User talk:Lincher/Archive 1

Hello, Lincher, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions, and I hope you'll like the place enough to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * How to avoid common mistakes

You can sign your name and the current date on talk pages and votes by typing in four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;). If you have any questions at all, you can have a look at the help pages, put up a question at the village pump, or ask me on my talk page. Welcome to Wikipedia, and happy editing! - ulayiti (talk)  20:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Images of chronic wounds
Hi there, I noticed that you listed Images of chronic wounds as a redirect for deletion. You should be aware that it was not a redirect page, but a regular article and as such cannot be listed as RFD. I have removed the rfd tag. If you would like to list the article for deletion, then [|call over to this page] for instructions on the AFD process. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I hope you continue to enjoy it! Stifle 21:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

***
Re: Casa Zimbabwe (Calton removed unexplained pov tag - hit-and-run tagging is frowned upon)

Please don't do this again w/o discussion, thx Joachimp 00:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Tags
About the tags, please leave a comment on the article's talk page if you put a tag like pov on them, to indicate why the tag was put there. It's helpful in actually fixing the pov. - Bobet 02:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. I saw that one, but also happened to see your message on his talk page, and that was pretty much in reply to it. Sorry for not making that clear. I saw the pov tag placing edit on Casa Zimbabwe, and there was no explanation to why it was put there, which I think could've been helpful. - Bobet 12:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

IWire Broadcast
If you believe that it is merely promotional material, you will need to put it under WP:AFD; WP:CSD does not list promotional material as valid for speedy deletion. Also, in the future, please consider using the tag. Enochlau 01:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup tags
Hi Pearle,

Should I do as you did, and add a date to the cleanup tags I add, since I probably will add more (because I'm going through all of WP's articles to find flukes and discrepancies or articles that need re-working). Lincher 19:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You may do so if you like, or not. Pearle is a computer program, and will automatically add the date based on when you added the tag (just so we can have the many thousands of articles tagged for cleanup sorted by month) if you don't choose to do so.  Thanks, Beland 02:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

vandalism watch
You asked others to look at your userpage. I'm not sure what feedback you were looking for, though I can offer a quick thought. You might want to switch to the format below. Rossami (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 *   which expands to

Vandal
No. I think only administrators are capable of blocking editors. McPhail 13:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

reporting vandalism
Hi,

You could try reporting vandals at:
 * Administrator intervention against vandalism
 * Vandalism in progress

-- Curps 19:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

RfD
Hi, I have noticed that you have nominated sevaral redirect for deletion. That's good, but you need to list those nominations on Redirects for deletion because otherwise they won't be seen for a very long time. Let me know if you have any questions, I know that WP is creepy sometimes with all those rules and procedures. BTW, nice work on vandal stuff. Renata 13:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Censorship
I think many who would take our side against the menace of censorship do not know about this poll. If you have some time to spare, would you mind posting a short message on their talk page (like mine) to let them know of this poll and invite them to voice their opinions? By involving more people, a larger portion of the Wikipedia community can have their say, for or against the policy. Some places you can go for a list of users are Wikipedia_talk:Censorship, Category:Wikipedians_against_censorship and Category:Wikipedians_opposed_to_censorship_of_the_human_body,. Please check that I've not already posted a message with the heading Wikipedia_talk:Censorship in their talk page to avoid double-postings. If you don't have the time, feel free to ignore this request. Thank you.Loom91 09:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:ARCHIVES
Hi again! Given the opinion you gave at the request for comment on archives I thought you might be interested to know the issue has now been put to a straw poll and could use your vote! Staxringold 00:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Version 1.0 Editorial Team
Thanks so much for updating that list! The WikiProjects you added certainly help us determine which articles are candidates for inclusion in a paper/CD version of Wikipedia. Feel free to keep that list up to date, and thanks again! Tito xd (?!? - help us) 01:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

RfD
On 16-Dec, you tagged the redirect Temporally for deletion, but you did not list it at Redirects for deletion. I have added it to that page for discussion. You may wish to add a comment there if you still wish to see this redirect deleted. In the future, if you nominate a redirect for deletion, please list it. Thanks and let me know if you have any questions. -- JLaTondre 02:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletes
Hi Lincher! When you tag an article for speedy deletion: Thanks! ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 22:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Please don't blank the article - just add the tag to the top of the page (the deleting admin has to read the article before deleting it anyway)
 * 2) Please give a reason. A list of reasons are at WP:CSD - and that list is comprehensive: if your reason isn't in it, it's unlikely the article can be speedy deleted. But you can always use  instead - that's a "slow speedy" delete for non-contraversial deletes.

