I recieved an email from another admin asking me to go through some of the Hollywood legends articles to see if I could reduce them and sub page them to make the articles look neater and more uniformed. I started doing that. If you don't mind and have a moment could you look and tell me what you think of what I have done so far. The biggest ones I have tackled so far is Bob Hope and Marilyn Monroe. Canyouhearmenow16:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 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).
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:
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 it 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.
OhanaUnited
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
I contacted another Admin and they say at best your argument for deltion is borderline. Why do you not ask to remove what you think is advertsing instead of deleting and important article?
COULD you answer the question? There are a number of refrences for onion juice therapy on the page - what is the problem?
You deleted Onion Juice Therapy that contained perhaps nine different sources to support it's use, including a famous scholar who has been recommending it for years. The site does have a link back to a page I have volunteered my time for - it is not a commercial site, which was made very clear in the talk section. I think you were a bit rash in your delition, if you objected to what you deemed to be commercial intrest you should have at least let the other supported content stand. In doing so you have practiced censorship and have deprived people of a very important method for treating cancer - a method that is now supported by scientific evidence from Cornel University confirming the benefits onions have on cancer. You should be a little less agressive, especially simce it was an article that in the talk pages was clearly described as being under construction. I also take issue with the fact that you think it is commercial as the site is in no way commercial. It does advocate and recommend certain treatments as does any good information source. No money is ever accepted for any salaries, administration costs or any other purposes - what money is donated is all put back into helping others.
I would appreciate it if you give me the original content and recommend some ideas how to improve the post instead of using a shotgun to kill a misquitto. Much is written about Wikipedias heavey handedness and bias, I am begining to see why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesMMc (talk • contribs) 05:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you unfairly mis-deleted one of the articles i wrote -- Read and Write Weekly -- which I believe is a worthy article. Could you please un-delete it?
Thank you for nominating me for adminship. However, I am currently too busy to do participate actively in an RFA and therefore I decline the nomination yet again. Cheers. Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond07:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some grapefruit for you! Grapefruit somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully these have made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Acalamari17:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bibliomaniac. The above page is protected from all editing and has been for some time. I think it was you who protected it and I was wondering if there was a specific reason that it was still protected?
Ok ole teacher, I have completed my what-if questions and they are ready for your review. I am sorry it took me so long. First off I didn't know they were there and second, I have been battling a really bad flu bug. So, I hate to say it, but wikipedia has not been my main focus these past two days. I feel so bad about saying that.. LOL Canyouhearmenow14:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. You did indeed remove the copyrighted material from the summary unfortunately the same material is in comment section of the file history. So the page is still a blatant copyright violation. Not to mention the fact that I seriously doubt the uploader holds the copyright on this image. Polly (Parrot) 03:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've nominated Early thermal weapons for GA. Thanks for the vote of confidence! I've not actually finished it, but there's a backlog at the GA page so I'll probably have time enough! Pleased you liked it in its unfinished state (It's always nice to find someone who's noticed the work I've done). Gwinva (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Biblio, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight. I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community. I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :) I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂04:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I immediately urge you to undelete these userspaces and protect it from this user's abuse of the userspace. User:Mcfly85 is a abusive sockpuppeteer as established here and here. His right to vanish should no longer apply as he is not within good standing with the community. — Κaiba17:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you browse/edit Wikipedia, please be on the lookout for links you can add to the lists of basic topics (and each time you find one, add it to the appropriate list). The ones that need the most work are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics.
You can also help build the set by adding or completing lists. Set a personal quota (build or complete one list per month, or per week, or per whatever time period you think you can handle), and keep up with your quota. These lists take from 3 hours to 8 hours each to complete, even if you know nothing about the subject to begin with. (The basic topics of a subject are pretty easy to identify). Even partial lists are useful for study and navigation, so don't be shy. Others can pick up where you've left off.
