User talk:Steven Walling/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Steven Walling. 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.

Part of what was discussed about U.S. child pornography laws is correct. See the U.S. Code here. Sexually explicit conduct requires "graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person."

To be fair, I will relist the IFD and let the interested party know so they can participate in the discussion. -Regards Nv8200p talk 03:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw that you disliked the article nearly six days ago. I don't blame you it was poorly written at the time. If you would please be so kind to look at it now. I want to hear your thoughts. Wildroot 20:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

But I'm a Cheerleader is now a Featured Article. Thanks for your comments/suggestions and your support. --BelovedFreak 19:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I read about you in Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/List_of_reviewers#Philosophy_and_religion with Interests everything. Would you please review GA nominee: Matrikas. The article is about an ancient group of Hindu goddessess. I wanted non-Hindu to review it as a more unbiased review can be held and as I wanted to know if the article may be confusing to non-Hindus. Thanks.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Van, Thank you for your confidence and your support in my recent RfA. Words nor pictures can express my heartfelt appreciation at the confidence the community has shown me. I am both heartened and humbled by this confidence. I will carry the lessons learned from the constructive criticism I have received with me as I edit Wikipedia, and heed those lessons. Special thanks to Pedro and Henrik as nominators. Special thanks to Rudget who wanted to. A very special thanks to Moonriddengirl for her eloquence. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments per the block quotes. Any other suggestions/comments you have would be most welcome. Thanks again. LordHarris 08:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I was inspired by your example to do some GA reviews myself. The first two were fairly straightforward, by experienced GA/FA editors in areas I know, so I'm trying something meatier with Wagiman language. I could do with just two bits of advice:

1. I don't like the referencing style that's used (in-line to short title, plus bibliography with long ref, but I can't find anything that actually says it's wrong.
2. There are a lot of red-links, some of which must be fixed, but most are to other obscure Australian languages, which cannot be easily addressed. Is there any guidance on this?

Thanks for any help you can give on these two points, no great rush since there are other issues anyway. Jimfbleak 15:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant, many thanks, Jimfbleak 06:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my behavior regarding the Mobutu Sese Seko article. I was rude for no reason other than you tripped over some personally-held opinions, which you would have had no reason to be aware of. Your behavior, in contrast, was both calm and forward-looking. - BanyanTree 22:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to invite you to participate at GA Sweeps. We decided it's time to give GA a good sweep to ensure the qualities of all GA articles. You recevied this invitation because we felt that you can improve and uphold the quality of Good articles (especially thanks to the # of reviews you reviewed as well as receiving GAN reviewer of the week). This is the reason why only experienced reviewers who are established (trusted) within the project should participate in this sweep initially. Please take a look at the project page to learn more about the process.

In your message on my talk page, your heading also included "newsletter". I don't know if you're interested in contributing. We're certainly looking for ideas because it will get boring if we repeat talking about the GAN backlog and Sweeps every month. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You also need to sign up a category in the sweep list. We will be using this edit version for sweeping because GAs are constantly being added or removed daily. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

For those that are on the list in the edit version, but removed prior to you sweeping, just indicate on that article's talk page that you went to this article and found out it is already demoted. For those that are promoted to FA, just ignore. But remember to state your findings under "exempt" section in your running total, NOT "keep" or "delist". OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi VanTucky,

It's been two weeks since you placed the "under review" tag for Punana leo on the WP:GAN page. If you're tied up with other things & wanna let someone else do it, that's OK. Or if you wanna go ahead and do it yourself, then of course that's good too. I'm just leaving you this post-it note as a reminder, just in case you forgot about it... Thanks! :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Awwww vantucky, you are one of my favorite editors in wiki, did i ever told you that? i always read your GA reviews, really; but "Yamanbaiia's absurd and libelous witch hunt" ? this really made me laugh, if i ever start a band i now have a name. Just wanted to tell you that it was not my crusade but User:Dbuckner's; i opposed, left my reason, reply to one comment and that's it. Dbuckner went for the whole full monty making legal threats and leaving comments at the supporters talk pages. "Grow up"? er...because i saw a reason good enough for me to oppose? whatever, totally uncivil and uncalled-for. I guess we will never be GA-BFF now. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Nein, my feelings are fine. I don't know who Durova is and i hardly ever participate in the RFA process, and if i were to participate in your future RFA well...were there any animals involved in your edits at the anal sex article? i suspect not, besides it's not just a "he edit in that article" thing, but some OR diffs provided by Dbuckner that were nasty. Whatever, i'm taking a break -Yamanbaiia (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue VII - December 8th, 2007

