User talk:AndyZ/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Images

I do not understand how to upload images. I upload it and get a bar that says the file you uploaded seems to empty? What does that mean? QuarterZ | *t* | *c* 01:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah you can help me upload it. Is there like an article that you can request that images be uploaded? QuarterZ | *t* | *c* 01:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Here they are:

[1]

[2] QuarterZ | *t* | *c*

Well thanks for uploading the one image. Does the page Image:so and so have to be created before you upload the file? QuarterZ | *t* | *c* 02:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Question

Excuse me, I was just wondering, with FAC, how long does it take? I mean, my article, Richard III (1955 film) has been up for quite some time, and consensus has been reached for quite a few days, and yet articles that have been nominated after mine have been promoted. What's happening? ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 01:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for pointing me in the right direction ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 01:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnote creator windows are too small

Hi. I just installed User:AndyZ/monobook.js/footnotehelper.js, and it's not displaying correctly for me. The creator itself has a form that spills off the background rectangle, making some of the field labels hard to read (against the text being edited). The popups are also too small, and some text gets cut off. In the former case, it might help to specify width and height in ems rather than percent of window size; in the latter, specifying horizontal scroll bars if necessary might be a good idea. SeahenNeonMerlin 16:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] TS page

Andy, I've seen your tool check for featured articles, but I have no idea how to use javascript. I've read the instructions, but they're still Greek to me. Would you be able to install it for me (on my talk page ? is that how it works), or would you be able to run it on the article Tourette syndrome, and put the results on the TS talk page, or on my talk page? I apologize if this is a stupid request, since it really is Greek to me. It seems like an immensely useful tool ! TIA, Sandy 21:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy: I did it! Sandy 03:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for comments

Thanks for all your comments on Wikipedia:Peer review/Down syndrome/archive1. I guess the peer review is officially closed (although I still have it on watch). I'm too close to the project, but I think it has improved based on your comments and criticisms. Thanks, again. TedTalk/Contributions 03:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alison Krauss II

Hey AndyZ! I wanted to say thanks again for your support vote in the FAC for Alison Krauss. Raul was nice enough to give the FAC another shot when voting stagnated and the 3 oppose voters stopped responding despite repeated requests for an updated evaluation. I hope the article can garner your support once again, but if not I look foward to fixing whatever actionable objections you believe the article contains! Thanks! Staxringold talkcontribs 23:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Javascript: "Headingthe"

Hey Andy, I was using your peerreviewer tool on my article Gregorian chant, and found that it was giving the "headingthe" message (indicating the word "The" at the beginning of a section header) even though none of the headers started with "The." I did some experimenting, and found that each of the following headers triggered this warning:

  • Proper chants of the Mass
  • Ordinary chants of the Mass
  • Twentieth century

At first, I thought the word "the" in the middle might be the culprit, but that doesn't explain why "Twentieth century" would be an issue. Besides, the heading "Chants of the Office" doesn't trigger that message. I couldn't figure out what the problem was, and nothing I tried (including removing the word "the" and replacing "twentieth" with "20th") fixed the problem. You don't need to fix it on my account; if anyone at the FAC review questions it, I'll just point out that the headers are in compliance. But I thought you might want to know about the glitch just to help fine-tune the javascript. Peirigill 21:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You're not getting that message? How strange. I wonder if it's something I'm doing wrong, or if it's something about my computer? It's disconcerting to think the tool doesn't work properly on my machine, since that means I can't trust the other messages (or trust that the absence of a message means there's no problem). Peirigill 22:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm also getting a superfluous "Headingthe" warning when I run the script manually on Wind Power. Must be to do with who runs the thing, somehow, I guess? If I can test anything for you, let me know.
Great script, btw!! Should become a standard step in the article progression tree! --jwandersTalk 19:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Yup, whatever you've done seems to have fixed the problem, at least for the page in question. --jwandersTalk 21:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your support in my RfA!

