User talk:Thw1309/Archive 2
Request For Rollback[edit]
I am pleased to tell you that I have fulfilled your request for rollback. If you need any help using the tool please feel free to ask. Best Wishes. Pedro : Chat 09:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
January 2008[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Tooth, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I made a mistake, using the new tool. More details here--Thw1309 (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the review[edit]
Thanks for your GA review of Flag of Germany. This is the first article that I have made a serious effort with, so I am still rather new to the requirements for GA/FA. If you have any further suggestions for how the article could be improved, please let me know - either via the article discussion page or my talk page. Thanks. - 52 Pickup (deal) 20:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Calendar of saints[edit]
What calendar of saints do you use ?Bewareofdog (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The first thing, I'm using is Wikipedia. I'm looking on the section holidays and observances. There, some of the saints with articles on Wikipedia can be found. Then I look on catholic online. When I still haven't found a saint, who has a correct feast day and an article on Wikipedia, then I look on the saints calendar of the diocese of Münster. Doing this, at least I find a stub, which I can expand to fit into the saints section.--Thw1309 (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was thinking that for January 20 you can putPope Fabian and Saint Sebastian sience images show them together .Bewareofdog (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Good Article review of SaarLorLux[edit]
Hello, Thw1309. I've commenced a review of this article. I will be developing my review on a talk subpage of the article and have invited other collaborators. You may wish to review the comments I've made on Hippolyte_de_Bouchard or Sauropelta to get a sense of how I approach article reviews. I generally work in two passes, and put the article on hold for a week so that you and your article colleagues may address whatever concerns I or other collaborators may have (I fix minor issues myself: Grammar or poor phrasing, though I leave matters involving subject matter expertise to the regular editors of the article). Apologies that you have had to wait for so long for a reviewer. Alas, requests for review are outstripping individuals willing to review. Perhaps, if time favors you in the future, you might consider reviewing some articles as well? Take care, and I look forward to working with you. Gosgood (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've put the review on hold. I like the progress you are making on the article and think the time for you to finish your program of improvement would be worthwhile. I'll do my final review next Sunday. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind note. Alas, I will not be able to attend to the article until late Saturday, EST or early Sunday, so whatever improvement that may occur to you, large or small, can go into the article at your convenience. Your English is decently good, far better than my corresponding German. If, at some point in the future you think that the only matter of concern between an article you have worked on and a Good or Featured marque are technical concerns of the English language, you might consider approaching the League of Copyeditors. Another understaffed project, sad to say, but they will help you (eventually) so long as an article shows evidence that the editors have made it as good as their abilities allow. Alas, they have far more requests than members to process them, so be prepared to wait.
- You should port this article to the German Wikipedia; the corresponding Saar-Lor-Lux article over there seems a bit thin now. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Final Review: I think it falls short in the area of good prose, an evaluation, I trust, which does not surprise you. I really do commend you on the improvements you have made to the article. The next step, I feel, is recruiting a good copyeditor, one who has spent little time on the article and who would look at the article in a fresh light. It is possible that I can contribute in that area now that I discharged my reviewer responsibilities and can venture into the realm of contributor. Alas, that will not be today, for midnight approaches again.
- Thank you for the award. A thorough review, to my mind is just Standing operating procedure. The meaning of the green marque, to my mind, goes only so far as the weakest review. If there is any problem with the Good Article review process at the moment, it is that too few people do too many reviews at a somewhat trivial level, debasing what the Good Article marque means. I believe the peer review process also suffers in this regard. My own remedy is to review only infrequently, and then thoroughly. I would hope that a great many more people would participate in the program, but only infrequently (so they do not become jaded, and start producing reviews in a rubber-stamp-like fashion), and review with a great deal of thoroughness (spending a few days on an article rather than a few hours). I think the liklihood of this happening is vanishingly small. Good luck with your next review on this article. Gosgood (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Germany Invitation[edit]
|
--Zeitgespenst (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Location of European Union institutions[edit]
Apologise for the none response on Talk:Location of European Union institutions, have explained there and given reply. Thanks. - J Logan t: 18:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)