Links add up, so even if you add one link at a time, here and there, it will help. Please acquire the habit. The more people we get involved with this, the sooner the project will reach its intended scope.
dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
That was a very WP:POINT-y deletion, a couple of hours after the RFA case closing. I will be taking this to Deletion Review, feel free to revert yourself and save us all the unnecessary bureaucracy. Catchpole (talk) 07:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for thinking I would make a good administrator and offering to nominate me. I don't actually have any desire to be an administrator, and I'm not at all sure I would be a suitable person to either be one or be nominated to be one. At the moment, I find myself wanting to edit and create articles without having sufficient time available to do so. I think I must try to devote more time to editing and creating articles, as it would let my editing colleagues and friends down, especially within the Cheshire Wikiproject if I did not. The problem is that being an administrator would necessarily mean becoming committed to engaging in more administrator-related issues which would eat away at my editing time; I am already behind what I had hoped I would get done because of various other calls on my time, some unexpected, from family and home commitments. So, once again, many thanks for thinking I might be suitable, but I don't think it would be fair on my editing colleagues and the greater aims of the project for me to accept. Best wishes. DDStretch (talk)09:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I have returned for a long wikibreak and i saw the improvements on Wikipedia! Wow! I'll get straight to the point, can i request rollback? --Lolipod (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you have a request in at peer review which has not yet received any response besides the semi-automated script. Have you tried requesting a peer review from the volunteers list? Another idea is to review someone else's request (particularly one from the list of requests without responses), then ask that they look at your request. Hope these are helpful suggestions and help to get some feedback for your request soon, APRt02:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand the difference between the G1, G4 and G11, but are there learning pages that you can direct me to that I can learn more about these in depth. These are the areas you wanted me to go into and I truly do not want to dive in there and be hit by a speeding bus for not knowing the ins and outs of these workings. So, if there are direct pages for them, I would certainly appreciate you directing me to them. Thanks Canyouhearmenow12:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I restored this page - it had been vandalized in January & truncated to the level where it appeared to qualify for CSD-G11. There was a rather detailed and well referenced page hiding in the history. --Versageek18:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like the wiki site to be reinstated to its original form before the substantive and biasing changes. The original wiki was based on months of class work, visitors from both sides of the issues, and honest student input. Even if it's reinstated into the 2006 or early 2007 version, it would be acceptable to me.
What can be done in this instance?
Sincerely, Patrick Christie, Associate Professor, University of Washington, Patrickchristie1
Hi, I have made a proposal that no peer review request be archived without some response. To aid in this, there is a new list of PR requests at least one week old that have had no repsonses beyond a semi-automated peer review. This list is at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog.
There are just over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, so I figure if each of these volunteers reviewed just one or two PR requests without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog (as there have been 2 or 3 such unanswered requests a day on average).
If you would be able to help out with a review or two a month from the "no responses" backlog list that would be great (and much appreciated). Please discuss questions, comments, or ideas at the PR talk page and thanks in advance for your help, Ruhrfisch><>°°00:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sensei, I elaborated some parts of my answers in thetraditional questions. I looked into the present RfA's and it seems that my answers were of the same size and quality as those made by the candidates. What would be the next step?--Lenticel(talk)09:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for teaching me sensei and I'll follow your advice. I think it would be better if we postpone my RfA by a month or two so I can tidy up my Wikiresume. I won't give you the mop manual but I'll give you these katanas, may they serve you well. --Lenticel(talk)05:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]File:Nihontou74.JPG
Thanks again for the GA review. I've made the changes that you suggested. When you have the time can you take another look the article. I particularly want it to help readers to understand Virus and my recent FA Rotavirus. Best wishes. Graham. --GrahamColmTalk19:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Yes, the article is a long way away from FA, but an encouraging start and your suggestions are v. helpful. Best wishes. Graham. --GrahamColmTalk21:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Hallowcvg.