User talk:Bradley0110

Archives

1 (Feb–Nov 2008) 2 (Nov 2008–Jun 2009) 3 (Jun 2009–Jan 2010) 4 (Feb 2010–Mar 2011)

Peer reviews with no or minimal feedback
August 20 Hard Scrabble and Snow Town August 28 Windracers September 4 University of Canterbury Faculty of Law September 9 Hadhramaut September 9 Urien September 10 Fraser Valley Heritage Railway Society September 10 Spit (album) September 12 Elm Farm Ollie September 24 History of chocolate September 26 Lucky Loser (book) September 29 History of The New York Times (1945–1998) September 30 Lake Michigan Monster September 31 Spoiler effect
If your review is not in the list of unanswered reviews, you can add it.
v t e

I will reply to comments on your talk page unless you request otherwise.

Hi Bradley, I just wanted to thank you for updating a few filmographies by removing rowspans. The sortability issue is important and it's great that editors like you are making efforts to improve it. I thought you might not be aware that you can take the sorting a step further by adding sort templates to titles that begin with "A", "An" or "The" so that the title sorts by the second word. For example in Susan Hayward#Filmography, a simple film title like ''[[The Amazing Dr. Clitterhouse]]'' would be written as ''{{sortname|The|Amazing Dr. Clitterhouse}}'' so that it sorts by "A" (Amazing) rather than by "T" (The). If the title has a disambiguation such as ''[[The Sisters (1938 film)|]]'' it would be written as ''{{sortname|The|Sisters|The Sisters (1938 film)}}''. I'm happy to update the tables to include the sorting, but I thought it might interest you if you're updating any others. Cheers. Rossrs (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention, if you want to sort the title, but not make it a red link, this one from Faith Domergue#Filmography would go from ''The Sky Burns'' to ''{{sortname|The|Sky Burns|nolink=1}}'' and it will sort by "S" instead of "T". If you don't add "nolink=1" it will create a red link. Cheers. Rossrs (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If you're doing drive-by tabling, that's a step in the right direction anyhow. I wasn't sure if you knew about sort templates, so decided to mention them. At WT:ACTOR, yes I do support the tables to be set out by title of work, because that is the key field in the filmography. I wouldn't roll it out unless there seemed to be wider support for it. There's been very little discussion at WT:ACTOR. I presented it at WP:ACTOR as a viable alternative using Sharon Tate's filmography as an example. It's not that I think having the date column first is wrong, just that having the title first is semantically more "correct" to me. I added it at Robert Duvall#Filmography to see if anyone commented but nobody did. I think it looks quite good. I also noticed that another editor used the same format at Natalie Portman#Filmography but after a period of weeks/months, another editor changed it back to date column first. What are your thoughts? Rossrs (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works)#Filmographies indicates that bulleted lists be presented as "title, year, notes", so it seems inconsistent that most of the tables switch the order and put the date first. Rossrs (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a chronological table, because it's presented in chronological order, only with the key data, the title, presented first. I don't get that the date is demeaned by putting it second. That's the recommended option for bulleted film lists, so I don't see why the date assumes greater importance simply because the data is presented in table format. Even IMDb lists its filmography by title, role played and then date. They put the date last in their chronological filmographies but that doesn't mean it assumes lesser importance. The colour is subtle, but if it's right to use subtle colour in the column headers, it's equally right to use subtle colour in the row header, and the first column is a row header regardless of what data it contains. The first time I saw it, I admit was somewhat taken aback because it looks so different to what I was used to, but the more I think about it, the more I think it's the more correct way of doing it. Rossrs (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. There is a problem in having multiple options for achieving a particular task (and I can't think of any website other than Wikipedia that would tolerate it) and there are considerably more than 2 filmography formats in use throughout the project. I can think of about 6 formats straight up that are in use. It would be great if the project could identify one, preferably the 'best' one, and consider it the default, site-wide preference. The whole project is riddled with inconsistencies (and, again, I can't think of any website other than Wikipedia that would tolerate them) - different citations styles, each considered as acceptable depending upon the article and the editors who edit that article, inconsistent use of colour in such things as infoboxes, and of course, filmographies. I also agree that it is likely to be an area of conflict, but that's nothing new. The constant reverting of rowspans back into tables where they break the sorting and damage the accessibility of the table, being just one example of conflict that is already happening.

