User talk:Jezhotwells/Archive 9

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	... Sexymax15 (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Southern Adventist

Hi Jezhotwells, we're entering the home stretch for the GAN, a third editor has joined the team, and we've been working at a fever pitch on prose and citations. Do you see any outstanding issues that could pose a problem tomorrow? Thanks!!! – Lionel ^(talk) 00:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Will take a look later today. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Noah23 and his albums

You appear to have missed the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Notability help. Would you be willing to revert your redirects? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears that all of the albums, mixtapes and singles fail the notability guidelines. If you can demonstrate otherwise feel free to revert. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No, not all of them are non-notable. Did you check them before redirecting them? For example, Quicksand (album) has been reviewed in Exclaim! and in Allmusic. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you read WP:NALBUM: " Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." As I said feel free to add references, all of these had none or just WP:SPS. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite familiar with WP:NALBUM. You didn't merge them; you redirected them. Anyway, the bigger problem is that the main article is in a sorry state. I'll see what I can do to improve it over the next couple of days. Sorry if I seemed overly confrontational. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, redirection is the best route with this sort of unreferenced stuff, it preserves the article in the history. Perhaps a spin-off discography would be best. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Shahdaei Paradox

The article Shahdaei Paradox has been indicated to have Copyright violation, for some sources I have used a text that is written by myself, but has a specific source as reference, further more I have contacted the copy right holder to resolve the issue which will take a few weeks.

I intend: To blank a section instead of an entire article, add the template to the beginning of the section and at the end of the portion you intend to blank.Italic text

But it is not clear what syntax I can use, as it is write "template" to the beginning, what kind of template is that?? Also I need to remove "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (November 2011)" in combination with fulfillment of Wikipedia's requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.201.137 (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Try reading the notices carefully. A link is given in them for you to continue working. Do not remove the notices. And please remember to log in and sign your posts. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I simply remove original copyright violation completely, as it has not any impact on the article in general and also remove the notices?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koorosh.shahdaei (talk • contribs) 18:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Also it is stated by Wikipedia that, You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images.

Italic text, and I can make sure that it is that way?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koorosh.shahdaei (talk • contribs) 19:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC) kooroh shahdaei 19:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC).

I went thruogh the article once again, I think it's been a misunderstanding, what I did was to remove the text that violated copy right, as as it was commented by the administrator in the article: , so I removed the "Copyvio" when I removed the copyright violation text and added a message in the

"shahadei_paradox: Talkpage" about the changes, so at this stage I am not sure what did I wrong, as there are no copy right issues in the article?? Kindly instruct further action.

kooroh shahdaei 09:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I have done as it is instructed on the article Shahdaei_paradox section: Investigation of potential copyright issue / Instructions for filing, can you please remove the notices. ps: about step 3, I am not sure as there is a at the end of blanked section. kooroh shahdaei 09:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koorosh.shahdaei (talk • contribs)

Firstly, please have the courtesy to not completely screw up the formatting of my talk page. Read the instructions at the top of the page before posting, use the link provided to start a new section and sign your posts using four tildes. I shall look at the article after dinner, but you must leave the notices in place until an administrator takes a look. As this violation has been reported on the copy-vio noticeboard, administrative action may need to be taken against you. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for Southern Adventist GA

Thank you for your help and time in getting the article up to standards! --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No probs. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding more thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Your talk page edit

Hello. I noticed you fixed the talk page of the article I nominated. Ordinarily I would have thanked someone for doing a thing like that, but the comment you left in your edit summary kind of felt like a personal attack and not very civil. Now I made an honest mistake and you didn't have to write something like that. RG (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, sorry you took offence, but if you follow the instructions at the top of WP:GAN and substitute the template this sort of thing won't happen and myself or Wizardman won't have to fix nominations, currently two or three per day. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Take care. RG (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Central Mosque Wembley

Central Mosque Wembley is important, and experienced editors should not let it get deleted because of lack of effort. I may be able to help with sources in Arabic, but maybe not. Please don't let this article go because of the actions of the creator. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it appears to be of relative notability. I have done what can, but unless sources are provided, it will get deleted. It can always be re-created when the sources are found. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

GA

Hey Jezhotwells, I've made some changes to the 90210 article. I want to get your opinion before I re-nominate. Does it look okay? I've overhauled the wording etc. TVbytheNumbers and TVLine I brought up and they are deemed reliable. The only thing I can't find is more critical reception. Jayy008 (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Pity about that, TVOverMind and TVFanatic reviews appear to be by enthusiastic amateurs and are no high quality RS, whichever way you cut it. Perhaps there is not enough material out there for this to meet the broadness criteria yet? Maybe in two or three years time? Jezhotwells (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't understand why you didn't mention that in your initial review. I went and made changes that you specified, but you didn't write other things that need doing? TVOverMind is Zap2it, which is a reliable source. TVFanatic, I will either remove or request comment. Two or three years? That will never happen, the season is done, no new information on that season will become available. I will try and find some more for the reception section. Jayy008 (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

• News and notes: ArbCom nominations open, participation grants finalized, survey results on perceptions on Wikipedia released

• In the news: Fundraising vs ads redux, WikiConference India nigh, a world lit up with articles

• WikiProject report: Having a Conference with WikiProject India

• Featured content: Writing featured content: Advice from Sturmvogel 66; Sports, sports, sports!