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 23:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there! I will happily accept your offer to be my Admin Coach. I'm extremely new to the entire process, so where would we begin? Mastrchf91 (t/c) 02:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is really actually good advice...and is true. I am scared of messing up, and as such do not delete everything that probably could be. And vodka always makes doing things easier, though I could get blocked for WUI, (wikiing under the influence.) :P Tiptoetytalk04:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I did (tagging that is), and actually very often. Its just tagging does not get you in quite as much trouble as deleting. (If you know what I mean) Tiptoetytalk04:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for deleting that Super Smash Bros thing. That person I think got mad at me and kept on deleting the deletion template I put up. Thanks and continue your work.--RyRy5(talk)05:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with a final tally of (75/1/0). Your trust in me is greatly appreciated, and I can assure you it has not been misplaced. I shall use these tools to the best of my ability, and will do my best not to let you down. Thank you once again, and happy editing as always! Hersfold(t/a/c)20:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Bibliomaniac15, I didn't realize your specialty was "Organisms, but especially reptiles, fish, mammals, and dinosaurs". Would you mind looking over Blue Iguana, which is at peer review now? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Code Lyoko has been protected for about half a month, and Karaku is unlikely to budge on his position (or even return given his last comment), I figure protection is a counterproductive measure now. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I did was select the edits with the redirects and then clicked "invert selection" (at Special:Undelete). That restored the pre-redirect versions. Then I realized that I shouldn't have selected the edit with the CSD template, so I undid that one. Haha, don't worry, I mostly blundered my way through it (notice the mistake of redirecting it in the history). Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood23:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see someone else step up on that article; I think I tried tightening it up at one point but got sidetracked by the Cycluras or something. I don't feel comfortable enough doing a full peer-review, because I'm not the best proofreader in the world and I'm a bit biased against the toxicofera theory...I consider it junk science, but it's out there and it's sourced so...what can you do. The only sources I would suggest replacing are #3 and #10. The information cited by those sources is available among the others you already have and if not, both sources link to other more reputable sources; they're probably ok but look "self-published" and the komodo deserves better, and the FAC reviewers will puke all over you for that! Ref #32 (sign on the cage) might not hold up at FAC, either; again...that information is out there somehere else, I'm sure. I can help complete some of those other sources, missing dates, etc if you need me to; I might even have some additional literature not cited. Good luck...this will make a great featured article!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ05:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the only thing in ref #3 I would really question is the size of (V. salvadorii) to my knowledge, it is only presumed they can grow longer than (V. komodoensis); I do not believe this has been proven, yet. I'm not as up on monitors as I used to be, but that was what made me check out the link.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ05:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you remove my request for deletion of my image with no reason or explanation given whatsoever? I spent time in the IRC channel and that was the solution given y many users to remove my image. Justin Morris(talk, contributions)13:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ASIMOI would like to thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which I'm very glad to say was successful at 81/7/0. Some of the very best that Wikipedia has to offer came out to support or oppose me and the kind words from all the editors has really given me confidence to be an admin and I can't wait to start. I will take the advice of the opposes and not jump into any content disputes immediately. As well, I will try to add more content myself. Anyways, in thanks for participating in my RfA, here's your very own personal humanoid robot. Enjoy! --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 14:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was comprehensible to me; just not well-formatted. Could you please undelete it and I will fix it up like 2007 CFL Draft. It would be good to encourage new contributors like the one who submitted this. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk)22:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, did I tag WSAN (FM) for deletion? I know I tagged the talk page but I never intended to have the redirect page deleted. It has some edit history that couldn't be merged with the main article. Is there a way to bring that edit history back? Sorry if I did accidentally tagged that page. I didn't mean to. RobDe68 (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please send me a link to the cite web bot again? I have somehow deleted it from my talk page and it was awefully useful. I am creating some new articles and need it. Thanks Canyouhearmenow14:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree strongly with many of the changes you, they don't make sense to me. Can we talk about it at the FAC? I've outlined everything there. VanTucky03:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm 180px (standard thumb size) and Firefox as well. It looked okay, but it still violated MOS#Images; you simply can't have a left aligned image that moves the text away from the header. I have tried simply inverting the left-right alignment of the first ones, tell me what you think... VanTucky17:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to figure out how I can connect my wiki commons account with my wikipedia account. I cannot figure