Hi. I noticed that the above articles have been labeled "under review" for some time now. Might I suggest that you either pass, fail, place the articles on hold or remove the tag so that others may review them? (Sorry for the generic message VT, I'm really lazy today) Cheers, CP 00:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack, I replied on the talk page - the article has been stable since November 27, and the RFC issue is no longer - it's been withdrawn and the issue resolved. Cirt (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Just checking to make sure you know that the article is stable and has been for some time now? Cirt (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC).

A great entry at Domestic sheep, I think you should be in for a good shout at the prize. (BTW, there's a typo in one image caption: "Sheep begin herded", but given the competition rules, I thought it would be less complicated to tell you and let you fix it.) Regards, — BillC ^talk 21:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what's happening here? I haven't heard a word about this since early December. — BillC ^talk 21:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was kind of my thinking, too. Thanks for your reply. — BillC ^talk 23:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I went over Domestic Sheep a little. I didn't read it all, but I did some cosmetic fixes. I may go over again in a day or two and actually read it completely and work on prose, but I'm just not up to it right now. Good luck with FA. I assume that's what you're going for. It clearly appears to meet GA... although I haven't read it all, but I know your work. Lara_Love ^Talk 15:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(Reply) -- Nah, I just thought since I left the comment pointing it out, someone else could actually do the quickfail. In this manner, there would actually be more than one editor weighing in on it. Cirt (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

Why are you so enthusiastic to keep that fucking image there. Hytioplion (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

	<font=3> Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 62/0/0 yesterday! I want to thank Snowolf and Dincher for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and since you are reading this, I haven't yet deleted your talk page by accident!). Please let me know if there is anything I can do to be of assistance, and keep an eye out for a little green fish with a mop on the road to an even better encyclopedia. Thanks again and take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

On that page, you noted instability of the page as a reason for denying GA. The revert wars have subsided so could you perhaps reconsider? Bakaman 01:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Blessed editing, and...

Happy Holidays from Marlith ^T/C

Credits: This card was inspired by Macy's123, assistant of V's Shop

Marlith ^T/C 00:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm done... would you mind looking again? Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 09:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have question, was I vandalizing the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fairy_tales I'm kind of new not real well I should say i don't much about how it all works. I believe that a book has been took off the list, because some people believe that book was not a fair tale, but will leave others on list that another group believe arn't fairy tale, but will take theres off. Now I don't think I was vandalizing add back the books that where took off i was just putting them back, but if you say I was vandalizing I will stop. Your friend Methos3H (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue VIII - December 22nd, 2007

Hi Van – Just to say it's a good job I agreed with this move, as blink and you miss it! Not everyone is able to look at Wikipedia every day, and to someone who did not it could look very like a fait accompli. Perhaps waiting a few days might be better? Good edits though. Best regards (and Nadolig Llawen), --Richard New Forest (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

