Misplaced Pages

User talk:Seattle: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:23, 20 February 2015 editMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,141,441 edits →The Signpost: 18 February 2015: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 20:19, 20 February 2015 edit undoChrisabraham (talk | contribs)408 edits →Thanks for challenging me: new sectionNext edit →
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 154: Line 154:
</div></div> </div></div>
<!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=647462565 --> <!-- Message sent by User:LivingBot@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Spamlist&oldid=647462565 -->

== Customer service section Revert on Chick-fil-A ==
] you reverted an edit I did yesterday that continued to build the character and the nature of the Chick-fil-A page, along with references and citations. I don't understand the rationale behind this undo. I respect your work and appreciate your opinion but the citation and the balance of the section is sound. This section and the two sentences are factual and relevant to the fleshing out of the article. ] (]) 18:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
===Pure puffery===
] I'm working on making changes to the words but this is a cited and referenced part of Chick-fil-A history and culture. I am thinking about integrating it into its own section. I am looking to come to some sort of agreement here, so as to avoid some of the "pure puffery." ] (]) 19:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

== I would appreciate your help in general ==
I would be happy to discuss this further and would love your help to get all of this correct, sorted, and right. Please let me know if there is a compromise that we can come to, ], as I see you have been engaging with me on Misplaced Pages over several edits that I have been making over several pages. I would like to make sure I come into compliance with your expectations, vision, and protocol. ] (]) 18:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

== Thanks for challenging me ==

] I think you're good for me as I am learning more and more how to become a better ] and I will eventually soon learn also how to go all the way up the appeal process. Thanks for challenging me with the ] and you were right about Sally Falkow (was that you?). Anyway, I am frustrated but I am also happy that you're taking the time to make me a better editor. Cheers! ] (]) 20:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:19, 20 February 2015

This is Seattle's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
The headless walk of St. Denis
The truest characters of ignorance
Are vanity, and pride, and arrogance;
As blind men used to bear their noses higher
than those that have their eyes and sight entire
– Samuel Butler

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

Instead of a cheque...

The Running Man Barnstar
Thank you for all you have done to help me with the Boat Race articles. Tonight we hit a landmark, over 50% of the race articles are now Good or Featured Articles, which is a monumental achievement considering that none of the articles even existed eight months ago. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Bang bang. Seattle (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

We'll Never Have to Say Goodbye Again

I've read the article, and I must in all honesty say that in my judgment it is not of GA standard. I hate to send such a negative message after your thoroughness and help with my recent GA nomination, but I feel I must give you my view before I open a review page – if indeed I do open one: if you would prefer to wait for another reviewer who knows more about popular music than I do and may perhaps take a different view I am quite willing to leave it to him/her. Being largely ignorant of popular music, I looked for background at four randomly-chosen GAs about other 1970s singles, and they all seem much more substantial than "We'll Never Have to Say Goodbye Again": Candida (song) has 846 words of text before the tabular material on charting etc; Wigwam (Bob Dylan song) has 723; Honesty (Billy Joel song) has 915 and You Can't Win (song), 1,812. By contrast, "We'll Never Have to Say Goodbye Again" has 631 words. I realise of course that this may be because there is no more to say – and we don't want padding for the sake of reaching some imaginary minimum word-count. GA criterion 3a merely specifies that a GA "addresses the main aspects of the topic", and the guidelines add a note explaining "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." It is arguable that "We'll Never Have to Say Goodbye Again" could squeeze through on that count. But where I think the article falls well short of the criteria is in respect of 1b: "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout …". There is no lead, only a single slab of text. All four of the articles I sampled had a lead and then a main text in sections with sub-headings, and on this count the article definitely falls short. On the positive side, I found the prose good and clear (the potentially tricky matter of there being two people surnamed Joseph is deftly handled) there was no evidence of POV or OR, and the sources and referencing look fine. I am so sorry to be a wet blanket, but I hope these informal comments are of some use. I'll watch this page to see whether you wish me to go ahead with the GA review. – Tim riley talk 11:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the use of headings and subheadings is something I notice of all short good articles (see those listed at 3–10 at User:The ed17/Good articles by prose size#Ten shortest articles, for instance). I shall rework the text to follow headers, construct a lead, scour for more sources, and, hopefully, come across more information for inclusion in the article. Thanks for the informal review; I will follow your suggestions, and respond when I've implemented them. Thanks again. Seattle (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll continue to watch. Good luck, and let me loose on the GAN review when you're ready. Tim riley talk 21:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
OK. I've finished the lead, and I think it's ready for a review. Seattle (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Good. Top of my list for tomorrow. Tim riley talk 18:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
And now done. I'm pleased to say the article now meets the GA criteria in my view, and I have had the pleasure of promoting it. Tim riley talk 13:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

Donovan Patton

S, I've finally finished addressing all your comments at this article's GAC. Sorry it took so long, and thanks both for your patience and for your feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Anything else I need to do? This article has been languishing a long time, so could you pass it or let me know if I need to make any more improvements? Thanks, appreciate it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

The Inside Corner : January 25, 2015

What's in the latest edition of WikiProject Baseball's newsletter:

Talkback

Hello, Seattle. You have new messages at Talk:D. F. Landale.
Message added 13:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

HYH.124 (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

Caracal

Remember when you were concerned that caracal didn't met GA criteria and you went to J Milburn to ask him about it (When I was at the top of the leaderboard)? Turns out you're right, and not only has it been delisted, but the article has been hidden from view because of copyright concerns, it might have to all be deleted. Meanwhile, the reviewer that promoted it is wanting me to be their slave trying to correct the article, which the user that brought up the copyright concerns (Mkat) has said I've actually yet to find a string of more than two sentences in the article that isn't plagiarized. Though I had articles to work on in the next round (Red-necked wallaby, Iberian lynx, Charlotte, North Carolina, Fennec fox), you probably won't have to worry about competition from me in the next round, even if eight points is enough to get to the next round, I'm discouraged to waste my time "improving" articles which will result in their blanking. Good luck to you. (I say this sincerely and without sarcasm) --AmaryllisGardener 16:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

OK? Seattle (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I will admit I'm random with who I choose to send these things to. Sometimes I just have to let it out to somebody. --AmaryllisGardener 18:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

Customer service section Revert on Chick-fil-A

Seattle you reverted an edit I did yesterday that continued to build the character and the nature of the Chick-fil-A page, along with references and citations. I don't understand the rationale behind this undo. I respect your work and appreciate your opinion but the citation and the balance of the section is sound. This section and the two sentences are factual and relevant to the fleshing out of the article. Chrisabraham (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Pure puffery

Seattle I'm working on making changes to the words but this is a cited and referenced part of Chick-fil-A history and culture. I am thinking about integrating it into its own section. I am looking to come to some sort of agreement here, so as to avoid some of the "pure puffery." Chrisabraham (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate your help in general

I would be happy to discuss this further and would love your help to get all of this correct, sorted, and right. Please let me know if there is a compromise that we can come to, Seattle, as I see you have been engaging with me on Misplaced Pages over several edits that I have been making over several pages. I would like to make sure I come into compliance with your expectations, vision, and protocol. Chrisabraham (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for challenging me

Seattle I think you're good for me as I am learning more and more how to become a better Wikipedian and I will eventually soon learn also how to go all the way up the appeal process. Thanks for challenging me with the Virtual Team Challenge and you were right about Sally Falkow (was that you?). Anyway, I am frustrated but I am also happy that you're taking the time to make me a better editor. Cheers! Chrisabraham (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Seattle: Difference between revisions Add topic