User talk:Bulldog73/Archive 1

Your submission at Articles for creation
Your article submission has been declined, and Wikipedia& was not created. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer, and please feel free to resubmit once the issues have been addressed. (You can do this by adding the text to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Acather96 (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!

 * }

FAC
Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving your talk page comment
Hi Bulldog, you left a comment on the talk page of that FAC that was just deleted, I'm reproducing it here. I deleted the talk page because we're required to do that per WP:G8 when the original page is deleted, but I'm not trying to silence you; you can do with this comment whatever you like. Here it is. - Dank (push to talk) 11:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo,

Thanks for calling my nomination a "procedurally malformed request" and a "sad piece of behaviour." I am a good-natured editor and I do not deserve for my FAC nomination to be called the above. What if I got blocked by the regular editors of this article while trying to consult them? If I were an admnistrator, I'd have you blocked just the same. Thanks a lot, Bulldog edit my talk page   da contribs  01:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Pillow Pets
Hi, Bulldog73. As you may recall, you posted a request for copy edit of the Pillow Pets article on the GOCE requests page. This message is to let you know we will not be tackling a copy edit of the article at present, as there are a lot of structural issues raised in the recent peer review of the article that need to be dealt with first. Please go through those suggestions first, and please re-submit the article for copy edit at a later time once the problems mentioned there have been addressed. Regards, -- Diannaa (Talk) 22:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Your edits to the Iron Butterfly album articles
Just wanted to say thanks for getting rid of the deprecated review templates on these articles and adding in the Reception sections. I'd been planning to get to this task myself at some point, but your work got it done a whole lot faster, and you did a great job summarizing the reviews. Thanks again; besides everything else, this makes my workload a little bit lighter.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! :) Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs review me 20:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ingram
While I understand the need for verification, transactions usually take a bit to receive an article, so when something is updated (such as with Kenny Ingram) it's usually because a reporter on twitter (verified accounts only) said that they had been signed/released. However, I'm not comfortable using twitter as a reference, no matter who updated the information. So, if you see me edit an article as "waived" or "signed by whoever", trust me. Usually a source will appear in at least 20 minutes to corroborate the information. Cheers,-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  00:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. :( Bulldog talk da contribs go rando 04:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh no, don't worry man, haha. Just a heads up that sometimes, when something just happens, a permanent reference is usually hard to come by. Keep up the good work,-- Giants27 ( T  |  C )  04:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Zone sonography technology
I declined the speedy deletion of Zone sonography technology (actually, I deleted it, then looked again at the history) because there was a version in the history before Zonare Gordon made all of those promotional edits that was neutral. However, that version may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, so you may want to take a look at the article now and consider starting an AfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a source I found from PR Newswire. Maybe that'll help. Bulldog talk da contribs go rando 13:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That won't help, because Press releases (which is what PR Newswire carries) are not reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

Talkback
Breawycker (talk to me!) 22:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for cleaning my source and text/commentary on True Diary page. I'm new to wikipedia and didn't know very well how to add stuff or type it in an official way. So...yeah. Thank you. -15henklea

Peer review
I will be glad to look at it, though it may take me a few days. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Angel Jay
I'am in no intention to vandalize anything I don't under the vandalism tag. --Pucv34 (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: When peer reviewing...
While I appreciate constructive feedback of my reviews, I fail to see how "Is Ruhrfisch your peer review rival or something?" is something other than a snide insinuation that trespasses on the territory of bad faith. That statement renders the whole earlier comments (on my talk page) in the light of "the pot calling the kettle black". I do not feel like telling lies ("just be neutral and assure that the article will make it to GA or FA status."): if the article is crap, or if the subject is of such borderline notability that its article cannot gain broad or comprehensive coverage, then there is no point in lying to anyone, especially if it misleads the editor into thinking so and be utterly disappointed at the crucial venture (or worse then be fixed in mind thinking that everyone who pointed out the failings is "out to get him or her"). Jappalang (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Just use "constructive criticism." There's nothing wrong with it, no matter how wide the article's coverage is. When reading your comments, I felt like you thought I was dumb. Bulldog73 talk da contribs  go rando 02:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe you have a very much misconstrued notion of what is "constructive criticism". Its primary motive is not to make you feel good.  Constructive criticism lays out in the view of the critic what he or she feels is wrong, why it is wrong, and how to address the issue if possible (compare that with negative criticism, which just attacks without offering suggestions for improvements).  Could you point out overall how I have failed those tenets in Peer review/Pillow Pets/archive2?  I have a very hard time trying to understand how my comments at that peer review can be construed as treating you as "dumb".  You are very welcome to bring those peer review comments up for assessment by others. What I am seeing, however, is that you came to my talk page, talked about how hurtful using words like "biggest flaw" and "bad word choice" are to you (while ignoring the context and the declarations of personal views), and then ended off by snidely impugning my character and integrity.  To top it off, after I explained my position, you toss my reply away (without even an apology for your baseless attack on me) and say I should use "constructive criticism", which by your implied definition (seemingly that I should make you feel good), does not fit in with what I understand of it.  Jappalang (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that constructive criticism is supposed to make you "feel good." I think your problem was that you right away stated what I needed to improve, and did not even have time to give at least a "thank you," something I notice Ruhrfisch managed to do when reviewing the article. What I meant is that when reviewing, make an effort to say "Thank you" or "Hope this helps." Hopefully, these should be more neutral than "I like your work so far." I apologize for the snide remark, but please assume more good faith on your part. Thank you. Bulldog73 talk da contribs  go rando 02:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, what are you again trying to imply with "I apologize for the snide remark, but please assume more good faith on your part." Is that an attempt at backslapping me?  Let me remind you that I am not the one who goes about insulting other people's character without basis.  Your snide remark already exposed you were going about in bad faith, and now you imply I am exhibiting worse faith than you?  I think you better reflect on your attitude than mine.  And as for saying I was wrong for not thanking you for writing an article?  Did you personally even thank me for bothering to review (and many others) your article and offer suggestions for improvements?  By your reasoning, hundreds of editors here owe me thanks (and several thousands of them should always be thanking even better editors than me); should we go about demanding their thanks and insulting them because they did not do so?  Think about that.  Jappalang (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: Just posted a sincere apology on WP:A nice cup of tea and a sit down.
 * Thank you, your post is appreciated. Jappalang (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Jacobi's formula
Hi,

I reverted your edit of [Jacobi's formula]] since I did not quite understand it (or was the mess created because of edit conflict?) You are welcome to edit it again, I am done.

Best, Sasha (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply
Did I violate a rule? If I did I am very sorry, but I was reverting vandalism/nonsense. It's been a long time since I was on Wikipedia, so... Reliable  Forever talk 15:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll stop reverting for a bit then. Reliable   Forever talk 15:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)