SeeSpot Run

Leave a message!

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A Christmas Carol, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sexton and John Leech. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:GAN nomination

I see that you have edited WP:GAN and been reverted by the bot. Please follow the nomination instructions on the page so that this does not happen again.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A Christmas Carol

The article A Christmas Carol you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:A Christmas Carol for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

This may be sooner or later. There's a good deal of "edit warring" going on. Warring aside, the article is a decent article according to GA criteria and should be promoted. SeeSpot Run (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Kit Carson, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The revision of Kit Carson will continue. This revision is being made using the latest and best source materials. Pleae discontinue the reverts. Carson was more than a "military man". His greatest fame was achieved as a mountain man. An infobox on "military man" is not appropriate here. His military career was quite undistinguished. He is known today for his days as a mountain man. SeeSpot Run (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

First, since you're new here, I'll extend some slack.

Second, I'm moving this to your talk page since you didn't read the edit notice on my page.

Third, if you were offended by me reverting an unexplained removal of content (see Wikipedia:Section blanking) you can simply explain your edits by using an edit summary. Stating that the revisions will continue is both confrontation and rude.

Fourth, any major changes like the one you suggested should also be discussed. While being WP:BOLD is encouraged, being foolish isn't, and don't get upset if your bold edits get reverted.

Fifth, there's a Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. Putting information about the subject's "Personal description" and illiteracy before key biographic information violates that and any sense of logic imaginable.

Sixth, his fame was as a racist and an killer of indigenous people, but there's no infobox for that. Granted, that sort of behaviour was de rigueur for the day. As for the military infobox, you may want to replace it with an {{infobox person}} instead, but because he served in the military, it should be included and I suspect that it will be restored if you remove it. So what sort of infobox is present is something else you might want to discuss on the article's talk page.

Seventh, unless you want your IP address, and subsequently location, known, don't edit articles or people's talk pages when you're signed-out.

I see someone else told you some of these things below. How to win friends and influence people. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

And then when I look at what you added, I recognize some gaping holes. What exactly is <ref>Kit Carson</ref>? There's no page number. There's no book in the References section to link it to, so no ISBN number. Nothing. Since you threatened both editors who removed the material, I've left it it but tagged it. I will remove it shortly if a proper source isn't supplied. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

One more suggestion. If you're going to make major, constructive edits to an article over a short period of time, you might want to consider using {{In use}} and remove it when you're done. Alternately, if it's going to be over several days, you might want to make the edits in your user space such as User:SeeSpot Run/Kit Carson. When you're done with the material there, point to it on the article's talk page and ask for comment. Once the reviews are done, and that may take a few days, move the WP:CONSENSUS version to the old article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kit Carson with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• The article is undergoing an "upgrade" using the latest and best materials. WP asks us to do this. Much of this article appears to be "unsourced" or, if sourced, it uses ancient material that has been superseded by current materials from distinguished scholars and expert historians. The revision will proceed. Please be patient. SeeSpot Run (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SeeSpot Run. You have new messages at MusikAnimal's talk page.
Message added 17:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— MusikAnimal ^talk 17:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it just me

or does the sentence (phrase, actually} "among the Indians and wild animals on the western frontier." in Kit Carson smack of 19th century racism?

• No. "Indians" is used by modern historians. SeeSpot Run (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

My issue was not with the word "Indians" - the words most Indians use when discussing more than one or two tribes, but with the context. It seems to have been changed now. Either way you are (my opinion) doing good work here. Carptrash (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

On another note, I have a picture of the Jumbo statue in St. Thomas that could go right in that article if I was clearer on Canadian copyright laws on the Freedon of Pan-o-rama issue. Any ideas? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't want to use this statue because Jumbo did not have tusks. SeeSpot Run (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably a good decision. Carptrash (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Kit Carson. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• I am integrating some new material with what already appears in the text. Stop your disruptive reverts and complaining. SeeSpot Run (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Kit Carson

added links pointing to Buffalo, Madison County, Howard County, Rendezvous, Expedition and Reward

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

January 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kit Carson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• In 1842, Carson guided Frémont across the [[Oregon Trail]] to [[South Pass], [[Wyoming]]. This was their first [[expedition]] into the West together.<ref>World

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kit Carson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ], a reservation where many died. He was [[brevet]]ed a [[Brigadier General]] and took command of [[[Fort Garland, Colorado]]. Poor health forced him to retire from military life. Carson was thrice

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Giselle may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• In spite of the chief machinist shouting orders to his crew] that could be heard by the audience, ''Giselle'' was a great success. Grisi was a sensation.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A Christmas Carol

