Talk:Philippine Tarsier Foundation

Good Article Review

first attempts...thoughts anyone? thanks Guest818 06:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello! I've added this to my watchlist and I'll try to go over this from time to time. First impressions: it's more or less comprehensive, although admittedly there's a lot of room for improvements. --- Tito Pao 18:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

GA hold
This is on GA hold for 7 days for: needs more refs (ex: all of background only has one), refs are not consitently formatted, not enough wikilinks. Sumoeagle179 23:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Failed GA, no action taken.Sumoeagle179 23:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am getting/working on the citations and have them offline, and isn't the 7th day on the 28th yet? Please re consider. Thank you. --Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 04:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review
The Philippine Tarsier Foundation article has been brought for WP:GA/R for review of the failed nomination for WP:GA.--Ate Pinay (talk•email) 04:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Philippine Tarsier Foundation GA hold
This is on GA hold for 7 days for: needs more refs (ex: all of background only has one), refs are not consitently formatted, not enough wikilinks. Sumoeagle179 23:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Failed GA, no action taken.Sumoeagle179 23:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am getting/working on the citations and have them offline, and isn't the 7th day on the 28th yet? Please re consider. Thank you. --Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 04:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It was only about one hour from that day and no action had been taken and I had no reason to expect any. If you address the issues, renominate it and let me know and I'll expedite it.Sumoeagle179 10:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your statement - "I had no reason to expect any" is very very low,  and subjective for a fellow Wikipedian of stature!  After having put so much time and effort into this article,  any additional time for me is immaterial. Besides, I had to make sure everything is covered from my end,  so as not to compromise the value and integrity of the article.  Please look into my list of GAs in my userpage to understand me and how I work!  In addition, in Wikipedia, we do not assume the negative!  We always abide by WP:AGF. BTW, FYI,  I am not re-nominating this yet. I have submitted this for WP:GA/R,  just so you know.  I hope you do not do the same thing to other well-meaning wikipedians next time.  What I am trying to say is check the credentials or credibility of the major contributor first before you use the axe!  Thank you for your time. --Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 18:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You should assume good faith also, with no response after over 6 days, I stand by my statement.Sumoeagle179 18:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, GA/R takes longer than an expedited renom.Sumoeagle179 18:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the heads up. Sorry for the miscommunication. or the failure to communicate. I simply had so much in both RL and WL. Maybe i will take you up on your offer of the renom, if I can drag myself our of the depression of the failed GA. I will let you know before the week ends. It's just that I owe it to Bohol and its people to make this article WP:GA, which is my hope for all others in Portal:Bohol. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pinay06 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 1 March 2007 (U