User talk:SorryGuy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
August 2005 – August 2006: 36 entries August 2006 – March 2007: 34 entries April 2007 – January 2008: 35 entries January 2008 – January 2008: 10 entries

Contents 1 RE: My RFA 2 relisting AFD's 3 Thank you! 4 Preuss School 5 Adminship 6 RFA thanks 7 Your John Hancock 8 Thank you 9 You are now an administrator 10 Kosovo 11 I can has thankspam? 12 Re: Block template 13 RFA 14 Admin nom 15 Re: editor review 16 Thanks 17 My RfA 18 My request for bureaucratship 19 RE Adminship 20 Deletion of my article Rum Babas 21 Neon Bible 22 GAN 23 Rickey Henderson 24 Barnstar... 25 {{WPSchools}} 26 This decline 27 WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter 28 Assassination of Benazir Bhutto 29 WBOSITG's RfA 30 WikiProject Good articles newsletter

[edit] RE: My RFA

Hey there! I hope all is well. Anyway, just dropping by with a question; what did you mean by "didn't want to hurt [me]" in your support statement? I'm not offended or anything, and just was curious about that. At any rate, you never have to worry about offending me, just so you know. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 19:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry if that was unclear. I meant that because I have never nominated a canidate before, I didn't want to nominate you, as I was afraid the nomination would not as strong as one offered by someone with experience in giving them. Further, I would say Majorly probably has more clout than me with the community. At any rate, I will clarify that over at the RfA. Warm regards, SorryGuy  Talk  19:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Well, thanks for the thought! And I'm sure you would've written a great nomination. Hope there are no hard feelings, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 19:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] relisting AFD's

hello, thanks for being active at AFD. When you relist a debate, however, there are 3 steps. The first step you did... subst the relist template into the discussion page, then comment-out the afd page transclusion on the log page, then place the transclusion onto the new logpage. If you do not complete the steps, then the bots don't recognize the log as closed, and interested editors reviewing todays log will never see the discussion. Let me know if you need any more explanation. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You are saying that I missed the step of removing it from the January 26 log, correct? Looking at my contributions, it would indeed seem that I did not so, despite that I remember having the page open. I edit in multiple tabs so I guess it is possible that I just never saved the page. At any rate, thanks for pointing it out and fixing up by sloppiness. Warm regards, SorryGuy  Talk  05:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for supporting my RfA, I totally wasn't expecting to get so much support, it was a really pleasant surprise. Melesse (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Preuss School

Hi SorryGuy. I took another look at the article, and you did fix some of my concerns (although I noticed that some of the new sources are missing publishers). I think the Academics section needs to be cited to something tangible, even if it is just the school website. Otherwise, that could be considered original research. I realize that the events section is really short, but I would merge those two paragraphs into one and delete all the extra detail about the car thing. By including so much detail, it makes the event sound pretty notable, and in the grand scheme of things it's just another fundraiser. Karanacs (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

You want? ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

With the AfD backlog as it is and with what I consider sufficient time passed since first RfA, I had been considering asking for a nomination from one of those who offered one last time in the next few weeks. If you are offering a nomination, though, I would be honored to accept it. Cheers, SorryGuy  Talk  07:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SorryGuy 2; Best of luck. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA thanks

[edit] Your John Hancock

I hope you don't mind I assimilated your signature for mine. I though I would ask--Pewwer42  Talk  19:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, no worries. In actuality, I stole it myself, from User:Pedro. Since them I have seen at least three other users adapt versions of it as well. Cheers and happy editing, SorryGuy  Talk  19:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, versions of my sig seem to be doing the rounds on WP! I actually stole half the code from another user (can't remember who now) and created the rest myself, so it's not even totally original to me!! Pedro :  Chat  15:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 58 supporting, 0 opposing, and 2 neutral. I hope to demonstrate that your trust in me is rightly placed and am always open to critiques and suggestions. Cheers. MBisanz talk 04:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Best pic I've seen

