Severity: Notice
Message: Undefined offset: 1
Filename: infosekolah/leftmenudasboard.php
Line Number: 33
Line Number: 34
On the page Queen of Wands, the discussion of the characters is lifted almost completely from the text on the webcomic's site. What can be done about this? Narmowen 04:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Welcome and thanks for signing up at WikiProject Agriculture. Please take a look around our project page and talk page for things you can do and add ideas of your own. I notice you have an interest in livestock, please let me know if you think a Work Group or Task Force for livestock makes sense at this point. I tend to think the earlier we start such sub-project areas the better organized the entire project could eventually be. I look forward to editing with you in the area of Agriculture.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I've begun working on the article and have addressed some concerns. Since this is a huge subject could you suggest more specifics in order to improve and expand it?With Regards,Havelok ۞ 20:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Van,
I think that your recent move of the material concerning the McLoughlin House into the article on Officers Row, is incorrect.
As I understand how things are, the "hierarchy" of Fort Vancouver includes:
At any rate, it is my understanding that Officers Row has little to do with the McLoughlin House. Let me know if you think I'm in error. --EngineerScotty 22:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been poking around in the dog domestication section of the Dog article, and have come to the conclusion that it is has collected a lot of pure speculation and breed-hyping. People are referencing sources that say the opposite of what they are claiming. Fixing all of it is too much for me to do alone. I think it would be best if the entire domestication of the dog section was merged over to the domestication of the dog article, and in the process purged of hopeful speculation. In fact, what would be good is a Speculation section where each myth about the domestication events was labeled a speculation. What do you think? Speciate 05:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Do I remember correctly that you used to have a note saying that you never intent to accept a nomination for administrator on your userpage? If that is not true, would you consider allowing me to nominate you? Tim Vickers 23:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Good luck mate, AfD transcluded. Tim Vickers 01:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
VanTucky, thanks for your vigilance on go articles, especially, go shape. With this years experience you have blossomed into a fine editor. Perhaps we can play go some day. I am variable in fighting strength, between 3Q and 1D. Larry R. Holmgren 04:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Howdy VT. I was wondering if you forgot that you claimed this article? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for voting at my RfA. Unfortunately, the result stands at 51 support, 21 oppose and 7 neutral which means that I did not succeed. As many expressed their appreciation of my works in featured portals during my RfA, I will fill up the vacuum position of director in featured portal candidates to maintain the standards of featured contents in addition to my active role in Good articles. Have a great day. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey man can you please remove that banner you put on my page? I don't think it is neccessary as people just forget to remember things. I do know how to sign my posts and fill in the edit summary.
Thanks. Jc4k 05:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Q5 added. Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The proposed pocket pets group is now active at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/Pocket pets work group. John Carter 16:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Why have you reverted my edit to Lawrence of Arabia? How and why do you think it was "not constructive"? The intolerance and animosity of people like you towards homosexuality is simply wrong and very disappointing. Lawrence of Arabia was a proud homosexual (have you even bothered to study his writings and letters?) and the homosexual movement is likewise proud of him as an icon. But by deliberately keeping this truth out of the spotlight in Wikipedia you are depriving future readers from knowing the truth! "Neoconservative" (read: intolerant and fanatic) people like you are causing great harm to Wikipedia's reputation, I am sorry to say. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.95.130 (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
(undent) You'll need a bathrobe soon. Inquire within. the_undertow talk 07:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, best of luck with your Rfa, and thank you very much for reviewing Dyer Lum. I've left some comments in response to your concerns at Talk:Dyer Lum. Regards, Skomorokh incite 17:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The article has been nominated for WP:FA. Kindly take a look here for details. Havelock the Dane Talk 19:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I saw your comment, added the age data and passed it as GA - hope that's OK Jimfbleak 16:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Dearest VanTucky, Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your kind words of strong support are very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to The_undertow and Phoenix-wiki for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.
