From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am currently:
away
Wisden17's Talk
|
 To leave a new message, click here. Please sign all your messages with ~~~~. Alternately, you may email me. I will leave any replies on your talk page. A list of archived topics may be found here. |
[edit] Signpost updated for August 7th
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding my advocacy case
Just wanted to let you know, I've sent you email. If for some reason it doesn't reach you, I'd appreciate it if you would send me an email -- my address is stored. I could really use your advice. Thanks in advance. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 21:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you!
 |
We've awarded you this PARC research star in recognition for your contribution to research about conflict in Wikipedia. Thank you for your help!!! --Parc wiki researcher 20:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC) |
[edit] Hello Wisden17
Hello how are you keeping? I hope you are still active on wikipedia and enjoying your break. We'll have to catch up soon! Newton2 11:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] August Esperanza Newsletter
|
|
| The Esperanza To-Do List is a place where you may list any request, big or small, for assistance. If you need help with archiving your usertalk, for example, all you need to do is list it here and somebody will help you out. Likewise, if you need help with some area of editing on Wikipedia, list it here! Again, any matter, trivial or not, can be placed on this page. However, all matters listed on this page must not be of an argumentative nature. You do not need to be a member of Esperanza (or this program) to place or fulfill requests on this page. If you don't have any requests, consider coming by and fulfilling a few! This program has not been very active, but has lots of potential! |
|
What's New?
|
| In order to help proposed programs become specific enough to make into full-fledged programs, the In development section of the proposals page has been created. Proposals that are promising, but need to be organized in more detail are listed here. Please take a look at what is there, and help the proposals turn into programs. |
| To improve both the layout and text of the front page, in an attempt to clarify the image of Esperanza, the front page is going to have some redesigning take place. Please take your creative minds to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Front page redesign to brainstorm good ideas. |
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter. |
|
|
|
- In order to make sure all users who join Esperanza are welcomed, a list of volunteers who are willing to welcome new Esperanzians is at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Members#Esperanza_welcomers. Please add yourself if you are interested; we want to make sure all new Esperanza members are welcomed!
- The In development section of the proposals page has been created.
- Proposals page: Some proposals have been moved to the aforementioned "In development" section, some have been left as a proposal, and others have been archived. For those proposals that were a good idea but didn't necessarily constitute a program, General Esperanzial Actions has been created.
- Two small pieces of charter reform will be decided on in a straw poll at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Governance. One involves filling the position of any councillors who may leave, the other involves reforming the charter.
- Until cooperation with the Kindness Campaign is better defined, it remains as a proposed program.
- There is a page for discussing the front page redesign.
|
|
Signed...
|
|
|
|
| Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List. |
|
[edit] Signpost updated for August 14th
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for August 21st
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks!
Hey Wisden!! Want to thank you for Opus Dei mediation. Just checked mediation procedure, and there's no more to wait for. Thought all the while there's a formal ruling coming out or something. Hope I was not a pain in the neck. ;) Truly appreciated your work, Wisden! Ndss 14:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] David L Cook Article/Wikipediatrix
Wisden17, we are having a continual problem with one of the editors by the name of Wikipediatrix. She continues to go through our contributions and makes edits to everything that we have posted. There is not a problem with that and we invite her contributions, however she gets way to personal into them. She tags everything and does not give any reason of why she is tagging something. She has had many run ins with other editors and administrators about her editing. They have told her to stop tagging without explaining why she is doing so. She ignores this admonishment and continues to do so. When we asak her why she tags things she goes on to tell us to stop berating her and just make the changes? How can one do this? We have cited things and she has gone right behind us and removed them and asked for cites again. This last time we edited the David L Cook article and took the stuff out that she had tagged and she went right back added the edits back onto the article and then removed them again? We are at our witts end with this woman. She has turned this into a personal issue. She is not nice to anyone who questions her and finally, she does not explain herself or her edits and tags. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia. This is supposed to be a community that works together. If she sees something wrong what would it hurt her to be a good editor and fix it? Not her! She tags it and then gets upset when questioned. We need help. We would prefer to have her blocked from our articles so that she cannot continue to do this to us. We have no problem with someone wanting to edit or give suggestions, we just do not have time to continue to bicker with this woman who is seemingly on a Rambo quest. Thank you for any help you can give us. IAMAS Corporation 15:52 22, Aug 2006 (UTC)
- You've been mis-led by this user's signature. (User:Iamascorp appears to be a rôle account, and the people there are using a link to an article about the company in the main article namespace as the account's signature.) The article in question is David L. Cook, and Wikipediatrix is requesting that sources be cited using the usual mechanisms. Please don't advise editors to simply remove source citation requests without citing sources. We insist upon sources here. Uncle G 00:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I have not mislead anyone. They are taking an entry where I refered this article over to our publicity department in order to make sure I did not imput a personal POV. Wikipediatrix said that the article read like a press release done by Mr. Cook's press agent. I never said this was an issue about the IAMAS Corporation, I said in the heading it was about the David L Cook article in question. As far as citing, I have cited and Wikipediatrix has removed any cites I have put on. I do not have a problem with her asking for cited material, what I do have a problem with is her bad attitude and failure to explain her tags. Wikipedia is here for us to work as a community and if you see an article needs something don't just tag stuff without explaination. If you are going to take so much time to tag something why don't you take the same time to help fix it? I think that makes a little more sense. IAMAS Corporation 02:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Happy Birthday!
