User talk:Hallows AG/Archive 2

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Peer review limits changed
This is a notice to all users who currently have at least one open peer review at Peer review. Because of the large number of peer review requests and relatively low number of reviewers, the backlog of PRs has been at 20 or more almost continually for several months. The backlog is for PR requests which have gone at least four days without comments, and some of these have gone two weeks or longer waiting for a review.

While we have been able to eventually review all PRs that remain on the backlog, something had to change. As a result of the discussion here, the consensus was that all users are now limited to one (1) open peer review request.

If you already have more than one open PR, that is OK in this transition period, but you cannot open any more until all your active PR requests have been closed. If you would like someone to close a PR for you, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Peer review. If you want to help with the backlog, please review an article whoe PR request is listed at Peer review/backlog/items. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review
This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 8 February 2012 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding  to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of History of Currencies used in Brunei
Hello! Your submission of History of Currencies used in Brunei at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You are so warm welcoming
Thanx for the nice cookies... you are so warm welcoming so nice of youMcKinseies (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sialoblastoma
Good evening: I uploaded a photograph, but for the life of me cannot figure out how to change it so that only a thumbnail shows on the far right hand side in-line with the text. Salivary Sialoblastoma H & E Histology LDRT.tif is the link. Many thanks, Lester D.R. Thompson, M.D. 05:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soca1zim (talk • contribs)

Thanks so much -- that was very helpful. Lester D.R. Thompson, M.D. 18:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Why did I get rejected?
Hi Hallow,

I was just wondering why did my article get rejected? Your comment was put forth as:

"This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies."

However, I beg to differ.

First, my motive of posting up this article is not to advertise Waste Concern. I am just an ordinary student that did alot of research on Waste Concern and wrote the post according to ALL of the sources I have thronged through.

Second, I believe that putting a column under Problems for Waste Concern means that they are NOT doing a PERFECT job and they still got alot to improve upon. How is that belong to "advertising Waste Concern"? Must I deliberately put something that bring them down to qualify for a neutral posting?

Please advise. Much appreciated. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imannsk (talk • contribs) 15:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I felt that the submission looked like advertising as some of the sentences in the article looked promotional. It shouldn't be too hard to fix the article and I will be happy to accept it once you have finished improving it. Also, you need not add more to negative content to bring them down if you have brought the over-positive sentences to a more neutral tone. Cheers, Hallows AG (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hallow,

I have changed those words that might connote "advertising". Hopefully you can read it and get it approved as soon as possible.

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imannsk (talk • contribs) 14:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Union Watersphere
Regarding Template:Did you know nominations/Union Watersphere. Not clear how a article 1910 characters long is less than 1500 characters long. Can you please review your review? thanks.Djflem (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Full Sail University
Hello, the questions that I had were resolved with the recent edits by Nomoskedasticity and no further action is required. Thank you again for your assistance. --Tylergarner (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, I just wanted to follow up and thank you for your assistance earlier. I've proposed a revision to the History section of this article here but have not yet received a response on the Talk page or on Nomoskedasticity's talk page since posting on January 31, would you be willing to review? --Tylergarner (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, thank you again for your recent assistance. I've proposed a revision to the Criticism section of this article here, but similarly have not yet received a response on the Talk page since posting on February 17, would you be willing to review? Thank you, --Tylergarner (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)