As I said in my last (which will be my final) note to him, I'd never interacted with you before this RfA. I just never like to let good editors like yourself get smeared with unfair criticism at RfA. There are definitley some RfAs worth opposing--mostly those that are snow-closed--without having people taking one mistake made during the heat of an argument an opposing on that alone. Again, I will retire from the discussion, per your wishes though. Best regards, K. Scott Bailey 00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, as an experienced reviewer, I wonder if you would comment on these. I’ve been working on Aerodramus, but basically it's impossible to get photos of even the common species of these small, fast-flying swifts. Is there any point trying to upgrade the article without more images? Secondly, I've been working on List of birds of Thailand. What do I need to do to get it to a higher grade (the featured lists for North America and Nicaragua might be helpful)?. Thanks Jimfbleak 11:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope my support did not act as a Jonah to your RfA. It seems to have gone downhill since I participated. Oh well, I've seen people promoted with worse !vote counts. - Crockspot 20:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here
I trust you. You seem to be running into the same problems that I did at my RFA. People opposing you either based on comments made months ago or opposing based on other peoples oppositions. Some of the supposedly "rude" or "incivil" comments that are cited are nothing compared to some of the comments that some administrators make and no one says anything about. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Best of luck next time. I think the ungainly comments that you made were magnified far far more than is the norm. Keep your chin up! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey there Van Tucky, I just wanted to wish you good luck on your next RFA. I think you are a great contributor and asset to this community and hope that this one doesn't prevent you from coming back stronger in a few months. I know that it is easy to loose your cool and say things that you don't mean to, but that is how people get judged here. Think of it this way, a failed RFA wipes the slate clean. When you go up for RFA again, which I hope you do, the comments that you made previously will be discounted. Your slate is clean and now you know what people are looking for. Prove everybody wrong and when go for for Admin again let me know. I would love to support you! I do think you'll be a hell of an admin---the transgressions were just too recent. I know you think 3 months is a long enough time, but most people believe 6 months to a year is more appropriate.Balloonman 20:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Heya Van, just want to echo what's said above. It got kinda brutal over there, but it looks like you may have been gaining some insight even through all the negativity, into what the community wants. Hopefully it ends up being a net positive for you, even though it probably really sucks right now. I haven't been through an RfA, but I had a conflict a while ago where an editor chose to go through my life with a fine-toothed comb and draw all kinds of outlandish conclusions, and I remember the sick feeling in the pit of my gut that followed me around for a few days. So I can relate, but I can also tell you that if you have that, it will pass. All the best, -Pete 22:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
VanTucky: I am sorry you did not succeed on the first try. You have received some very sage advice during this process, and here on this page... as I said during the process itself, I sincerely believe that you will take it on board. You are clearly an intelligent and competent contributor here, and if you do take it on board, you will do fine in your next RfA. It takes a very deft touch to be a good admin here, for reasons that are complicated, and I think that's where you need most to focus. The advice you get sometimes will come from people who themselves could benefit from it, to be sure. But it is valid advice just the same.
You have an opportunity in your work at GA to interact with lots of editors, far more than most editors do. Some are poor writers, and some are great writers, but all are participating in GA because they really want to make better articles and make this remarkable project better. Never forget that. If you are tempted to merely point out the flaws in their articles, remember that. Try to make your words, no matter what bad news you are delivering, such that your colleagues here are glad that you took the time to write them, glad that you and they have interacted. That is a touch I myself do not always have, I am quick to take offense and speak harshly sometimes, but I know that touch when I see it. Our best admins never have to raise their virtual voices. It is something to strive for.
You have also received some not very good advice, those telling you that the system is flawed, that you were robbed, that you need not change... they are doing you a disservice, I am afraid by glossing over the things that need attention. They are correct when they say you have many virtues, though. That is why some of us have dumped a fair bit of effort into this. In particular I'd highlight Giano's input to you... if he thought you were irredeemable he would have acerbicly cut you off at the knees and been on his way to write more featured articles instead of returning here afterwards. But he did not, he has invested considerable time in counseling you, even though he opposed you. Take all of this on board. You have the potential to be a remarkable editor and admin here and I wish you all the best.
