Archives

1

Thanks for cleaning up those edits! I really appreciate the help, Eliza doesn't get enough love. Hratliff25 (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job at the staff edit-a-thon today, and thanks for being the catalyst to make it happen again! SarahStierch (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LuisVilla - I see you editing the Mas Canosa article. Good for you. I saw that it looked biased but never got the energy to fix it up. It looked like it was written by the president of the Mas Canosa club. And as for the Miami Herald - I never use them for citations. Link rot. The articles disappear a month later. Also you might have a look at the Jose Mas article. The editor Uofmbookworm wrote it as a "Christmas present" for Mas! See his talk page. And then there is the Jorge Mas article. I especially like "defender of human rights"! -GroveGuy (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go! - Gronky (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice work on this article. At one point I had given up on this, because there were editors who insisted on inserting overly promotional content. It's in much better shape now. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kendall-K1: Thanks! Still work to do to maintain it, I guess, but progress doesn't happen overnight, etc., etc. —Luis (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Luis! I noticed on your edit summary for Selena, you stated that sourcing the RIAA isn't ideal, since it is a primary source. However, Wikipedia:Record_charts#Certifications states that certifications are supposed to be sourced directly to a certifying authority. I just wanted to clarify that. Cheers. Erick (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Magiciandude: Thanks! Learn something new every day. Selena needs some love on that count, then.—Luis (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and I see you gave it a lot of that love. Thanks! —Luis (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note and your patience with my long revert. I saw that some bad edits had not been taken out by the previous reverts. I tried to avoid taking out any good edits but I realized some of the several bad January 8 edits were part of a series of bad edits that had not been fully reverted. It seemed to me that I needed to take out everything that was added on January 8 and go back to the last edit of January 7 to get a good version. I should have been a little more diligent and checked every one of the January 8 edits individually, not just the last several plus the summaries. I am glad that you were able to restore your good edit and I thank you for your understanding. I have not run into such a stream of bad edits very often but this is a good reminder to review every edit if such a situation occurs. Thanks, again. Donner60 (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: No worries, glad it was a mistake and not something else! Happy editing. —Luis (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Oh, well. If it helps, I'm planning to try and restore the photo to get it up to featured picture and thus get Strayhorn on the mainpage. =)

Got distracted from fixing the second image by fixing my btreaking of the first image. Heh. By the way, what do you think of cropping Strayhorn's legs out of the first image? Think it improves the composition a bit, but I'm not sure. Mind you, http://www.loc.gov/resource/gottlieb.08231.0 is probably a better image. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago ...

"the friendships we form here are real, heartfelt, and lasting"
... you were recipient no. 1211 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Four years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... and five --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luis! You were reviewing Sally Mapp for GA status, but I haven't seen any updates. Is there any new information about this? Thank you! Lwebb15 (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC) Lwebb15 Sorry! Got caught up in things pre-vacation and forgot to get back to it (basically was doing a lot of editing instead of reviewing it!) Currently in Spain; will get back to it next week? :/ —Luis (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC) No worries! I was just curious. Have fun in Spain! :) Lwebb15 (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Hi Luis, congratulations for promoting Laura de Force Gordon to GA! It was a pleasure reading the article and working with you. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 08:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW - make sure to spread the WikiLove to someone you think deserves it! And if you can take a GA review sometime in the future, even better. We have a ton of backlog and we need experienced reviewers like you. Great job and congrats again! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 08:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ComputerJA: Thanks so much for all your help- great lesson for me in what a good GA review looks like. Going to walk around all day with a smile on my face! —Luis (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gosling's registered mark uses one apostrophe ("'N'"), while the International Bartender's Association uses two apostrophes ("'N'").

Well, that's a lot clearer in the text editor. Anyway, looks like you have two apostrophes in the first set of quotes. TRS-80 (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TRS-80: Ugh, thanks. Hopefully more clear now. —Luis (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LuisVilla. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Winifred Mason".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)) or ((db-g13)) code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me about this page, Legacypac. I've stubbed it out and moved it to article space! —Luis (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome - that's why I work cleanup of old pages Legacypac (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mexican Repatriation you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3E1I5S8B9RF7 -- 3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm once again inviting you to respond to the talk page of the GA review and join the discussion.[1] If I don't hear from you in a week or two, I will be left with no other choice but to close the review with a negative outcome. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mexican Repatriation you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Mexican Repatriation for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3E1I5S8B9RF7 -- 3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luis,

Just came across your edit on Prime Minister. I fixed the description to include Baltic, but also noticed that one of the people was not a Prime Minister (the description of the photo was incomplete: Sulling was 'only' a Minister for Foreign Trade and Entrepreneurship). Too much distraction to include that level of precision in the image description on the page, but just letting you know in case you know of an almost equally descriptive photograph. Keep up your good projects :) effeietsanders 23:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Effeietsanders: Sigh. Sadly not surprising that there was something like that; I couldn't find names/titles in the original sources for everything (if I recall correctly - has been a while) and figured there might be an exception. Sadly that picture took me quite a while to find; but I'll keep it in mind. Thanks! —Luis (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luis, I'm not sure why the bot didn't notify you, but I just wanted to give you a heads-up that I've started the review of the article about Mexican Repatriation that you nominated for GA status.--Carabinieri (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carabinieri: Thanks! I saw it in the watchlist but didn't get a chance to look at it this weekend. Appreciate it! —Luis (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luis, do you still want to work on this?--Carabinieri (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carabinieri: I do! I've been busy at work and will be on vacation this week. I'll try to look at it soon. —Luis (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LuisVilla, you started this review on June 3, posted again on June 17, and haven't been back to it since. Do you plan on returning to it soon? If not, I can try to find another reviewer to complete the review. Please let me know; we don't want to keep the nominator in limbo. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:29, 13 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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]