User talk:Ozgod/Archive Old Talk - 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Weird Edits

Made a bizzarre edit of turning a citation needed tag into a date and time on the Judy Garland page. --Ozgod 14:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite correct. "Citation needed" is a redirect to "Fact", and a date (no time) is added to help classify the enormous numbers of articles with citations needed. Rich Farmbrough, 14:08 8 February 2007 (GMT).

[edit] Anna Nicole Smith

Sorry, I know I know. I'll stop the ANS vandalism. I got a little hyper and just wanted for a tiny tiny second to rebel against the machine. That's enough. But I'm really going to miss those yabbos.--Jack Cox 02:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Anna Nicole Smith

Certainly. The protection is set to expire in two days. Happy editing to you! Teke(talk) 02:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Age of Hollywood

But surely not everything produced between 1920 and 1949 is worthy of being linked to a "Golden Age"? —tregoweth (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Judy Garland FAC

I have removed the fac tag from the article, as you did not complete the nominating process. In any event, this article is not ready to be a FAC and will be shot down in flames if nominated, which we both don't want to see happen. There are so many flaws at this time it will takes weeks to get it up to the point it can even be considered. You might want to look at Bette Davis for an idea of what we're striving for. Please feel free to contact me about improving it to qualify as FAC. Jeffpw 10:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Reversion of Wales Article

I noticed you did a reverse edit of Pete on a Pongo Stick edits to the article of Wales, but what I saw mostly between his edit and your reversion was a huge deletion of information that seemed relevant. Mind you there was a lot that I skimmed through but I did not see any vandalism within and I now see this user has been indefinitely blocked. Just curious was why his edits were reversed?--Ozgod 08:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Pete copied multiple copies of the article into itself. So it looked OK, but wasn't. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that was the reason; difficult to spot, which is why it was a while before it got reverted. The user's indefinite block came after persistent and somewhat more obvious vandalism to other articles – Qxz 16:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Indefinite block on 68.126.252.131

Ah... Well, I'm afraid adding the template to their userpage does not block a user. Only an administrator can do that using a restricted special page, and only an administrator is allowed to add that message to the user's talk page. If you think a user should be blocked for vandalism, you can list them at WP:AIV, but make sure your report follows the instructions there. Hope this clears things up. Heimstern Läufer 18:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For keeping an eye on John Brown (abolitionist)‎. :) futurebird 05:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 05:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Biden

hello, i am in the middle of editting this page so it complies with NPOV so please do not revert my edits till i complete what i am doing. then discuss on talk & offer some explanation of your reverts. 202.0.106.130 05:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, but you do have to understand when I see an unregistered member blanking out huge sections of referenced material, I am left to assume it is vandalism. Please leave an Edit summary with each edit.. --Ozgod 05:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thats OK. i am done for now however i would appreciate some discussion on talk rather than reverting my edits without explanation. 202.0.106.130 05:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism Problem with Ethics Article

Hey, so you posted a message on my talk page about vandalism of an article (and potential of being blocked), but didn't link to the article in question. I reviewed all of my edits to look for the edit in question (because I was pretty confused about this message!), and came across an anomaly on the Ethics article.

My contributions history lists only *one* edit, which links here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethics&diff=prev&oldid=107063133

Reviewing the edit history of the Ethics article, however, lists *two* edits credited to my username (when scrolling through diff history), one of which does in fact appear to be vandalism ... I'm completely baffled because this is not an edit that I made! When I came across the article I logged in to *remove* this vandalism (which existed *one full day previously* and was posted by an anonymous user on Feb. 9 from IP 68.238.182.241), but I did *not* actually update the page with a change because someone had taken care of it by the time I previewed the removal of the vandalism. I closed the page and made no changes, and it is somehow now attributed to my user account?

Initial vandalism, by anonymous user from IP 68.238.182.241 is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethics&diff=prev&oldid=106914405

"My" edit in question is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethics&diff=next&oldid=107063133

I'm new at this and am pretty confused ... help? How did this get attributed to my user account when the vandalism was there *before* I went in to change it? And why does my contribution history only list *one* edit of the article, while the article history also shows *one* edit, but when scrolling through the diff history it shows *two* edits? I'm wondering if there was some sort of logging error ... any ideas? And if not, who could I talk to about looking into this?

JonathanDLehman 15:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About protections

Hi! I see you have been tagging alot of pages with a semiprotection-tag, probably thinking that it makes a page semiprotected. But that's not how it works. You're not the first to make that mistake, but only administrators can actually protect pages. They do it by clicking a special button they have in their menue. The tag doesn't make any difference. To request page protections, you yould go to WP:RFP and follow the instructions there. Shanes 23:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits and tactics are not in line with Wikipedia policy.

Everything you keep reverting back the breakcore article is outdated and full of spam. Over half of those artists are not recognized and simply are people looking to gain pubclity through Wikipedia and another quarter of those are not breakcore artists at all. Please leave my revisions alone. What makes you the sole authority on "breakcore" when you keep allowing random people from myspace put their names on the breakcore artist list as if they deserve it? Let me clean up the article or discuss with me, if you keep reporting me for vanadlism I will report you for using a bot and for not following Wikipedias procedures on article editing. You are not an authority and you have no power over anyone else to say what goes and what doesn't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.176.248.111 (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

When I see an unregistered user blanking whole sections on an article without explanation, I am therefore left to assume it is vandalism. So in the future, choose to register for the site or at least leave a reason for your revisions. I am not familiar with the article of List of breakcore artists, but when I see an unregistered user simply blasting away whole chunks of the article, my only rationale is to revert and report. --Ozgod 05:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lager

You informed me on my talkpage that one my edits was supposedly unconstructive and reverted. First of all it was not reverted, second it was a linkfix since an article had been renamed (The original article "Bavaria Brewery" was renamed "Bavaria Brewery (Netherlands)". I don't appreciate being seen as a 'vandal' when I try to make relevant linkfixes. --Fogeltje 07:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edit on that page consisted of adding a link to an article entitled Zuck on my nuts bitch which was promptly RV'ed by another user. I simply added the vandalism1 tag to your page. --Ozgod 07:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Look carefully in what my edit did in the history! You'll see that this was already present and not added by me. I simply made a linkfix and didn't check the page for vandalism. I suggest you look who added the vandalism before dishing out warnings. --Fogeltje 07:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring my talkpage. Mistakes happen. Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh. In case you still want to place a warning, the recent vandalism was done here and here.--Fogeltje 11:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pinktulip

Hi, I saw your question on Pinktulip's talk page. He was banned indefinitely a year ago for stalking other users. Musical Linguist 00:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll delete it. He was already indefinitely banned (under a different username) when he created it, and there haven't been any substantial edits by anyone else. It's also not particularly notable. Thanks. Musical Linguist 01:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Message to Ozgod from Drdestiny77

Hi there Ozgod. Hopefully I'm writing this in the correct spot. Please let me know if I'm not. I received a message from you regarding vandalism on the iron ring page. My changes were described on the talk page, some were accepted by peers editing the page, and all changes were in effort of improving the correctness, focus, and overall goal of improving the article. Additional changes have been made, and I've placed my comments (and further proposed changes on the talk page). This is not vandalism, and if you revert changes without consulting the talk page, you are jeopardizing the article. Nonetheless, I thank you for your effort in attempting to protect wikipedia from vandalism, and I look forward to productive discussions on the future of the article if you are so interested in further editing it.

Thank you. Drdestiny77

[edit] thanks for biographical editing and cleanup!

Thank you very much for your edits! I'm trying, without much success so far, to get the several individuals in question to expand at length on their personal and professional biography. Do you have any suggestions on how to go about this? Thanks! JPatrickBedell 07:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Military biographies

I noticed that you did some work on the William G. Thrash article. Thanks for your efforts. I offer you the following thoughts: (I noticed that you requested an editor review, so I thought you might want some suggestions).

This is the biography of a military officer. There are some basic "standards" that have been developed for military biographies. For example, in the infobox, even if you don't have all of the information, if you put in the entire standard template, it is easier for other editors to fill in the info. The "battles" and "awards" fields are usually included in all articles. For awards, this is for notable awards. Practice is usually to put them in order of precedence, down to the Purple Heart. For sections, often, instead of by decades, Wars make a more reasonable subsection, such as World War II, Korean War, etc. As for medals, the "gold star" (for U.S. Military) is not a medal in itself, but rather given in lieu of a subsequent award of the same medal.

