User talk:KnightLago/Archive 4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Atheism
Dear Mr.KnightLago: I don't understand how my revisions on Atheism have been offensive. Artsandcraftsaremyfriends, 3/23/08 PS- Please respond on my blog.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Artsandcraftsaremyfriends (talk • contribs) 21:44, 23 March 2008
RfA
Hey, just FYI, I left you a few question on your RfA. Take your time answering them, cheers, Tiptoety talk 17:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
East Carolina University
Hello, I am hoping if you could review East Carolina University. It is currently a GA, and I want it to achieve FA status. If you have time, could you please review it? Thanks, PGPirate 14:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Americablog
i just ran across this article at recent changes patrol and noted there was a lot of unsourced or poorly sourced negative information in the article about the founder of that blog. I reverted to an earlier version, but I still have questions as to its compliance with WP:BLP. I was thinking of reverting back to your last edit. Do you see any edits later than that which deserve to be kept, from the standpoints of WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:NPOV? I am not familiar with the person being attacked and even issues of whether he is a Republican or Democrat. Thanks Edison (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Your page
I'm sorry that people have been vandlizing you User page but you have to make sure that people dont put profanity on your page like I found today-- King Rock Go 'Skins! 00:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 14 | 31 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Your RfA
Congratulations, I'm pleased to let you know that I've closed your RfA as successful, and you're now an administrator! May I suggest you visit the Wikipedia:New admin school to get a few ideas on the best way to start using your shiny new buttons? If in doubt, feel free to give me a shout! Well done and all the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ditto! Nice work, oh so close to 100. Don't burn down the place.... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Rfrenke
Thanks for taking off the db tag I mistakenly put on this user page. I could have sworn I had taken it off myself - I suppose I only clicked Preview and not Save Page. I did at least apologise and remove the warning from his talk page. Thanks anyway! JohnCD (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. KnightLago (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Please send me a copy of the Steven Willner Article
Dude, please send me a copy of the deleted Steven Willner article. Thanks. At least give me some time to improve the article before deleting it. Thanks.
I would really appreciate more time for editing and such. Thanks.
--XH 02:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)User:Xinyu
I've editted the article on my user page a lot. I still have much more to add. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks.
--XH 02:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)User:Xinyu
User talk:Apis O-tang
Hi :) Can you please elaborate on why you think the username is inappropriate on this user's talk page? I must admit I am puzzled (despite some urge to drink orange juice). Thanks! -- lucasbfr talk 21:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Mmm, considering the fact that the user is around since 2006, a heads up could have been better :) (I missed it too, to be honest). My personal opinion is that this is too far fetched, but I am not a native speaker so... -- lucasbfr talk 21:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, I should have given a better explanation. I am a new so I will work it. The reporter was actually another admin for what it's worth. So, I will leave it to your discretion. KnightLago (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Congrats
Congrats on becoming an admin!-- King Rock Go 'Skins! 19:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Peer review
I saw your user name on the volunteer page under Society and social sciences. Perhaps you could do a look over for the McGill University article? Thanks, --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Peer Review
East Carolina University
Hello. No worries on the peer review. Congrats on becoming a new admin. PGPirate 13:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Blong
Avalanched. Seriously, c'mon. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sleep well. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello
I was wondering if you might be willing to provide some feedback on an article I have recently been working on (see King's College London). I am hoping to get the article up to GA status, so maybe you could provide me with some ideas on areas which should be improved. If you don't have time to do this then of course I will understand. Thanks Jamesmh2006 16:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: J. K. Rowling
The article was being heavily vandalized, with no less than 37 vandalism edits today alone. This is a BLP, and with that much vandalism, temporary semi-protection was necessary. The reason the expiry is set to the end of the day is because MP featured articles are move protected - setting a different expiry time would cause the move protection to fail earlier than expected. We've already had two sockpuppets of a known page move vandal edit the article, so the removal of the move protection is not an option. We can remove the edit protection earlier, but it will have to be done manually to avoid losing the edit protection. I'll leave it up for another hour or two just in case, but then I'll remove it if someone else hasn't already. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Heee46
I was at that in-between point on whether to block indefinitely, but I figured he deserved the benefit of the doubt. (Though I went for 48 hours instead of just 24.) When he started messing with the block notice, that was the sign that yeah, I should've gone ahead and blocked indefinitely. See also his request for his block to be reduced back to 48 hours and my reply on his talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Responded, check your inbox.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
hi there
These guys are vandals can you help me please?
