User talk:Bulldog73/Archive 1

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your article submission has been declined, and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fill Your Heart was not created. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer, and please feel free to resubmit once the issues have been addressed. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Acather96 (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Bulldog73! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —Ute in DC (talk) 06:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

FAC

I appreciate that you are acting in good faith, but it is best if featured articles are nominated by people who have worked closely on them. In this way, they can give reasoned replies to reviewers and be familiar enough with the sources to act on suggested improvements. Someone who has not worked on the article can not provide this input, so the nomination may continue until opposition to it becomes so overwhelming that the article is failed; this takes away time from reviewers. While the USS_Chesapeake_(1799) article is of reasonable quality, it is not yet of featured quality, and principal contributors must be consulted before a nomination, as required in the featured article candidate instructions. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving your talk page comment

Hi Bulldog, you left a comment on the talk page of that FAC that was just deleted, I'm reproducing it here. I deleted the talk page because we're required to do that per WP:G8 when the original page is deleted, but I'm not trying to silence you; you can do with this comment whatever you like. Here it is. - Dank (push to talk) 11:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo,

Thanks for calling my nomination a "procedurally malformed request" and a "sad piece of behaviour." I am a good-natured editor and I do not deserve for my FAC nomination to be called the above. What if I got blocked by the regular editors of this article while trying to consult them? If I were an admnistrator, I'd have you blocked just the same. Thanks a lot, Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs 01:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Pillow Pets

Hi, Bulldog73. As you may recall, you posted a request for copy edit of the Pillow Pets article on the GOCE requests page. This message is to let you know we will not be tackling a copy edit of the article at present, as there are a lot of structural issues raised in the recent peer review of the article that need to be dealt with first. Please go through those suggestions first, and please re-submit the article for copy edit at a later time once the problems mentioned there have been addressed. Regards, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Lerone Clarke Say You, Say Me (You're the) Devil in Disguise Runnin' with the Devil Switch (song) Perfect (Fairground Attraction song) Humans Being Home Tonight Sleepwalking (Maria Lawson song) Sweet Talkin' Woman This Diamond Ring Douglas Schwartz Jean-Paul 'Bluey' Maunick Harden My Heart Everybody Wants Some!! Mama Said (Metallica song) Tom Kaulitz It Takes Two (song) Tony Chapman

Cleanup Toy Story (franchise) Keith Richards List of Phineas and Ferb characters Merge Dan Schneider (TV producer) I Saw Him Standing There Another One Rides the Bus Add Sources Jon Katz Please Forgive Me That Don't Impress Me Much Wikify 25x5 – The Continuing Adventures of the Rolling Stones Franklin-McKinley School District Roskette Expand Freaky Friday (soundtrack) José Solano The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Your edits to the Iron Butterfly album articles

Just wanted to say thanks for getting rid of the deprecated review templates on these articles and adding in the Reception sections. I'd been planning to get to this task myself at some point, but your work got it done a whole lot faster, and you did a great job summarizing the reviews. Thanks again; besides everything else, this makes my workload a little bit lighter.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) Bulldog ^{edit my talk page da contribs review me} 20:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bulldog73. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 09:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ingram

While I understand the need for verification, transactions usually take a bit to receive an article, so when something is updated (such as with Kenny Ingram) it's usually because a reporter on twitter (verified accounts only) said that they had been signed/released. However, I'm not comfortable using twitter as a reference, no matter who updated the information. So, if you see me edit an article as "waived" or "signed by whoever", trust me. Usually a source will appear in at least 20 minutes to corroborate the information. Cheers,--Giants27(T|C) 00:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. :( Bulldog ^{talk da contribs go rando} 04:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, don't worry man, haha. Just a heads up that sometimes, when something just happens, a permanent reference is usually hard to come by. Keep up the good work,--Giants27(T|C) 04:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Zone sonography technology

I declined the speedy deletion of Zone sonography technology (actually, I deleted it, then looked again at the history) because there was a version in the history before Zonare Gordon made all of those promotional edits that was neutral. However, that version may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, so you may want to take a look at the article now and consider starting an AfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a source I found from PR Newswire. Maybe that'll help. Bulldog ^{talk da contribs go rando} 13:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That won't help, because Press releases (which is what PR Newswire carries) are not reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Bulldog73/Archive 1! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