May this season bring you success, good times and happiness. Looking forward to working with you in the future.
Hαvεlok беседа мансарда 07:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey there! Would ya please touch bases on talk pages with any major changes of horse photos before you go switching them around? As we say in my neck of the woods, If it ain't broke and no one is whining, it usually don't need fixing, OK? So far you swapped out a photo of a Belgian for a horse from Belgium that wasn't a Belgian, and then you tossed a well-composed image (and from Commons) of an excellently conformed horse with a photo of someone's ungroomed, toed-out pasture pet, complete with plastic feed tub in the back and actually mislabeled for color (both photos are of grays)! Yowsa man! 0 for 2! <grin> Seriously, I'm not being mean: I'm not going to be messing with your sheep article (which is getting better all the time), I made barely a peep when you made some significant improvements in the images used for donkey, and you didn't hear one word from me when you tossed a photo of mine that was in cattle (because the replacement WAS in fact better). You can be a really good collaborator and have a keen eye for what articles need, but we need to keep you in training wheels when it comes to picking horse photography! <grin, again> (though you DID find some dandy mare and foal images that one time, for which I thank you). Just giving you a mild amount of crap, and hang in there, but maybe help us FIND the images, because you are the underappreciated master of finding stuff in commons (god, I wish it was better organized over there) but leave final selection to the horse experts? Hmmm? Pretty please? With maple sugar on top?? Montanabw^(talk) 07:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, boldness is good, me fine laddie, but sometimes it gets reverted! <LOL!> Montanabw^(talk) 07:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, you don't have to appreciate my attitude, but when a photo is also mislabeled as being a "white" horse when it's actually a gray, well, that was yet another problem. I monitor about 500 horse articles on my watchlist and have better things to do with my time than revert well-intentioned but unhelpful edits from people who should know better. It didn't itch, so why the hell scratch it? And this time I was trying to make a few jokes and be lighthearted instead of being my usual snarky self, so give me a break, OK? So my EQ sucks, I was trying to throw you a bone. I'm old enough to be your mother, sorry that I sounded like one. Montanabw^(talk) 07:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like we have a truce, thanks. My point about the donkey and cattle pages was just to show that I don't revert things just because I am some sort of evil control freak who hates change (I'm merely impatient, anal-retentive, and prone to sarcasm <grin>). I just wanted to illlustrate that I am perfectly capable of accepting constructive changes when they are for the better, even when it involves someone tossing my own contributions, and wanted to point out some examples to prove it, that's all. Anyway, hope you had a good Christmas. Montanabw^(talk) 06:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You added the review tag to the Matrikas article 28 days ago and yet no review has been done.... M3tal H3ad (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

VT, take a look at Gypsy Vanner horse. If you are looking for a horse article that is more than a stub but desperately needs some help, this is one. If you read the talk page, you will see that there have been some pretty fierce POV discussions. Anyway, I've noticed that you seem to like digging into articles with some meat on them, so maybe this is one for you. It needs cleanup from someone who can keep a POV totally out of it, and you fit that bill. Montanabw^(talk) 09:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, also, consider this an invite to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine and Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse breeds. My watchlist now stands at over 700 articles, all on horses, at least 200 of them stubs, I think. (see also Category:Horse stubs) The scope of organization needed is beginning to sort of boggle my mind. Montanabw^(talk) 09:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You had earlier expressed interest in the creation of a project for Costa Rica. There is now an active project dealing with Costa Rica at Wikipedia:WikiProject Central America/Costa Rica work group. John Carter (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear VanTucky - many thanks for your assistance with this FAC, which has finally passed muster. Please feel free to let me know if you need any assistance in return. Best wishes, Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 14:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Danny (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I picked your name out of the GA quality task force list because I've seen your name around other stuff I've worked on. I was curious if you'd be into giving Yavapai people a look through, and let me know if you think it is close to GA quality, and what could be done to get it up there. A couple times I tried to get a rating from someone at the Indigenous Peoples project, but with no reply. You up for it? Murderbike (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's great. I was actually just looking at it, it had been a long time. Murderbike (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi VanTucky,

Happy New Year! Last week, you commented on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Red-winged Fairy-wren, with part of your note stating "To my knowledge, footnote citations always go outside punctuation at the end of the sentence, never within. If there are multiple cites, simply place them both there. Places where this occurs (such as in Taxonomy, Description, Diet, and Distribution and habitat) need to be fixed. Citations in the middle of the sentence looks messy and unprofessional." This of course is not correct. As I was not active at the time of the FAC, I didn't notice until user:Casliber had already switched out all the references, at your suggestion, because you told him they "need[ed] to be fixed".