- prede (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · hardblock · softblock · spamblock)— Violation of Copyright and more than 3 times vandalism with unsourced editionsthe-one Talk♂
- Lord Sesshomaru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · hardblock · softblock · spamblock)— Violation of Copyright and more than 3 times vandalism with unsourced editions the-one Talk♂
- I'm not seeing it, can you provide differences to support your allegations? KnightLago (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
OK i tried to delete some scans from an encyclopedia i have and they insist to keep the scans plus bellow you can see the unsourced edits made by them without any proof like scans,i showed the scans who prove i'm telling the truth and everything i get are threats. These guys are friends and their tactic is to intimidate new users and prevent them to tell the truth and respect wikipedia rules with sources. They speak about a book but they never showed proof about that book however i showed real official proof and they call me vandal???????? They are vandals just check
These users are vandals and insist to make copyright violations here [URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/3716/gruposraciaisd7oy1.gif[/IMG][/URL] and here http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/6541/shishinnokendg6.jpg. plus they vandalize this article information with unsource personal opinions like this one reference number 30 ^ "Biographies Tien" (2001). Retrieved on 2008-03-14.-fanboy page here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenshinhan Am i right or wrong?Anyway 12 hours for a report about users who edit a wikipedia page without sources?And the scans are mine why insist to keep them?False accusations like impersonate other users when the user in question stated the same as me the-one Talk♂ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.23.133.162 (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is looking more and more like a content dispute. I looked at 30 and I didn't see an obvious copy violation. I don't speak the language the scans you provided are written in. I suggest you go to the article's talk page and start a discussion about the sections you have a problem with. Also, why are you signing as User:the-one when you are using an IP address? KnightLago (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The 30 is a fan page-unsourced violation. The copyrighted violation is about the french pages who belong to shueisha.They also tried to intimidate me doing false accusations like impersonate another user here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tenshinhan#Incorrection-here you can see the user folken said the same as meToriyama didn't write the Daizenshû himself, but he has read it, enjoyed it, and he approved the book for release. We also know that he himself wrote some paragraphs in the book. Thus it's a canonical source. However we can wonder how the "tenshinhan is an extraterrestrial" thing was really usefull, as it has never been brought forth in the manga. But since Gokû's tail makes him an extraterrestrial, why couldn't Tenshinhan's 3rd eye make him alien also ? And the manga didn't specifically state that Ten' was a human. Thus the alien explanation is at least coherent and it should be mentionned in the infobox, at least in the form "human/alien". Folken de Fanel 18:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC) I'm new so i need a teacher to help me. However this guy rudget is crazy block me for 12 hours due to a report,lol.new users are treated like this in wikipedia.
- Look, I am unfamiliar with this subject matter. I don't know what the problem is here. Again, I suggest using the article's talk page to voice your concerns. If you feel there is still an issue that needs administrator attention, you can make a post to WP:ANI and see what people there think. As for User:the-one, I checked his block log and he is not blocked. Since you are editing my page, you are not blocked. KnightLago (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
NCDave
The blocking admin was actively involved in editing an article that NCdave was also editing, so it was inappropriate for him to throw a block in this issue. The only reason I declined the first unblock was because of possible sockpuppetry, but once I learned he'd been cleared by Checkuser ... Blueboy96 21:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Markreidyhp sockpuppet issue
I notice that you blocked Markreidyhp after him proving that user davxs was not a sockpuppet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markreidyhp42 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 08:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 15 | 7 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 16 | 14 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Kudos
On the suicide stuff. You did good. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Haha
Bad timing... sorry, dude. Graft | talk 05:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Message
 |
Thank you | |
| I would just like to say thank you for your efforts regarding the potential suicide thread on ANI last night. This may have been a poor taste message or hoax, but if it wasn't hopefully...... we may have made a real difference. So thank you and if ever there is anything I can do to help you in the future, please don't hesitate to ask. Khukri 07:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC) |
EDIT
Request edit. KnightLago (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
trolling
Hello! You just accused me of trolling for the first time since I joined wikipedia. More interestingly, when I made the obligatory-standard statements about the purpose of the project namespace (documenting wikipedia best practices), the method of editing pages (the wiki-process, as stated by the foundation issues), and my opinion that people are wikilawyering (which they have been, there are several statements about process with no content about moving forward towards consensus), it seems that those are the statements you are accusing me of trolling over?
Is that actually correct? Is that truly your opinion, or were you simply somewhat heated at the time?