Jorcoga ETC. 00:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for August 28th
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Dude i need help where are you.Mr.Willison 29 2006 aug 1:09
[edit] Joining?
What is espanraza and how do I join.User:Mr.Willison 6:26 am 2 sept 2006
[edit] Mediation advice
Hi, awhile back you said to let you know if I needed a hand. On Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Talk:Ross Jeffries, one of the involved parties, WoodenBuddha (talk | contribs), appears to be on wikibreak, and subsequently has not replied to the request for consent (or non-consent) to me mediating I left on his/her talk page on July 19, 2006. One of the other parties, Masssiveego (talk | contribs), is understandably in a hurry to begin mediation, and asked that mediation either begin by September 5, 2006, or that the case be closed. Wikipedia:Mediation#What_will_happen_when_you_ask_for_mediation_.3F states that "If any party fails to agree, the mediation will be rejected, as mediation cannot take place without the agreement of all parties." However, I think (some) progress could be made even without WoodenBuddha, who does not appear (at least not that I have noticed) to be involved in any of the secondary issues. As for the primary issues, WoodenBuddha and SecondSight seem to be more or less in agreement. So, I was wondering which you think would be best - closing the case, or starting without WoodenBuddha? Thanks! Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 15:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice. It didn't take you long to respond, I only posted on the mailing list because I noticed your edit history has been sporadic lately. I don't think it's that WoodenBuddha is unwilling, just that he/she isn't around (perhaps a summer vacation). But in any case, thanks for the advice, as this is my first formal case, I was fairly nervous about this. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mediation advice
Dear Wisden17, I would like to ask for your advice regarding the following wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University It is about the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. There has been plenty of talk and discussions in the "discussion" page about this. The problem is that the original authors of this page dislike Brahma Kumaris. These authors had a negative experience with this Spiritual institution. One of the main authors if not the main author is: User:195.82.106.244 This user currently runs a website : brahmakumaris.info which again is against the BK institution.
Even though members of BK have attempted to work with User:195.82.106.244 as you could see in the discussion page, it has been of no avail. In the meantime, BK (Brahma Kumaris) image is being hurt since this article is being copied by other wiki like sites like answers.com. What we request (as stated in the discussion pages) is for this article to be written without obvious bias and in good faith with the aim of informing the public.
Please advice. Thank you. --avyakt7 21:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for September 5th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for September 11th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for September 18th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] MedCom inactivity
It has been noticed that the MedCom has been rather inactive lately, and concern has been noted on the Admin noticeboard. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Requests for mediation has ground to a halt. Anyways, I thought you might like to take a look. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mediation for the articles.
I have placed an mediation tag for the article Mase after an edit war invoked LMZ00 to place negative comments on my talk page, posting vandal tags without confirmation from other users, and numerous comments left addressing myself about the editing of this article. I had enough of the editing and bickering of this article. I have placed the tag on the article. If there's anything else I should do? I have the versions in question. Here's mine [1] and here's Lmz00's [2]. Thanks. LILVOKA 17:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] September Esperanza Newsletter
|
|
| Here in Wikipedia there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go unappreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go unnoticed. As Esperanzians we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. This is where the Barnstar Brigade comes in. The object of this program is to seek out the people which deserve a Barnstar, and help them feel appreciated. With your help, we can recognize more dedicated editors! |
|
What's New?
|
| September elections are upon us! Anyone wishing to be a part of the Advisory Council may list themselves as a candidate from 18 September until 24 September, with the voting taking place from 25 September to 30 September. Those who wish to help with the election staff should also list themselves! |
| Appreciation Week, a program currently in development, now has its own subpage! Share your good ideas on how to make it awesome there! |
| The Esperanza front page has been redesigned! Many thanks to all who worked hard on it. |
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter. |
|
|
|
- The proposals page has been updated, with some proposals being archived.
- Since the program in development Appretiaion week is getting lots of good ideas, it now has its own subpage.
- The September 2006 Council elections will open for nominations on 18 September 2006. The voting will run from 25 September 2006 until 30 September 2006. If you wish to be a candidate or a member of the elections staff, please list yourself!
- The new Esperanza front page design has but put up - many thanks to all who worked on it!