How to delete
Hi Lincher!

Deleting articles on Wikipedia is a process made up of three stages.

Articles can be "speedy deleted", "PRODded" and "sent to AfD".

Speedy deleted
If an article has certain fundamental flaws in it, it can be nominated to be "speedy deleted". To protect Wikipedia, the reasons that an article can be deleted are severely limited. The reasons for speedy deletion are: There are other reasons but they are more technical.
 * G1 - It makes no sense at all (patent nonsense)
 * G2 - It is a test page
 * G3 - It is only vandalism
 * G4 - It was deleted before, having gone through the "AfD" process
 * G7 - The only writer of the article has asked for it to be deleted
 * A1 - It is impossible to tell what the article is about (no context)
 * A2 - It is not in English and we already have an article about it on the Wikipedia for the language it is in
 * A3 - It is blank or very nearly blank
 * A6 - It says nasty things about the subject of the article (attack)
 * A7 - It is about people or groups who have no reason to be in an encyclopedia and the article doesn't give a reason (non-notable)
 * A8 - It is has been stolen from another website (copyvio)

Each of these reasons has a special tag that can be added at the top of the article to attract the attention of an administrator, who will read the article and either agree and delete it or disagree and remove it.

The tags are:
 * G1 -
 * G2 -
 * G3 -
 * G4 -
 * G7 -
 * A1 -
 * A2 -
 * A3 -
 * A6 -
 * A7 -
 * A8 -

PRODded
PROD means "proposed deletion". This is a slower form of "speedy delete" and a quicker form of "send to AfD".

This is used if the article doesn't quite fit the reasons for "speedy delete" given above. You put

at the top of the article. If nobody objects after five days, the article will be deleted by an administrator. People can object to the PROD simply by removing the tag themselves. If they do that, you must not put the tag back. Instead you "send to AfD".

Send to AfD
AfD is "Articles for Deletion". This is where the community discusses the article and decides what to do with it. It is not a vote: it is asking the opinions of the community and finding out what the consensus is.

You "send to AfD" any article that you think needs to be deleted but cannot be "speedy deleted" and is too contraversial for "PROD". You also "send to AfD" any article that has had the PROD tag removed if the article hasn't improved and you still think it needs to be deleted.

This is how you "send to AfD":


 * Edit the article, and at the top put the tag
 * Save the article and read it. There is now a box at the top of the article with a red link that says "on this article's page". Click that link.
 * This opens an AfD sub-page. On that page, put . Replace "PageName" with the exact name of the article you want to be deleted. Replace "Reason" with an explaination of your reasons for wanting the article deleted, for instance: ''This article is a hoax. It has no Google hits and the links do not work".
 * Save that and your nomination appears. At the top of the nomination is a tiny blue link that says "< Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion". Click that and and you'll get the main page for "AfD".
 * In the middle of the page there is a link that is bigger than the other text. It is for adding a new nomination to that day's list. Click that link.
 * The page opens and a big list of articles appears. Scroll to the bottom of the list and add . Replace "PageName" with the exact name of the article you want to delete and then save the page.

After that, just wait five days. The community will discuss the article and it will be deleted, or kept, or moved.

Subst:
Wikipedia comes with several hundred templates that can easily be added to any page. This is to reduce the amount of typing that people must do.

These templates are anything between two curly brackets:. So you might get a template that adds "This article is a stub" to the bottom of an article. It would look like this:

These templates are "live". That is, they remain connected to the original template at all times. If you change the original template, it changes all the places where the template is used.

For some templates, we want all copies to change. For others, we do not. For the ones we don't want this to happen, we put  in front of the template's name. So, instead of just, we put

"Subst:" means "substitute". Instead of being "live", we want the template to be "substituted" on to the page - a permanent, unchanging copy to be made. When "subst:" is added and the page is saved, the entire text of the template magically appears when you next edit that page.

