User talk:Edibility

Preview button
Are you asking because you do not know or because you think I do not know? --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm asking because I think you might not know. --Edibility (talk) 03:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I assure you, I know ... if you are pointing at the many edits to Macdonald, the hallmark of someone who does not know is that many typos are introduced then changed. Look at the various diffs; they are not trivial changes that would come from not using the preview function. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 04:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * also ... would someone who does not know how to use the preview button bother to add edit summaries to anything ... not knowing something so basic is the sign of a new editor. Perhaps you believe I am new to Wikipedia? --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 04:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I see someone creating a lot of edits to a single article and recording this as many edits when a single edit, well thought-out and summarized, would serve the same purpose. That's why I thought you might not know about the edit preview button. No offense intended, and I hope none taken. Good luck! --Edibility (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your notice at WP:AIV
AIV is probably not the place for your notice, since it does not involve ongoing or active vandalism. What issue exactly concerns you? I see no evidence of any compromised accounts at that AfD, but you were not specific as to which account may be compromised, or what edits lead you to think that there may be a compromised admin account. Please explain, so this can be looked into. Thanks. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 01:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * [EC]I'm afraid I don't see what you mean here at Articles for deletion/K. S. Balachandran...could you please explain what sort of action would need to be taken?
 * And for future reference, you could bring non-standard vandalism reports to this page. &mdash; Scientizzle 01:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's to do with two weird edits by User:Akradecki: and .  I'll ask the user personally, though I'm not incredibly concerned.  x42bn6 Talk Mess  01:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Although the user appears to have not edited since December last year, which means it's a little hard to find out. x42bn6 Talk Mess  01:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What you found is called userfication. While usually done with a page move, it was done with a copy/paste. There's no harm done here. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I thought someone messed up Akradecki's account and I was worried about that. I didn't know about userfication. Many thanks for explaining, and many apologies for causing all this trouble -- I didn't know. Sorry! --Edibility (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Review
Hi, thanks for reviewing Elderly Instruments! Your feedback will be very helpful. Are there any articles I can review or copyedit for you? --Laser brain (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's kind of you to offer! You know a lot about music retail, don't you? I don't know enough about that to be very useful, but it would be a big help here in Wiki if you could look at the articles in Category:Music retailers of the United States. I don't think any of them are good or featured articles. Large retailers such as Barnes & Noble are probably the most important in Wiki because more readers look at them (I assume). But sometimes the specialty retailers are much more interesting.
 * I'm grubbing away at company stubs and totally unsourced company articles and some business articles. It's a bit like cleaning out the gutters. Not like house-building like you're doing. But if you leave a message on the company project talk page asking for help with an article, I think someone will help. I will if I think I can be useful :) --Edibility (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, I will definitely take a look at that category when I get done with Elderly. Thanks for the heads-up! --Laser brain (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

FAC criteria
Hi Edibility. I noticed that you had commented on the FAC for Elderly Instruments. We are always excited to get new reviewers, but since you are new to the FAC process, I thought a brief overview of the process might be useful to you. I review a lot of FA nominations, so please feel free to ask me or one of the other reviewers if you have any questions.

An article can be nominated for Featured Article status any time the nominator thinks it is ready. Some articles never have peer reviews or go through GA; generally, the more experienced the editor who nominates the article, the less time they spend seeking comments at PR or GA because they have gotten pretty good at identifying issues on their own. It is definitely not uncommon for someone to bring an article to FAC that they are the sole, or primary, contributor to. Many people prefer to work alone rather than in groups, and sometimes it's difficult to get someone else interested in writing about a particular topic.

At FAC, reviewers are asked to comment on the article based on the Featured Article Criteria. Although one of the criteria does mention that information should be verifiable, reviewers usually are checking to make sure that the information could be verified, not doing the actual verification themselves. If reliable sources are cited, the article is generally considered to be verifiable, meaning that someone who was very motivated could go find those sources and verify the information. Comments or objections at FAC must be actionable; that means the comments/objections need to reference an issue with the criteria and provide enough information that the nominator could fix the concern. I saw that you have issues with uncited statements and marketing terms. If you could point out instances of those, then you're comments would be actionable.

When any comments or concerns of yours have been addressed, you can strike them out using text I want to strike out, or you can cap your comments using this:

Again, if you have questions just ask one of us, and thanks for becoming a reviewer! Karanacs (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Edibility, if you don't mind, I'd like to move your comments on that FAC to its talk page, as they don't relate to the criteria or any Wiki policy. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually think that Edibility had some good points, since some of the sources used were not reliable ones, and/or were misquoted a bit. Edibility, if you are interested, there is a related thread here: Talk:Elderly Instruments. --Elonka 17:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)