User talk:Zad68/Archive 2013 Sep

GA reviews
Hi Zad68, I notice you recently closed a GA article review on Autism therapies. I am reviewing several articles myself at the moment, and was wondering how I can conclude these reviews? Specifically:
 * If an article is not ready for a GA review, how do I terminate the review?
 * If I believe an article is ready for GA, how long do I need to wait between the start and end of my review, and apart from changing the rating on the article's talk page to GA, is there anything else I need to do?

Thanks in advance for your helpful reply! (... hopefully ...) LT90001 (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've been noticing your username popping up recently helping out with WP:MEDICINE content and just wanted to tell you thank you! For reviewing GA candidates, I use the instructions here: Good_article_nominations/Instructions.  To close out a GA nomination as failed, replace the GA nominee template on the article's talk page with .  For the page parameter, you just put the number in, so for example let's say you were working on page ".../GA1", you put 1 in for page.  Don't put in "GA1" because that'll mess things up (done that one already myself!).  For topic you put in the same text that's in the subtopic field of the GA nominee template. (I don't know why the parameter names are different, but that's the way it is.) When you save the article Talk page, make sure the edit summary has "GA" in it somewhere, I usually put something like "Does not meet GA standards at this time" (better than the rather sharp "failed GA" in my opinion... of course I used exactly that edit summary here, so...  ahem). The GA bot should then pick up the change, mark the review as failed, and also leave a note on the nominator's User Talk page.  You may also want to write a personal note to the nominator, if the nominator had put a lot of work in to the article. If it's ready for GA... "how long do I need to wait between the start and end of my review" -- sorry not sure what you're asking?   13:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help here! With the review time-frame question, was wondering if there was a minimum recommended time (eg. a week or more) for a review. There doesn't seem to be, so I'll stick with a personal preferance for at least a week. LT90001 (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * , not sure if this is exactly what you're asking, so I'll answer several possible questions: There's no minimum time that a GA review needs to be open.  If you review it and it meets the criteria, you can pass it right away.  A review of a GA nom isn't like an RFC where you are required to wait for community input.  If you as the reviewer feel that it passes, you pass it. Regarding the expected GA timeframe, the general feeling is that a review of a GA nom should take up to one week, but there is no hard rule about that.  If after looking at the nom, you feel it would take significantly more than a week's worth of work to get it to GA, it's OK to fail it... but if you and the nom are willing to work together to bring the article up to GA and it would take longer than a week, that's OK too, and I've personally done reviews that stretched on for several weeks.  After your first pass through the article, you'll have notes for the nom to act on.  If the notes aren't addressed within a week, it's generally OK to close it as failed, although if a good-faith effort is being made to address the issues and the editor is just working slowly, I prefer to keep it open.  Some other GA reviewers have a hard line about getting it done in a week... it's up to the individual reviewer.   19:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, thanks for your attention. Enjoy your weekend, LT90001 (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again
FYI, some of my wiki-time lately has been spent on catching up on things I wanted to do months ago. I'm feeling good about catching up to where I have, so I hope you don't mind that that's been distracting me from the low back pain GA review. I should be back to making progress tomorrow. Thanks again for all your work on the article. I think we're doing a great job. Biosthmors (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Super, thanks...  19:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edit
Hi! Your [|recent edit] does not appear to be constructive, or relevant to the thread in which it is made. I would be grateful if you would remove it.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ( ♥ Talk ♥ ) 02:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC) (I have a talk page, where you are welcome to post such comments)♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ( ♥ Talk ♥ ) 02:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.  02:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much :) ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ( ♥ Talk ♥ ) 03:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar
an award from Biosthmors dated 09:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC) that was here has been moved to my barnstars list


 * Congrats Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you both for this great team effort that produced a good result!   00:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

