Hosta

Archives

2007: March • April • May • June • July 1–15 • July 16–31 • August 1–15 • August 16–31 • September 1–15

You marked me with a "Question." What exactly does this mean? (Just curious, I hope you don't think I'm trying to accuse you anything.) I see "Not Done" and "Done," and I see "Question," but now that I'm marked with one... well, I was curious. I looked at WP:GA/R, but didn't see either of the articles you starred there. Anyway, an explanation of the meaning of the Question symbol would be much appreciated. Thanks. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 02:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must not have phrased the question clearly. I meant, how does the "Question" tag differ from "Not done?" Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 22:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I tried to fix both articles in question, although I'm less sure about the Crown Fountain article. Would you mind taking a look? Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 22:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering my question. If there is anything I can do to help, please let me know. Also, when things are less busy, perhaps you could tell me what kinds of things you look for in a GAC review? I'd like to be able to conduct a good, quality review, and you seem to be one of the best. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 23:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "my" GAC task force. I just wrote my name there since there was a space for participants but no one was there. I don't really see the point either. Want me to remove my name? Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 00:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my page - you can go ahead as far as I'm concerned. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 23:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to yet again bug you about this article. Are you still reviewing it, or should I request 2nd opinion? Or, have you just not got round to it? Doesn't matter if you haven't, I just wondered what the current situation was. Davnel03 16:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have made the wrong decision in failing it. The fact that I had to bug you several times about the article showed that you didn't have any intention of reviewing it. By the way, you never brough up many issues on the re-review. Given that I had corrected all the issues first time around, why couldn't you of put it up on hold for 7 days? Davnel03 20:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put it on hold. It's not that I had no intention of reviewing the article, I've just got a lot going on here on Wikipedia and IRL with my oldest starting Kindergarten last week. Additionally, you didn't correct all the issues the first time around. There is still an issue with in-universe, which is a big deal and clearly stated in the criteria, which should be read thoroughly before nominating an article for GA. Regardless, I've put it on hold considering you had to "bug me" (which I really regarded as more of reminders rather than bugging) to get my attention. Bug me again when it's done, otherwise, I'll check back in seven days and make the pass/fail decision. Regards, Lara♥Love 20:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK. Thanks, I appreciate it. Davnel03 21:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ..people have been making pissy grumbling noises about MfD for GA since the dawn of time. It's nothing new. MfDs would never pass. The green button might pass, but expect a LOT of opposition. It's been proposed a gajillion times and knocked down every time.
• A key point, though, it is isn't just the FA folks! We need to stop this "FA against GA" mentality at all costs. If I have one goal, it's to calm the rhetoric. "why can't we be friends?" etc. and all that. I think FA and GA are different organs of the same body [please, no biologically-based jokes identifying which project is which organ ;-) ] I thought a dose of cold water might help but maybe I was way wrong to think so.
• KUTGW! Your influence has been very positive. -- Ling.Nut 18:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, LaraLove, I wanted to add a word of encouragement. I went to the GA talk page to add it there, and decided my message might be lost among all the misinterpretation, misunderstanding, selective reading and general "baggage" on that page. It's quite a sensitive topic, with misunderstanding on both (FA, GA) sides. The essential message (that Raul654, the FA director, doesn't even like the stars on FAs) didn't seem to be getting through. What I wanted to say to you is that I formerly held strong views that GAC was a waste of editor time and good for nothing; watching the work that you and others have done over recent months has caused me to completely turn around, and I now recommend that some articles might benefit from a GA pass before approaching FAC, and I understand that many editors cherish their earned and deserved GA status, and have no intention of pursuing FA anyway. But the turnaround in quality is still recent, and IMO not many editors have observed yet the difference between about six months ago and now; it may be premature to think that GA has overcome past perceptions and gained the stature in the community that it will come to deserve if you all keep up the good work. I hate to see you discouraged when you are moving so heartily in the right direction, and was just concerned that the timing of the proposal to add a star to GA was premature (particularly considering how many times it's already been defeated); GA needs time for others to realize the quality has improved. I hope you'll keep doing what you've been doing, because it has improved the Project. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words, SandyGeorgia. I'm not discouraged. I still think certain users are ignorant asses, but I'm not discouraged. As far as Raul's feelings on the FA star, that doesn't affect my feelings on GA getting the button. I like them both. I like knowing I'm reading an FA without having to go to the talk page to see that info. I think it would be great for GA to have the same, whether everyone likes the button or not. I mean, it's a tiny icon in the top corner. It's actually amusing when you step back and look at the discussion from an unconnected perspective. Regardless, it would be immensely helpful to be able to tag articles that have been through sweeps with that button. Considering the list changes daily, it would be an instant identifier that an article had passed and was officially, so to speak, Good. But, as my ignorant ass step-dad always said, "People in Hell want a drink of water; You can't always get what you want." Lara♥Love 13:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give it some time, Lara, and keep doing what you're doing; you're headed in the right direction. There will always be more ignorant asses on Wiki than otherwise (seems to go with the territory :-) but we've all got to at least hope that the good work will eventually prevail, even if the route is slow and torturous. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit lost and confused by many of your comments on Joe Nathan. I have no doubt that you made the edits and the comments in good faith and based on your understanding of wiki documentation. At this time, because of your involvement, I am stepping down. In the future, other article reviewers might appreciate it if you would approach them directly and comment on the changes rather than going and making them and then inserting a checklist on the article. I had a methodology that would have allowed for many of the same things to be addressed and your involvement did not help that aspect of the review. In any event, why don't you take it over and happy editing. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I went to the article from a post you'd made on the project talk page about it being your first review and not being sure how you'd done or whatever. No need to step down. Just keep those things in mind for future reviews. There's actually a new template that's been made in the past couple of days for reviewers such as yourself—or experienced ones at that (I'm sure I'll use it at some point in the future myself because we can always use another set of eyes on these things)—that requests a second opinion. The template name escapes me at the moment, but it's been added to WP:GAC. The article has been improved to a passing quality at this point. Wizardman is great about appreciating reviewer comments and addressing them. Considering it was your first review, you should go through the passing steps and get familiar with it. There's a few and I forget some of them sometimes, even after all the reviews I've done. Sorry if I stepped on your toes, but this review is yours to take credit for. Lara♥Love 04:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am stepping down as I'm not in agreement with the way things have progressed. I wasn't outright unsure of anything - i just wanted to invite people to provide me with some tips. I take baby steps with editors and handle a few issues at once. I'll leave it be and i have removed it from my watch list. Be well. If you see me advising on a GA review in the future, please feel free to drop me a note. Be well. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a new style, I suppose. In regards to the comment you removed (I had an edit conflict and already had this typed out before you removed it), I'm not sure what you mean by "point 3 up at the top here"; if you mean my notice that I'm not currently taking GAC requests, I don't see why you're put off by that. I've got a ton of work in the GA project and don't have time for all the requests I get here for reviews. I usually don't turn down requests, but then find I don't have the time and/or I forget. It's a downward spiral, really. So it's easier to just avoid the requests all together until I have more time. Anyway, it doesn't seem anything I say is going to lighten up this situation for you, but I do apologize for putting you off. Between GAC, GA/R and the backlog quality reviews, I reviewed roughly 500 GAs, so I suppose it's just sort of second nature at this point and not the big deal it once was as when I was a new reviewer, as you are. My style is more to bang out the whole review in a day or two, depending, fix what I can and drop off for a few days until someone drops a line here to let me know it's ready. Then I review it again. It's a matter of time management for me. I just don't have time to spend days on one review. Regards, Lara♥Love 05:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed your involvement on U.S. South-related articles, categories and WikiProjects, and I wanted to let you know about a bid we're formulating to get next year's Wikimania held in Atlanta! If you would like to help, be sure to sign your name to the "In Atlanta" section of the Southeast team portion of the bid if you're in town, or to the "Outside Atlanta" section if you still want to help but don't live in the city or the suburbs. If you would like to contribute more, please write on my talk page, the talk page of the bid, or join us at the #wikimania-atlanta IRC chat on freenode.org. Have a great day!