[edit] You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 02:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! :) Jmlk17 03:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, congrats on being an admin, Jake! NHRHS2010 12:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all three of you. I hope to help the project with them (the tools, that is). SorryGuy  Talk  22:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, it was greatly appreciated (and rather flattering). Considering the time you've been here, compared to me, and the work you did in getting LOTR(!!!!!!) featured, I think you deserve it as much as anyone. I'm told I'll get the tools one day, meh. For now, I've got 2 articles dangerously close to FAC (shall I canvass your help with reviewing ;)), plus a few more that need some more lovin'. Oh, and school. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo

I don't personally hold a position on the region, I was just making some simple edits, but I think it's going to have to be further protected. Epson291 (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not trying to say you were, I have no opinion as well. I am simply attempting to keep discussion there to avoid having to further protect. If it becomes necessary, I will, but for now I think it can stay at semi. Cheers, SorryGuy  Talk  01:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying to improve the history section and not cause any disruption. I am proposing this new version for the history section User:Getoar/Notebook. It has far more sources than the current one and I am still working on it, which means I will add more. I believe it is more inclusive and less selective as to time period or issues.--Getoar (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

In a case like this one, even if your edits are good faith, please try to develop consensus for them on the talk page. If clear consensus emerges, then your version will be kept. I would also recommend presenting what you told me to the AN/I, although I will do so for you if you do not. Thanks, SorryGuy  Talk  22:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. You do it this time. I just want to see that people are actually paying attention to my proposal and to just ignoring it because it is by an Albanian. I took off some allegedly Albanian-POV elements such as the issue about the Roman Catholic Church (which is acutally true; Catholics had it worse during the Ottomans than the Orthodox; the latter had their church protected by the sultan).--Getoar (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of AN/I, like I said, have you actively proposed and attempted to gain consensus for your proposal on the talk page? If you do so calmly and present your case for that version reasonably, I am sure it will get proper consideration. Warm regards, SorryGuy  Talk  22:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Getoar/Notebook is now proposed on the Kosovo talkpage and I am waiting for response. Earlier I made changes, perhaps without prior discussion, but I did offer my reasons in the edit summary. I believed that better sourced and all-inclusive texts are more acceptable. The history section was nevertheless tagged for lack of sources and verifiability.--Getoar (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Will you agree to ceasing making the edits until consensus for them arises, then? SorryGuy  Talk  22:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I can wait for a while and see what they say. But even if my version is not accepted I will challenge the current one (by tags and minor acceptable edits). It has practically no sources at least up to its later subsections.--Getoar (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I can has thankspam?

[edit] Re: Block template

No worries - I actually had the same question for quite a while before stumbling on the answer. To get the sig into the block template, you need to assign a "sig=~~~~" parameter. For example, {{subst:uw-block1|sig=~~~~}} does the trick. Don't hesitate to ask if you have any other questions. In retrospect, I feel pretty dumb for being annoyed by it for several months rather than just simply asking someone.--Kubigula (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

Thanks for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully with 40 supports, 13 opposes, and 4 neutrals. For those of you who supported my RFA, I greatly appreciate it. For those who did not, I'm also thankful for your constructive criticism. If you need some advice or have some pointers for me, you know where to reach me! A special thank you to Majorly for all his time and effort he has placed in my nomination. Once again, thank you all for your helpful comments. Now off to new admin school! Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 01:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Admin nom

Hi SorryGuy, thank you very much for the offer. I'm not sure that I haven't had any others because folks suspect I have them, but thank you for saying that ;-) I'm a little conflicted about whether to accept, to be honest. Lar and John have just barely agreed to be my admin coaches, and I'm concerned that the number of my mainspace contribs would make an RfA difficult to pass. I've asked Lar what he thinks, but he appears to be offline. Would you mind if it took me a little while to get back to you? Thanks again, Avruch ^T 02:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm going to hold off and aim at that slam dunk you mentioned. Hopefully my admin coaching will proceed soon and I'll have the time to make some more mainspace contribs (and help get A Moral Reckoning to GA status). I very much appreciate the offer and your understanding, thank you! Avruch ^T 03:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: editor review

