Wikipedia

User talk:Toa Nidhiki05/Archive 8

< User talk:Toa Nidhiki05
Latest comment: 10 years ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic The Signpost: 21 May 2014
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

American Football

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In response to your comment, any "edit war" was started by your decision to "undo" what were in fact very minor (and needed) edits to the page without actually reviewing what was edited. As just one example, the article referred to the Point After Touchdown as the "try," but did not also refer to it as the "conversion," which is a commonly used term and also has a link to a separate page within Wikipedia. There is no reason for you to object to the addition of a few words that would assist in introducing a reader to the overall understanding of the game.

I have reviewed your contribution history and note that you rarely actually perform any "editing"; most of your "contributions" are either adding huge chunks of text to a page or "undoing" other peoples' work. This is a sign of arrogance and the erroneous belief that you "own" or are "in charge" of a particular page. However, you are not. Pressing the "undo" button is the lazy man's (or woman's) method of editing and is explicitly disapproved by Wikipedia's Reversion Policy:

Don't revert an edit because it is unnecessary — because it does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation.
Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. The reason for this is that authors and others with past involvement in an article have a natural prejudice in favor of the status quo, so your finding that the article was better before might just be a result of that. Also, Wikipedia likes to encourage editing.
Don't revert a large edit because much of it is bad and you don't have time to rewrite the whole thing. Instead, find even a little bit of the edit that is not objectionable and undo the rest. (To do this, you can use the "undo" button, then type back in what you want to keep). As long as you keep one significant element of the edit, it is not a reversion. If a supporter of the reverted edit wants to save more of it, she can re-edit in smaller pieces and the article can converge on a consensus version that way.

You are clearly violating multiple points in this policy and you have not engaged in any effort whatsoever to specify what you believe is the problem or to FIX anything. You have provided no constructive comments or given any examples. You should therefore take your own suggestion and open a dialogue on the talk page, as I have no idea what you are concerned about, except your own ego and your apparent belief that you are able to dictate content.

--BenEsq (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Get off your high horse. You haven't even bothered to look at my editing at all, because if you did you'd frigging see I develop articles that are of poor quality in the sandbox, and then bring them through a peer review process. You know what peer review involves? Having others check your work to make sure it isn't crap. Since you seem to just know 'so much' after popping up out of nowhere, I'm rather surprised you've never heard of the bold, revert, discuss cycle - instead of reverting back and demanding material be done your way, you should go to the talk page and discuss it... that is what the talk page is for, discussion.
As for your edits, I am reverting your edits because they are not improving the article. Making two-sentence paragraphs and adding unsourced information is not useful and ruins both the writing flow and style of the article. Similarly, your edits to the special teams section were reverted because they were not good writing and, more importantly, they were not cited. This may be a shock to you, but in a high-quality article information should be directly supported by an internal citation. I did in fact keep a portion of your edit, which was moving around the line bit, because that was genuinely useful... but you clearly didn't notice or even bother to look at what I did, you just saw that I changed your work and pressed 'undo'. Maybe if you were willing to talk instead of revert, your edits wouldn't be being reverted. Toa Nidhiki05 03:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for List of National Football League season receiving touchdown leaders

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WikiCup 2014 January newsletter

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer   Godot13 (submissions), whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

2013 NFL Season Award

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  The WikiProject NFL Award
I, ZappaOMati, hereby award Toa Nidhiki05
the WikiProject NFL Award for his/her valued contributions to WikiProject NFL.
Awarded 03:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a ton, I appreciate it. :) Toa Nidhiki05 03:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Fantasy football

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You deleted my fantasy football addition to the NFL page on the basis of relevance. Why don't you think it is relevant? Isn't it necessarily relevant given that the NFL is an association that offers fantasy football, among other offerings? Fantasy football's significance vs the sport itself can be debated, but not the relevance. In terms of significance, I think it's just additional information that is worthwhile given the online format of this encyclopedia.