It would be good if something could be worked out, but I don't know how to even go about tagging them. It's so random. Rossrs (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. I've deleted it, and tagged Bobby Prescott by the same user as well. Same sort of thing - well constructed, but no ghits and fake refs. Peridon (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI these hoaxes have the hallmarks of the work of banned HarveyCarter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Even if this isn't him admin User:Ponyo has asked me to report these to him as he has been working on these for awhile. Please feel free to report these to him as well as continuing to tag them. There seems to have been an uptick in the since the start of the year so thanks to you both for your vigilance. MarnetteD | Talk 18:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update Ponyo just pointed out to me that these hoaxes might also be the work of Jake Picasso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) MarnetteD | Talk 18:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not "fix" or bypass redirects per WP:NOTBROKEN. Thanks. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks, that's very timely. Can you show me where I "fix"ed any redirects? Bradley0110 (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take your pick from any of the past ±70 edits were you changed [[Anthony Stewart Head]] to [[Anthony Head|Anthony Stewart Head]]. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By putting fix in quotes marks, you're implying that I said it at least once and that it was my rationale, which it wasn't. Can I assume you're only reverting edits to the articles where I piped the links, e.g. Buffy-related, rather that ones in which I corrected his credited name (Little Britain, et al)? Bradley0110 (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: edits such as this are not necessary, and per WP:NOTBROKEN they are not recommended. On the other hand, reverting them is not necessary either. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rjanag, I'm not disputing (and not suggesting you are accusing me of) the reasons behind NOTBROKEN (in fact I think the third point is quite relevant to this situation). On the other hand, many of those articles have both Anthony Stewart Head and Anthony Head links, which looks a little ridiculous. Bradley0110 (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at edits other than the one I just linked above, so I don't know the precise circumstance. in the situation you are describing, the best thing would just be to remove the additional links entirely (per WP:OVERLINK, unless there is some other reason to keep them), and make sure the article is standard in using one name or the other (regardless of how it's linked). I don't know about Head's other work, but I know in Buffy he always seems to be credited as Anthony Stewart Head, so that's probably the name to go with in those articles. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was going for; the article used to be at Anthony Stewart Head but was then moved to Anthony Head (a good few years ago actually) to reflect the name he is more often credited as. It seemed prudent to me that the articles should reflect the name he is credited with (i.e. Anthony Stewart Head in Buffy and some other US series, and Anthony Head in nearly everything else). I'm sure I once read that redirects increase server load (or something like that) but I may have been thinking of something else). Bradley0110 (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not implying anything, bypassing redirects is not helpful, the opposite actually. The quotes is just how WP:NOTBROKEN puts it, and many bypass redirects under the pretense of fixing it. And I only reverted your edits when they appeared on my watch-list. The subject should be in the article as credited, if that's a redirect then there's no problem, and you shouldn't go bypass it. "Fixing" redirects (or bypassing as you have named it) is almost never an improvement, in fact a redirect is in most cases better than piping. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 16:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, WP:NOTBROKEN is a guideline, not a policy. And please don't lecture me by repeating things that I have already said. Bradley0110 (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I just wanted to say thank you for reviewing "You're Gonna Love Tomorrow". Your comments were very helpful and I'm in the process of applying them and reworking the article now. Thanks again! Akcvtt (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you also for your review on "Listen to the Rain on the Roof"! Akcvtt (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Animation#Niki_Yang_article_replacement_proposal. JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 07:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})[reply]

