User talk:Jezhotwells/Archive 8

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

• News and notes: Girl Geeks edit while they dine, candidates needed for forthcoming steward elections, image referendum opens

• In the news: Journalist regrets not checking citation, PR firms issue advice on how to "survive" Wikipedia (but U.S. Congressman caught red-handed)

• WikiProject report: Images in Motion – WikiProject Animation

• Featured content: JJ Harrison on avian photography

• Arbitration report: After eleven moves, name for islands now under arbitration

• Technology report: Engineering report, sprint, and more testers needed

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Moved images into Signpost article

Hi Jez, I've moved the images from your comment on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-08-22/News and notes into the article itself. I was looking for pics like that when putting the article together so thanks for free licensing them and putting them on Commons! —Tom Morris (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No probs, sorry I didn't upload them earlier. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me?

Yuor comments on Whitewater World/GA2 are very mean. I should be allowed to trout you. Mike 289 20:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but they are true. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

at least be a LITTLE bit nicer about it?Mike 289 20:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

GA reassessments

Hi. I see that you kept Bomarillu as a GA, while the other two were delisted by someone else. Probably the right call. I have just nominated an article for GA that I have worked on a lot, Shriya Saran. I would be interested to know what you think of it. BollyJeff || talk 17:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering whether you'd be able to do additional GA review for International Street (Canada's Wonderland), continuing this thread here. I've addressed your concerns, many valid, but some that I would like to contest with my rationale. It was unfortunate that my article was nominated so quickly (I intended to wait at least until after it appeared in DYK, which it as of yet hasn't, before making sure that things were solid enough to try for a GA. Needless to say, I was beyond surprised when logging in, in the afternoon, returning home from work, finding out that my article had not only been nominated but passed in GA. I'm used to close scrutiny, and I've been working on an article about another theme park for at least half a year now; that GAN took about three months, which was not entirely unexpected.) If you could take a look at the revisions, and see how it stacks up now, that would be appreciated. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Page number for Clifton Suspension Bridge

Hi, I wondered if you had a copy (or access to one) of Vaughan, Adrian: Isambard Kingdom Brunel — Engineering Knight Errant, John Murray, 1991, ISBN 0-7195-5748-8.? It is used (3 times) on Clifton Suspension Bridge but lacking page numbers. I was considering trying for GA again with that article & wondered if you had any thoughts or could help?— Rod ^talk 15:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll check out the library next week. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

• News and notes: Abuse filter on all Wikimedia sites; Foundation's report for July; editor survey results

• In the news: Wikipedia praised for disaster news coverage, scolded for left-wing bias; brief news

• Recent research: Article promotion by collaboration; deleted revisions; Wikipedia's use of open access; readers unimpressed by FAs; swine flu anxiety

• Opinion essay: How an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Tennis

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Four existing cases

• Technology report: The bugosphere, new mobile site and MediaWiki 1.18 close in on deployment

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The History of British Political Parties

Jez, I know you often complain about the low prose standards at GAN, but were you aware of that you passed the above article with this sentence: "Nicholas Whyte commented on the book on the page on Northern Ireland Political Parties on the website Northern Ireland Access Research Knowledge (ARK)?" No less than four 'on's. --Eisfbnore • talk 18:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Good spot - I have copy-edited that. I expect have made mistakes in several reviews. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion

Hi Jez, I would appreciate it if you would give your input here on the GA re-assessment page. Thanks!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Good luck! Pasindu Kavinda  Talk 11:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - what is this for? Jezhotwells (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

• News and notes: 24,000 votes later and community position on image filter still unclear; first index of editor satisfaction appears positive

• In the news: Britannica and Wikipedia like "apples and chairs"; should anyone who's anyone get an article?; and why fighting and barriers to editing may be useful after all

• WikiProject report: Riding with WikiProject London Transport

• Sister projects: Wiki Loves Monuments 2011

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Opinion essay: The copyright crisis, and why we should care

• Arbitration report: BLP case closed; Cirt-Jayen466 nearly there; AUSC reshuffle

• Technology report: Pencils down in Google Summer of Code, August analysed and integrated HTTPS support in action

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Stuckism GA Review

Hi Jez, Thanks for your Stuckism GA Review. I added all requested refrences and made some other changes to the article. But I need more time to make other changes, I'm not home this week. I wanted to know is it possible to put it on hold for another 7 days? (14 days with previous 7 days). Thanks. lapsking (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. lapsking (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jez, I almost made all changes you requested, except these 2: "The lead does not fully summarise the article."