- TangoTango has written a script for a bot that will list new members of Esperanza, which will help those who welcome new Esperanzains greatly!
|
|
Signed...
|
|
|
|
| Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List. |
|
[edit] Unauthorized edits.
I have never edited any of the information on Wikipedia. Why did you accuse me of doing so? Furthermore, I know that I have NEVER search for information on The Junkies.
71.246.74.185 15:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for September 25th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edits on "El Universal"
I have been following the article entitled "El Universal (Mexico City)." Recently, the user cjwirth has been making changes to it, that in my opinion are both biased and out of context. They do not speak the truth. I reverted his changes and issued a warning in his User's page advising him that he should document any changes with sources so we would reach a consensus. He has keep on modifying the article without following the issued guidelines, so I decided to come here and ask for your help as a mediator. Thanks.
[edit] Signpost updated for October 2nd.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for October 9th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mediation Committee
I've moved your name from the active mediators list to Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Mediators Emeriti due to inactivity. When you return, feel free to relist yourself at Template:Medcom. —Guanaco 18:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for October 16th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! Martinp23 21:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for October 23rd.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 12:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Admin coaching
Sorry for the inconvenience, but your admin coaching has been suspended because of your lack of activity, and the fact your coach abandoned you. If you wish to restart coaching, leave a message on my talk page. Highway Grammar Enforcer! 08:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for October 30th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 15:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] VP Ongoing Issue
For some reason my name has been removed from the list of authorized users. I was added by Betacommand here [3], and he welcommed me here[4]. I had difficulties using it, did everything I could myself, was unable to, so I requested assistance here [5]. Instead of assistance, I was removed from the list. Because I have had difficulties on wikipedia recieving help from administrators when requested, this message is in essence a generic template I am writing on all moderators' talk pages and discussion boards in the hopes of recieving if nothing else a response - ideally, however, a solution. Thank you very much and apologies for my impatience. Gregorof/(T) 05:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] November Esperanza Newsletter
|
|
| Admin Coaching needs coaches!!! If you are an administrator, or even a generally experienced user, do consider signing up to be a coach.
Admin Coaching, now being coordinated by HighwayCello, is a program for people who want help learning some of the more subtle aspects of Wikipedia policy and culture. People are matched with experienced users who are willing to offer coaching. The program is designed for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins.
|
|
What's New?
|
| The Tutorial Drive is a new Esperanza program! In an effort to make complicated processes on Wikipedia easier for everyone, Esperanza working to create and compile a list of tutorials about processes here on Wikipedia. Consider writing one! |
| A discussion on how Esperanza relates to the encyclopedia has been started; please add your thoughts. |
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter. |
|
|
The last AC meeting (full log)
|
- The list of proposed programs has been updated, with some proposals being archived.
- There is now a new program: the Tutorial Drive! Consider writing a tutorial on something you are good at doing on Wikipedia.
- The suggestion of adding a cohesive look to all the Esperanza pages is being considered; join the discussion if you are interested!
- In order to make a useful interlanguage welcome template, those involved in translation projects will be asked what English Wikipedia policies are most important and confusing to editors coming from other language Wikipedias.
- A discussion of Esperanza's role in Wikipedia is being held, with all thoughts of all Esperanzians wanted!
- Shreshth91 informed everyone that he will be leaving the Esperanza council as life is rather busy; his spot will be filled by the runner up from the last election, HighwayCello.
|
|
Signed...
|
|
|
|
| Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List. |
|
[edit] Checkuser clerk
Please check out my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Noticeboard. Thanks. Thatcher131 00:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for November 6th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I note from Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics that you're a member of WikiProjects Politics and are based in the UK. I was wondering if you might be able to contribute to a peer review of Socialist Studies, a political group in the UK active since 1991. The request for peer review can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Socialist Studies (1989)/archive1. —Psychonaut 05:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Need some help with POV
Hi, Wisden17. I could really use some help with what I believe is a POV fork with the Historicity of Jesus article. I tried to contribute to the article and clean up some of the POV after reading about concerns on the talk page, and had my work reverted 3 times in less than a day. 3 contributors are working in concert to maintain their exclusive "majority" view. The archives show them discussing how to donate 2 reverts each in order to avoid the 3RR. The history of this page is contentious. I've tried to discuss this out on the talk page, but am still having my attempts to address the POV removed. Any advice or help you could offer would be greatly appreciated. Please fell free to respond on my talk page. Thank you in advance. Phyesalis 05:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for November 13th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 23:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for November 20th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi i had a warning message about edits i'd made to the "Deconomies of scale" page...anyway, i never made edits, dont know what "deconomies of scale" are and have never heard of Tosh Ayres...I don't know what's going on. Does this mean my Ip has been hacked?
