User talk:Giants2008/Archive 15
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Giants2008. 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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
I have responded. Savidan 15:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
GAN Doc Adams
Hi,
I've reviewed your nomination and made a few comments at Talk:Doc Adams/GA1. Very interesting article. I'll place the article on hold but it shouldn't be any problem for you to address my few points!
Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Greetings
I bet you are happy now.--WillC 04:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Good Article Barnstar | |
| Thanks Giants2008 for helping to promote Doc Adams to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give someone a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC) |
RfA?
Further to the discussion at Main Page errors just after the Super Bowl, I was wondering if you had considered running? I haven't done the pre-suggestion checks that I normally would, but I'd be surprised if there were a major barrier to you passing comfortably. Even if you only intended to use it for TFL, if the length of time the update took last night is anything to go by, that alone would be a net positive. —WFC— 16:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've never really considered running before since I haven't perceived the admin tools as being that beneficial to me. Last night was the first time I really needed the tools for something, but even then I assumed an admin would quickly update the blurb and everything would be fine. Sadly, I was wrong. A five-hour lag time from list update to blurb update borders on embarrassing, and reflects very poorly on TFL. If the process doesn't become much quicker, we'll need to rethink TFL's new focus on relevant topics. This isn't going to work if updates don't happen when required. From a personal standpoint, I'm still not convinced that my becoming an admin is at all necessary for TFL's sake, but I will monitor how future blurb updates fare. There's also the complication that I'm a college student and don't have nearly enough time to answer the number of questions RFA asks of candidates, review articles and lists, sneak occasional article edits in, and do well in my studies. There simply aren't enough hours in the day. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hello you two. Sorry about the delay in updating the blurb, I keep to UTC so the update took place as early as I could manage. Perhaps in future it's worth asking an admin or two directly who you know will be awake. I pretty much doubt anyone was watching the TFL talk page except for me... Oh, and Giants, (1) if you made one positive contribution as an admin then your mop would be a net gain to the project and (2) you'd get my unqualified support (for what it's worth) and (3) will I be processing a name change request sometime soon to Giants2012?? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- For the record, I'm keeping my name as is. It doesn't make sense for me to change it every time one of the teams I support wins a title, after all. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- I was kind of joking about that! But I wasn't joking about requesting direct admin action in future on TFLs should they need to be updated. Nobody will be watching the TFL's talkpage so just a note there is bound to be overlooked. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- For the record, I'm keeping my name as is. It doesn't make sense for me to change it every time one of the teams I support wins a title, after all. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hello you two. Sorry about the delay in updating the blurb, I keep to UTC so the update took place as early as I could manage. Perhaps in future it's worth asking an admin or two directly who you know will be awake. I pretty much doubt anyone was watching the TFL talk page except for me... Oh, and Giants, (1) if you made one positive contribution as an admin then your mop would be a net gain to the project and (2) you'd get my unqualified support (for what it's worth) and (3) will I be processing a name change request sometime soon to Giants2012?? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Please revisit John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer's FLC
Hi, you earlier commented at the FLC for John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, but never declared support or oppose. As the FLC is now two months old, I'm asking everyone who did not vote to come back and revisit their comments. Thank you for reviewing! --PresN 22:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 11:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Aaron • You Da One 11:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Do I get your support? Lol. Aaron • You Da One 17:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I confess that I'm struggling a bit here. My plan was to bring a series of food and beverage related lists up to FL status, and shepherd them through the nomination process. List of culinary nuts is the first attempt. That was submitted on November 22, and nearly three months later, it's still in process, with little to no activity. Looking over the articles that have come and gone in wp:flc over that time, the ones that capture people's interest have seemed to be entertainment or sports related. Lists that have less to do with popular culture (like this one) don't seem to capture much interest. I'm wondering if I should abandon the idea. Any thoughts? Waitak (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
George Went Hensley
Hi Giants2008, you made a few comments on the George Went Hensley FAC when if was first opened. We've made a few changes since then, if you get a chance it would be much appreciated if you could look over the article again. Thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for Gretzky edit
Hello Giants2008. Compliments on your recent helpful clarification re: Gretzky's baseball history. I was wondering about it myself. Its fixes like these that raise an article to a professional standard and give a satisfying reading experience. EMP 00:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
List of Connecticut Huskies in the WNBA Draft
I replied to your oppose at the FLC. As a aside, could you send me a link to where you found the Connecticut Huskies men's basketball draft list? I have been trying to find good sources on this. –Grondemar 01:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hutton FAC
Thanks as ever for the comments and corrections on Hutton. Possibly I'm being dim, but Nikkimaria already did an image review. Unless you would like her to confirm that everything has been done? If that is the case (and even if it isn't) I'll ping her. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for being a part of the review process and help the article to attaining FL status. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi!