Could you help me with this one (English is not my native language)??

"The article needs copy-editing to improve prose flow."

And could you help me with this one too??

Thank you, lapsking (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Using the note parameter of the GAN nom template

Hi, Jezhotwells. I agree with your "Please don't edit the WP:GAN page directly, if you wish to leave a note, please use the note parameter" - but the {{subst:GAN}}, quoted in Wikipedia:GAN, AFAIK doesn't describe this parameter. Perhaps someone should document this and other parameters. --Philcha (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Music Hall Guild of Great Britain and America

Thanks for the clean up! Please watchlist the article, as it has a persistent crufter. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Jezhotwells. You have new messages at EchetusXe's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ryan Burge GA

I have corrected all of the issues you pointed out in your review and now feel the article is ready to be passed. Thanks, LiamTaylor 20:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

• News and notes: Foundation reports on research, Kenya trip, Mumbai Wikiconference; Canada, Hungary and Estonia; English Wikinews forked

• In the news: 9/11 coverage, Wikimedia hypothetically rebranded and Wikipedia golf 2.0

• WikiProject report: Politics in the Pacific: WikiProject Australian Politics

• Featured content: Wikipedians explain two new featured pictures

• Arbitration report: Ohconfucius sanctions removed, Cirt desysopped 6:5 and a call for CU/OS applications

• Technology report: What is: agile development? and new mobile site goes live

• Opinion essay: The Walrus and the Carpenter

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

RE:A belated welcome!

Thanks. I'm glad atleast someone is noticing me. Nobody really knows all the effort I've done round here. I've re-/assessed a couple of thousands of articles for WPBeatles, when I should've been doing important school work! All that hard work I've put into WPBeatles. :L --Yeepsi (Talk to me!) 10:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes the problem is that you are not taking note of the problems that you have been causing. Please read the notes on your talk page. If you don't understand them then ask the person who posted them. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

• From the editor: Changes to The Signpost

• News and notes: Ushahidi research tool announced, Citizendium five years on: success or failure?, and Wikimedia DC officially recognised

• In the news: Wikipedia: yesterday's news? Calls for women, doctors, and scholars of humanities; Wales makes Wikimedia work "look easy"

• Sister projects: On the Wikinews fork

• WikiProject report: Back to school

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: ArbCom narrowly rejects application to open new case

• Technology report: MediaWiki 1.18 deployment begins, the alleged "injustice" of WMF engineering policy, and Wikimedians warned of imminent fix to magic word

• Popular pages: Article stats for the English Wikipedia in the last year

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

ARKive

Hi,

Thanks for your participation in our event last week. I see you haven't done any project editing since - though you have been busy! Please do try and improve one or two of the articles in the project list. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011

• Opinion essay: The global mission, the image filter and the "German question"

• Recent research: Top female Wikipedians, reverted newbies, link spam, social influence on admin votes, Wikipedians' weekends, WikiSym previews

• News and notes: WMF strikes down enwiki consensus, academic journal partnerships, and eyebrows raised over minors editing porn-related content

• In the news: Sockpuppeting journalist recants, search dominance threatened, new novels replete with Wikipedia references

• WikiProject report: A project in overdrive: WikiProject Automobiles

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: "Broadly construed" explained, voting begins on Senkaku Islands case, invitation to comment on CU/OS candidates

• Technology report: 1.18 deployment on track, "mythical" Git migration scheduled, editor decline statistics improved

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Smiley Versus Karla

Please see my talk, Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Abraham_Isaac_Kook_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 Ksavyadkodesh (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You have already been answered there, please sort this out on the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks so much for your work on the page for the book, First Light. You began editing it before anyone even I had and I think that that's what got other people to edit it. Because you gave the page a starting point. :) Toontown59153 (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks that was over a year ago!! Jezhotwells (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The Byrds