GA1 Parsnip and User:AfadsBad
Please comment here (Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) if you have the time and take notice the current developments. Apparently my GA review is being hijacked on the talk page by AfadsBad's non-GA review. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification,, I am mulling this over... One the one hand, 's response is confrontational and threatens WP:POINT-y disruption; on the other hand you do seem not to be as welcoming of collaborative input at GA reviews as you could be, and AfadsBad's article content suggestions are valid and Sasata is acting on them, with the article improving as a result. With your GA reviewing experience, you probably would have gotten around to making many of the same comments.  Wikipedia is lucky here because AfadsBad appears to have domain expertise in botany, as does , who is a strong editor with a lot of experience with reviewed content, and I think he can handle it.  I am not sure this one argument we all got into at WT:GAN is enough to take to WP:ANI.  You as the GA reviewer have the option of acting on or not acting on any suggestions that appear on the article Talk page during your review, just as you have the option of taking on board comments posted to the GA page while you're doing the review.  I'm probably going to just sit on my hands for a little while and watch the GA and article Talk pages.   16:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm going to wait for AN/I to tell me what I should do vis-à-vis the GA review, because I would rather just withdraw from it because of the disruptiveness. The other commenter, MarshalN20, started removing my comments at a FAC in retaliation. Thanks for considering it, and for your advice.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * if you'll allow me one more bit of advice: Fail that Parsnip GA, comment at the ANI thread that you've failed it, also say that you'll be more welcoming of outside input at GAs in the future, let others at the ANI thread continue with any comments on behavior... and go pick up the next GA nom in the queue.    17:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Very sensible and startlingly appropriate, so that's what I'll do. I appreciate it. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Cochrane Collaboration Wikipedian in Residence position open
Hey Zad,

I just wanted to make sure you were aware of this: WP:COCHRANE/WIR. You'd be a great candidate to apply. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 16:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've been mulling this over and decided it can't hurt to sign up to find out more information! Appreciate you thought of me for this role.    14:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Source
Talk:Water_fluoridation You wrote: "That's not the point WP:MEDRS is making. What WP:MEDRS is indicating is that a secondary source is needed; the study by Ding that you mentioned is a primary source. A secondary source will gather, evaluate and analyze a number of primary sources like that one. Zad68 03:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)"
 * Are you aware that I had placed a secondary source right underneath your comment? Campoftheamericas (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * , I did, actually, which made your comment about Ding all the more puzzling. You replied to  regarding Ding, This paper which you claim to be "lower quality evidence", was published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials. The publisher is Elsevier ...  Do you think articles published by Elsevier are of low quality?  Tippy's point wasn't about the quality of the publisher, he was asking for a secondary source.   02:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am puzzled that no one makes any comment about the secondary source provided. Does that mean I can use the secondary source in the article?  You seem to want to obfuscate by talking at length about Wikipedia policies, rather than clarifying the use of a good citation in the article.  I would appreciate you be brief and stay on-topic.  Campoftheamericas (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * , sure let's talk about that source then. That secondary source by Choi et al. is already used in the article:  Children in areas with high water fluoride have an IQ on average of 0.4 points lower than those who live in areas with low water fluoride.  Did you want to change something related to this existing use of that source in the article?   15:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * While we're here, I have to say, interacting with you on the Talk page is more difficult than it needs to be, because (in part) you've been making a number of edits that modify, split up, move around or hide comments from yourself or others in way that isn't in line with the Talk page guidelines. I saw you make this edit, in which you modified your comment to add mention of "secondary source" after I had responded to it previously. In case you didn't know, you really should not modify a comment after someone else has already replied to it, you should use the and tags instead, so that the replies don't appear to respond to something that wasn't there when the reply was actually written. In addition to modifying your own comment after it was replied to, here you split up Tippy's response and stuck your own comment in the middle, and here and here you hatted  as "non-article content" my comment suggesting that the RFC could be defined more clearly... hatting that kind of comment isn't appropriate, but I let it go.  How's that RFC coming along?  I haven't seen any RFC comments yet. It's not too late to set up that RFC more clearly so that we actually get the helpful comments we're looking for.   02:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Your apology
I just caught it. Yeah, I was out of line with the first comment, but not the one you pounced upon, but, no, none of my edits were with any intention but to get a good article, and, yeah, people get frustrated when treated badly (which is why, plus the backtracking by the Colonel, I simply removed myself from the fury). I accept your apology; it was well given, and I appreciate it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC))
 * No problem,, I look forward to seeing the good work you and Sasata will do on the article.  20:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013 AFC Backlog elimination drive
 WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!

The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. -- Mdann 52   talk to me! This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)