Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Dark City (1998 film) 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. Viriditas (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Note: I'll be spending a few days on this. Please be patient. Viriditas (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The article Dark City (1998 film) 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 needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Dark City (1998 film) for things which need to be addressed. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I posted some initial comments for the Daniel Faraday GAR that you posted up. Hopefully you have a chance to take a look, and please let me know if you have any questions. Canada Hky (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I've fixed some of the link problems (dead link and disambigs). I'll do a copyedit and improve via your suggestions. I hope to have everything done at least by tomorrow or the end of the day. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 19:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, there are a few more issues to be addressed, including an issue with a sentence pulled right from a source, and the second opinions. Please take a look when you get a chance. Canada Hky (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I've made a few more fixes. "Sentence pulled right from a source"? Which sentence are you speaking of? --That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 23:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. I didn't mean created articles, I meant edits to the article. Also, if you're not satisfied by my review, you are allowed to put it up for GAR. GamerPro64 20:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh no, please don't misunderstand, your review was fair, you just had me a little confused at some point. Thanks for looking at it. Happy editing. ^___^ That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 20:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that you've been doing some great undoing of edits that are vandalism, so I've given you the rollback tool.
Please read up on the tool at WP:ROLLBACK to see the much greater and faster benefit you will have from being able to "rollback" vandalism much quicker. If you are looking to help vandal fight, then may I suggest you also try using Huggle, a great anti-vandalism tool?
Ooooh, thanks very much. This looks really useful. Dear sir, you have lived up to your username. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 20:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome! I do try.. ;) TheHelpfulOne 21:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Lost
Hey there. You're doing a great job with the Lost articles (I was afraid of being the only one still improving those...). I even wonder which ones are you focusing on next. But I gotta ask: should Lost (season 5) really be at the Good Article nominations, when seasons 1 through 4 are Featured Lists instead of Articles? Thanks. igordebraga≠ 01:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
That's a very good point, thanks for telling me. I'll see if I can get it and possibly Season 6 as featured lists at some point later. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 07:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
If possible, give some input here. igordebraga≠ 17:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
You only put things from the intro and plot... there's anything else? Thanks. igordebraga≠ 15:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism
Great job on your work fighting vandalism. I noticed that you're not warning the users, however. WP:VAND suggests I add the following message:
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you.
Have a nice day!
Roodog2k (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi there! I am beginning my attempt to promote all of Lost's third season to a Good Topic. As you've already been involved in Lost episode articles, would you be interested in helping edit the third season and expand a few of its episodes? I made a template, User:Ruby2010/Other interests#Lost season 3, that lists what articles need some TLC (14 or so in all). If you're so inclined, feel free to pick whichever episodes interest you the most. Thanks, Ruby2010comment! 20:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the barnstar! It's much appreciated! :) Ruby2010comment! 21:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Bollywood shollywood
Do you seriously think this editor is doing good? I just reverted most of their edits because they are randomly removing properly cited material from articles (even FAs) and leaving them broken with dangling citation name tags. BollyJeff||talk 19:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure the editor means harm, I just think they're trying to remove exaggeration from articles, but don't quite know how to go about referencing their own claims. If they go too far, they should be warned however. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 19:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Please.
You could at least leave me a more specific message instead of substituting {{uw-vandalism2}}. What was wrong with my changes? I was redoing an edit of which I am fairly certain that it was not vandalism. I feel offended right now. Ian (178.37.151.76 (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC))
Well, I am definitely capable of making mistakes. To clarify controversial edits, try to explain your actions by putting it in edit summaries. Your edit removed half of the article and the images you removed from the page were pretty rational. Sorry to have caused offence. --That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 19:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.SalvioLet's talk about it! 01:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Rita Re-Nomination
Hey, Cheesy Kid! I just noticed Rita's talk page pop up on my watchlist and realized that you renominated it. I feel kind of guilty shoving it off in the back for a while, but I've been focusing a lot on the Glee related articles. The only really big problem during the GAN was the fact that the literature section was really lacking detail and should have been expanded on. They also suggested a second copy-edit to tighten up the prose a little. Not sure where to go from there. I would love to tag team again if you want? HorrorFan121 (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello again, old WikiFriend, tagging up again would be just brilliant. Think I'll work on the literature section for now, but I'm really not sure how much I can do... --That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 13:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmm...it looks longer now. I can try and pull together some book reviews and interviews about the books later tonight. I have however, never picked up one of these books so I'm not sure how to put together this section. I believe she's less prominent in the books, but that just might be my perspective of it.. HorrorFan121 (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Update: Right now just waiting for the review to start before further edits are made, if you have any suggestions that'd be great... That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 18:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Maliki edit explanation
I was editing the Maliki page in order to remove Salafi propaganda - the citation of line that I deleted led to an ebook which was a Salafi manual presenting complete misrepresentations and misinterpretations of the method of prayer according to the Maliki school. What I did was only done with the best of intentions. Please restore my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.200.237 (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Faraday GA
Thanks for addressing all the issues, I have passed the Daniel Faraday article! Canada Hky (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah sorry, I had my AWB remove linebreaks from a huge list of pages and forgot to remove it in the find and replace section, I only did it to 2 articles fortunately and have undone my other revision to Pochvalov. --That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 17:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Flannans
I note you have repeated your addition of "Persondata" fields to Flannan Isles. WP:DATA says "Persondata is a special set of metadata that can and should be added to biographical articles only." This isn't a biographical article and I have reverted. BenMacDui 12:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
No Thank You...
