User talk:Giants2008/Archive 17
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Giants2008. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Talkback
Message added 00:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I removed the source and claim; hope you can now support! TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
You are a STAR!
|
The Reviewers Award | |
| Thanks for the hard work you do at FLC, and in particular for your help with Ronald Reagan filmography. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 10:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC) |
FLC question
Hi Giants2008. Did Kelly Clarkson discography failed the FL review? It seemed that it was removed from the Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, and I was looking for the failed log and it wasn't there. I just wanna ask. Thanks! Woofygoodbird (talk) 08:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Giants2008 for promoting it to FL status! Thank you very much! Woofygoodbird (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello, any chance you could have a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Richard Hadlee/archive1. Regards. Zia Khan 04:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Reminder — The list awaiting for your kind review. Regards. Zia Khan 00:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
FL review
I've responded to your comments at the FL review page for the Chairman of the National Assembly of Vietnam article. Thanks for reviewing the article. --TIAYN (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Brabourne Stadium
Thanks for your comments, Iv replied on the review page. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 12:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Responded on review page. Cheers, Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
The site is still off-line. So there's no way to verify the info. Should I remove the information and re-nominate? I have no idea when the site will be back, and the Wayback Machine only shows information for 2 albums, which is weird. What do you recommend? — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- If you're planning on bringing the list back to FLC, I'd recommend removing the information if it still can't be cited. If you wanted to leave the information that the Wayback Machine links can support, you can do that as well, although I'd understand if you didn't want to leave only part of the information intact. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Okay. Then i will remove the information that can't be cited and go ahead with the nomination. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, actually some argentinian certifications are supported by other third party reliable sources. I believe i can leave them there. Is it okay? — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- If the sites are reliable then of course they can stay in. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Okay. I fixed all issues with the sources and nominated the list at FLC. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 15:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- If the sites are reliable then of course they can stay in. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, actually some argentinian certifications are supported by other third party reliable sources. I believe i can leave them there. Is it okay? — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Okay. Then i will remove the information that can't be cited and go ahead with the nomination. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your participation in my RfA. I will take your comments to heart, and hope to be able to earn your trust in the future. In the worst case, feel free to tell me to zip it.—Bagumba (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- The first part of the second sentence is all I was hoping to hear. As long as you keep that in mind, you'll do fine with the tools. Congratulations on your success at RfA. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
May I ask why this FLC hasn't been closed yet? I just find it extremely peculiar how three other lists that have exactly the same amount of support and were nominated later than this one can be passed while this list ends up being simply placed under the "Older Nominations" category. There doesn't appear to be any outstanding issues needed to be addressed, yet this list remains unpassed when it is basically an "equal" to the three that were passed. With all the resolved comments and support votes, I really don't see anything else I can do with this list. Do you mind having another look please? Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- I left the FLC unpromoted because there was an issue regarding secondary sorting that appeared to be outstanding. The Rambling Man implied that the issue was of interest to many other FLC candidates, and I didn't see a statement from the reviewer that he considered the issue to be resolved. Of course, it's possible that I missed it in the lengthy discussion at the FLC; if this is the case, would you mind pointing out where issacl indicated that he no longer considered the issue outstanding? This also goes for TRM, as I don't know if he currently thinks this is outstanding or not. I'd like to see this be resolved, as far as this FLC goes, before the list is promoted. You might consider asking the reviewers if they are satisfied; if they say yes, the list would probably be promoted the next time I go through FLC, if not sooner (barring further review). Giants2008 (Talk) 15:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Isaacl stated in the FLC, "since The Rambling Man agreed to defer judgment to other editors, personally I think it can be considered resolved." I'm still waiting for TRM's response. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yesterday, TRM stated on the FLC, "I think it is an issue but I'm the only one, so I'm happy for my comment to be considered just that, a comment." —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Isaacl stated in the FLC, "since The Rambling Man agreed to defer judgment to other editors, personally I think it can be considered resolved." I'm still waiting for TRM's response. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Talkback 2
Message added 15:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 August newsletter
The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:
Grapple X (submissions) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
Miyagawa (submissions) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
Ruby2010 (submissions) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
Casliber (submissions) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
Muboshgu (submissions) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
Dana Boomer (submissions) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
Sasata (submissions) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.
However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle: 
GreatOrangePumpkin (submissions), 
Ealdgyth (submissions), Calvin999 (submissions), 
Piotrus (submissions), 
Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), 
12george1 (submissions), 
The Bushranger (submissions) and 
1111tomica (submissions). We hope to see you all next year.