What's your reason for believing fantasy football is not relevant to the NFL.Gchuva (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

recent revert

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

[1]

Maybe you are not aware, but user Tarage moved my comment around and placed it out of the context. it was a reply to the later comment. Not sure why you reverted my correction... 202.8.75.186 (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Move it back if you want but the talk page is not a place for soapboxing or fringe theories, hence why I have collapsed them. Toa Nidhiki05 03:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


Richard Clarke is neither a soap-box personallity, nor a fringe guy.. so not sure what you mean by that. 202.8.75.186 (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Touching base about Health issues in American football article

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Hey Toa, I just wanted to touch base with you briefly about the Health issues article. I've been in touch with the NFLPA, and let them know that the article has been nominated for good article status. They indicated that they'd like to take another look at the content of the article and see if they have any more suggestions, but because the article is going to be in flux while editors look at it, they'd like to wait until the nomination/peer review process is complete. So, I'll be monitoring the feedback that editors are posting on the Talk page, but I'm unlikely to reply unless you specifically ask something of me, since the NFLPA wants to pause here for the moment. But do let me know if you need a hand!

Also, in case you're interested, I've just posted a note over at Concussions in American football suggesting some edits there.

Cheers! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 18:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey again Toa, hope you're well. I wanted to let you know that I have a handful of additional comments from the NFLPA about the Health issues in American football article that I think will improve it. I'm still working on putting things together, but I should have some suggestions up on the Talk page later this week.
In the meantime, I'm wondering if you might be able to help out with the edits to the Concussions in American football article that I mentioned above? I've had a bit of trouble tracking down an editor to help in the aftermath of the Super Bowl—everyone seems so busy! If you have a second to take a look, though, I'd sure appreciate it! Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 21:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure! I'll give the concussions article a check in a bit. I have the Health issues article on watchlist so I'll check for those when you add them. :) Toa Nidhiki05 21:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks! As you'll see on Concussions, ZappaOMati helped with two of the four things, but I don't think he saw the other two. Cheers! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 22:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey again, thanks for taking a look—I see your comment on the Concussions Talk page, but it doesn't look like either of the updates were made. Can you take a look again? Thanks! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 20:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that, it appears that my edit didn't save for some reason. Should be fixed now. Toa Nidhiki05 20:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
No problem, thanks so much! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 22:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 12 February

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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) 02:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Orphaned non-free image File:Large 0910 large.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Large 0910 large.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Sports Illustrated Appalachian State-Michigan.jpg

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A tag has been placed on File:Sports Illustrated Appalachian State-Michigan.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Better source request for some of your uploads

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for your uploads to Wikipedia. There is an issue with some of them, specifically:

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the images because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the images, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image files themselves. Please update the image descriptions with URLs that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 03:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thrive

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I took out the subjective opinions in the ratings box because they are not actual ratings.HotHat (talk) 06:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I do like how you greatly expanded the article though, which I made a few other changes.HotHat (talk) 08:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

By the way, why are you taking out notable review sites such as Christian Music Review, Christian Music Zine and Louder Than the Music? I saw on the Thrive one you took away Review and Zine and replaced those with non-ratings, which is not acceptable. On the Acoustic Sessions, you are about ready to do the same for all three of them. Have you taken a look at WP:CCM/S?HotHat (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't sure these are reliable enough sources to pass GAN. Why did you remove Crosswalk, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and The Daily Reporter? Toa Nidhiki05 13:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I did not. I just left them in prose because they don't give an actual rating. So, you inserted a subjective opinion into a ratings area. You can put stars, grades, percentages and scores in the box per what a rating in fact is suppose to be.HotHat (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
To my knowledge there is no such requirement. After taking a look at multiple featured articles for albums (such as Love. Angel. Music. Baby. and Californication (album)), such reviews are indeed listed on the table. Toa Nidhiki05 19:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
They are wrong and in violation, so I will fix them later, you may want to look at Template:Album ratings to see why they are wrong.HotHat (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
By the way, the sources you used are of high quality, so you are doing that correctly, which give yourself a pat-on-the-back for that one. I will use a rating from an non SPS source even if the website in question does not merit a standalone article on Wikipedia, which is a way higher threshold. I went through a very malicious effort to determine if Review, Zine and Louder should be used. On the subject of Review and Louder, they both have editors Daniel Edgeman for Review and Tyler Hess for Zine. With respect to Louder, they have two main reviewers that run the site Jono Davies and Dave Wood, and they get help from various writers from time-to-time.HotHat (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Alright, no problem - I can add those back along with a summary. Perhaps we could edit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources page to note the editors of these sites, in case the question is asked? Toa Nidhiki05 19:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I have already fixed you first example, which was rather easy because USA Today was just sitting their willing and ready to be utilized. Plus, I got it as close to the Metascore as feasibly possible.HotHat (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
On Californication, their was not anymore reviews, so I deleted them outright because they did not give a rating and were not used in prose.HotHat (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Per your request, I put the editors that I could find.HotHat (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WikiCup 2014 February newsletter