As a very basic rule, any template used in an article should not be "subst:", whilst any template used on a talk page or other types of pages must be "subst:". The main exceptions are the "PROD" and "send to AfD" templates, which must be "subst:" for technical reasons.

Therefore, if an article is nonsense, you put  at the top. But when you warn the person who created the article on their talk page, you put.

I hope this all makes sense to you. If I can clarify any of this, please ask me and I'll do whatever I can to help. Thanks. ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 11:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyright issues

 * Hi, I don't know if this has been brought to your attention but some material from Jay Robert Nash's works were copied directly into WP see : Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-04-24/Jay Robert Nash. I have seen that you've used some of his material for reference in WP, and since his books aren't accurate, it would be nice to double check your entries so that WP doesn't get sued about fake entries that were entered by users. In no way am I accusing you, if this doesn't touch you in any way please forget I ever mentioned this or help me try to erase fake entries and copyright edits. Lincher 18:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr. Lincher,
 * I certainly thank you for bring the matter to my attention. This does indeed concern me as Jay Robert Nash's Encyclopedia of World Crime series (cited as a reference on almost all my contributed articles) is my primary resource. Nothing I have contributed is in no way been copied from the series, and given the series is increacingly out of date, I often add information from Carl Sifakis's books and online sources when I can. I've yet to see any direct plagerism, however please feel free to inform me if you find anything. MadMax 18:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr. Lincher,
 * Although there is no individual entry for Bella Anderson in the Encyclopedia of World Crime, she is mentioned in an entry under George Barrow, Addie Barrow, and a Nurse Bella Anderson on pg. 263 of Vol. I (A-C) which does seem to confirm the present article. The references cited are "Ransom Kidnapping in America" by Ernest Khlar Alix and "Open Files" by Jay Robert Nash.


 * Theresa Antonini (Theresa Marschall) also has an entry on pg. 134 of the same book, with the reference listed as "Look for the Woman" by Jay Robert Nash. MadMax 18:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have used JRN's book Look For the Woman as a primary source for a number of articles. For many of these, I was unable to find any sources save for this one book. I would appreciate any help in determining the legitimacy of these entries. I think that each entry that isn't verifiable with an outside source ought to be subject to deletion on the grounds that JRN's texts are unreliable. I cited the book on every occasion as the source of my information, so I don't see how this can be considered a copyright infringement on my part. Let me know if you find anything that suggests otherwise.  curtsurly 23:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Social Choice and Individual Values
Dear Mr. Lincher: On the above, could you be more specific? Thx. Thomasmeeks 23:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. How did you find it, given that there are no links to it in other articles of which I'm aware?


 * Dear Lincher:

Could you be more specific? Thx. Thomasmeeks 22:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, thx, L. Generous of you to take the time.  I'll go thru each ome of your changes and see if I can clarify.  I hope I'm not far from getting it as right as I can, but the important thing is to get it right.  When I have something that's more presentable, I'll write Lincher (section).  Thx. Thomasmeeks 15:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, L. Hope you're still there.  I've done what I could at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Choice_and_Individual_Values

More work than I thought it would be but I hope better for the effort. Any reactions, + or -? The opposite dangers are saying too much or too little. I'd welcome your tweaks. Thx. Thomasmeeks 12:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point about the spoiler, L. I think I've fixed that. I've also found taken some junk out (last para. of Sect. 3 deleted, Cond. 2 modified slightly. 1.  Any other suggestions?

2. Should I solicit more Help for other readers before linking in other Wiki articles?

I'll put book categories back in. Thomasmeeks 22:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Good tips. I'm encouraged, b/c it's not an easy thing to be technically accurate and understandable for that work. Arrow's book & Sen are my big resources. Plenty of references in the external link. I'll follow up on what you said. Arrrow's book is a classic, so care is esp. warranted

By inline referencing, did you mean Wiki articles?

Who is responsible for removing the warnings? Thx again. Thomasmeeks 01:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

deprod
I have removed the prod tag from Hildegard Westerkamp, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. The article was not up to stub standards when you prodded it, but Hildegard Westerkamp is definitely notable, with over 34000 google hits and with her music appearing on many recordings. I have improved the article to a stub. If you still feel the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to it, as Proposed deletion is only for non-controversial deletion. Instead, feel free to list the article at Articles for deletion. Thanks! Mango juice talk 17:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Roman Naming Conventions
You commented last time I nominated this article for FA status, so I would like to invite you to comment on its renomination due to recent improvements. Rrpbgeek 17:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Social Choice and Individual Values
Thx for your earlier help, L. I acknowledged you in the above. Your advice measurably improved the article. I've also added more external references as you suggested.

BW, Thomasmeeks 11:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Good Articles
Hi mate. If you're going to nominate large numbers of articles, would you please review some too? Otherwise, the system will just get clogged. For example, I've nominated one yesterday and reviewed two today, but my nom is at #22 in the queue - and many of them ahead of me are yours! --kingboyk 13:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "Good" work (pun intended). I was going to ask you to use edit summaries too, but looks like you're onto that! --kingboyk 15:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

GA Failing
Uh, pretty sure I can. If your External links are inline citation, reference them. How was I supposed to know they were references if you didn't signal them as such. References should be noted in the text. H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 15:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well if you disagree with my decision, ask me for a reivew, I don't review any article twice. H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 15:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't you? I made a fair decision, and according to you the external links are refs. If you want it done then be my guest, but according to you, it has references. H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 15:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well thank you. H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 16:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Lancia Flaminia
Hi Lincher! Thanks for reviewing the Lancia Flaminia article! As I have started it, I am very happy that you found it worthy of GA status. I would gladly know what or in what way could actually be done better with the history, or any other sections! Thanks again, Bravada, talk - 15:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

About good ariticles
Please remember that there is a "long article" category as well for articles over 25 Kb. Japanese grammar itself if almost 3 times longer than that cut-off point! So please be more careful in your listings.--SeizureDog 23:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Indo-European ablaut
Hey Linchner, you failed the GA nomination for this because of lack of bibliography. Fair point. As the editor who did most of the work on this, I went back to my study and found the books I used, and they have now been listed. But I don't want to renominate if you are still unhappy. Would you look over it again and give me your updated feedback? --Doric Loon 09:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Please use absolute numbers
Referring to your comment on the GA nomination of natural selection, Talk:Natural_selection, could you please use absolute numbers in future, e.g. if there are 20 references and you think 40 are required, say 40 rather than "doubled", as the article will obviously change through time and people will then not be certain of how many references you asked for.

Also, you may be aware of the template cite needed, which is useful for contributors in such cases and helps avoid overciting. Obviously since you were acting as a GA reviewer, this would be considered optional.

Many thanks,

User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me give an example to illustrate what I mean: say you're trying to have a single specimen of a species of beetle, and you've followed your identification key to the point where there are two possible species left. The key says that one of them is twice as big as the other. Can you, from this information, determine which beetle you are holding in your hand? - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. I have now attached some of the book references to appropriate points in the text as sources for some specific points. The additional reading includes books written for a lay audience that cover most of the article, the technical books remaining also have broad coverage, The list includes a couple of notable examples (Popper's article and the article on industrial melanism) that were not included in this article, but raise notable points that might well have been chosen for inclusion, and perhaps should be in an expansion of the article towards FA status. Beyond this, all of the books that I added are on my laden shelves and were sources for my contributions, including especially Gould's massive tome (which might also deserve a section of its own). I had separated some of the books into a list mainly because they can be taken as sources for so much. For me at least, I think that GA recognition would be important for endorsing a baseline of stability from which the article can be further improved towards FA statusGleng 08:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for GA status for Nat Sel and your kind encouragementGleng 20:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

WRT your suggestions on Featured article candidates/New Jersey Supreme Court/archive1...
...I think you were mistaken, many of those cases were Federal cases, and in some cases were state cases from an entirely different state. However I'm not sure about Ross v. Board, which I can't find anywhere. 68.39.174.238 16:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for promoting Richard III (1955 film) to GA. I am eventually trying to get this up to FA, but this is a big step there. Just a question: Since that extensive cast list is nessasary, so you think I should move a section somewhere else, like putting the Influences section below it?
 * Uh, with the Plot Summary, I don't think that it's wise to write a huge load of paragraphs, due to the fact that the film is based directly on a play. I have provided a link to the detailed plot summary though.

AA and 1.0 scales
I'd say that the scale would be like that, with 0-3 correspoding to Stub-Class, 4-5 to Start-Class, 6-8 to B-Class and 9-10 to A-Class. The other two classes are reserved for articles which have gone either to WP:GAN or WP:FAC. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 03:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft Office 2007
Hey saw that you added the DelistedGA tag on the article. But shouldn't it be failedGA, as it never made to the GA list, did it? --soum সৌমোyasch  15:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OOps...sorry. --soum সৌমোyasch  15:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Badugi
Hi there. Thanks for taking a look at Badugi for WP:GA. I had some questions and comments that I would like to discuss with you. Would you mind taking a look at Talk:Badugi? Thanks! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Iraq WMD article
Would you perhaps take another look? Did a mountain of work on it today, addressed your comments as well :) Iraq and weapons of mass destruction Judgesurreal777 00:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation requests in Anti-Semitism
Hello:

I've reverted the six "need cite" templates you added into Anti-Semitism. Rather than placing multiple requests for citation, it might help if you brought up on the talk page which unsourced claims you believe need verification. As it was, it appeared that you were marking statements that you didn't want to be bothered to find the sources for yourself. Many of the sentence thus marked have already been discussed or touched upon within the Talk:Anti-Semitism page. Regards, -- LeflymanTalk 00:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - U.S. FAC
Hi,

Thank you for supporting the recent FAC of United States, but unfortunately it failed to pass. However, I hope you will vote again in the future. In the mean time, please accept this Mooncake as a token of my gratitude.--Ryz05 t 15:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination
Thanks for helping me in assessing articles. Just a minor thingy, articles can not be failed on the sole purpose of not following the WP:FOOT notation. Thus, if the article has enough references, it will qualify no matter how the references are formatted. Lincher 18:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? I guess I was holding my standards too close to that of the Featured article nomination process. Instead of just passing that article through I would rather have another user review it. I feel that my opinion is now invalidated, as I was a bit blinded by the lack of inline references.-- SomeStrang  e  r ( t 18:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Homestar runner
I seem to be having difficulty getting the page to load on that citation you left; I'd love to reference it, but even after I got a Google ID, it wont come up.... Judgesurreal777 01:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, someone seems to have nominated Homestar Runner for FA status, course it will get killed, but can we please keep going with getting it to GA status? What does it need to get there? Judgesurreal777 17:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Article size
Hi - I am sure there are various ways but I have navigation popups installed. Yesterday's tip of the day actually referred to them though I have had them for a while. More info see: Tools/Navigation popups. Essentially with this bit of java script installed, when you hover over an article name information about the article and a preview pops up. In the info about the article there is the size in kilobytes. I am not sure how to get the information otherwise. Popups are useful for other things, especially fixing redirects, including from disambiguation pages. Regards--A Y Arktos\talk 02:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Justice Court response
The Shameboard is a early warning system, the group rules do not allow for it to be used for harassment purposes. Geo.plrd 21:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Lincher,

Many thanks for the GA promotion of All You Need Is Love (The JAMs), glad you thought it worthy and well done for your reviewing efforts at GA in general.

All the best, Vinoir 09:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

wikify in your monobook.js
Please wrap the tag in your monobook.js in &lt;nowiki&gt; ... &lt;/nowiki&gt; tags, because not doing so causes your monobook.js to show up in the category of articles that need to be wikified.

To fix this situation, just look for this line in your monobook.js: // If you are editing a page, click the wikify button on your tab bar to add " " to the top, set "Marked for wikification.". and change it to this: // If you are editing a page, click the wikify button on your tab bar to add "&lt;nowiki&gt; &lt;/nowiki&gt;" to the top, set "Marked for wikification.". Thanks! Kimchi.sg 13:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:GA toward FA

 * Small articles--> solution:expand
 * Biased titles-->solution:unbias title
 * Article failed:Keep working and try again. Joelito (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Assesment scale is fine as long as articles are reviewed by experts. I don't see why you bring the assesment scale into the argument. I hadn't noticed that GA is part of the assesment scale. Clearly it does not belong there. Joelito (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Actuary

 * I agree with the SD's reasons, I don't like to see lists and especially not in the Lead section. Change the inline external links into citations. The section Academic actuarial programs sounds like at large advertisement. Lincher 05:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Which in-line external links? The in-line citations are wikilinks via ref_harvard and note_label to the reference sections. Did you check that? Also, I thought about making a list called Academic actuarial programs as its own wiki-list, but I feel that it is too narrow of scope to merit its own entry according to List guideline. So, what do you suggest? -- Avi 06:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The inline external links are in this same section, Academic actuarial programs that I am wishing you would turn into brilliant prose or remove altogether since it isn't encyclopedic as it now stands for advertisement. All else in the article is fine. Lincher 06:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Secondly, please rework the lead section to remove the list. And also remove the lists throughout the text as it is not encyclopedic inside a text in prose and doesn't look nice on every browsers (especially the text-only browsers ... the indentations of each lines are messy). Lincher 06:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, done. Do I need to re-list? -- Avi 07:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no need for lists in encyclopedic articles. So every listed items should be turned into brilliant prose. If lists are to stay, they should meet the list criteria and be dumped onto another page. Lincher 13:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I meant re-list on WP:GAN 8-) -- Avi 15:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the input and advice. -- Avi 19:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Peer review for Actuary article
Hi, Lincher, I'm being persistent I gather :) . Now that Actuary has been considered one of Wikipedia's good articles, I would like to see it develop or improve, if and as necessary, to become a candidate for featured article status. Therefore, and advice, suggestions, or statements that you think it is ready for featured article candidacy would be appreciated on the peer review page here: Peer review/Actuary/archive1. Thank you. -- Avi 19:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Richard III (1955 film) FAC
I've adressed most of the issues you brought up in your Weak Object. You may want to take a look at it now. ....(Complain)(Let us to it pell-mell) 01:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oldham Riots
Thanks for your feedback regarding the Oldham Riots article failing the Good articles criteria; I'll try to make the amendments you recommended personally. Thanks again, Jhamez84 11:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Further to this, you left the following as a issue to address:
 * A section on the history or the lead up to the rioting is missing.
 * Could you clarify what section you think may be missing? It would be much appreciated, as I can't see a gap in the flow of the article! Thanks, Jhamez84 19:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if any such literature in that sense exists - perhaps predicitions of ghettos and ethnic violence may have existed from the Far-right politial movements involved, but I'd have to check. There was a few murder cases during the 1900s (Asian-on-White) but was unsure whether to include them given that they were "Officially" not racially motivated, and thus in danger of violating some kind of NPOV convention! I'll try to take my research in that direction however, if you believe it would be beneficial for the article! - Thanks again, great feedback and objectives. Jhamez84 19:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Your monobook.js
I was just looking at Articles that need to be wikified, and I noticed that your monobook.js subpage was on that list. I thought that was odd, so I figured I'd drop a note on your talk page. RockinRob Talk 03:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a page with code to add functions to the monobook.js that used to put them into Category:Articles that need to be wikified, but it was modified (I don't remember where it is). I would think that your page could be modified as well, if it doing something similar. The wikify category would be filled with user space and talk pages if those who do wikification didn't modify them, or ask that they be modified. Thanks, Kjkolb 11:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

...
I updated my page on Enta Da Stage after it was removed from the Good Articles list, tell me what ya think. --PDTantisocial 08:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

King Kong (2005 film)
All of your Good Article review comments have been fixed :) It went from 5-6 references to 30, and has been trimmed. Judgesurreal777 20:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Judgesurreal777 21:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

GA
Hey Lincher:

I noticed your comments on the WP:GAC page. If you think a nominated article is a GA, simply make it one as per the instructions on the page -- GA is only a two-step process. I noticed, however, that you said you couldn't vouch for the articles' accuary. If they are truly good articles, they will be appropriately sourced (WP:CITE) so that you can fact-check easily. I hope this helps! --Alex S 22:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)