P.S. While this is a template for maximum efficiency, I would appreciate a note on my talk page so I know you got the message, and what you think. This is time-sensitive, so your urgent cooperation is appreciated. :) Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 01:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, another user delisted the article and I responded on the talkpage with a few questions. Perspicacite 06:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, but uh... which image cant be used here? Perspicacite 16:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The picture of the senator needs a fair use rationale. The one that can't be used was the movie poster, but it's already deleted, I see. Lara♥Love 16:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might like to comment on my stance over here? --Joopercoopers 15:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commented. :) Oh, and I forgot to mention, don't close out GA/Rs. That's just going to cause issues. Lara♥Love 16:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. Which issues did you have in mind? --Joopercoopers 20:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing out GA/R's outside of the listed instructions will just be reverted and considered disruptive. It isn't necessary to do so. It won't accomplish anything productive. Lara♥Love 03:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it's not out of line, but I'd like to ask - did you code your userpage yourself, or tweak pre-existing code? Th 2005 21:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took the code for the background and border from a GA project page. Credit for the header is at the bottom of the page. I tweaked it from those. Lara♥Love 03:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Say thankya! I'm interested in learning what wikipedians usually do in that case. Th 2005 04:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yea, and the references box is actually a welcome template. I changed the colors and swapped out and added some links. Lara♥Love 04:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you enormously for your comments regarding the University of Saskatchewan. Although I contributed a great deal of editing to the article, it was originally started, and I was unaware of the fair use images...Thank you for giving instruction about how to handle these. I changed one to a copyright free, but no colours...and made the fair use template thingie for the other one. I think I addressed your other comments, however. The dashes still are giving me some problems. The section may need a re-write to correctly identify the conglomerated college building a different way. I am not sure what you mean by consistently formatting the references, as they all seem to be using the same cite web template for sources, but I did remove unused fields. If you could help clarify this it would help to continue to improve the article. Thanks again. SriMesh | talk 02:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Lara! Regarding the current GA review I've taken for Military history of the Neo-Assyrian Empire: From a discussion on the article talk page, it looks like some editors have changed their mind about GA and decided to go straight for FA; I left a comment on September 2nd asking for their go-ahead if they still want a GA review, but haven't heard anything back. It doesn't seem worth reviewing if the review is going to be ignored, especially for such a long article, so I was considering delisting the article altogether. Your opinion...? EyeSerene^TALK 17:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell them to go for a peer reivew first considering it doesn't even meet GA standards at this time. It can only help. The lead is not sufficient, and should not state "This article..." It's an overview of the article. It should summarize each section. It's not an introduction. Also, ref placement needs to be corrected. All images need to be accurately tagged with the source provided, currently at least one image lacks this. Also, the MSPaint image probably won't make it in FA, but I'm not sure. I also don't think it will make FA with the proseline. I'm not completely familiar with the FA requirements, but at this point, it's not even ready for GA. Lara♥Love 17:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there was no way I was going to pass it as a GA without further work... which, from the comments, did not look like it was going to happen. I did detect a touch of hubris on the talk page ;) I'll go ahead with the delist and leave an explanation per your advice. Thanks (again) for the help! EyeSerene^TALK 18:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 03:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DFTT: Stop feeding the trolls, dumbass. Ignore the ignorance. Lara♥ 04:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look over your editor review. And your contributions. And your GAC Work. And your edit summary usage.

And I've taken into account that you're quite opinionated and don't mince your words any.

And I'd like to nominate you in an RfA if you'd like to accept :) Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 17:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my ER, you know I'm not interested at this time. Plus, I've participated in enough RfAs to know that mine would not be successful. Perhaps when I'm older and more mellow, I'll be inclined to go for it, but as it is, I have no interest in biting my tongue to get some tools. I honestly appreciate the gesture, however. Thank you. Lara♥ 18:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, it's best not to be mellow. The place would suck without people with some fight in them. If you do eventually decide to go for it, let me know so I can add my support. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 18:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I have no interest in biting my tongue to get some tools" - that sums up the RfA process perfectly . If only more admins were as wise as you. Epbr123 18:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, more don't. Perhaps if they did I would run. But it's entirely too much hassle to answer all those questions and go through all that for a sure fail. Probably snowball, haha. Not to mention I have no XfD experience and am completely disinterested in gaining any. Lara♥ 18:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naaaa....no snowballs in there. I told someone I would "ROK their shit" once and my RfA ran the whole period. I even brought that one up there, good times. Of course, my RfA didn't pass . . . :) IvoShandor 18:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tragic reality. I've brought up your RfA in other RfAs so many times. Using it as an example of where the system failed and how you can't hold one mistake over an editors head forever, particularly when they've acknowledged it and have learned from it. If you can't pass an RfA, there's no way I will. Lara♥ 19:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Not really worth all the headache. I can live without the tools, don't know if Wikipedia can live without me having them, but I suspect it will survive. ;) IvoShandor 19:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. My feelings exactly. :) Lara♥ 19:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say, same for me - I've been asked several times, and I'm tempted, but the dog-and-pony show method of choosing holds no appeal. If I were to see some RfAs pass people of quality despite having mixed it up as editors, I might be willing to accept the offers of sponsorship (which I do appreciate) and have a go at it - but the way it is now, biting your tongue for tools is a very apt description. And there's a danger of getting cookie-cutter output. Let me know if you hear of moves for RfA reform - I'd be interested in commenting. The project could use more admins who are smart and willing to take on trouble - and that includes interpreting policy, not just mindlessly quoting it. Maybe we should form our own cabal. Tvoz |talk 19:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shhh! There is no cabal. Email me. Lara♥ 03:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that old adage, don't feed the trolls? This user's disruptive behavior is best dealt with by ignoring him I think. Besides the fact that the GA talk pages certainly isn't the proper forum to discuss user conduct. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read two posts up. Lara♥ 19:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. Keep up the good work. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to get caught up in the things you're passionate about. That being the GA project, not the trolls, :). LaraLove♥ 19:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I, Zenlax award LaraLove, Davnel03, and Nahallac Silverwinds the Tireless Contributor Barnstar for applying the time to edit Randy Orton's article and making an effort to get it in encyclopedic form. The three of you deserve it. Enjoy. Zenlax 12:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) Lara♥ 19:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to use the Cite citation format? Roy Welensky is a featured article and it doesnt even use ref names. If all that is required is a uniform style then I'm tempted to stick with the easier formatting. Perspicacite 23:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can use whatever format you prefer. Footnotes is the most commonly used here on WP. WP:CITE isn't about one particular format. It lists all those acceptable on WP. Also, the refs in Roy Welensky are according to CITE. The formatting is a little off. Titles should not be italicized while the work should (they have it reversed), but otherwise it includes everything.

Whether you do it manually or use a template is up to you. Just be sure that all available information is included. WP:CIT is a good references for what all should be included and in what order. Again, you don't have to use the templates, but looking at what they yield will help you build them accurately when doing it manually. Does that makes sense? If not, ask me to clarify more. Lara♥ 03:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you and user Geometry guy (talk · contribs) were having mutually satisfying discussions concerning the relationship between GA judging and our mathematics community. Since he has been called away by the dreaded Real World, I thought I would do you the courtesy of bringing to your attention some recent events. Specificially, see Talk:Hilbert space#GA on hold and WT:WPM#Another ultimatum from our friends in GA (and the comments immediately above that). As I read the mood of the mathematics community (though I confess to bias), we are close to boycotting GA. I assume you would not wish to see that happen, nor to see that decision spread. So I invite you to say a word, either to us or to user OhanaUnited (talk · contribs) or to both. (If I were to guess, I would suspect this user lacks familiarity with the scientific citation guidelines.) --KSmrq^T 03:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]