User talk:D'Ranged 1/Archive 8

2016 posts

pending changes reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Katie^talk 21:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Your signature

Hey, I saw you added your sig at Wikipedia:Signature tutorial#Real-life examples. I wanted to be sure you saw the note there about font tags. The one other "violation" pre-dated the note, so I consider it grandfathered. The reason for the note is that these are meant to be usage examples, not simply a showcase for signatures, and font tags have been discouraged in signatures for some time. Not going to make an issue of it, just wanted to be sure you were aware and informed. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Berlin Brandenburg Airport edits

Thanx for editing in BER. I just wanted to express my gratitude towards your infallible corrections as I intend to remark that you shouldnt run idioms through digital word processors. "Auf die Pelle ruecken" is a German idiom and it expresses that the state attorney is intending to move in the closer proximity of the culprit, id est he is moving towards the sausage skin. That means that the yet lasting sausage will cease to exist pretty soon. It does not mean something like to move your body to you or whattheheck you nevertheless intended to describe as a possible meaning. In the future be so kind and keep my suggested translations. The meaning in this case is more like that the state attorney intends to drain certain info out of the lousy mind of the culprit, it is not move your body over the river, on the river, or whatever poker games might suggest as a solution. Ccokz (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Ccokz And I truncated the English to your translation of the question in the headline and explained it in the edit summary. In future, please use the start a new section for comments on talk pages. Thanks!—D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk :  20:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Want a challenge?

Search for linkrot on Mucho Macho Man. If that one doesn't terrify you, then try the 200+ links on California Chrome. LOL! (Actually, I'm serious, both are FAs and I got them there... and hope they stay there... ) Montanabw^(talk) 02:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Virginia Tech shooting

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Virginia Tech shooting you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

== Your GA nomination of Virginia Tech shooting==

The article Virginia Tech shooting you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Virginia Tech shooting for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I see you haven't edited in over two weeks, nor touched the article in two months. If you're not going to be able to work on this, I can fail it now and my feedback can serve as a starting point for next time. OR, if you're going to be able to get to it but not this week, let me know so I can hold it over for a bit longer. Whichever, point is that I'm holding off on doing any other GA reviews so I can work with you on this if you are willing to do the work to fix the issues I've identified. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

My apologies. I'm unable to deal with Wikipedia at all at the moment due to real life interfering. Could you put it "on hold" and we can pick up in a couple of months? I realize you may be committed to other articles by then, but you've invested quite a bit of time on this one and I'd be willing to wait until you're available once I am. Thanks. —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk :  10:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me! Sticking the GA review "on hold" for an extended/indefinite time will clog up the GA process somewhat, especially if multiple folks did that; hold is really only designed for a week or two of active editing. However, the amount of time that poor article waited in the queue was unfortunate, as well. I propose to not pass it at this time, but hit me up on my talk page when you've 1) got time to invest in it again, and 2) have substantially addressed (fixed or disagreed with and counter-proposed) the concerns I raised, and I will prioritize it such that you would have to wait, at most, a week or two for me to revisit it. How does that sound? Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

That sounds perfect, frankly. I'm not impatient, but would hate to see it just go back in the queue. Even if it took you another month to respond to my updates, I'd be more than happy. Unfortunately, the timing is just off at the moment. I appreciate your willingness to bend! Thanks. —D'Ranged 1 | VT^alk :  01:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Virginia Tech shooting

The article Virginia Tech shooting you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Virginia Tech shooting for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 07:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, D'Ranged 1. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)