This is an archive of past discussions with User:AmandaNP. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey. Just checking to see if you'll have time to finish this soon. If not I can put it back in the unreviewed queue, and it'll probably be handled fast since there's a GA review drive going on now. WizardmanOperation Big Bear18:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for the review, I've started on improvements but isn't it normal to place the GAN "on hold" instead of an outright fail and having to renominate again? Mjroots (talk) 11:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Replied at GAN review page. 02:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Article expanded further, I've asked a couple of questions on the GA Review subpage. Mjroots (talk)
I've expanded the FURs of both non-free images. I've also removed two of the three redlinks. Katriel Katz is a valid redlink as he meets notability criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Let me know if anything else needs doing. Mjroots (talk) 12:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to get this settled soon (and hopefully passed). Would you please let me know if anything else needs doing to achieve this. Mjroots (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, MWOAP. Several weeks ago you helped me by offering good criticism and userfying the first draft of my article on the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges. Since then, I've rewritten the article, adding material, and adding to and refining the sources. When you have a chance (I know you're busy), will you please read it over and provide me commentary? I'm working on the article on my user page: User:4117Ashford/Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges. Thanks again for your help. 4117Ashford (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for taking so long on this. I notice that you don't have very much on the company or organizations history. Also, the "controversy" has quite a few unsourced statements, might want to look at WP:V & WP:OR. Also, Wikipedia is not a how-to or instruction manual (WP:NOTHOWTO). Your Accredation process section seems a bit like that. Let me know if you have further questions/need more help. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\01:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
MWOAP, thanks for your good comments. As I continue to work on this article, (1) I'll add information on the Commission's history, (2) add references to the "Controversies" section, and (3) reconsider my approach to the "Accreditation Process" section because I don't intend it to be a how-to or instruction manual but instead a description of a protocol. I appreciate your help. 4117Ashford (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Interstate 287
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You have recently participated in discussion at an AFD for a broadcast station. I have recently posted the above topic on the talk page of the notability guideline for organizations and companies, to see if there is interest in adding language related to the notability of radio and TV broadcast stations to that guideline. Your input would be most welcome. Thanks. Edison (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. /MWOAP|Notify Me\20:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem, but if a talk page already exists at that exact location i cannot just move an old one to overwrite it. I might have added a G6 template on the in-the-way talkpage to have it removed, and then moved the non-moved page over while re-adding the new templates from the new page or i might have made a move request, but seeing it was just a talk page with handled discussion scraps based on an IRC conversation i just did it the easy way to have it fixed and finalized. I will keep it in mind for future histmerges though :). Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)20:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Yes, it could be school kids, but you don't know that they are. The OrgName (organization name) off this WHOIS report is "RIPE Network Coordination Centre" with it leased to multiple IPs (this is in the notes). Remember, anyone can vadalise pages. Thank you for your interest though in fighting vandals. Let me know if you have further questions. /MWOAP|Notify Me\21:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I've responded to your comments by resolving them (if possible), asking follow-up questions, or making suggestions which would resolve the problem. I know the TD sections don't have any wikipedia-defined primary references...they are all secondary or below, but it's unavoidable. Respond at your leisure, and strike out the comments you feel have been resolved. I'll be around here today and tomorrow through the day. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
It's been six days and I haven't received feedback from you concerning the changes I made to the page per your comments or the questions and points I raised in response to your comments. I don't want to fail GAN due to lack of communication. That's already happenned to me once this year, and I'd rather avoid a second occurrence. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the big delay here, I will have your replies back to you tonight. And don't worry about any time limit or you losing this GA over non-communication. You have been very pacient with me. Thanks! -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\20:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The last 2 X's were taken care of, and the question was responded to. For the time being, there isn't a better internet address to those old newspaper articles. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
MWOAP:
Re the Adelaida Cellars page: I have made a couple of edits to revise the texts in question.