• Arbitration report: Abortion and Betacommand 3 in evidence phase, three case requests outstanding

• Technology report: Coding Challenge results; Wikimedians to wait and see if Athena really does represent "wisdom, courage and inspiration"

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Suspected Copyright violation

Dear Jezhotwells - I had placed my objection on an article on Marwat in the listing on 11th November 2011. The entire article (excluding vanity entries of notable people's names) has been word to word copied from http://www.khyber.org/pashtoplaces/lakkimarwat2.shtm and was reported earlier on as well but no action was taken. Please look into this blatant plagiarism which has gone to the extent that even sources have been copied ditto. I hope a prompt action in deletion of this material as per Wikipedia's policy. --Arbab Shahinshah (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you may be mistaking my talk page for Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Full instructions on reporting copy-vios are there. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: GA review/grounds for divorce

Thank you for taking the time to point out the issues currently existing in the article; we'll do our best to remedy them within the week. Ntj2 (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Just to say thanks for your review of MediaCityUK. It was a lot less stressful than writing it. I will endeavour to update it when there is more information. --J3Mrs (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Grounds for divorce (United States)

Hello Jezhotwells,

I just wanted to thank you for giving our group helpful advice so we would be able to get the good article nomination. I feel that I addressed all the issues for the no-fault topics. I was wondering if you would be willing to give me anymore helpful advice on the corrections I made for no-fault before our deadline? I would greatly apperciate it!!! :)

Thanks--Nas132 (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Your advice please

Hi Jezhotwells, regarding the article Dr. Norman E. Rosenthal which you reviewed and gave GA status. There is also an article called Sir Norman Rosenthal who is an English curator. When I do a Google search for Norman Rosenthal, 26 of the first 30 search results reference the Dr. Norman E. Rosenthal. Should there be a disambiguation page for these two names? What do you think? And if so, how do I create one? I've never done it before. many thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a hatnote at the top of each article mentioning the other, that should be sufficvient and a dab page should not be needed, see WP:TWODABS. Wikipedia does not control how Google ranks pages, Google does and we don't create Wikipedia pages to get Google rankings. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jezhotwells, I wasn't wanting to influence Google rankings, my thought was that it would be more neutral and reader friendly for the reader to to have choice of which one they want to go to ie a disambiguation page. But I see your point. There are already two hatnotes, so no need for a special page. Thanks for the insights. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Grounds for divorce (United States)/GA1

Thank you for reviewing the article. I would just like to note, with regards to "On hold for seven days", that while I know GAs are customarily reviewed within a seven day period, some can be reviewed longer. The class will be working on their articles till mid-December, and while I hope that all issues will be indeed addressed within a week, if they haven't been, please consider waiting a while longer before ending the review. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I will take a look and so long as progress is being made will be happy to grant an extension. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The students are trying to work on the issues, but they may need a little more than 24h. I'd suggest giving them until after the Thanksgiving break, which is a well-known time for them to work on various college projects :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Mike Bennet

Hello Jez, noticed your comment on above page. I was a media student in UWE back in 2007-10. Part of one of my projects was to write research and write an article on a local media related topic/person. I started and edited one on Mike Bennett also created one on Dick Penny of the Watershed after reading about them in the Evening Post newspaper. I was interetsed to learn about wikipedia so thought id publish it on here too. I don't know either of them, this was all gathered from searching online. Its old now I guess so, please feel free to delete or remove if you feel it conflicts with Wiki rules. Obviously you're considerable more experienced than me. I got a 2.1 so Im not that bothered now Best Daz ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delimhappy (talk • contribs) 11:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Bristol WP to do/cleanup etc

Well done for all your recent work creating requested articles etc for WP:Bristol. I added the "redlinks on..." requests (& all the other listed building stuff) years ago & I think they could be removed now. Unassessed, unknown importance & Unreferenced BLPs are all empty. Personally I would put more emphasis on the cleanup listing which shows nearly 30% of Bristol related articles have some sort of cleanup tags/banners on them.— Rod ^talk 11:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Stuckism/GA

Hi Jezhotwells, I made all the changes as you mentioned in the review of Talk:Stuckism/GA1. Could you please review the Stuckism article again for GA? lapsking (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I don't do re-reviews - let someone else take it. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Jezhotwells ! Nice to meet you here on Wikipedia. I see that you have commented on some FAC's. I nominated "Rehab" for a FA. It's it third nomination. Can you look at the article and comment or eventually give you vote on Rehab's FAC. Thank You — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 22:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking but I generally don't have anything to do with minor pop ephemera. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

• News and notes: Last-minute candidates for ArbCom, the Sue Gardner European Tour hits London

• In the news: Indian wikiconference heralds expansion, fundraiser in Silicon Valley major donor coup, import of Wikipedia reconsidered

• Discussion report: Much ado about censorship

• WikiProject report: Working on a term paper with WikiProject Academic Journals

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: End in sight for Abortion case, nominations in 2011 elections

• Technology report: Mumbai and Brighton hacked; horizontal lists have got class

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: grounds for divorce/GA review extension

Hi Jezhotwells,

The editors have been working to address the problems present in this article. To correct the rather large issue of the page reading "like a committee wrote it" would take longer than your proposed 24 hours. I was hoping you would consider granting us an extension of several days (per Piotrus’ suggestion) so that we can prep the article for GA status. Please let me know what you think. Thanks! Ntj2 (talk) 01:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Answered at GA page. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Dominik Halmosi

You closed the out-of-process AfD over a week ago, but the Miscellany for Deletion tag still remains. How can it be removed? Dolovis (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you must have me confused with someone else, I commented on that but clearly it was Hut 8.5 who closed the discussion.. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I must have dialed a wrong number. Cheers! Dolovis (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Your shitty attitude