The appropriate guideline is at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Where_to_place_ref_tags. The guideline makes it clear: "Some words, phrases or facts must be referenced mid-sentence, while others are referenced at the end. Frequently, a reference tag will coincide with punctuation and many editors put the reference tags after punctuation (except dashes), as is recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style (CMoS)." Footnotes generally follow punctuation, but not necessarily a period. I'm letting you know so that if you are "correcting" these, you'll stop. :) Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 02:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I really can't speak for Calisber, but I disagree with your characterization of what is ideal for FA. FAs are supposed to be written to a professional standard, and if you tried to stick citations in the middle of a published sentence it would be reflexively corrected by copyeditors. It does look and read sloppy, which is why it isn't done in print. Guidelines technically allow it, but they do not necessarily recommend it. You are welcome to disagree, and can keep it the whatever way you like (I don't particularly care). But to characterize my position as being wrong as a matter "of course" doesn't feel exactly civil. VanTucky ^talk 05:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Van, you're wrong. It is done in print (unlike what you state immediately above), they do not "always" go outside of punctuation (which is what you clearly stated on the FAC), and the guidelines not only "allow" it, they require it: "Some words, phrases or facts must be referenced mid-sentence". There's nothing uncivil about leaving someone a note when he is wrong. Telling someone he is wrong when he has stated the exact opposite of the guideline is not being uncivil. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 05:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack is on Peer Review. Your comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack. Thanks for doing the WP:GA Review. As you were the GA Review, if you wanted to elaborate on the Peer Review page why the article satisfies all the GA Criteria, that would be helpful, as would any other feedback you'd like to provide on how to further improve the quality of the article. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC).

