Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:59, 23 October 2013

Archives

(Archive 1 - 2012) (Archive 2 - 2013)

GA Nom for Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey

Howdy- Just wanted to stop in and let you know that I'm signed up to review the Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey article. You can find my review here. I should begin with some initial thoughts within the next day or so. Thanks for the hard work already put into the article! Have a good one. PrairieKid (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• @PrairieKid: - Thank you for taking it on. I look forward to your review. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PrairieKid -- PrairieKid (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Nathaniel Raymond article

Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Nathaniel_Raymond#Improvements_to_the_Article's talk page. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Civility

I suggest you read Misplaced Pages:Civility, and then think how it applies to the comments you left on User:AfadsBad's talk page. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• @Peter coxhead: - Perhaps if AfadsBad had considered it as well, and had he not waltzed in with the attitude of a raging bull into the faena, he wouldn't have found his brief experience so frustrative. I have no pity for the man. He forced his own retirement and did so thinking everyone else was to blame. Remember, it rarely ends well for the bull in the corrida. C'est la vie. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

AfadsBad's behaviour has no bearing on whether you (or I or any other editor) are required to be civil in Misplaced Pages; see Misplaced Pages:Civility#Dealing with incivility, particularly 7. Extending your metaphor, you run the risk of becoming the bull being baited rather than the matador dealing calmly with the situation. Anyway, I've made my point and will not respond further. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

yeah, yeah, yeah. yawn. go kick rocks.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion Review

A deletion review has been opened for Nathaniel Raymond. Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2013 October 17 DavidinNJ (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• @DavidinNJ: - That should be over and done with quickly, the AfD establishes it, and the closing admin has already established a valid reason for the snow close. The sockpuppet investigation is wrapping up and if it goes according to plan will see both accounts banned. Juan will be out of everyone's hair rather soon.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The evidence in support of notability is overwhelming. I have seen so many BLP articles with far less references than the Raymond article. It's hard to take this seriously at this point. DavidinNJ (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages needs a review of policy consistency and for their applied effectiveness but that will never happen. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Reviewer's Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent work to reduce the GA backlog--it's much appreciated! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. After having trouble loading the page last week likely because of the backlog, I thought doing a few reviews every few days would probably alleviate that problem. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Definitely! It really doesn't seem to take much to catch up on the backlog, just a few determined Wikipedians doing what you're doing. The backlog's already gone down from close to 400 to 357 in the past two weeks, happily. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• @Khazar2: - I'll be glad to do my part. I've always liked GA despite its flaws. Just seeing how GA works, I think if it were carried between 175-225 articles being reviewed, it would rather manageable and an article would be addressed within 3-4 weeks. The backlog seems to develop after 250, and at 400 we see some articles waiting since May/June to be reviewed. I plan to promote one today (promoted one yesterday, failed another that was more an FL), I will do reviews on the three others I signed up for, and I think I can hammer out the Philosophy and Religion category by the end of the weekend. I have five of my own articles up for review right now, waiting for an energetic reviewer or two. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

"Close paraphrasing"

There is no indication of close paraphrasing in David Jewett Waller, Sr.. Are you tagging an article with a copyvio template based on a hunch? --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 23:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• @King jakob c 2: - I'm tagging it close paraphrasing and failing it's GA review under criteria 1a because I looked through several of the sources provided. I don't chose any course of action on a "hunch". --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• And would you mind revealing which parts of the article/sources are the problem so I can fix this? --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 23:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Considering the problems complained of are throughout the entire article, rewrite the entire article. Cut-and-paste is not a way to write an article. Further, when someone puts a failedGA template on the talk page after closing a review, it's best not to revert. --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Most of the article is not even based on online sources. Nevertheless, I have made a few tweaks. I'll get a 2nd opinion on this. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 23:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• It's too late for a 2nd opinion this time around, as I've already failed the GA review. But go right ahead. Better luck next time. And as you improve the article, remember all of those schools (Williams, PTS) published catalogues, many of which are to be found on google books. They tend to be good sources. However, if you want to cast the accusation that I didn't check the sources or have the resources to check them, you are flat-out wrong. I don't fail GAs for paraphrasing or copyvio issues without checking sources. And I closely check sources on every review I do. --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've removed (as far as I can tell) the close paraphrasing (or at least the non-factual statements). --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 23:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Death of Adolf Hitler