I responded to your comments at the FLC a while ago but I haven't heard back. I assume that you haven't had time to take a look at it since. Do you have any other feedback? Sincerely --Reckless182 (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 February newsletter
Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was 
Grapple X (submissions), again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was 
Tigerboy1966 (submissions), thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were 
Ruby2010 (submissions), 
Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 
Miyagawa (submissions) and 
Casliber (submissions). February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from Ruby2010 (submissions). At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.
The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.
The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Addressed your remaining concerns a while back. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
All concerns have been addressed.--WillC 03:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Copyedit requested. Hopefully get an answer soon.--WillC 05:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- FYI, I've taken a pass through the article if you are interested in re-reading it. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Copyedit was finished recently.--WillC 07:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- FYI, I've taken a pass through the article if you are interested in re-reading it. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of List of unreleased Michael Jackson material for featured list removal
I have nominated List of unreleased Michael Jackson material for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Rubiscous (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment fixed.--WillC 05:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
FLC
Hi, just wanted to ask whether any of these lists (1 | 2 | 3) violate the 3b criterion, if taken to FLC in future. —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay in my response. It was finals week in college and I've been limited in my editing, but I have a freer hand now that that's over with. There does appear to be some overlap in the three lists, but I'm not an expert in location lists and don't know where the line is drawn. I'm most concerned about the third one, as that appears to be some combination of material from the first two. I wouldn't complain about the cities and metropolitan areas lists, but that's only what I think. My suggestion is to ask about this at WT:FLC; someone watching that page should be able to give an educated opinion. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello
I nominated Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Rihanna/archive1 on January 28, 2012, and it has since had 4 supports, 0 opposes and a few comments (from people who feel they are not familiar enough to support or oppose). I was wondering what the outcome is likely to be and how much longer the process will be going on for? Thanks. Aaron • You Da One 16:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have done Sanders and PresN's comments. Aaron • You Da One 16:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- The FLC has had it's fifth support now :) Lol. Aaron • You Da One 12:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
I've now learned the basics of how to format references using the cite template, and adding ALT text to an image. Thanks for the info; I'll be a better editor with it. I think I've resolved the issues you raised, but I did add the US map showing Florida, which the featured List of cities and towns in California contained. Mgrē@sŏn 18:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey. I know you've done a prose and image review here already, but would you be able to do a source spot-check? If not, could you point to someone who would be good for that? Thanks, Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I've replied to your comments, do you have anything else add? Feel free to support or oppose the nomination at the FLC page, thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi! Your concerns have been addressed. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 09:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
—Vensatry (Ping me) 09:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Based on the discussion at WT:FL, I'd like to withdraw this nomination while I submit it for GA. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
RS second opinion
Hey. I know I asked about the SABR biographies before, where we both seemed in agreement that it would be a case by case basis. First one I'm asking about is Dan Levitt. His writing appears to be accepted by mlb teams as official [1], and he cites his sources in the sabr articles he's done (no citing wikipedia thankfully). There's 3-4 he's written that I want to work on (namely this one), and since he would likely be the primary source I use I want to make sure it won't come back to bite me if I begin work. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 March newsletter
We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! Grapple X (submissions), of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's Cwmhiraeth (submissions), thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's Casliber (submissions), who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.