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:

  1.   Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
  2.   Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
  3.   WikiRedactor (submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

IRC

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, several people from the baseball wikiproject are getting together after Wizardman's sudden retirement to figure out a better way to organize the Wikiproject. One of the ideas we came up with is having our own IRC channel to help each other, as well as new users with collaboration and content. If you need help connecting to IRC join #wikipedia-coffeehouse connect. The IRC channel for Wikiproject Baseball is #wiki-baseball connect. This includes Wikiproject NFL as well. Thanks Secret account 23:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks so much for all of your help and effort on the health-related football articles recently—I really appreciate it! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 15:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm glad I've been able to help improve these. If you need help, feel free to ask me any time. :) Toa Nidhiki05 20:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Metacritic

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

They do not cover Christian music at all unless it is metal. So, I guess if we have to go by that to determine acclaim, we are utterly crippled!HotHat (talk) 05:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I will try and help you over the next couple of weeks on the Thrive article to find a source for how the overall album is viewed in terms of reception. I have nothing against positive/favorable per se, but I was just trying to show you the error you were implying likewise to mine.HotHat (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Billboard gives a treasure trove of data for Casting Crowns.HotHat (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

FA congratulations

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of 2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA you may have helped to write) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,326 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 10:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

As promised, some more suggestions on Health issues article

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Hey Toa! As I mentioned previously, I've just put up a few more suggestions on the Health issues in American football article, based on comments from the NFLPA—you can find the comments here. Curious on your thoughts here.

I've also got another open request at Concussions in American football that no one's been able to look at yet. If you have a sec, could you take a gander? Thanks so much! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 20:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Great! I'll check these out shortly. Toa Nidhiki05 15:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey Toa! Just followed up over at Health issues in American football with some language about performance-enhancing drugs. Let me know what you think! Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 20:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again for all your help on the Health issues article—I'm wondering if you still think you'll have a chance to look at the edits I proposed at Concussions in American football—it's been kind of a pain to find editors to help out over there, so any input you have would certainly be appreciated! Cheers! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 14:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure, I completely forgot to do that for some reason. I'll have the comments up shortly! Toa Nidhiki05 17:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Great, thank so much! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 19:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey again, Toa—I just posted a couple of additional suggestions over at Talk:Concussions in American football, but again, no one seems to be watching the article. If you have time, do you think you could take a look? Cheers! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 19:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Sure, I'll give it a look. Toa Nidhiki05 13:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I left a note about one small thing that remains. Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your GA nomination of Thrive (Casting Crowns album)

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thrive (Casting Crowns album) 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 LazyBastardGuy -- LazyBastardGuy (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Cross Rhythms

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I made this            to display their rating methodology more accurately. So, what do you think?HotHat (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks good! Toa Nidhiki05 14:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox American football awards

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

 Template:Infobox American football awards has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your GA nomination of Health issues in American football

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Health issues in American football 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 Secret -- Secret (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer   Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist   Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato.   Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Article stuff

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I worked heavily on Majestic, which if you have time, please have a scrub of it for any weaknesses.HotHat (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