If it is the former, I shall take your answer most seriously indeed. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Unblock
You deleted my unblock request without even reviewing it!! and by the look of this talkpage you aren't a very good admin!192.122.218.42 (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
re:
User:Markreidyhp192.122.218.42 (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Re:Meatballs
Yeah, I looked it up just after I made the comment, Faggit redirects to Faggot, which is a disambiguation page containing a link to Faggot (food)...... Dendodge.TalkHelp 19:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Vanity Pages
Okay, that's fair. I didn't intend it to be "bitey," but I see what you mean. Cheers. C1k3 (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 17 | 21 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Grandpa
You have to admit -- for all his manners, Grandpa's verbosity is a riot. --Kizor 01:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Aye. Levity towards his kind is the mark of a humble editor, but you will be devoured if it stays your hand from the smackdown. --Kizor 01:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Template deprecation
Hi, KnightLago...I saw your un-deprecation of {{ConfirmationImageOTRS}}. I hope you can tell me the best way to proceed - that template does not transfer correctly when images are moved to the Commons (that template was deleted from Commons in favor of {{PermissionOTRS}}), and the OTRS ticket number gets lost when the images are moved. I'm hoping to prevent any further images from being tagged with that until I can figure out how to go back and clean up the old usages. Kelly hi! 02:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- How exactly does the "ticket number get lost" when you move the image to Commons? ConformationImageOTRS includes the exact ticket number... Cbrown1023 talk 02:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I un-deprecated the template per Wikipedia:TFD#Template:ConfirmationOTRS. We had a user changing the templates and in the process losing all the information. KnightLago (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- See the section below, just wait for the database to update and it'll update the category correctly. Cbrown1023 talk 03:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I un-deprecated the template per Wikipedia:TFD#Template:ConfirmationOTRS. We had a user changing the templates and in the process losing all the information. KnightLago (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Re:OTRS Templates
I have'nt added any templates. I am changing the Templates from ConfirmationImageORTS or ConfirmationOTRS because they are in the Category:Pages using deprecated templates which says PermissionOTRS should be used instead of the above templates. I tried to give an example but could'nt link it. Kathleen.wright5 02:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- There are still a lot of pages in the above Category, what should be done with them? Kathleen.wright5 03:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note, it probably shouldn't have been in that category. (I think we've fixed it.) Cbrown1023 talk 02:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for getting involved...I had made an effort last week to cleanup and organize Category:OTRS including duplicate or redundant templates. I was surprised at some of the resistance, so if the OTRS volunteers don't mind having redundant templates, or information being lost when images are transferred via CommonsHelper or other bots, I don't mind either. I think I may have misstated on {{ConfirmationImageOTRS}}, that template may still exist on the Commons (I think it was {{ConfirmationOTRS}} that was deleted over there. Unfortunately some volunteers still use that template to tag images in addition to articles. But I'll stay away from the OTRS templates, sorry for stepping on anyone's toes. Kelly hi! 03:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Your enthusiasm is appreciated, but it would have been better if you had actually discussed it the OTRS volunteers (the people who use the templates) beforehand. Cbrown1023 talk 03:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Cbrown, you may want to check Category:Pages using deprecated templates. The only common factor I see for all those is the OTRS template, and I can't figure out how they are being put into that category. This is how all the changes got made in the first place. KnightLago (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Database update lag, from Special:Statistics: The job queue length is currently 11,177,584. Cbrown1023 talk 03:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Cbrown, you may want to check Category:Pages using deprecated templates. The only common factor I see for all those is the OTRS template, and I can't figure out how they are being put into that category. This is how all the changes got made in the first place. KnightLago (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Your enthusiasm is appreciated, but it would have been better if you had actually discussed it the OTRS volunteers (the people who use the templates) beforehand. Cbrown1023 talk 03:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for getting involved...I had made an effort last week to cleanup and organize Category:OTRS including duplicate or redundant templates. I was surprised at some of the resistance, so if the OTRS volunteers don't mind having redundant templates, or information being lost when images are transferred via CommonsHelper or other bots, I don't mind either. I think I may have misstated on {{ConfirmationImageOTRS}}, that template may still exist on the Commons (I think it was {{ConfirmationOTRS}} that was deleted over there. Unfortunately some volunteers still use that template to tag images in addition to articles. But I'll stay away from the OTRS templates, sorry for stepping on anyone's toes. Kelly hi! 03:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, just making sure. KnightLago (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Doppelganger accounts
Do you know what happened here and here? I'm assuming (from the deleted edit that Lucasbfr pointed out - 19:21, 9 July 2006) that this is someone impersonating User:CBDunkerson, but I'm confused over the unblocking and then reblocking? Was that to disable e-mail? It's really weird that someone pops up again like that nearly 2 years later. Also, the account was marked as a doppelganger (see the deleted history at User:Conrad Dunkerson), but it got deleted! No real problem, but I am going to raise this as an example of user page deletion that shouldn't have happened. I suspect a page protection would have worked better, but I'm struggling to understand why it was deleted at all, as it was that deletion that has caused confusion. Carcharoth (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Ihaterory
Names that are a form of attack against a person need to be blocked immediately. I am at a loss as to why you removed this name from WP:UAA as "not offensive". I have hard blocked this username as it was clearly used only to attack someone named "rory". (1 == 2)Until 17:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Blocking of User:DailyBuildBot
Hey there, I am not sure that a block was really needed in this case. The account does in fact violate the username policy, but that does not mean we have to block. The user has made no edits, and (as was I) is completely unaware that a username policy even exists. I know that we loose hundreds of potentially great users because of "just being new to wikipedia", and once they see the blocked message they are unlikely to try and work through all the bureaucratic process to get their username changed. Maybe just leaving {{uw-username}} would have been the way to go, ask them if they are willing to change it and go from there. Of course if they are unwilling to do so, or continue to edit, then we block them. But at least wait until they edit. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 18:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hm, I guess we differ in opinions there. Why can we not extend them at least a little bit of good faith and not be bitey? How are they to know they are in violation, and how do we know they are unwilling to change it if we ask? Other users that have bot in their username have not been blocked, and I think that showing a little good faith can go a long way, take a look at this. Tiptoety talk 16:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the Article hit counter Hits counter.