Hi - I noticed Talk:The_Byrds/GA1 through the NFCC overuse report. The article has no less than 25 non-free media files in it - the 9th most of any of our 3,000,000+ articles. It's undoubtedly well-written but I can't see any reason how it can pass GA with this amount of overuse - no band article needs 18 music samples and it would be rejected straight away at FA. Sure, the media files have rationales, but that many clearly can't pass WP:NFCC#3a. I think this has to go to GAR and I'll probably drop a note at WT:NFC, but I thought you'd like to comment first. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Beef Jerky

As the original WP:PRODder, you may be interested in WP:Articles for deletion/Beef Jerky. Cheers, Uniplex (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

• News and notes: Italian Wikipedia shuts down over new privacy law; Wikimedia Sverige produce short Wikipedia films, Sue Gardner calls for empathy

• In the news: QRpedia launches to acclaim, Jimbo talks social media, Wikipedia attracts fungi, terriers and Greeks bearing gifts

• WikiProject report: Kia ora WikiProject New Zealand

• Featured content: Reviewers praise new featured topic: National treasures of Japan

• Arbitration report: Last call for comments on CheckUser and Oversight teams

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Nominations

Yes, I see, the rules were changed since my last nomination. It was too long break. On every wiki the rules are different. Thanks. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Wehha of East Anglia

Hi there, just to let you know I amended Wehha of East Anglia according to your comments. Thanks for them. Hel-hama (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Prior Park

No I didn't.. I suspect it was Prior Park College where the article is fairly dire. I wanted to focus on the building etc with Prior Park. Would welcome any input as I'd like to take this one to GA.— Rod ^talk 13:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Advice for new Wikipedia editors

I've worked for some time on User:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors. I'm to approach the subject from the viewpoint of a new editor possibly seeing WP for the first time - in other words I think it must be one easy step at a time, starting from the new editor's starting position. I take WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR seriously, but am trying to make the whole process easier for the new editor. So I: use an informal style; emphasise techniques and tools that help new editors' work to be productive and pleasant; give the basis of the main policies and how to get advice about them; but not overload new editors with loads of details on policies, etc. I hope the essay will be worth publishing in main space, and even get a link for from the main "Welcome". Could you please comment at User talk:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors. --Philcha (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

• Opinion essay: The conservatism of Wikimedians

• News and notes: Largest ever donation to WMF, final findings of editor survey released, 'Terms of use' heavily revised

• In the news: Uproar over Italian shutdown, the varying reception of BLP mischief, and Wikipedia's doctor-evangelist

• WikiProject report: The World's Oldest People

• Featured content: The weird and the disgusting

• Arbitration report: Senkaku Islands closes; administrators authorized to place articles on discretionary sanctions

• Technology report: 1.18 deployment and HTTPS switchover completed, but developer help now needed with new projects

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hotwells pics

I see you are working on Hotwells. If you want any old pictures you might like to take a look at this set at a site I found recently.— Rod ^talk 17:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, great site, but on a closer look the British Library is claiming copyright on these. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

There has already been some case (I can't remember the details I think it was with BL or British Museum) & if the artist died over 100 yrs ago under US law (which governs wiki servers) then it is public domain. I have uploaded several from 17 & 18th century without any problems.— Rod ^talk 17:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have uploaded one to commons with the public domain license. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your efforts at Wikipedia:Contribution Team/Backlogs/Participants and progress. Cloudbound (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Jezhotwells (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Lapot

Thank you for your reversal. If I may inquire why do you maintain that lapot was a legendary practice, when the sources state that it was an "unconfirmed legend"? There is a big difference between legend and legendary:

legendary

"adj. so celebrated as to having taken on the nature of a legend"

"adj. celebrated in fable or legend"

Would you agree that the sources imply or explicitly state that "The legend of Lapot" is something so celebrated as to having taken on the nature of a legend? With no other intention than due diligence and neutrality, i sincerely look for your answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.182.5 (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that you need to read all of the sources more carefully. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I've seen the documentary and read some of the sources, and they all deal with a legend, a myth.

eg. "the disturbing short “The Legend of Lapot” (1972), which describes a particularly brutal method of disposing of the elderly, adopted from Serbian myth."