Thanks for voting!
Hello AndyZ/Archive 5, and thanks for your support in my recent RfA. I'm pleased to announce that it passed with a final tally of (96/0/0). I was overwhelmed by all of the nice comments and votes of confidence from everyone. Thanks again, and see you around! OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

Hey Andy, I've been back around PR recently, and found your tool incredibly helpful with articles. Since I'm not perfect and picking out every error, (who is?) I was wondering if there was a way for the tool to assess articles that aren't at PR? I am the main (only) contributor to Torchic, which received FA status in June, and I've kept improving it afterwards, but I wanted to run the article through the tool without having to put it on PR. If you could reply soonish, I'm away but I'll check my messages when it's possible, that would be great. Regards, Highway Batman! 11:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Highway Batman! 20:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upload Image

Hi, remember me Andy. This is QuarterZ. Could you please upload the image of David Heyman, this image of David Barron, and this image of Mike Newell You know I had problems uploading images. Reply on my talk page. Thanks. QuarterZ | *t* | *c* 23:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FBI

Wanted your option of the FBI article WP:FA status. The article has come a long way from when you first Peer Review. --Shane (T - C - E) 22:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I don't know what you mean. I found them on Google so..I guess. QuarterZ | *t* | *c* 22:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care, I mean what did you put the last one under. Logging off. QuarterZ | *t* | *c* 23:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm.....well I don't care what the image copyright tags are listed under. I could guess to actul site that relased the image but otherwise I don't care. QuarterZ | *t* | *c* 23:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
What others are there besides promotial? QuarterZ | *t* | *c*

[edit] Distorted text

Hi Andy

Some of the points in your "show/hide" sections, particularly "dates and numbers" and "images", go to a second line on my monitor (a wide-screen mac). The lower half of these second lines is almost obliterated—there's not enough vertical space for it to be displayed properly. Is is possible to fix this? Tony 01:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I notice that I didn't specify that it's the bolded initial display text that has this problem, not the explanatory text that displays on hitting "Show", which is fine. Tony 01:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

When I copied your idea for my own tutorial page, I found the same problem and shortened the lead-in exercises. That was a little tedious, though. I wonder whether any of the techs have a suggestion, because it's a mighty useful format. Tony 00:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Andy

Hi Andy I was wondering if you could have a new look at the Wali Khan article I've been working on with Ryan and Tombs the copy editing is done and I'd like your feedback about it now as a FAC. Thanks --Zak 23:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

There seems to be a problem in your Peer review javascript program, because it keeps showing up wiki markup instead of taking it into effect, please reply on my talk page, cheers Minun (talk) 10:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flora Lion essay

Thank you for your alertness and correction of bizarre reversion to first draft. Fishface.

[edit] Busking

I was wondering if you would be willing to re-run the semi-automated peer review you did on busking. I have found the output from your tool to be very helpful, and I think I have corrected most (if not all) of the issues currently found at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Automated#Busking, but I was wondering if you could re-run it to verify, and also to see if additional issues have croped up in the mean time. Thanks -- Argon233 T C @ ∉  20:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer reviews

I personally think your automated peer review script is starting to get a bit annoying. It might be useful for some people, but I *really* prefer a peer review where the peer reviewer has actually read the article instead of an automated list of things that don't apply. The peer review I'm talking about, Xerox, you only gave me stuff about formatting, not actual context. The lead is suffice, it may need a copy-edit, and references are coming as I said in my peer review description, I wanted context feedback. You should consider manually peer reviewing articles again, because your script isn't all that useful. — Wackymacs 07:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand. For most people your automated script is actually useful, but I like lots of context feedback. Right now there are management problems at the peer review, because its simply getting flooded with entries, and there aren't enough people doing peer reviews. When you got the time, can you review Xerox for me? Thanks — Wackymacs 17:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selena FAC

I need a favor and can you help copyedit Selena for FAC for me please. I'm not a good copyeditor especially with grammar. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 20:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you very much for making my time in Wikipedia super. I have decided to leave and I don't think I will be back. Thank you again for helping me and making my time in Wikipedia super. Best Regards, ForestH2 t/c 23:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Your help on Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia would be greatly appreciated... Especially on the footnotes for the mounds of data exhibited. Thanks again, AJ24 00:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pikachu