You also added a lot of wikilinks, such as dates. Take a look at the WP:Manual of Style — not all dates need to be linked. And, usually, only the first instance of a word/phrase is linked.

— ERcheck (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lorna Luft

there are some great pictures of Lorna Luft in Yahoo Images but I am a photo moron when it comes to wikipedia - I am not sure about the copyright issues etc - but there is a great picture of Lorna with a top hat cane and shamrock that would make a great addition to the article - perhaps you are better skilled at this than myslef - I have given up trying - I upload the picture but don't know where it goes! vono 81.99.65.220 20:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox colours

You were perfectly well mannered :-). I've been monitoring the Anna Nicole Page since she died (for vandals and such) and I noticed that someone had changed the infobox colour to silver with the comment that infoboxes of deceased people should be silver. I assumed it was practice...thus changed back the colour. But you know, afterwards I looked everywhere myself about the policy about colours used on infoboxes...and couldn't find a thing...If there is a MoS, I haven't found it. This was clearly my mistake so feel free to change it back :-) --Seraphim Whipp 21:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Just in case you're interested :-) :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Infobox_colours
Seraphim Whipp 01:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WPBiography banner on musical groups' talk pages

Please note that WikiProject Musicians, as an integrated part of WPBiography, does use the WPBiography banner's flag "|musician-work-group=yes" which adds the following text to the banner: This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.. Best regards, BNutzer 08:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Abdul-Azeez ibn Abdullaah Aal ash-Shaikh

Hi, why did you add weasel words and npov tags to this article? Seems a bit over the top considering there is hardly any text and the article seems pretty much to the point (but admittedly unsourced). Wikipidian 19:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Because of the phrase "He is one of the most important Sunni Muslim clerics in the world." --Ozgod 01:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Per 'Adam' AfD's

As per my AfD's all being named Adam - I am currently going through the Unassessed articles in the WPBiography project and upgrading most to stubs, but there a few that lack any notability and as such I have nominated for deletion. --Ozgod 04:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, a valuable task. Though there must be an awful lot of them... have fun with that! – Qxz 04:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Oodles and noodles and bucket loads. Upwards to 130,000+ I figure if I can handle doing at least 100 a day... I will clear it out in...3 1/2 years... alone...yeah, fun. --Ozgod 04:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I did one for you, so only another 135,255 and you'll be done. I was thinking, isn't this the sort of thing that could be done by a bot? It wouldn't be able to check for notability, but it could check if the article had a stub tag, and upgrade it to a stub if so. Might save you some work – Qxz 04:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Wise

No worries. I've never heard of him, and if he disappears in the AfD I'll not be desperately unhappy. But if he survives, I'll make a pet project out of it.

As a general principle, I agree there needs to be an examination of orphaned pages. I think Wikipedia is cluttered with articles that tell the reader nothing that they wouldn't already have known if they searched for the article in the first place. politician stubs are the worst example - what's the point of looking up John Smith MP just to discover that he is an MP whose name is John Smith? Jeendan 06:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam

Hi Ozgod,
Could you please try finding sources before nominating articles for deletion? I've already come across several Adams who turn out to be notable after a simple Google search. There's a difference between unverified and unverifiable. The second is a reason for deletion, the first isn't.

You don't have to do fancy formatting to add references as long as the links get in there and if you don't have the time to add sources yourself, perhaps you can ask someone from the biography project to help out. - Mgm|(talk) 13:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Could you at least make sure the nomination is sound? When the articles themselves make some claim of notability, lack of notability can't be a reason to delete it unless you've researched it. Have you heard about the cleanup task force and the wikiproject in which people look for references. Perhaps you should send questionable articles there and have others research them and put them on AFD if they fail something. - Mgm|(talk) 13:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I do apologize, I take the article at face value. I check to see the History log to see how long since updates, etc. I regularly tag articles with the {{cleanup}}{{unreferenced}}and{{expert-subject-|PROJECT}} tags. In cases where I feel (I hate being subjective as well) the article does not establish the notability of the subject, I nominate for AfD. If the article is unreferenced and has questionable notability (which again, subjective opinon on my part), I send it to AfD and let the community have the final say on whether it is notable or not. Once again, my apologies if this has created a headache for you. --Ozgod 13:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adela Micha is more notable than Béatrice Schönberg

