User talk:Jezhotwells/Archive 2

GA review of Paul Stephenson (civil rights campaigner)
Hello - I have reviewed Paul Stephenson (civil rights campaigner), which you listed at the Good Article nominees page. My review of the article can be found here. As you can see, I've raised quite a few issues with the article. Before you panic/become depressed/burn me in effigy, though, here are some things to bear in mind:
 * The points I raise are not necessarily all things that need to be addressed before I list it as a GA. Instead, they are things that I think could improve the article.  In my view, the actual GA status is of secondary importance in the GA process; what's more important is improving the article, and I think that goal is best served by making as many suggestions as possible.
 * In my experience, I'm among the most stringent GA reviewers out there, especially in the "well-written" category, where I tend to review GA and FA candidates in essentially the same way. Again, I do this because I think it's best for the article; however, if you think the points I've raised are too nit-picky or minor and you'd rather not address them, I may be willing to promote the article without them all being addressed.
 * The opinions I express in my GA reviews are just that - my opinions (I also express some things, like grammatical rules or the requirements of WP:V, that are not my opinions). If you disagree with any of my opinions, please say so; you don't need to convince me that you're right, just that your position is a reasonable one.

Al Williamson Update
Could you check Al Williamson's Good Article criteria once more, because I believe that I have completely finished all of the issues that have been found —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojay123 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I made my thoughts known on the AN/I thread. I'll take a look into working on the lead momentarily. If I'd have thought of it I would have printed out the article while I was at work so I could better peruse it over the weekend - but, c'est la vie, I will do my best without it. :) BOZ (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, did you notice this edit? BOZ (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The personal info was sourced, so I readded it but left it commented out. I'm going to be looking into the lead shortly; I may have an hour or so right now but we'll see. BOZ (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, an hour is exactly what I needed. :) Time for a break! BOZ (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your time with the GA evaluation - Great work - much appreciated. Best, --Scott Free (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Stone Mountain School
Hi Jez

Was patrolling the recent changes page and it came up that you have added an unreferenced tag to this page. When I've looked at Stone Mountain School it appears to have references? Is this an error or are the references not acceptable? --5 albert square (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Steve Dodd
I am very impressed by your photo-sleuthing, thank you. I've included the image. Anything else you think it needs? Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Plantinga's free will defense/GA1
The article Plantinga's free will defense you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Plantinga's free will defense for things needed to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've addressed your concerns (I think) with this edit. Gabbe (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with me?
You have been going through my things and marking them inappropriate. How would you like it if I stalked your edits and and set them for deletion. Leave my things alone. I was fine until you people started bothering me. I have permissions for all my uploaded work, because I have connections. Why would I waist my time uploading unnecessary photos. I have better things to do. Leave me alone, please. Colleen16 19:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So because someone makes a mistake on one thing that means they are entirely bad? Colleen16 19:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Frank Lorenzo
I see you did a review of the Frank Lorezo page. Please note that the main author on the page refuses to let anyone put in any comment about how in 1991, one month after Lorenzo left Continental, the airline went bankrupt. I've tried to put that in several times and it always gets punched out. That would be like leaving out the bankruptcy of Enron in Ken Lay's bio. My take is that Lorenzo deserves a lot of credit for cleaning up labor practices in airlines, but he was not a competent manager. Nearly all his airlines went bankrupt or fell apart. Seriously- Continental 2x, Eastern Airlines, Texas Air (broken up). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.86.112 (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Amy Leach
I removed the speedy tag that you added to Amy Leach because the article does not quality for A7 speedy deletion. Specifically,the article cites an award ("M.E.N. Theatre Award Best Studio Production") and a reference, a newspaper interview. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Lorenzo GA Review
Re Talk:Frank Lorenzo/GA1, I'd appreciate a few more days to get it up to par before making a final determination on the GA review. Thanks! Frank |  talk  13:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Apusskidu
I've removed the speedy deletion template you added to this page – the article about a book, which is not one of the categories mentioned in CSD A7. snigbrook (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Purwien Single Albums-Alle Fehler and So Kalt
Why are you proposing these for deletion? These are official releases from Purwien. Check purwien.net or even iTunes for that matter. Those two pages are accurately descriptive and I see no reason for these to be deleted so I removed the notion for deletion. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KenshinXSlayer (talk • contribs) 03:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the wole reason for deleting purwien, you may as well search all underground bands and delete them. This is ridiculous. You may as well delete Rammstein, Eisbrecher, joachim Witt, Unheilig, Bloom 06, Eiffel 65 and why not any other band that hasnt won any awards. The sole purpose of this site is for information that is in my opinion accurate and official. If these articles get deleted, whats the point in having a Wikipedia, this concept goes way over my head I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.91.37.33 (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: edits
I see the first one was fixed. Meant to ctrl + f that but the window didn't come up so it randomly went in the text apparently. Certainly not vandalism. Fixed the second thing too, keep forgetting the bot doesn't do GARs. Wizardman 18:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Jujimufu and the J.Z. Knight article
Please look at recent edits and reverts performed by Jujimufu, I think some admin may be required as it seems this user is not allowing others to make changes to this article.

88.110.76.101 (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Just visiting

Re Vilnius Castle Complex GAR
I think I've addressed the citations-needed items and worked the prose over some (if anything clunky still sticks out, pls let me know). No great hurry; T-day in progress; if you could drop a line at its talk page soon tho, I'd appreciate it. Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the improvements and the quick review - Novickas (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Unsigned comment
ya so i want to comment here but its too complicatod. moar simple plis. thk ns john —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.187.51 (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Next step for Shizuye/Victor Arbogast article
Victor Arbogast has recieved email confirmation from Joe Daly of //commons.Wikimedia.org that: a) Victor took the photo himself; b) he grants permission for me to use the photo in the article; and c) it has permission under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. So now I need to know what is the next step for me to get the article in Wikipedia?  Thank you.  Shizuye (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Shizuye
 * remind me where the page is parked, please. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Purwien
As you know, Purwien charted in Germany, I had provided links to their placements on the German Electronic Charts. Is it because they are unknown to other countries? That makes no sense if that warrants a deletion. Please let me know as I put alot of effort into making that article with providing references, album covers, etc. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KenshinXSlayer (talk • contribs) 16:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

What next please
I would like to know what is the next procedure to get my article on Victor Arbogast on Wikipedia. It is located under User: Shizuye/Victor Arbogast. Thank you. Shizuye (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Shizuye

Harold Pinter
I am de-watching the Pinter article, as I had come in to help you with the NYscholar situation. That is solved. It would be a shame, however (IMO) to allow someone to "edit" out interesting information that is well-supported by the refs. I do not agree with the new editor: Unlike other encyclopedias, we do not have such rigid space limitations, and if information if supported by secondary sources and adds interest to the article, I see no reason to delete it. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding dyk entry
Hi, I have asked a question regarding your dyk entry dyk River Malago. Your answer is welcome. Regards, — Mattisse (Talk) 01:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Tim Ellis page
I have made the changes you requested on the Tim Ellis page. I hope this is more to Wikipedia's standard. Mark Linch (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