I have noticed that you have been opening automated peer reviews for articles, since Pikachu needs reviewing, please make an automated peer review for it, cheers —M inun (Spiderman) 14:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IG Farben Building

Hi, Thanks for your comments at peer review. I was wondering if you'd like to comment on the IG Farben Building FAC here?--Mcginnly 12:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I want this image as a film screenshot. See here. Can you upload it? The above images can be here. The ones you need to upload above are: David Heyman, David Barron, and Mike Newell. I just happend to be searching and found http://www.g a l e o n.com/amigosharry/Pelicula/actoresnueva/argus.jpg this image which I also need uploaded. Let me know if you have any questions. Reply on my talkpage. QuarterZ | *t* | *c 21:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabetizing categories at the bottoms of articles

Why are you (or at least your bot) recommending that the category tags be sorted? This was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 13#Recommended order for Category links and at the Village Pump (discussion not archived) with the result that there is no consensus for doing this and some people believe it is destructive. Please stop recommending this practice. --JeffW 15:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Snape

The image that's at the top right corner needs to be updated. The images are updated/changed every so often on the Harry Potter character articles. Since there are no other images for Snape that can be put up in the right hand corner, I think another one should be uploaded. What's a rationales? QuarterZ | *t* | *c* 21:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interlanguage links sorting order

Hi Andy, your peerreviewer script tests for compliance to WP:ILL the sorting of interlanguage links against just one of the alternatives in this wikipedia:Language order poll (albeit the best supported). There is a second well supported alternative too. Would it be possible for the script to accept that sorting order as correct as well? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC).

[edit] "The" in headings, nbsp, and trivia

FA Cornell University generates some false positives in your peer reviewer (which is a wonderful tool).

  • It's catching an instance of "the" in headings, but the only heading containing the word is "Other facilities". I'm not sure what's going on there.
  • It's finding places where a nbsp is required between unit measurements, but I am nearly positive I've ironed all those issues out, and can't seem to locate the problem. The tool would be very handy if it supplied the actual number and unit where the error occurred, so a quick search would find the problem.

*If you search the page for "trivia" you'll find another false positive. Perhaps more context may be needed? Beside such familiar sports such as flag football, squash, or horseshoes, such unusual offerings as "inner tube water polo" and formerly "broomstick polo" have been offered, as well as a sports trivia competition. —mercuryboardtalk 05:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Looking at your source code and the article again, I see the source of a problem. You search for "Other f" and this matches the heading "Other facilities"

-—mercuryboardtalk 15:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Found a false positive in talking about yearly change: Because the student population doubled from 7,000 in 1950 to 15,000 by 1970

[edit] Thanks

I, Wim van Dorst, give you this Scouting barnstar for your excellent input to get Baden-Powell House to Featured Article
I, Wim van Dorst, give you this Scouting barnstar for your excellent input to get Baden-Powell House to Featured Article

[edit] re Peer_review on Oceanic whitetip shark

Hi! Never saw the peer review tool before, very nice, I tried to get it running for my self but failed, can you please rerun the review of Oceanic_whitetip_shark either on the talk page or at Wikipedia:Peer review/Oceanic whitetip shark/archive1, thanks a lot! Stefan 06:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Stefan 14:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

The July 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

[edit] Another recommendation for the peerreviewer script:size

Hi, Andy, I wondered whether it would be possible for the script to test for compliance to WP:SIZE? Given its very useful Rule of Thumb, this could be an straightforward recommendation? And imho a really useful one too! Wim van Dorst (Talk) 00:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC).

Doesn't it do this? —mercuryboardtalk 01:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Just tested it, to be sure: a 47 kbyte article which should get the message: May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size; this is less critical for lists), but didn't get any remark. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 08:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Where is discussion on sorting cats at the bottom of articles?