There is a difference between a legend and "legendary". Beatles are legendary, this practice is a legend, a myth, but certainly not legendary. These may be nuances of language, but the word "legendary" is misleading, implying a connotation of fame for a practice that is rather arcane, mostly unknown to the very inhabitants of eastern Serbia, let alone other parts of Serbia. Do you understand my concerns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.182.5 (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you do not understand English. Legendary id=s an adjective derived from the noun legend so its use in the article is correct. Thank you and good night. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I understand English very well, and that is why I'm concerned with a word like "legendary" that conveys additional meaning which may misrepresent the source's intent. The dictionary entry for "legendary" states:

legendary (ˈlɛdʒəndərɪ, -drɪ) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— adj

1. of or relating to legend

2. celebrated or described in a legend or legends

3. very famous or notorious

If you are unwilling to discuss whether that the use of "legendary" to denote a myth may be misleading I must surmise that you are not acting in good faith. Do correct me if I'm wrong. 79.101.182.5 (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I am acting in perfectly good faith. The dictionary definition you give above says legendary is an adjective of or relating to legend. You appear to have no understanding of English as you cannot even interpret a dictionary and your substitution of the legendary with apocryphal demonstrates this eloquently. Thank you and good night again. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You can resort to Ad hominem and berate my English all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that "legendary" has a meaning that is misleading. Furthermore, I'm not the only one to point this out. But you seem to think we all don't know English. The praxis of Lapot is a myth, unproven, not widely known, not praised and hard to believe. Which is why I chose "apocryphal". Anyway, since you are "guarding" the article, I opened this discussion in order to find a more suitable word that correctly describes the practice. But why do you insist that legendary doesn't have additional meaning?

Legendary (3.) very famous or notorious

"Beatles were a legendary Band"

"Her dinner parties were legendary"

"Lapot is the legendary practice of senicide" 109.93.18.94 (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggest that you look up the meaning of praxis before your next English class. This discussion is pointless as you don't have enough knowledge of the English language to understand what you are being told. End of conversation. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words.

why do you insist that legendary doesn't have additional meaning?

you don't have enough knowledge of the English language to understand what you are being told

109.93.18.94 (talk) 10:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

== Word "legendary" is deemed as a word that may introduce bias by the Wikipedia manual of style WP:W2W. Would you care to reconsider whether the use of this word to describe lapot is appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.18.94 (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hever Golf Rose

Hello Jez I have added a phrase explaining the term "sprinter" to the lead of Hever Golf Rose. I think that must have been the reason for the context tag. Please let me know as I want the article to be at least C class.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 06:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No, the context tag was because it is not until well down in the article that we discover in which country the horse was based. Please read and apply WP:LEAD. The country of the horse should be in the first sentence. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll fix that, and check that I have done so in all my other articles. Thanks for raising this issue.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

• News and notes: Arabic Wikipedia gets video intros, Smithsonian gifts images, and WikiProject Conservatism scrutinized

• In the news: Why Wikipedia survives while others haven't; Wikipedia as an emerging social model; Jimbo speaks out

• WikiProject report: History in your neighborhood: WikiProject NRHP

• Featured content: Brazil's boom-time dreams of naval power: The ed17 explains the background to a new featured topic

• Arbitration report: Case requests on ethnic strife and a WikiProject declined, Abortion case stalls but topic bans look to be lightened on amendment

• Technology report: WMDE renew investment in Toolserver, first offsite backup programme of Wikimedia begun

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

St Nicks

Thanks for your review and support. I've taken the liberty of moving your bolded support to the start of the line; The delegates prefer this since it makes it easier to spot. Hope you don't mind Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No probs, mate. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thx for the Review!

