User talk:3vvww661
|
Your GA nomination of Criticism of Wikipedia[edit]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Criticism of Wikipedia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TompaDompa -- TompaDompa (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
August 2023[edit]
Hi 3vvww661! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Criticism of Wikipedia that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. TompaDompa (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, I was mistaken in assuming that the addition of single sources and statements would be considered a minor edit, like in (The non-verified source) Fandom.com. I’ll remember this, thank you Tompa! 3vvww661 (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Criticism of Wikipedia[edit]
The article Criticism of Wikipedia you nominated as a good article has failed 
; see Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TompaDompa -- TompaDompa (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Ideological bias on Wikipedia[edit]
Hi! I noticed that you nominated the article Ideological bias on Wikipedia for WP:Good article status. You do not appear to have edited the article prior to this, and there is no discussion about nominating the article on its talk page. It used to be the case that anybody could nominate an article, but it was decided back in January to only allow editors who have significantly contributed to the article to nominate it (see Wikipedia talk:Good Article proposal drive 2023#Proposal 11: Ban drive-by nominations for the discussion that led to this change and Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions for further details). I have consequently removed the nomination for now. Consider discussing whether the article is ready to be nominated with the article's principal editors on the talk page. TompaDompa (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- I believe unanimous gatekeeping and illogical because for many topics there are no new verifiable sources easily accessible or in the news circulation; and prevents nearly all well written still existing articles to have dissatisfactory content removed under the guise of “contributions,” and I suspect future edits would reflect this gatekeeping, but I digress. Sweeping away the unrelated nonsense, is the article itself in your opinion close to fulfilling the GA requirements? 3vvww661 (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand what your first sentence is trying to say. In answer to your question: I don't know, as I haven't taken a close enough look at the article and the sources on the topic to be able to make that assessment. I would suggest that the editors who have made the most contributions to the article (you can see who that would be at https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia) would be in a better position to answer whether the article is ready to be nominated. TompaDompa (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
What does "“Undue weight” is an excuse used by… those who remove with undue integrity." mean?[edit]
Is "undue integrity" bad or good? Doug Weller talk 08:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
March 2024 GAN backlog drive[edit]
| Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive |  |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
| You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. | |