Aside from the fact that you have a shitty attitude towards editors and their hard work, you obviously don't have any decency. That article was waiting for many months, and you didn't even take the time to try and assist the nominators in improving the articles quality. Also, you have absolutely no right to call our work "illiterate trash". I suggest you watch yourself, before we rid ourselves of the trash, pun intended.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

When you have learnt how to write good plain English, then feel free to insult me. You could have used those months to improve your literacy. Until then, piss off. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should take a look at your simple typos and other first grade level errors on the review page before posting. And no, there's no need to further insult uneducated and immature brats.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Change image for NAZF

Hi Jez, I wanted to run an edit by you in reference to the Noah's Ark Zoo Farm page. I believe you linked in the current profile image (goats) originally - I'd like to change this to a newer picture, one more relevant to Noah's Ark as it is in 2011. I'll comment on the Talk page too, for other authors to challenge if they feel so inclined. Thanks (Woodward21 (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC))

GA nomination of Love Always

Hello Jez, I want to say thank you for reviewing Love Always. I have replied to your comments, and whenever you get a chance, can you reply back? Thanks again!
—Michael Jester (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Just another reminder that I have addressed every comment.
Michael Jester (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Peaches Golding

Hello! Your submission of Peaches Golding at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

• News and notes: Arb's resignation sparks lightning RfC, Fundraiser 2011 off to a strong start, GLAM in Qatar

• In the news: The closed, unfriendly world of Wikipedia, fundraiser fun and games, and chemists vs pornstars

• Recent research: Quantifying quality collaboration patterns, systemic bias, POV pushing, the impact of news events, and editors' reputation

• WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Bugle

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Voting underway in the elections, finally a final decision on Abortion, scant movement on requests

• Technology report: Foundation appears correct to back improved smartphone support; and how a Reddit slip meant no-one could read anything for thirty minutes

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Please finish Talk:The Wolf and the Lion/GA1

While I understand you may be disappointed in a couple of snippets of text, which I agree need improving, you have not provided a GA review, but a GA quickfail. That is, you have not recorded the article's compliance to or deviation from any WP:WIAGA criteria except for the first one, which is, in fact, rather quickly repairable. A quickfail would have been acceptable if it had been done (for example) in the first week of nomination. As is, that article has been in the queue for nearly three months, without receiving any feedback prior to yours. I would appreciate it if you would finish the job you started by fully evaluating the article against each GA criterion, such that I can improve each area not currently meeting those criteria. I don't care if you're as brutally curt as the existing fractional review, as long as I get feedback that I can actually work with. I certainly hope your motivation was not just to make the backlog appear to move, now that that article had reached Wikipedia:Good article nominations/backlog/items‎‎. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Answered at editor's talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review!

Thanks a lot for the review, Jez! :-) Moisejp (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review response

Thanks very much for the review at Talk:LatinoJustice PRLDEF/GA1, I have completed my initial changes and responses. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Next set of changes and responses now done. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review and the pass. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help at the GA drive

Hi Jezza, just wanted to drop a note of "thanks!" for all the GA reviews you're doing during the drive, and also for the statistics updates. Additionally, I'm glad to see you've got high standards for GA, something I don't see enough of! Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

tx for the thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

PepsiCo GA

I understand your opinion about this GA review, however I disagree that it is a nightmare. If it takes this long, it takes this long - as the reviewer I have no issue with that. Jeff Bedford has graciously agreed to step up and complete the work needed, which at this point is very little. As you stated The Good article (GA) process is intentionally lightweight, so please ease up on the push to close it as it will be done shortly. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I seem to recall that you said something like that a month and a half ago and a month ago. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Peaches Golding

Orlady (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC) 16:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Nominations

Why would you nominate something based on how it's listed? There was clearly a mistake with the listing. Your attitude towards these things is bad, if you're going to take the time to review something, why not do it properly? You simply fail, you don't ever "put on hold" and wait for changes. It will take ages to get the articles re-nominated now. Also, what is wrong with the fair-use of the images used that you put in "grey"? Jayy008 (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

??? WTF!! List class articles do not qualify for GA status. I have explained that very clearly. If you do not understand or have not examined the criteria, then that is your problem, not mine. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Erm, no. It's clearly not a list and some editor obviously put it as that status by mistake. So why didn't you just tell me that it was mistakenly listed? I never said they qualify, when editing the article to a standard, I never thought to check the talk-page as I didn't think it would matter. Again, what is the fair-use and stability still in grey? There is no problems with those. Jayy008 (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

So why didn't you check what class the articles are/were? It is not the reviewer's job to classify before the review. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I didn't think to check the "talk-page" when nomination an article. Either way, a user told me lists don't qualify and "Gossip Girl season 4" IS a list. But Sanctuary (season 2) got the GA and isn't classed as a list. Could you elaborate on that please? (just wanting information—nothing to do with you or nominating) Jayy008 (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. If I had reviewed that and if it was classified as a list at the time I would have failed it just the same. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to use article vs. article, I was simply stating that Sanctuary should be listed as "list class" and thus shouldn't be a GA either? Jayy008 (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Current review of Bhagat Singh

Greetings! Thank you for starting the review process of Bhagat Singh that I had nominated in September! I look forward to your review. Thanks. --Tinpisa (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council/GA2

Much thanks for taking the time to do the GA review on Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, and thanks for the feedback. Often when I finish an article I think it is reads well, and when I see changes/reccomendations, I shake my head wondering how I missed it (never check your own work, eh?) About your comment regarding how strange it is that the Army Corps has jurisdiction on waste dumping, I found it interesting when permitting a property that their description of "navigable water" is very broad, and possibly would include a low point in the desert that may have rainwater run through it every 10 years, as long as that water potentially made it to the ocean. Anyway, thanks again, hope I addressed all your points. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 07:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Help please.

