User talk:Hallows AG/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Hallows AG. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The Signpost: 23 January 2012
- News and notes: SOPA blackout, Orange partnership
- WikiProject report: The Golden Horseshoe: WikiProject Toronto
- Featured content: Interview with Muhammad Mahdi Karim and the best of the week
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Muhammad images, AUSC call for applications
- Technology report: Looking ahead to MediaWiki 1.19 and related issues
The Signpost: 30 January 2012
- In the news: Zambian wiki-assassins, Foundation über alles, editor engagement and the innovation plateau
- Recent research: Language analyses examine power structure and political slant; Wikipedia compared to commercial databases
- WikiProject report: Digging Up WikiProject Palaeontology
- Featured content: Featured content soaring this week
- Arbitration report: Five open cases, voting on proposed decisions in two cases
- Technology report: Why "Lua" is on everybody's lips, and when to expect MediaWiki 1.19
Peer review limits changed
This is a notice to all users who currently have at least one open peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review. Because of the large number of peer review requests and relatively low number of reviewers, the backlog of PRs has been at 20 or more almost continually for several months. The backlog is for PR requests which have gone at least four days without comments, and some of these have gone two weeks or longer waiting for a review.
While we have been able to eventually review all PRs that remain on the backlog, something had to change. As a result of the discussion here, the consensus was that all users are now limited to one (1) open peer review request.
If you already have more than one open PR, that is OK in this transition period, but you cannot open any more until all your active PR requests have been closed. If you would like someone to close a PR for you, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Peer review. If you want to help with the backlog, please review an article whoe PR request is listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog/items. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review
This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 8 February 2012 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
DYK nomination of History of Currencies used in Brunei
Hello! Your submission of History of Currencies used in Brunei at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 06 February 2012
- News and notes: The Foundation visits Tunisia, analyzes donors
- In the news: Leading scholar hails Wikipedia, historians urged to contribute while PR pros remain shunned
- Discussion report: Discussion swarms around Templates for deletion and returning editors of colourful pasts
- WikiProject report: The Eye of the Storm: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones
- Featured content: Talking architecture with MrPanyGoff
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, final decision in Muhammad images, Betacommand 3 near closure
You are so warm welcoming
Thanx for the nice cookies... you are so warm welcoming so nice of youMcKinseies (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 21:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sialoblastoma
Good evening: I uploaded a photograph, but for the life of me cannot figure out how to change it so that only a thumbnail shows on the far right hand side in-line with the text. Salivary Sialoblastoma H & E Histology LDRT.tif is the link. Many thanks, Lester D.R. Thompson, M.D. 05:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soca1zim (talk • contribs)
Thanks so much -- that was very helpful. Lester D.R. Thompson, M.D. 18:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 February 2012
- Special report: Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters
- News and notes: Foundation launches Legal and Community Advocacy department
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Stub Sorting
- Featured content: The best of the week
GOCE March copy edit drive
Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors
 The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their March 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goal for the drive will be to eliminate the remaining 2010 articles from the queue. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, Stfg, and Coordinator emeritus SMasters. 19:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC) >>> Sign up now <<<
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. |
The Signpost: 20 February 2012
- Special report: The plight of the new page patrollers
- News and notes: Fundraiser row continues, new director of engineering
- Discussion report: Discussion on copyrighted files from non-US relation states
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Poland
- Featured content: The best of the week
Why did I get rejected?
Hi Hallow,
I was just wondering why did my article get rejected? Your comment was put forth as:
"This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies."
However, I beg to differ.
First, my motive of posting up this article is not to advertise Waste Concern. I am just an ordinary student that did alot of research on Waste Concern and wrote the post according to ALL of the sources I have thronged through.
Second, I believe that putting a column under Problems for Waste Concern means that they are NOT doing a PERFECT job and they still got alot to improve upon. How is that belong to "advertising Waste Concern"? Must I deliberately put something that bring them down to qualify for a neutral posting?
Please advise. Much appreciated. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imannsk (talk • contribs) 15:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I felt that the submission looked like advertising as some of the sentences in the article looked promotional. It shouldn't be too hard to fix the article and I will be happy to accept it once you have finished improving it. Also, you need not add more to negative content to bring them down if you have brought the over-positive sentences to a more neutral tone. Cheers, Hallows AG (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Hallow,
I have changed those words that might connote "advertising". Hopefully you can read it and get it approved as soon as possible.
Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imannsk (talk • contribs) 14:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Union Watersphere
Regarding Template:Did you know nominations/Union Watersphere. Not clear how a article 1910 characters long is less than 1500 characters long. Can you please review your review? thanks.Djflem (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Full Sail University
Hello, the questions that I had were resolved with the recent edits by Nomoskedasticity and no further action is required. Thank you again for your assistance. --Tylergarner (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hello, I just wanted to follow up and thank you for your assistance earlier. I've proposed a revision to the History section of this article here but have not yet received a response on the Talk page or on Nomoskedasticity's talk page since posting on January 31, would you be willing to review? --Tylergarner (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hello, thank you again for your recent assistance. I've proposed a revision to the Criticism section of this article here, but similarly have not yet received a response on the Talk page since posting on February 17, would you be willing to review? Thank you, --Tylergarner (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hello, I just wanted to follow up and thank you for your assistance earlier. I've proposed a revision to the History section of this article here but have not yet received a response on the Talk page or on Nomoskedasticity's talk page since posting on January 31, would you be willing to review? --Tylergarner (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)