User talk:Giants2008/Archive 3
 | 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 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Hey, thanks for taking the time to look at the article and respond to my peer review. The reference stuff was very helpful, and I think I corrected all of the problems you had with the article. I plan on bringing it to FAC very soon, so if you still have any concerns with the article, please let me know. --TorsodogTalk 15:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Ling's idea
It's not just for FAC; it is intended for all content review. Thanks for the kind words. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 16:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
If you have time,
Since you've been a great help reviewing wrestling articles when nobody else would, do you mind reviewing Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/WrestleMania XXIV? iMatthew 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'm done and left a few comments. iMatthew 00:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments man, I really appreciate your reviews everytime. Btw, I replied to those comments you left :)--SRX 23:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
New proposal at MOS RFC on date linking
Your Nov 25 comment at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC#Year-in-Field links should be made in certain cases is a point I expanded on in a new proposal on that page, so you might be interested in it: "Year-in-Field links in tables and lists are just fine but should be identified" -- Regards, Reconsideration (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
New CFB FAC
Since you've been one of the biggest commenters on my past FAC reviews, I just wanted to let you know that 2006 Gator Bowl is a featured article candidate right now. Any comments, questions, or concerns you'd care to express would be a big help in improving it. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've responded to your suggestions and fixed the problems you raised. Thanks for pointing out the DAB checker for me, btw; I'll definitely be using that a lot more often now. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, 2006 Gator Bowl passed and is now an FA, but I just wanted to give you a heads-up that I've submitted a new FAC. 2003 Insight Bowl is waiting for comments when you get a chance. Thanks again! JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom vote
Hi there! I noticed you voted oppose on my ArbCom candidacy but didn't say why. I was curious as to your concerns, and if there was anything I could do to address them? Thanks very much! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Normally I don't respond to talk page requests on my page (I go to the other users'), but I'll make an exception since that's what most others are doing. It's not anything personal, but I do feel that better candidates exist this year. I do like the platform of increased speed in ArbCom decisions, but think that other candidates will be better suited for the position due to their having more experience in dispute resolution. Just something to consider for the future. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Aye, I admit my dispute resolution experience is rather limited, and I can't deny that's a legitimate reason to oppose me. I've tried to illustrate my responses to other sorts of disputes and provide examples of what limited experience I do have, but nothing can beat the actual, on-the-ground experiences. Anyways, thank you very much for your time. Happy editing! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Ping
I replied to your concerns here. Maxim(talk) 01:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've tried to massage some numbers out of the article, feel free to take a second look. :-) Maxim(talk) 23:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Giants, I looked at the article. I do not feel that it is in need of a copy-edit; rather, I left some suggestions on the FLC page. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
You maybe interested in the discussion at Talk:Tiny Thompson, where adding info the article (replacing some of the stats) is being discussed. Maxim(talk) 22:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The above review has been restarted. Since you commented on it before the restart, I thought to inform you.--WillC 07:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, could you please return to the review so we may sort this problem out with the Wrestling Observer.com and Pro Wrestling History.com references. I removed the Wrestling Observer reference but I believe the PWH ref is fine to leave since it is only sourcing attendance and match times, but I'll let you decide that.--WillC 06:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
HOW DID U BEAT THE loss less! PATS!!!! HOW?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!! No offense!!!!!
I can't believe you beat my Pats!!! i cant freaking believe it!!!!!Dcollins52Tell me what you think 01:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC) either way, as a friendly relation, good luck for ur team!
Dcollins52Give me a yell has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!