OK. Since that WP:BLPPROD-tagged version was deleted, I moved entire thing to Niki Yang article. Please discuss further at Talk:Niki Yang. JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 02:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who??? Bradley0110 (talk) 06:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Sorry if this was a real double u-tee-eff request to you. I was making an article to replace a recently-deleted WP:BLPPROD-tagged one. After seeing your recent peer review on The Powerpuff Girls, I thought you would do a good job to advice what to do for that stub article. JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 09:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right. No, I just picked up the Powerpuff article because it was on the backlog. I don't know enough about the career of the subject of that article to contribute much. Bradley0110 (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you don't need to go that deeper. Just check some grammar, style and punctuation, and some cross-check with sources given. JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 19:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thank you thank you, that was an incredible review! I wanted to write you before you thought I was ignoring it, which I'm not. I got swept up into a WikiProject frame of mind over the last couple of weeks, and I'm still in that. It should be wrapping up somewhat soon, and then I can go back to an editing-prose frame of mind. I have a difficult time bouncing back and forth between writing and housekeeping otherwise, if that makes sense. You made some excellent suggestions, and I can't wait to implement, tear down, and rebuild the article (to one degree or another). : ) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bradley. Sure, I'd love to help you out, but I have to warn you it will be at least a week before I can get to it. I've got some stuff that will be taking my attention in the next few days, and then I will be largely away from my computer for the long holiday weekend. If you don't mind waiting a week or so, though, I'll do my best. — Hunter Kahn 01:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reviewer's Barnstar
		Given with respect and admiration to Bradley0110 for all your work at peer review - thanks and keep up the good work! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome - thanks again for the PR help, it is much appreciated. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm so sorry, I completely forgot you wanted me to look at David Morrissey! Do you still want me to look at it? And do you want me to look mainly at the prose, or at the whole package (as in prose, sources, etc.), or what? Let me know and I'll jump right on it. Sorry again! — Hunter Kahn 13:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you started reviewing S&M for FA yet? Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 00:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the changes to the review, but have responded to some of your points in bold. Thanks. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 09:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you respond to the comments I left on the S&M PR page please. If you are satisfied with the changes, can you tell me if it is qualifiable for FAN and if not for FAN, then for A class status? Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 18:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what you meant by suggesting that I put the "Flashes" subsection of "Chuck Versus the Intersect" as a footnote. Thanks. --Boycool (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks very, very much for your feedback on the Steve Irwin article. These were very good points — especially about cleaning up the material about Irwin's death — and I can tell I'm going to have a fair amount of work ahead of me. Thanks again. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I whole like to thank you wholeheartedly for your PR of Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It), your comments proved very useful. I have closed the PR and taken it to FAC, here's the link if you wanna take a peep. Thanks again. —Andrew_stalk 09:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiProject Film Award
		I, Ktlynch (talk), hereby award Bradley0110 the WikiProject Film Award for his/her valued contributions to WikiProject Film. Your many efforts include comprehensive work on Tom Hooper, generous encouragement to other editors, and astute reviewing. Long may you edit here! Awarded 20:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Bradley. Me and a friend of mine nominated Jennifer Lopez discography for FL, however, there are some issues in the lead part of the article. I made some changes, however, I still think that there should be some c/e. I heard that you are one of the best c/e on Wikipedia, so If you don't mind I would like to look at the text and make some changes, or give me some advices how to c/e it. The text it's not so long, so I think it would be easy. Thank you :) ! Tomica1111 (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be greatful, thanks :) ! Tomica1111 (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please take a look here. Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is what you mean't by your comment on the List of Rihanna songs Peer Review. Can you tell me if this is what you mean't or anything to improve it by before I go on to doing the rest of the article please? Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 15:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 13:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering if you were still planning to review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Anachronox/archive1? Another reviewer has also said they will be "doing" the review, but the peer review is about 25 days old and the bot archives things after 30 days, so it needs some feedback soon. If you cannot, I will try to review it tomorrow. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOt a problem - I will be glad to make some comments. Thanks for the heads up. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bradley. I have requested a new peer review on the Paulo Francis article and would like to discuss also the question of the absence of free images of him and the conditions required for requesting fair use of at least one of the various pictures of his available on the Web. Looking foward to your reply, I remain , as always, your friendly Wiki colleagueCerme (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in contributing to the Michael Sheen peer review? I noticed that there is some overlap with articles you are currently working on. Thanks Popeye191 (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that would be great, it's currently a FAC Popeye191 (talk) 10:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is back at peer review and I'd really appreciate your feedback if you have time. Thanks Popeye191 (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw on the biography portal that you are volunteering to review actor pages. I've just opened up a review on Katharine Hepburn, would you maybe be willing to share your thoughts on the article? I'd appreciate anything you can offer. The page is here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Katharine Hepburn/archive2 Thanks. --Lobo512 (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I am grateful for your copyedit and remarks concerning the article. Unfortunately I was unable to address those issues earlier but all is done now. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thank you for your comments on the Augmentative_and_alternative_communication article - very pleasant comments indeed and have certainly given me personally a great deal more confidence in applying for FA - myself and Poule have left a couple of comments on the review - just to clarify a couple of the recommendations before we do a further push :)