84.66.187.29 11:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for November 27th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Opus Dei
Hi! I've been drawn into this article because I evaluated it for Good Article status. There are several folk who are saying things about a mediation ruling you made on the article. I cannot make out from what they are saying or from the give-and-take in the mediation discussion as to what the problem is (other than some love and some hate the organization) and what solution you all came to. Also, I'm a bit confused since I didn't think a mediation decision was at all binding on non-parties. Could you email me with some thoughts. (beyond: run away! run VERY FAR away!) 8-) --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for December 4th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Clerk for Requests for Checkuser
Hey Wisden17,
I am messaging you to ask whether you would be interested in reassuming your role as a Request for Checkuser clerk. Currently, the clerk duties are being shared among three experienced clerks, and we have added two new clerks, who are currently in the learning stage. We are currently experiencing backlogs and long waiting times for some actions to occur.
As you are currently listed under "inactive" on our clerk roster, we're asking that if you are willing to resume these clerk activities, please leave a message on my user talk page (quick link). A number of things have changed, so we reccommend re-reading Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Guide. The guide is currently being rewritten, but the new and updated version should be available by 00:00 December 12, 2006 (UTC) at the latest.
If you aren't interested in being a checkuser clerk any longer, we accept your decision and thank you for your service; it would be greatly appreciated if you'd leave me a note that you're no longer interested. If you would like to resume your role in the future, but can't do so now, please mention so on my talk page, and I'll note this on our clerk register.
Thanks for your cooperation,
Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ], Head Clerk, for Essjay (talk), 05:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for December 11th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for December 18th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for December 26th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Request for advice
Hi there. I saw your name at the AMA members' list, even though I'm not looking for an advocate to represent me per se (not yet, anyway). I'd appreciate some advice with the 2004 Madrid train bombings article. It seems we're headed for RfA. I'd like some impartial advice on how to resolve this dispute. Briefly, an editor is supporting a 'conspiracy theory' led by a Spanish newspaper (El Mundo) about the authorship of the attack (Islamists vs Spaniards). The amount of space dedicated to this theory and to the El Mundo claims (and certain deletions of text contradicting those claims) has severely irritated the other editors. References against these statements exist, the problem is that the principal source (El Pais) has a subscription policy, and online refs cannot be provided for every single El Mundo claim. So, the article is quite POV right now. An investigation of 1400+ pages by the Spanish Judicial system found no consistent evidence of involvement by Spanish terrorists, but again we have limited access to this source. There is a heavy dispute going on at the talk page. I'd appreciate some input. Thanks for your time and patience. :) Raystorm 11:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 19:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I'm Ral315, editor-in-chief of the Wikipedia Signpost. It appears that you have not edited in at least three weeks. To avoid spamming your talk page any further, should you be on leave, your name has been removed from the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to continue receiving the spamlist, please leave a note on my talk page to that effect, and I will restore your name, and keep you on the list indefinitely. Ralbot 08:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Request for assistance
[edit] Ronald Ryan
Hello,
Ronald Ryan was the last man executed in Australia.
I am in "dispute" with an unregistered user about that article. This user appears to be passionate about the abolition of the death penalty (which is fine) and uses the Ronald Ryan article as a soapbox (which isn't).
There are reputable sources, including his priest (who was not his confessor) who have said they heard him confess to shooting a prison warder (though without an intention to kill, he simply wished to escape from gaol). Fr. Brosnan (his priest) can in no way be regarded as a antagonistic witness.
I have provided (primary & secondary) sources for my additions (see the history) and User:Richard69 simply says:
- all the witnesses to the confessions are dead, (of course, Ryan was executed in 1967)
- the confessions are hearsay, (all confessions are hearsay, that is their nature, unless the offender admits the offence to the court)
- his barrister thought him not guilty (I am a Victorian barrister and we are often the last to know the truth of the matter, it's not our job to know that)
and then he reverts my changes.
I have tried to initiate a discussion on the talk page. The only response I get is the addition of more "evidence" that he could not have been guilty.
What should I do next? A revert war will solve nothing. I would be grateful for any assistance you can provide. Avalon 06:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] VP Help
i noticed you are a mod for vp. i was recently approved (still on the list, in fact), but the software insists on telling me that i am not on the user list. can you help me with this? ty. the_undertow talk 01:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wisden has not edited since September of yesteryear. See Special:Contributions/Wisden17. Perhaps you can ask someone else? Best of luck, Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 14:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandal Proof
The User List is corrupted and the program instructed me to contact a moderator. -Vcelloho 15:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Same here...thanks for your time. Jmlk17 22:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive
A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.
You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 23:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Talk:Tropius
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Talk:Tropius, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Talk:Tropius fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:
Templates are useless now, which is the only useful thing in history. If items are needed from old revisions, this isn't the right place, templates is the only thing in history.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:Tropius, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 13:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Billportrait.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Billportrait.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
- On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Alice Ottley Image
Hi, I noticed that you uploaded Image:Ao-crest.gif. I am afraid that this image is now orphaned and so will be deleted soon. If you wish to use this image in the future, please upload it to the Wiki commons.