Hey. I've dealt with your comments and await your follow-up. No need to rush of course, just making sure everything's good. :) Wizardman 02:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Woddup, Giants? I don't know if you normally strike your comments bit in a review in favour of a support, but I've dealt with all your suggestions, except where I explain otherwise, and I think we could be quite near to a close. Thanks for your help. Apterygial 05:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| I don't know how often you get one of these, but for your hard work at FAC and FLC I think you deserve as much as you can get. Apterygial 02:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC) |
Hmmm. I wouldn't rush to it, Ling.Nut's concerns will take a while to fix. Apterygial 00:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Jack Kemp
Thanks for your commentary at the Jack Kemp FAC. I understand that you might not get around to further review for some time, but I appreciate your commments when you have a chance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have responded to your additional comments.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your continued review. I have responded again.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have completed responding to your final concerns. Please consider supporting--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your continued review. I have responded again.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
|
Dear Giants2008, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2009 brings further success and happiness! ~ YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
Thanks again for your hard work on FAC spotting my errors and faults. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Lockdown FA
I want to say thank you for supporting Lockdown (2008) in its FAC. It recently passed. You left comments in its second peer review and both of its FAC reviews. Thank you for taking the time out to read it so many times and leave comments also for supporting it in its second FAC review and for opposing it in its first, since it was not ready to become an FA and it helped in the long run.--WillC 03:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
2003 Insight Bowl FAC
Changes have been made as you suggested. Thanks again for being willing to review yet another of my FACs. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Sunderland A.F.C. FAC
Hi there, cheers a lot for your review of the Sunderland A.F.C. FAC. I think your comments raised have now been addressed, and if you could have another look over it, that would be great. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Condolences
Sorry. I picked 'em to play the Steelers in Tampa this year, if it makes you feel any better. Thought Eli could do it again. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
What am I meant to do here? No responses from Ling.Nut, no real impression that any decent responses are going to be given, and you (rightly, in my opinion) disagree with that reviewer over the "incoherent" issue. I am a little upset that some feel the need to disrupt an FAC for personal pride, more than anything else. I heard that FAC could be tough, but I guess I thought it would be tough but rewarding in an improve-the-articles kind of way, but this stupid stalemate is beyond irritating. If we stay in the current position, what happens? Does it get archived? Does Sandy ignore those comments? Apterygial 02:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC) —I've struck these comments, if you don't mind, because that moment of blind stupidity should not be representative of my editing on Wikipedia. Apterygial 12:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Understood. The other thing is, Ling hasn't mentioned jargon as an issue, it's more about how I treat all of the drivers and teams when I mention them. I quick skim of the FAC shows it is only mentioned by you. Do you think it's worth putting out a call on WT:FAC for an extra set of eyes (I contacted Malleus and asked him to return a few days ago)? I really cannot stress how grateful I am for your help on this, I've barely been on Wikipedia for four months and friendly help makes it much more enjoyable. Also, I saw the Steelers play the Chargers the other day, man did that look cold. Good game, though. Apterygial 03:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Note system
Per your shout I made this change to produce the extra backlink in. I saved it to the list because the process wasn't as simple as I thought, and I experimented within "show previews" of the list. When I got it to work I though I might as well save it there. If you don't like it, please remove or change it. Also if you wish for more explanation that just a diff of what I did please ask. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Bill Wilkinson
|
On January 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bill Wilkinson, 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. |
--Dravecky (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Sacrifice (2008)
Yeah, thanks for the comments but I've asked to withdraw the nomination since I don't have enough time to undertake the process and I believe I'm going to retire for a month or so.--WillC 19:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
FAC thanks
Even though we ran out of time to complete the fixes, I wanted to thank you for your attention on the History of the National Hockey League (1967–1992) article. I am going to give it a little while before re-nominating, and I expect following your efforts, it should pass easier. I was wondering, if you aren't that busy, if you could complete your copy editing for this article, and possible for History of the National Hockey League (1992–present) as well? I'm in no rush for this. I found with the first two articles that I got better results from your and Dabomb87's reviews during the actual FAC nomination than I got from the peer reviews, so this time I figured I would just bother you before re-nominating so we can all save time. ;o) Resolute 16:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Appreciate it. I'm probably going to wait about a month or so before re-nominating, as I know Maxim is looking for another copyeditor as well. But we'll get it up soon enough, then move onto the Rangers glory year. ;) Cheers, Resolute 01:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
FAC comments addressed...
