User talk:Epbr123/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Hello & Welcome !!!

I think you would like to be an EDITOR of this page... Welcome to Prince of Persia : Prodigy !!!

Enjoy !!! – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 18:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Huggle problem?

Hi Epbr123, first many thanks for reverting the recent vandalism to the Woz article. However something seems to have gone wrong with the Huggle warning. the template name is huggle/warn-4 not huggle/warning-4. Thought you'd like to know about it. Best, Gwernol 14:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll try to get it sorted. Epbr123 (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Peer Review help

Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination of Canterbury

Hey, I've been referred to you to possibly assist in the promotion of Canterbury to good article status. I hear you're one of the best to ask for help. As you can see on the talk page, the article needs substantial changes before it's promoted. I for one am extremely busy with exams at the moment and would appreciate all the help you could provide. Thanks, ——Ryan | t • c 21:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy to help. Thankfully, it had a good reviewer so we know exactly what we need to do, but there's a lot to do so we might not get it done within the on-hold period. Epbr123 (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I will assist tomorrow afternoon, as I have a 2 day gap between exams. Thanks for helping! ——Ryan | t • c 22:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! I have just been glancing through some of the articles I have edited in the past, and see that the Canterbury article has had a facelift and an article status review. I notice that, in the discussion leading up to that, there was the insistence that every "Notable person" must be given a reference. I have just been through two other articles (one of which was Chichester) where there was no mention whatsoever of notable people. Many other articles I have come across take all such people away from the main article, by the use of an alphabetic list, so I went through the "What links here" and compiled one. I can see that the main article should follow the "how to write about settlements" mantra that lists should be avoided, but if, as happens now under Canterbury, the so-called prose simply says "the most notable people are a, b, c, d ..." then that surely is just a list written as a sentence? I also fail to see why each of them should be referenced, when they all have their own article - which should have enough references to satisfy anyone? Just look at the Christopher Marlowe reference - you will see it only refers to the Theatre, whereas his own article has 27 of them!

I find this what appears to be constant tinkering with the rules somewhat off-putting, and wonder where this came in? Is it just because of the phobia about lists in this case? Regards Peter Shearan (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The convention is for city articles to have a section on its most well-known notable people, with a more comprehensive list on a separate article. The notable people section of the Canterbury article is a bit more than just a list written as a sentence, as it also explains how each person is related to the city. This isn't the case for List of people from Chichester, for example. Each of the people needs to be referenced because we can't be sure that their individual articles will and always will contain a reference that they lived in Canterbury. In Marlowe's case, the reference was possibly unnecessary, but not for the others. Regards Epbr123 (talk) 10:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, understood Peter Shearan (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I would appreciate some feedback ...

on the genetic code talk page before the figure being discussed is inserted. Doug youvan (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Man, do you ever deserve this...

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I've got to hand it to you, you are really fast with Huggle. I can't even tell you how many times I've been beaten by you today. Seriously man, you are incredibly good a reverting vandalism. Keep up the awesome job! Thingg⊕⊗ 19:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Keep up the good work yourself. Epbr123 (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to echo that. =) Thanks for helping with the BroHa edits. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Same here, i echo the above. And given a crat' has asked you for RFA below, you really must be a great user. Roadrunnerz45 ^{(talk 2 me)} 10:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good catch!

Hello, Epbr123 ... Good Catch on stopping 80.242.237.66 (talk · contribs) in their vandalism of Buffalo Soldiers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) ... their current block is well deserved! :-) hey i was watching the animal planet and i saw a beefalo that reminded me of you. GREAT SHIT MAN

Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) _{14:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)}

[edit] RfA?

I was wondering if you felt ready to have another go at running at RfA? If you are interested and would like, I would be willing to nominate you. WjBscribe 16:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll need to give it a couple of days thought first, but thanks for the offer. Epbr123 (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You'll have my support, that's for sure ——Ryan | t • c 10:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If you had another RfA, I'd certainly support, as last time. Good luck. Rudget (Help?) 15:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nomination is up. Have a go at the optional questions and then transclude it. Good luck. WjBscribe 16:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)