Thanks for the compliments and the review! Yeah, I'm a huge Twinkle fan. In the beginning, it's somewhat difficult to use effectively and non-impulsively - you just gotta learn patience with it. A lot of users just use it indiscriminately, but it really is a great tool. I'll try my best to continue working at the capacity/level that I current am. Cheers! Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely. I totally understand what you mean about Twinkle, and as I said it does seem like your use it effectively. I would also say now that I am here and dealing with my internet's lag that it probably wouldn't be a horrible idea to achieve your talk page a little more frequently ;). Cheers, SorryGuy  Talk  03:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For welcoming back. It's nice to see you again.--TBC!?! 20:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Image:David,larry.JPG		My RFA
		Thank you muchly for your support in my recent request for adminship, which was successfully closed on 76%, finishing at 73 supports, 23 opposes and 1 neutral. The supports were wonderful, and I will keep in mind the points made in the useful opposes and try to suppress the Larry David in me! Now I'm off to issue some cool down blocks, just to get my money's worth! Kidding btw. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My request for bureaucratship

Thanks also for your questions :) ~ Riana ⁂ 11:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE Adminship

Ok i got myself a while before i can edit 2,000 articles.(Rhinostampede (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Deletion of my article Rum Babas

you deleted my article on Sydney band Rum Babas - I will obtain proof of their existence and nomination of an Aria award and I hope my article will be re-upped (5b3TnY —Preceding comment was added at 09:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neon Bible

Hi, I saw you reverted my edit moving the story behind the title back to the lead. See I disagree with you there because the lead is supposed to give the reader all the important information about the article at a casual glance. The lack of connection between the titles of the book and album isn't that important. Also, all the info in the lead should also be mentioned in the body of the article, which is not the case here. If not Artwork, could you suggest another place to keep this information? indopug (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I understood your reasoning for doing it, but I honestly do not think the origin of the title is appropriate for any of the current sections, and definately not worthy of its own section. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the main points of the article. However, I do not believe it says everything in the lead must be covered in greater depth within the text. If you have a solution, I am open to it, but personally I think it is fine where it is. While I am here, I would like to thank you for the copy-edit. It was well-done. Cheers, SorryGuy  Talk  05:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Its better with that "commercialized Bible" bit; add that to before the "Once the title of the album was decided upon..." sentence. I'm not sure if that book warrants mention in the article at all actually... indopug (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAN

Greetings. I have left further comments on the articles talkpage. PGPirate 12:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rickey Henderson

I'm not sure why you reviewed it - it is already under review... Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 13:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Scroll down. Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 17:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course. The article was nominated before APril, and Calbear22 was reviewing it, and giving comments. I just wanted to point that out. Sorry for the confusion. Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 17:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar...

Thanks for the barnstar. I do have a couple disagreements:

• POV was a little harsh. Previous reviews did not have POV issues. Frankly, some of his stats are astonishing (like stealing more than the Red Sox franchise for 23 years). However, I noticed that when Babe Ruth out-homered every team, it isn't written as "astonishing." Although it should be. ;-)
• I understand what makes a good lead, but I have no idea how the lead for the article should be written now. What is excessive or not enough? Please provide examples.

Also, I added further comments to the talk page. Thanks for the review. Timneu22 (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{WPSchools}}