I wonder if you would consider the more general aspects of the question of how people find what they need from Wikipedia and whether sites about US subjects should have precedence in the use of ambiguous titles. There seem to be a lot of mildly notable biographical articles sqatting on the names of globally notable non-American people.
The future audience of en:Wikipedia is likely to be much more global in interest than the record of past hits indicate. However, perhaps your perception is the reverse.
Florida Atlantic University is a fascinating article. Perhaps I need to get to grips with how the US tertiary education system works and its peculiar terminology. Vernon White . . . Talk 08:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Your prot of 169.'s user talk
A full-protection isn't necessary for an IP abusing his talk page. Semi-protection is adequate. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 18:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep Deleting my article
I see you deleted my article about Brian Perone twice. He is actual a significance in Hackensack, NJ. People know him as a Uderground rapper representing Italian American Culture. He has a fan base here in Bergen County and places across the country. He's trying to make it big and he needs help to make it big. So if you could please allow the article to be submitted, that would be nice. Thank you for your concern and give me a responce please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BjerseyP (talk • contribs) 22:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry...
Erm, I'm sorry to bother you again, but the last peer review got archived before you could post your comments on McGill University. Could you please do it again when you have the time? I'll try to keep it up until I feel satisfied with the replies. The second peer review Thanks once again, --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Seriously....
....how was this vandalism? We discussed this on IRC and I believed you were neutral in unprotecting - how can I still think that with the edit you made? Ryan Postlethwaite 03:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Sock Puppets
Hi there, I noticed that you struck out some comments on the Sandra Lee Discussion page due to your belief that they're written by sock puppets. I just wanted to let you know that I have only been posting as IP 71.80.139.112, I forgot my password for wikipedia, and I'm posting anonymously until I get around to resetting it. Hahaho3 is a seperate user, and simply because we have the same opinion doesn't mean that one user is posting under multiple accounts. In addition, the use of Strikeouts on a discussion page is fairly contentious and is, as I see it, inconsistent with Wikipedia's "assume good faith" rule. I understand that it is frustrating to have people disagree with you on a subject that you seem to care very passionately about, but it isn't cool to strikeout other people's opinion's just because you disagree. We're all working towards making this article accurate and informative. Please revert your strikeouts. Thanks!208.54.15.11 (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to say that CheckUser was incorrect in this case. You seem to be fairly adamant about this issue, so I'll concede my argument that the Article should be moved. I'm not quite sure how else to show you that I haven't been using this particular user's account, and your actions seem to be inconsistent with protocol: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppetsCloudyskies41 (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 18 | 2 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 19 | 9 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Peer review request
I noticed that you have designated your preference to peer review university-related articles, and I have have just submitted a request for someone to review List of Brigham Young University alumni. If you have time and are willing, your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! --Eustress (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 20 | 12 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for unblocking
It was wise decision do not rename me. Thanks a lot.Qqzzccdd (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
External References
Image:Example.jpg It is noted that 3 out of 4 external references point to web properties or content provided by a single Vendor. I think this is inappropriate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Serviceguy (talk • contribs) May 21, 2008
Hogan
In fact, if you read my addition to the FAU article, I made specific reference to why her visit was particularly notable--she made a widely publicized disparaging remark about FAU. I did not claims she was notable simply for visiting, as you alleged. Interestingstuffadder (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Request for Peer Review help
Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.
1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...
2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.
3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.
Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Block
Thanks for taking a look at that, I must have only looked at the most recent edits and didn't focus enough attention on the other edits. Thanks for alerting me, and I'll keep a more cautious eye in the future. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 21 | 19 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 22 | 26 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
