This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Two editors have left you messages at this GAR. RaintheOne ^BAM 23:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi again TRLIJC19. I think it may be best if you stayed away from nominating or reviewing good article candidates for a while. You don't seem to have a firm grasp of Wikipedia policy just yet, which stems from your inexperience. Your review of Manda Best is not in line with several policies (WP:LEAD, among others) and all you're doing is causing more work for others. Further, I've noticed that you have been nominating articles for GA that you've contributed marginally to. This may offend an editor who has been working on improving the article and planned to nominate the article himself/herself. Finally, if the problems with an article are easily fixable, it may be a good idea to put the nomination on hold for about a week to allow the nominator to fix the problems. Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles has some good tips as well. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Eagles 24/7. My review of Manda Best had a few mistakes but most listed were not valid besides the date format which I was unaware of. I stand by my review as that article was poorly written and did not deserve good article status. I listed several mistakes that should be addressed and then the page can be re-nominated. I did not think the article should have been placed on hold as it was not well-written which constitutes fail grounds. My other recent review, Seili (album) was a rather good review. I covered the issues and they weren't as major as Manda Best so I placed the article on hold for the nominator to address the issues, and then passed the article. So please don't tell me that my reviews are inadequate. And also, I only nominated one article that I hadn't significantly contributed to for good article status which was Hilary Duff as I thought it deserved to be a good article. I did not think that you needed to have contributed significantly but I see how it can offend editors. So please don't say I have been nominating article(s) (plural) that I haven't contributed to as I only nominated one. I had the right to nominate Grey's Anatomy as I am one of the major contributors. I wrote the critical reception section as well as added references and redid the entire lead. I revert vandalism done to it on a daily basis and I had every right to nominate it. The same goes with Izzie Stevens as I've been improving her article for over a year and help it out a lot. I enjoy nominating and evaluating good articles and will take the advice I receive into consideration when I work with good articles. Thank you. TRLIJC19 (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If the article is "written poorly" in your opinion, you will need to specify with examples. You're wrong about the requirement of references in the lead and plot sections per WP:MOSLEAD and WP:TVPLOT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I gave many examples as to why it was poorly written. And yes I know it is not a requirement but almost all articles have references in the plot and lead and I would expect that in a good article. Do you see how I addressed many things and you only picked out the ones you thought I was still wrong about? How about you acknowledge that my points are correct instead of blatantly disregarding them and trying to further prove me wrong. I don't see why you have to get involved with every edit I make as there are many admins and you are the only one who is always criticizing my editing. No admin has that much of a problem with my edits except you. I made a few mistakes and I am getting better. I don't need constant criticism. It doesn't help my editing nor does it make you a better admin. TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for good article reassessment. Please see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Manda Best/1. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I think it will fail but ya never know. I guess I'll just ignore that you blatantly disregarded my statements yet again. TRLIJC19 (talk)

I only blatantly disregarded your statements because you blatantly disregarded mine. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I regarded yours, I acknowledge them. I am taking your advice the next time I work with GA's. I told you that I did not quickfail the article only due to references, it was mainly due to the way it was written. Yes I will try harder in future reviews but in the future, I would prefer that when I type a response, you address all my points so I can learn more. Thank you. TRLIJC19 (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Toms River High School North, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh apologies, I saw vandalism by an IP user and reverted it but accidentally reverted the bot as I didn't know that the bot had already reverted it. TRLIJC19 (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem, figured it was accidental. Feel free to remove the warning. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:RebeccaPope.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. Skier Dude (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)