User talk:AndyZ/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:AndyZ. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thanks for your extensive comments about the Down syndrome article in Wikipedia:Peer review/Down syndrome/archive1. I have copied all your comments over to Talk:Down syndrome, and we are starting to work on them. If I run into questions, I hope it won't be too much of a bother to ask you. Thanks again for the comments. Ted 19:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to come back and thank you again for your peer review of Down syndrome. Your comments were very useful and a new editor and I have made the changes you suggested. At the same time, another article I sometimes work on, Natural selection, had been self-nominated for Good Article. That process was essentially worthless. Although it was successful, it didn't help to improve the article in any way (the only comment was left unanswered and it succeeded anyway). It pointed out how lucky we were that you took interest in our article.

I know you spent some time working up the templates for your various comments and I appreciate the effort, as well as for reading Down syndrome and helping to improve it. Thanks, again. Ted 14:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcoming comments. The needed Citation section has been added to NPA personality theory, using the Chicago Manual as a guide. Further comments would be appreciated. Regards,ABenis 04:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's an incredibly late "your welcome" for your thank you concerning your RfA! Steveo2 16:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Some ip vandal has vandalized it. Raichu 22:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi AndyZ. I've fixed the issues you've mentioned at Wikipedia:Peer review/Sikhism/archive1. Please take a look and leave your comments. Thanks. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not particularly bothered about non-breaking spaces, but if you want to add them, that is fine by me. Any kind of space is better than no space.

Feel free to take code from User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/unitformatter.js and make your own. Look at the section called 'Fix kilometres' for inspiration. If you need any help with code, let me know. bobblewik 18:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you are interested in this, I have edited my unit formatting script and invite you to take it and make it your own. Simply follow the two steps:

• copy User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/units_nbsp.js to User:AndyZ/monobook.js/units_nbsp.js
• add the following line to your monobook:

winc('User:AndyZ/monobook.js/units_nbsp.js');

Also, please use the dates tab on articles you edit, articles in your watchlist, in categories of interest to you and elsewhere.

I would be more than happy to advise you on amendments.

Keep up the good work. bobblewik 10:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you please refrain from instructing people at WP:PR to remove date links to individual years? The section of the MOS you are citing no longer exists as a result of a lengthy discussion, and there is now specifically no guidance given to either remove or add them. Rebecca 04:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States

Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.--Ryz05 _t 22:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a couple questions about your peer review on Forth at Wikipedia:Peer review/Forth/archive1. Ideogram 17:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andy, I edited the Autostereogram article in accordance with recommendations. Can you please check it again? Thanks. Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Autostereogram. Fred Hsu 20:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andy, Would you mind reviewing autostereogram again? I know the nomination has been archived, but I continued to enhance it and to add inline citations. I believe it is now done. Would you mind updating your comment on the Review page? Fred Hsu 02:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a question about your peer review on Scheme programming language at Wikipedia:Peer review/Scheme programming language/archive1. Ideogram 23:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice work! Tony 13:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I took a second look at your edit, the one edit I didn't like was taking out seceding from the union as being settled. But, after taking a more careful look, I apologize for my haste and I approve of your restoration of the edits you made as they were improvements. I will restore your edits. --Northmeister 01:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You beat me to the punch. :) Thanks for reinserting above point. --Northmeister 01:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

AndyZ. It has been suggested to me that you might be kind enough to take a look over the Gulf Oil article, which is currently an FAC. Any corrections or additions you may care to make will be much appreciated. Bob BScar23625 16:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for Wikipedia:Peer review/Therion (band)/archive1. I've fixed and improved this article step by step. There is one thing I don't understand at all -- image licenses. You've said:

Images with fair use tags need fair use rationales - please see WP:FUC. (...)

There are some album covers tagged as {{Albumcover}}, Therion logo is tagged as {{logo}}. In my opinion there are proper tags. But there are some photos tagged as {{promophoto}} and I'm not quite sure about these licenses. Should I get permission from Therion official website, source of these photos? Visor 18:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for quick reply. However, I still don't know how to deal with fair use rationales. Maybe someone other would like to care with this. I'm going to apply this article for featured article candidate. Note that Pink Floyd (fa) images hasn't got these rationales. And I think this matter shouldn't affect for fa. Once again, thanks for peer review. Visor 19:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for supporting the recent FAC of United States, but unfortunately it failed to pass. However, I hope you will vote again in the future. In the mean time, please accept this Mooncake as a token of my gratitude.--Ryz05 _t 15:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You supported Battle of Amiens, which has been selected as the Military history WikiProject's new Collaboration of the Fortnight. Please help improve this article to featured article standards. Kirill Lokshin 16:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You blocked this user only temporarily yet he showed a consistent history of no positive edits and the edits he did make were all violent and hostile. Shouldn't this user be indefinately blocked? --Strothra 20:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

