User talk:Seabuckthorn/Archives/2014/01

User:Seabuckthorn/Archive Header

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For reviewing Michael Novogratz and Selina Meyer for GA status, and for working so well with your mentor and the nominator, I award you the Teamwork Barnstar. Keep up the good work! – Quadell (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Quadell, very much! I'm both touched and heartened. I've to say that it's you who really deserve this. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 20:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that you are barely looking at the articles that you are passing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've discussed every article with my mentor except the two freedoms. I've been watching this review and this review closely before I posted mine. All the reviews except the two freedoms were assisted by my mentor. I'm glad to see your work here. I've been impressed with the thorough research you've been doing in your articles. Well done. Congratulations! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 11:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that this reviewer has been carefully reading and reviewing the articles he accepts. We've discussed each one at length in a separate forum before he posts his review. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		Good Article Recruitment Barnstar
		You have completed several thorough, high-quality reviews, and your open reviews are being handled appropriately. Because you have shown expertise with the GA criteria, I'm proud to graduate you to a fully-qualified GAN reviewer. If you have any specific questions with any future reviews, you can always ask me, or leave a question at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. Thanks for your service to Wikipedia, – Quadell (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First off, let me say thanks for reviewing my articles. Second, I made the changes you suggested and dropped a line on the GA review page, but it looks like it didn't refresh (it seems the issue is affecting "Evicted!" and "Lady & Peebles" as well), so I thought I'd just post on your talk page. How do these changes look?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noticed my responses to your concerns?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated my comments on the review page. I watch only review pages and not articles. So please leave something on the review page for me to notice. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 19:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would give one last piece of advice regarding GAN reviews, that I didn't mention during our mentorship. I'd recommend against having too many GAN reviews open at the same time. It's great that you're performing so many GAN reviews, and it's really helping reduce the backlog! Your enthusiasm is fantastic. But currently, you have a couple that you accepted for review 8 or 9 days ago, but that you have not yet posted a review, because you've been working on other GAN reviews instead. Usually, it shouldn't take more than 7 days between when you accept a GAN for review and when you actually post the review.

What I do is, I accept one GAN, and the focus on it until I have a review posted. Then I put it on hold. Once the first one is one hold, then I start another. I may have 4 or 5 open at once, but I'll only have 1 that's waiting for an initial review. See what I mean? So that's what I'd recommend.

Anyway, thank for helping with the GAN backlog! All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 14:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. I was missing this point. I'll not take any more till I reach the point you mentioned. Thank you very much. In fact, the backlog of my reviews is creating some undue pressure on me as well. So your advice is really helpful. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 18:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I took few more. I think I can finish up in the one-week time frame you mentioned. There's just one article left which is more than a week old. I'll post it by tomorrow, I guess. Just to inform you. It's something I am unable to resist. May be with time this enthusiasm will wane :). --Seabuckthorn ♥ 19:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		For your brilliant display at Vedaranyam March GAN —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. You're very welcome about my little work as a reviewer, but you are far too kind. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 18:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I nominate these GANs, I don't plan for them all to be reviewed at the same time. It is going to take me a while to get to all of your issues.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Seabuckthorn, which of the GA review templates do you use to generate that great setup such as you used on Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971? I like it, would like to swipe it if I knew which one it was and how to make it "go". Montanabw^(talk) 01:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks. You can get it from here. I learnt it from my mentor Quadell. My mentor deserves all the credit for it. The mistakes are all mine. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 02:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		Some of your recent reviews have been unlike any I have seen before. You have really dotted the is and crossed the ts. You are helping me to improve the project with these types of reviews. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're far too kind. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 13:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey this is getting to the point where all my reviews are by you, which is not how GAN is suppose to work out. You might want to hold off on starting any new reviews of my work for a few weeks (or months for that matter). I should be dealing with a variety of reviewers, I think. I don't know if there is a rule, but if you keep this up you are going to look like my WP:SOCK.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk:Parliamentary Monitoring Services/GA1

Thanks for your review at Talk:Parliamentary Monitoring Services/GA1, I've responded at the subpage.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mentor Quadell noted that "Cirt is very friendly and extremely prompt.". He was absolutely right. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 05:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Underwood (House of Cards), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should also comment at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#query.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this comment, I hadn't noticed it before!

Most appreciated!

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you for being so humble, polite, kind, friendly ... well, I'm short of adjectives. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 05:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're most welcome! — Cirt (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Thank you for agreeing to take on the review of Velodona. I've looked over some of your reviews, and you seem exceedingly thorough. I'll be interested in hearing your feedback. Some of the sources are, unfortunately, behind a paywall. If you would like for me to send them to you so that you can do a copyvio check, shoot me an email, and I will attach them in a reply email. Please note that I am in Eastern Standard Time (UTC -5), so while it's half an hour before noon where you live, it's an hour after midnight where I live. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 05:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the help! I've sent you one test email. Let me begin with the review. I'll post my queries to you then. Thanks for your help. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 06:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Thanks for the review. I have addressed your concerns and am ready for you to take a second look whenever you have the time. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just got up for a glass of water, thought I'd take a look. The article looks perfect now. Congratulations. Thanks a lot for being so polite, friendly, kind and proactive! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 22:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a pleasure working with you. Thanks for the review. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Seabuckthorn ♥ 01:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk:Bomis/GA1

Thanks for your helpful suggestions at Talk:Bomis/GA1. I've gone ahead and went through them and modified the article accordingly. Perhaps you could reevaluate at Talk:Bomis/GA1. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The article looks perfect now. Congratulations! After a scientific verification of what my mentor Quadell noted about you, I'm extremely happy and proud to say that I'm feeling lucky to have you in my life. Thanks for being the way you are! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 01:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome! Thanks again for your detailed and thorough review! I may consult you again about this article in the future, at some point further along in the quality improvement process. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reading your message I went unconscious! Now recovered my senses. I'll be delighted if I get an opportunity to learn from you, anytime. Thank you so much for your humility. Please feel free to guide me in any endeavor you want. I'll work hard to be up to your expectations. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 03:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once more for taking the time to thoroughly review the two articles I nominated. :) Lemonade51 (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks a lot for writing such fabulous articles. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 11:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]