User talk:SMasters/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 → Archive 15

GANs

Fixed and comments on the Papers (song) and Favorite Girl talk pages. Candyo32 (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hurricane Douglas (2002) GAN

I've added Template:Convert to each area where manual conversions were made. Please rereview? Buggie111 (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Robert Lawson

I consider reviewing a page for GA which was not nominated by its primary and principle editor to be rude and premptuous (I have made some 240odd edits to the page compared to the nominator's 4). Perhaps you should check these things in future before passing your judgements. I have posted my thoughts on this matter to the talk page. Do I come accusing you of own research and poor prose? No. Kindly extend the same courtesy.  Giano  13:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You are barking up the wrong tree. I did not make the rules. Someone thought the article good enough for GA status and decided to nominate it. Rude and presumptuous? I think you need to familiarize yourself with how WP:GAN works. Anyone can nominate and anyone can review. It is not the job of a reviewer to check with every single contributor if it is OK to review the article. That is the process and as a reviewer, I did my job in reviewing it after its nomination. The process just doesn't work the way that I think you want it to work. If you want to change this process, then you need to raise it on the talk page of WP:GAN, not here and not on the article's GAN page - the GAN process is over and closed. You should take a look at WP:OWN. I did not accuse you personally of any bad prose or own research, it was a comment on the article at the time of the review and should not be taken personally. If anything, the GAN process made the article better, which any editor should be happy with. If you are unhappy with my review, which I believe is fair, then you can always seek a reassessment. It is completely unfair for you to blame me. -- S Masters (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I do not claim to own the article,but perhaps before insulting the work of an editor you would do best to see who actually wrote it before commenting to an editor who has made just 4 minor edits. As far as "reassessment" is concerned I have never required any "assessment" in the first place. I bekleive it stands for itself, so I shall certainly not require "reassessment." Your view of what is "good" or "not good" is purely your own opinion.  Giano  17:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I do not believe I have insulted anyone. Please assume good faith. My role is to help make the article better, and hopefully, be able to comply to the requirements of what a WP:GA needs. You are not correct to say that what is good or not good is purely my opinion - WP:GA is a particular process that has a set of criteria, which I access against. That is my opinion, but the criteria is not. Anyway, as I have said, I believe have followed all procedures correctly and if you want to make a complaint or take this up, you should do it at WP:GAN and not here. Cheers. - S Masters (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
This looks like a case of severe "sour grapes". It was submitted to WP:FAC a few years ago (in July 2005) (the nominator is recorded - no prizes for guessing) and it got through; but was later dropped (in March 2008). It also interesting that the "self-proclamined" primary and principle editor has only done two edits on the article since 20 October 2007, and that was to remove the Infobox twice (a posible 3RR). Pyrotec (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Well it would look like sour grapes to you wouldn't it? - but then of course that is to be expected. Oh yes, and I shall continue to remove the info-box. It must be very distressing to you to see people write pages and then maintain them for so long. Try it sometime. And finally, if it is so bloody awful why not fix it yourselves - remove all the facts and "own research" you consider so doubtful - presumably you feel I make things up? Or is it that you have no knowledge of the subject - even though you feel qualified to pronounce it "good"? Well then, if you know so much - reduce it to a stub and see how clever that makes you feel, instead of sitting here being knowledgable.  Giano  21:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Murphy Nicholas Xavier Pakiam

The article Murphy Nicholas Xavier Pakiam you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Murphy Nicholas Xavier Pakiam for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Pyrotec (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much! It's my first nomination and pass for a GA! :-) - S Masters (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations, again. That's one more than me. Pyrotec (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive

GAN backlog elimination drives chart up to 1 May

On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, I'd like to especially thank you for your efforts over this past month's GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a complete success, which hopefully results in more expedient good article reviews, increasing users' confidence in the good article nomination processes. Even if you made just a small contribution, it still helped contribute to the success of this drive. Here is what we have accomplished this last month in this drive.

  • 661 total nominations were reviewed. 541 of them passed (~81.8%), 97 (~14.7%) failed, and 23 (~3.5%) ended on hold.
  • The WP:GAN page started at 110,126 bytes length on 1 April and ended at 43,387 bytes length at the end of 30 April (a 66,739 byte reduction in the page, about 60.6% less).
  • Excluding extremes, the longest wait for someone's GAN to be review was about 11.5 weeks at the beginning. (I mistook the figure when I reported to the Signpost that it was 13.) At the end, with the exception of one that was relisted, the longest wait is now at 10 days.
  • 63 different users participated, each having completed at least one GAN, with others also having helped out behind-the-scenes in making the drive a success.
  • The drive started with 463 GA nominations remaining and 388 unreviewed. At the end of the month, we ended with 89 remaining (374 or about 80.8% less) and 47 unreviewed (341 or about 87.9% less).

For those who have accomplished certain objectives in the drive, awards will be coming shortly. Again, thank you for your help in the drive, and I hope you continue to help review GA nominations and overall improve the quality of articles here on Wikipedia.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Murphy Nicholas Xavier Pakiam

Hello! Your submission of Murphy Nicholas Xavier Pakiam 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! Allen3 talk 19:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

Help

Sorry :( But I need help with the Backlog Elimination for May. I know how to copy-edit, but getting the script in which it tells you the page size; I'm confused. -  Nasir | ناصر یونس  chat?  21:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Go to [1] and click on the Appearance tab. Which skin are you using? - S Masters (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
My skin is Vector. --  Nasir | ناصر یونس  chat?  21:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
You need to add "importScript('User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js'); //User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js" to here. - S Masters (talk) 09:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

GOCEreviewed tag

Hey there, no I have not abandoned the tag. I actually used it on two articles, one of which was ignored by another editor who subsequently edited the article I had worked on and tagged. It is referred to on the GOCE project page in the Copy Edit guidelines and Noraft had made some revisions to it. I'm not sure what more there is to do with it, did you have any recommendations? Are you thinking of the category idea that was suggested? dtgriffith (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is it on the GOCE page? I don't see it. And the wording on the template is not the same as what was agreed on. Is there a different template I'm looking at? - S Masters (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Its found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors #Copy editing. As I had mentioned, it was revised since I had implemented the agreed upon text and included it in the GOCE. Please feel free to revise/revert if you feel it is necessary. dtgriffith (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
This part of the wording on the current tag, "please replace this tag with the {{copyedit}} tag", is incorrect. This is because the {{copyedit}} tag appears on the article page itself and not the talk page. So replacing it with that tag will not work. I will reword it as per our agreed discussion and also put it on the templates section of the project page. Cheers. - S Masters (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. Sorry I missed it, some important real life situations have been heavily distracting me over the past couple weeks. I will monitor the tag more closely moving forward. dtgriffith (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
No problems. It's all sorted out now. :-) - S Masters (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SMasters/Archive_10&oldid=1140087758"