Hi, Jez. Thanks for the great review! Actually, I did notice the backlog for GAN and I have been thinking about possibly tackling a review or two. I'm going to try to see about trying to fit in the time sometime in the near future. Take care, Moisejp (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Jez, I second that emotion - as Smokey Robinson used to sing. Many thanx for GAR. FA here we come. I'd love to help with backlog but current pressures... Your labours at coal face of GAN are much appreciated. Mick gold (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Magistrates of England and Wales

Hi - No problem, thanks for the nudge - as the nominator appears to be inactive, if no one steps up to do the required edits I will assist if I can. Off2riorob (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for correcting the subtopic for The Walking Dead (TV series) for the GA nominee. I didn't know which topic to file it under. Again, thank you. -- Luke (Talk) 00:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review Norman E. Rosenthal

Thank you for your review. I have fulfilled all of your requests. Please have a look when you have time. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

		A beer on me!
		Thanks for you astute review and for helping with the backlog at the GA nomination page. Cheers! — Keithbob • Talk • 15:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

Really? Cause I've read and re-read the "instructions" and fail to see anything I did wrong, but it didn't work. So unless you are assuming bad faith on my part, then quite clearly the instructions are not clear to me.

Now, either offer to help me, or keep your "helpful" comments to yourself Jasonfward (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If you list the reasons here, I will nominate for you. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer, someone else has already fixed the nomination for me, and I have now added my reason for nomination Jasonfward (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

• From the editors: A call for contributors

• Opinion essay: There is a deadline

• Interview: Contracting for the Foundation

• In the news: Are Wikipedians reluctant journalists?; Wikipedia:The Musical

• WikiProject report: Great WikiProject Logos

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Abortion; request for amendment on Climate Change case

• Technology report: WMF launches coding challenge, WMDE starts hiring for major new project

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Scott Joplin/GA1

Can I just say that I think it is really unfair that you chose to review this GAN just 42 minutes after it was nominated. 1). You should let more time go by, in case other people want to review it. 2) There are some GANs which are over 2 months old, yet you review one which is 42 minutes old. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 10:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You can say what you like, but I choose to review articles that interest me. I no interest in many pop artists and songs of the 90s and 2000s. Those I have reviewed have often been poorly written, badly sourced and some verge on failing notability guidelines. When this is pointed out, nominators have frequently reacted like petulant teenagers, so I have stopped reviewing them. Fairness doesn't come into it. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, it does, because there has been a very long discussion about it, and I was told off for reviewing articles near enough as soon as they come up. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 13:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you go and review some then? I have reviewed 513 GANs and 164 GA sweeps in 2 and a half years across all topics. The list is here. I have found it a very useful way of learning how to write good articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I have done. I reviewed 24 between GANs July 5 and August 10 of this year (Equivalent to six a week for four weeks). But I was advised to discontinue reviewing for what you are doing, which is reviewing articles as soon as they come up. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 23:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Who told you off and where, and about which reviews? Please provide diffs. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the nature of how GANs are chosen. However, many thanks Jezhotwells for the prompt review - it has given me (and I am sure other editors who have had an input into the Joplin page) a good guide on how to improve it. The Peer Review done fairly recently didn't pick up many of the issues you have highlighed. Thanks again. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't remember the link, but about 10 or 15 people were involved. And it was because I was reviewing a lot of Mariah Carey reviews, look on my user page. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 01:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Your advice

I suggest you check up on the facts before giving assistance here edit warring over the nationality of someone born in Northern Ireland is covered by the AE sanctions doesn't matter what article it appears on be it sport or any other article. Mo ainm~Talk 11:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

RE: GA Nomination "90210"

Hey Jezhotwells, thank you for taking the time to read the article. I haven't nominated an article before, so I'm wandering if commenting beneath it on the 90210 discussion page was the correct thing to do? Also, I don't know how frequent you edit TV articles, but TVLine is the most reliable source for TV news and TVbytheNumbers is the only source for TV ratings and extremely reliable. I would request that you remove those two sites from the fail criteria. Jayy008 (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

TVbytheNumbers is not deemed reliable at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 49#TV by the Numbers, TVline doesn't look RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

All old discussions. I will try and find a new discussion that says they're reliable. If we can't use TVbytheNumbers, then we can't use anything. No other sites posts final numbers. Jayy008 (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

• Opinion essay: The monster under the rug

• Recent research: WikiSym; predicting editor survival; drug information found lacking; RfAs and trust; Wikipedia's search engine ranking justified

