User talk:Joe Gazz84/Archive/2011/September

WP:IAR on GA?
Hi, I notice you passed this although it doesn't match the GA criteria. Can you say a little more about this? Thanks. --John (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Joe, I don't know you but just to let you know, John doesn't like the article because it doesn't cover conspiracy theories or go out on a limb on issues beyond the scope and focus of the title of the article. Since you passed the article, hundreds of edits to deal with MOS issues have only improved the GA level of the text that you reviewed. I would consider John's inquiry above as being potentially inflammatory.--MONGO 04:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I would urge you to read Talk:September 11 attacks to get a more nuanced understanding of the discussion than MONGO's post above evidences. Featured article candidates/September 11 attacks/archive1 may also be of interest. --John (talk) 06:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Guys, Thanks MONGO, I'm choosing not to comment on this but to say that I'm standing with my decision and that it was a controvercial case, and I knew that. It does meet the criteria, and I was sure to check it well.  JoeGazz  ♂ 11:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe it is wise not to be baited into a discourse on this matter. I hope your health is improving and you have a great day.MONGO 11:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I wish you the best of days as well.  JoeGazz  ♂ 11:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply Joe. I disagree (on prose quality alone, never mind the problems with references, MoS issues and NPOV) that this article meets or met GA standards, but I appreciate your taking the time to answer. I too hope your health improves. It's likely that I will ask for a review of your assessment as I disagree with it, and I will drop you a courtesy note here if and when I take that step. I won't bother you again otherwise. Take care. --John (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine, you can ask for a reassessment, but consensus was reached to not include the conspiracy issues, so that won't be changing. I understand how you feel, but I'm sure the review will stand.  JoeGazz  ♂ 17:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Joe, more forces are at play here than just John...another active GA reviewer has questioned the promotion to GA you provided. I am hoping John and others aren't seeking to be obstructionists in the effort to make serious improvements to the article. With Tom Harrison and A Quest for Knowledge being the primary players that make serious improvements to get the article to be GA level, I'm inclined to believe that both these experienced editors did what they could with what had been a historically bad article, so seeing the massive cleanup they did, the article surely deserved promotion to GA. Subsequently, a push by Tom Harrison and now me have provide further improvements...but I acknowledge the article still has cite and MOS issues and yes, the prose needs help before it should go up for another Feature Article nomination....yet all John and the other fellow are offering is obstructionism...they say the article is crap, insulting all those that have worked on this tedious article. One would hope that John would have more to offer in terms of the precision of issues than to continuously demand the article expand into peripherals that make an for an endless COATRACK that interfere with the scope and focus that the title of the article demands...MONGO 18:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

September 11 attacks
FYI, I've initiated a GA reassessment of this article, which you can find here. Malleus Fatuorum 18:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, but I just reviewed it, I knew it would be controvercial, and I hope the article remains a good article, which I'm confident it will. If you're a conspiracy theorist, please note that won't affect the status based on inclusion of the info about that.  JoeGazz  ♂ 01:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you take the time to read the reassessment and perhaps offer your opinion rather than jumping to conclusions about whether or or not I'm a conspiracy theorist. Malleus Fatuorum 03:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not jumping to any conclusions, simply stating a point that IF you are, then it makes more sense in my mind why you'd want this reassessment. I never said "Malleus is a conspiracy theorist" did I?  JoeGazz  ♂ 11:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I want the reassessment because I don't believe the article meets the GA criteria, simple as that. Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great, I never said that you WERE a conspiracy theorist, all I said was that IF you are, that it shouldn't be the reason to reassess the article. You don't think it meets criteria, I did, simple as that, I'm not questioning your judgement at all, just stating something.  JoeGazz  ♂ 21:58, 10 September 2011 (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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)