Regards, Dewarw (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Image:Ao-crest.gif, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Orphaned image
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Dewarw (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ao-crest.gif
I have deleted this file because it was replaced in the article with another image and, as a non-free image, should not be kept while not used in an article. It can be restored if you feel your image would be a better choice for the article, but to avoid an edit war please discuss at Talk:The_Alice_Ottley_School or with the user who replaced it at User talk:Dewarw. —Random832 19:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Note that, contrary to the above, the image should not be re-uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, that recommendation really only applies to freely licensed images.—Random832 19:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
| The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter |
|
|
- Project News
- There are now 3,301 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. With 1,789 current featured articles, that brings the total of good and featured articles to 5,090!
- The most recently promoted articles are: Hurricane Daniel (2006), Tarbosaurus, The Murders in the Rue Morgue, Wicca, Seth MacFarlane, Stanley Internment Camp, Hurricane Karen (2007), Interstate 155 (Illinois), Tropical Storm Ingrid (2007), Brian Sings and Swings, Winston Churchill, Mzoli's, John Kefalas, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
- The backlog at Good Article Nominations has recently exploded to 236 unreviewed articles! Out of 264 total nominations, 17 are on hold, 10 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: Attachment disorder, Byzantium under the Palaiologoi, Byzantium under the Angeloi, Wowowee, Tyrone Wheatley, Mina (singer), Jon Burge, Mercury Hayes, William Lowndes Yancey, and Toni Preckwinkle.
-
- The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (47 articles), Film and cinema (25 articles), Television and journalism (16 articles), Art and architecture (15 articles), and Politics and government (14 articles).
-
- The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 17 articles up for re-review.
-
- If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
- Reviewer of the Month
Dihydrogen Monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month of December, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 of the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen Monoxide hails from Brisbane (which, incidentally, is almost a GA, kids ;)) and has been editing Wikipedia since August 2006. He mostly likes to review articles relating to music, Australia, or anything else that takes his fancy! He also has two articles waiting, and notes that there's still a huge backlog,... so get cracking!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of December include:
- Member News
There are now 166 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 7 new members that joined during the month of December:
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!
|
- GAReview Template
Lots of you that frequent WP:GAN have undoubtedly seen the articles under review, marked with "Review - I am reviewing this article. ...". The articles have been marked as being under review by an editor using the {{GAReview}} template. The purpose of this template is essentially to prevent two editors from reviewing the same article at the same time, so it's essentially a common courtesy notice to other editors so that they don't pass or fail an article while you're in the midst of collecting and writing comments. However, just because an article is marked, shouldn't preclude another editor from contributing to the review. If you'd like to review it, go ahead; simply collect your comments and write them down on the article's talk page – but don't pass or fail the article – leave that to the other reviewer.
To use this template yourself, simply write "#:{{GAReview}} ~~~~" on the line immediately following the article's nomination at WP:GAN. You can even leave additional comments as well (e.g. "#:{{GAReview}} I will finish my review in the next 24 hours. ~~~~"). Reviewers marking articles with this template should also observe some common etiquette; please don't mark more than 1-3 articles as being under review at a time, and please try and finish your review within 3-5 days of marking the article.
- GA Sweeps
After openly requesting the community for more participants into the Sweeps, we have 3 more members on the board. They are (in no particular order) Canadian Paul, VanTucky, and Masem. Canadian Paul will be sweeping "Middle East and the World" articles. VanTucky will be sweeping "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" and "Literature" articles. Masem will be sweeping "Television episodes". We're still looking for more reviewers. Interested individuals should contact OhanaUnited for details.
At this moment, participation in the sweeps project is by invitation only, as we desire experienced reviewers who have a thorough and extensive knowledge of the criteria. This is to ensure that articles that have "fallen through the cracks" would be found and removed, and that additional articles don't fall through the cracks during the sweep.
Currently, there are 16 members working on the project, and we have reviewed 74 articles in December 2007. Of those that are swept, 275 articles are kept as GA, 126 articles are delisted, and 5 promoted to FA.
- Did You Know,...
- ... that the total number of good and featured articles is now over 5000?
- ... that GA was formed on October 11, 2005 and was formerly called "Half-decent articles"?
- ... that there is a bot (StatisticianBot) that gives a daily report on GAN?
- ... that many discussions were made over the years on whether GA should have a symbol placed on the main article space, yet at the end always removed?
- ... that there was a proposal to change the GA symbol to a green featured star?
- From the Editors
Happy New Year, everyone! I'm just filling in for Dr. Cash as he's busy (or away) in real life. This explains why I wasn't prepared for a full-length article on GA process, and instead I resort to a tiny DYK for GA.
