User talk:AaronY/Archive 4

adminship
I see you weren't interested in adminship a few weeks ago, but I really think you should give it a try, we need more admins who don't hate sports articles! Considering your FA and your history so far, I think you'd do quite well at RFA. Adminship really isn't as big a deal as many people think... I personally believe all responsible editors should have the tools ASAP. I'd be happy to write up a nomination if you're interested. --W.marsh 15:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

TyrusThomas4lyf
Can you please talk to that user? he's been messing around with every single thing that includes Kobe Bryant; and can you tell me how do I report a user? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Immortal23 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for the reply. Yes he's a Jordan glorifier, Love Jordan to death but can you warn him to not change the comments on the "List of National Basketball Association players with 60 or more points in a game"? He keeps adding meaningless info about how "Toronto had the second worst defense in the league", and then adds to the Jordans 63 point game that "The 1986 Boston Celtics are widely regarded as one of the greatest teams of all-time. Top 10 Teams in NBA History" link- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Basketball_Association_players_with_60_or_more_points_in_a_game

thanks in advanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Immortal23 (talk • contribs)

Micheal Jordan nickname
Hi, I was wondering if you had any additional thoughts on the discussion about adding MJ as a nickname for Micheal Jordan on the Michael Jordan talk page. You seemed to have stopped commenting, and I was wondering if that meant you no longer oppose the addition. - Ektar 17:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I definitely don't think 2-1 is good enough to be a consensus, so if it's cool with you, I'll do a request for comment. -Ektar 18:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Pic placement
Thanks for your comment to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. I used one of your points to improve the guidelines, and followed up there with the other point (which I didn't quite follow). Eubulides 22:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Rock Springs Massacre
Hi there. I was wondering if you might lend some outside eyes to Rock Springs Massacre. I have undertaken a major overhaul project since it was promoted to GA and I hope to nominate for FA soon. Right now it just needs some outside perspective and copy editing. I have sort of charted my progress on the talk page, if you want to check out what I have written/thought there. Any help would be greatly appreciated. If you don't have the time or whatever that's cool. Thanks. IvoShandor 12:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. I just bypassed peer review because I have a few posted now and they are quite stale, if you want just put a section on the talk page with some comments or whatever. Thanks again. IvoShandor 12:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Thanks! Quadzilla99 23:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Derry City FAC
I posed some questions beneath your original comment on the FAC page. Possibly you could have a look at them? Thanks. Danny InvincibleTalk 02:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

TyrusThomas4lyf
Thanks for the heads-up regarding Requests for comment/TyrusThomas4lyf. I'll contribute more content this evening. Myasuda 13:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks for setting the wheels in motion . . . of course, he was the one that kept them running. :) Myasuda 01:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Toronto Raptors
Hi there! The FA nomination has actually been re-set, kindly re-cast your vote at Featured article candidates/Toronto Raptors. Thank you. (p.s. thanks for reviewing some of the flickr stuff I uploaded) Chensiyuan 04:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Retired NFL players
Thanks for the heads up on the consensus on NFL retired players. I didn't really follow the discussion as closely as I should have. Thanks! RyguyMN 14:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks a lot for your barnstar! Cheers!--Yannismarou 18:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

About external links
Hi Quadzilla99.

I'm reading the external links guideline and I think than the site I link have a valuable information. I don't see the difference with the other external links you don't delete.

I accept your decission, but I think that are interesting links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.129.138.192 (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Image:Lighthouse sky.jpg
I came across this image while looking at the requirements for Featured Pictures and saw that it had no source information at all, a history search showed that someone had deleted the entire summary and undoing it saw that you had labeled it as replaceable, due to that the "links were dead". I searched more in the history and discovered a one-off vandal was the person who changed the source to a myspace page and a google search for David Hasselhoff (as well as an image of Hasselhoff before that). The actual source is a flickr page which I have fixed the link to. –– Lid(Talk) 09:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice work! Quadzilla99 09:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