Hello VanTucky, I hope you had a pleasant New Year's Day, and that 2008 brings further success, health and happiness! Hope to see your around GAC and FAC again, and I wish you a new mop for the new year! ~ Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Quickly reading Knol makes it sound like a wiki, did you remove it from list of wikis because it's usually a single-scholar-per-page source? WLU (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 3 - January 2008 December issue | February issue Project News There are now 3,301 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. With 1,789 current featured articles, that brings the total of good and featured articles to 5,090! The most recently promoted articles are: Hurricane Daniel (2006), Tarbosaurus, The Murders in the Rue Morgue, Wicca, Seth MacFarlane, Stanley Internment Camp, Hurricane Karen (2007), Interstate 155 (Illinois), Tropical Storm Ingrid (2007), Brian Sings and Swings, Winston Churchill, Mzoli's, John Kefalas, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The backlog at Good Article Nominations has recently exploded to 236 unreviewed articles! Out of 264 total nominations, 17 are on hold, 10 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Attachment disorder, Byzantium under the Palaiologoi, Byzantium under the Angeloi, Wowowee, Tyrone Wheatley, Mina (singer), Jon Burge, Mercury Hayes, William Lowndes Yancey, and Toni Preckwinkle. The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (47 articles), Film and cinema (25 articles), Television and journalism (16 articles), Art and architecture (15 articles), and Politics and government (14 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 17 articles up for re-review. If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated! Reviewer of the Month Dihydrogen Monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month of December, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 of the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen Monoxide hails from Brisbane (which, incidentally, is almost a GA, kids ;)) and has been editing Wikipedia since August 2006. He mostly likes to review articles relating to music, Australia, or anything else that takes his fancy! He also has two articles waiting, and notes that there's still a huge backlog,... so get cracking! Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of December include: Awadewit (talk · contribs) Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) Derek.cashman (talk · contribs) Drewcifer3000 (talk · contribs) Elcobbola (talk · contribs) Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) Kane5187 (talk · contribs) M3tal H3ad (talk · contribs) Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) VanTucky (talk · contribs) Wassupwestcoast (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 166 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 7 new members that joined during the month of December: Majoreditor (talk · contribs) Bernstein2291 (talk · contribs) The4325 (talk · contribs) Pepsi2786 (talk · contribs) Monowi (talk · contribs) Rankun (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! GAReview Template Lots of you that frequent WP:GAN have undoubtedly seen the articles under review, marked with "Review - I am reviewing this article. ...". The articles have been marked as being under review by an editor using the {{GAReview}} template. The purpose of this template is essentially to prevent two editors from reviewing the same article at the same time, so it's essentially a common courtesy notice to other editors so that they don't pass or fail an article while you're in the midst of collecting and writing comments. However, just because an article is marked, shouldn't preclude another editor from contributing to the review. If you'd like to review it, go ahead; simply collect your comments and write them down on the article's talk page – but don't pass or fail the article – leave that to the other reviewer. To use this template yourself, simply write "#:{{GAReview}} ~~~~" on the line immediately following the article's nomination at WP:GAN. You can even leave additional comments as well (e.g. "#:{{GAReview}} I will finish my review in the next 24 hours. ~~~~"). Reviewers marking articles with this template should also observe some common etiquette; please don't mark more than 1-3 articles as being under review at a time, and please try and finish your review within 3-5 days of marking the article. GA Sweeps After openly requesting the community for more participants into the Sweeps, we have 3 more members on the board. They are (in no particular order) Canadian Paul, VanTucky, and Masem. Canadian Paul will be sweeping "Middle East and the World" articles. VanTucky will be sweeping "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" and "Literature" articles. Masem will be sweeping "Television episodes". We're still looking for more reviewers. Interested individuals should contact OhanaUnited for details. At this moment, participation in the sweeps project is by invitation only, as we desire experienced reviewers who have a thorough and extensive knowledge of the criteria. This is to ensure that articles that have "fallen through the cracks" would be found and removed, and that additional articles don't fall through the cracks during the sweep. Currently, there are 16 members working on the project, and we have reviewed 74 articles in December 2007. Of those that are swept, 275 articles are kept as GA, 126 articles are delisted, and 5 promoted to FA. Did You Know,... ... that the total number of good and featured articles is now over 5000? ... that GA was formed on October 11, 2005 and was formerly called "Half-decent articles"? ... that there is a bot (StatisticianBot) that gives a daily report on GAN? ... that many discussions were made over the years on whether GA should have a symbol placed on the main article space, yet at the end always removed? ... that there was a proposal to change the GA symbol to a green featured star? From the Editors Happy New Year, everyone! I'm just filling in for Dr. Cash as he's busy (or away) in real life. This explains why I wasn't prepared for a full-length article on GA process, and instead I resort to a tiny DYK for GA. OhanaUnited Happy New Year as well! I'm still here, and haven't totally disappeared. I had to cut back on editing and reviewing during the month of December as I made the transition from Flagstaff, Arizona to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. But I should be about settled in the Keystone State, so I'll be contributing more to Wikipedia again in the new year. Thanks to OhanaUnited for putting together much of the content for this newsletter! He's been working hard with the Sweeps, and the 'Did You Know' section is also a great idea, so I think that will become a regular feature now! I also figured out how to have a collapsible newsletter, so that will change our delivery options a bit. Cheers! Dr. Cash Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: 2024 UK Championship (talk | history | start review) • Frank Lampard (talk | history | start review) • McLaren MCL38 (talk | history | start review) • Eurovision Song Contest 1988 (talk | history | start review) • CYP4F2 (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Paris • Igbo people • Seventh generation of video game consoles • Matangi • Anna Wintour • German invasion of the Netherlands • Pullman Square • Lana Del Rey (EP) • P. G. T. Beauregard • Medal of Honor • Test Track • Survival horror • Astronomy • Manor Hall, Bristol • 173rd Airborne Brigade • Brick Community Stadium • Sam Tomkins • National Popular Vote Interstate Compact • Hero (Mariah Carey song) • King of Pop (album) • Black Holes and Revelations • Erromintxela language • Ann Dunham • Mount Ararat • Flat Holm • New World Order conspiracy theory • Kawasaki Heavy Industries C151 • Faisalabad • Spider-Man in film • Kolkata Metro • Ski flying • Narcissus (plant) • Shanghai • Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant • Red-tailed hawk • Legal history of cannabis in the United States • Alcoholism • Gloria Steinem • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013) Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