Thanks Failedwizard (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your peer review of the Hook Me Up (song) page! I really appreciate it :) DonEd (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Way back in 2007, on Template talk:Cleanup-biography, you commented that this category is poorly named. Having just found it, I agree, and have proposed a rename. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 2#Category:Biographies without real biographical information. Robofish (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on at Wikipedia:Peer review/Kit Mueller/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I have replied.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know we didn't bump into each other much this year but I still appreciate it when I see you name pop up on my watchlist. Thanks for your work here at WikiP. MarnetteD | Talk 21:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of James Nesbitt know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 22, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 22, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

James Nesbitt (born 1965) is a Northern Irish actor. Nesbitt got his breakthrough television role playing Adam Williams in the romantic comedy-drama Cold Feet (1998–2003), which won him a British Comedy Award, a Television and Radio Industries Club Award, and a National Television Award. His first significant film role came when he appeared as pig farmer "Pig" Finn in Waking Ned (1998). With the rest of the starring cast, Nesbitt was nominated for a Screen Actors Guild Award. In Lucky Break (2001), he made his debut as a film lead playing prisoner Jimmy Hands. The next year, he played Ivan Cooper in the television film Bloody Sunday, about the 1972 shootings in Derry. Nesbitt has also starred in Murphy's Law (2001–2007) as undercover detective Tommy Murphy, in a role that was created for him by writer Colin Bateman. Nesbitt has since appeared in several more dramatic roles; he starred alongside Liam Neeson in Five Minutes of Heaven (2009), and was one of three lead actors in the television miniseries Occupation (2009) and The Deep (2010). He also starred in the movies Outcast (2010) and Emilio Estevez's The Way (2011), and has been cast in Peter Jackson's The Hobbit (2012/13). (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Cold Feet (series 2) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Heartbeat (TV series), Salford, John Diamond and Daily Record

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bradley,

You performed a peer review of By Your Side (The Black Crowes album) for me last July, and recommended a few changes that I blew off. I had another look at the review today, and I find now that I agree with your assessment. I'll be working to implement your suggestions soon. Just thought you might appreciate a little vindication, and thanks again for reviewing. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 20:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Freedom for the Thought That We Hate

New article, created, at Freedom for the Thought That We Hate. Additional assistance in research would be appreciated, feel free to help out at the article's talk page. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seven years ago, you were recipient no. 438 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you enjoyed Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, hopefully you might also like Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties.

The book is quite a fascinating read.

I hope you're doing well, — Cirt (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crime Thriller Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alun Armstrong (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bradley. I notice that you participate in peer reviews for actors. Today I created a peer review request for the Gary Cooper article that was promoted to GA last month. I spent the past two weeks making additional edits related to GA comments and suggestions. If you have the time, please review the article and leave any feedback at the peer review page in preparation for FAC nomination. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been like three years since I did a PR! Bradley0110 (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Branagh as Wallander.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Bradley0110 as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk 03:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:David Morrissey Deal.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Decorative use in David Morrissey#2000s. While it miay be true that Morrissey won critical aclaim for his portrayal of Gordon Brown, the reader does not need to see this particular image to understand any of the relevant content regarding the Morrissey's portrayal. In addition, the image itself is not the subject of a sourced commentary, so the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is lacking.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:David Morrissey Deal.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in (here), I'll talk about this below - but first:

• THANK YOU! I want to thank you for your contributions and for volunteering on the list to help out at peer review. Thank you!
• Peer review is useful! It's good to have an active peer review process. This is often the way that we help new or developing editors understand our ways, and improve the quality of their editing - so it fills an important and necessary gap between the teahouse (kindly introduction to our Wikiways) and GA and FA reviews (specific standards uphelp according to a set of quality criteria). And we should try and improve this process where possible (automate, simplify) so it can be used and maintained easily.

The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:

• {{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}} - if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.
• {{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}} - if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.

We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.

I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.

So, I've decided to create "WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.

We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!

And... that's it!

I wish you all well on your Wikivoyages, Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Making Waves (TV series) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 03:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bradley0110. I'm just posting to let you know that Robert Bathurst filmography – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for February 14. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 02:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bradley0110, you're receiving this message because you were previously listed at the list of volunteers for Wikipedia's peer review process, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 1 year.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the volunteers list, so that the list is kept up to date and editors who do need help can better find active editors. If you become active again and would like to add yourself to the volunteers list again, you can do so at any time by visiting the volunteers list.

Thank you for volunteering to be on the list previously, and all the best on your WikiVoyages! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberley Joseph has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. LibStar (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]