Recall that portions of these texts were originally written by me, but used in other capacities by (1) a blog (virtualslo.com) that published some of my writing on two of their pages, and (2) a magazine (Wine Country This Week) that published a full story that I wrote on behalf of Adelaida Cellars as part of an advertorial package. I thought a rewrite would be easier than obtaining permissions via declarations of consent.
I spoke to the new owner of virtualslo.com, and he would be willing to send you a declaration of consent. I haven't contacted the editor of Wine Country This Week, but I will do that if the rewrites are not acceptable. Please advise.
Thank you,
Joe Gargiulo
JAG Public Relations
for Adelaida Cellars
Joe A. Gargiulo 16:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagpr (talk • contribs)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
First off, on behalf of myself and my co-coordinator Wizardman, I would like to thank you for the efforts that you have made so far in this GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a success, and that is thanks to you. See this Signpost article about what this drive has achieved so far.
We're currently heading into the final week of the drive. At this time, if you have any GANs on review or on hold, you should be finishing off those reviews. Right now, we have more GANs on review or on hold than we do unreviewed. If you're going to start a GA review, please do so now so you can complete it by the end of the month and so that the nominator has a full 7-day window to address any concerns.
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for answering the question on my help page. I was primarily interested in the number of days gadget which would allow an article to state for example "It has been X days since the tragic events of September 11, 2001" whereas tomorrow the same article would read "It has been X+1 days since ...". I don't see where that would be inappropriate. Additionally if I choose to create a page such as "The Word of the Day" where I describe the concept and function of this programs intent, I would want to include and demonstrate the gadget in operation. I would certainly weigh the opinions of others if a consensus has determined these things were not in the best interest of Wikipedia. Again thank you for your assistance!My76Strat (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I saw the comment the above user left at ACC when requesting their account (I was looking back through the previous few hours comments in IRC!), and as you are not in IRC, I have taken the liberty of leaving a message at the user's talk page about possible conflict of interest.
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
MWOAP,
Please note that two required declarations of consent (by adelaida.com and winecountrythisweek.com) have already been submitted to your email response team; a third declaration is not necessary because the owner of virtuaslo.com deleted the text in question after I asked him to submit the declaration.
Consequently, the "Adelaida Cellars" article should be cleared for approval because these actions corroborate the authenticity of the submitted writings.
Please review and respond.
Thank you,
Joe Gargiulo
JAG Public Relations
for Adelaida Cellars
Joe A. Gargiulo 16:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Joe; answering on behalf of MWOAP for now, because he is a bit busy;
First thing, very important, please request a change of name - because company names (and parts of them) are absolutely not permitted on Wikipedia; please go to WP:CHU and request a new name.
Also, When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured here.
Next, re. the OTRS - I will seek someone with access to that system, and try to get the emails tied to the page, so that it can be approved. Myself or another user will respond further, here, shortly. Thanks, Chzz ► 02:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
OTRS permission is confirmed and marked on the page at the moment, please make sure you move that tag (in whole) to the talk page when it is moved into article space. Also (just because I was discussing it with people a couple weeks ago) is an interesting read for PR agents on wikipedia. James (TC)04:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, so, the permission side of things is all sorted out. Jagpr assuming that, before you get to here, you have requested a namechange, then we need to look at the other problems with the article, primarily;
It is not well-referenced - please use inline citations; see my own short guide user:chzz/help/ref and for more, see WP:CITE. The references need to be reliable sources, independent of the organization - e.g. newspapers, books, etc.
It is not neutral. Wikipedia articles need to maintain a neutral point-of-view. For example, {{xt|This dramatic terrain [...] warm, dry growing seasons that profoundly affect wine quality" - these are not 'facts', but opinions; the language is inappropriate to Wikipedia. This is true of much of the article.
The article cannot be accepted until those two key points are addressed. It would also be helpful if you could introduce some wikilinks to other articles.
Done -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Working Looking into ASAP. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