U of I telescope thingy
Thanks for the compliments and boldness, the only reason I listed it is because the reviewer never posted what they said they would, I just wanted to make sure. Have you dropped by Rock Springs Massacre lately? It's getting closer I think. IvoShandor 16:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No hurry, of course, just wondering, I have quite a few open questions and the like on the talk page, I updated the "to do" list and such incorporating concerns of others and myself, I addressed the preliminary look you had at it btw, thanks, and whenever you have time, of course. IvoShandor 16:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you.
Thanks. I try. --Maxamegalon2000 19:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey Quadzilla - thanks for the Barnstar. Nice photos on your User page, and great contributions! Dave --David Shankbone 13:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure no problem. Of course unlike you I didn't take any of those, I just uploaded them off of flickr so you're the one to be lauded. Quadzilla99 18:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Workhorse stuff is as laudatory as original work, in my opinion. --David Shankbone 11:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're too kind, thanks. Quadzilla99 11:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Jim Thorpe
Are you sure? It seemed awfully close based on the work you had done. I didn't want to add a Remove if you think there's any chance it can be salvaged. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 12:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Phil Simms
You're welcome. Don't feel bad about your initial reaction. It was justified. I overextend myself on here because I want to do everything, but I don't have time. And I don't totally understand it all, so this is a learning process for me. In hindsight, I shouldn't have even nominated it for delisting. I should have just posted the review and noted that if changes weren't made I may then nominate it. But I learn something new with each review and most seem to appreciate my thoroughness. I'm now on my second requested review, so I must be doing something right. Anyway, I appreciate your feedback. Let me know if you want me to review any other articles in the future. Regards, Lara Love  Talk / Contribs  03:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Elvis Presley
Hi, I've noticed you've offered comments on the Elvis Presley article. I would welcome any help in format and structure of the article - including where the article is excessively long and what solutions you may suggest overall. My hope is to have a wiki-standard article worthy of 'good' then 'featured' status - and am working to that end. If you know of any editors who might work biographies or who are good at summarizing content or format - let me know so that I could solicite their help in improving the quality of the article. Thanks. --Northmeister 14:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League. It was made that way because of movements between cities and teams that suspended seasons. --Pinkkeith 22:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sivaji: The Boss
Hey can you read and hopefully up-grade the Sivaji: The Boss article to a GA. Many Thanks. Universal Hero 10:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

More sources or Refimprove
Re: Template talk:Unreferenced - use More sources or Refimprove, currently I prefer Refimprove is at has "adequately" in it. Jeepday (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand all that I preferred the old version though as it was much simpler. Quadzilla99 14:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ping
Replied on my talk page. -- Cyde Weys 20:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

D-Wade
The article says he was born in Chicago and grew up in Robbins. I'm not sure if he was born in Chicago or not, but I'm sure he was raised in Robbins. Chicagoedits 18:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Minority Report
No worries. You edits have always seemed fine to me, but I don't think we want to base part of the article on student papers. If you can find real references, great! GlassFET 19:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Banners
I reverted the change to the Jordan talk page I already discussed this with Satyr when she/he added it. I also brought up the issue of the banner formats at the Village Pump where no consensus was reached see here. Previously Satyr and myself decided to leave out the shell format as it cluttered the page, this was also decided at Talk:Barack Obama and other talk pages. Quadzilla99 14:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I was not aware that SatyrN had already attempted to change the talk page and an agreement was reached to change it back – it had not been removed from Template:WikiProjectBannerShell/Cleanup project.  I have added a comment to the relevant talk page to ensure that no other participants in the cleanup project will change it, though that should not be a problem – I removed it myself from the to-do list.
 * Cheers. &mdash; Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 15:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, it's kind of getting confusing per all the different options out there. Unfortunately we haven't been able to reach consensus as-of-yet if we ever will. Quadzilla99 15:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think the reduction of WikiProject banner clutter is critical. Personally, I prefer WikiProjectBannerShell to WikiProjectBanners and will continue working on the cleanup project.  Most of the pages on that list have no container template at all; however, some have already gotten to them and transcluded WikiProjectBanners.  I think I'll just leave those alone or strike them from the list; no conversion is necessary, though I do think it'd be helpful, and regular editors of the article can switch to WikiProjectBannerShell if they too like it better.  Would that suit you as a temporary solution until consensus is established (if, as you say, it's established at all)?  &mdash; Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 16:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it's not really up to me, as you can see from the disussion above I brought up at the Pump and no consensus was reached. It's really a grey area, of course I'd like it if the banners were kept but obviously that's my personal preference. Quadzilla99 16:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You'd prefer that they not have a container at all, not even WikiProjectBanners? &mdash; Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 16:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Marcus Jordan transferring to Whitney Young?
Has this been confirmed? I don't have access to the rivals.com article, but I was under the impression that this was just a rumor. Whitney Young is a public school, so Marcus would have to move to Chicago to attend. I'm just curious what that rivals.com article says, because I want to make sure the article isn't reporting rumors as facts. Zagalejo 16:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