Why don't we delete the Béatrice Schönberg article. Are the French better? There is a larger audience in the English speaking world for this Spanish language program because of all the Mexicans and Mexican-Americans who live in the Anglo world of America, than there is for Béatrice Schönberg's French TV news. What is the reason why one is good and the other not notable? I don't understand. Please explain in her talk page so other editors can assess your proposal. As such, unless we delete Béatrice Schönberg we shouldn't delete Adela Micha. Chivista 19:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If we were logical, a removal of Adela should mean a emoval for Beatrice. Since I believe the encycpodeia should provide initial info for the uninformed web user about various TV news presenters, there should be such info. I wonder if I should investigate the reporters and presenters on BBC wrold news. Chivista 16:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
So I go to the category of unassess and pick at random Adrian Burk whose article did not have an AFD, puorquoi pas? Chivista 17:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I looked at your link for WP biography notability. I am NOT related to Ms. Micha. But she is very famous in Mexico. Lots of Mexican Americans speak English too. They watch her in the US on Galavision. She is very well known. Chivista 18:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Question about starting projects or finding one

As I am still eagerly chipping away at the colossal amount of articles that need assessment for WPBIOs - is there a project already out there for this? Or is it possible to start a project specifically for assessing this huge backlog of articles (138,000+ that have been tagged for the WPBiography project). On my own I calculate that does 200 assessments a day it will take me 3.5 years. Not exactly fun. With 20 people doing 200 edits a day it would take 34 days - ideally it would be 100 people working on this project, taking a little under 7 days. Is it possible to start a project solely for the purpose of getting through this backlog? --Ozgod 18:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it's possible – I don't think there are any "rules" as such about starting new projects, you just make a project page and hope people show up. I don't know of any project already doing this, although I would assume (and I imagine most other people would assume) that such a project would be part of the Biography WikiProject, as the templates themselves and the biography assessment scheme are part of that project. I guess the way to go about it is to start a sub-project of WikiProject Biography specifically to get all the unassessed biographies assessed... and then advertise it in places like the Community Portal in order to get some interest. I could probably find time to do some, but finding another 18 people might be tricky. Hope this helps – Qxz 19:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
We probably should modify Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment for this. -- Jreferee 21:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessing

I do try to assess articles when stub sorting, tho generally only if they already have the WPBio template or I remove the stub notice. Stub sorting is my primary Wikipedia activity. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you meant to include a ":" before Category so as to make it a link. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. But please can you inform me how to do it for bio articles - the importance section I have tried it but it doesn't show up. Please tag Fernando Siro I just started as mid-importance and I can see then! Ernst Stavro Blofeld 20:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

hey I am an extremely busy guy 200 articles!! Are you kidding!!! 20 maybe! I'll do my best but I can't solely dedicate myself to tagging but am glad to help out a bit. All the best Ernst Stavro Blofeld 20:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

Is there a category in which articles that need assessment are listed? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies (copied from here)

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of unassessed articles tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 20:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Are these unassessed articles listed some place? Thanks. -- Jreferee 21:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they are located here. Most of them are simply of the stub or start class and contain an unfinished WPBIO box. I have personally have been devoting myself to clearing out this list, but if you could assess between 20-30 articles a day it would help greatly. I would love if you could cover 200 a day, but that is asking a lot. Thank you in advance for helping out in whatever way you can. --Ozgod 21:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
To assess the article, do I need to fill out the class parameter and the priority parameter or just the class parameter? -- Jreferee 21:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to jump in the middle of a discussion, but you only need to fill in the class parameter. Prioritizing has been halted for now, and the only ones prioritized are those identified as Core biographies. Mocko13 21:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest just filling out the class parameter - priority can be determined later. If you can as well, fill out the |living, |needs-infobox= and |needs-photo= as well since have those tagged will help move it along to the class. I would suggest copying and pasting the template I posted here so you can simply copy and paste and quickly fill in the necessary class and other info. Thanks again! --Ozgod 21:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I placed more detailed instructions on how to assess biography articles here. -- Jreferee 21:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Brilliant, thank you. Should the template be clear though so people can simply copy and paste it and fill out? Again, thank you for helping. --Ozgod 22:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The way I had the template, you do not need to fill it out. You just have to delete what you do not what. It is so much quicker that way. -- Jreferee 23:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Brilliant - thank you for doing that! I modified the table so the fields are clear so it is an easier copy/paste, but explained that most fields (with the exception of class and listas) are yes and no responses. If it is more confusing, just do an RV on what I changed. Again, thank you! --Ozgod 22:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you do not put "no" for most of the parameters. Except for the living parameter, you delete the parameter with the answer is no. Please read the instructions I provided, follow them, and let me know whether there is any confusion. Thanks. -- Jreferee 22:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Take a look at my recent contributions. If you look over those with "WPBiography template expanded; assessed biography", you will see how I implemented my copy, paste, and delete technique. It is much quicker than copy, paste, fill out, and delete. -- Jreferee 23:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bio article deletion