Happy New Year as well! I'm still here, and haven't totally disappeared. I had to cut back on editing and reviewing during the month of December as I made the transition from Flagstaff, Arizona to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. But I should be about settled in the Keystone State, so I'll be contributing more to Wikipedia again in the new year. Thanks to OhanaUnited for putting together much of the content for this newsletter! He's been working hard with the Sweeps, and the 'Did You Know' section is also a great idea, so I think that will become a regular feature now! I also figured out how to have a collapsible newsletter, so that will change our delivery options a bit. Cheers!
- Contributors to this Issue
|
|
Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005!
|
WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
| The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter |
|
|
- Project News
- There are now 3,485 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
- The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 206 unreviewed articles. Out of 251 total nominations, 37 are on hold, 7 are under review, and 1 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: Johan Derksen, Trafford, J. Michael Bailey, Greg Skrepenak, Paleolithic-style diet, Alan Dershowitz, Natalee Holloway, Slovenian presidential election, 2007, San Francisco Municipal Railway, and Marcela Agoncillo.
-
- The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (57 articles), Theatre film and drama (34 articles), Music (19 articles), Transport (17 articles), Politics and government (16 articles), World history (13 articles), and Meteorology and atmospheric sciences (13 articles).
-
- The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 8 articles up for re-review.
-
- If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
- GA Sweeps Update
During January, 57 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 35 were kept as GA, 20 delisted, 9 currently on hold or at GAR, and 3 were exempted as they are now Featured Articles.
- Reviewer of the Month
Ealdgyth is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for January, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Ealdgyth, known in real life as Victoria Short, hails from Central Illinois, and has been editing Wikipedia since May 26, 2007. In this short time, she has made significant contributions to 9 Good Articles, including Baldwin of Exeter and Hubert Walter. Her interests in editing are in the areas of the Middle Ages, History, and horses. Outside of Wikipedia, she is starting her own photography business, and owns three horses. She likes to read science fiction, history, and geneology books. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for January!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include:
- Member News
There are now 176 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 15 new members that joined during the month of January:
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!
|
- On Hold versus Failing an Article
This month, I thought I'd focus on a less technical and more of a procedural issue at WP:GAN – determining what the appropriate course of action to take when reviewing an article. Currently, there are four options to decide what to do with an article:
- Passing – it meets all six of the good article criteria; add it to WP:GA and add {{ArticleHistory}} or {{GA}} to the article's talk page.
- Failing it – it does not meet the criteria; remove the article's listing from WP:GAN and add {{ArticleHistory}} or {{failedGA}} to the article's talk page.
- On Hold – The article meets most of the criteria, but might fall short in a few areas; keep it listed at WP:GAN, add #: {{GAOnHold|ArticleName}} ~~~~ below the listing and add {{GAonhold}} to the article's talk page.
- Second Opinion – Similar to the on hold option, except an editor is either inexperienced or not knowledgeable enough about a given topic and asks another reviewer to offer another opinion before passing or failing; add #: {{GA2ndopinion|ArticleName}} ~~~~ to WP:GAN below the article's listing and add {{GA2ndoptalk}} to the article's talk page.
So how to you know when an article fails outright, or fails initially, but meets "enough" of the criteria to be placed on hold? The answer to this question probably varies by about the same amount as there are reviewers of Good Articles! Everybody treats this slightly differently. The most important thing to consider is that articles should not be on hold for longer than about one week. Although there is no hard and fast time limit for this, most editors would probably agree that five to seven days is enough time to address any GA-related issues with the article to get it to pass. Some editors have extended this a few days in the past, due to other extenuating circumstances, such as an article's primary editor being very busy with school or work, so they have asked for extra time. But as a general rule, a GA nominee that is placed on hold should meet enough of the criteria to be able to be passed within five to seven days. Some examples of articles that might be placed on hold would be:
- the article is mostly complete, but might be missing one topic (subcategory).
- minor copyediting is required (needs a few minor manual of style, spelling, or grammatical fixes.
- mostly well sourced, but missing maybe a handful of references.
- a couple of images need to be tagged with appropriate copyright tags.
On the other hand, an article should be failed if it:
- is missing several topic categories, or there are several sections which are very short (1-3 sentences per section).
- contains numerous sections which are just lists of information, as opposed to written out as prose.
- there's entire sections of text that have no references, or there are a lot of {{cn}} or {{unreferenced}} tags.
- has evidence of an active edit war in the article history.
- has major neutrality issues.
- has any {{cleanup}} or other warning tags in various places.
- Did You Know...
- ... that on July 19, 2007, 1,548 good articles that have not been categorized at all were categorized in 15 days?
- ... that in Chinese Wikipedia, articles need to have at least six net support votes before they are promoted to GA?
