. But, please, don't argue with me. Don't insult me. I have 2 or 3 other pages that I have already agreed to review. I will do so, ask for a second opinion to simply clarify that what I said is valid, ask the nominator if he thinks he can make the revisions (if they don't meet GA criteria), and then grant them the time if they think they can do it. Further, I do have three or four other pages that I have reviewed and put on hold. I will review those again at the end of the 7-day period. After finishing all of that, I will stop my GA reviews until I have become a more experienced editor. I apologize for any disruption. I stand by my comments, but I can understand and respect why you do not. PrairieKid (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Another questionable review
Hi, just to let you know that a discussion has been opened here concerning a different article that you quick-failed. Could you perhaps provide an expansion on what you feel the major problem with the article is? J Milburn (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- In reply to here and here:
- Should I sympathize with you? Probably not. You have caused no end of trouble with your reviews and reasons for failing. Your reasons were ridiculous in the review directed at an article I contributed to. When I asked for more explanation, you proceeded with even more ridiculous reasons for failing. And please do not call me ignorant, I am more than pleased to pull up diffs with you referring to TV articles as abnormal articles, 40 sources as below average etc, telling me a screenshot is needed, when the image is clearly a screen shot. (You obviously did not check the fair use rationale for a screen shot, which you should when reviewing. Then told me a cast shot would be better, for an article focusing on one individual character. Asking for an entire cast shot when it is sketchy to include one of a single character. You have not agreed to end your GA reviewing either - you said you would after you finish a number of reviews. Should we stand by and watch while you review these articles? We know all to well that not every nomination is destined to pass a review... but what we do know is your reasons are not in line with general ones for quick fails. It is all to easy to say renominate - they wait in line for months. This is editor's time and editor's hard work. And as for your dislike of the word serial drama as a reason for failing. Just no. But you still maintain you are right. You are telling editors with years of experience in the field that everything they know, do all the time.. was all incorrect. You stick to the reviewing guidelines or create your own rules. But that does not fit in with what Wikipedia is.Rain the 1 00:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Just a quick not say that I was too critical above. I should have been more constructive. It obviously was not your intent - so I should not have sounded so harsh. Please do not be discouraged from editing and gaining more experience. we need all the help we can get on Wikipedia. Happy editing.Rain the 1 23:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mitt Romney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CPAC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Capuano
I will add more to the tenure section as you noted. And as for citations, I've changed it around so much and added and deleted, do you see any issues with them any more? Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 18:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Mark Twain
The article Mark Twain you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. There are some changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article may pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Mark Twain/GA1 for things which need to be addressed. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Tsongas
Hi, can you please point out what's wrong with the prose in the Tenure section of Niki Tsongas? I've read it over and aloud and it seems fine to me, and I'd like to fix this as soon as I can. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 18:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- If you wouldn't mind, I've done a lot for these two nominations and would like to get them passed, is there anything else I can improve on? Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 18:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you placed Washington (state) up for peer review. Now, I'd love to collaborate with you and help us be able to get the article up to that status if you would like and I look forward to hearing from you. TBrandley 01:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the offer. I need as much help as I can get. Once we get a little feedback at the review, I will start working on the article right away. I am too proud of a Washingtonian to let Texas and South Dakota (the only states listed as GAs) get all the recognition. There are plenty of Washington-related articles that are GA, on top of the whole Washington Wikiproject, so I think I can round up quite a few editors to contribute. PrairieKid (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Great, I'd like to start working on some sections relatively soon as well. I actually reside in the southern interior of British Columbia (which is pretty mountainous and good), near the Washington border. I've drove down there before, from the Osoyoos–Oroville, and it seems to be pretty nice. I really want to head to the Okanogan National Forest in the future, but the farthest I have went is Omak so far. Anyways, pretty nice state–I particularly enjoy the mountains. Regarding the Washington article, I'm sure more editors could help out with the article further and the page is already descent. Cheers. TBrandley 23:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Non-free rationale for File:Ann Rivers.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Ann Rivers.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ann Rivers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democrats (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
GA Listing
Hi! This is about the Adam Levine article. It's been days since the article's been made a GA, but I noticed that it hasn't appeared here on the list of Other Music articles yet. Does that happen, or is there something left to be done? Thanks! GinaJay (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)