• News and notes: German Wikipedia continues image filter protest

• In the news: Citizendium on the rocks, Shankbone celebrated, and the week in vandalism

• Discussion report: Proposal to return this section from hiatus is successful

• WikiProject report: 'In touch' with WikiProject Rugby union

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Abortion case stalls, request for clarification on Δ, discretionary sanctions streamlined

• Technology report: Wikipedia Zero announced; New Orleans successfully hacked

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Educational GAN

FYI. Much improved, but something to be aware of. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - the one I was looking at was the non-US specific one. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Dorival Caymmi

Hi Jezhotwells, thanks for reviewing Dorival Caymmi! I've begun to make the changes you suggested on the review page. I have also left a question there for you. I've got to take care of some off-Wiki things right now, but I will be back within the next few days to continue working on the article. Armadillopteryx^talk 03:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the passing review! Your suggestions really improved the article. Armadillopteryx^talk 16:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

GA review copied under your name

Hi! FYI: Relapse (album)/GA1. Also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:7arazred_-_disruptive_editing. Thanks. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, yes i have been following the saga, I think all is sorted now. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jezhotwells. You have new messages at Talk:Christine Hakim/GA1.
Message added 23:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you very much for the review. I've done what you have asked for. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Romances

Hi

I am trying to look at points that need addressing in the FA. I think you said that "No." needed to be changed to "number". I have pointed out on the FA page that MoS says to use the abbreviation "No." (MOS:NUMBERSIGN). It seems a little strange that we could wind up using "number one" and "No. 68" throughout these articles.

Is it possible there has been some crossover in MoS recommendations? I cannot see where the use of No. is suggested to be changed. The abbreviations section seems to only apply to full titles which are commonly abbreviated rather than this instance.

I understand that MoS recommends using "one" rather than "1", and here "No. one" would obviously not make sense :¬) I did wonder if this was one of those cases where "No. 1" would be considered a 'general' exception "As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words" (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Numbers_as_figures_or_words) when talking about chart positions - or more specifically "Proper names, formal numerical designations, and other idioms comply with common usage;"

The issue for me is that so many music related articles have this in them that I need to ensure this is addressed in my future copy-edits. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Romances GAN

I've cleared up some issues and I left some questions on the GAN. Thanks for the review. Erick (talk) 06:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

So is everything else taken care of? Chaosdruid has finished the copy-edit. Erick (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Knowle West

I see that the article has been promoted. Well done on the extra work! Jaguar (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Princeton University Chapel GA nomination

Hello, Jezhotwells. You have new messages at Talk:Princeton University Chapel/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lagrange613 02:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a response to what I've said at the review. Thanks. Lagrange613 16:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Lagrange613 17:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

King Creole

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

--GDuwenTell me! 17:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

• Special report: A post-mortem on the Indian Education Program pilot

• News and notes: Wikimedia Norway awarded, Halloween on the Main Page, Wikimedia UK recognised

• In the news: The Economist assays the encyclopaedia's challenges, Jimbo speaks on net future, and an inclusionist alternative emerges.

• Discussion report: Special report on the ArbCom Elections steering RfC

• WikiProject report: Booting up with WikiProject Computer Science

• Featured content: Slow week for Featured content

• Arbitration report: Δ saga returns to arbitration, while the Abortion case stalls for another week

• Technology report: Full steam ahead on Visual Editor, the avoidance of lock-breaking and 1.18b1 release

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for GA review.

Hi Jezhotwells,

First,

Thanks for your lightning fast and thorough review. I have never nominated an article and this helps give those of us working on the page a baseline to work from.

Second,

I respect your analysis (need to add more references though that will be hard to find as this is a bit of a niche topic, ISBN number needs fixing, Lead needs to do a better job of directly reflecting each subtopic).

Third,

I do have one question about your POV analysis. In fact coming in neutrally (I think I own and enjoy gear from most of the manufacturers out there) I took on the job of fixing one potential bias favoring one of the manufacturers (DD Hammocks). What do you see needs fixing?

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks!

--Canadiandy talk 03:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)