Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:08, 8 October 2008

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Welcome, correspondents I periodically do recent changes patrolling. If I reverted your edits, there's a large likelihood I did so for one or more of the following reasons:

1. No edit summary, especially for a removal. I can't read your mind. If you removed content that was a copyvio or an ad, you can either tell everyone by including an accurate edit summary, or not. If you don't, you stand a higher chance of getting reverted, because I have yet to meet any other recent changes patroller who can read minds, either.
2. No sourcing, especially for a controversial change. I don't normally revert non-outlandish changes unless I have personal knowledge that the original was more reasonable, but if you are going to make a change to a biography, the burden is on you to source it, especially if you want to assert that the existing article was radically incorrect with regard to any protected class.

If you include a good source and a good edit summary, odds of me reverting you are quite small indeed. If you still have questions about why I made a particular reversion, don't hesitate to start a new topic at the bottom of the page and ask why: I am always willing to explain my reasoning. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Veronica Mars

Hi there. I fininshed the Veronica Mars page, but it still needs a copyedit. I was wondering if you would be interested, or if not, could you direct me to someone who could? Thanks, Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 04:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to look at it and provide comments. I may not get to it this evening, however, because of prior committments. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. Most of the article is okay, I think the section that needs most work is the "Season synopses" section. I haven't changed much, and I fear it has some POV in it. Let's start with that, thanks. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 02:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

For the "date" section in the refs, I wrote them like this: September 19, 2008 instead of 08-9-19, mainly because the new MoS does not require dates to be linked. How do you think we should go about it? I prefer September 19, 2008 for the "date" section, and 08-9-19 for the "accessdate" section. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I've always used them as yyyy-mm-dd both places, because it will autolink like that. I got reamed for that in my first run at GA, and have always just done it that way ever since. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I suggest we leave them as "September 19, 2008", and change them if the GA reviewer tells us to. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. If you've been monitoring my changes, I stopped doing those once I saw your note. Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok thanks. :-) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks so much on the work so far, I can already see mass improvement. :-) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 03:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have started a new format of the cast and characters section on my sandbox, although it is just a draft. Which do you think works better? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 04:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the sandbox version better, but am concerned that it might be encroaching too much on the subject of List of Veronica Mars characters. At what point should the entire list be simply merged back into the show's article? I think we're agrees that that's not a good idea, but where do you think the line should be drawn? Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the sandbox version better too. Well I'm not sure what you are trying to say (lol), but I think that all the series regulars should be on the main page, and all the others just left on the "List of" page, along with the series regulars. Does that answer your question? And as for Lilly's casting info, where should we put that? If we use the new format, there will be no place left for it. I have already place it on the Lilly Kane page, I think that's good enough. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 08:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't like the sandbox version better. I previewed it with the main VM page, and it didn't really good that good. Thoughts? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 14:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you think leaving it as-is will prevent GA? If so, we can always wait for the reviewer (eventually) to tell us what s/he thinks is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I modelled the cast and characters section after Lost, which is a(n) FA, so I don't think that will be a problem. I merely wanted to see if there was a better way to present the information, so I guess it is good as-is. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 02:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey hey, looks like we're getting close! Jclemens (talk) 06:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good job! So what do you think we should do after it passes GA? Do you want to pursue an FAC? If your answer is yes, I think we should get another user to copyedit the article again, an then ask for a peer review. Thoughts? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 06:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm game, but I've never been to FAC before. I'm somewhat intimidated by the reputation it's gathered, but I've got to tackle it sometime... :-) Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Um, well most of the FAC reviewers are "prose crazy". They usually can find errors where there aren't any, so that is why I suggested another copyedit. Do you know a user who would be willing to help? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 06:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. We could go straight to Peer Review and see if we can pick up someone there. I do know a couple of folks who've done FA work, but I don't know who really likes to work on pop culture stuff like VM. Jclemens (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(restart indent) Yeah, that's not a bad idea. I think the best person to copyedit the article is someone who has seen it, and when you look at the ratings of the show, I think that person is going to be hard to find. ;) When do you want to start the peer review? Straight after the GA or a few days later? Makes no difference to me. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 07:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, I never saw it broadcast (I have the DVDs) so there may be more like me. Let's start peer review as soon as GA is attained. Jclemens (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 07:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for your detailed and informed review of History of early Christianity. I sincerely appreciate it. Sometime in the next week, I will undertake the nuts and bolts edits needed, as well as address some of your concerns. I will also certainly take you up on your offer of assistance when I get down to brass tacks on the article. Thanks again! Vassyana (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Could you take a look over Apostolic Age and provide a bit of feedback about what needs to be done to help bring that article up to GA standards? Given your review of the "parent" article, I would greatly value your opinion. Vassyana (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It may take me a day or two to get to it with any time to sit down and contemplate it, but I will. I'm thinking Tuesday evening may be the earliest. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, go ahead and nominate it for GA, and I'll just do a full GA workup on it. There's no penalty for a failed GA--failed GA's that people have worked on often make the best candidates because the reviewer knows a bunch of the trivial stuff has already been fixed. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Will do! There's no shame in a failed GA or FA nom. If the review process works as intended, a failed nomination should result in valuable feedback. We're all here to improve the wiki and getting good suggestions for improvement should be seen as helpful, not as an insult. Thanks again! Vassyana (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The GA review for Apostolic Age is certainly a good general road map towards the GA goal. Thank you for taking the time to look over it and comment, it is truly appreciated. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Glad that you find it helpful, and don't hesitate to ask if any of my recommendations are unclear. Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