If I can ever be of service, you know where my talk page is. ++Lar: t/c 23:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
That RFA thanks really has class, and is extremely funny. Sorry I had to vote against you this time. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that the toolbar images at the talk of your talk and user page link to the images, not to the relevant pages in userspace. Is that intentional? AvruchTalk 22:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, sorry your request for adminship didn't pass. I plan to support you next time. Don't worry, I didn't pass my first RfA either. Best wishes. Acalamari 23:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the card about your RfA. I know that you're probably feeling discouraged right now, but please keep in mind that this RfA isn't meant as a condemnation of you as a person, although it probably feels that way right now. It's merely the opinion of interested editors about your suitability for becoming an administrator at this time. If you continue your hard work, and address various issues raised in this RfA, I'm sure that your next attempt will be successful. --Kyoko 01:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Even though we did not always see eye to eye I thought you should be trusted with greater responsibility. There is a paradox here: people young enough to be willing to take on more work are likely to be more fiery than we might like, but those mature enough to be more level-headed are likely to be too busy. I thought you were a good bet, but I guess this was not the moment. Well, the real work is in the writing anyway, isn't it? Regards, Haiduc 01:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Cruciblecover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Elseused 03:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
You're very welcome. It's a shame you had to withdraw. I'm sure that, if you take note of all the pointers left down by other voters, you'll be more successful next time. :-) Lradrama 11:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
My guess is the one in green...Balloonman 05:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't DESERVE to be there, if it actually had ANY helpful information at all, it would have every right to stay there. But it doesn't. All it says is that Banksy's British and likes to stencil. Big deal. It shouldn't be there at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel Surette (talk • contribs) 20:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you,My PC has been giving me a hard time and those calls to the helpline are really not helping.I remember reading about the environmental_issues/trade_routes subject, especially the oil slicks in maritime routes and such, so I'll try to and get to that soon as well.With Regards, Havelock the Dane Talk 06:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, You recently reviewed Straight Outta Compton but could you please review Curtis (50 Cent album), another article which i've been working to a WP:GA. Please get back to me. Thanks! --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 19:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Four years ago this day, a foreigner was voted by the community to serve a land that he loved. Today, a new foreigner humbly accepts the charge and support of serving a community that he loves. Hopefully, he won't disappoint.
Sorry about that – I speedy-deleted GAList3 after making GAList2 the exact same thing. If anyone else was likely to use GAL3, I would have done a redir, but I think you're the only person who even knew about it (and GeoGuy, but I doubt it). Sorry for the confusion! I fixed the page of your review by changing the 3 to a 2. (Also, it's a good idea to sign inside the template, at the end of the 7com line. Otherwise, if you leave a space after the final }} symbols, it will show up as pre-formatted text.) Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 23:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, VanTucky. Responded to your GA review at the talk page. Beagel (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, When you get a chance could you take a look at the subject article, specifically regarding a series of recent edits by user:Piercetheorganist. You've made some very nice edits to the GSD page and I'm interested in your opinion regarding these edits. Thanks! --Tom (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. I'm still thinking about getting the CJ article up to GA. The main hurdle in the last review was the "Hippies" section, because you thought it wasn't NPOV, or possbily offensive. I understand what you're saying, so I renamed the section, but I haven't found a word to replace the word hippie within the section. I looked for synonyms, but only found "beatnik, Bohemian, drop-out, flower child, freak, free spirit, freethinker, and yippie," which don't really work. I looked at hippie, but I think using "youths" is OR, and "counterculture youths" is OR and unwieldly.
You mentioned removing the section, but I've lived in CJ off and on the past 34 years, and the hippie influence is really important to the town. More important than even the refs I found indicate, though I only included what can be reliably refed. Basically, it's more important to me that it be a good article than a "Good Article," but I would like to make it both. It's kind of like writing the New York City article; you may have many things you can add based on refs, but a knowledgable editor needs to make decisions about what to include.