Thank you for the GA review and for the time you spend working to bring Misplaced Pages articles to a higher level. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Pedra de Gavea

Hello! I just wanted to let you know that I have responded to/fixed the issues that you brought up.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Daniel S. Schanck Observatory

On 20 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Daniel S. Schanck Observatory, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Daniel S. Schanck Observatory, Rutgers University's first astronomical observatory, was designed after the Tower of the Winds in Athens' ancient agora? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Daniel S. Schanck Observatory. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kirkpatrick Chapel

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kirkpatrick Chapel you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Ping!

Hi, I think I've addressed your concerns on the Homer Davenport article, let us know! Thanks! Montanabw 17:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kirkpatrick Chapel may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• and Alumni of Rutgers College (originally Queen's College) in New Brunswick, N.J., 1766–1916]''. (Trenton, New Jersey: State Gazette Publishing Company, 1916.</ref>{{rp|p.16}} Sophia remained in
• of Theodorus Jacobus Frelinghuysen and his sons Theodorus Frelinghuysen, John Frelinghuysen." (See:[https://en.wikipedia.org/File:Kirkpatrick_Chapel_1766_Rutgers_Charter_Window_New_

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Die Forelle

The German Misplaced Pages has it that the poet thought of his own captivated situation, and only pretended to pretend "fish" (warning for girls). (No source, as usual.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• @Gerda Arendt: - Being a trout-fisherman and a pursuer of many women, I have a difficult time telling which one is smarter. Trout confound me and are often exceptionally difficult to catch. ;-) I often find myself outsmarted. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand that the poet used both to hide that the true meaning was his own miserable situation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Often, that is the case...all literature is essentially autobiography. Goethe had the best line...that all he had written was but "fragments of a greater confession."--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Only if you are unafraid, you may use this ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You showed a remarkable degree of courage! Needless to say, consistency is no argument. No progress if "consistency" is the goal ;) - Or - as one of my model editors stated: "you have to start somewhere", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, if you want to lead the GAN, please do so, or comment on the nomination page about the IB, if you wish, but back-seat driving isn't the best way to get through a GAN, especially when having the IB isn't one of the criteria for the process. - SchroCat (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• @SchroCat: - don't worry, she's not back-seat driving this one. She only commented to me since we both share an interest in classical music articles. She knows I'm not an IB fan, but she's warmed my heart to them over the last few months, so I just passed the suggestion on because sometimes an editor doesn't know how to do IBs and might like the suggestion. If not, no big deal. As I recall, I prefaced my comments stating that it's a suggestion that doesn't impact the GA review.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• I misunderstood completely, just seeing on my watchlist "by ColonelHenry" made me think that you (Colonel) were the author ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• That's fine, I have spent way too much if my time discussing IBs with numerous people, not least Gerda, in a number of talk spaces—including Arbcom—and I really don't want to face another one. I've added several IBs to articles I've started – and not added them to a whole host of others I've started as well! I have the highest respect for Gerda (which I hope she realises, as I've said it numerous times before!) but the pushing raising of the IBs—even in good faith—is wearisome. - SchroCat (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• That's fine. Thanks for your respect, SchroCat! Can you please see that I am not "pushing"? - I offered to ColonelHenry, would not have done the same to you, and meant "you have to start somewhere" not to be taken to the GA review, but to be understood in the broadest possible sense about what can you do in a situation that seems hopeless, (1, 2, remembered), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• OK, Gerda, I'll strike the "pushing" as being unwarranted, but the rest still stands: I've had my fill of IB discussions and really don't want to go down that route again. - SchroCat (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• OK, - I added examples, they have/had nothing to do with boxes, but with people I miss, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Scott • talk 21:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Relevant: please keep this in mind. m.o.p 03:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Alright, actually. None of this. If you haven't recently, I'd recommend re-reading our 'no personal attacks' policy. Making disparaging broad-spectrum comments about the community as a whole is not okay. While you are free to muse on the living conditions of our editors and the mental state of our administrators, please do so privately, not on the project.

Again and it's a block. Please don't let it come to that. m.o.p 12:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Pedra da Gávea, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)