I've noticed a number of articles that you have nominated for deletion or prodded. I just wanted to drop a note and say, keep up the good work! I've been doing something similar (though on a smaller scale, usually 10-12 a day) with actor stubs. Mostly I've been "prodding" them and in a few cases it has led to the improvement of articles. When the prod tag is removed but nothing changes, I'll simply put it up at AFD. As an actor, I hate nominating fellow actors for deletion, but when someone has only had a few minor roles on film or TV, it irks me that someone considers them notable, especially when so little can be written about their life from verifiable sources. Again, just wanted to say you are not alone in your work! Good job! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 21:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, AFD can be entirely too negative at times, plus many people there are often ill-informed when it comes to notability and WP:V. Frequently it becomes a game of I say it's NN, while you say it's notable. I personally like PROD better in that it gives the editors time to improve the article, but also articles that would be kept on AFD quietly go away. It's a sneaky way of doing things, but it works a bit better. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 21:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biography Assessments

  • Glad someone else is on it. In case you didn't see it, I put together a Biography Assessment Drive a little while ago. Not much response yet, but I think if we get the March newsletter out we'll see more people signing up. Mocko13 21:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I see you left me an invitation to participate in the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies backlog. Actually, although I left my name there, I'm not really active on that front anymore but I'm wishing you the best of luck! Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 21:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi! Sure, I'll be glad to help out doing some preliminary assessments. I'm glad to know where I can help!  :) Aleta 22:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the message on my talk page. In addition to being a member to the WPBiography Project I am also a member of the Muscians work group. I have recently been assessing some of the muscians and have also added infoboxes and priorities to some of the higher rated articles. I know it will take me quite a while to get through the musician articles. After that I'd like to work on A&E unassessed articles, and then maybe to Sports. I know there are a lot of unassessed articles in addition to these three categories, but I think I would be better suited to these than to other disciplines at this time. Also, I am only rating articles up to a B-class; if the article should be nominated for GA status, then I usually let someone with better knowledge of the article's subject make that nomination. Please let me know if there are any concerns with my above practices. Thanks, - cgilbert(talk|contribs) 22:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I've rated some recently, but I can see a lot more need to be done. I'll see if I can do more, although I have been busy with a lot of other stuff since I became an admin. VegaDark 23:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the invitation. I am a fairly experienced editor who has never assessed articles before. Are there guidelines somewhere? I must admit I signed up for WP:WPBIO based on my editorial contributions as opposed to explicit project activities. I have contributed a few dozen bio articles. My most recent is Rob Pelinka. I think some experience assessing articles will be improve my wikiskill set. I guess aside from adding parameters the real guidance I would need is in determining class. Please advise. TonyTheTiger 00:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Gee, does everybody really need to start a new discussion on Bio assessments when there are already a whole bunch of them?!!! Anyway, I've methodically gone through Arts & Entertainment folks during a stint yesterday & one today, & managed to wipe out the unassessed category of A&E people whose first name begins with A. (Someone else caught the last two - thanks!) Now I'm off to my own projects, but will plan to keep contributing to this effort. -- Yksin 05:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the invitation. I have hesitated for a while because I am a newbie, and I

haven´t done any sorting or assessing before. I have just edited a few biographies about notable historical persons in Ancient Rome. I am also pretty lacking in wiki code skills. Yet, if all this is acceptable I will do my best, and learn a bit more about Wikipedia. Like TonyTheTiger, I would also be very happy getting advice.--Tellervo 14:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I don't think it's neccessary to spam me (along with others) with a message about the Biography project. Check my edit history: I already do assess for Biography (and other projects as well) on a regular basis. RobJ1981 23:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the invitation