D&D articles for Misplaced Pages 0.7

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Misplaced Pages DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Your input is sincerely appreaciated.  :) BOZ (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the offer - I have responded on the project talk page. What's the best way to get started? BOZ (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied on the project page. Short answer: Nominate any you think meet up with WP:GAN as far as you can tell, and leave me a note when you do. I've got the D&D page on my watchlist, so no need to notify me both here and there, just pick one. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Gary Gygax article updated and updating for the GA if you are interested, or however the process works in case you want to make changes to the GA review as things progress. The plaque inscription is now a part of the caption for it. Thanks for help get this article improved. shadzar-talk 18:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I have the page watchlisted, and am following things as you go. Every couple of days I try and do a re-review of the article with fresh eyes, and will add new comments as appropriate. Keep up the good work! :-) Jclemens (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

House episodes

Of course I'm interested, but I don't have much time right now, I'm open during the weekend. But of course I'm interested. Thanks for the offer.--Music26/11 16:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: If you're interested in house articles, you can join the House WikiProject.

Misty Copeland

You may review Misty Copeland now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I plan on getting to this tonight. Thanks for keeping me appraised of your progress. Jclemens (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the extensive review. I need reviewers like you to make me look good. IMO, this belongs with the other GAs now, but there is of course room for improvement. I hope you agree.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Given your extensive recent editing activity, you may have missed my previous note here. Thus, I am just letting you know I am ready for review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd been waiting for another note, sorry about that. I'll get you another review tonight. Jclemens (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 192.55.52.11 lifted, as it does appear to be a shared IP. Request handled by: Hersfold 02:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This IP address is a proxy server for a Fortune 100 corporation. Jclemens (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one:

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 134.134.139.71 lifted or expired. Request handled by: Golbez (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User page revert

Thanks :). Cheers --Herby 11:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. Jclemens (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Talkback!

(removed talkback template) Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 12:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hah

Nice job on reverting the vandalism on OJ Simpson - I just randomly saw it there while searching through articles and was myself about to revert it. :D Master&Expert (Talk) 06:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

And again, you beat me to reversion. Keep up the good work. :) Master&Expert (Talk) 06:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Tokyo Tower

Yes I did. Here it is. I couldn't figure out how to get the template to show the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ErikTheBikeMan (talk • contribs) 02:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The issue was you put the whole pathname in there, when all it needed was "1". I fixed it for you. Jclemens (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Please accept this notice to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving five articles to GA status every month. We hope to see you there!--LAAFan review 02:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC) {{{1}}}

Good work!

Nice work on reverting some of the vandalism! You're quicker reverting it than I am! :) Keep up the good work! --masterjamie 05:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Apology and Accusatoins of Partisanship

• I apologize for reporting your deletions previously. It appears that you were objecting to my use of "witch hunter", thinking I meant it figuratively, not literally, and that you thought I should obviously knew what portion of my edits you found objectionable. I, on the other hand, had no idea that this was the particular BLP issue you were talking about, thinking you were objecting to comething else.

• You may find it interesting that I have been accused of being a "pro Palin partisan", such as here! My position is that any and all factual information, that bears on the subject of the article, should be in an encyclopedia article, even if it could be used by partisan encyclopedia users or researchers. I noticed that you have not objected to my proposals for Wasilla Assembly of God, now that they are properly sourced and directly relate to the church via its speakers, insofar as it relates to what was said at the church, or if it is related to what was said at the church by its invited speakers, or said about the church or about its speakers. So we appear to be in agreement. I more fully state my positoin here. Tautologist (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. As far as that WAoG stuff, I've really not reviewed your proposals. Aside from the other things I have been doing on Misplaced Pages, I've been a bit too busy with RL stuff to want to dive back into that topic. Thankfully, most everyone else seems to have lost interest as well. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Mounted search and rescue

Thank you for your fact tags on Mounted search and rescue. That helps enormously. --Una Smith (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I watchlisted Wikiproject Fire service, and giving my opinion is far less work than a lot of other things that need doing on Misplaced Pages. :-) Jclemens (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comments

I did read them after I started major revisions. My latest edit includes Joel Connelly's blog so I don't dispute you on that point. I did update the majority of the blogs with actual newspaper articles, however, only because I felt they fleshed out the subject better. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In Dino Rossi, Cumulus carefully and completely undid the entire fixing I did <b<in conformance with your recomendations. Every iota of current news was excised, and the MArch polls reinserted. I have now excused the out-of-date stuff, and the article is NPOV for a year ago ,aybe, if one is a Gregoire supporter. For any real encyclopedia, it is castrated totally. I recommend you do the fixing now -- CC is following me all across WP. Collect (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ergh. I really don't want to get in the middle of a fight between the two of you, as I've worked with you both in different contexts and really don't want to choose sides. I'd encourage you to keep talking to him, looking for common ground, and using WP:DR if the process fails. WP:3O isn't really for etiquette issues, but for content/policy disagreements, and it sounds like you think that's crossed the line at this point. Jclemens (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You might want to note CC is now actually stalking me -- finding every political article in which I made edits and reverting them with warnings that he will drive me off WP. (2 articles is coincidence, I suppose. More is not) I find his conduct objectionable, and walked away from Rossi, which is now about the worst article on WP (sigh) Can you possibly deal with the edits? I do not want any contact with CC after his repeated "warnings." Many thanks! Collect (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)