River Avon
I know you've been working on various rivers & tributaries of the River Avon (Bristol), but the organisation of the main article seems illogical to me. I've put a note on Talk:River Avon (Bristol) about this - perhaps you'd care to comment?&mdash; Rod talk 21:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done some of the minus signs but may have missed some particularly where there is a confluence etc - they all need checking. I found them while working on a points of interest table for the Avon see User:Rodw/Sandbox/Avonpoi would you tajke a quick look before I move it into article space?&mdash; Rod talk 12:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Your impartiality required
Hi Jezhotwells, I saw the work you did on the Tim Ellis article, a real editor was needed to settle that situation, too many conflicts of interest in that discussion, myself included, which is why I stepped out of the editing, thank-you for getting it to a Wiki standard. I wonder if you could run your impartial eye and obvious understanding of how these articles should be written over a couple more pages. I would be happy to follow your lead on what you did on Tim's article, but there'll be a storm if I try to fix these pages, conflict of interest is more like conflict of personalities, especially those trying to get famous. Here are the pages in question and

Thanks Brendan Croft (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure why those other pages are so different to Tim Ellis's, but obviously the need for correct references isn't required on all articles, it would also seem that video links are allowable on Wiki if they add relevant information about the subject, like the videos on most performers wiki articles. They are perfectly acceptable as extra external links, I have checked this. I'm very confused about the obvious double standards that are being applied here. And to top it off you removed the Profession Magician category, why would you do that? Tim is first and foremost a Magician and always has been. Sorry if I have wasted your time, I shall take my requests for impartiality and thoroughness to another editor.

Brendan Croft (talk) 07:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Notability of A. J. Pollock
Please see my notes on the talk page. I hope this satisfies your question so the tag can be removed. Ἀλήθεια 21:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Nokian Tyres
Please note that this is a very small and specialized company. They are not Michelin or Goodyear. They mainly make tires for the local and regional market near Finland and have a small, loyal following for snow tires around the world. It started out as a stub 3 years ago and was difficult to write because little is known about the company. This is the background that others should know if they wish to evaluate the GA. It is not like Bristol, which is a big city. It is more like trying to write an article about the Stepping Out Theatre Company of Bristol.

None of the sources used are unreliable. The company references are used for facts, not overly positive statements. The company is small so many financial profiling companies do not review Nokian. I purposely tried to stay away from car magazines, which receive advertising and are less reliable than the sources that I referenced. Sources like the BBC News do not reference Nokian at all.

I am shocked that your notice was placed minutes after the GA award. I am open to improvement and plan to continue to do so even if the article remains GA.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

SPS?
What is SPS? Suspected shit? Simply (a) press statement?

What google term did you use to find lots of possible leads? Is Google News a separate search from Google?

Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I found out...Self Published Stuff

But wait...

Policy shortcut:

WP:SELFPUB

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is not unduly self-serving; I never used anything from the company that said they were good

it does not involve claims about third parties;

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

But I will work on finding more sources per your hint on where to find it. Once again, Google News separate? Search term you used? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

re Ellen Church image question
Thanks for the info about where to ask in the future; I looked around, but couldn't find the correct place myself. Brianyoumans (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Biewer Terrier Page
Hi Jezhotwells, Thank you for your help and I will seek an editor for adoption. What can we do about the person, IP# 98.249.195.84 that continually changes the Biewer Terrier page. This person obviously has little knowledge of the Biewer Terrier and is posting her personal opinion. She is getting rude now and is using wikipedia as a forum for debate. Can you block her? I'm am really getting frustrated as many people us wikipedia as a great resource. Do you have these problems with other articles? --Zarina1 (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. I'm not sure if I'm suppose to answer you here or on my talk page.

I made the image and posted it. It is a collage of pictures I took of the BTCA board members dogs. I thought I had clicked on the correct copyright tag when I posted it. The BTCA, Inc web site is the best source for information as it is the only club that has the support of the originator of the breed. She has signed documents for us showing the Biewer community her support of the club. Ilona and I are personal friends of Mrs. Biewer and talk to her constantly. Should I make reference to the club site with the documents that she has signed? I have posted link to the work that has been done to prove the dog is a purebred and not a Yorkie.

We just want the correct information about the breed to be posted and not compared to a Yorkshire Terrier.--Zarina1 (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Fall Out Boy
I'm listing this article at GAR as I don't believe you understand what constitutes a reliable source and thus inappropriately delisted the article. Lara ☁ 06:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Biewer Terrier
The article that appears under Biewer Terrier is full of inaccuracies. Under the circumstances that this article cannot be corrected as stands, this article should be removed from Wikipedia. The scientific information and proven facts are being omitted and do not support what the current article states. Please remove this articleWisteria Biewers (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Biewer Terrier page
Hi Jezhotwells,I'm the president of the BTCA, Inc. and was about to put more links up substantiating the information that I have posted. I had put links to the research results done on the Biewer Terrier. The collage is a picture I made and thought I had stated that when I posted the picture, I'm sorry. I even tried to leave a little of the info that Rienil and 98.114.217.182 put up after correcting their grammar and spelling. I'm tired of having the truth about the breed deleted. Please remove the page if you are not going to allow me to post.

At this point I don't know what I need to do to show that the BTCA is the only reliable resource for the breed. I will get a letter from Mrs. Biewer stating this if necessary. The BTCA has numerous pictures and documents signed by Mrs. Biewer showing her support and she is a member also.

Link to Mrs. Biewer signing the standard and description of the Biewer Terrier. http://www.biewer-btca.com/breedstandard.html#anchor_121

Link to the Biewer Terrier listed as a purebred that can be tested for. http://www.wisdompanelpro.com/breedinfo/breedsdetected.html

Link to the description page from Mars Veterinary, of the Biewer Terrier. http://www.biewer-btca.com/index.html#anchor_312

Link to pictures of Mrs. Biewer showing her support of the BTCA and giving us information about the Biewer Terrier breed. http://www.biewer-btca.com/triptogermany.html --Zarina1 (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Is Dog Fancy or Dog World considered reliable sources? How about Top Notch Toys magazine? Mars Veterinary? Research the BTCA has done in the last 4 years is not reliable? Delete the page because the majority of the information posted now has been put up by a few BYB's that have never touched a Biewer Terrier. Can you tell me why their information is being allowed to remain? Every time we complied and put up a link to verify information, it was removed immediately.--Zarina1 (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Locking information
How does information get locked into an articel where no one can go in and make corrections? How can you ask for edits and links and then have them automatically removed?Wisteria Biewers (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in GA Sweeps
Thus far, you have 110 listed reviews. For this very impressive and appreciated work, I hope you enjoy this award and display it proudly. Lara ☁ 17:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the GA review
Thank you for your GA review of the article The History of British Political Parties. Perhaps you might be interested in reviewing another work by the same author, United Kingdom Election Results? Cheers, Cirt (talk) 04:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The Confessions Tour (video)
GA concerns have been addressed. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 11:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review: Millennium (season 1)
I'm finished with all the tasks you gave me. --TIAYN (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"Personal reflection"?
I am baffled by the statement that the article you tagged in this edit looks like a personal reflection. To me it looks like a fairly typical case of a short Wikipedia article that could bear a lot of expansion. Can you explain what looks like a "personal reflection" in it? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I tajgged it as being like an essay or personal reflection. It looked like an essay do I tagged it - simple. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand that. It introduces the concept and says something about its role. That's pretty typical in a short Wikipedia article. What's the difference between what you view as an "essay" and a proper article? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

....and now looking at template:essay-like, I find this:
 * This template should be used when the article appears to have been written with personal comments on the subject of the article, or having some connection with the subject. It is used when the article is not necessarily representing a blatant opinion or opinion piece, but is still overly judgemental in tone.