First off, I think a peer review program is a little bit silly (as the suggestions generally aren't that different from WIAFA and aren't that helpful without specifics). Nonetheless, thanks for your comments on the Alison Krauss PR, I've responded and hope you can give the article a human look. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks! I replied to your more detailed post. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You voted for Grocery store, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. Davodd 23:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:DisputedAssertion has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Invitatious 00:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Any chance you can edit your bot to focus in on certain problems on the list rather than listing it's entire text? It seems to be useless when it comes to articles that have met all the requirements or most of them. --293.xx.xxx.xx 00:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for your input on the Wikipedia:Peer review/Virus/archive1 page, that's a nifty little bot you've got there! If I might make a suggestion, he might want to check for taxobox templates as well as infobox templates ☺. Cheers -- Serephine ♠ talk - 16:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you run your bot through my FAs (listed on my userpage, top left part) - I have almost 20 of them and i am sure many (especially the older one) could benefit from revision and reviews.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Tnx. Some comments off Talk:Polish-Soviet_War: 1) 'This article may be a bit list-weighty' - there are no lists in the article, other then the references/further reading/elinks. Perhaps those should be eliminated from the bot checklist? 2) 'There are a few occurrences of weasel words...' - can the bot list all suspected references?. I will report in with the others as I get to reviewing them.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The lists thing was triggered by the section name "List of battles"; I've been trying to thing of a way to get the javascript to search for bullets but there are External links and References sections that would have bullets. As for the other problem, I think I’ve just thought of a way to list specifically the weasel words that triggered it; I’ll work on it asap. Thanx, Andy _t 01:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

So it is possible to program bots, like this one, in Javascript? GangstaEB & friends 14:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. A couple suggestions:

1. It might be better if the text were shortened. This could be done by including a link to further info, instead of including it in every listing. For instance, the first bullet could look something like this:
   • [[User:AndyZ/jsprogram|Auto-generated suggestions]]: (These <font color="red">may or may not be accurate</font>.)
2. Instead of "This article has little/no images" it should probably say "This article has few or no images. (You don't care if the images are little, just if there are few of them.)
3. Instead of "a no-break space", I think you mean "a non-breaking space".

Thanks! Sarah crane 15:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for the suggestions! I've fixed little/no thing and the nbsp part; I'll try to shortern down the text a bit. Andy _t 15:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to my request for peer review on the d-TGA article. Below are the notes I left on the peer review page in response to your suggestions:

• Infobox: the page had an info box, but it was not at the very top of the page (moved now)
• Does the apply non-distance/weight measurements? (ie: "18 weeks") - these are the only type on this page that may be applicable.
• There was a linked heading (removed)
• The ToC is rather long and I will work on summarizing some of the main headings and creating new articles to go into greater detail.
• Thanks for teaching me how to do footnotes properly! :D
• How do I have it copyedited?
• Thanks for all your help and suggestions...I will look over the pages you suggested and look at having it copyedited (once I figure that part out).

bcatt 22:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support in my RfA, which ended with the result of (74/0/0). If there is anything I can help with feel free to ask. Also, if there is anything I am doing wrong, please point that out as well. I look forward to working with you in the future. Highest regards, DVD+ R/W 01:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Tony reccomended you as an excellent copyeditor. I'm looking to bring the Knights of Columbus article up to Featured status. Two people have supported it, one said it was well written, but Tony has a few qualms with the prose. Would you mind taking a look at it? I would really appreciate it. Thanks! Briancua 17:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment on the FAC page! If you could still copy edit it, that would be fantastic. At least I hope you will support it now that the two corrections you listed have been made. Thanks! Briancua 02:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I am now working on your suggestion to shorten the ToC. To do this, I figured the "Treatment" section was both adding the most length (to both the article and the ToC), and is the most logical section to move to a new article (because of the extensive detail it goes into). In trying to come up with a title for the new article, I thought "Treatment of dextro-transposition of the great arteries" was simplest, though perhaps slightly ambiguous, so I thought maybe "Medical treatment of dextro-transposition of the great arteries" might be more appropriate...any suggestions? Also, if using acronyms in sub-article titles is alright it could be "Medical treatment of d-TGA"...your input on this would be greatly appreciated.

Another point I would like some feedback on is if it's alright to use the exact wording from the lead of a section in both the main article and the sub-article (in this case, the text immediately following the "Treatment" heading, and the text immediately following the "Palliative" and "Corrective" sub headings - actually the "Corrective" sub-heading doesn't have any introductory text, but I'm thinking it should :D).

Last thing (this time :D) is if you have any suggestions on how to find someone to copyedit. I looked at the article you suggested for learning how to copyedit and did the exercises, and I found that these are things that I tend to do while I am writing anyway...the thing is, I wrote the bulk of this article (and have been copyediting additions by others as they occur), so I think it would be good to have a completely fresh set of eyes to look it over. In particular, I think it would be good to have it read over by someone unfamiliar with the subject, so they can give feedback on whether it is easy to understand, or point out any areas that do not explain the topic well enough. That's all for now, thanks for your help! bcatt 19:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

sorry about the redundancy, i thought that was remnant from the edit done to add a more neutral POV.

Thanks!