2003 NBA finals
Hi, assuming you know about this subject, please would you check this edit, as other edits today by the same anon IP user were vandalism. Fayenatic london (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

ET FAC
I personally feel the FAC is the best place to list concerns, so please do so. Also, did you check the article first or have you been following someone else's opinion? Alientraveller 07:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course I did. Quadzilla99 11:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool, so what exactly are your concerns? My primary talent is finding citations and including content that is factually accurate: if you wish to really help, then give me a dollop of notes. A mere oppose vote won't do. Alientraveller 15:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hap Moran
readded ChicagoWikiProject tag as a former Chicago Cardinals player. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not worth an edit war but that's laughable; he played one season there. Quadzilla99 17:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Pixelate
So that's what you call it :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That was so very kind of you; thanks :-) (I love coming to your user page and seeing that refreshing picture !) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Help needed
Hey, I noticed you are a frequent contributor to WP:GA/R. There are a few discussion threads that are floundering and need additional comments from other editors. I would like to act on these soon, as they have been up for discussion for several weeks, but so few people have commented that I can't even archive as "no consensus" since we have a near null-set of comments. If you have the time, could you take a peek at the following articles and make any comments at WP:GA/R as you see fit? The articles needing additional comment are: Jeremy Clarkson, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Anaximander, and Syncaris pacifica. Thanks in advance for your help with this! --Jayron32| talk | contribs 18:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Li'l Bs
Thanks for the suggestion. That opening line in all of them was actually supplied by CanadianCeasar, who was kind enough to get the ball rolling on the leads. Your proposed revision seems just right. I'm glad Jim Thorpe's FAR worked out—as you probably gathered, I got preoccupied with FBO. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 01:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It happened
Tyrus was blocked for another two weeks. I don't understand why he just doesn't tone down the attitude. He makes solid contributions when he's not looking to engage in edit warring. Zodiiak Dial Z 03:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The Miracle at the Meadowlands
Thanks for the compliment! I started it last January when it was just a redirect to NFL lore, taking the name given to it by Eagles fans (it returned more Google hits than "The Fumble"+Giants did). I didn't expect it to get so long, but I did feel it should set the record straight about that play (like New Coke, the first GA I was responsible for). So many people over the years have blamed Pisarcik, and while he did make the fumble neither he nor the players on the field wanted to make that call, but Gibson had the power and he had no choice. And while Gibson deserved his de facto lifetime ban from the sport for that, he was an old-school guy. One of the last. In fact, part of the story in that article is that the old, Lombardi-era NFL is what finally died on the Giants Stadium turf as Herman Edwards ran the touchdown in.

I also wanted to show what Gregg Easterbrook had noted ... that it was the play that finally forced the Giants to change, and ultimately led to Parcells being hired. (More on this below).

I did research and kept finding more usable stuff. I went to the library to get the Times articles (looking at them on microfiche gives you a sense of how the paper played the stories (back when the Times had a really weak sports section). They were interesting because they gave a lot of forgotten background about the frustration the offensive players had with the coaching staff before that game. I saved the printouts and the web-page printouts in a file folder; I could probably PDF it if you'd like to see it. The article grew and grew as I traced the historical currents that started before and passed through that play, ultimately to 1996. Perhaps it would be the basis of a great book.

I'll admit that from the first I had thoughts that this could be a future featured article. With all the references put in now (something I could do over the course of this week, I suppose), and peer-reviewed, it's a GA as is. Still, my ultimate plan is to get more material for it. It has some subtle biases.

For instance, right now, due to the comparative ease of searching the New York Times online archives, that paper's media coverage drives the article. Yet, as solid as it is, back then the Times had a relatively weak sports section and was not where serious New York sports fans went for their coverage. We should have what the Post and Daily News said as well ... particularly their columnists, who could be pretty outspoken.

More importantly, I couldn't get into the Philadelphia papers at all. What were the Inquirer, Bulletin and Daily News saying about the team that week. How did they report the aftermath? It was naturally a very different perspective, yet because I couldn't get it we don't have it.

I mean, I'd love to have the images of whatever headline the News or Post had on their back page (it had to be great), with any corresponding image from the Philly papers. I'd also love to have a step-by-step diagram of how the play happened. It should also have a radio-call transcript like so many other "great moments in sports" articles (Music City Miracle, Holy Roller). Without these things I wouldn't submit it for an FA. I should list them on the talk page.

I'm flattered to be asked to join your project, but given all the projects I'm in right now I'm not quite sure yet. Then again, I don't really see myself doing too much beside this article (my involvement in the soft drinks project is largely limited to the New Coke article), so I could. Of course, I'm some years removed from serious Giants fandom (I had sort of given up following the team in 1978, when I was in fourth grade, because I'd tried in 1977 and it just wasn't as rewarding as following the Yankees was at the time :-). So I don't have first hand memories of watching that play, but many people I know do, and like the guy on the talk page they say the same thing ... they were absolutely stunned into silence).

What I could do besides this is 1983 New York Giants season ... I remember that year very well as I had finally started playing football myself. You can't truly appreciate the 1986 season (the one you got your DYK on), without understanding that one, when they went 3-12-1 in Parcells' first year as head coach. A lot of history has been memory-holed here as well ... since Tuna walks on water today as some people said he would even back then, people forget just how much fan and media abuse he took that first season (he came very close to being fired and replaced by Howard Schnellenberger afterwards). And it really wasn't mostly his fault. He was sick for some of that year, his mother died midseason, as did Robert Ledbetter (the running backs' coach). He'd had to suddenly take over between seasons when Ray Perkins left to fill Bear Bryant's shoes, and he took over a team that had been one (or two) questionable fumble calls or non-calls from making the playoffs during the strike year before. Then the Giants' had injury problems like you wouldn't believe ... Harry Carson was out for much of the season, so LT (supposedly so disgruntled he was going to go to the USFL afterwards) had to play inside backer. Then Phil Simms, who Parcells had passed over in favor of Scott Brunner (and boy was he hated that year! I thought by the time December rolled around he might as well have legally changed his name to Scott Brunner-YouSuck. There were people who celebrated mightily when he got traded to Denver after the season), finally goes in to tremendous applause (against the Eagles, yet!) rallies the team but then breaks his hand and fingers horribly against Dennis Harrison's helmet (Another freakish occurrence for the article, perhaps?).

But it worked out ... they took Carl Banks with that year's third overall pick, and he worked out much better for the Giants then either Mike Rozier or Dean Steinkuhler, stars for that year's powerhouse Nebraska team that rolled over everyone till Miami upset them at the Orange Bowl, did for the teams that picked them first. See what an interesting article this would make? Daniel Case 02:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Leonard Marshall GA on hold
--Nehrams2020 06:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Issues addressed. Quadzilla99 02:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well deserved and thanks

 * Thanks, although that's really overstating my contributions to that article. All I did was give it a thorough review—you did almost all the hard work to make it a GA. Pretty impressive considering how it looked a couple of months ago before you started in on it.Quadzilla99 16:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)