it out. The reason being; I would want it to show that I am active in uploading to wiki commons and artwork. As it stand now, it does not show that I am active in that area. Can you help? Canyouhearmenow22:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK thank you! It is not so much for an RFA purpose as it is a way for me to watch what I am doing without having to switch between the two databases. That is a little tiring. I have been going through my personal photos and adding the ones I have taken so I can include them in articles that I have created. I guess that is the reason why I cannot find the info! LOL I hope you are doing well! Canyouhearmenow22:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen The Austin Powers movies? You're like the guy in that movie that has to answer a question if he's asked it 3 times. Instead I just ask 2x and you change the article :). I think it makes sense to mention Varanidae because it is used later in the article. Maybe it should be mentioned in the initial sentence? example from cougar: "The cougar (Puma concolor), also puma, mountain lion, or panther, is a mammal of the Felidae family, native to the Americas.". This sentence sounds strange to me: "A monitor lizard, it is the largest li...". I think it's nice to have both mentioned but it just might take some tweaking to make it flow well. Thanks for all your hard work on this article, it will be a great addition to the FA animal articles. -Ravedave (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for deleting a duplicate copy Image:Devanagari INSCRIPT2.png! But there is a problem now: after you a robot commented out the uses of it [2]; so, since they were commented out, they can't be detected automatically at [3] and "redirected" to the remaining copy. (But I hope that was the only use; so no real reason to worry in this case.) But in future this might happen again.--Imz (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I gave up Wikipedia for Lent you see... Things will change, already I have a long list of things I intend to do. (AFDs, FAs and so forth) Marlith (Talk)16:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good afternoon, I marked WikiProject Musical Instruments inactive because their doesn't seem to be anything going on over there, but I noticed that you were recently active at least on the project talk page. I'm beginning work to bring Musical instrument up to FA status. It will be a long road. If you are willing to lend a hand, please see the Talk page of that article. I am trying to build a working outline and bibliography. You could grab a heading or two to work on, or maybe just add any good sources you know about to the biblio. Thanks --Laser brain(talk)19:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was reviewing the same image as you when you deleted it, except I came to the opposite conclusion so I was wondering if you could tell me why you deleted Image:incline.gif, I-1 only applies to the same file format doesn't it and the other image is a .svg not a .gif - Also the other image isn't on Wikipedia it's on Commons.--Doug.(talk • contribs)19:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heyo. You were lead to believe a few weeks ago that deletion of the article Son of Stimpy, a recreation a material deleted at AFD, is prohibited by Arbcom injunction. The injunction only applied during the duration of the case, which concluded before you deleted the article the first time. The article meets WP:CSD#G4, and if Catchpole wishes to restore it, he will have to demonstrate consensus to do so at DRV. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 19:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I admit it was me messing with the velvet revolver page... i didn't know it was that bad... just experimenting
if you have any more problems please educate me
from
-sexyuser —Preceding unsigned comment added by SexyUser (talk • contribs) 01:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Human. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. kthx. Sceptre(talk)02:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Bud! I wanted to let you know I have been doing some heavy work on mainspace with the Lucille Ball article and getting it ready for GAstatus. I went in a reformatted a lot of things. Would you mind looking at it and telling me what you think? I have nominated it already as I feel it is in good article condition, but I would like an opinion. I could brush up a few things if you see something. Canyouhearmenow03:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have not been feeling very well. I think I had the flu and I certainly didn't feel like even looking at a computer! I have removed the bullets and put everything into a paragraph format. I hope that works. I also went through and polished up the reference section. I added a great deal of sourcing to this article and I sure hope that someone will appreciate it! LOL That was a lot of research. Talk to you later Canyouhearmenow05:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok..Ok.. If anyone should say that this article is not referenced, I will just kill over! I have spent almost 5 hours going through and referencing every single thing in this article! You know I may just have to give myself a Barnstar!!! I deserve it after this task! LOL just kidding. Anyway, will you look at it and tell me what you think? I think that even you may be impressed with the way this article has shaped up. I am very proud of it. Thanks Canyouhearmenow14:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Bud, I wanted to let you know that I have been working so hard on this Lucille Ball article. I have gone through and rewritten a lot of it and sourced it out the wazoo. If you get a chance can you take a look at it and tell me what you think? I am very proud of this one. I know you wont hold back, but plese be gentle as I am sensitive! LOL Canyouhearmenow15:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was