User talk:Pursey/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

GA's

I haven't worked on either of them, I just briefly looked over them when I nominated the articles. GreenJoe 22:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. :-) If it fails, that's cool. GreenJoe 22:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I added you to MSN Messenger. GreenJoe 22:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Coach

Hello Pursey. I am very glad that you would like me to be your admin coach but unfortunately I will have to decline your request, as I'm currently not taking new "students" (mostly because I'm out of town and I lack the time). But an editor review is a very good start indeed, and I may assist you later on any advice you might seek or any suggestions on how to become a good admin candidate. Best regards, Húsönd 01:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I may though become your admin coach by the end of this month if that's okay with you.--Húsönd 01:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Rocket

I believe I've dealt with the referencing issues you raised (it's not particularly easy to know what happened exactly, all the accounts are a bit vague, but I've tried to capture the disagreements there seem to be.)

Anyway, many thanks for doing this review.WolfKeeper 02:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Manchester promotion to GA

Thank you very much for reviewing Manchester and promoting it. Also thank you for all the comments you left on the talk page, it is true that alot of hard work has gone into the article and it has been a priority of WikiProject:Greater Manchester to get it up to GA standard for a long time now. Thanks again! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 16:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

GAC reviews

Hi. I think I'd better alert you to Wikipedia talk:Good article candidates#GAC Reviewer of the Week - w/e 8/9/2007. Epbr123 13:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't take the offensive comments from User:LuciferMorgan too personally. He is well-known for his poor temperment and has been repeatedly blocked for incivility. Epbr123 15:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I second that. Participating in the GA project opens one up to constant criticism, from editors both outside of the project and in it. You've just joined a club with many members, including me. Please don't leave the project. LaraLove♥ 15:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to say don't let this blip get you down. It's happened before and it'll happen again and it's simply not worth it. Your contributions are vital to the success of the project, so please reconsider leaving. All the best. The Rambling Man 16:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I completely understand. Have a break, take care. The Rambling Man 16:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't worry too much about what some poor schmuck says on a talk page. While, it's true, your review of Madrid was pretty superficial and insufficient, I've noticed considerable improvement in your more recent reviews (your review of Manchester was excellent, and is what most reviews should look like; though I usually forgo use of the GAList template when passing articles, as ideally, it should be nothing but +s). Anyway, keep it up! Though I do think it's good to not get burnt out - reviewing too many articles can be time-consuming and tiring; plus, the backlog won't be reduced or eliminated by one person singlehandedly. Sometimes, I'll usually try and review one article per day, or one article every two days, during some of the down times. Dr. Cash 18:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to add my support to those above - you've been unfortunate in running across an editor with communication difficulties ;) I've been luckier, having been made to feel nothing but welcome since joining the project a month or two ago, but even then GA reviewing is a fairly harrowing responsibility at first. Your recent reviews look great to me; regarding reviews taking a few days to be posted, I work in a similar way, but leave a message on the talk page letting editors know the review is under construction. I have a bunch of template messages in my sandbox - feel free to make use of them if you want! All the best, EyeSereneTALK 13:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Guys, thanks heaps for your support. I'm stunned. Sometimes, I feel a bit bitter after I get no recognition, and then a kick in the teeth. I've got no issues putting my time into the project, and I'll continue to do so. The other editor involved in this original situation has had a discussion with me too. I'm basically going to put it down to a bad day for everyone involved and get on with it. :) Pursey Talk | Contribs 17:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little late to notice, but I';m glad you changed your mind as well Pursey. Keep on rockin'. -- Reaper X 05:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mark Warner (Canadian politician)

An article that you have commented on in a speedy deletion process, Mark Warner (Canadian politician), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Warner (Canadian politician). Thank you. 64.231.240.167 13:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I will be interested in your comments.--Abebenjoe 02:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for grading Expo 67 a good article. I spent the latter part of April and most of my free time in May to bring this article up to a reasonable standard. Thanks again.--Abebenjoe 17:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the GA Review

As I said on the GAC Talk Page, Thank you kindly for reviewing the Cripple Creek article. I appreciate it. – Scartol · Talk 03:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for taking the time for the GA review. – Scartol · Talk 13:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Ohboy oh boy oh boy my first barnstar! Yay! I've been trying not to fixate on my lack of external recognition (see for example the quote from Maya Angelou on my userpage), but I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I've really lusted after one (or several). Thank you so very much. – Scartol · Talk 12:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the Lowell girls review. I appreciate your focus and dedication to the GAR backlog. – Scartol · Talk 14:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations in the lead

I would like to explore with your your insistence that the GA guidelines require that everything mentioned in the lead has to be cited in the lead. --Malleus Fatuarum 14:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made it quite clear on the Warburton, Greater Manchester talk page how I feel about this. I made my decision on how I'd be reviewing the article and I did so. I also referred you to the relevant section in the Manual of Style. I'm confident my review was consistent and within the guidelines, and that I made the correct call in this case. If you really have a concern, I'll ask one or two of my fellow GA Reviewers to take a look at the situation and make a comment. I'll ask them to respond here. Cheers. Pursey Talk | Contribs 19:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Information contained in the lead section of an article does not have to be sourced. It should be sourced in the body wherein the information is expanded upon. LaraLove 20:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Cheers for that. Basically, I made a call on the spot as to what I'd be doing about the dispute. My initial response was to ask for some consistency to be shown though. Either provide the references for all of the statements in the lead, or none of them. I had a look at the Manual of Style after that and asked for the information to have citations, based off the fact it already had some in the lead.

Malleus, in future in my reviews, I'll still be asking for consistency to be shown on this. Really, for the same reason I'd be asking if an article had a list of ten different fruit, and five were numbered and five had bullet points. I'm not a robot, and my reviewing isn't automated in any way. I try and make the best judgements I can, and I make them :) If there's really a large concern with how I'm handling reviews, there's GA/R etc. Pursey Talk | Contribs 20:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with consistency; as it happens I share your opinion that either there should be no citations in the lead, or else that everything in the lead should be cited. My disagreement with you wasn't about consistency, it was about your insistence that facts must be cited in the lead. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
OK. My insistence was originally that it be one or the other. And I then decided that I wanted the lead referenced. I'm considering it a learning experience for me. In future, I'll only be requesting that consistency be shown as far as lead citations go. Pursey Talk | Contribs 01:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Then we've come to an agreement on this issue; that'll do for me. Fair play to you for being so open, and recognising that disagreement isn't the same as criticism. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Cheers. I'm happy to receive criticism too though. As long as it's constructive :) Pursey Talk | Contribs 01:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you ever so much for the Barnstar!... I always dread it when I get a new message as it usually means somebody doesn't like what I've done! However, you've made it all worth while! Thanks ever so much! Jza84 10:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiGestures

Thanks! I couldn't have put it in any better words than what are above. Thanks once again, for my first barnstar. I'll be sure to favourite your userpage and support any RfA you get. Please note my talk page if you do by the way. :) Onnaghar talk ! ctrb 14:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Found one that was at last appropriate to you.
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For being an outstanding editor and having to review lots of articles

Onnaghar talk ! ctrb 17:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Click there to open your card! → → →

Thank you

Thanks very much for my first barnstar! I am very grateful! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 14:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

Just a quick note to say thanks for taking on the GA review. Much apreciated! Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And now you've done it, thanks for that too! Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Message from Nova1069

Hey Pursey I emailed you Sunday at about the same time as posting the message on Wikipedia. I used the e-mail address provided on your MSN contact details. I'm still seting up our user account properly so tommorrow i'll confirm our Wikipedia email contact so i can foward the email that way if needs be. I will not be in the office until Monday afternoon if that suites, alternativly you can shoot me an email direct bboss@dmgradio.com.au. Cheers Mate, look foward to chatting. Nova1069 Talk | Contribs 00:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza

Hi Pursey,

Thanks for reviewing this article but I am afraid there are disputes over the article. I mentioned this in this diff erased by Beit Or [1]. I think this article has all the potential to become a good article once the disputes are resolved. Cheers, --Aminz 23:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you very much for your support at my RfA. Regards, Jogers (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Jogers (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Women Against Pornography Quick Fail

I have to say, I don't think you read the article very carefully. Specifically, this statement:

"The lead contains claims that are unreferenced and could possibly be considered original research. The claims need to be cited if they are not cited elsewhere in the article."

Pursey, the lead I wrote is a summary of the article and every claim made in the lead is stated in the article itself and cited. If you have specific examples of something that isn't, please let me know.

You also state:

"The lead is also very lengthy. I'd suggest checking out WP:LEAD for some suggestions on how to write a good lead."

I have to say, interpreting this requirement is getting to be more than a little frustrating – I initially expanded the lead after a critique that it was too short. Now its too long, apparently. Yet, if I shorten it any more, there are entire sections of the article that I simply will no longer be summarized as part of the lead. Iamcuriousblue 16:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. Give me a day to clear through my current reviews and I'll drop over again and have another quick look, but I'm unlikely to suddenly pass the article. I'm more than happy to provide additional critique though. Pursey Talk | Contribs 03:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Failing Banu Qurayza

What the article needed was a reviewer who had the patience to make an investigation and see the bad-faith nature of this dispute, which mysteriously emerged after the article was nominated, exactly as it happened last time. Your quick-failing it indicates unwillingness to take responsibility and make tough decisions. Beit Or 19:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that it is not the reviewer's job to investigate the cause of instability in an article, simply to detect it. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The article is stable, actually, go back a couple of months of history and compare it to the current version, the changes are minimal. A petty struggle over a couple of words initiated after the nomination to create an impression of chaos is not exactly a good-faith dispute, nor does it make an article unstable. Beit Or 20:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Beit Or, it depends which recent version you compare; please let me know why you think all the disputes are in bad faith. I don't believe they are. --Aminz 20:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
You don't believe they are because you initiated them, with Bless sins' assistance. The magnitude of changes does not depend on the version, since the "disputes" are over a couple of words. Beit Or 19:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to reverse my decision once I've made it as far as quick-failing an article goes. I've determined the article has serious flaws that prevent me promoting it to GA Status. You can take it to a Good Article Review if there's any concerns about how I've handled the review. Pursey Talk | Contribs 03:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I never proposed that you reverse your decision, only pointed out something you revealed in the process, and that has something to do with your RFA as well. Beit Or 19:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Shawn Michaels