Hello. Tony recommended you as a copyeditor for Azeris which is up for FA. I wrote the article and have also been copyediting it myself, but it's a slow process so I was wondering if you could help out? It shouldn't take long as the article is mostly okay, but there may be things I've missed that you could spot and that would help tremendously. Let me know if you can help. Ciao. Tombseye 06:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help today. If you can keep it up to the end! Ciao. Tombseye 05:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you favor the prose over a list? i would be interested to hear your rationale. Probably best if you answer on the vestigal talk page. David D. (Talk) 17:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Please consider changing your script to use "#" rather than "*". Responding to numbered points is easier. --kingboyk 12:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You voted for Fourteen Points, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. - Davodd 23:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andy, excellent script you have there. Would it be ok if I use it for generally testing the quality of my articles? And if so, how would I use it? Would you care to give a little help there please? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC).

• Mighty thanks! I tried it on my already updated article and it did find some good other points! Thanks again! Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC).
• And a little bit of feedback: the script only works in IE. Both FF and Opera indicate that there's summat wrong with:

  Error: invalid quantifier {
  Source File: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s
  Line: 356, Column: 6
  Source Code:
  jan2= /\sJanuary\s(\d){1-2}\D/gi

Not that I see it, but perhaps it will help you? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for pointing it out; IE seems to just ignore the problem. I (hope at least) fixed it. Andy _t 00:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andy, I'm using your script often now: Excellent. Just one question, even after trying to read the script: what does it actually test e.g. in km.test? It always shows the NBSP remark, but I can't find the fault. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 00:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC).

javascript:if(km.test(theText) || mi.test(theText) || ft.test(theText) || yd.test(theText) || cm.test(theText) || nm.test(theText) || inch.test(theText) || dm.test(theText) || lb.test(theText) || ton.test(theText) || gram.test(theText) || mton.test(theText)){alert("yes")}

• The nbsp comment drove me crazy once also (along w/ the spelling of units) because they kept appearing when it was obvious there were no units; since then I think I've cleared up most of the problems. Chances are it is being thrown off by either "# in" or "# gram". If you type the above into your URL bar after you execute the peer review, it should give you an alert saying yes; from there you can slowly use elimination to determine which one is setting off the problem. (like slowly making it smaller to javascript:if(km.test(theText) || mi.test(theText) || ft.test(theText)){alert("yes")}. Andy _t 13:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep, I got it now! Thanks for helping me out here. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 16:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC).

And now I'm flaunted by the alphabetizing of categories and interlang links. I really cannot find fault with it here. You're sure this works ok? Would it be possible to make the distinction between alphaed1 and alphed2 come out in seperate line templates? And for layout of the output's opening and closing line, may I recommend my editing of the output on, e.g., talk:Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell (no bullets on these two lines, and combining in the Thanks-line)? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC).

I'm going to summarise your objections, I hope you don't mind. If not revert me. - FrancisTyers · 14:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You made some very helpful comments on the Alison Krauss PR, and it is currently up at FAC. A somewhat new user has lodged an objection, though IMO does not fully understand the principles of WP:WIAFA. Could you put in a vote if you have the time (whether you support or oppose the article's candidacy) just so the FAC takes a better course? Thanks! Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This was briefly discussed over on the FA talk page, but would it be possible for you to add a check for {{persondata}} on biographical articles to your script? I think that persondata should be in all biographical FAs and your script could help see to that.--NMajdan•talk 19:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andy,

Might I suggest you add your automated peer reviews to a separate page and then link to them from the peer review page. So an automated peer review of Cars (film) would appear at Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated peer review#Cars (film)?

You could then link to the automated peer review and add any additional comments you have on the article or highlight any major flaws reported by the script.

For example, you could write:

"Please see an automated peer review of this article here. I also think the "References to previous Pixar movies" and "Trivia" section would be better served by a sub-article. Andy _t08:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)"

Or where there are no personal comments just:

"Please see an automated peer review of this article here. Andy _t08:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)"

This would help reduce the size of the peer review page (which is always a good thing). It would also allow people to more easily deduce which articles have not been extensively reviewed by a human editor. I try to review articles with less reviews and with your script I find it more difficult to deduce which ones those are. Please consider this proposal thoughtfully.

Thanks,

Cedars 08:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oddly enough, I was thinking about something like that before you mentioned it to me; I considered moving the peer reviews to the talk pages of the articles to save space on WP:PR and give human editors more room. I like your idea a lot better, but creating such a subpage whould require a ton of maintenance (removing archived peer reviews, adding new nominations, etc.). I'll think about it. Andy _t 13:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• New page looks great. I really think it helps keep the peer review page tidy while keeping something that is ultimately very helpful (because a lot of pages have stylistic problems). Thanks for considering my suggestion. Best wishes. Cedars 00:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

AZ: for your peerreivew tool, it would be nice if you could somehow communicate a litte more detail about the items your tool flags and problematic. For large (over 50KB) articles, it can be tiresome to have to search for the problem. Even a byte offset would help. -- 67.116.253.187 20:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. — ERcheck (talk) @ 23:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm sure you get a lot of this, but I ran your PRbot on comparative method as part of its FAC; I wanted to let you know that it was a great help. Thanks! sjcollier 23:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)