- ... that the English Wikipedia has the most Good Articles, the German Wikipedia has the second most (at over 2000), followed by the Spanish Wikipedia (at over 800), the Chinese Wikipedia (at over 400), and the French Wikipedia (at over 200)?
- ... that Simple English Wikipedia has zero Good Articles?
- ... that "Sport and games people" category has the most Good Articles?
- ... that Virginia Tech massacre (which is now a featured article) was promoted to GA just only about one month after the shooting incident, but took more than seven months to reach FA status?
- From the Editors
Originally, I wasn't planning to do "Did you know" other than as a fill-in for Dr. Cash. However, I decided to continue writing this section until I ran out of ideas.
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
- Contributors to this Issue
|
|
Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005!
|
WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[edit] AfD nomination of Chesterton Cup
An editor has nominated Chesterton Cup, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chesterton Cup and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
| The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter |
|
|
- Project News
- There are currently 3,647 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
- The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 185 unreviewed articles. Out of 237 total nominations, 42 are on hold, and 10 are under review. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
-
- The oldest unreviewed articles are: Ian Browne (cyclist), Tony Marchant, Reginald fitz Jocelin, Annie Russell, Brodie Croyle, and Jimmy Moore.
-
- The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (39 articles), Theatre, film, and drama (34 articles), Transport (23 articles), Music (21 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Culture and society (13 articles), Places (13 articles), and World history (12 articles).
-
- The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 13 articles up for re-review.
-
- If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
- GA Sweeps Update
Two members joined the sweeps team this month. They are Jwanders and jackyd101. Jwanders swept Physics sub-category quickly and is now sweeping "Astronomy and astrophysics". Meanwhile, jackyd101 is sweeping "Armies, military units and legal issues".
During February, 66 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 33 were kept as GA, 21 delisted, 17 currently on hold or at GAR, and 1 was exempted as they are now Featured Articles.
- Reviewer of the Month
Blnguyen is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for February, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Blnguyen is from South Australia and has been editing Wikipedia since 2005. He was also the reviewer for the month of December 2007, so this marks the second time that he has been GAN's Top Reviewer for the Month. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for February!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include:
- Member News
There are now 185 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 9 new members that joined during the month of February:
- Did You Know...
- ...that the shortest timespan for a GA to be listed and subsequently delisted is 8 minutes? (The article is Project Chanology and currently listed on WP:GAR)
- ...that the current nominations system started on March 10, 2006?
- ...that in May 2006, number of GA surpassed number of FA? 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!
|
- One GA Requirement - The Lead Section
In this issue, we will focus on one of the requirements for good articles: a good article article should follow Wikipedia's guideline on lead sections. So what does this guideline say, why does it say what it does, and how can good article reviewers help?
The lead section is particularly important, because for many readers, it is the only part of the article which they will read. For instance, they may have come to the article by following a wikilink in another article simply to obtain a quick overview before they continue reading the original article. They may only read the first paragraph, or even the first sentence. On the other hand, one of the joys of Wikipedia is the way that embodies the endlessly branching tree of knowledge; if a lead is well written, it may encourage even such a reader to read on and learn something new.
This is reflected in the terminology: "lead" is a word taken from journalism, where it recognized that many readers will only read the beginning of a newspaper article, and so it is important to convey the key points first, before going into detail. Note that "lead", in this sense, is pronounced as in "leading question" and is sometimes spelled as "lede" by journalists to distinguish it from lead, the metal, which was once very important in typesetting. Wikipedia supports both spellings.
Wikipedia:Lead section is written with all this in mind, and describes two different roles for the lead: first, it should introduce the topic; second it should summarize the article. This is not always as easy as it seems; indeed, it is almost impossible to write a good lead if the article itself does not cover the topic well. It has a side benefit that an article which satisfies this guideline is probably also broad: if the lead is both a good introduction and a summary, then the article probably covers the main points.
The good article process is often the first place in which an article is judged against this criterion, yet many current good articles may not meet it. A common fault is that the lead is purely an introduction, while the rest of the article contains other information, which should be summarized in the lead, but isn't.
So, how can reviewers help to improve this? One approach is to read the rest of the article, and not the lead, first. Make a note of the significant points discussed in the article. There is usually at least one important issue in each section. Then, go back to the lead and ask the following questions:
- Does the first sentence of the lead define the topic, as described in the article?
- Is the most important information mentioned in the first paragraph?
- Is the lead a suitable length for the article? The lead guideline recommends 2–4 paragraphs depending on the article length, but judgment is more important than counting.
- Are each of the significant topics that you noted mentioned in the lead?
If the answer to each of these questions is "yes", then the article probably meets the guideline. If not, you may be able to fix it yourself by summarizing the article. If you can't, then it suggests that there are not only problems with the lead, but also the rest of the article. That is the beauty of Wikipedia:Lead section.