Oh cool. I'm glad someone is going to tend to the article. Thanks. And if you need any help on anything that needs to be worked on please do inform me. Thanks AGAIN. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Michael

I told you that sorrow would fade, friend,
And you would forget half your pain;
That the sweet bird of song would waken ere long,
And sing in your bosom again;
That hope would creep out of the shadows,
And back to its nest in your heart,
And gladness would come, and find its old home,
And that sorrow at length would depart.

I told you that grief seldom killed, friend,
Though the heart might seem dead for awhile.
But the world is so bright, and full of warm light
That 'twould waken at length, in its smile.
Ah, friend! was I not a true prophet?
There's a sweet happy smile on your face;
Your sadness has flown - the snow-drift is gone,
And the buttercups bloom in its place.

Ella Wheeler Wilcox

Dear Michael, your kind and warm words to me are by far the most beautiful gift I could ever hope for, coming from a wonderful editor, and a beautiful person like you. It is not me who represents the best of our project, but a hard working, brilliant user like you - for all your extremely valuable efforts have not gone unnoticed, trust me. As you're now going through an unpleasant moment at your RfA, let the short lines above that I've selected for you, as a humble token of our first encounter, put in short the thoughts I wish to share with you: remember, you're a great member of our community, and in some time, I hold no doubts whatsoever that you'll succeed with ease. And mark my words: I'll be here to support you, and congratulate you once it's over. Put your mind at ease, and smile, my friend! :) Love, Phaedriel 22:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

I'm sorry, but I've closed your Request for adminship prematurely. Simply put, you've only got 1039 edits on Wikipedia; while edit count isn't the only determining factor, and numerous people have their own personal standards that they judge RfA candidates by, there was no chance that the RfA was going to pass.

I'm sorry about this, and hope you don't take it personally. If you continue to contribute to the project in a positive fashion, I'm confident that you could possibly run a successful RfA in the future. You may want to consider submitting yourself to Wikipedia:Editor review for feedback on where to get some good experience, and when you're ready for RfA again, there's a great Wikipedia:Admin coaching program for you to use, as well as a guide to requests for adminship.

If you have any other questions about becoming an administrator, please don't hesitate to ask me. Good luck! Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination reviews

  1. Carly Colón - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    Review - This article is under or has been partially reviewed by Pursey Talk | Contribs 10:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Triple H - Davnel03 18:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    Review - This article is under or has been partially reviewed by Pursey Talk | Contribs 10:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Shawn Michaels - ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    Review - This article is under or has been partially reviewed by Pursey Talk | Contribs 10:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

These have come up on the GA exceptions report for articles tagged as under review for the longest. They have been tagged for over a month with no review, as far as I could tell from looking over the articles talk pages. If I have somehow missed the reviews, let me know. Otherwise, please get the reviews completed or remove the under review tag to allow someone else to conduct the reviews. Regards, LaraLove 17:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Bah. Ignore that. I was working from WP:GAC/R, and I confused the old under review list with the old nominations list below it. I'm not sure why I confused the 17 September date stamp for 17 August, but I did. I apologize. And thanks for pointing it out. Now I have to go check on the other stuff I did with that today to make sure I didn't screw anything else up. :P Oh, and btw, it wasn't "36 massive hours"... it was only 33 hours! ;) LaraLove 03:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's about the time we expect sweeps to wrap up, so hows about I just throw a BIG ol' party. Cake and champagne for everyone! LaraLove 04:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Is taking the bait pointing out that you misspelled pedantic? :) LaraLove 12:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Look, I'm the nit-pickiest reviewer in GA, what did you expect? :P LaraLove 13:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The lead should summarize the body, currently it does not. It is the body. Normally you would not cite sources in the lead section, but when that is also the body, there should be sources. You also have incorrect use of dashes. :) LaraLove 13:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
More like start class. ;) LaraLove 13:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hahaha! You win. :p LaraLove 13:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of reviews

Hey thanks for reviewing Carly Colón, most of reverts lately has been the result of a single editor adding unofficial names there under an account and his IP, regardless of that he is curently blocked for uncivility, as a matter of luck Colón has kept a low profile so not much unsourced material is added, thanks for the review again. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem... you're confusing the hell out of commenting in a random talk page discussion though :) Pursey Talk | Contribs 08:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

The Working Man's Barnstar
A barnstar to thank you for your thorough and prompt review of Manchester and for all the work you have been doing to clear the backlog of Good Article candidates. Wikipedia needs more editors with the dedication you have. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 15:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, thank you. :) Pursey Talk | Contribs 16:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes

>Radiant< 09:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The now-traditional RFA thank-spam

Click there to open your card! → → →
Archive 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.