Prose size script
More info needed here, which I think you know? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hakeem
I know you're busy with a lot of stuff at the moment. Let me know what you think of my proposed changes when you get the chance. --Ubiq 20:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Page hit counter
Thanks man :) -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie |undefined 01:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank You
I have seen your work. I admire you. I spotted outdated crap in the soy protein. Your advise on how to deal with this would be helpful. Godzilla99 05:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ? Quadzilla99 05:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What is your question. Fire away. Godzilla99 05:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What's with the user name? And the admiration for me? Quadzilla99 05:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I enjoy reading your work so so much. I mean you have done a lot of work. Your great. Godzilla99 05:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks I didn't think anybody was reading some of the articles I was writing, which one is your favorite? Quadzilla99 05:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? My favorite is by far... Michael Jordon! Rare air. Godzilla99 05:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're a basketball fan then? Quadzilla99 05:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Damn right I am. Godzilla99 05:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Great. Say, now that we're getting to know each other, would you mind telling whose sock you are? I'm actually getting pretty curious. Quadzilla99 05:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yankees__ Godzilla99 05:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's what I expected. Well, since you're a fan of my work, I started a new article this week: 1986 New York Giants season. I figured I tell you as I bet you'll be pretty excited; kind of like when an author releases a new book. Quadzilla99 05:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. We have had our differences somtimes in the beginning but we will always be friends. Godzilla99 05:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I will be back soon with my main account saying that this Godzilla99 is not me. Godzilla99 05:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, but before all that if you email me, I can print up a copy and send a signed one to you — kind of like a signed first edition — also if you click here-> Quadzilla99 fanclub you can get this started, it's long overdue. Quadzilla99 05:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You want to print a copy of what exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godzilla99 (talk • contribs)
 * You know its me but socks are not allowed here. Uh oh. I better stop. Anyways, see you around. Godzilla99 06:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We are both problably spending too much time online. We need to follow our dreams. Godzilla99 06:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you're my number one fan, I assumed you wanted me to print you up a copy of my newest article and send you a signed copy. Quadzilla99 06:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe later. I have been following you around for a very long time now. I must confess. Godzilla99 06:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. Do you think if we keep going we can reach the far right side of the screen? I'd love to find out. Quadzilla99 06:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you continue. Godzilla99 06:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not. Godzilla99 06:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if I continue and you stop what happens then? I can't do this alone you know. Quadzilla99 06:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is one of those moments we will both remember and look back on. Godzilla99 06:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. So you say you're a hoops fan what'd you think of the Commish's decision last week? Quadzilla99 06:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what his decision was about what but what I remember is that players were suspended from one of the playoff games. Godzilla99 06:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Where are you my pal? Hello. Hello. Godzilla99 06:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your fanclub is still alive. Take a look at your userpage. Godzilla99 06:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you like? Godzilla99 07:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see my fanclub article was deleted? Did you explain everything I've done here to them? Kind of ridiculous really. Quadzilla99 07:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. Its on your user page now. Godzilla99 07:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's like a star having a fan club that gathers in his house. I mean what kind of star is that? I should have a dedicated page with a list of members, forums, to-do lists (with tasks like "Get Quadzilla99 promoted to Steward), etc. Quadzilla99 07:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, you will always be my shining star.
 * This is great to finally talk to you face to face like this.
 * T
 * H
 * A
 * N
 * K
 * S! Godzilla99 07:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you cheating because you're getting tired? Quadzilla99 07:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean I wanted to get to the side of the screen but legitimately. Quadzilla99 07:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You made it honestly and I am your twin bad side. Me bad boy. Godzilla99 07:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well what happens if we keep going? Like these guys?Quadzilla99 07:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We both made it. I took the short cut though. This is the end of the run. Its been a pleasure. I will continue to follow my favorite editor. I remember I long time ago I looked at your user page by accident. Because of your user page I opened an account and have edited most of those articles. I love to sock. Godzilla99 07:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not all the way there yet on my high res screen. Quadzilla99 07:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like 4-5 more posts should do it. Quadzilla99 07:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The screen is shifting over to the right with every new edit. We are already there and then some. Godzilla99 07:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My screen is 1680 x 1050 that means that I can fit more text on it (the test is smaller), so its not happening for me yet. Quadzilla99 07:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I still haven't made it yet. Quadzilla99 07:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not yet. Quadzilla99 07:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How about now. Is it falling off the screen (cliff) now? Godzilla99 08:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's close should we hold hands like Thelma & Louise? Quadzilla99 08:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Or we can make a run for it like Bonnie and Clyde. Godzilla99 08:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:User go.png]] Quadzilla99 08:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is taking forever. Quadzilla99 08:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We're there. Quadzilla99 08:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll tell Yankees76 you said hi tomorrow. Quadzilla99 08:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You have any messages for him? Quadzilla99 08:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Its my party and I edit when I want to. I never give up to improve Wikipedia. Send him the messenge: Think with your brain first. Godzilla99 08:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Guess I hit a nerve, huh? Are you dropping out of my fanclub now? Quadzilla99 08:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I will give you a second chance. I will wait to see your clean up to the Biological Value article. And it would not hurt if you took a look at the soy protein article too. Yankees76 has a pattern of adding trash to articles. We need to stand up strong to the troll. Godzilla99 08:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh well, we were getting along so well. Quadzilla99 08:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