Hi. How are you? Do you remember me? You reviewed "Single Ladies" for me. Hey i need your help... A reviewer at the FAC is opposing because he wants all the quotes in the first paragraph here to be transformed into original prose. Please do something. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If ever it's done by someone else, then please do the same thing (if possible) for the first paragraph here. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

• News and notes: Amsterdam gets the GLAM treatment, fundraising marches on, and a flourish of new admins

• In the news: A Wikistream of real time edits, a call for COI reform, and cracks in the ivory tower of knowledge

• Discussion report: Trial proposed for tool apprenticeship

• WikiProject report: This article is about WikiProject Disambiguation. For other uses...

• Featured content: This week's Signpost is for the birds!

• Arbitration report: Elections due to finish this week, little activity on Betacommand 3, Abortion case amended

• Technology report: Incremental dumps help mirrors, full screen search helps mobile visitors, and two MediaWiki releases help external sites

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Snowdon GA review

I don't know if you've watchlisted the discussion page, but I have done the simple things following your GA review of Snowdon. There are, however, a couple of points where I could do with some advice. Please see Talk:Snowdon/GA1; any help would be gratefully received. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Bhagat Singh - small note

Not sure where to put this, but just to say an "approver" is not a supporter, but rather an informant - particularly one turning Queen's evidence. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There are serious copyright issues with this article, see talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately. Obviously I'm very disappointed and irritated at myself for not noticing soon and saving us all the work. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyvios from India Law Journal have been corrected. For most of the others, the detector found the quotes (what has beenn said by persons) to be the same. Also, the citation template used {{cite news|quote=}} has been removed, which quoted parts of the source (for clarification) and listed it in the references section along with the source. Hope this suffices to remove the copyvio tag. Help me if I'm wrong. Sorry to disappoint. Tinpisa (talk) 09:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Titchwell Marsh

Thanks for the GA, onwards to FAC soon! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Any suggestions?

Hi Jezhotwells, many thanks for taking the time to assess my 2 articles Charlotte Melmoth and John Street Theatre. Do you have any suggestions for improvements that I could make to raise them above 'start' level, please? I'm fairly new at writing articles from scratch, so any suggestions you offer will be gratefully implemented! Thanks! Butcherscross (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You could try putting them up for peer review for detailed comment. I am a little busy at the moment, but will try and take a look. You can only put one up at a time. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Jez! Butcherscross (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

• Opinion essay: Wikipedia in Academe – and vice versa

• News and notes: Research project banner ads run afoul of community

• In the news: Bell Pottinger investigation, Gardner on gender gap, and another plagiarist caught red-handed

• WikiProject report: Spanning Nine Time Zones with WikiProject Russia

• Featured content: Wehwalt gives his fifty cents; spies, ambushes, sieges, and Entombment

• Arbitration report: Betacommand 3 workshop revived, two cases set for acceptance and the ArbCom elections finish on a whimper

• Technology report: Trials and tribulations of image rotation, Article Feedback version 5, and new diff colours

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

ONE TREE HILL -- Review

Hey Jezhotwells, thank you for your review. This week, I am very busy in my life off-Wiki and I'm wandering if you'd considering allowing me another week to work on the article? It will still be 7 days to work on it as I'm sure I will not be able to begin this week at all. It would be greatly appreciated, thank you. Jayy008 (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Extended until 25 December. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the extension. I commented on the review page, which you'd see anyway (LOL). Flyer22 (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the extension. I will try and do some work on it Sunday evening. Jayy008 (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Milan Bandić - GA review

I fixed the problems you mentioned. Cay you continue with the review? --Wustenfuchs 18:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Otis Redding

hello,

you fail it for what reason? You know you could help improving the prose, since you have better English skills. There were so many copyedits and there are people who belive the prose is bad. Because the only issue is the allegedly bad prose. No need to tell me to put it under peer review, you exactly know the first was very helpful, and on the second nobody even commented within 7 days, meaning nobody is either interested or no one thinks the prose is under GA-level. Nobody wants to know where his wife was, and overtune singing = open-throat singing. Instead of reviewing other articles, you could help me with this article, but it seems like you just reviewed the prose in the lead and the first section, or you just briefly read them. I am very disappointed with your review. It seems like you just want to earn that virutal award, won't you? I should have better wait until the first was over, because the reviewer was much better, slow but better. ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 12:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You are meant to get articles into good shape before nominating at GAN. Reviewers are meant to review articles, not work on them to bring up to standard. You could try reading User:Tony1/How to find good copy-editors and also the other articles linked from there. Although aimed at FA standards all of the information is useful to those aiming to write "reasonably good prose". Jezhotwells (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not correct. This was not a review, just a quick-check. The prose is not terrible, isn't it? Why did you gave just few examples? I would understand if the prose was beyond standard, but this article was copyedited by many users. One can fail an article, but not name more examples of bad prose.♫GoP♫_T^C_N 14:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Well you failed to alter the first two examples that I can across, which are elementary grammar mistakes. You claimed to have fixed them but took no action. That led me to believe that you could not actually understand what the problems with your prose are. So, it is clearly pointless to try and teach someone how to write good English in a week or so. Perhaps you should enrol in a course. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The first was answered by SilkTork, who had added this prior your nomination. I answered the second, but you have not replied. This is not as tragic that I did not reply to you, as if you failed to reply to my responses. You have failed to name more examples. You must understand that nobody complained about the prose, even User:Nikkimaria said the prose is fine, but not excellent. You are making bad excuses.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• But overall, I am sorry that I overacted a bit. Sometimes I am a bit hot tempered. Again, sorry. ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 18:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

