Crisco 1492

∞Who?¿? 08:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Crisco, can you let me know if I'm offbase here or not? The two-article submission had two QPQs submitted with it, both by Nvvchar. One of them, the Indian one, I recognized: it was an article I had considered for promotion the other night, but had to reject because it had only 1363 prose characters, among other issues. So I did something I've never done before, and posted a ? icon along with the question of whether QPQ credit should be granted, under the circumstances. (I also had a question about the Idaho rivers list, which while 1583 prose characters, spends a good chunk of that talking about sources and units used in the list table, which seemed to me belonged in a non-prose key of some sort. I've now posted to that article's review as well with a ? icon.)

Oddly enough, I'd just had a fairly new DYK contributor, SagaciousPhil, ask about a similar issue on my talk page: he'd just had one of his reviews (a tick) given a ? by DivaKnockouts, who said that the hook wasn't really accurate and suggested a change to it to make it accurate (adding one key word, as it happens, but it seems to have been a necessary change). The question was whether this addition counted as something for which it's appropriate to claim a QPQ credit. I think it could be, depending on how much checking went into it, though I'd never claim one myself under the circumstances.

Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

• For the first one, I agree with you that Nvvchar should not claim it because it seems (s)he didn't do much looking at the article. For the second one, I'd allow it to be claimed but remind the user to be careful in checking hooks. Everyone here is human (I think, although there are some who claim to worms or raptors or the like), and we can all miss things. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I appreciate the quick response, and the point-of-view reminder. This is yet another reason why I prefer reviews that state what was checked. (Incidentally, I'm not actually a moon. Not that I ever claimed to be...)

• Ah, so no setting for you? Good, I'm not a really old shortener either   — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Well, some prep setting. ;-) Although not any more before bedtime; I think the two hooks I promoted are it. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Alright, I'll finish my article and then get to the preps (if Dr Blofeld could read Indonesian, that peak Prioryman pointed out would be 3 times as big...) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't though hehe! Crisco can you find anything sources for Arbir, I can't.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 23:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Doesn't look like an Indonesian word, but I'll see what I can do later. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well done on the Darah GA, if you want to work on more let me know.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks, I will! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Crisco, can I ask you to take a look at this one? I'm really not sure what ought to be done here; are the sourcing issues germane? One way or another, it's been three weeks, and I'd like to get this moving again. If it does need action, please ping Piotrus on his talk page, since he doesn't seem to notice developments on his nomination templates. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Way too many self-references. If Piotrus is asking other people to do the work for him, I don't have high hopes for this nom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for looking. I've just checked, and make it 424 characters based on the one secondary source out of 1700+ total, or less than a quarter of the article. Did you want to deliver the bad news? (In a completely unrelated matter, one of the prep areas will need to be promoted within the next five hours... ) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Done, and looks like someone got the other one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Thank you. It looks like the bot will be complaining in the next several minutes because it will want yet another queue's worth soon. (Greedy bot!) BlueMoonset (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Darn, and here I was stoked about discovering something in an archive that seems to have been lost in time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Crisco. This comment of mine didn't get posted before that subsection on the Talk page was archived:

Thank you, sir! You have single-handedly restored my faith in the admin corps with your kind response. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

