User talk:Joe Gazz84/Archive/2010/September

GOCE drive has begun
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Diannaa at 03:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC).

Stock Market Data Systems
Hi, this article seems to have a few existing issues still; many paragraphs remain unreferenced, and there are some style concerns. I hope that, since you decided to accept the article, that you will now make the necessary changes to bring it up to par. That would include adding references and giving it a good copyedit. Regards,  — fetch ·  comms   01:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I did a quick copyedit on the lede; the rest needs some work on conforming to the MOS (I even had to rename the article to use lowercase letters), so could you please try to get that resolved quickly? Thanks again,  — fetch ·  comms   01:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Stock market data systems
Dear Joe, You helped me with this article before. I'm trying to not be an orphan & have other pages link to me. I put Market data at the top of my page, thinking that when I went to the Market data article I'd find a link to Stock Market Data Systems. It wasn't there. How do I make this link and start clearing my article of the 'orphan' tag. 65.19.23.145 (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Monty Phister. I don't like the new opening paragraph. It should read "In the Stock Market, Securities are traded on Stock Exchanges. For the market to work, it is necessary that information about Securities and about stock trades be communicated from the exchanges to Stock Brokers and Stock Traders." What's wrong with that? To begin with "In stock market data systems...." makes no sense. I've asked two people I know who have some experience with stock market data systems, to read the article and edit it. I'd welcome suggestions on who else might want to have a look. Should I do more, or will others review it automatically. The creator of the article Market data might have a look. I don't understand the comments (complaints?) about grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. It all looks fine to me. What should I change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MontyPh (talk • contribs) 18:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

ArticleAlert bot
If you haven't already, please contact User:Arlen22 on his talk page to obtain the code fo the ArticleAlert bot. Gage (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit checking
Hi, I've noticed that we're 4 days into the drive now, and about 150 articles have been copyedited, but that nobody has checked an article yet...  ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 01:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have checked one, I am on vacation and currently busy with my personal life after about the 7th I will be very active in the drive. Thank you.  Joe Gazz84 user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 12:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: European Master's Course in Embedded Computing Systems (EMECS)
Normally I'd be willing to in this case, but as the article was deleted for copyright infringement I'm afraid it's a no-go. If it helps, CorenSearchBot said the article was copied from http://mundus.eit.uni-kl.de. In my experience, that bot's correct about 99.9% of the time. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 18:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review
Thanks for the review. I was wondering which parts of the article specifically require more focus? Since your review I have expanded the Mid career section of the article.Monkeymanman (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * yeh i thought it probably would be that section. I was in two minds to expand it before but decided not to at the time.  I was also in two minds whether or not to try to combine the filmography and awards tables together, as has been completed on other BLP's of actors for example Kate Winslet. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Joe, i have more than doubled the length of the mid career section on the article now. It probably needs a read over to double check it though.  Before and after diff here. Thanks. Monkeymanman (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Joe, was wondering what would be best for the article GA nomination now? File a second opinion request? If so how do we go about that? Monkeymanman (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

neutral
hi joe, is see you've commented on the RFC. I have an issue with what you've written. 1. an outside view is meant to be ballenced and look at a situation in the whole context, clearly you haven't done this and am as bad as the user who has started this pathetic, complaint. 2. What you wrote is NOT constructive to sort it out. KnowIG (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

GOCE newsletter
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Guild of Copy Editors at 15:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC).

KnowIG
Hiya! Since you seem to have decided to 'handle' this editor (good for you!) I trust that you will rebuke them for their totally false and unfounded accusation of "stalking" which, as I'm sure you are aware, "may be considered a serious personal attack" Best, ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  person of reasonable firmness  ─╢ 21:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am. I am trying to calm them down, then talk to them about the wrong doing.  Joe Gazz84 user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 22:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm – not, "I am," you've not interacted with them at all since they made that false accusation? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  UK EYES ONLY  ─╢ 22:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"Article alert help center"
I've commented that away, because we already have two well-structured pages dealing with bugs and requests. If we add yet-another place to report issues and requests, that's more pages to follow, and now we'll to keep track of parallel and duplicate discussions. The "help center" is also login-based, which means that people will want to report and issue, then say "fuck it, it's not worth the trouble".