A item was recently added to Talk:IBM by a bot that has something to do with flagging items for Peer Review and one of the things that the bot suggested was to sort the categories alphabetically. I wanted to add a note to User:AndyZ's talk page (AndyZ seems to be responsible for the bot) that there is no consensus for this action but I can't find the discussion now. --JeffW 19:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It has already been agreed that alphabeticising by bot is not acceptable as there is widespread and strongly felt opposition to alphabetical sorting. Bots should only be used for non-controversial tasks. See Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people. Chicheley 09:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bricker Amendment

You were kind enough to comment on my peer review request for my article on the Bricker Amendment. I have now proposed it as a featured article and would appreciate your vote here. PedanticallySpeaking 17:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review - Wikilinks

An interesting feature would be to see if there are too few or too many internal wikilinks in an article. There are guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). Perhaps you should report the % of words that are wikilinked, and if it's outside of a 3-10% range, suggest more or fewer. —mercuryboardtalk 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Brooke-Little

--Forlornandshorn 16:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 18:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uploading another image

This time I want to do it myself. Can you explain all the steps on my talkpage? Such as what you put in the file destination etc.....This is the image I am uploading. What's a corrupt? QuarterZ | *t* | *c 00:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting problems with the show/hide function

Hi Andy

Do you remember the issue of longer sentences doubling back and being half obliterated on you suggestions page? I had the same problem with my 2a page, for which I stole your idea of show/hide. In addition, Ambuj has pointed out that on slower servers, this function displays the hidden text at first.

Hey presto, the way to avoid both of these problems is at hand, thanks to Ambuj. He has inserted the right code into my 2a page, so I thought you might be interested in using it on your page too.

See User talk:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a: redundancy exercises#Navigation improvement

Cheers Tony 08:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photosynthetic reaction centre

You helped me a lot some time ago in attempting to bring this article to FA status. Although this was never accomplished it did earn a good article status; what I like to think of as an FA quality article that isn’t long enough! I just thought I’d tell you, if you’re interested, that I’ve now nominated it for release on the Version 0.5 fixed version of Wikipedia (on CD or DVD). I believe it meets the criteria in its quality. What do you think? Anyway, nice talking you again! Miller 21:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your scripts

Hey, I didn't see any "Help" documentation for your very useful scripts, so I thought I'd ask you directly. How do you get the checklist one to work? It took me forever to figure out that you had to be in the edit screen to get the "peer review" button to work, so I'm guessing that the checklist is something just as simple, but that I'm missing. Thanks a lot for your work on peer review and FAC, Mak (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Peer review/Solid Snake

At Wikipedia:Peer review/Solid Snake, you linked to automated peer review suggestions, but there's no Solid Snake listing on that page. Not sure what's going on. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Peer review/Larrys Creek/archive1 - Thanks and Question

I wanted to thank you very much for your semi-automated suggestions for Larrys Creek - I believe I have addressed each of the concerns raised. I wrote a brief summary on the Peer review page of what I was doing as I addressed each concern, then did strikethrough on most of these when I was done. My concern now is that no one (except me) has commented on the article since your initial comment of July 14. Should I not have made my comments? Do people see those and think it has already been reviewed? I am not asking you to peer review it (again), but I just wondered if there was anything I have done wrong or could do differently to attract some reviewers. This is my first time through the peer review process and I fear I have somehow screwed it up. Thanks in advance for any advice, Ruhrfisch 04:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your kind reply and for reviewing Larrys Creek (I was not trying to make more work for you). I appreciate both very much and will make the suggested changes next. Part of why I was frustrated was that I had asked some people I have collaborated with to look at the article for Peer Review and joined Wikiproject:Rivers and asked there for review as well (all to no avail as yet).
Would it make any sense to strongly suggest that people who submit articles for peer review also take a look at two or three other articles and review them or at least leave comments? A sort of "If you would be reviewed, first review others..." policy, or a peer review Ponzi scheme? I did this for one other article (Walk to Canossa which was right next to Larrys Creek for a long time) and will next look at Scotland and another orphan. Thanks so much again, I am always impressed by the number of kind people on Wikipedia and you are certainly one of them.Ruhrfisch 00:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


Thanks again for your peer review and comments - Larrys Creek made featured article today!
Take care, Ruhrfisch 03:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oceanic whitetip shark for FA need copy edit help

Hi!