I don't see a trace of "overly judgmental tone" anywhere in the article in the version that you tagged or any other version. What looks "overly judgmental" in it? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

GAN
Talk:Kohala (mountain)/GA1. Res Mar 21:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and guidance
Thank you for taking the time to be an impartial editor, and to make the corrections needed. I appreciate your comments, and think that your advice will be very helpful.

SupermanX (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If you have time... I could use your assistance again. I am having an issue on the talk page for this article.

Aeria_Games_and_Entertainment

I am trying to keep this neutral, but the other party is repeatedly posting my (and others) personal information, and trying to use the talk page as a platform for their personal agenda, rather than updating the article. I have repeatedly asked them to comply with the rules... but they do not seem to be listening. Perhaps as a third party, you could help mediate this?

Thank you again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SupermanX (talk • contribs) 17:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

SupermanX (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you once again. I appreciate the help and the clarification.

SupermanX (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of your tag
Having received no reply from you after three attempts, I've started a discussion of you here. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks: HGBA
Thanks for the review on at Talk:History of the Galveston Bay Area/GA1. I responded to some of your questions and left some questions of my own.

Thanks again!

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

GA nomination of St. Xavier's College, Mumbai
It's impossible to copyedit the article in a week. Please fail the article. Xavier449 (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Nefertiti bust
I am sorry, but I will be not regularly editing wikipedia in the next days, so may have to bear 3-7 days before I answer your queries. Please bear with me. Thanks for the GA review. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Addressed some concerns, though I will again busy this week. I will be fully free after 22th dec. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * May be my comment did not show in last changes. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the Pass.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 12:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Evan Jones (writer) ... and DYK credits
Thanks for your interest in this topic but the nomination that I made on December 12 is already in queue four, so I removed your re-nomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for letting me know. --PFHLai (talk) 12:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And what on earth are you doing claiming credit for artciles in which you have had little or no involvement like Solanum erianthum, Merrilactone A, or Bussell Island. You haven't created or substantially expanded any of these.  Claiming credit for them is shoddy and unworthy. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please look at the edit history of my usertalkpage. Blame the bot, not me. --PFHLai (talk) 12:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, Jezhotwells, I've fixed the DYK bot's recent errors. Hope you're happy.  For the record, I have posted enough complaints about this recurring bot error (example) and I don't really want to make a big fuss on WT:DYK again.  Shubinator, who appears to be busy and away from the wiki these days, has been fixing them every now and then since May.  I see another bot error on your usertalkpage.  I'll fix it in my next edit. --PFHLai (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"Essay" tag
Here's another one that seems completely inexplicable. Is in in fact all writing on mathematics that looks to you like "personal reflection"? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC) {{hidden|Long winded ramblings about how Maths articles are different from the rest of Wikipedia|:When it contains phrases like: We explain the basic idea of CFA by a simple example. and ''Assume that we have a data set that describes for each of n patients if they show certain symptoms s1, ..., sm. We assume for simplicity that a symptom is shown or not, i.e. we have a dichotomous data set.'', the answer is yes - it looks like an essay and a badly written one at that. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's interesting that other editors agree, isn't it? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of anyone else expressing agreement with this particular tag. I'll look at the history and the talk page. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ...OK, I've looked. There's never been anything on the talk page besides some notices saying it's within the scope of some WikiProjects, and in the edit history I don't see anyone saying they agreed with you about this.  What are the names of the other editors you're referring to and where did they write their opinions? Michael Hardy (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

So maybe it is mathematical writing in general that appears essay-like to those unaccustomed to it. That's what the examples you cite here seem to point to. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all, it is stuff along the lines of "We find", "we assume", etc. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I meant. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

{{edit conflict}}I am referring (above) of course to the articles that you are discussing with the tag. The problem seems to be that some maths editors don't understand the principles of making articles encyclopaedic or accessible. If you want to see an example of a maths good article try Matrix (mathematics). That is clear, un-essay like and encyclopaedic. It even has inline citations. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously many Wikipedia editors on many subjects write bad articles and mathematics is no exception. No news there.  In substantial degree Wikipedia's mathematics community is more respectful of standard codified conventions than are those who write on other subjects.  But what I was asking about was specifically the things that cause some people to put inexplicable "essay" tags on math articles.  In one case I know of someone did this merely because of the use of the "editorial 'we'" at one point in the middle of the article.  In that case I knew what he objected to, but to say that the article generally looks like an essay merely because of the use of that one word in a locution that could easily be rephrased is wasteful.
 * Generally if one begins a paragraph with "Assume that &mdash;&mdash;&mdash;", that means that the conclusions drawn in that paragraph are valid in all cases in which that assumption holds. If one writes "We assume for simplicity that a symptom is shown or not..." that would mean the conclusions that follow are valid whenever that is the case.  Sometimes one might write that when one intends that other cases are readily reducible to that one. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally if one begins a paragraph with "Assume that &mdash;&mdash;&mdash;", that means that the conclusions drawn in that paragraph are valid in all cases in which that assumption holds. If one writes "We assume for simplicity that a symptom is shown or not..." that would mean the conclusions that follow are valid whenever that is the case.  Sometimes one might write that when one intends that other cases are readily reducible to that one. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Example
Here's a passage from a Wikipedia article that is guilty of lacking inline citations (in some ways not as urgently needed as in most articles because of the largely self-explanatory nature of the content, but certainly the alleged fact that Cauchy was the first to do this should be backed up). Could we momentarily ignore its other faults and other virtues and concentrate on the question of essay-like-ness?
 * Suppose &fnof; is differentiable everywhere within some open disk centered at a. Let z be within that open disk.  Let C be a positively oriented (i.e., counterclockwise) circle centered at a, lying within that open disk but farther from a than z is.  Starting with Cauchy's integral formula, we have
 * $$\begin{align}f(z) &{}= {1 \over 2\pi i}\int_C {f(w) \over w-z}\,dw \\[10pt]
 * $$\begin{align}f(z) &{}= {1 \over 2\pi i}\int_C {f(w) \over w-z}\,dw \\[10pt]
 * $$\begin{align}f(z) &{}= {1 \over 2\pi i}\int_C {f(w) \over w-z}\,dw \\[10pt]

&{}= {1 \over 2\pi i}\int_C {1 \over w-a}\cdot{w-a \over w-z}f(w)\,dw \\[10pt] &{}= {1 \over 2\pi i}\int_C {1 \over w-a}\cdot{w-a \over (w-a)-(z-a)}f(w)\,dw \\[10pt] &{}={1 \over 2\pi i}\int_C {1 \over w-a}\cdot{1 \over 1-{z-a \over w-a}}f(w)\,dw \\[10pt] &{}={1 \over 2\pi i}\int_C {1 \over w-a}\cdot{\sum_{n=0}^\infty\left({z-a \over w-a}\right)^n} f(w)\,dw \\[10pt] &{}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty{1 \over 2\pi i}\int_C {(z-a)^n \over (w-a)^{n+1}} f(w)\,dw.\end{align}$$

Now there's the standard "editorial 'we' ", and the word "Suppose" is somewhat like the words "We assume" that seem to offend you, and one might even say that about the word "Let". This way of using the word "let" is a standard locution for specifying ones notational conventions, and that is necessary for comprehensibility. (I once read that someone jocularly said a mathematician is someone who is always letting something be something else. Obviously there's a reason why someone might say that, even if it's silly to treat such statements too seriously.)  "Suppose", in this case, is also about specifying notational conventions, also clearly necessary for comprehensbility. Reasonable readers would be offended by the lack of that information if it were not there.

Does this passage contain things that appear to you to be "essay-like"? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
I for one would like to implore you to please use better judgment in the placement of these tags (especially the essay-like tag) in the future. Use of interrogative verbs, or even of the first person plural, does not automatically make an article into a personal reflection. This sort of thing is totally standard in encyclopedic mathematics writing (see, for instance, pretty much any entry in the Encyclopedia of Mathematics). The template should be applied only to articles that obviously are personal reflections: there is no shortage of those on Wikipedia.

Also, when placing tags on pages, you cannot assume that the reason for them is going to be apparent. For instance, to orbital integral, a stub that I wrote some months ago, you added the expert tag without giving so much as a meaningful edit summary. However, with that template a talk page message is mandatory, because otherwise it is completely unclear what an expert would be expected to do. The article orbital integral is fairly typical for a mathematics stub, so it isn't at all apparent to me what expert input you had in mind.

So, by all means do new page patrol. But when adding cleanup templates to an article, please understand that it is ordinarily required at least to give a meaningful edit summary, and typically to start a discussion on the talk page for each template added. This applies to new articles as much as it does to featured articles on controversial subjects. Sławomir Biały (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, in reference to the orbital integral article already mentioned, I see that you added the cleanup template as well. Could you please explain what cleanup you feel the article needs?  Thanks,  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The article would benefit from placing in context and rewriting in plain English so that the general reader can understand what it it is about, at present it is incomprehensible to teh general reader. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Please read WP:NOTGUIDE, specifically:


 * Textbooks and annotated texts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects, such as Wikibooks and Wikisource. Other kinds of examples, specifically those intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article.
 * Scientific journals and research papers. A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text.
 * Jezhotwells (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The article does not read like a textbook, annotated text, journal, or research paper. It reads like a mathematical encyclopedia. Mathematics has its own conventional writing style; the article adheres to that style. I have the impression that you are attempting to read the article from the perspective of a non-mathematical general reader, whereas we are attempting to read the article from the perspective of a mathematical general reader. WP:MATH gave up a long time ago on trying to make research-level mathematics articles comprehensible to the non-mathematical reader; I don't think anyone believes it is possible. (Heck, I once had a lot of trouble trying to explain to someone that six-dimensional space was a meaningful concept.) I think the templates inappropriate tone and inappropriate person may be appropriate&mdash;we discourage the use of "we" in WP:MOSMATH, even though we're all guilty of writing it. (It even appears in textbooks. A non-mathematical friend once said to me, "What is this, the royal we??") I think also that you're getting so many objections to essay because we recognize mathematical writing style so well that the idea that it could be mistaken for a personal essay is incomprehensible.
 * Despite all the furor, my advice is to not worry about it. As long as the article is categorized properly, someone will eventually find it and fix it. Ozob (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not worried about - it is the Maths guys that seemed worried, however I would note that Maths articles should conform to the main Wiki policies and guidelines. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They are worried because it provides an unnecessary distraction and insisting on things that the expert portal prefers to handle in different way is usually not a good sign either. The "style"-question regarding personal pronouns is an absolutely marginally matter and to some degree the finer style distinction between textbook/journal/encyclopedia as well. What matters here first and foremost is accurate content and that the content does not contain or reflect personal views. If you tag articles essay-like, whose content is not an essay at all, but whose use of pronouns is simply deviating from the general MOS, then you give readers the false impression there might be a potential problem with the content itself as well rather than just with the pronouns. Moreover you clog the maintenance queues with that stuff and distract people from focusing first on articles, where the content is actually the problem.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I am Wikipedia's foremost advocate of conformance to Wikipedia's conventions in mathematics articles. I've been editing mathematics articles on Wikipedia daily for more than seven years. Few Wikipedians have done more Wikipedia edits than I have, and most of those few have done so primarily by doing large numbers of bot-assisted edits. Jezhotwells, if you want to understand how mathematics articles should be written, you might be able to learn a lot from me.

Do you mean to suggest that the article titled orbital integral reads like a textbook? You are wrong. If you want to see an example of a Wikipedia mathematics article that looks like a textbook (and one for 14-year-olds at that), look at this. If you want to see how to remedy the problem, look at the later edits to that article, mostly mine.

I am Wikipedia's foremost advocate of writing mathematics articles in a way that set the context at the beginning for the benefit of the lay reader.

I am Wikipedia's foremost advocate of avoiding writing mathematics articles as if they were research papers for experts in the field. I've edited thousands of mathematics articles with that particular point in mind.

I look at this version of the article titled orbital integral, which is the version you tagged as looking like an personal reflection or essay, and I find nothing that looks like a personal reflection or expression of a personal point of view; the article is written in the impersonal NPOV way that is Wikipedi'a ideal. I also find nothing like "we find" or "we assume", etc., to which you say you object.

The use of the editorial "we" in mathematical writing is standard. It is a figure of speech that no one would take literally, except those lacking experience who appoint themselves teachers of those with experience and who presume to instruct the foremost exponents of policies in the ways to implement those policies. Saying "we assume" is one way of stating the hypotheses of a theorem; it means the conclusion of the theorem holds in those cases in which the stated assumptions hold. Writing "thus we are led to the conclusion that..." in the course of a mathematical proof is a standard and usual rhetorical device; to take the "we" literally as referring to specific persons does not happen. Paul Halmos, an authority on expository writing in mathematics, said that the editorial "we" should mean "the author and the reader". It should refer to the person who is grasping the argument. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You may think you know a lot about editing, but you obviously haven't read WP:MOS. If you think that Maths articles should be excluded then please raise a discussion at WT:Manual of Style. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I am well aware of that policy, but here we're talking about figures of speech that would never be taken literally and that are in standard use. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just looked for the phrase "we assume" (in quotes") in a google search restricted to en.wikipedia.org. Among the thousands of hits, I find that 19 of the first 20 are in mathematics-related articles.  Maybe this locution, used in this sense, is not so familiar to non-mathematically inclined people.  But wrapping my brain around the idea that it could be mistaken for something intended literally is something of a task. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that WP:MOS doesn't apply to Mathematics articles. That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it.  It doesn't appear to be shared by others on the Maths project. Meanwhile, when I see new articles that are badly written, lacking in citations, asserting things as facts without in-line citations, lacking in context, etc. I shall tag them appropriately. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You should be able to differentiate between proper sourcing and inline citations. An article needs to be properly sourced, but it doesn't need to plastered inline citations all over.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)}}

Japanese settlement in the Marshall Islands
Hi,

Please give me a day or two to work with you. I will look through the recommended amendments that you have posted.

(Should you need to fail the article if it is not rectified--pls go ahead. Sorry for my busy schedule)

Mr Tan (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ive made a few copyedits. I believe that from time to time, I will make more sporadic adjustments and copyedits to the article, but I doubt I may have sufficient time for a serious session. Still, should the article not meet the criteria, feel free to fail it--I had intentions of expanding it if I am free.


 * Thanks for your kind allowance to extend the window period. If there are any doubtful paragraphs that I may have spot out, feel free to ractify, or post a notice highlighting areas that need corrections. Mr Tan (talk) 07:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

So...
Do you have any further comments on Kohala? I'm sure I've tackled the coverage problems, and I got a commit for copyediting...although 3 ppl have promised to look at it, no edits so far...Res Mar 21:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Scream With Me
To be honest, I'd say that "Scream With Me" meets the notability requirements - it's received over 1,000 plays over the past week, and is #9 on Mediabase's Active Rock charts: http://www.mediabase.com/mmrweb/insideradio/charts.asp?format=6&showyear=y&dpt=n/ -- Dylan 620  (contribs, logs) 03:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Converted to PROD: Technical flatground skateboarding
Hello Jezhotwells, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have changed a page you tagged (Technical flatground skateboarding) from being tagged for speedy deletion to being tagged for proposed deletion. The speedy deletion criteria are very narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Tőzsdefórum
Hello Jezhotwells, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Tőzsdefórum - a page you tagged - because: A2: Article doesn't exist on Hungarian Wikipedia; I'm going to tag it for translation. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Martín Cárcamo
Hello Jezhotwells, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Martín Cárcamo - a page you tagged - because: A7: subject is host of a television program with its own Wikipedia article (Calle 7) and article has more than 2 WP:RS. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

UP Diliman Institute of Civil Engineering
Hello. I undid you're motion to redirect the article to it's parent college. I believe this action disgusted me, since you haven't notified me for redirecting it. I guess you should bring it to AFD before you tried to redirect this article. I assumed it is a notable education institution, because the Institute of Civil Engineering of University of the Philippines Diliman is the first institute (as opposed from being an academic department) of civil engineering program in the Philippines, besides the fact that it is a Center of Excellence in civil engineering program as prescribed by the Commission on Higher Education of the Philippines. So why "redirect non notable institute to parent"? I believe you contacted me first or brought it to the AFD. Thanks.-- JL 09 q?c 13:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Collegiality
Wikipedia is supposed to have a certain collegiality, whereby Wikipedians cooperate with each other. Is it my imagination, or was there a certain reluctance on your part to answer my postings? Why would that be? Now I find this mischaracterization written by you: "Long winded ramblings about how Maths articles are different from the rest of Wikipedia". The gist of the "long [hyphen omitted] winded ranting" was that:
 * Figures of speech should not be taken literally; and
 * One should not rely on others to figure out that the reason for your tags is that you didn't know that standard figurative language is not meant literally.

Even my request for an explanation of what appeared essay-like in some articles you tagged was not treated respectfully. Michael Hardy (talk) 07:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The two I tagged looked like essays, with no clear context, inaccessible to the general reader. If you don't agree with tags, remove them. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

But why couldn't you reply to the query, explaining what specifically in them made them look to you like essays? Is such a reply more than normal collegiality? In one of the cases, you finally answered; in the other, I still don't know, and don't even have any guesses? Really, it seems as if you consider it unreasonable on my part to inquire about this. I don't understand why you would consider that unreasonable. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

HGBA
I have substantially modified History of the Galveston Bay Area according to your concerns and have attempted to address them as fully as I can. I am waiting on some peer copyediting but I have no idea when the other editors might find the time or inclination to help out. In any event, if you would like to go ahead and look at the revised text please feel free.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. Thanks for the prodding me to find out more about the Native Americans. Though the info I found was limited I found a lot more than I expected to find. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

River Avon page edits
Thank you for your communication on my Talk page regarding your reversion of my edit to the Intro of the River Avon page. I understand the concept of a "lead" and an "introduction", however I must stand by my edit: the item in question first is not essential to a proper Intro to the River Avon page; second, the very same information is the very next thing to appear in the article, under its very own heading. Given these mitigating considerations I am going to restore the deletion and trust that the matter will stand on its merits. Cheers. Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Photo on your User Page
Just a quick compliment on the lovely photo of the Clifton Suspension Bridge on your User Page. There is not a time I see a picture of it that I am not enchanted. Each brings back memories of strolling across it, as well as writing a paper on it and Brunel while a visiting student at the University of Bath (where I daily enjoyed crossing the River Avon via darling Pultney Bridge en route home). Fond times, all. Cheers. Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

GAN
The GAN is getting old. I've contacted, lemmie see, 1 2 3 4 different people in the hopes of a copyedit, and as of yet no one has responded. Maybe it is best that you do it and finish it already? And honestly, I don't theres much jargon in it, after all I wrote it so that I could understand :) I'm going to be strapped for Internet time for a week so the sooner the better. Res Mar 01:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice, two people have responded, and the article got a pretty thorough combined copyedit from Awichert/Diannaa. So did that clear the issue? <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 04:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

River Parrett
Hi, With your rivers wikiproject hat on would you fancy taking a look at River Parrett. A few of us are trying to get this ready for FAC nomination & would welcome any comments on what is missing etc.&mdash; Rod talk 14:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your comments. I've dealt with some of the MOS issues, but will wait for comments from others re Natural History section & moving some stuff from course to history. Could I ask for further help with the Hydrology - I've looked at the document you suggested but don't really understand what I'm looking at - see comment at Talk:River Parrett. Thanks&mdash; Rod talk 21:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Bionicle/GA1
Merry Christmas! I'm back and getting to work on this. I've left some questions and comments on the review page (most of which are interspersed among your criteria). I have some questions in some vital areas so you may want to check them out. Please tell me what I should do. Cheers!--<font color="#6600CC" face="Algerian">Twilight <font color="#0000FF" face="Algerian">Helryx  01:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Beer in Serbia
"(verify credibility, ref #1 is a Wiki mirror)" - Quite possibly, but a mirror of what? It isn't a mirror of Beer in Serbia. (Or at least, it doesn't look like it is ... ) More information please. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Kohala (again)
The stuff from him has been handled...and all your original comments addressed...can we close it? Or do you have more stuff on it? <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 02:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is he on break...? <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 13:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, responded. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 15:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

GA review
Thanks very much for the GA review. Responses are now ready at Talk:Charles Keating/GA1. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for the review and the pass. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sociology GA review
Thanks a lot! --Tomsega (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: Idiopathic Pulmonary Hemosiderosis
I understand the issue of conflict of interest now. I have an adopter that was able to update the page and add the links that were relevant to the IPH community. Regards IphnetIphnet (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sanisera
Sorry, but the vandalism is erase any opposition thesis with the excuse of to enlarge the article.

I think that the draft article is necessary that it will write by the new contributor respecting my ideas. Or not?