Congratulations to 
Matthewedwards (submissions), whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to 
12george1 (submissions), who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Wikipedia:Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from Miyagawa (submissions) show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!
It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey, do you think there is any way this: "Oppose - Comparing this to other Video Game FLs, this is in poor standards. Like, for example, the games need to be in chronological order (EX: List of Final Fantasy video games). GamerPro64 00:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)", could be striked out, as it's not a valid reason for an oppose? Just a personal preference on how the tables should look, comparing it to 2 other FL articles that are somewhat similar. — Statυs (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I feel the reviewer should be the one to decide whether to strike or cap an oppose. If the oppose is for a clearly faulty reason, us directors will take that into consideration in our decision-making. For what it's worth, I think a belief that a list is inferior to similar ones carries a certain amount of weight, though it can be overcome if enough editors feel differently. Giants2008 (Talk) 11:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Alright; was just wondering.
— Statυs (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Alright; was just wondering.
.svg){kind=link}
Any additional comments? — Statυs (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The article, List of municipalities in Florida, which you reviewed previously, has been submitted as a Featured list candidate. Would you be so kind as to support the nomination? Thank you for your previous efforts on this list. Mgrē@sŏn 15:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- I contacted all users who previously reviewed and made recommendations to this list. If a user has reviewed the article and made recommendations which I impremented, I interpret that as their endorsement of it. When I put this out for peer review, I only received two comments over the course of two weeks. When I nominated it for Featured List, I only received three feedbacks over a month. This list has been thoroughly scrutinized such that I don't think there are even nits to pick. I did not realize that you were a FL director and needed to abstain. Thanks for the review you gave me. Mgrē@sŏn 16:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey Giants2008, if you could give the list a re-look since there hasn't been much input, that would be appreciated. Albacore (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters: a list or an article?
I had discussions with others, and I wonder if List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters is qualified as either a List or an Article. See Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and Characters of Kingdom Hearts. --George Ho (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Message added by George Ho (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
FLC stuff
Hey, wanted to talk to you about FLC etc, but noticed I can't email you. Not that I'm trying to be subversive but it would useful if you could reply to this by email. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, never mind. The main thrust was that we're one director down (Dabomb87 hasn't edited for a month now) and since both you and I seem to review every list, we're running low on independent eyes... Not that FLC is particularly busy right now, but just wanted to hear your thoughts since we've both recently been involved in opposing lists which then would make it very difficult to display objectivity in closures.. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I saw your note on The Rambling Man talkpage while pinging on an unrelated matter. Almost all major contributors who is actively involved in cleanup tasks, or "controversial" tasks create an personal email though Gmail only for Wikipedia matters for their protection. Just letting you know. Thanks Secret account 23:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's precisely what I've done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 25
Hi. When you recently edited Gary Neibauer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Texas Rangers (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) 09:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 12:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I have done your remaining comments Aaron • You Da One 12:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 10:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I have addressed your remaining concerns —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 April newsletter
Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's Grapple X (submissions) remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's Casliber (submissions) was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's 
Muboshgu (submissions) coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.
65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of both Matthewedwards (submissions) and Grandiose (submissions), the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, 
Ealdgyth (submissions) earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article, 
Dana Boomer (submissions) earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by 
Stone (submissions) to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. Jarry1250 (submissions) managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.
An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions), for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 09:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Another message for you. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello Giants2008. You recently reviewed this for FL, since then the list has been significantly changed to "transclude" the main content from sub-pages. There's an ongoing discussion both at the FLC and the talk page of the list itself. I felt you should know that the list you previously reviewed no longer reflects the current version. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Doc Adams
Replied at the PR. Let me know if there is anything else I can help with. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions with User:Giants2008. 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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |