User talk:Dom497/Archive/2015-2018

Barnstar for you!

 * Thanks so much!-- Dom497 ( talk ) 14:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey Dom! Thanks so much for being so awesome and interacting with me during these 2 years. I remember working with you on GA mentoring and now I've become a GA Cup Judge. Good luck with university and thank you for being such a great friend. MrWooHoo (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks!-- Dom497 ( talk ) 14:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)
The article Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

October 2015
I replied there. Hope u can when you have time bro. From a Packer fan. My Pack won today. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Today's featured article/January 9, 2016
Dom, a summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. It mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? One question: Drop tower says this is the 3rd tallest tower in the US, but your article says it's the tallest. Do you know which is right? - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The claim that it is the tallest "free-standing" drop tower in the U.S. is correct. The other two that are taller were built onto the frame of existing roller coasters. A technicality of course, but correct nonetheless! By the way, I removed the amusement park wikilink from the lead, since it was unnecessary and contributed to a bit of overlinking. Perhaps the same change should be made in the FA summary. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've looked into both and I get it now. - Dank (push to talk) 14:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Adlabs Imagica Logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Adlabs Imagica Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

GA queries
Hi Dom497. As a novice reviewer, I still have few doubts about reviewing GAs. I am also writing an essay where your answers will be summarised. Considering you seem to be experienced, would you kindly answer some questions I have regarding them in general? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure! Ask away!-- Dom497 ( talk ) 01:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Here:
 * Criteria 2c, 2d requires access to sources: should a reviewer avoid an article where they have not much access to any of the sources given? or fail it if the nominator has partial access themselves?
 * Criteria 3 requires subject knowledge: does that mean one being unfamiliar with the topic should not review it? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My answer to your first question is that even if you don't have access to some of the sources, you can still review and pass the nomination. Part of this reasoning comes from good-faith as I trust that editors aren't adding fake sources. A good example is a book reference. Many articles may reference a book but I may have no access to that book to verify that the user isn't making up information. Instead, I would google the book name and take a look to check if it seems like a reliable source. There are also cases where some sources require a fee to be paid to view the source. This sometimes is the case for archives of newspapers. One editor (the nominator) may have paid that fee and therefore has the access to view the article while another editor (the reviewer) may not have paid and therefore does not have access. In the case where users must pay to view a source, you only need to ensure that the source is reliable (example: the source is the New York Times and not some personal blog).
 * For your second question, being familiar with the topic is NOT required, however, if you are just starting to review nominations for your first time I would suggest only reviewing nominations that cover a topic you know about. Doing so will make the review easier (in my opinion). As you gain experience you can start reviewing nominations that cover topics you have no knowledge in. I've done this a few times and I actually learn a lot about different topics and it keeps things interesting for me. Remember, being familiar with the topic is NOT required, I just personally think it would be better to start with topics you know about. If you have any more questions or need clarification, feel free to ask!-- Dom497 ( talk ) 02:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hope you don't find if I add another follow up question: then sometimes if in good faith the citations are accepted, how are we expected to verify no original research and copyright violations? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You assume there is no original research and copyright violations. I know it sounds crazy but it is ok to assume so long as you have tried to access the source (for example if the source is a book, you have tried to find an online copy or check if the book is available at your local library). If the source requires you to pay a fee, no one should expect you to pay just to verify it. (sorry for the late reply)-- Dom497 ( talk ) 20:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, this has been very informative. FA and GA answered queries now has a reference to you. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Four years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC at WikiProject Amusement Parks
A change to the list of available statuses for Amusement Park infoboxes is being considered at the following discussion:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks.

Please share any thoughts or comments you might have there. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You are receiving this notification, because you are listed as a member of WikiProject Amusement Parks

New newsletter for Notifications
Hello

You are subscribing to the Notifications newsletter on English Wikipedia.

That newsletter is now replaced by the monthly and multilingual Collaboration team newsletter, which will include information and updates concerning Notifications but also concerning Flow and Edit Review Improvements.

Please subscribe!

All the best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in University of Minnesota
Hello Dom497,

I am Bowen Yu, a Ph.D. student from GroupLens Research at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are undertaking a study about turnover (editors leaving and joining) in WikiProjects within Wikipedia. We are trying to understand the effects of member turnovers in the WikiProject group, in terms of the group performance and member interaction, with a purpose of learning how to build successful online communities in future. More details about our project can be found on this meta-wiki page.

I would like to invite you for an interview if you are interested in our study and willing to share your experience with us. The interview will be about 30 - 45 minutes via either Skype or Google Hangout. You will receive a $10 gift card as compensation afterwards.

Please reach me at bowen@cs.umn.edu if you are interested or have any questions.