You invited me to help out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies. Regret I cannot yet understand the system.=== Vernon White (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

will look into it, Thanks. Rohitde

[edit] Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

I've kind of shied away from assessments, but I will try to pitch in to help reduce the backlog of the stubs/starts at least. Schmiteye 01:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tags on bios

Hello Ozgod, I see you're going through bios and tagging articles pretty rapidly. I'm not sure I agree with some of the tags, though, particularly the "wikify" ones. You seem to intend these to be more toward creating section layouts than adding internal links, as most are amply wikilinked, but I feel the articles are so short that there is no need or possibility of rearranging them into a new section layout. In particular, Adriaan Blaauw and Adragon De Mello look okay as they are, until they are expanded. It just may be my personal tastes; what are your thoughts on this? I'm also confused with Adrian Arnold-Smith, which seems both well-wikilinked and in a good section layout. -SpuriousQ (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 200+ Biography article assessments

Per your request a few hours ago, I banged out 200+ Biography assessments. -- Jreferee 01:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessments

Thanks for the invite to do article assessments. I might help out with this some, however, the problem I have with any kind of article grading is that the whole grading system is a bit of a mystery to me. When does an article stop being a Stub and become a Start class article? (Its more than just length, I think.) How does a "GA" (good article) class article differ from a B- or A-class article. I'm pretty unclear on that right now. Also, I do list myself as member of WikiBiography Project, but what I contribute is really an extension of the other Wikiprojects I'm part of – hence, my focus is on biographies of biologists (especially, mycologists), notable San Francisco Bay Area figures, and contemporary artists and musicians. Peter G Werner 23:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wpbio assessments

Look through my edits. Don't worry, in my time her eI've done well over 1000, around 1500 sounds about right (cleared Q, X, and U). I'll keep add it though, it's been a project of mine.--Wizardman 04:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do my best. Thanks for the invitation. - Anas Talk? 11:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i've done a few assessments already and ill try to a couple each time I'm on wikipedia. LordHarris 18:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biography assessments

As per your request I've assessed about a 100 or so biographies. I don't have any experience of grading articles though, so I've stuck to those that are obviously stubs. PC78 13:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

Hi Ozgod! I'll help out with this when I can, but I'm really busy in real life right now. Wikipedia has been back-burnered for awhile. --RedRollerskate 15:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

And right after I post this, I get sick and am stuck at home with nothing to do.  :) I'm chugging through the backlog now. RedRollerskate 15:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I had to add a "me too" to the above. I've just come off a mini-Wikibreak, and am trying to cut back by limiting myself to an hour a day in a few very specific interest areas. But if I find myself on a biography article, I'll check for an assessment, and add one if it's missing. Just glancing at the A listing of unassessed articles, I saw a huge number of completely unfamiliar names. It seems to me a good assessment should come from someone who has at least a vague idea who the person is before reading the article. Otherwise, how would one know that a major source of the person's notability is missing? Karen | Talk | contribs 00:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awards committee

I added you to the Assessment drive's awards committee. -- Jreferee 16:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] help with unassessed bios

Sorry, I'm having too many things in my hands right now. Will glady help when I have freed some time. --Bentong Isles 03:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  • How do I help? Is there an assessment grid of some sort? I know the difference between a Stub and Start article, but the difference between a Start and a B article seems to be a fine point. I just want to be clear, because I don't want to begin upsetting people by giving them unduly low scores.Abebenjoe 07:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I've got a similar problem to the one above. Any guidance/advice/ etc on how to do this would be much appreciated (am definitely happy to help...). --Heidijane 12:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your diligence in examining biographical articles, you are awarded the Barnstar of Diligence. --Nlu (talk) 06:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Y names

Nice to see all those Y names with cleanup tags! Rich Farmbrough, 22:14 25 February 2007 (GMT).