A8 (Croatia) GAN

I assumed the role of review of this article, but I don't think I'll have the time to review it for at least another week. I don't want to leave the nominator hanging as it is, and was wondering if you would be willing to take on the review in my place. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 20:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Done, see below. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS

I had reviewed this and complained that Amazon.com is not a WP:RS, however, the editor fought back and stated otherwise. I know that Amazon is not a WP:RS however, I would like someone with more experience with GAN/FAC to further explain to the nominator that Amazon is not a WP:RS. Thanks, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 14:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Commented at review page. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Happy holidays, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 15:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

A8 (Croatia) GA review

Thank you for taking time to review the article. I'll try to address the issues specified by the review and improve the article. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Rude action

hello,

before reverting anything, you need to read our guidelines before perfoming a revert. Please read Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment carefully; I give you one example of text which is of high importance:

It is vital that people do not take these assessments personally. It is understood that we each have our own opinions of the priorities of the objective criteria for a perfect article. Generally an active project will develop a consensus, though be aware that different projects may use their own variation of the criteria more tuned for the subject area, such as this. Many projects have an assessment team. If you contribute a lot of content to an article you may request an independent assessment.

Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 17:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, stop it, or else I report you to WP:ANI. Regards.♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at your reviews, you responded in a bad faith and sometimes even attacked the nominator. First you need to learn how to communicate in a human, pleasant way. You must understand that this is the biggest encyclopedia, where all kinds of nationalities and ethnicities discuss and edit Wikipedia. Maybe my English is not perfect, but I frankly don't give a fuck; at least I try to learn this language. You said you gave examples in the review, but how can you say I did not understand them if you have not responded to them, and framed it with a purple background (this is rather rude; actually it is for other purposes, not for "closing" GA reviews; it could be misinterpreted as "Fuck off, I won't respond; a fail is a fail")? I wonder if you have "so many" examples of bad prose, why did you not just quick-fail it? You did not respond to my questions. Obviously you are not a very good reviewer (an example was your quick-fail of Svetlana Kuznetsova, which had alleged copyright violations on it). And you are still trying to re-assess it, to make a point, to revenge what I said to you. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The Walking Dead (TV series) GA review

Thanks for reviewing the The Walking Dead (TV series) article. I'll get on fixing up what you said needs to be done within the next few days. -- Luke (Talk) 20:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The reference you are talking about in the review ([1]) is not the one in the article, just to let you know. -- Luke (Talk) 21:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Harold Pinter

This is a note to let the main editors of Harold Pinter know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 24, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 24, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Harold Pinter (1930–2008) was a Nobel Prize-winning English playwright and screenwriter, with a career that spanned more than 50 years. His plays include The Birthday Party, The Homecoming and Betrayal, and his screenplays include The Servant, The French Lieutenant's Woman and Sleuth. Pinter appeared as an actor in productions of his own work on radio and film. He also undertook roles in works by other writers. He directed nearly 50 productions for stage, theatre and screen. He was born and raised in Hackney, east London, trained at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art and the Central School of Speech and Drama, and worked in repertory theatre before achieving success as a writer. In his later years, he was known for his political activism and his opposition to the war in Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq. Pinter's last stage performance was as Krapp in Becketts's play Krapp's Last Tape, for the Royal Court Theatre, in 2006. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

1689 Boston revolt: your concerns

I mentioned this on the review page, but I'll leave this note here, in case you stop by here first.

I'm willing to revise or even rewrite the article blurb. However, I am not as concerned about the article prose. It was found to meet FA criteria by multiple reviewers, and I think that it's quite fine. I am willing to participate in a reassessment. DCItalk 23:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

• News and notes: Anti-piracy act has Wikimedians on the defensive, WMF annual report released, and Indic language dynamics

• In the news: To save the wiki: strike first, then makeover?

• Discussion report: Polls, templates, and other December discussions

• WikiProject report: A dalliance with the dismal scientists of WikiProject Economics

• Featured content: Panoramas with Farwestern and a good week for featured content

• Arbitration report: The community elects eight arbitrators

• Technology report: Visual editor demo launched, hailed as "most important change to our user experience ... ever"; but elsewhere over-hasty deployments criticised

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

My Sincere Wishes For This Festive Season

		★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★* Merry Christmas And Happy New Year 2012 *★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★
		I Wish You And Your Family A Merry Christmas And A Happy New Year 2012. May The New Year Bring Much Happiness, Prosperity, Peace, And Success In Your Life. I Am Very Happy To be Part of Wikipedia And To Have Great Friends Like You. Cheers. - From A Big Fan of ----> Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Aragonese

Thanks for your commentaries on Aragonese article. Could you help me impriving the article please? Due to my "a poor grasp of English" I don't know if I'm translating correctly. I have to say that it's not my mother tongue so, please, if sou could correct the errors, it would be a great help. --Jeneme (talk) 09:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I will take a look in the new year. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Ryan Crowther GA

Hi Jez, Just asking about the review on this article, is it just the points that you have pointed out that need adressing for this article to be given pass, if so they have been sorted and it would be ready for GA, cheers. LiamTaylor 10:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I haven't finished yet - my university connection just went down - will carry on soon. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, I agree with you on that there is not enough info on him. I could write about the falla' all day, but unfortunatly I'm not a reliable source. Thanks anyway, i'll try my best but it its probably going to end up as a fail. LiamTaylor 11:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The Walking Dead (TV series)