EWN posting

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Probably just one is sufficient. Do you have a preference for which one remains? I am happy to self revert. VQuakr (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, such a cute little theater... Dornicke (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yer GA review

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey, I just wanted to let you know I'm (finally) in the process of getting more review comments up. It'll still take a bit, but I just wanted to let you know it's finally happening. Sorry it took so long though! LazyBastardGuy 02:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Reference Errors on 6 April

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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) 00:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of National Football League season receiving yards leaders 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:
  • [Don Hutson]] led the league in receiving yards seven times, the most of any player; [[Jerry Rice]] is second

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Article work

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Well, Welcome to the New my editing friend.HotHat (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice! Toa Nidhiki05 19:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

North Carolina Wikibook

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I see that you are a member of the North Carolina wikiproject. I think you should help the NC wikibook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StudiesWorld (talk • contribs) 22:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

New article

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey, Why don't you come down to Rivers in the Wasteland?HotHat (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thrive (Casting Crowns album)

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article Thrive (Casting Crowns album) you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Thrive (Casting Crowns album) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LazyBastardGuy -- LazyBastardGuy (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  The Christianity Barnstar
Thanks for all your contributions to WikiProject:Christianity related articles! Keep up the good work! With regards, AnupamTalk 23:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Better source request for some of your uploads

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for your uploads to Wikipedia. There is an issue with some of them, specifically:

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the images because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the images, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image files themselves. Please update the image descriptions with URLs that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 03:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

comedians views on a blog are not reliable/notable

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can you explain to me how a comedian's views on their blog and Charlie Skelton's blog on it, is a reliable on 9/11 conspiracy theories? Are they experts in a physcologicial or social area? because you just restored their views.--Theamazo (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American football, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Touch football (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-04-30/Featured_content

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Can you please check my description of List of National Football League season receiving yards leaders for accuracy, and to make sure it comes across that A. the statistic is complicated, but is a standard American football player statistic, and B. that it makes it clear you did good work? I know very little about American football, and my first sentence is the honest truth: I usually leave sports articles to others to describe for a reason. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Lol, I completely understand. Before I read up on it some of these cricket FLCs came across as gibberish to me. :P
Don't worry about it, your description was basically 100% correct in regards to what the stat entails - it's a bit long-winded, but basically correct in that you got the basics of the stat (the stat covers the amount of yards a play got catching passes in a particular season). American football stats are fairly complex, and I've found receiving to be the hardest stat to explain because it involves multiple parts, so it was going to take a couple sentences to explain anyway. I think I explain it in two or three sentences on the page.
There are only two things I would say are unclear, but are fairly obvious that a reader might not need it. The entry doesn't specifically note the page only covers one league, and it doesn't explicitly note it only covers passes the player catches (as opposed to passes thrown at them that they failed to catch). But again, both of these are very minor things most people should understand without needing to have it explained. I would say I don't have any real issue with it as written - personally, I thought the entry added a bit of personality to the segment. :) Toa Nidhiki05 00:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, good, thank you. Just wanted to make sure, because, you know, it's something you'll have spent days working on, and I do not want to dampen that achievement. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not a huge deal to me, I don't own the page or anything. :) Toa Nidhiki05 00:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American football, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rose Bowl (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WikiCup 2014 April newsletter

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's   Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's   Godot13 (submissions), whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's   ChrisGualtieri (submissions) who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included   Cliftonian (submissions), who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and   Caponer (submissions), who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from   Reid,iain james (submissions), tiger from   Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and The Lion King from   Igordebraga (submissions). We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to   Czar (submissions) and   Red Phoenix (submissions) for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Sovereign

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You can take a listen to the album on iTunes Radio.HotHat (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Great album, huh? Toa Nidhiki05 17:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 14 May 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Better source request for some of your uploads

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for your uploads to Wikipedia. There is an issue with some of them, specifically:

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the images because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the images, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image files themselves. Please update the image descriptions with URLs that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 03:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Neon Steeple

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You can listen to the album on iTunes Radio.HotHat (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toa_Nidhiki05/Archive_8&oldid=1139340283"