Hey, you offered a while ago to help make changes to the WPSchools banner and was hoping you were still willing. I have created a newer, more condensed and more functional version and would appreciate if you could move/copy it from User:Alanbly/WPSchools to Template:WikiProject_Schools. I have already created the new categories necessary for the move. It will also be necessary to re-add {{pp-template|small=yes}} back on once the move is completed. Thanks! Adam McCormick (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and transferred it without a move. Hope everything is fine. Warm regards, SorryGuy  Talk  01:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ack, the protection template needs to be inside <noinclude></noinclude> tags! It's being transcluded to the whole category. Can you fix this please? Adam McCormick (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ug. Sorry about that, I see you even tried to make it easy for me and I still goofed it. Suffice to say coding is not my thing. SorryGuy  Talk  01:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks just the same, looks great now. Adam McCormick (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but we need your help again if you wouldn't mind terribly. We've made a couple bug fixes and would appreciate another move from User:Alanbly/WPSchools. And just as a reminder, be sure to uncomment the protection template. Thanks. Let me know if there are any issues. Adam McCormick (talk) 04:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that seems to have fixed the issue. Adam McCormick (talk) 06:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed a new issue, would you please move the new version over (remember to uncomment the protection template). Thanks very much Adam McCormick (talk) 06:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you again so soon, but I discovered a further bug and corrected it. If you would bring the template over again it would be quite helpful. Thanks again Adam McCormick (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks very much, hopefully I won't have to bother you any time soon. Adam McCormick (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This decline

How can a request of an IP to be blocked on the basis of evading a ban be denied for an old warning? Evading a ban is an immediately blockable offense, and the puppetmaster had already been blocked, has had three of his socks. I provided links to the puppetmaster's identity and three of his socks that had already been blocked for performing exactly the same edit. Don't you think being blocked four times for the behaviour is sufficient warning? As for it maybe being someone else, how many people do you think are possibly obsessed with changing the number of black Hondurans from 150K to 350K? It doesn't seem like a widespread area of controversy which is inclined to draw in a wide range of people maniacally inserting the same false number into Wikipedia.