MOS changes
Oh heck, um, I see what you're saying. Do you think that my addition of "typically" covers that? Go here to compare. Thanks for your comment. Tony 06:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I goofed in looking at the old version, which has "typically". I agree with your point. And do you think that excising 25% more off it would freak out some people? I don't like the last few points much. Tony 06:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How about my suggestion? (Going out now.) Tony 06:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Giants timeline
I increased the font size I think it looks good. What do you think? Quadzilla99 02:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good! My thought was to split the timeline in half, as the smaller font was to prevent it from rolling off. Since this would be the standard for other teams, I had a few ideas as to where the split occurs:
 * At the 1970 merger
 * At the halfway point (or roughly split on a decade)
 * After the first 50 years (for the Giants, that would place it near the merger anyway)
 * I'll work these out, perhaps today, and we can achieve some sort of consensus. Thanks for the help! &mdash;Twigboy 13:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

GA barnstar
Thanks for the barnstar, I really appreciate it! Over this week I am going to do my best to hopefully remove a lot of the articles in the backlog. After that I want to begin working on a few GAs of my own. Keep up the good work yourself, and congratulations on your barnstar! --Nehrams2020 18:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

TO Raptors
Hi there, don't mean to trouble you, but there's been some issues raised at Featured article review/Toronto Raptors. Any feedback would be welcome. Thanks. Chensiyuan 08:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Scandal
I wouldn't have tagged a normal article unless far worse; but the MOS is supposed to be a model for us all, and as such is an embarrassment if it doesn't practise exactly what it preaches. Despite its privileged status, it has been allowed to descend into bloated, inconsistent language in too many places. The italics versus quotes is one such issue.

Thanks for your support; your feedback is appreciated (not much of it there, whereas I thought there'd be sharks circling, as they did when I redid the Non-free content page). Tony 10:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

GAC backlog elimination drive
This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :GAReview underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 00:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:MJ_on_SI.jpg, Image:Pippen_on_SI.jpg
Inasmuch as the nominator did not (FWICT) inform you, I imagine I ought to let you know that the two instant images are on IfD, viz., and  respectively. Although I don't think any tenable FU argument can be made relative to the Pippen image (although the one you offered on the image page is more compelling than any other I've encountered for an SI cover), the MJ one is, to my mind, a bit closer of a question, although I don't think the article at present provides any real commentary on the issue depicted, and I'm not sure that any such commentary could serve an encyclopedic purpose. In any case, if you oppose the deletion of either image, you may want to weigh in at IfD. Cheers, Joe 22:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded on Joe's talk page. Quadzilla99 23:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have time to make comments on two articles
I really like your contributions and what you have written. I have made numerous minor edits on Wikipedia and contributed significantly to two articles: Solomon Bayley and Mark Whitacre. Would you be able to take five minutes for a quick look at them and give some feedback on how I could improve these articles? I am considering to create another article soon (as I did with Solomon Bayley) but want to polish these two articles first prior to that. Thanks. ReadQT 20:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, re:Rock Springs Massacreee
In regards to the Massacreee, thanks for your comments, especially helpful. I have responded to them at Talk:Rock Springs Massacre. IvoShandor 12:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I have put a lot of effort into this one. I figure I will take it to FAC as soon as I address what remains unadressed on the talk page (including your comments) and probably give it a good over myself and get someone else to one more time. I went ahead and moved the page, must match capitalization throughout the article now too. IvoShandor 13:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Jeffrey Jordan
Yeah, that would be a good idea :P. However, I do not know what we could put. He starts college sometime in the summer, since he's an athlete, but he's not a student yet. I guess, he's an alumnus of LA and prospective student, or something. Interestingly, his father, who usually maintains a low-key at most school events, actually came to the graduation. Everyone wanted to meet him, but they were kinda nervous and afraid to bother him. My grandma randomly walked up to him, said "Hello Michael", and shook his hand. :p  --   ShadowJester07  ►Talk  17:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A question
Hello, I have a question regarding what happened last time with the Michael Jackson GA review. On May 11, the review apparently ended and one of the templates in the talk page of the Jackson article stated "keep" as the result. Were you the one who closed the review? I ask because, in light of the quick renomination, nothing is likely to happen now (in fact, pretty much everyone has told Manboobies what I wrote originally and what you expounded on later; even a user who voted delist later wondered if the conversation would profit from being placed in the talk page), and so it seems we are wasting time. If you did close that review, I was wondering if you might also close this one. If not, may you direct me to the appropriate channels to ask this? Thank you very much.UberCryxic 05:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded on Uber's talk page. Quadzilla99 06:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is simply not the case. The other user actually said: "I can move my review to the talk page and simply state in the GA/R that I have done so with a summary of my concerns. That will help reduce clutter on the GA/R page as well. Past that, as has been mentioned, there is no time frame for when articles can be renominated for GA/R. If it doesn't meet GA criteria, then it doesn't meet GA criteria. Issues were brought up in the review and have not been addressed. His concerns are legitimate. And while I appreciate, and truly hope you are honest when you say, that you want to make the necessary changes to bring the article up to standard, it has not been made apparent from the edit history since the first GA/R. It seems more like revert-happy editing than progress. As much as you may want this review to go away, it isn't. And I mean no disrespect with that. Regards, LaraLoveT/C 06:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)"


 * Please stop trying to breach process and brow-beat people.--Manboobies 13:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Nora Greenwald quick fail
I'm confused as to why it was a quick fail (as per The Undertaker's delisting) because the references are more accurate. Unlike The Undertaker, whose article only cited match win/losses, Nora's article has both primary and secondary sources including WWE.com, her DVD, interviews, and articles. In addition to citing just her wins/losses...her personal life, early life, and her thoughts about certain angles/storylines were all cited using the aforementioned sources. Could you go into a little more detail about what exactly the "referencing problems and other issues" are, so that I may possibly fix them. Thanks. Nikki311 08:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded on Nikki's talk page. Quadzilla99 08:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I added a few more secondary sources and then relisted it as a Good Article Candidate. Nikki311 02:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Brian Adams Quick Fail
I reviewed The Undertaker review you sited, and other than expanding the lead and including footnotes in the lead, to sources that are already present, I don't see how the two compare at all. I was wondering if you could help me understand what needs to be done to improve this article and why it was a quick fail? I looked through the quick fail criteria and the article seems to pass all 5 of the quick fail points. It passes WP:V and has both primary and secondary sources. It seems to me to pass WP:NPOV having no POV/peacock language issues. It has no cleanup tags, it has not been a source of edit wars and the image in it does meet Wikipedia's fair us policy. I would understand if there was some problems with the article that need to be fixed, but I'm having trouble understanding why a quick fail. Since you reviewed the article, if you could help me understand what needs to be done to make this article better so it would pass GA review I would appreciate your help! This is the first wrestler bio I have worked extensively on, I'd like to work on others (they desperately need it), but I'd like to figure out how to get this one done well first. Thanks for your time!!! - Theophilus75 16:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded on Theophilus's talk page. Quadzilla99 21:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still confused. You said the majority of the sources are primary sources, but I don't believe that is so.  The main source cited is a secondary website.  WWE.com and IMDb.com (while sited a few times) were used to support information already found in secondary locations; and even if they were used as the only source for some info, that is acceptable under all Wikipedia Policies as long as the info is not challenged, not likely to be challenged or is the main source of info.  There was a non-internet based source used for multiple citations in the article as well as news articles from secondary news sites that meet WP:RS.  I know that I can appeal your decision or resubmit the article, but that doesn't answer my questions to you; what needs to be done to improve this article and why it was a quick fail?  I'd rather know exactly what I'm missing.  I don't see how it could be quick failed, but you did, so something must be alarmingly obvious to you, and as such I would appreciate your help in locating it so I can fix it. - Theophilus75 21:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded on Theophilus talk page. Quadzilla99 22:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm even more confused now, your comments about how I should use WWE.com as a source is EXACTLY how I used it!?!? The only thing I used them for is to verify match results after finding them at another source.  Now I understand how you think the article could be better, but not having what you speak of (behind the scenes info) is not criteria for a quick fail...I'm not sure it's criteria for a GA fail at all.  What you would like to see in the article is what I believe would help bring the article from GA status to FA status.  So, I know what you think would improve the article, but I'm still trying to figure out what part of the quick fail criteria it failed so I can fix it. - Theophilus75 23:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded on Theophilus talk page. Quadzilla99 23:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll guess I'll have to relist it; but that doesn't tell me why you quick failed the article. Part of the reason for having others evaluate articles you write is because they often see things you don't see.  I'm assuming (good faith) that you saw something that justified the quick fail, just cause I don't see it doesn't mean it is not there; but your not telling me why you quick failed it doesn't give me a chance to fix the problem that I assume you saw.  But alas, I guess I move on... - Theophilus75 23:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded on Theophilus talk page. Quadzilla99 23:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So am I to understand that you had no reason to quick fail the article based on the quick fail criteria? WP:WAF is not a policy it is a guideline, and is not a reason to quick fail an article.  Concensus among those involved in writing the pro-wrestlers bios, and those that have objectively reviewed them, is to write them in the fashion similar to what I have (which the guidelines in WP:WAF seem to find acceptable after my reading through them yet again).  I don't see how my sources can be deficient since they meet WP:RS (a policy)...not to mention the fact that you seem to think, despite my stating otherwise more than once, that WWE.com is my major source (shoot...it had VERY LITTLE information).  I've tried to assume good faith, but after asking at least 4 times what part of the quick fail criteria the article failed without getting even a remote answer, I must now assume that the article didn't fail any parts of the quick fail criteria.  Really, I do need to let this go before I actually start to get upset...but if you are going to review an article please do so correctly and objectively...it really isn't fair to those people are putting their time into actually trying to improve articles...especially articles that need it as bad as the pro-wrestling ones. - Theophilus75 00:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded on Theophilus talk page. Quadzilla99 00:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