Hello Jez, I read your GA review for The Walking Dead (TV series) and fixed up the article according to your review. Can you please look over it and see it addressed your concerns? Thank you. -- Luke (Talk) 20:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Pinter

Very pleased to see Pinter on the front page today. Loud applause! Tim riley (talk) 08:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Tim, wouldn't have made it without your help. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

GA nom for Melly Goeslaw

Hi Jezhotwells, I've fixed up the issues you indicated and have a couple of questions about your copyedit. Could you reply at Talk:Melly Goeslaw/GA1? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk)

• Merry Christmas / Happy holidays (a little late, I know). Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Knowle West, Bristol

This is a note to let the main editors of Knowle West, Bristol know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 27, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 27, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Knowle West is a neighbourhood situated on a low plateau in the south of Bristol, England, about 2 miles (3.2 km) from the centre of the city. Most of the area is coterminous with the Filwood ward of Bristol City Council, although a small part of the estate lies within Knowle ward to the east. The population as of 2008 was estimated as 11,787. There is evidence of late Iron Age and Roman settlements in the area. At the time of the Domesday Book, Knowle was a rural area assessed at a taxable value of two geld units. Knowle West remained rural in character until the 1930s when a council housing estate was developed to provide homes for Bristolians displaced by slum clearance in the centre of the city. Famous former residents include the musician Tricky, the boxer Dixie Brown and late 1950s rock and roll band The Eagles. Community activities include the Knowle West Media Centre, the Residents' Planning Group and the Knowle West Health Association. There are no major employers in Knowle West but there are many small local enterprises and larger businesses on nearby trading estates. Just under a third of the residents are classed as economically inactive and the area is one of the most economically deprived in Bristol. Knowle West has relatively high indices of crime and drug use, but community efforts to combat this have had some success. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Two in a week! This is impressive stuff. Further applause, not unmixed with envy. Bravo! Tim riley (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again, Tim. I did nominate Pinter for TFA, but not Knowle West, but am pleased to see it there. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy holidays

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and happiness. Hope you have a great one! Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Another Amazon issue

Hey there, sorry for bothering you about this AGAIN, but can you please see this and reinstate that Amazon is not a WP:RS? Thanks, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 16:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

GA template

Hi,

Your suggestion for GA template {{GA|date=24 December 2011 (UTC)|topic=History|page=1|oldid=467431353}} didn't quite work for me. And I couldn't figure out how to get the oldid on the one I just finished. So I did the best I could, rather than leaving it garbled.

I was told by my GA mentor that a bot comes around and fixes it so it wasn't necessary for me to learn that method. That isn't true?

Perhaps I will ask him to explain to me your method, or perhaps you can recommend someplace where I can read up on it.

MathewTownsend (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining where the oldid number comes from? The rest I could probably figure out. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Documentation at Template:GA, the oldid is found by looking at the page history. Click on the latest revision (at the time the review is completed) and then the number at the end of the URL displayed in the browser bar is the oldid. It is good to complete it as the bot which implements the article history needs this information. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

• Opinion essay: Openness versus quality: why we're doing it wrong, and how to fix it

• Recent research: Psychiatrists: Wikipedia better than Britannica; spell-checking Wikipedia; Wikipedians smart but fun; structured biological data

• News and notes: Fundraiser passes 2010 watermark, brief news

• WikiProject report: The Tree of Life

• Featured content: Going through the roster with Killervogel5 and a plethora of featured content

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, one set for acceptance, arbitrators formally appointed by Jimmy Wales

• Technology report: Wikimedia in Go Daddy boycott, and why you should 'Join the Swarm'

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the GA review!

Hey Jezhotwells. Just a note to say thanks for doing the GA review for A Community of Witches; it was much appreciated! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC))

Thank you. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review: "Sea Shanty"

Dear Jezhotwells, Just writing to let you know that I have made the requested changes/improvements to the sea shanty article (currently on hold), and it has gone through several rounds of copyediting. It is ready for whenever you find the opportunity to continue the review. Many thanks and best wishes, DrBaldhead (talk) 07:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jezza. A note to say I've addressed your outstanding review issues for sea shanty. Best, DrBaldhead (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC).

Talkback

Hello, Jezhotwells. You have new messages at Talk:Walt Disney's Fun-to-Read Library.
Message added 04:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 04:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup

Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially begins at the start of 2012 (UTC) after which time you may begin to claim points. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.

This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup

Could you have assumed good faith? Vandalism is "is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." True, I removed the message, but it obviously wasn't an attempt to do that. Also, if you have concerns about my usage of rollback to revert the edits, the associated policy states that rollback can be used to revert "widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot)". Thanks. HurricaneFan25 — 18:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that it was vandalism. I said that "it looks like vandalism", there is a significant difference. You did not explain via the edit summary why this was being done. I suggest, that in future if you notice what appears to you to be such a mistake, you discuss appropriate measures with the persons who originated the message before rushing into action. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

• Interview: The Gardner interview

• News and notes: Things bubbling along as Wikimedians enjoy their holidays

• WikiProject report: Where are they now? Part III

• Featured content: Ghosts of featured content past, present, and future

• Arbitration report: New case accepted, four open cases, terms begin for new arbitrators

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

huh dyk?