We are trying to get oceanic whitetip shark to FA status, Tony is saying that the article is good except for its language, since the people doing the writeup (me included) does not have enough english skills, we seek help and Tony mentioned your name. So if you have some time, any help to copy edit the article would be very much appreciated. See Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Oceanic_whitetip_shark for comments. Thanks a lot! Stefan 06:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Peer review/History of the Philippines/archive1

Hi, do you think you could give those automated peer review suggestions for History of the Philippines? Thanks. :) Coffee 07:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I reverted your talk page

Just leaving you a note to explain why I reverted your talk page: the text I removed was a spurious/vexatious request from User:HotHotSoup, the latest sockpuppet of User:PoolGuy, spamming the talk pages of admins (and a few non-admins), and apparently working alphabetically. Contributions of a banned user may be reverted by anyone, but if you would still like the message to be included here, feel free to revert back. Stifle (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review : Boeing 747

Hi AndyZ, I've noticed that you are offering a bot which does automated style checks, could you kindly do one for a much earlier peer review, Boeing 747? Thanks! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 05:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the response! :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 06:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I've just read your automated peer review of Heysel Stadium disaster. Although I don't take great issue with it I would like to point out that when it says: the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2] It sounds very cut and dried, very definite. Whereas the article linked says this style "not mandatory". Infact that is the opposite of how references are cited in scientific papers. Putting the citation within the punctuation removes any ambiguity, having it after punctuation allows a lay reader to misinterpret what it is refering to.

When I first had this argument a month or so back I used the featured article of the day to prove my point. It was Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp, and its citations were in the style that I prefer, so what do we do? It's interesting to note that now someone has changed the style for the lead section, but the body of the article still uses the British style... weird. aLii 10:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the new message is cool. cheers, aLii 22:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PR Request

Could you do a run-through of High School Musical with your automatic peer review tool? I'd really appreciate it :) Thanks. --lightdarkness (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rapid reference system

Grafikm (AutoGRAF) told me you work on this topic and could help. Actually I do have an idea that might help to improve quality, but I want to refine some points with the help of someone more knowledgeable on technical details and an ability to program it (my programming ability is very basic).

Currently, making a reference in a wikipedia article is a painstacking procedure (without tools). On the other hand direct references seem the best way to determine quality of articles.

My idea is to create a (seperate) formula for filling in references at the current cursor position in the edited text when given the command. The automatic formula does list all positions possible (or considered possible, etc.) to fill in for a reference. Furthermore it needs an archiving function and it should have the possibility to recall easily from a selection of former references for minor changes like page numbers. Considering the multiple possibilities to integrate such a tool (popup, page integrated, bot, etc.), your experience could be helpful. Such a tool needs distribution and a a simple explanation of how to operate this easily without being a computerfreak. Actually I wrote this before knowing of your system, but some components seem not to be integrated. (I still didn't figure out how to operate it. Could you write a simple explanation for everybody?). Thank you Wandalstouring 22:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hank Williams peer review

Hello, I noticed you contributed to the Alison Krauss Featured Article nomination. If you have time we would appreciate your input on the Hank Williams Peer Review here. Thanks for your time.--WilliamThweatt 03:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unit format tool

Hi,

I want to publicise the unit format tool more widely. Some people have picked it up via mentions in peer review. Do you have any suggestions? Regards bobblewik 11:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Automated peer review suggestions

I'm new so I don't understand this, sorry. Many pages I am looking at in Wikipedia: Peer Review have a link to automated suggestions done by your semi-bot. When I look at this link, I see gobbledygook that looks like a programming language. If I were submitting an article to WP:PR I would be flummoxed by this. What does it mean-is it commentary intended only for yourself?