planning on using the template for the ISBN, I just had not gotten around to it because the reviewing editor gave me a huge list of things to be done. I have been plugging away at it piece by piece. How do you like the header? I rewrote it and extended it. IMHO I think it looks pretty good. If it needs anything, I think it would probably be more on the I Love Lucy show and her being a major studio head. However, I think that developes in the article, so I did not put that in. I will if you think it needs it. But, all in all, what do you think about what I have done? Canyouhearmenow22:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are my teacher! Of course I would love it if you would help me. Anything you see the article needs, please feel free to edit it in a fashion you should see fit. I think the header is head on and I am not sure of anything I could do to make it any better. So, if you see something that would make it better, by all means have at it. Thank you Canyouhearmenow23:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bibliomaniac15, and thank you for your kind and very unexpected offer to nominate me for adminship. This is not something I have sought, hence my surprise, but after taking some time to consider your offer I would be honoured to accept the nomination. Thank you once again, EyeSerenetalk18:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Son of Stimpy. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Catchpole (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A quick note; I will probably support but I suggest you don't transclude with existing supports. I believe that has caused trouble in the past. I haven't dug up the history because I wanted to drop you a quick note but can do so if you like. Mike Christie(talk)23:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't bother me either, but I wanted to make sure you were aware of the possibility. You caught me just as I was about to post a support, so I'll head over there now. Mike Christie(talk)02:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Biblimaniac, I wanted to apologize for my most recent edit to EyeSerene's RfA. I am of the opinion that the question about Cool Down Blocks is not a very useful question, and so I subverted the question. By doing so, I caused at least one editor who otherwise would have supported to go neutral. Obviously, damaging EyeSerene's prospects was not my goal (I'm aware of what a good editor he is), and I should have been able to predict the consequence of my action. I really do feel awful for having made such a rash and immature mistake. --JayHenry (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue had already been raised at WT:RFA and you are absolutely correct that I should have discussed the issue there instead. I absolutely should have known better and I really am sorry. --JayHenry (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jay - while I was rather upset myself about users other than the candidate answering the question, I do agree that the type of questions being asked are well... (as Majorly put it) crap. I think we all understand where you are coming from, and an apology is really not needed. I see it as a learning experience, and who knows maybe a new addition to WP:RFA will ba added in reference to questions. Overall, it does not appear to have effected the RfA too much, and I really see no harm done. Tiptoetytalk02:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 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 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!
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.
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.
Thank you for the comments. Did you see anything else that needed addressing to this article that I missed? What is the normal procedure for On Hold? I was referring to my FA knowledge when saying the article is On Hold. I can go back and change it to failed if this article is not complete enough. Lastly, I used the GA template, but the after effect looks bad? Any quick tips to ensure it looks good when I use it? Thanks again, PGPirate19:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure to contact regarding this matter, but I saw that you are a pretty active wikipedian and so I thought I would ask. I am very tired of the crappy search engine that wikipedia uses. Is there not some way to mimic google's search where if you misspell something it asks you "Did you mean _____?" or displays close matches to what you are trying to say? If I am unsure how to spell something, it come back blank and then I search google, it finds what I mean, I click yes and then the wikipedia entry comes up on google. Is there anything that can be done?
Hey bud, can you please look at this issue here [4]? These two editors are just at each other and each one are very close to committing the 3RR rule violation. One feels that the source is not appropriate and the other one continues to remove it. Maybe you can see how you feel about it.. Thanks Canyouhearmenow01:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lawd, this one is a mess. Neither one of these editors want to move on this subject, so I just went ahead and found the reference and fixed it myself and told them both to just get off of each others bumpers. I even gave them the cite web template you gave me so that they could reference the source correctly and one of them continues to send the link to a site with an excel spread sheet. I think I have maintained civility pretty well, but you may want to check and make sure I have not fallen off the wagon or need a support group that promises a chip after a 12 step program! Canyouhearmenow14:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elections are now taking place for coordinators of the project for the next six months. Any editors interested in seeking a coordinator position, or who want a say in who is selected, should indicate as much here.