GAN - 1990 Giants Season
Once you have addressed the comments, leave a note on my talk page and i shall be glad to re-review. Kalyan 16:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Issues addressed, I believe. Quadzilla99 02:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I nominated my article Tompkins Square Park Police Riot for FA status
From the nomination page: (self-nomination)This article is simply excellent. Excellent writing, interesting subject matter, improved during its Good Article trial, and eye-witnesses have left notes on the Talk page that talk about the article being so accurate, it's like they were living it all over again. Written in a NPOV and heavily cited with the highest of sources, it includes GFDL media, is wikified to the fullest, a fantastic "See Also" section, and looks at the story from every angle. --David Shankbone 18:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bongo (antelope)
Hi there, I'd like to thank you for all your help on the article. I've taken ALL you've said on the discussion page very seriously and have changed eveything you pointed out over the period of months. Please check it out, it's like a totally new article! Is this OK for a FAC? Would you support it? Yours very sincerely, Black Stripe 11:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback
I have been looking for more references for Solomon Bayley article. I will keep searching. I have contributed significantly also to the Noel Perrin article. Thanks again for your feedback, and I can learn a lot from good editors such as yourself. I have enjoyed Wikipedia since early 2005.ReadQT 15:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration
Hello,

I've requested arbitration on the disagreement over the Template:Trivia wording (and its mass application by bot). Currently at Requests for Arbitration. Thanks - Tempshill 16:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi - on why I listed you as an involved party, it was you and Matthew who reverted my changes on the template wording, and based on the debate, I figured you would be a good spokesperson for "the other side" in any case. Tempshill 17:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

GAN - 1986 Giants Season
Once you have addressed the comments, leave a note on my talk page and i shall be glad to re-review. Kalyan 17:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Your contributions

 * Thanks a lot! Quadzilla99 18:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)