Talkback

Hello, Bulldog73. You have new messages at Hurricanefan25's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Bulldog73. You have new messages at Breawycker's talk page.
Message added 22:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Breawycker (talk to me!) 22:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for cleaning my source and text/commentary on True Diary page. I'm new to wikipedia and didn't know very well how to add stuff or type it in an official way. So...yeah. Thank you. -15henklea

Peer review

I will be glad to look at it, though it may take me a few days. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Angel Jay

I'am in no intention to vandalize anything I don't under the vandalism tag. --Pucv34 (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: When peer reviewing...

While I appreciate constructive feedback of my reviews, I fail to see how "Is Ruhrfisch your peer review rival or something?" is something other than a snide insinuation that trespasses on the territory of bad faith. That statement renders the whole earlier comments (on my talk page) in the light of "the pot calling the kettle black". I do not feel like telling lies ("just be neutral and assure that the article will make it to GA or FA status."): if the article is crap, or if the subject is of such borderline notability that its article cannot gain broad or comprehensive coverage, then there is no point in lying to anyone, especially if it misleads the editor into thinking so and be utterly disappointed at the crucial venture (or worse then be fixed in mind thinking that everyone who pointed out the failings is "out to get him or her"). Jappalang (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Just use "constructive criticism." There's nothing wrong with it, no matter how wide the article's coverage is. When reading your comments, I felt like you thought I was dumb. Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 02:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe you have a very much misconstrued notion of what is "constructive criticism". Its primary motive is not to make you feel good. Constructive criticism lays out in the view of the critic what he or she feels is wrong, why it is wrong, and how to address the issue if possible (compare that with negative criticism, which just attacks without offering suggestions for improvements). Could you point out overall how I have failed those tenets in Wikipedia:Peer review/Pillow Pets/archive2? I have a very hard time trying to understand how my comments at that peer review can be construed as treating you as "dumb". You are very welcome to bring those peer review comments up for assessment by others.

What I am seeing, however, is that you came to my talk page, talked about how hurtful using words like "biggest flaw" and "bad word choice" are to you (while ignoring the context and the declarations of personal views), and then ended off by snidely impugning my character and integrity. To top it off, after I explained my position, you toss my reply away (without even an apology for your baseless attack on me) and say I should use "constructive criticism", which by your implied definition (seemingly that I should make you feel good), does not fit in with what I understand of it. Jappalang (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that constructive criticism is supposed to make you "feel good." I think your problem was that you right away stated what I needed to improve, and did not even have time to give at least a "thank you," something I notice Ruhrfisch managed to do when reviewing the article. What I meant is that when reviewing, make an effort to say "Thank you" or "Hope this helps." Hopefully, these should be more neutral than "I like your work so far." I apologize for the snide remark, but please assume more good faith on your part. Thank you. Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 02:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, what are you again trying to imply with "I apologize for the snide remark, but please assume more good faith on your part." Is that an attempt at backslapping me? Let me remind you that I am not the one who goes about insulting other people's character without basis. Your snide remark already exposed you were going about in bad faith, and now you imply I am exhibiting worse faith than you? I think you better reflect on your attitude than mine. And as for saying I was wrong for not thanking you for writing an article? Did you personally even thank me for bothering to review (and many others) your article and offer suggestions for improvements? By your reasoning, hundreds of editors here owe me thanks (and several thousands of them should always be thanking even better editors than me); should we go about demanding their thanks and insulting them because they did not do so? Think about that. Jappalang (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: Just posted a sincere apology on WP:A nice cup of tea and a sit down.

Thank you, your post is appreciated. Jappalang (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Jacobi's formula

Hi,

I reverted your edit of [Jacobi's formula]] since I did not quite understand it (or was the mess created because of edit conflict?) You are welcome to edit it again, I am done.

Best, Sasha (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Did I violate a rule? If I did I am very sorry, but I was reverting vandalism/nonsense. It's been a long time since I was on Wikipedia, so... Reliable Forever^talk 15:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll stop reverting for a bit then. Reliable Forever^talk 15:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)