On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start 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) 00:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 03:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
—Vensatry (Ping me) 03:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, as you participated in a previous FAC for this article, I wondered if you would take a look at the article again. I have gone through the article, and the comments from the previous FACs and made a number of changes to the article. As always, any input you might have would be appreciated. Regards, Harrias talk 15:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
TFL problem
Hopefully this will be dealt with before you read this, but just in case: [1]. Best, —WFC— 05:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Minnesota Timberwolves all-time roster (A–K)/archive1
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Albacore (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joe Lillard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Field goal (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) 11:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
—Bloom6132 (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 02:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
TBrandley 02:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Danuta Gleed Literary Award
Hello,
could you withdraw Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Danuta Gleed Literary Award/archive1, as one reviewer lost his sudden interest and no one is reviewing since a while. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 18:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for striking out resolved comments. Could you respond to the reply I gave you regarding your last comment. Currently, I have nothing to work with since the comment remains both unresolved and not replied to. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Doubleday myth
First of all, sorry I couldn't finish with the Roberts FAC as I was hospitalized for a week with thyroid problems. Also I'm wondering if you are willing to do a collaboration on the Doubleday myth which shaped baseball in the early 20th century seeing you are the main writer in the Doc Adams article. I was reading some sources on early baseball, and I was in shock it doesn't have it's own article, and the section mentioning it in the Origins of baseball was hardly sourced and the section below on Cartwright had blatant three year old vandalism that many random websites started using it as fact which is a major problem by itself, though irrelevant to this conversation. I have several sources to create a spinoff article about the myth, and I'm sure you have access to other top sourcing. Tell me what you think. Thanks Secret account 04:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Giants. In Dabomb's absence, I've asked NapHit to have a look at closing out some of the FLCs/FLRCs which we've both expressed opinions on. How do you feel about that? Hope all's well. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thank you for your help with the Fivers at Brabourne FLC, the article is now an FL :) Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey. On this question of "regarded" and "considered", I prefer to follow wikiproject preferences when I can, although if someone is yelling about WP:WEASEL, then I'm fine with being more precise than usual. If you want to search for those two words and offer any suggestions (here or there), that would be great. - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
FLC talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Please also take a look at my response to Muboshgu's similar concern.
—Bloom6132 (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I was just wondering if you could take a look at it. It has been opened for 13 days and all issues have been solved. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
List of Australian Olympic medalists in swimming
Please review this--Lucky102 (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- For today's featured list.--Lucky102 (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juwan Howard/archive3
Thanks for your participation in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juwan Howard/archive3. I see no more unresolved issues. I hope you will consider supporting soon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 11:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- I answered your question.--Lucky102 (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
FLC talkback II
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
—Bloom6132 (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 02:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Fixed all :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
TFL message
I have left a message at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list which I would like for you to respond to in your FL-Director capacity. This is also Sven Manguard 20:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Invitation!
Hi. Would you like to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Featured lists? Thanks, TBrandley 02:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Opinion
Would you mind weighing in your opinion here. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, any chance you could have a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by Javed Miandad/archive1. Zia Khan 23:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
FLC talkback III
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I've finished addressing Muboshgu's point. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
List of Australian Olympic medalists in swimming review
That review you gave for the article, I understood the last one, but the first 2 I don't. Does the first one mean to unbold Gold, silver, bronze;etc. I have no idea of the second one. --Lucky102 (talk) 10:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Please answer.--Lucky102 (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Before nothing will happen at all, and it won't get on the main page.--Lucky102 (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi
No one has commented on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one adult contemporary singles of 2011 (U.S.)/archive1 for over a month. AARON• TALK 13:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 23:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
AARON• TALK 23:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Hi, Your concerns have been addressed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by Javed Miandad/archive1. Zia Khan 12:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 September newsletter
We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. 
Grapple X (submissions) currently leads, followed by 
Sasata (submissions), 
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and 
Casliber (submissions). However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.
It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!
The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start 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) J Milburn (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Help
Hi, would you mind commenting at the FLC page of Jessica Mauboy discography? — Oz (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Your opinion on Featured Articles / Good Articles, such as Awake (TV series)
Hi Giants. I can see from your User page that you have participated in many GA/FA/FL, so I figured you would be a good person to talk to. I'm not involved with GA/FA reviews much, so I haven't dug deep into the details of these articles. I was concerned about Awake (TV series), which I opposed for FA in September. (WP:Featured article candidates/Awake (TV series)/archive2) In my review I pointed out a series of misquotes that I found. These were serious errors, not piddly stuff. TBrandley has a real problem with paraphrasing, as well as misrepresenting facts, and I caught a number of these.