If you are intending everyone to read it, Is there a way I can make that page look like English so I can tell if your semi-bot is already making the suggestions I might be making? It would save me some time. Sea Change 07:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 11:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help?

Hello, I am Arachna1228, and I am new to Wikipedia.

I apparently have a problem.

I keep adding 'SPECULATED' characters in Mario Strikers Charged article and... Some guy keeps changing it back. I clearly stated that they were SPECULATED, and the other guy keeps saying I am CONFIRMING them. What's going on? Seriously, I have checked out many game website forums, and many people have agreed to my speculations.

Mario Strikers Charged is a game under development. So, it could have speculated characters, right? I keep adding them, while the other guy keeps erasing it, saying that they are CONFIRMED. Help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arachna1228 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] 75.5.106.46

Please do a WHOIS on this 75.5.106.46. The IP is registered to "DEE MARGO FOR TX SENATE". I believe there is policy against a political candidate interfereing with his or her own article. Somnabot 23:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 18:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi Automated Peer Review

Hi AndyZ, I was doing Semi Automated Peer Review while you were on a wikibreak. I just saw you did one, so I will let you do them (if you want to). It was very helpful when I had a peer review, so I wanted to help others. Thanks and take care, Ruhrfisch 02:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  • You are very welcome - I really appreciate the semi automated peer review you ran on my one article that has been through the process (as well as your real human peer review comments). I think it is helpful because there are lots of little details most editors are unaware of that the script catches and makes them aware of. So I now put a non-breaking space between numbers and units as a matter of course, but learned that (and alphabetizing cats, etc.) via PR/A. There are times when I really like doing semi-mindless repetitive wiki tasks, so do let me know if I can help out again. Take care and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch 02:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "the it" (passim)

Hello. I keep reading: Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work (emphasis added). Time to zap the "the"! -- Hoary 15:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


Note - this was left on my talk page, so I moved it here. Thanks for doing the semi-automated peer reviews again, Ruhrfisch 21:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the change. As you say, this very trivial slip did indeed look odd in its particular context. -- Hoary 08:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review thingy

What does "automated peer review suggestions" mean? Simply south 21:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, on this, am i meant to strike through things that have already been done on the article i have requested? Simply south 21:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Or what am i generally meant to do when objectives have been met? Simply south 22:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll see what get done. Simply south 21:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BAE Systems

Hi Andy. You were very helpful with this article's peer review. It has since crashed and burned through a FAC. However both have these have led to significant improvements. Could you suggest the best next step, another peer review pointing out the improvements made? Thanks for your time, Mark83 21:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I see you said you would look into the article further. If you would prefer I'll work on your excellent suggestions and then let you know? Thanks again, Mark83 23:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
As promised I've worked on your suggestions. Any other pointers would be very welcome. I'm not 100% clear on the requirements for the naming of the reference/note section. I've looked at a few FAs and there is not great consistency. Thanks again, Mark83 22:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I've had a look over the FAC. I think all of the objections have been adressed:
  • Lists — Dramatic difference between this version (pre-FAC) [3] and the current version. [4]
  • History section too short and only one subsection — Fixed.
  • "Odd edit link" — I'm assuming that has been fixed, I haven't noticed one.
  • "Refs do not use cite php format" — Fixed
  • Quotes should not be in italics — Fixed
  • Reorganisation suggestions followed.
  • Criticism too short — It could do with more, but I have expanded it a lot since the FAC. Pre-FAC http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BAE_Systems&diff=66184353&oldid=66164786 and the current version BAE Systems#Criticisms
I'm not proposing to rush into a FAC right away. I know there are still improvements to be made. However it has come a long way since August. Mark83 22:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review bot - images

I was just looking at some of the summaries done by your semi-bot on peer review (and incidentally was quite impressed by them), and saw that for a few articles (such as Óengus I of the Picts, Integrated Guided Missile Development Program, Gaetano Bedini...) it was incorrectly saying that they had no images. I didn't know if you were aware of this bug (my apologies if it's come up already) so just wanted to mention it. Thanks. Trebor 19:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I was just checking. Trebor 18:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)