• You're welcome. Sorry I goofed the blurb... it was made in a bit of a hurry. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I haven't forgotten about this. If you're still interested, I can start working my way through it - but I'll be slow. Dunno if you ever opened a PR or not, but if you'd prefer to go that route that would be fine. I had intended to read it eventually but couldn't get to it when you asked earlier. Anyway, let me know your schedule and what works best for you. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I did and... well, the FAC was a fiasco. I'd like to go through the sources again before you go too in-depth (I may end up having to pare the summary to the bare bones, based on some comments at FAC) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
• Thanks for remembering though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Oops, sorry to hear that. I've missed a lot. Anyway, let me know if/when you want another set of eyes. I'm in a reviewing mood because I'm not writing much at the moment. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I will, thanks!   — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Crisco. Ensign George Ronan was killed on the site of what became Chicago on 15 August 1812 during the worldwide conflict of the Napoleonic Wars, which in the USA we call the War of 1812. There is substantial evidence that Ronan was the first graduate of the United States Military Academy to be killed in combat, and editors have gathered citable evidence to this effect. Thanks for taking an interest in this article, and I guess I'm here to ask if you have any more questions, as your earlier questions were good ones.Bigturtle (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Saying he was definitely so, without a ref to back it up, is WP:OR and cannot be put on the main page (and shouldn't be in the article). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jewish diaspora. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Halo Crisco, saya lihat Anda mengaku bisa bahasa Prancis. Kalo gitu kembangin donk artikel "The Troubles" menjadi FA dengan menerjemahkan isi dari Wikipedia bahasa Perancis: fr:Conflit nord-irlandais

Kalo bisa yang di WBI dikembangkan juga ya.   btw yang artikel Terang Boelannya kok baru dibenerin dikit-dikit ?   Katanya lagi punya waktu luang banyak.   Hayo ngaku.   --Erik Fastman (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Kalau topik "The Troubles" itu jauh terlalu penuh konflik di Wikipedia bahasa Inggris untuk menjadi FA. Terlalu banyak "edit warring". Kalau soal Terang Boelan... kan, harus juga ada niat. Dan lagi tidak ada niat. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Kalo gitu dikembangkan saja yang ada di Wikipedia bahasa Indonesia: id:Konflik Irlandia Utara --Erik Fastman (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Crisco, I'm not going to be around for a few days, and I haven't been able to catch up on some DYK stuff that I should have. I'm hoping that you'll have the time and be able to do better than I have, so I'm flying through the nominations list in the hopes that I'll spot these noms where I'd seen problems, but hadn't gotten back to see if the fixes had been okay.

The three noms I could find:

1. Template:Did you know nominations/2005 Pepsi 400
2. Template:Did you know nominations/Samsung Ativ Tab
3. Template:Did you know nominations/List of Presidents of Pakistan

I'd also appreciate it if you'd keep an eye out for things like the Gibraltar promotion max (one in any 24 hour period; I just had to move one back two prep areas because the hooks would have been back-to-back); there are only three approved hooks left after the latest two promotions. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I'll try, but I've been off and on all day. Scheduled power cut-off right now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Since you are a veteran in film-related (and many other) featured articles, may I please request you to opine in the peer review of the film Mother India. If you have shortage of time, can you at least read the lead, and see if it is interesting enough (and error-free)? Of course, we'll be elated if you read the whole article and provide feedback. I am particularly worried about the theme section since IMO that lacks a good flow. Thanks a lot in advance. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I'll see what I can do. Be sure to ping me in a couple days if it seems I've forgotten. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

What do you think of

as a photo-of-the0-day---I came across it on the German wikipedia and it's one of the best views of ww2 I have ever seen. Rjensen (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Rather interesting, but I can't pick it as is. If you want it to go on the main page, it has to pass WP:FPC first. You can see the criteria here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think I've responded to all your comments at the Rakoto Frah FAC. Will you take a look when you have the chance? Thank you. Lemurbaby (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for the ping, I'd forgotten to go back there. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

A person has posted a third opinion on the List of Tar Heels in the NFL Draft. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 12:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Crisco, I saw that my nomination was rejected. Could you please give me a couple of days to re-phrase the article completely? This is my first wiki contribution and I was not aware of the exact rules regarding close paraphrasing. I understand that somethings need to be reworked upon, but the contents of the article are definitely worth the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prachi.chitnis (talk • contribs) 13:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Sorry, but I trust Nikki's judgment here. The article needs a thorough scrubbing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Could we structure it more like an interview, as in my most recent prior contribution to The Signpost, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-12-10/WikiProject report? — Cirt (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Replied back at my user talk. :) — Cirt (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

But you seem to have me confused with another user named Russavia. Durova⁴¹² 01:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Not a problem, cheers. Thank you for doing POTD. Durova⁴¹² 02:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply