User talk:Giants2008

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Giants2008, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 20:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Masters Tournament champions

Hey, thanks for your comment regarding he playoffs, don't know how I'd missed them two, anyway I've added them now, thanks once again NapHit (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I totally forgot about the green colouring, anyway it's fixed now cheers NapHit (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Creamer to B class

Hi. As far as golf bios go, there are probably better candidates for promotion to B class, not because Creamer isn't important, but because this article needs more cleanup than some of the others. Here are a few things you can do:

Make sure everything that should be referenced, is. For example in the second paragraph it says "Nicknamed the "Pink Panther" for the color she frequently wears,..." that should be referenced.
Fix grammar and style. For example throughout the article m-dashes (–) are used where hyphens (-) should be used, as in "40—foot birdie putt."
Make sure all references and external links are valid. I removed on external link today that went to a fan site.
Check for neutral POV. Is "she cruised to an eight–shot win" written in neutral tone? Or, "After her rookie success, Creamer's form took a step backward in 2006." Was it her form that took a step backwards" or just her results? I bet she doesn't even know.
Overall organiztion. The two sections Personal life and Association with color pink should probably be move above all the results tables.

good luck --Crunch (talk) 12:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Solheim Cup Template

Thanks for the information about 2007 Solheim Cup template. I actually created that template and the reason I left Beth Daniel off is because I felt the position of assistant captain had not been an official designation in the same way it was for the European team. I could be wrong on this, so by all means go ahead and add it to the template, or if you'd like, I can do it. Thanks for your interest and work on these articles! --Crunch (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to solitary years

Hi. I picked up on you asking advice about linking to years thus: 2008. The Manual of Style: Dates and numbers, auto-formatting and linking states that solitary years (and solitary any other element, for that matter) should not be linked. In a nutshell, for auto-formatting purposes only, a day and month, when used together, may both be linked (April 10), as may a day, month and year (April 10 2008). Apart from special linking like 2008 in film and the like, that's about it. I have spent many a happy hour putting this right in articles. Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I hope you will join me in correcting inappropriate datelinking wherever you see it (I don't do it especially, as a crusade, I only make these amendments alongside more constructive edits in articles containing such linking). Best wishes and good editing. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Creamer

Yes I noticed the tool had been a bit excessive in suggesting that link get taken out too following the tool's: '*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?]' - I thought the link the tool suggested removing was actually relevant but I was a bit lazy and let it take it out, thanks Tom (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Your hard work paid off! --Crunch (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gretzky FAR

How would you suggest we split it up? There are missing citations all over the place. Alaney2k (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help if we added a 'To Do' list to the Talk:Wayne Gretzky page, like we have at WT:HOCKEY and at Talk:Ottawa Senators? The reason I suggest it is that I have not worked on an FA, and am not 100% sure of the level of citations required and all the areas of the article that need some cleanup. I basically know we need at least one cite per paragraph, and anything that 'could be challenged'. I'm not sure of the writing cleanup areas. Alaney2k (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		For hard work to keep Wayne Gretzky at Featured Article status, I award Giants2008 this barnstar. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a great job on this article. I wanted it to remain an FA, so I appreciate all of your effort on this article. It's looking much better. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aberdeen F.C.

Thanks for your input, I have addressed your concerns, if you would like to check. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 10:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, mate. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 20:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Kemp FAC

I have responded to all of your concerns. In two cases, I disagreed and stated my arguments. Your reconsideration is appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still oppose? Can you use the hide resolved issues feature that is becoming common at FAC? If I recall the legends book, each legend has about a page or two and so page nubmers are not really necessary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any further comments would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will check them out later. If we get closed out at WP:FAC, I hope you will meet me at WP:PR for continued refinement.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed your concerns and done some copyediting of my own. Thanks for your time and assistance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your further consideration would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time. I will let you know when I complete my attention to your comments. Tonight, I am beefing up my next WP:FAC, Walter O'Malley.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done my best to respond to your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the time. I got those last three things. Feel free to collapse more of the resolved issues. Also, please do come help O'Malley.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time. I could not muster enough consensus and the article is now at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jack Kemp/archive1. Feel free to come and comment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O'Malley FAC prep

I will have to attempt to swap out as many of the refs to his personal cite as possible. However, since he died in 1979, it is unclear how much of his own website he authored himself. I.E., if his son or a third party wrote it, it may be a valid source.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1995 Japanese Grand Prix

I've replied to your comments. Maybe it's worth changing your "Slight Support" to "Support"? :D Thanks for your comments anyhow! :)) D.M.N. (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a comma check myself mainly in the Race section. Please comment at the above FAC. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) D.M.N. (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Female Golfers