I think we've addressed all your concerns in the West Point FAC. If you would be so kind as to mark off everything you feel we have addressed and/or make further comments so we can fix them, it would be appreciated. Furthermore, if all of your concerns have been addressed, your Support !vote would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — talk 00:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Your concerns have been addressed. Please strike/continue discussion as you see fit. Thanks for the feedback. — BQZip01 — talk 00:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- You may want to provide a counterpoint to my remarks at WT:FAC. Note that I'm not coming here to say anything sneaky or mean or nyaa nyaa nyaa or whatever; I'm honestly saying, you probably want to respond. :-) Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 02:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
fac again
sorry it took so long to reply. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 09:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Completed your comments
Here. Thanks, iMatthew // talk // 12:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
2008 Humanitarian Bowl FAC
Hi, I believe all of your issues have been addressed. Since you've struck your oppose, and if there are no further issues that you have, would you mind lending your support? Thanks. Strikehold (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Giants, I'm not being too harsh or unreasonable at this FAC, am I? I don't like to think that I am impeding progress. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Bradman in 1948
Thanks for the review, I've responded to your comments. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm more concerned about the generalities and mood of the FAC community than that specific objection, I doubt that can be dealt with. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
dipping toes in at FAC
Hi Giants, a belated response to your comment about starting to review things at FAC, in the first few reviews I did at FAC last autumn I neither supported or opposed but queried and struck the query when it had been answered. I think I also had a note on my user page that I'd started reviewing at FAC but wasn't yet ready to start voting. If you combine that with remembering that it is easier and more productive to fix a typo in the article than to mention it at FAC, I think you'll find FAC friendlier than its reputation. WereSpielChequers 16:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Ravenloft (module)
Hi! All of the concerns that you raised at the FAC have been addressed, and the article has also gone through a thorough copyediting. I was wondering if you could comment again based on the improvements. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Heinrich Bär review
Hi, I could you please give me some feedback on how close the article to failure/approval for FAC might be? MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- I addressed all your recent issues. Maybe you could have a final look MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Idlewild Park FAC
Hey Giants, I've addressed your comments. Perhaps you'll take another look? Thanks, Grsz11 19:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I found somewhat of an attendance figure [1]. The park does not release their official numbers, but the Laural Highlands Visitor Center estimated around 500,000 in 2007. I'm not sure if this is acceptable for the article or not. Grsz11 01:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I invite you to add another comment to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fedor Emelianenko as to whether the use of the flag icons in this article is appropriate or not. Discussion at the articles related WikiProject did not provide consensus because, I believe, the editors involved are not a unbiased party. During the nomination, the flags were removed and then readded to the article. So your participation at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fedor Emelianenko do establish whether the icons should stay or go is needed. Regards, — Moe ε 22:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Grammar question
Just out of curiousity, I'm wondering why you think you should avoid putting "But" at the beginning of the sentence. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 12:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking for some fresh feedback, could you do a review? Ceranthor 20:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Yo! I am intending to renominate this article at FAC, and just wanted to quickly ask if you believe it is ready this time, especially since both you and Dabomb have given it a good look over. Thanks! Resolute 18:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- The titles end up in italics because of the {{citation}} templat and its assumption that everything is a book. I was told early on to use either citation exclusively, or cite x exclusively, and since I made heavy use of harvard referencing, I went citation. Thanks again for your look at the article. I will probably list it in the next day or two. Resolute 23:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, The reason there isn't a transport section is, that there is barely any referenced info to be found about it. I previously moved the transport section to "Structures and Facilities" because it was mentioned in a review of the article. I have once again made a transport section. Regards Aaroncrick(Tassie talk) 09:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Due to some mis-timing, I promoted the list and then found out that Dabomb87 had commented just after I had done so. His comments are here, could you please try to address them as quickly as possible? Thanks, Scorpion0422 15:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent, thank you for doing it so quickly. -- Scorpion0422 15:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- No sweat to either of you. I would have supported anyway. There is one issue I am confused about, see my talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- When you have the time, can you review Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Cincinnati Reds managers? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- No sweat to either of you. I would have supported anyway. There is one issue I am confused about, see my talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Dead ESPN links
A bot run to fix this has been approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SoxBot 13. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- There are several issues with the bot and a discussion at User talk:X!/Sox Commons#bot gone wild. I requested the bot but didn't make or run it. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
wanna !vote on WT:WIAFA?
wanna !vote on WT:WIAFA? Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey there
you reviewed my article The Battle (boxing) and comdemned it for copy and pasting. Hey I changed the wording in the section. What do you think? I know it is not going to be promoted to Featured article status but I just want to know if you now approve it? Showtime2009 (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
New LPGA players photos
Hello, there's bunch of new high quality photos uploaded from flickr into wiki commons, authored by Keith Allison. They can be found in the 'LPGA photos taken by Keith Allison' commons category. Please consider embeding them into existing players' wiki profiles and update this page accordingly. I've sent this message to User:Crunch, User:Dale Arnett, and User:Mudforce so please synchronize :). BR, Wmigda (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, Minnie's photo is missing due to some problem with the flickr upload bot. I've reported this issue to the bot maintainer (the bot guidelines suggest that if the uploading process takes more than 1 day then there's some problem on the bot side) and if he cannot correct that the I'll try reuploading the pic. Wmigda (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
| 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. |