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A Christmas Carol you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wassupwestcoast -- Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Giselle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Washington Smith. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Kit Carson. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@SeeSpot Run: Please read (or re-read) WP:OWN. There is no such position as "Chief Editor" or "Principal Editor," nor is it encouraged to declare yourself the sole proprietor of a given article. This is a collaborative endeavor. Acroterion (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• And further to the above, these statistics might be of some interest to you. On a purely numerical basis, your contributions account for just 2.5% of the total number of edits to that article and 19% of the content. In neither category are you the most prolific editor, in fact Walter Görlitz (with whom you have been edit-warring) has edited the article 11 more times than you. Were such a title to exist, you wouldn't hold it. And by my count, at least 10% of your contribution has involved edit-warring which artificially inflates edit-count anyway. The advice from others here is excellent and you should pay attention to it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I see no contributions of content from Walter Gorlitz since at least 2012 (or even then). Again, he has used the last several years to simply revert contributions to his preferred usuage across the project. No content, only reverts. If Gorlitz is a watchdog please let me know, but his reverts are wanton, smug, and high-handed. This seems to be his modus operandi. Articles cannot make progress if such editorials are "OK". Gorlitz needs investigation, not me. SeeSpot Run (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be veering into viewing this as a confrontation with another editor: characterizing them as "wanton, smug and high-handed" is close to a personal attack and an indication that you view the topic as a competition rather than a collaboration. Once again: read WP:OWN. You may have made a number of recent contributions to the subject, to which other editors may or may not have objected. They are allowed to have their say. You may not appoint yourself as the article's arbiter, nor is there a "chief editor" or "principal editor" position. Please address other editors cordially, and please do not claim privileges that do not exist. Acroterion (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kit Carson

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kit Carson you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 208.81.212.222 -- 208.81.212.222 (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Giselle

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Giselle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you! SeeSpot Run (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Giselle

The article Giselle you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Giselle for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Have met the objections to promotion! SeeSpot Run (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kit Carson

The article Kit Carson you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Kit Carson for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 208.81.212.222 -- 208.81.212.222 (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• The objections have been met. The article has been renominated. SeeSpot Run (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)-

Your GA nomination of Giselle

The article Giselle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Giselle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you! I'm thrilled. What chance does it have of going thru the FA process? SeeSpot Run (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

GA and RfCs

It takes about a month for the RfCs to close. Until such time, or if you can get early admin closure don't bother trying to get it to GA. It's impossible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. If you reopen another GAN request, you're going to receive a block for disruptive editing. You simply cannot do a GAN while there are multiple ongoing RFCs that have major effects on the article's organization and content. Please calm down, be patient, and wait for a consensus to form. Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 20:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

You're new but you've been around long enough for me not to template you. Consider this your final warning - if you edit-war at Kit Carson again I will report you at the Administrators' noticeboard. Trust me, they'll take a dim view of the fact that you're blindly edit-warring while actively participating in a discussion with other editors who have challenged those very edits. Blindly edit-warring on the basis of personal opinion is just silly. You're heading very quickly toward a block for disruption. Several editors have explained the appropriate course of action (discussion of sources and associated claims on the talk page) but you continue to ignore them and so you will continue to be reverted. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 5 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Kit Carson page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help) and a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I fixed one, but it would be better if you fixed reference one the you broke. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Horatio Alger, Jr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Bassett. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

GAs cannot happen when there are open RfCs

It's that simple. I'm not sure why you don't understand that. There are also editors who object to your changes over the past month. When the RfCs are closed, I suspect that the editors will start to take you to task for your edits. I suggest that before you nominate it for GA status, that you make a suggestion on the talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The RfCs and other "flies in the ointment" are at least a monrth old and there has been no intelligent, significant, meaningful response. There are no RfCs regarding Carson at this point in time. While some may object to my editing, my material has been cited to recent and valued tomes about Carson that superceded the crusty, dog-earred volumes some seem to think are invaluable. This is not a FA. The RfCs can't remain open and posted forever. I should think you would know that. SeeSpot Run (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jumbo

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jumbo you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shyamal -- Shyamal (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I see you are busy with another GA nomination. Take your time, this has been (sadly) waiting for so long that it can wait a bit more. Shyamal (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kit Carson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Navajo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Louise Fitzjames, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gautier. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

A Christmas Carol

There was a GA2 but I don't think that it progressed. Was it failed? I was interested in reviewing it perhaps can I start the GA3? — Yash! ^[talk] 11:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Be my guest! SeeSpot Run (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Story of the Three Bears, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Nicol. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. DawnDusk (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SeeSpot Run (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am not the sock puppet of Itslassietime. Firstly, the block was misinformed and hasty. I was blocked without any real evidence. From what I ubderstand, Its lassie time damaged the project. I have been working here for six months without incident. I cannot understand why I was bloacked. Because I have similar interests? Many editors here have similar interests. There is no real evidence that I am the sock puppet of any one else. Please lift the block so I can continue to edit with professionalism and dedication. SeeSpot Run (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Seems like an obvious socking situation to me.only (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Accounts and anonymous ips which mirror the behavior of another user may be treated as though they are that user. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

1. No, you were not blocked because you have similar interests: you were blocked because there is a very large number of similarities of editing, far too many to be chance coincidence.
2. If you think that over the last six months you have been editing constructively, having put the kind of disruptive editing you did before behind you, then you are free to request a lifting of your ban on those grounds. However, just ignoring the ban and creating new accounts to get around it is not the way to deal with a site ban. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Apart from criticizing the block, he has also pointed out the duration of time. Such unblock request is identical to an account of ItsLassieTime.[1] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jumbo

The article Jumbo you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Jumbo for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shyamal -- Shyamal (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Edmund Lazell

Hello SeeSpot Run,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Edmund Lazell for deletion, because it seems to be an article that was created in violation of a block or ban. Content created by banned users will be deleted immediately.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Roshan014 (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Roshan014: Per WP:G5, you will have to provide proof if it was made in violation of ban, and most of this article was written by other editors. Thus the criteria of speedy deletion fails here. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ballet of the Nuns

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ballet of the Nuns you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ballet of the Nuns

The article Ballet of the Nuns you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Ballet of the Nuns for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Giselle

Giselle has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)