Finally, there isn't universal agreement on whether the lead should contain inline citations. As long as the material in the lead is developed and cited elsewhere in the article, then inline citation is not required. There are exceptions, the most significant being quotations and controversial material about living persons.
Good luck helping more articles meet this important criterion!
- From the Editors
Well, this is somewhat GA-related but at the same time not totally GA-related. However, I think this is important. Thanks to everyone who supported me at my 2nd RfA. It passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. As many are impressed by my work in Good Articles processes, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone giving me a very enjoyable time at GA. There are 2 people that I want to explicitly say thank you to. They are Nehrams2020 and Epbr123. They patiently taught me how to do GA reviews properly in summer 2007. I couldn't achieve better without them. Now that I have the mop and the bucket, some of my time will be working on reducing Commons image backlog. Nevertheless, you will still see me once in a while in matters related to GA.
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
- Contributors to this Issue
|
|
Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005!
|
WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[edit] April GA Newsletter
The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
| The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter |
|
|
- Project News
- There are currently 3,868 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
- The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 267 total nominations, 57 are on hold, 13 are under review, and 2 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: A4232 road, New York State Route 63, Great American Boycott, First Great Western, Duck Soup, Sanja Matsuri, Code of Conduct (affiliate marketing), Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway, Aliens (film), and Roanoke Regional Airport.
-
- The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (27 articles), Sports and recreation (25 articles), Transport (24 articles), Music (19 articles), War and military (19 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Religion, mysticism and mythology (16 articles), Literature (14 articles), World history (14 articles), and Video and computer games (14 articles).
-
- The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 12 articles up for re-review.
- GA Sweeps Update
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of March, a total of 92 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 74 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 18 were delisted. There are currently 14 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. Congratulations to Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs), who sweeped a whopping 51 articles during the month! Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) also deserves congrats for sweeping a total of 26 articles!
- Reviewer of the Month
Dihydrogen monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for March, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen monoxide hails from Brisbane in Queensland, Australia, and has been editing Wikipedia since April 6, 2007. He has contributed to 8 Featured articles and is an avid reviewer and contributor to the Good articles program. Other reviewers should check out his Noob's Guide to GA Reviewing. Congratulations to Dihydrogen monoxide!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of March include:
- Member News
There are now 195 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 13 new members that joined during the month of March:
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!
|
- To delist or not to delist, that is the question
So you’ve found an article that, on the face of it, does not merit its good article status. What next? Especially where there are many glaring issues that need addressing, it’s tempting to just revoke its GA status and remove it from the list, but although we are encouraged as editors to be bold, this approach (known to some as "bold delisting") is not recommended good practice. There are many reasons why a listed article might not meet the assessment criteria—it’s always possible that it never did, and was passed in error, but more likely the criteria have changed or the article quality has degraded since its original assessment. Either way, we should treat its reassessment with no less tact and patience than we would a fresh nomination.
This, in fact, provides a good starting point for the delisting process. Approach the article as though it has been nominated for GA review. Read it and the GA criteria carefully, and provide a full reassessment on the article talk page. Explain where and why the article no longer meets the criteria, and suggest remedies.
Having explained why the article no longer meets current GA criteria, allow its editors time to fix it! In keeping with the above approach, it may help to treat the article as on hold. There is no need to tag it as such, but give editors a reasonable deadline, and consider helping out with the repair work. Bear in mind that more flexibility may be required than for a normal hold—the editors did not request or expect your reassessment and will probably have other projects taking up their time. They may not have worked on the article for months or even years, and at worst the article may have been abandoned and its authors no longer active. As always, communication is the key. It sometimes helps to post messages to relevant WikiProjects (found at the top of the article talk page), or to contact editors directly (this tool is useful for identifying active editors for any given article).
Only once the above process has run its course, and sufficient improvement has not been forthcoming, is it time to think about delisting the article. Communicate your final decision on the article talk page, even if there was no response to your reassessment and hold, and take the time to fill in the various edit summaries on the article talk and GA list pages to ensure the delisting is transparent and trackable. If you have any doubts about your final decision, you can list the article at Good article reassessment or contact one of the GA mentors, who will be happy to advise.
Article reassessment is perhaps the single most controversial function of our WikiProject, and the one with the most potential to upset and alienate editors. Yet it is one of the most necessary too, since without the ability to revoke an article’s status we would be unable to maintain quality within the project. However, if we approach reassessment sensitively and with the goal of improving articles to the point where sanctions are unnecessary, we will ensure that delisting is the last resort, not the first.
- From the Editors
As we near the 4,000 Good Articles milestone, the project continues to grow and to gain respect in the Wikipedia community. Nevertheless, we continue to have a large backlog. If every member of WikiProject Good Articles would review just one article each day during the month of April, the backlog would be eliminated!
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
- Contributors to this Issue
|
|
Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005!
|
WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
- 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:
- Member News
There are now 212 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 17 new members that joined during the month of April:
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