You're holding it up because of image display? That's not a valid reason. Approve it and make a note about the image. PumpkinSky talk 23:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I refer you to the last item of the criteria, under Other:

• show up well at small size (100 × 100px) Jezhotwells (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Bogus reason-an image isn't even required. new image in place anyway. PumpkinSky talk 23:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Heidi Montag

Have I addressed all issues regarding its GA quality? Till I Go Home (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

And yet you seemed more interested to complain about the person in question than the quality of the article... Till I Go Home (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The quality of the article is poor, poor prose, poor sourcing, poor content. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The fire

I prefer not to heat up the discussion on Murphy Complex Fire. I have some experience with DYK under various rules, but never so far did I meet the request to remove a picture, unless lack of a license demands that, as for fair use images. Even if a picture is not great, it remains and just will not be taken. Many times even great pictures were not taken. Please stop worrying about the picture and review the ARTICLE, or ask someone else to do it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I am just applying the criteria as stated on the page where they are listed. I cannot why the nominator insists on keeping it as they are holding up the tick. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

No. English is not my first language, I obviously could not convey what I mean. Leave the picture where it is, please review the article, date, length, sources, copyvio. Crisco said that you are familiar with FA and GA and DYK is different. The picture can stay, the prep builders will know from both your comments and visibility at small size not to take it. I don't see where your problem is, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)#

Kindly stop telling me what to do. You may have your own peculiar undocumented ideas about how reviewing DYK hooks works, based on apparently "unwritten rules", but I just follow the the stated guidelines, thank you. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I stop. I never questioned your English, but mine (I still do). I don't know the word desist but will find out. Farewell, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ping

Hello, Jezhotwells. You have new messages at Talk:Geneva Conference (1976)/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the review! —Cliftonian (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Jezhotwells. You have new messages at Talk:Victoria Falls Conference (1975)/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks again! —Cliftonian (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Rhodesia barnstar

		The Rhodesian Barnstar
		This barnstar was awarded to Jezhotwells for his two expeditious, swift and precise GA reviews of Victoria Falls Conference (1975) and Geneva Conference (1976), two Rhodesia-related articles, within the space of a couple of hours. Thank you and keep up the good work, Jez! —Cliftonian (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Jezhotwells (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Danish cuisine copyright violations - question

(I'm replying here because I know you're busy and probably won't be checking back on my talk page)

I'm shocked to hear about the copyright infringement and I agree that that content needs to be removed swiftly. The content must have been added by a previous contributor, perhaps in good faith. I do remember finding some of the information when searching for a source and I actually reworded a couple of sentences when I discovered it has been copy and pasted, but unfortunately I wasn't aware of whole sections being copied.
I just want to ask - if a few sections are reworded/rephrased, would they be acceptable to be included? (As long as they're not copied word for word). Or are they now void? It would be a shame to lose two vital sections of the article.
Also, thanks for the other points you raised on the GA nomination, that'll come in useful. Thanks! Peter (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

As long as they are not a copy or a close paraphrase. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Peter (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bump this again, but it turns out that the source the article is apparently copied from was actually taken straight from Wikipedia; it's the other way around.
This was pointed out by the IP contributer, 95.166.78.149 on the Good Article review, and I've double checked myself and found that one source is a complete copy of a previous version of the Wikipedia article and the latter (the original violation you found) cites Wikipedia and other free media as surces. Please see [[Talk:Danish_cuisine/GA1].
I understand the review itself failed for other reasons, but is it now possible that the information could be saved,m because it was taken (entirely legitimately) and put into this book? I'm unsure now what happens now? Peter (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

My mistake - I have withdrawn the reports and removed the templates and left comments on the article talk page. My sincere apologies for this. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Review of article

Hi, since I saw you reviewing another Afghanistan-related article ... Would you maybe tell me your suggestions for the article Amrullah Saleh to help it achieve good article status? Of course only if you have the time. Thank you and regards, JCAla (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Your informal assessment is very much appreciated. Will work on it. JCAla (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, regarding the points you mentioned in your review of the Amrullah Saleh article:

1. Prose: The prose has been checked and improved by User:Rothorpe who is an experienced copy-editor.
2. Sourcing: All sources have been improved and the unreliable one removed.
3. Content: There are few sources for the 2004-2008 period. Although the Bin Laden-Musharraf controversy falls into that period. Added some more info.

Do you think a nomination is reasonable then and would you review such a nomination? JCAla (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2012/Submissions/Jezhotwells

I have removed Talk:Brampton Walk of Fame/GA2 from your submissions page. I am not saying that this is a bad closure (looks like a wholly appropriate one from my brief look at the article) but it is a rather short one, and so not really eligible for points. Your other reviews are also somewhat borderline- I have left them there for now, but asked Ed for a second opinion. Again, I am not wanting to criticise the reviews, I'm just assessing their eligibility for points. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

After some consideration, the other two have also been removed. Again, this is not to say that they were poor reviews, just that they are not eligible for points. If you have any concerns, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

• Technological roadmap: 2011's technological achievements in review, and what 2012 may hold

• News and notes: Fundraiser 2011 ends with a bang

• In the news: Wikipedia ends annual fundraising drive; Monmouthpedia launches

• WikiProject report: From Traditional to Experimental: WikiProject Jazz

• Featured content: Contentious FAC debate: a week in review

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Betacommand 3

• Technology report: December in more detail; and why the MediaWiki codebase was "slushed" this week

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Jacobs Well Theatre

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Good article help?

Hi. Thought you might be interested in this. Have asked a few other GA editors what they think - if it is feasible, whether it can be improved etc - before going to GAN. I was envisioning it taking the place of the current mentors page. Free to leave any comments on the talk page or change things around as you see fit. AIRcorn (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

GA for Agriculture in the United Kingdom

Hi Jezhotwells, I'm conscious that my 15 days for the above article are up. There have been quite a few expansions and Nev1's kindly given a comprehensive copyedit. While I haven't quite done everything that I originally meant to do, I also wonder whether you don't feel we're over the bar for GA now? All the best—S Marshall T/C 09:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

• Special report: English Wikipedia to go dark on January 18

• Sister projects: What are our sisters up to now?