Do you have any suggestions on what I can do? I liked your review because I felt you were holding the article to a high standard, which is what I aspire to. Just so you know, I'm not asking for a GA review, or comments on the writing/formatting (it's under construction once again), just suggestions on the single section. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking on the review, especially after my transgressions! I did think of double columning refs, wasn't sure if there were enough to justify. The predators were listed, but in a silly place (status) now moved to breeding. I've fixed refs 18 (and 14, which pointed to the wrong source). The refs you have identified as not academic enough (12, 13, 22, 23), I should be able to find alternatives like BWP for the first three - pity about the airspeed calc though, that won't be in an academic journal - What can I do about the swallow tattoo bit, it's clearly true and oft-repeated on the web, but is never going to be in an academic journal - do I just take it out? Jimfbleak (talk) 07:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Also the Estonia national symbol - I've sourced to the Embassy, which should know, but it's not an academic ref. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Wanted to let you know that the photo you swaped out doesn't show the breed characteristics of a Belgian horse so I reverted it. Not that the other photo is perfect, if we did find a better one, I wouldn't complain, but in this case, nearly all Belgians are chestnut or roan, and they don't have heavy feathering on their lower legs. The photo you used does appear to have something to do with Belgium, based on the caption, but the horse doesn't look like a purebred Belgian. (For one thing, I've never seen a Bay Belgian, and compare leg feather on the two horses. Photographer captions aren't always accurate) By the way, though, I DO appreciate the eye you cast on these articles and much of what you have to offer is very helpful. Montanabw(talk) 17:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
"By the 20's and 30's, when the breed really hit its stride in this country the breed had pretty well become the "sorrels and roans." Now there are a few roans and even the odd bay now and then, but for all practical purposes, it is a chestnut-sorrel breed today." "This has long been the preferred color by Americans . . . the Cadillac of colors being a chestnut or sorrel team with snow-white manes and tails, with a white strip in the face and four white socks. This is the ultimate in draft horse style." "The fact that Belgians are by far the most numerous of all draft breeds in this country, plus the fact that they are pretty much a one-color breed, makes it easier to mate a horse when you need to and offers you a much bigger market when you wish to sell."
Hey, I didn't know you were a breeder. Not to pry, but I'm interested in it myself somewhat. I recently devoured all the literature on it I could find. What breed do you keep? VanTucky Talk 06:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd say that it needs to wrap things up better. Right now that section is very fragmented and needs to be combined into coherent paragraphs. One thing that might help would be cutting some of the longer quotes short. Also, quotes under four lines long are often best combined with the text rather than separated into block quotes. Wrad (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
VT, would you have any time for a quick look at Arthur Morris? At the FAC I'm the only one opposing, and I trust your judgment. I know you're busy, but having your initial impressions would help me considerably. Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 12:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, yer too durn quick, I was going to do my first GA. Actually, I was going to quick-fail, because of the multiple questions about bias and neutrality that have surfaced on the talk page. It's not technically an edit war -- way too polite for that -- but it's clear that there are significant disagreements about content that will take some time to resolve. Curious what you think of this reasoning, as I'd like to do GA's in the future. -Pete (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of (53/0/1).
As a token of my appreciation, please accept this bowl of tzatziki.
I feel honored to be trusted by so many of you. Wikipedia is such a large community, that my acceptance in the face of such large numbers truly is humbling. I will use my new tools to continue the tasks for which you entrusted them to me.
Gratefully, EncycloPetey (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
If the second paragraph was phrased in a more NPOV and a section was added on the deniers would the article be ready for Class A nomination? Alatari (talk) 03:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to thankyou for your review of Batwoman. Despite my best efforts, there are certain resources I simply do not have or cannot find for the article at this time. Thankyou again. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Since you passed this for GA, a map has been added along with some more detail. I've sent it to peer review with a view to FAC next. Since you know the article, I'd be grateful for any further input. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I recently adapted this code to produce a mini card, I hope you don't mind, For example:
There are also some other versions, including a christmas version
I hope you don't mind! Please get back to me, Cheers PhilB ~ T/C 22:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for supporting me! Please find your thank you card here, should you wish to see it. I'm honored to have received your support, and I'm looking forward to your next RfA as well. All the best, ~Eliz81(C) 23:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