Thanks - but it's all part of spending a couple of hours on Huggle :-) --Wintonian (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
It has been well established through the works of Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayyim, Abdul Wahhab, Ibn Baz and other Salafi scholars that their aqeedah (creed) was/is 'anthropomorphic'. As pseudo-revivers of the Islamic religion through the 14th to 18th century, these scholars, may Allah forgive them, beginning with Ibn Taymiyyah, assigned Allah anthropmorphic attributes. There are four creeds in Islam: Athari, Ashari (majority), Maturidi and finally Anthropomorphism. These creeds deal with Allah's attributes in different ways, with the 'Salafi' Anthropomorphic creed being heretical. Please accept my changes. Having read a lot regarding this issue, I think you changing what I have edited and reporting me is unfair. - 78.150.69.16
Very well, but I have not reported you. Wikipedia is based mainly on the concept that content must have reliable sources, otherwise information could be libellous or misleading. If you could find a reference for your claims, you would be more than welcome to add that info in. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 17:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Why did you blank my request for DYK help? I am guessing you thought it is because you thought it was a hoax or vandalism. I can send you a copy of the actual Pearlasia Gamboa email to US Attorney Timothy Lucey, if it seems to fantastic to actually believe, and too fantastic for DYK, once you see the actual emails yourself. 98.234.235.21 (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh wow, it was a genuine request? Hah, that's actually quite funny. Yeah, send the e-mail, I'll revert my reversion. Try changing the title, it seemed too spammy to be true. heh. Wish the best. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 19:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
PGDYK
Thanks. Please help others stay safe, who might not take seriously threats by those with felonious histories a mile deep of carrying out the threats, because they reasonably appear to be an unbelievable hoax, unless one reads the 1980's LA Times (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=z61PAAAAIBAJ&sjid=d1MDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4598,1097763&dq=allied+artists+bugging+murder&hl=en - Allied Artists records and Kim Richards Solicit murder of cop and bug sheariff's offices, on Allied Artists Fraud and Kim Richards 1986, and the "San Gabriel Valley Transit Authority" and Upsaala Mafia in 2006), or Washington Post or CBS News on PG (in refernce section), and stay safe yourself. Admin Arthur Rubin said on my talk page that it is OK to edit from an anonymous IP, relating to the "alternative medicine" and "alternative medical hold" aspects of all of this, and to do so even if you have a Wikipedia account. None of it has reliable sources, and when the news breaks, Wikipedia is not news, so it can't go in the articles for a while, so best to warn editors on their talk pages. More info is at Quatllos! website, with images of documents and emails posted on kidnap thread, and GPR thread including about Richards and Allied Artists, in addition to PG. PPdd (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
What???
Sorry ma'friend but he is one of the rudest people of the world. I ask him to do something but he, not only don't answer to me but instead of it he deletes my comments.
--178.128.75.48 (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but no one checks article talk pages. If you check you will see that the majority of comments in article talk pages (other than main page and rescent deaths) are old and unanswered.--178.128.75.48 (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Shaun Rashid
I am Shaun Rashid and I would appreciate it if you could stop posting information about me which isn't true. I have edited the last paragraph which you wrote so I would like you to leave it that way!! Could you please identify yourself, do I know you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunrashid (talk • contribs) 16:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Ummm hey "Shaun"... I've added absolutely no content to this article, so I'm rather confused as to why you would think that I've written a paragraph about Shaun Rashid. If you look at my edits: [1] and this one was made after you posted this: [2]. The only edit prior to this conversation was a reversion of an edit by a vandal. And as to identifying myself, I am not required to, I have a right to remain anonymous. Thank you. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 16:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
As an additional: The editor who was actually putting in that information was this editor: 217.33.238.2. I suggest you take this up with him. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 16:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