Oh my! I thought it will never be quick-failed? It was not my intention actually to come to GA Reviewer's attentions but I posted before on the article's corresponding discussion page that it has no sources and it will greatly affect the nomination but it seems they don't bother. Anyway, I was not deliberate the time I came to GAN. Sorry for the editor on the article. Peace... =) --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Liked your edit of merino, made a small change (Merino without a the in front changes it from sheep to textile) and fixed up a link to peppin. Charles Esson (talk) 07:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi I saw your edit summary on the Black sheep article where you doubted the color yellow of sheep. I don't mind that you removed the many colors claim. But there are blond/yellow sheep. See here. I'm not arguing with you, but being playful in this post. I don't want you to take it the wrong way since it's difficult to communicate lightheartedness over the internet. I was trying to add content to the article since it was so small, and a lot of people assume there is only one color of sheep with the "occassional" black one. Maybe I should have written "light tan" or "blonde" rather than pale yellow? Would it have stayed then? :-} → GeeAlice ♥ 17:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome. (No, I was never welcomed before). While I understand the Black sheep article is about the term as an idiom, I thought it was interesting to include that there are many color variations (I'm a teacher, so it was part instinct to attempt to lead others to exploration), but I understand staying on topic is best (from your link). I'm glad to see that you added the color variation in the main article of domestic sheep. Thanks! → GeeAlice ♥ 20:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this when I get home but I'm visiting family in Britain at the moment so my Wiki time is pretty limited. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. We're not (or at least, I'm not) in favour of anything like the automated peer reviewer tool, rather we're trying to implement automation in terms of getting stuff listed on WP:GAN with only edits being made to the article talk page, to make it easier to review articles. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that's what is meant. I oppose that, partly because it leads to poor quality reviews. VanTucky ^talk 00:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue IX - January 7th, 2008

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/mammal articles by size...'nuff said. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Vkt183 (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Thanks for the welcome. I've edited a few pages, mostly instictively--I have a sort of gut reaction to some errors. I think the worst is probably egregious apostrophes, but that is by no means my only pet peeve. Please call my attention to any mistakes you find in my editing. I'm hardly thin-skinned. Thanks again.

So, what does it take to get blocked from conservapedia after a single edit? Its hilarious, do you have a link to the edit? Take care, Brusegadi (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand, their existence is painful! Take care my friend! Brusegadi (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There are indeed others: Barbary sheep (Ammotragus lervia), and two Pseudois species, dwarf blue sheep and Himalayan blue sheep. Don't know of any more, but there might be some (perhaps prehistoric ones?). I was in two minds about putting them in so I'm not really bothered either way, though perhaps they should be included for completeness and accuracy. --Richard New Forest (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

you originally reviewed the batwoman article for GA class, which failed. I've finally been able to address the issues brought up in your review and I have renominated the article for GA. Although I realize you are not required to review it again, I thought i'd let you know in case you'd like to give it another look. Thankyou. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You have been granted the rollback tool. Remember that this tool is meant for the sole purpose of reverting vandalism; please restrict yourself to regular edit summaries for edits that are not obvious vandalism. Ral315 (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just saw your name at an RfA and remembered I hadn't seen a reply from you re my Talk page comments re Domestic sheep. If you have that's fine - no problems. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 18:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

		Thanks for your support
		Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And thanks again for your careful and thorough reviewing. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is up for Good article status. What is your opinion of the work been done so far to bring it up to snuff? Alatari (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear VanTucky, my sincere thanks for your support in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget. 15:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)