--79.153.121.162 (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A little more time for my GAN, please?
Happy New Year! I'm almost done with the criteria for more real life information (all that's left is Reception) for Bionicle. As soon as that's covered, I'll get to work fixing the lead and then the grammar (though I took our advice and left a request at WP:GOCE just in case). However, I won't be able to do all that by tomorrow because of school work, but I think I can by the end of January. So, can I have a little more time? Cheers!--<font color="#6600CC" face="Algerian">Twilight <font color="#0000FF" face="Algerian">Helryx  15:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lam Brook
Hello! Your submission of Lam Brook 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! This is a really interesting hook, and I'm sure it can work, but it needs a little bit of tweaking (preferably including a reference to show that the mating area is connected to Lam Brook). If you leave me a note on my talk page, I can look over the hook again when you're ready. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, just One Week?
Sorry, I didn't mean to make my request sound that long. Would one week be allowable? Sorry, but I waited too long for this to get reviewed, and I don't want it to fail because it failed to meet these simple (albeit careful observance required) criteria. Besides, the World War II GAN went on even longer (from November 4, 2009 to present) and it has more criteria to fulfill than Bionicle. But I understand if it's not allowable with you. D= Cheers, <font color="#6600CC" face="Algerian">Twilight <font color="#0000FF" face="Algerian">Helryx  22:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Criteria for real-life info has been completed. I will get to work on the lead tomorrow and will ask a copy-editor for help directly. If you will allow me another week, I firmly believe that all the criteria will be fulfilled by the end of it.--<font color="#6600CC" face="Algerian">Twilight <font color="#0000FF" face="Algerian">Helryx  03:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Your Concerns about My Article
Hi Jezhotwells, Sorry i am new to wikipedia and am not certain on where to post my response to your concerns. I had noticed you had issues with my article about "John Rosatti" and disagreed with not posting the village Voice sources. I hope I can help you understand why the sources you wanted to use were found unacceptable. The editor who wrote the village voice article, also owns the Smoking Gun website, which is not a valid source for wikipedia. Also, this editor gathered his original "information" from FD-302 document's from the FBI office(An FD-302 form is used by FBI agents to "report or summarize the interviews that they conduct" and contains information from the notes taken during the interview by the non-primary agent. It consists of information taken from the subject, rather than details about the subject themselves. A forms list from an internal FBI Website lists the FD-302 as Form for Reporting Information That May Become Testimony) which mean, this is only a witnesses statement and not a statement from John himself or evidence gathered by the FBI. John was never convicted or questioned by the FBI concerning this matter, because the FBI did not feel the witness's statement was verifiable or important enough. The Village Voice article was based from fines John had settled over 15 yrs ago by New York Attorney General "STATE RESOLVES JAMAICA BAY WETLANDS VIOLATION" http://www.ag.ny.gov/media_center/2001/jan/jan31a_01.html. The editor of the Village Voice/Smoking Gun took this information and sensationalized what really happened and made it entertaining for the readers. Anything written after about John was sited from the Smoking Guns or Village Voice false information, which makes me question the other editors experience as a journalist. Therefore, if you can find one. Just one source, from an ethical news source (NY Times, The Washington Post or TV media CNN, ABC, FOX) claiming John is affiliated with the Colombo organized crime family, then i would question John myself. The New York Times has reported about the Colombo Crime Family over 2000 times and not once was Johns name mentioned. Sadly people take articles for face value and do not care to find out the facts. From what i am told, wikipedia thrives to be better than other information websites and more of a reliable source for researchers, which is why they are extremely picky on where the source originates and refuses to become a paparazzi magnet. I hope i answered all your questions about why the administrator decided to remove the information you wanted to add. 99.48.231.141 (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Because in reality, people do not have "the privacy act (1974)" protecting them, giving reporters the freedom of sensationalizing the news. When I spoke to the chief editor at the village voice and asked him to report the good news about John, he laughed and told me, "Good news does not sell". When I told him John was never was convicted, he told me, "so what, his name was still mentioned". Tabloid media has become "the judge, the jury and executioner" and the public feeds off tabloids and protects their rights. You asked me why John does not sue for defamation; the answer is simple "How the Supermarket Tabloids Stay out of Court" http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/04/news/how-the-supermarket-tabloids-stay-out-of-court.html?pagewanted=all. Which is why tabloids are allowed to publish stories like “PRESIDENT Barack Obama is caught up in a new gay sex and drug scandal" http://www.globemagazine.com/story/310. The internet has given the tabloids a new platform to grow and relive old buried lies. I noticed my article was up for deletion, which I now welcome because I only foresee a disaster happening for his children. The tabloids win again, be proud and have a nice day. Crackofdawn (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do research other than looking at allegation's. These allegations have affected his children over the years. Keep in mind John was never convicted of these crimes and allegations and this should not be considered valid proof just because a reporter wrote about it 15 yrs ago. I want to delete this article before their father will be targeted and falsely accused of being a member of some organized crime.. I am certain, i could find documents and actual convictions on every living person wikipedia has posted.. Along with fbi files but i do not have the desire to slander a person to prove a point. Also, to answer your question, yes john is a very nice caring person who i am very happy to know...I doubt many mafioso's cry when you tell them your mother died, like he did with me about my mother.. If you met him, you wouldnt be questioning theses "allagations" 99.48.231.141 (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please review
I have added the Inline citations and edited the references for the article on Victor Arbogast. The article is parked on User: Shizuye/Victor Arbogast Please review, and advise me on the next step. Thank you. Shizuye (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Shizuye

Article Appropriatness
Jezhotwells: Thank you so much for your reply and assistance. Yes, please, I desperately need adoption as a newbie! Regarding the citable references: Since these incidents took place in the early 1960's and it is doubtful that any of the references are digitised, is it acceptable to link to .pdf files of the documentation? Many thanks for all your assistance! Belleami (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Bristol Bus Boycott, 1963
Loved this piece. Couldn't fault it. Passed it at GA. Good job. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Rossati
There is a thread opened regarding recent edits at the Rossini article at the WP:BLPN, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not reinsert this controversial content that is under discussion at the BLP noticeboard, I do not see your hurry to insert it, please take care and wait to see what position has support. Off2riorob (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that you warned an editor for removing this disputed content that is under discussion at the BLP noticeboard on the grounds that it is cited so this must be ok, this is incorrect, the content is controversial and is been disputed by another editor and that is fine, the content stays out while consensus it found, you do not revert the editor and warn him, please talk your time with this. Off2riorob (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, for me it is late, I would enjoy at least considering its the holiday season at least 24 hours to get back to you on this. Off2riorob (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is it so difficult for you to see difference between the New York Attorney Generals claims verses Village Voice. The New York Attorney General clearly states the issue was resolved and never mentioned anything about the mafia. http://www.ag.ny.gov/media_center/2001/jan/jan31a_01.html vs. http://www.villagevoice.com/1998-06-02/news/the-wiseguy-and-the-wetlands/ ... Why would you want to keep this rumor alive? If you look closely at the court documents, Johns name is mentioned in One paragraph out of hundreds of documents related to the entire case. John was never convicted or even tried in court on these charges. As i mentioned before, FD-302 files are just "one persons statement" the FBI took notes on, then attorneys summarized for these notes on court documents. If John was tried in court I don't think the court would have filed it under... I can not understand why you can not see this..

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee ,

- v. -

LOUIS MALPESO, aka Bobo; ROBERT GALLAGHER; JOSEPH AMATO,

Defendants-Appellants.