TBrandley has had over a month and has not bothered to address the major issues I brought up (but some of the simple ones were addressed). My points were not style issues, or opinions, but rather I was pointing out clear problems in facts/accuracy. These are blatant errors! It's not like he hasn't had the time, either, since he has racked up well over 1700 edits since I posted my comments. In addition, he's twice [2][3] nominated the article for "A-class" since then. Clearly, getting the facts straight is not his concern.
As it stands now, Awake (TV series) does not even meet the Good Article criteria #2 because it is not factually accurate. And I only checked a few sections....who knows what else is wrong? How can this be a GA, let alone FA? I was just wondering if it is normal for articles going to GA or FA to contain such inaccuracies. Shouldn't this stuff be caught and fixed? It really turns me off to the whole GA/FA process if people just keep supporting articles that are not up-to-snuff. I want to assume good faith, but this is bothersome. I was hoping for your thoughts. Thanks a bunch. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) A large reason I failed the A-Class review was due to the issues you brought up at the FAC not being addressed. If possible, Logical Fuzz, could you perhaps reiterate your concerns at the new ACR? If the factual inaccuracies aren't addressed within the ACR period, then I see no other option but initiating a good article reassessment. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- LF, the answer to your question is complex. Our review processes are only as good as the people who are reviewing, as you seem to have figured out. The GA process is typically a one-person review, so the quality of the review depends largely on who does it. There are some people who are wonderful reviewers, but some let things go. This was the GA review for Awake; I'll leave it to you to determine whether it was sufficient, although I'm not convinced myself. The FA and FL processes have multiple (at a minimum three or four) reviewers for each promoted article, but whether something is checked depends on if it is being emphasized. Plagarism/factual checks are emphasized at FAC, and everybody has to go through one at some point now. It didn't used to be that way, until an FA with plagarism appeared on the Main Page and attention was brought to the issue (the author is one of the editors heavily involved at WP:TFAR, by the way). Most articles at FAC now don't have major issues, probably because editors are checking in advance to avoid issues during the process. Sadly, FLC doesn't have as much checking going on as I'd like, though there usually isn't as much prose to check and the data itself is what really needs checking.
- The best way to avoid issues like this is for more editors to get involved in looking for them. LF, you clearly know how to perform source spot-checks and find issues. Why don't you try doing some occasional spot-checks at FLC or FAC and see for yourself how accurate or inaccurate our best content is? The FAC leaders would love having additional help in this task, and myself and the other directors at FLC would feel the same way. Oh, and the drive-by supports from people who may or may not have read an article/list drive me crazy. If I hadn't have jumped into the last Awake FAC, the article would have been promoted before you even got to it. As for TBrandley, I recommend that you discuss issues with his editing with him, not me. You'll get better results doing that than from criticizing him on my page. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the in-depth reply! I really appreciate your time. I think I'll try to keep an eye on FLC/FAC and see how things work for a bit, then jump in where I can. I do like doing spot-checks. Also, I apologize for the criticism of another on your page, I didn't mean to sound so harsh. I think my frustration got the better of me. Thanks again for your thoughts. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 02:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, any chance you could have a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by Saeed Anwar/archive1. Thanks. Zia Khan 22:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Peter Sellers discography
Hi Giants, Is there any reason as to why Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record was not promoted? As far as I can see we had five lots of comments and five lots of resolutions and a support? All the best! -- CassiantoTalk 08:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. That's not a problem, I have listed again and given the reviews a nudge to either show a Support or Oppose. I think that was the problem; people comment, it gets resolved and then it's not followed up with a show of Support. I (wrongly) assumed a capping signalled that things have been resolved therefor a Support is inevitable. Thanks for the speedy reply and feel free to look in on round two ;-) -- CassiantoTalk 16:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up.. We are just letting the previous reviewers know that it has been re-listed and are asking them to update this review with what they should have done on the last one. I will copy edit the messages. Many Thanks! --CassiantoTalk 18:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Question
As Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Alexandra Burke/archive1 has three supports and all issues have been addressed, can I nominate another list? I remember seeing somewhere that another can be nominated with the permission of a delegate who agrees the other nomination is doing okay? AARON• TALK 18:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions about User:Giants2008. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |