User talk:Usb10/Archive 1

Barnstar
Well, I don't know what to say, except thanks! ^___^ Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 19:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Apple Inc.!
Hello Usb10, welcome to WikiProject Apple Inc.! We aim to create and improve articles related to Apple Inc. Feel free to post ideas at thegeneral forums and look at our "how to help" list for things to do. Happy editing!  Ⓢ ock   04:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Some tips
Hey Usb10, nice to meet you (I say that to everyone who I meet… not sure what else to say! :D). I'm Airplaneman. I saw you justreviewed Macintosh for GA status. You need to list it at GA, more specifically, underGA and the subsection "Hardware, standards and protocols" (don't forget to update the number of articles in the subsection!). It is also good practice to notify the nominator, Mono. Also, it is advisable to always use anedit summary to explain your edits. It really helps avoid misunderstandings and helps explain to others the edit you have made. You're off to a great start as an editor here, and I hope to work with you sometime in the future. Regards. Airplaneman  ✈  02:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was in such a rush to get it marking as GA done (I had some things in real life to get done) that I forgot to list it at WP:GA and do everything else. It should now be listed at WP:GA and I have notified Mono. Usb10 Let's talk 'bout it! 15:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a little concerned that this review hasn't been thorough enough. One dead link in the references was marked (which is in fact ok, but should have been checked), I found two others that were dead, and there is a citation needed tag that has been in place since 2009. There are other parts that are not tagged, but that need citations. This is what I've noticed without even really reading the article. It shouldn't have been passed as a GA like this.-- Beloved Freak  15:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I found the Citation needed tag, but I could not find the dead links. Where are they? Usb10 Let's talk 'bout it! 15:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * One was marked in the references section. I checked it and it was ok, so I removed it. I found two others through thelink checker tool. Others should also be checked though, because they may be "soft 404s" that don't show up on the link checker. You shouldn't pass an article with the citation needed tag. If a citation is needed, it should be provided. If not (because the information is already clearly and easily verifiable) it can be removed. This is to comply with theverifiability policy. I suspect that there are more citations needed though. I don't mean to "get at" you. I don't know if it's your first review; if it is then great, but you need to be a bit more thorough.-- Beloved Freak  15:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I found two that were dead. I will try to fix these links. Usb10 Let's talk 'bout it! 15:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They are so old that I can't link them to the correct link. Can I just replace the link with regular text instead? Usb10  Let's talk 'bout it!15:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Right now I have an important task to do, so I have to go offline for a while. Usb10 Let's talk 'bout it! 16:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "replace [them] with the regular text". If they are online-only sources, they must have a link. The information needs to be able to be verified by any reader. Have you checked to see if they are available in the Internet Archive? Otherwise, they will need to be replaced with other sources, or the material they support will need to be removed. Usually, in a GA review, the reviewer would check that links work, list any that don't and ask the nominator to fix them.


 * The citation needed tag also needs to be addressed. The fact that it's there means someone saw some info that they couldn't verify. There are other paragraphs that don't have citations, and because there are so many sources being used, it's not obvious whether some paragraphs are supported by the sources in previous paragraphs.


 * I'm not sure what you want to do about this. Maybe you could ask Mono to help you, but I would understand if they didn't want to, seeing as the GA nomination passed. Do you want me to start a community GA reassessment? To be honest, I don't feel that I could review the article myself and tell you whether it's ok to stay as GA or not, those are just a few things I noticed, but I'm not really experienced with this kind of article.


 * I really don't want all this to discourage you from helping out at GA, because it really is appreciated. Perhaps if I start a community reassessment, the links can be fixed and someone can give it a once over, and it will be fine. What do you think?-- Beloved Freak  18:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Internet Archive's search engine is broken! It says that it is right on the search page when I try to look something up. Usb10 Let's talk 'bout it!20:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are not discouraging me, it's perfectly fine. I know that I made mistakes and I am going to try and fix them. I just can't see how to fix some of it the links are so old that the article that they referred to was probably archived in the vast amount of pages on both of those websites that the dead links referred to. The citation needed also needs to be fixed, how can that be fixed? Usb10 Let's talk 'bout it! 20:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I left similar opinions on Talk:Macintosh/GA1, without knowing these concerns had already been raised here. However, I did point out a large number of unsourced sections that require attention. I would suggest that, if Mono does not wish to address these concerns, and you feel them too large, to go ahead with a GA reassessment.  — fetch ·  comms   22:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, it seems like the only thing left to do. Usb10 Let's talk 'bout it! 23:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have started the reassessment at Good article reassessment/Macintosh/1. Feel free to join in if you like, or not, although it might be helpful to follow the discussion. Just put it down to experience. I didn't feel confident enough to review GA nominations until I'd successfully nominated a few myself. Getting a few articles of your own to that standard (or on their way) will help, as will just observing other reviews. I don't know if you know about peer review by the way, but they're always crying out for reviewers. There you can make comments and suggestions without the pressure of making a final decision! :) -- Beloved Freak  23:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

USB, I saw your comments at the GA reassessment. I would take BelovedFreak's suggestion and try to bring an article to GA yourself (like iDid with MacBook Pro - it took three tries, but it was worth it!), maybe stalking a few GA reviews, and commenting at peer review. This will help you get a better feel for what a good article is. Airplaneman  ✈  00:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK I'll look around Usb10 Let's talk 'bout it! 00:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Test
I'm testing the message delivery bot to see how it works.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Usb10 at 00:08, 10 August 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) 19:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Florida mouse
Hi! Did you want to finish reviewing the article? Waiting to see! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to finish reviewing the article, I just have been busy with other things. Usb10 Let's talk 'bout it! 15:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

HyperCard
mabdul 10:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Prompting for blank editing summaries
Hi, this already exists. Just go to your Preferences (top right) and under "Editing" you'll find an option "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". cheers, Rd232 talk 00:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool Usb10 Connected? 00:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Trouted
You have been trouted for: getting an second opinion on a review. I will be giving an opinion on the article you asked for second opinion when I return from vacation on Sept 5. Have a nice day!  Joe Gazz84 user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 03:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I already got a second opinion on that article. Usb10 Connected? 00:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, the tag is still on it so feel free to remove the tag on it or get rid of my state to give an opinion. -- Joe Gazz84 user•talk•contribs•Editor Review 01:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK I changed the status back to onreview. Usb10 Connected? 01:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Cat
I've started the GA review of Cat, and look forward to the issues being addressed so that the article can be promoted. If you don't wish to pursue the nomination, please let me know asap.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)