Before: NEWMAN, Chief Judge, MINER and GODBOLD

Crackofdawn (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review of "Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)"
This is to inform you that the user who is vehemently being biased in the review of the above article is frankly denying to step down and continue with his biased nature. Look at his talk page. Before even reviewing the article he is saying that the article is a PR piece dedicated to glorify Lady Gaga. He's asking us to contact Gaga's record company and ask for their consesnus on the article. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 06:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * And Jezhotwells has declined to do so. Legolas2186, you and Jezhotwells have a basic misunderstanding. In my professional opinion, the article is largely unreadable. Other professional editors from major publishing houses or Fortune 500 companies would have a very similar opinion. What you do not seem to appreciate is that professional editors are regularly confronted by writers who can't believe that they are wrong, can't believe that professional editors are indifferent to the subject matter. It wouldn't matter to me that you were writing about The Archies or the Beatles. The same comments apply.


 * Professional editors hear every day, "I got straight A's in English", "Are you an expert in this subject?" and of course "I'm a professional writer, how dare you question me?" The answer is: we're applying professional standards, and they are remarkably uniform across professional editors.


 * Stop looking for the usual invalid excuses to attack professional opinion, and fix the article. For the sake of Wiki and for the sake of readers. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your biasness and pretence under the veil of professionalism is really scary, coupled with the fact that you are a reviewer at GAN. In my opinion an editor review of your contributions is necessary. I request you to step down from reviewing the article since a community GAR is opened now. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Jezhotwells! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Gene Barge -
 * 2) Scott Davidson (guitarist) -

WP:NPA
Hi, I see that you are not a new user, however, I have seen that seasoned editors still have to be reminded of various policy, such as this case, in regards to our policy on no personal attacks. Here, you attack another editor saying that his friends are mobsters, with absolutely no evidence to back it up. A single article in a single paper alleging that the friend of the user is not sufficient grounds for such a thing, and indeed, the other papers you cite specifically call it an allegation. Even if you did have sources to back it up, you are not permitted to attack editors in this way. Don't do it again, and I am sure things will great, however, if you proceed to do such, I will take you to ANI about it, and I will push for your autoreviewer status to be removed. I'm sure they would love to hear how you are blatantly trying to violate BLP by citing articles which do not back up your position.— <font color="Green">Dæ <font color="Blue">dαlus <font color="Green">Contribs 11:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Shenandoah (band)
I'm working on your suggestions right now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I still have a couple issues. First of all, as I said, American English dictates that bands are referred to in the singular, and it should be consistent all around, so "The band [verb]ed its nth [noun]" is correct. Also, I don't see any policy that says it's necessary to indicate that I'm pulling newspaper sources from Google News or that I should indicate that a subscription's required -- could you please point me to any such policy? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: V. S. Srinivasa Sastri
I have made some of the changes you suggested. However, I shall not be having regular access to the internet until 14th. Hope, you won't mind the delay!!!- The Enforcer <sub style="color:red; font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">Office of the secret service 05:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

River Marden
Sorry for the possible edit conflicts, my intended action was reverting vandalism via the Videojug rollback button just below the River Marden rollback button. I've reverted back to your version JForget  01:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC

Help?
I posted this in the help forum already, but then I saw you! I need help in making a decision, and I hope I'm not being "disruptive", but perhaps you may be more familiar with my issue. 4 months ago, you reviewed Pat Condell for GA, and you failed it because of lack of reliable sources. 1 month after, the same person renominated it. I checked, and not many things have changed. Does this meet criteria for a Quick Fail?  Bramble  claw  x   20:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * But didn't you fail it for pretty much the same reason?  Bramble  claw  x   17:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

GA of Paparazzi
I think you can freely review the article now. Piano non troppo seems to have stepped down from his biased reviews. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 13:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't recall promising to review it. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, didn't you? Sorry, my bad then. :( --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 06:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

2nd opinion needed
If you are interested, maybe you could give a second opinion on EL/M-2080 Green Pine. I cannot find any significant problems with the article, but I'm hesitating to pass because the language seems too terse. What do you think? Offliner (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Source
I saw your GA review for Titan's Curse and as I am currently preparing an article for GA submission. I am currently citing a publisher's website for awards citations. Would this be considered RS? Thanks! Barkeep49 (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

PeaGalaxy
Perhaps when you have time, you could give an opinion on this article. You have given advice before, which hopefully I have followed. BTW, I live in Kingsdown! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pea_galaxy Richard Nowell (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

>>>>When you have some more time! I have put in citations using the Wiki citation generator. All the citation links are where they should be. Spelling's good (American). Thanks Richard Nowell (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

re: Talk:Dido and Aeneas/GA1
I'll take a look tomorrow; I actually forgot about this, so I haven't looked at it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Bristol
Hi Jez, I saw Bristol at Peer Review and thought I might get around to helping, but i see there's a looong list of good stuff from User:Rodw. Something you might want to consider, if you reckon you've got enough to go on with, is to close the Peer Review yourself (instructions at the top of the page). That way, you could bring it back for a second peer review once you've tackled Rod's stuff, rather than getting all the feedback on a version you are about to significantly revise. Just a thought in passing. Good work BTW. Me, i'd want to see a slight expansion of architecture, but that may be my biases showing. Was very struck by the architecture and urban design of the place. Nice Georgian stuff that doesn't exist Down Under. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Baker Lake
I noticed you took it upon yourself to remove links to Inuit galleries from the Baker Lake page. Did it never occur to you that users would LIKE to know what galleries carry Inuit art from Baker Lake? Or that users would LIKE to have links to those galleries where they can learn more about Inuit art from Baker Lake? Wikipedia is an information source. Galleries are a key source of information. Try not to be so cavalier about removing useful information and links, other users may have a broader view of the subject than your own narrow, non-commercial view. If you don't like a link, don't click on it. But don't be so high and mighty that you think you have the right to remove them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitzwerk (talk • contribs) 18:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Red links and List of Bands from Bristol
Thank you for clarifying what is, and is not, Wikipedia policy. I will still endeavour to keep red links to a minimum, but now feel able to update with more entries, subject to my intention to write articles at a later date (within a couple of months or so). It will also come in useful for my new article on a List of Record Labels from Bristol, which I'm just about to upload.

P.S. Gurt up for Jezhotwells/Userboxes/briz         Cogoal (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Scofield
Thank you for your reply on the editor assistance page.

I have done by best to assume good faith and made concessions in order to reach consensus, yet have been thwarted and verbally insulted by the other editor. On the talk page, he refuses to discus the point beyond "He's right and I'm wrong" while I waste my time rationally discussing the pros and cons of different options.

When I ask for editor assistance in whether I am correct to maintain this neutral stance or to let his unconfirmed stance ride he follows my posting history to the page in order start a completely different debate - one of which I'd already agreed with with and provided him with the evidence to confirm.

For 8 months I've remained in the top 3 layers of the dispute pyramid without requiring any further assistance, but he's now made two reversions within 24 hours and I'd rather not be the one who starts an edit war about this.

Any and all advice is appreciated. My IP address tends to change but will check for messages at talk page for the one this message is posted from 149.254.218.38 (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Need review and comment please
Hi Jezhotwells I have revised and added the Inline citations for the article that I am writing as you requested. The article is parked at User:Shizuye/Victor Arbogast I would like to get review and comment so that I can proceed ahead. I have submitted this question on my discussion page (Of the article's User Page), and have not received an answer. I would appreciate your help and comment. Thank you. Shizuye (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Shizuye 1/19/10

Berlin request
Hello.

Thank you for your earlier feedback regarding my WIP article on the documentary Berlin. I've tried to add some third-party details, though they seem to be mostly about the broadcast in the UK, as opposed to the international one shown on BBC World News. In any case, if you wouldn't mind taking a look, could you see if the article is a little bit closer to being ready to go? --Nerroth (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I come in need of service
Hello, Jezhotwells:

I only know you from your GA review of the Edward Said article. But I wonder if you wouldn't be able to help me, or maybe direct me towards help regarding another issue. There is a category being discussed for deletion, and I believe two editors have made the issue personal, nominating for deletion two other related categories, before this one has even been decided upon. I don't know how to alert the appropriate administrator or what I can do, and I'm wondering if you could tell me the steps to take. Respectfully, Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 22 it looks to me as if powerful arguments for deletion have been made. If you oppose the deletion then you need to argue the case at the discussion citing Wikipedia policies and show why this category is neccessary. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. And what if it's this discussion?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a fair bit of to and fro there. The same points are made as in the other nomination and must say, I appreciate the points made by the deletionists. Perhaps the list suggestion is the way to go.? Jezhotwells (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time and your honest opinion. I hope you will feel free to comment on the discussion. As for the list suggestion, I already have one under construction, yet as you know the functions of a category are different and preferrable.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad faith edits after resolution
Hi. If you take at look at my user page User_talk:Jonathanbishop there is a comment from someone who refers to himself as the Colonel. This person has already successfully contributed to the removal of the Jonathan Bishop article through personal and collaborative attacks on myself and has now set himself on a crusade to remove any mention of me and my work from Wikipedia. He has started by removing the content from the Character theory (Media) page and I'm currently monitoring the other pages I'm mentioned on. What action can I or Wikipedia take? Thanks. --17:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reverted and warned the IP. WP:VANDAL gives further information about fighting vandalism. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. I did an nslookup on the IPs and its the same ISP as my former fiancee's parents use. They tend to change their IP address with each edit to cover their tracks. Apologies for having to clutter up your talk page. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Advice
Thank you for your advice it is very helpful to me Roscrad (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Just fyi, I've reported the user to AN/I. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Washington Park (Chicago park)/GA1
I have responded at Talk:Washington Park (Chicago park)/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.
Thank you for your support in the Nokian Tyre GA reassessment! Wikipedia has some nice people but also quite a few troublemakers. Most of the troublemakers are at WP:ANI or AFD but occasionally they go to other places. To be honest, I wasn't sure which one you were but decided you were sincere when your suggestions had some merit and you also didn't keep coming back with new and questionable criticisms. I hope you aren't offended by my candidness. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

EL/M-2080 Green Pine
Hi, thanks for your 2nd opinion! Who should pass the article now? Flayer (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The reviewer, User:Offliner, should pass it if they agree with others' comments. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Flayer (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, User:Offliner says (via email) he is blocked at the moment and cannot edit. He asks me to ask you to pass the article. Flayer (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Emerald Ensemble name change
Hi,

Last year you kindly set up a page for Emerald Ensemble after I bodged a few edits! You will be pleased to know that the ensemble has this month changed its name to the Bristol Ensemble (see www.bristolensemble.com). I had a go at changing the EE page, but the entry itself needs to change, preferably with a redirect from Emerald Ensemble, and there is also a logo image which I am not sure how to change. Your advice / help would be appreciated, as I'm not quite sure of the best way to implement this sort of change.

Kind regards

ajg455 (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sorting this so quickly! All the best ajg455 (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks you for your response to my query on the administrators page and your neutral perspective. Orange Mike is correct and I am the Deputy Head - a keen wiki user - but until this article was published, never an editor. I am deeply frustrated by the whole issue as Orange Mike has reverted - on the basis of my conflict of interest (fair enough, i say)to the previous edit which has the negative POV comments. I don't know what to do for the best. I had put additional citations to support the actual position on and they are now gone. It may seem a minor thing, but wikipedia is the second result in Google and school recruitment depends on fair and accurate information not deliberately misleading. Can you offer any further advice - I don't want to do further edits for fear of being blocked?

Paulsnorman (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: DPD
Hi,

Ok, sorry, I should have RTFM first, but I couldn't see the point of an inaccessible reference in large type.

Jsftnano (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo
I'm back now from Basic have responded to your GA review. Please reassess the article. I would appreciate it. //Gbern3 (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to renominate at WP:GAN if you think it is ready for re-assessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Query
Thank you for your help. I tried to get back to Buzzzzz but there was no place to post a message. I also find the material overwhelming in its scope and organization. Trust me, I have spent hours trying to familiarize myself. To assume that I haven't made such an attempt because I made an error is actually another error. Hopefully, I'll be able to ask you, or somehow somebody will tell me how to get back to Buzzzzzz for questions in the future. Ahalani (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)#
 * Click on the talk link on his signature. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

February GA Sweeps update
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you have to be sick of seeing these updates (as well as Sweeps itself) by now, so please do consider reviewing a few articles if you haven't reviewed in a while. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Madhouse on Castle Street
The article Madhouse on Castle Street you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Madhouse on Castle Street for things which need to be addressed. <font face="Courier New">Frickative 02:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

GAN review of Indiana World War Memorial Plaza
I left some comments on easily fixable typos in article talk page. User:Reywas92 thinking I was doing the fully fledged review, moved my comments to the review page. Regards-- Chanaka L  ( talk ) 10:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

River Parrett
Hi, Some time ago you said you'd take another look at River Parrett. It's now got loads of new comments on the talk page "Review" section & any help would be appreciated.&mdash; Rod talk 20:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Particularly if you know about Ton, Tonne, Short ton, Long ton, & Tonnage.&mdash; Rod talk 17:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

FCYTravis
You recently posted a message on the talk page of. I'm just posting to let you know that he hasn't edited since 2008 and is not likely to see your message.  — Soap  —  21:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it was just a GAR ntoice, I have left similar on the project pages and talk pages for seven or eight other contributors. I note that FCYTravis is no longer active. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Parsifal GAR
Thanks for the notice. I've currently committed myself to dealing with the Trevor Pinnock GAR. This means that it will be at least the weekend before I look at your points on Parsifal. I suspect that some of the other people you contacted will be responding to the Parsifal one. But, if not, could you allow me until the end of next week to make significant progress.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Tahnks.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

May Revolution
I have failed this GAN; my thanks for the second opinion. Feel free to hit me up at any point if you need a second opinion yourself, or a review of one of your articles. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests
I posted a question regarding the abundance of Price is Right pricing game articles and recent different AFD results for these articles at Editor assistance/Requests but have not yet received a comment from any administrator. I was wondering if you have any comments regarding this since I've seen you are pretty active on this request page. As the request states, I'd like to get a lot of these articles cleaned up but don't want to start an edit war with other users who are fond of the individual articles. Any comments you have are appreciated – thanks. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Tooth, etc
Hi Jezhotwells, thanks for your note. Everything's fine, just a spot of "Wiki apathy" at the moment. I should get Tooth finished this weekend, it looks quite reasonable but has a couple or so of unreferenced paragraphs; and there is also a "merge?" flag on it (I tend to do GAN reviews much quicker than Sweeps, as the former has a nominator on tenterhooks). Then I want to do some more on the River Parrett before Rod resubmits it; and some more GANs. I'm not a tooth expert but I have a full set; but if you have technical expertise and you think there is something missing by all means chip in (sorry about the pun). Pyrotec (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)