• News and notes: WMF on the looming SOPA blackout, Wikipedia turns 11, and Commons passes 12 million files

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Beer

• Featured content: Lecen on systemic bias in featured content

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, Betacommand case deadlocked, Muhammad images close near

• Technology report: ArticleFeedback moves into new trial phase; and how MediaWiki integrates with Facebook, IPv6, and PostgreSQL explored

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join Stanford's WikiProject!

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stanford University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

ralphamale (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Your review of Lupe Fiasco

Hi! Thank you so much for reviewing Lupe Fiasco for GA. I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. Basilisk4u (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Peer review

Jez, would you mind taking a look at this -- Marek.69 ^talk 00:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Leonard Betts Review

Hey, just checking in. It's been over 7 days since you put the "Leonard Betts" article on review. I believe I addressed all your concerns.--Gen. Quon (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

GAN for Bhagat Singh

Hi Jezza, After the article was cleared of copyvios by another editor, I have again nominated Bhagat Singh for GA. As you have had past experience reviewing the article, I thought I should apprise you. Thanks. --Tinpisa (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

• News and notes: SOPA blackout, Orange partnership

• In the news: World watched as Wikipedia shut down for SOPA blackout

• WikiProject report: The Golden Horseshoe: WikiProject Toronto

• Featured content: Interview with Muhammad Mahdi Karim and the best of the week

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Muhammad images, AUSC call for applications

• Technology report: Looking ahead to MediaWiki 1.19 and related issues

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

• News and notes: Update on Global Development, Wikipedia Day NYC is a success, JFK audio on Commons

• In the news: Zambian wiki-assassins, Foundation über alles, editor engagement and the innovation plateau

• Recent research: Language analyses examine power structure and political slant; Wikipedia compared to commercial databases

• WikiProject report: Digging Up WikiProject Palaeontology

• Featured content: Featured content soaring this week

• Arbitration report: Five open cases, voting on proposed decisions in two cases

• Technology report: Why "Lua" is on everybody's lips, and when to expect MediaWiki 1.19

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter

WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is Grapple X (submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by Ruby2010 (submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is Jivesh boodhun (submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.

• 12george1 (submissions) was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
• Speciate (submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
• Jivesh boodhun (submissions) was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely 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 could 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 and The ed17 00:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Cetina, Aragon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ramón Berenguer IV (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) 10:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

An award for you!

		The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia
		It is with the greatest admiration that I award you this barnstar for completing Good Article reviews for the December 2011 Good Article Nomination backlog elimination drive Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there's one more award for you on the way... AstroCog (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A medal of distinction

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		For reviewing the MOST Good Article Nominations during the December 2011 Good Article Nomination backlog elimination drive, I award you this medal of distinction. Congratulations! Cheers,AstroCog (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

• News and notes: The Foundation visits Tunisia, analyzes donors

• In the news: Leading scholar hails Wikipedia, historians urged to contribute while PR pros remain shunned

• Discussion report: Discussion swarms around Templates for deletion and returning editors of colourful pasts

• WikiProject report: The Eye of the Storm: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones

• Featured content: Talking architecture with MrPanyGoff

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, final decision in Muhammad images, Betacommand 3 near closure

• Technology report: October's coding challenge: results now in; progress on 1.19 steady; and why for a while interwiki links were no more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

WP Rock Music in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Rock Music for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

• Special report: Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters

• News and notes: Foundation launches Legal and Community Advocacy department

• In the news: Scholars and spindoctors contend with the emergent wikiorder

• In focus: Skirmishes in the 'great sectarian war of the Internet'

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Stub Sorting

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Betacommand 3 closed, proposed decision in Civility enforcement, AUSC candidates announced

• Technology report: January sees prototype new geodata API; but February looks to be a testing time for top developers

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The Music Hall Guild of Great Britain and America

This article that you had cleaned up continues to accumulate more cruft from the same editor with the COI, and all the new material is referenced only to her website. I took out some PEACOCK words and did a quick clean-up, but unfortunately I don't have time to look into the referencing. Do you have time to take a new look? Thanks for any help. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

• Special report: The plight of the new page patrollers

• News and notes: Fundraiser row continues, new director of engineering

• Discussion report: Discussion on copyrighted files from non-US relation states

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Poland

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Civility enforcement closed, proposed decision in TimidGuy, two cases remain open

• Technology report: Major strands of development cycle coalesce as 1.19 is deployed to first wikis

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hutton FAC

Len Hutton, which you reviewed for GA what seems a very long time ago, is currently at FAC. Any comments you may have would be very welcome. However, I fully understand if you have neither the time nor the inclination, and feel free to ignore this request! --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Nawa-I-Barakzayi District

An article that you have been involved in reviewing, Nawa-I-Barakzayi District has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

• News and notes: Finance meeting fallout, Gardner recommendations forthcoming

• Recent research: Gender gap and conflict aversion; collaboration on breaking news; effects of leadership on participation; legacy of Public Policy Initiative

• Discussion report: Focus on admin conduct and editor retention

• WikiProject report: Just don't call it "sci-fi": WikiProject Science Fiction

• Featured content: By plane, by ship, and by stagecoach: Featured content goes trekking this week

• Arbitration report: Final decision in TimidGuy ban appeal, one case remains open

• Technology report: 1.19 deployment stress, Meta debates whether to enforce SUL

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 01:32, 28 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) 00:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)