Regards, Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not mean to sound rude but, as I am taking over the bot I feel that that will assist me and the other user who is taking it over as well to keep track of the issues, if there is a bug and they feel we should know, they will take the time to deal with it. It is my way and since I am managing the bot I have the right to do that. I am in the process of dealing with the page (requests and bugs) and finishing those.  Joe Gazz84 user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 20:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a really really bad idea. We want it to be easy and quick to report bugs and features, not make people go jump through hoops to suit us. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would not like to fight, the bot is not yet up, when it is I may put back the other way, until then this is how it is because I have a LONG list of things to fix, I need a GOOD RELIABLE system for me to close things I have done and things that need to be done. Once the bot is up, I may put back the other way. -- Joe Gazz84 user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 20:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to avoid a fight as well. The way B. Wolterding and I worked in the past was that I usually had the "first response" in that I'd make sure comments were in the appropriate page, were well-formated, templates were used, closed non-issues / bad requests, etc... So B. Wolterding wouldn't have to bother with trivialities. All he had to do was ask for clarifications, and mark things as needs more discussion/won't implement/fixed. I'd take care of the archiving etc... There aren't terribly active pages in all cases anyway.


 * And you can always use that bug tracker for yourself if it helps you. I'm just not keen on having to manage parallel and duplicate discussions as well as adding the extra layer between users and us. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When the bot gets up we'll talk, I am perfectly capable with managing those on my own, I have someone else who is going to help me. Please, lets talk after I get the bot going. -- Joe Gazz84 user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 21:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is temporary, then why do the links need to be present? And please let's keep this discussion here. I'm also watching the page, so no need to leave me a talkback template at every reply. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The links are there because I am NOT watching that page while I am working on the bot, I have the tickets set up so I can get an email when a new ticket is made and when a request is made. I am working hard on the bot and would like to use that system until the bot is up until I can watch that page, this is a way for me to track what others are saying was a bug, or suggestion. They will be removed when the bot is opened.  Joe Gazz84 user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 21:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then just watch the page? You can even subscribe to it by RSS. If the bot is up within a week as you said, these pages will hardly have had any activity. And someone may have the idea of placing a feature request, or bug report on that tracker, and no one will know anything about it other than maybe you. We'll break archiving, people won't know something's wrong, won't able to comment, and depending on the bug/request, won't be able to adapt their project accordingly. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you for your input, but as this is not my project, I believe I have a right to do things my way on my project. I appreciate your input and will take that into consideration when I run the bot, I am managing the bot and I have a user who is going to he a Co-Operator for the bot and take care of the looks of things so thank you for your help and your comments are not needed on this anymore.  Joe Gazz84 user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 21:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The OK for me to take over the bot is here. -- Joe Gazz84 user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 22:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You really need to work on your attitude. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My attitude is fine, it is my project now, I can go about it as I wish now. Thank you.  Joe Gazz84 user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 22:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. You code and run the bot. There's a difference. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As the easiest way for me to get things done with the bot is with the system I am using, therefore since I am running and coding the bot, and I am the one dealing with bugs and feature requests, I should be allowed to determine how I want to deal with them. Otherwise they are not going to get done.  Joe Gazz84 user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 22:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Now hopefully we can work at improving things rather than fight each other. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: What do the checkmarks mean? They are rather unclear. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we resolved this on your talkpage. I do hope we can get along and improve rather than fight... All I have to fight is D.a.B on toolserver to get that thing to work now...  Joe Gazz84 user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 11:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Closing an RfC
I should point out that to close a certified RfC, it must meet one of the criteria here, which the one currently under advisement does not, in my humble opinion. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  constablewick  ─╢ 12:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to say, you are right there, Look, can you please try to get along with KnowIG if I propose the same plan to you would you accept it?  Joe Gazz84 user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 12:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will try to get along with him. No, I will not turn a blind eye to his rampant disruption. No, I will not agree to hold off all contact with him. No, I will not agree to the RfC being closed without some definite resolution, preferably in the form of him agreeing not to revert valid edits (of everyone, not just of me). Happy? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Speaker  ─╢ 12:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, those terms are acceptable to me. I will allow you to close the RfC when you think it is ready. I will propose those terms to KnowIG and hope he agrees. OK?  Joe Gazz84 user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 12:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * About the valid edits, I am not accusing you, I think he is saying that the edits were first reverted by you, he reverted your edit to his edit and you reverted it back to yours. When you revert an edit by him why do you revert it? If it is grammar, will you please fix it? If it is citations then you can revert it.  Joe Gazz84 user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 13:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, this was such a daft suggestion of his that I'm not going to dignify it with any reply beyond, "No." Specifically with the valid edits, perhaps you could ask about these valid edits (in which I wasn't involved in any way):            – thanks. ╟─ Treasury  Tag ►  First Secretary of State  ─╢ 13:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I will ask about those edits. Thank you.  Joe Gazz84 user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 13:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * TT is being alkward [sic], and believe you me anymore [sic] of this valid edit nonsense and I will push for a punishment on the ANI. OK, I'm through with this crap. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  You may go away now.  ─╢ 17:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sutton-on-Hull
Please don't add stub to articles which already have a specific stub tag, as this one did - it just wastes the time of people who are stub-sorting. Thanks. PamD (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

do u think anything wrong with kristine williams
do u think anything wrong with kristine williams —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niniworld09 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kristine Williams


The article Kristine Williams has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one.
 * The sources provided cannot be found.” TęĻęŞ  (PT @ L C G) 22:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Your request for an editor review...
I was about to start an editor review on you when I noticed you had started an RfA (yeah I know you requested it last month, but I've only started on the backlog there). I will be finished with the editor review in about an hour and hope it helps you decide where to go from here... Thanks, VictorianMutant (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Completed here. VictorianMutant (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Question
Since you will be the new operator of ArticleAlertBot, will the project have to change anything? Also, when exatly do you think it will be up and running? Please leave a talkback tag at my talkpage when you reply. Thanks  Nascar  1996   00:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, any details about your plans for ArticleAlertBot would be greatly appreciated. Are you planning on writing a completely new ArticleAlertBot (based on the existing database), or are you just going to redeploy B. Wolterding's code? Do you need any help? Ryan Kaldari (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am recoding the API and logins for the bot, it will be in trial at the end of september and released in October. No Changes will be necessary on your part. Thank you.  Joe Gazz84 user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 01:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. WP:NASCAR has missed their news lately. ;) Also, I am not currently interested in running a bot. I have too much work to do on and off Wikipedia anyway; I just hope it works properly. Happy Editing.  Nascar  1996   01:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Animal
Can you please explain why you did an article re-evaluation when i did not nomination the page for GA status in the first place. The article is no where near ready, shes releasing 4 more singles, re-releasing the album, much more information is going to become available. Please delete the review page. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 21:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Any user can nominate a page for GA. I decided to reassess the page since its last GA failed, YOU do not need to nominate it. Anyone can nominate it. You do not own articles. If I feel it meets the criteria which it mostly does, I can list it. Changes can be made when things are made but it is ready to go as of now.When the new info is available it will help the article, articles always change, when changes are made it will only improve it, the article almost meets the criteria. I am not deleting the nomination, your comments are welcome on the page but the final decision is up to me now. Joe Gazz84 user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 22:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not lecture me about rules. Im not owning the article. And dont be rude, i wrote the article, it would have been nice if you had informed me you wished to nominate the article considering you have no edit count on the page. Your taking credit for others work. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 22:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not taking credit for your work, others have also dramatically contributed. At another user's request the request is deleted until re-release.  Joe Gazz84 user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 23:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't mean to butt in or anything, but clarifications should be made. Not "anyone" cannot nominate a GA, as only editors who have made considerable edits can nominate. Considering Lakeshade has made the most edits considerably to the Animal page and basically wrote the article in his sandbox, its not WP:OWN. Candy  o32  23:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Animal (Kesha album) GA
Sorry but I'm confused here. I just noticed you're comments on CLK's talkpage (im one of his talkpage watchers). Am I right in thinking that you added the tag at the top of the talk page for Individual Reassessment and then went ahead and did the reassessment review? If that was the case... that is completely incorrect and improper. Someone who is interested in the page cannot request an individual reassessment because they feel like they want to re-assess the article to see if it passes for GA at the current point in time. Also since the album's run on the charts is incomplete i.e. it is due to be re-released and will produce new singles, the contents of the page are likely to changed dramatically. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  22:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Article alerts
Hi Joe Gazz84, now that ArticleAlertbot is now inactive and ArticleAlertingBot does the article alerts, do I need to change anything at WP:DARTS. Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 talk guestbook 15:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not believe so, The bot is using the same code for the wiki but under new lame using the new login procedure, the bot will be up OFFICIALLY by October 31st.  Joe Gazz84 user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 00:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't wait, it was a great help. Mr.Kennedy1 talk guestbook 07:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)