I think the category can be used for all female golfers, including amateurs and pros, so it might serve as a bit of an umbrella category under which several other category would fall including LPGA Golfers. Does this make sense? I really have not given it that much thought. Also, thanks for your help with the Australian vandal. --Crunch (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgi Kinkladze FAC

I have responded to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Georgi Kinkladze. Could you take a second look to see if the responses meet with your satisfaction? Oldelpaso (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following the failure of the FAC nomination for Georgi Kinkladze, I have opened another peer review in an attempt to get the article ready for a second nomination. As you commented on the FAC, I would value your opinion of whether the issues you raised have been resolved, and details of any further issues you have. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creamer controversy

Thanks for valuing my opinion on whether or not to add the Creamer-Sorenstam incident to Paula Creamer's article. This is just my opinion, of course, but I don't think it warrants mention. I don't think it's big enough to be listed as a "controversy." At the time it was noteworthy because people thought it might lead to an on-going feud between the two which, of course, it has not. If you want to list it, maybe list it under a heading like, "Incidents." --Crunch (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Linden

I've addressed your concerns; please take another look at it. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 13:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Marsh

Hi there Giants. I have responded/addressed your comments at this FAC. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Russell

Thanks for your hard work. I'll look through some of the other references later tonight, if I have a chance. Zagalejo^^^ 23:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: SummerSlam (1988)

Thank you so much for the comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SummerSlam (1988). All of your concerns have been addressed. Nikki311 18:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I believe all your concerns for SummerSlam (2007) have been addressed. –Cheers, L A X 00:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All your concerns have been corrected. –Cheers, L A X 01:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Hitmen FAC

I just noticed you added more comments last week to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Calgary Hitmen. They somehow evaded my notice at the time, but I have since responded to your comments. Thank you for the thorough review, and the comments on the quality of the article. Cheers, Reso lute 17:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May FAC reviewer awards

		The Reviewers Award
		To Giants2008, For your excellent work at Featured article candidates during May, thank you for the solid reviews of articles this month and for your thorough work towards helping promote Wiki's finest work. As a relative newcomer at FAC, your reviews have made a difference and have been noticed; please keep up the good work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eric Brewer (ice hockey)

Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eric Brewer (ice hockey)! I'll go through all of my newspaper sources and, if possible, will add page numbers. I got all the sources from an online database and know that a few won't have page numbers. I'll get this done most likely tomorrow after I get home from work, but will let you know for sure once it's all done. Thanks! – Nurmsook! (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on this, it has now been done. I was unable to get the page number for about 4 or 5 citations, but the rest have been done (at least the ones without external links). I look forward to your review! – Nurmsook! (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Mattisse has gone through this article and has moved quite a few things around. I have also been going through it and did go over the recommendations you made. Do you think the article is headed more is your direction now? I mainly just want to get some feedback on the edits that Mattisse has made, if you feel they are improving the article and such (particularily the redo of the lead, as I thought it was half decent before his changes). Thanks for the comments. – Nurmsook! (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

could you please do me a favor?

Hello,

I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Wikipedia be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Wikipedia according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Wikipedia, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?

I will send you a URL link to a webpage on which your knowledge evolution map displays. Please assign the topic (concept) in the map to a certain cluster on the map according to the relationship between the topic and clusters in your cognition, or you can assign it to ‘none of above’ if there is no suitable cluster.
I will also send a questionnaire to you. The questions are related to my research topic, and I need your viewpoints about these questions.

The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.

Sincerely

JnW ^talk 05:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Bradman

Thanks for your opening comments. I've responded to them all, including making a number of improvements to the article, so thank you very much! --Dweller (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Are you now happy, or will you be returning with more comments? --Dweller (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All responded to. Thanks! --Dweller (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NB the FAC is getting very bloated, so if you're happy with what we've done, please hide the comments like Bole and Gary King have done. If you're unhappy, of course, please ensure I know what I still need to do. Thanks! --Dweller (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

btw I think we're done on round 2. --Dweller (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Gomez

Just to let you know I have finished up the revision of this article, in keeping with the comments by you and other reviewers at the FAC page. Thanks for that link; I've incorporated information from some of this week's interviews into the article. It would be appreciated if you could check to see that I have addressed all of your concerns. Thanks. Risker (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Trott

Hi Giants2008 and thanks for your review. I see you have struck out the suggestions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry Trott that have been addressed. Do you have further things that you would like to see happen before you would be in a position to support? Thanks again, Mattinbgn\^talk 23:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply and for your work on Bradman. I am in no hurry and certainly don't mind in the least deferring to that article. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 00:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispatch

Thanks ! [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Starrcade (1983)

Changes have been made based on your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Starrcade (1983). Could you reassess the article? --128.250.6.247 (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]