Talk:Ahmadinejad criticizes Paul the octopus

Review of revision 1067450 [Failed]

Revision 1067450 of this article has been reviewed by Nascar1996 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: It is short of the standards. Comments by reviewer: The articele is too short to be published right now. Please expand. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1067450 of this article has been reviewed by Nascar1996 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: It is short of the standards. Comments by reviewer: The articele is too short to be published right now. Please expand. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Review of revision 1067475 [Passed]

Revision 1067475 of this article has been reviewed by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: All looks good now it's been expanded. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1067475 of this article has been reviewed by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: All looks good now it's been expanded. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

• The dates on this are not as-per WN:SG. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /^{alt-talk • main talk} 05:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason we just don't use date formatting functions in the source template? Bawolff ☺☻ 05:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Changes required after publication to bring in line with policy/standards -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /^{alt-talk • main talk} 05:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any reason we just don't use date formatting functions in the source template? the wub "?!" 08:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Satire?

A user deleted a sentence with the summary: "rubbish 0-- this is not the said satirical piece". Please explain that summary: I am inclined to revert the change as it seems to be unexplained removal of text. --InfantGorilla (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)