Thank you, Bowen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobo.03 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Six Flags Fiesta Texas Batman Logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Six Flags Fiesta Texas Batman Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

You're edit-warring
At Bolliger & Mabillard, I get that RCDB is saying that Canada's Wonderland may be getting a Dive Machine, and while RCDB is considered generally reliable, that is not absolute. The IP is right in that they are speculating ... probably correctly, but still speculating. Please stop this. You're very close to 3RR time-wise, and definitely edit-warring over this, and you should know better. -- McDoob AU93  19:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Carolwood Pacific Railroad FAC
Great work on the article for Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort). I saw that it's going through an FA review and supported it. When you have a moment, consider commenting on the FA review for the Carolwood Pacific Railroad article here: Featured article candidates/Carolwood Pacific Railroad/archive1. I believe it needs one more declaration of support in order for the review to move forward. Jackdude 101 talk cont 15:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

GA assessing mentoring
Hi Dom497. You are listed as willing to mentor GAN assessors, is this still the case? If so, perhaps you could keep an eye on me? I am about to start my first GA review, on Japanese battleship Hyūga. I think that I know what I am doing, but am concerned that I don't know what I don't know. And it would be good to have someone to run any queries past. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! I'm on vacation till Sunday so I'll start to take a look at your review then if thats ok.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 03:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * That's fine. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It looks like you already passed the nomination. Did you still want me to look at the review?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 23:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It seemed straight forward, so I boldly did it. However, I am worried that I missed things and would much appreciate it if you could give it a once over and see if that is so. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll take a look soon.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 12:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I've only skimmed over the article but my biggest concern is the Reference section (per criteria 2a). For example, the fourth bullet point lists a webpage but its not linked/used anywhere in the article. Given this, there is either unsourced material (which then gets into criteria 2c) in the article or the reference simply isn't used and should be deleted. I would usually expect Template:Reflist to be used rather than the bullet list since its "cleaner" but thats just me. Finally, the issues you did bring up were good so good job on that part.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 21:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I suspect that referencing is my weakest area, so clearly I need to watch it more when assessing. I have recently started a second - Leo IV the Khazar. Unfortunately I have already passed 2c, although even on review it looks ok to me. I would be grateful if you could give my work a once over again. You may have noticed that I am picking articles submitted by past or present Military History Project coordinators on the grounds that they are least likely to have anything dramatically wrong even if I am weak in my assessment. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * If you pass a criteria, you are totally allowed to "change your mind" so long as you haven't already passed/failed the entire nomination. I've done this several times since I usually like to review the article and then after any issues are addressed, I do a second scan-through of the article. As an example, I'm currently doing a review and even though I told the nominator that once he addressed the issues then the nomination can pass, I found some more minor issues and asked them to address that first. I have never had a nominator argue with me about "but you said it would pass after I fixed those issues".
 * For your second review that you linked to, the references look solid in this case but it's weird that there is an empty "Primary sources" section. That should be removed.
 * I'm curious about the scope of the article you are reviewing. It seems really short. I would take a look at some of the current Good Articles listed here and figure out if the scope of this article you are reviewing is appropriate.
 * Regarding "weaknesses", I used to suck at reviews. Once you get a couple under your belt you'll start noticing trends within articles and being able to easily pick out the good from the bad.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 22:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Changing my mind; thanks, I shall remember that.

Primary sources. I noticed that and am now kicking myself for not picking it up. It is such a standard part of this era's articles that it didn't impact enough I think.

Scope. I know a bit about Byzantine topics. Reliable sources are hard to come by and this emperor died at 20 after a 5 year reign, being tubercular throughout it. Nevertheless, in two of my queries I have specifically asked if there is not more information. My, limited, printed sources are weak on Leo as well. Note that much of the article doesn't actually involve Leo at all - he was something of a cipher. Possibly that is sufficient reason to reject GA? (Although he is certainly notable.) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * To be completely honest I stay away from reviewing short articles that I don't know much about solely for the reason that I don't think I can judge the scope properly. With your existing knowledge of the topic you would definitly be able to judge better than me. Also, I'm not sure if you already know this, but when it comes to "offline" references (like books or old newspaper articles that aren't online) you are allowed to assume good faith that the nominator is not trying to trick you. No one expects (or no one should) you as the reviewer to go hunt down copies of books just to verify a couple of sentences.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 22:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That is the sort of thing that I had been kind of assuming, but it is difficult to be sure of without a more experienced editor's input. (This editor is a MilHist coordinator and churns out 2-3 Byzantine articles a week. He currently has a dozen awaiting GA review. I had been happy to assume good faith. Even leaving aside that my paper sources would eventually trip him if he was playing too fast and loose.) Gog the Mild (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer review/Heritage USA/archive1
I'm planning on nominating Heritage USA to GA status, but I do thing it needs peer review first before that. Since your a GA article mentor and peer review as well, not to mention you edit amusement park articles, I don't mind if you give feedback on the peer review on what you recommend me to add or change (sentences, typos, spelling, citations, etc). -- LovelyGirl7  talk  16:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm on the list of peer reviewers? Would you mind showing me that list (I know I am on the GA mentor list but didn't know I was on a peer review list....I might have added myself a very long time ago and forgot about it). Anyways, the GA backlog is very long right now and wait times have gone into the months. So.....if you want, rather than me peer reviewing it, I can do the GA review. I only suggest this because if I do a peer review, I'm essentially going to end up doing a GA review because thats how my brain is wired. However, I would suggest leaving the peer review open for a bit first so you can get others opinions; then you can ping me if you want me to do the GA review after your nominate it. FYI, I kinda do peer reviews within the GA review!-- Dom497  ( talk ) 22:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I’ll let you do the peer review part and give your feedback. Another editor I know is willing to do the GA part for Heritage USA, so I’ll let that one do the GA part once I nominate it (unless I change my mind on the GA part). I do have 2 GA article nominees you can review though (David Meade (author) and Jim Bakker) if you would like to do one or both of them. — LovelyGirl7   talk  23:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)