What would I have had to write to make you act instead of decline? As it is, it took several more hours to get the situation under control, with several more reversion cycles and finally going to WP:RFPP to get action taken. A lot more effort, a lot more time, and a lot more vandalism. I really need to understand how to get these things acted on at AIV, and I'm obviously not putting in enough for AIV to recognize blatant vandals and block them.Kww (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't decline the report. SorryGuy (talk · contribs) did, per here. Gary King (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will yield that it was not a great decline, and that I probably should have made the block. I simply looked at the contribs, saw the old warning, and saw the user was not active at the time. I didn't look into the socks, and I'm not sure why, so apologies there. The issue appears to be resolved, but I understand it took more effort on your part and I thank you for that and apologize there as well. Warm regards, SorryGuy  Talk  00:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 7 - May 2008 April issue | June issue Project News There are currently 4,050 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 227 total nominations, 16 are on hold, 14 are under review, and two are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Fighting Tommy Riley, Brock Lesnar, Cluj-Napoca, Wolf's Rain, Brian Kendrick, and North and South (TV serial). The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (45), Sports and recreation (34), Music (18), Transport (15), World history (14), Politics and government (13), and Places (12). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 17 articles up for re-review. GAN Reviewer of the Month Noble Story (talk · contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for April, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Noble Story joined Wikipedia on May 16, 2007. He is a big fan of the Houston Rockets, and edits many related articles, as well as articles on basketball in general. Congratulations to Noble Story (talk · contribs) on being April's GAN Reviewer of the Month! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of April include: Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Drewcifer3000 (talk · contribs) Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Gary King (talk · contribs) Jbmurray (talk · contribs) Kaypoh (talk · contribs) Lpangelrob (talk · contribs) Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Realist2 (talk · contribs) Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 212 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 17 new members that joined during the month of April: Affinity likely (talk · contribs) Climie.ca (talk · contribs) Edmund Patrick (talk · contribs) Eustress (talk · contribs) IMatthew (talk · contribs) Kironide (talk · contribs) Makeshift Thackery (talk · contribs) Mm40 (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Noble Story (talk · contribs) Peanut4 (talk · contribs) Realist2 (talk · contribs) SorryGuy (talk · contribs) Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) WBOSITG (talk · contribs) Will381796 (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! GA Topic Do you know what a GA topic is? If you are not nodding your head, or don't know what I'm talking about, then you should pay attention to this article. There are ten GA top-level topics (but you will spot the eleventh as this article goes along). These topics are: Arts, Language and literature, Philosophy and religion, Everyday life, Social sciences and society, Geography and places, History, Engineering and technology, Mathematics, and Natural sciences. Each of these topics are further narrowed down to more specific topics. For example, Arts can be narrowed down to Art and architecture, Music, and Theatre, film and drama. But let's not get into sub-topics in this article because of its depth. Now you will probably ask, "I already knew this, so what is your point?" What I want to illustrate is that some people often forget a step when they promote an article to GA. After they have posted their review in the article talk page, added the article name to the corresponding topic in the good article page, increased the GA count by 1, and added the {{GA}} to article talk page, many reviewers tend to forget to add the topic parameter in {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}}. You can browse the topic parameter abbreviations at on this page as well as what each top-level GA topic means, because sometimes it can be chaotic and confusing to pick a topic. For example, should On the Origin of Species be placed under the Natural Science topic (because it's related to evolution), or under the Language and Literature topic (because it is a book)? The correct answer is to place it under Language and literature topic, because its categorization as a proper title supercedes other categories. Let's go back to the page that shows GA topics; does anyone spot the eleventh topic? Yes, Category:Uncategorized good articles is the 11th topic, only it shouldn't be there. Articles that do not have a topic parameter in either {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}} will be placed in this category. The topic "Uncategorized" is not very informative, is it? So if you have time, you can consider cleaning up the articles that are left in this category and move them to the appropriate category by adding a topic parameter. That's it for this month, I hope you learned a little from it. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of April, a total of 26 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 15 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and two were delisted. There are currently six articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. One article was exempted from review because it was promoted to FA. Two articles were exempted from review because they were already delisted by another member in the community. We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details. Did You Know... ...that there are slightly less than twice as many Good Articles as Featured Articles? ...that the total number of Good Articles and Featured Articles combined is 6,085? ...that different languages have different symbols representing GA? (Alemannic uses , Bavarian uses , Czech and French use , Estonian, Icelandic, and Swedish use , Esperanto and German use , Polish, Spanish, and Turkish use , Portuguese uses , Russian uses , Ukrainian uses ) Note: Lithuanian and Serbian have their own symbol but only uploaded locally. Other languages not listed above either have the same symbol as english or they don't have GA process. From the Editors There is currently a debate on adding a small green dot to the top right corner of all Good Articles that pass the criteria, similar to the small bronze star that is added to the top right corner of Featured Articles. Members of WikiProject Good Articles are encouraged to participate in the debate on this page. Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (Article, GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Choctaw • One Night Stand (2007) • Impalement arts • Backlash (2007) • Sam Cowan Reassessment: Madonna (entertainer) • Sweeps / List: references (All Categories), image tags (All Categories), article quality (All Categories) Possible GAs Needing References: Clarinet • Carleton University • Appalachian Mountains Task forces: Project quality • Unreferenced GA Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations queue: 214 articles (45 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 10 June 2008 | edit

[edit] Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

I'm doing the second opinion request review for the article. My concerns can be found at Talk:Assassination of Benazir Bhutto#GA review per 2nd opinion request. The article is very good, so there really isn't that much to fix. Let me know when you have finished or if you have any questions. Nikki311 18:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. At this point, it is actually more of a third opinion, but the suggestions are good and I will do my best to get to them in the coming days, although I am little harried in real life right now. Cheers, SorryGuy  Talk  05:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WBOSITG's RfA

