User talk:Chaetodipus
This is Chaetodipus's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 2 days |
|
Senate House (University of London)
I have revised the Senate House (University of London) article which you gave a GA review to reformat the lists as prose as requested and have added citations. I have renominated it - would you care to have another look? --DavidCane (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- You should add this article to the good article reassessment for re-review. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 21:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I assume you meant to link to WP:GAR rather than WP:GTAR. I will do so. --DavidCane (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, having looked at that page, it doesn't seem appropriate to list it there as it isn't currently a good article. --DavidCane (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I assume you meant to link to WP:GAR rather than WP:GTAR. I will do so. --DavidCane (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I would suggest relisting the article. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 22:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's on the Arts and Architecture list at the moment. --DavidCane (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I would suggest relisting the article. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 22:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
WikiCup Newsletter XXI
The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 22:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC) for the WikiCup. To report errors, please leave a message on the talk page.
- Special report:Study of vandalism survival times
- News and notes: Wikizine, video editing, milestones
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
WikiCup Newsletter XXII
The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 21:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.
The WPVG Newsletter (Q2 2009)
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 2, No. 4 — 2nd Quarter, 2009
Previous issue | Next issue
Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2009, the project has:
|
|
Content
|
- Newsletter delivery by xenobot 15:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
obsello page
Hello. I recently nominated the obsello page for review as GA article in an attempt to protect what I think is an important part of the spirits information on wikipedia. I understand your ruling and rushed the page to review in an attempt to gain attention to the page when it was under attack by an industry PR firm. Although he left when confronted, the page is now being threatened by an experienced editor. I do think the page should stay and be edited, and as an absinthe buff can say this is a very important brand. This fact is substantiated by virtually all the industry refrences posible, notable critics, and the NY Times among newspapers.
The editors argument is that the references sighted in the discussion page are not sufficient to justify the relevance of the brand and I feel this could not be further from the truth. I think the page does need work, and was likely written by industry interests. I also think that those facts do not warrant deletion simply an edit. I have volunteered to edit it and been met with hostility. So far I seem to be the only contributor to the absinthe pages or the spirits project involved and I am feeling a bit outgunned here in respect to wikipedia know how. However this editor does not know what he/she is talking about with regard to spirits. He/she argued that important critics and industry authorities were not reliable third party sources and demanded evidence as to the importance of the San Francisco World Spirits Competition. For a person with intimate knowledge of spirits these are illogical ideas. It is like questioning the validity of the oscars and recommending the deletion of a film page. I was wondering what your thoughts were and if you would be willing to weigh in on the page and possible do a bit of homework investigating the validity of the references?Nightcafe1 (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)