[edit] Assessment Guidelines

O.K. I dipped my toe into the unassessed biographies pool. I guess I will start with articles I know best from my editorial experience. I am a bit curious on how well my scale is calibrated. I guess the border between B and Start is a little fuzzy for me based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment. I don't mean to burden you with handholding, but could you talk me through Chris Webber, Glen Rice, Rob Pelinka, Juwan Howard as it relates to this border. TonyTheTiger 01:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I should also ask your assessment of my priority calibration since I will both add priority and class when I perform this task. TonyTheTiger 05:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
P.S. are you saying Rob Pelinka is a stub class because he has no infobox or picture? TonyTheTiger 05:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem with Pelinka is that even the most famous sports agents (e.g. Drew Rosenhaus) don't have infoboxes and he never made the NBA so the infobox NBA player is not appropriate. Do you know of an infobox appropriate for him? I might write U of M athletics and see if they would consent to providing a picture of him as a player, but am not sure this is the picture that is desirable in the upper right of his article. TonyTheTiger 06:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three Kingdoms articles

You seem to be targeting some Three Kingdoms officer articles for deletion because they have a fiction tag on them. I guess I have some explaining to do....the fiction tags there do not mean, for most of the time, that the subject is a work of fiction. Instead, the article "may fail to make a clear distinction between fact and fiction", which, in this case, means it has elements of fiction masquerading as fact. This is especially prominent for officers of the Three Kingdoms, since a later historical novel, Romance of the Three Kingdoms muddled the fact and fiction of the era. I ask of you to use caution before you nominate those articles for deletion in the future, thank you. _dk 03:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No offence taken, your stance is understandable especially since the original creator of the articles never cared about factuality anyways..(He was indef banned, but it's become a pain to clean up the hundreds of half-fiction stubs he left behind...) Anyways, thanks for clearing that up and keep up the good work. _dk 03:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
You have also sent a similar message to me, but though I find the original deletion perhaps understandable, I do not find it so understandable that you are continuing. The WP article on the novel makes clear that this is one of the great classic Chinese novels, that it is historical fiction, and that all the principal characters are both in the novel and in real-world history. This is making a great deal of work for the rest of the people at AfD, but perhaps someone will as a result adopt them.DGG 18:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from WPBiography box

People doing WikiBiography Project assessments might note that there's a suggestion in the box for assessors to create a comment about what they might suggest for future editors to improve the biography being assessed. I usually do write such a comment -- if there's not already a comment box, writing one leads to the creation of a comment page.

Another editor, well-meaning, thought that I'd made a mistake in putting my comment on a separate page. He moved my comment to the article's main talk page & marked the comment page for speedy deletion, then informed me of his action. I explained the procedure, so now he knows -- but I've also started prefacing my comments on the (usually new) comment page with

WikiBiography Project assessment:

so that other editors running across them won't make the same well-intentioned mistake.

I'm suggesting this as a practice other WPBiography assessors might want to use.

-- Yksin 20:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Visual arts-related AfDs

Here's a template to use in an AfD, when it has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts (please do list appropriate AfDs there). I think it should go under the article details and above the nom statement, as it is a formal notice and not part of the debate. It will sign your name with date stamp automatically. Please pass on to others.

Mnemonic: List of Visual arts-related Deletions.

Template to use:

{{subst:LVD}}

Result:


Tyrenius 00:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment awards

You changed the top honor to 3,000+ to be awarded a Wikipedia:Barnstars.[1]. After Carom reached 200+, you indicated that you awarded him a barnstar[2] and then deleted his name and his running total from the nominations/running total list. It's important to keep Carom's name under the nominations list so that Carom's can update their running total. Just make a note next to his name under the nominations list that he received a barnstar. The way the assessment drive page appears now, it does not seem that drive has awarded any awards. Also, 1,000+ biography assessments have been used in the past to award bardstars and it seems that increasing the requirement to 3,000 will reduce a motivation to participate in the drive, not increase it. -- Jreferee 18:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment Awards (copied from here)

I apologize - I had a blank moment - awarded him his barnstar and cleared his name. I do apologize for upping the final award to 3,000+ but it seemed redundant to have two awards for reaching 1,000, hence why I changed the top to 3,000. Sorry for any confusion I have caused. --Ozgod 00:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It might be better to reduce the #2 award to 750 and give barnstars at each 1,000. I figure it will take me four days of hard, focused work to reach 1,000 so 1,000 seems about right for a barnstar. Also, I think it might be more impressive if the awards came from the committee. We also can give awards individually, too. -- Jreferee 00:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/z/g/User_talk%7EOzgod_Archive_Old_Talk_-_2007_3c5f.html"