[edit] WikiProject Good articles newsletter

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 8 - June 2008 May issue Project News There are currently 4,266 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 157 unreviewed articles. Out of 215 total nominations, 44 are on hold, 13 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Choctaw, One Night Stand (2007), Justin Tuck, Tristan Tzara, The Stake Out (Seinfeld episode), Impalement arts, Backlash (2007), Adelaide Rams, and Sam Cowan. The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (31), Sports and recreation (31), Transport (24), Music (13), and Art and architecture (11) The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 4 articles up for re-review. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of May, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 71 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 11 were delisted. There are currently 15 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details. GAN Reviewer of the Month Giggy (talk · contribs) (a.k.a. Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs)) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for May, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Giggy had a whopping 45 reviews during the month of May! Congratulations to Giggy (talk · contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May include: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) Eustress (talk · contribs) GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs) Juliancolton (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs) Also, with 19 nominations, Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) is the nominator of the month, followed by TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) with 8 nominations submitted. Member News There are now 216 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 6 new members that joined during the month of April: Jack Bethune (talk · contribs) Jordan Timothy James Busson (talk · contribs) Limetolime (talk · contribs) Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Fan (talk · contribs) Mm40 (talk · contribs) Redmarkviolinist (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! New GA Review Process - Review Subpages In case you haven't noticed, we initiated a new process for GA Reviews at the end of last month. The {{GA nominee}} template was modified to direct new reviews initiated on an article to begin on a subpage of article talkspace (e.g. [[Talk:Article/GA#]], where '#' is the current number of GA reviews conducted for the article, incremented automatically, starting with 1). The primary reason for this change is to address some concerns made by several Wikipedians that previous GA reviews are not easily accessible in archives, the way that featured article reviews and peer reviews are, since the review is conducted on the article's talkspace, instead of in a subpage of the featured article space or peer review space. The reason we opted to move GA reviews to article talkspace (instead of GA space) is to better maintain the personal relationship between editor(s) and reviewer(s) by keeping reviews done in an area where editors can easily access it. Nonetheless, we still desired to have better archiving and maintenance of past reviews, so that GA ultimately becomes more accountable. When an article is nominated, the nominator adds the template using a substitution, by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=<name of subtopic for article at GAN>}}, as well as lists the article (as usual) at WP:GAN in the appropriate category. When a reviewer initiates a review of an article, all that needs to be done is to read the template on the article's {{GA nominee}} template on its talk page, and click on the link to start the review. When the reviewer clicks on that link, they will also see some instructions on how to start a review of a GAN. For new reviewers, there's also a link to the Good Article criteria, as well as to the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles page and the mentors list. Once an article is reviewed, the GA review page should be transcluded onto the main article talk page, by adding {{Talk:Article/GA#}} to the bottom of the talk page. This is to ensure maintain the transparency of the GA process, as well as to make editors of the article in question aware that the review is taking place. When an article is either passed or failed, there's really nothing different to do in the process, although reviewers are encouraged to utilize the {{ArticleHistory}} template, linking to the GA review subpage with the 'action#link' parameter. Did You Know... ... that there are slightly more than twice as many Good Articles (4,266) as there are Featured Articles? ... that Giggy has some really neat and useful tools to assist reviewers in conducting their reviews? ... that there are ten experienced reviewers listed on the GA mentors list that can offer assistance or a second opinion in reviewing articles? From the Editors A GA working party has initiated discussion on ways to improve the Good Article project and processes. The goal of the working party is to come up with suggestions for improvement based on recent issues and concerns raised in the past, primarily in the wake of the Great Green Dot Debate of May 2008. The discussion can be found here. Members of the working party include: Dank55 (talk · contribs), Derek.cashman (talk · contribs), EyeSerene (talk · contribs), Giggy (talk · contribs), Gwinva (talk · contribs), LaraLove (talk · contribs), Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs), and OhanaUnited (talk · contribs). Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor) Giggabot, Giggy (Distributor) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Choctaw • One Night Stand (2007) • Impalement arts • Backlash (2007) • Sam Cowan Reassessment: Madonna (entertainer) • Sweeps / List: references (All Categories), image tags (All Categories), article quality (All Categories) Possible GAs Needing References: Clarinet • Carleton University • Appalachian Mountains Task forces: Project quality • Unreferenced GA Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations queue: 214 articles (45 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 10 June 2008 | edit

Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 02:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)