User talk:Joelr31: Difference between revisions
FAR - Oblivion |
|||
| Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
==FAR and [[ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion]]== |
==FAR and [[ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion]]== |
||
The article achieved featured article status with only three positive supporters. When it surfaced on the Main Page, it wasn't just me who doubted that it was up to the standard of a featured article. Much discussion has taken place on its talk page and at the Village Pump as to how this aberration could have happened. A review of the status of the article seems to me to be the best way to restore the standard rather than passively hoping that users will post comments on its talk page. Even if there were 100 adverse comments on the talk page, it would still be a featured article. I know it is embarrassing for an article to be reviewed so soon after its appearance on the main page but the issue shouldn't be ducked for that reason. [[User:Jmcc150|JMcC]] ([[User talk:Jmcc150|talk]]) 14:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC) |
The article achieved featured article status with only three positive supporters. When it surfaced on the Main Page, it wasn't just me who doubted that it was up to the standard of a featured article. Much discussion has taken place on its talk page and at the Village Pump as to how this aberration could have happened. A review of the status of the article seems to me to be the best way to restore the standard rather than passively hoping that users will post comments on its talk page. Even if there were 100 adverse comments on the talk page, it would still be a featured article. I know it is embarrassing for an article to be reviewed so soon after its appearance on the main page but the issue shouldn't be ducked for that reason. [[User:Jmcc150|JMcC]] ([[User talk:Jmcc150|talk]]) 14:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
:I concur with this. The discussion should not have been broken up without warning or a clear, easily accessible explanation.--<strong>[[User:Nydas|Nydas]]</strong>[[User talk:Nydas|<sup>(Talk)</sup>]] 13:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 13:58, 12 March 2008
Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Please add new topics at the bottom of the page.
Start a new talk topic.
 Archives |
|---|
Just thought I would inform you that I re-added Islam because the point of the review is to discuss the repeated protection of the article due to disputes which means that we are reviewing the instability of the article. Please keep Islam on the list until the review is complete Alexfusco5 03:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why did you repeatedly close this because of the protection as it was the original cause of the FAR. I have started a discussion but I cannot move it back due to the bot archiving. Alexfusco5 22:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Joelr31, I edited the Puerto Rico page and added the gallery to the Administrative divisions. Compared to State articles which many of them contain a table gallery of their important cities, Puerto Rico's is extremely dry and and pretty much only text. I would still like to add a similar feature to the article whether it be in administrative, geography or what have you, but get back to me so that we can collaborate before anymore of my editing gets simply just removed, because it takes time to search picture's correct names and place them into the table. 192.195.66.48 (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The previous post was done by me before i logged in Tom Vazquez (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the initial note, but people are still inappropriately voting "keep" ... Cirt (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC).
- I have laid out my specific points about WP:OR violations within the article in detail, and yet only one user Haukurth (talk · contribs), specifically responded to any of these points. Respectfully, I defer to your judgment and that of Marskell (talk · contribs) for the rest of the FAR proceedings. My points were already made in detail at the top of the FAR - the rest seems to be, unfortunately, just a generalized debate over things that should instead be discussed at the talk pages of either WP:OR, WP:RS, or WP:V. Cirt (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC).
- Can you please help at Wikipedia:Featured article review/A Tale of a Tub? There are one or two editors so far that have actually responded to the specific points that I raised - but other comments are attempting to divert the discussion from WP:OR in the article itself - to an ad hominem overgeneralization and outright negation of all of my comments as a whole! Cirt (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC).
Music
Thanks Joel. I begged a few people to comment on that one and got nothing. It was bothering me. Once the reviews get passed two months, something must be done with them. Marskell (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Triton
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
| Thank you! I've been trying to get those last few pesky citations for ages! Now I can start thinking about getting the article promoted. You're a prince. :-) Serendipodous 20:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC) |
- Ah ha! I knew you were a spy. A vicarious thank you from me on Serendip's behalf. Passing along a paper really is a random act of kindness that can be especially helpful. Marskell (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey Joel. Next time you log-in and look at FAR, I'd argue against closing Blackface, even if you see removes as the most recent comments. I'm trying to be fair, because I know there's editors working. There's also been some dispute, so I'd like that to work itself out, even if it takes time. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I've hesitated asking you this...
Because you were so generous last time, but I was wondering if you could help me access this paper. I just need to know if Herschel ever calls Enceladus and Mimas anything other than "satellites". I understand if you're too busy but I really would appreciate it. Thank you. Serendipodous 19:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh well, thanks anyway :-) Serendipodous 07:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
On "please state in talk page what claims require citations"
Joelr31, maybe we can find a reference to support the plenary powers of the US Congress and the quotation stating "postal system, social security, and mining activities and minerals, among other areas". Do you know what authoritative and reliable source this can be attribited to? CallmeDrNo (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would also like a source for the "plenary powers" statement, mostly because it was added by a user that was involved in edit warring over the "Chief of state" matter and may be pov, does the Puerto Rican Constitution directly declares that the congress has "plenary powers" or is this just an assumption? personally I haven't seen the congress even employing such "power" in the island. Another thing that needs needs sourcing is the part that claims that the island's external relations are controlled by the federal government, wich may contradict a trend of actions that were hinted by the current administration, such as when it was suggested that Puerto Rico would directly buy petroleum from Venezuela and the several independent importation deals that have been promoted by Puerto Rico's government. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
On "please state which statements are likely to be challenged....no need for a citation for everything"
This article cites no references, so its encyclopedic value is significantly diminished. Do you know of any sources for the claims made, or the references for the dates given? Maybe you could help me improve it if you know of them. I believe with a little research I could find one or two credible references for the dates given, but not for all the other claims made. Let me know. CallmeDrNo (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Birds March 2008 Newsletter
The March 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Blackface
Hard one! We've both been very generous on FAR, and "as much time as you need" has become a central feature of the place. But you have to close them eventually... Too bad, in this case. Marskell (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The article achieved featured article status with only three positive supporters. When it surfaced on the Main Page, it wasn't just me who doubted that it was up to the standard of a featured article. Much discussion has taken place on its talk page and at the Village Pump as to how this aberration could have happened. A review of the status of the article seems to me to be the best way to restore the standard rather than passively hoping that users will post comments on its talk page. Even if there were 100 adverse comments on the talk page, it would still be a featured article. I know it is embarrassing for an article to be reviewed so soon after its appearance on the main page but the issue shouldn't be ducked for that reason. JMcC (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I concur with this. The discussion should not have been broken up without warning or a clear, easily accessible explanation.--Nydas(Talk) 13:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)