Member news
The project has currently 381 members, 69 joined & 0 leavers since the start of March 2008.
Other news
The project's long-time lead coordinator, Kevinalewis, has announced he is not standing as a candidate for another term in that capacity. We would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to him for the extraordinary work he has done for this project.
Welcome to the Twenty Third issue of the Novels WikiProject's newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do.
We would encourage all members to get more involved and if you are wondering what with, please ask.
Last month's challenge (South Wind) was completed by member User:Blathnaid with a nice starting stub.
The first person to start the article is mentioned in the next newsletter. This month's article is Kate Christensen's 2008 PEN/Faulkner award winner The Great Man.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
Sounds great, and I just wanted to say thanks for being a great coach. As for the date of a nomination, I think I'd like to wait until June. That way, I can get in around 6 weeks of good experience in more Wikipedia-space work. Anyway, have a great day, and we'll keep in touch! Mastrchf91 (t/c) 21:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a cookie for your AWESOME signature - inspired by what I landed on when I clicked on the "lazy" thingy. (imagine the odds of me landing on cookie from Special:Random) J.delanoygabsadds00:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
J.delanoygabsadds has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
...for the confidence you showed in me, by nominating me for my RFA, which closed with 85 supports, 2 neutrals and 1 oppose. I'm extremely grateful for all the the kind comments from so many brilliant Wikipedians I've come to respect and admire, as well as many others I've not yet had the pleasure of working with, and I'll do my best to put my shiny new mop and bucket to good use! As you advise though, I won't be in too much of a hurry to see what all those buttons do! Once again, thank you ;) EyeSerenetalk16:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Bud, I think if you look at my current history you will find out that I have been very busy lately. I have had to have the Lucille Ball page semi-protected. Someone put an unsubstantiated rumor on the David L Cook page and I had to have that removed by oversight. I have continually had to argue with one editor over a source they wanted to put on the Lucy page that was a subscription page and they just could not understand why I would not allow their edit to remain. So, I say that to say this. I have rewritten the header to the Lucy page and I would like for you to look at it and tell me what you tinhk. I took a totally different road with it, but I did it. I also merged the radio career into the main body like you had suggested. Is there any rest for the weary? Does wikipedia have a page that describes how this can be accomplished without being guilty of a POV or an administration violation? If so can you send me a link! LOL Thanks for everything bud Canyouhearmenow03:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I actually went on AIV to report the user and the Admin suggested that because they are an IP address that he semi protect the page. So, it was the admin that did that, not me. As far as all of the editing, I am ok with all of that. It is just the little things that people throw at you that keeps you moving along. I am not really complaining as much as I am kidding around with you. Although it may sound like it! Canyouhearmenow03:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I would drop by and let you know that we finally got Lucille Ball to GAstatus! I am so excited and proud. I really worked hard on this one. I want to thank you for all of your help and patience while i fumbled around with it! You are a true Wiki friend! Canyouhearmenow03:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think you could be brave enough to help me through another one? I am thinking about tackling the Bob Hope or Jerry Lewis article. I think I will look at them and see which one would be the easiest to polish up first. Canyouhearmenow03:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your kind offer. I have already had one offer via email from another admin which I have accepted; however this person is yet to respond to confirm the whole arrangement. If that all falls through, I would be honoured to have you as my coach. Lankiveil(speak to me)09:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Can you possibly take the lead? Uni means I'll be relegated to a second fiddle role. I'll be happy to just drop by occasionally and comment, if that's OK with you. Thanks, Daniel (talk)
Hi, I have been working on the coaching at User:Lankiveil/Admin coaching. I'm sure there is room for improvement (and I hope to have at least a GA or FA against my name before making the big run), so please let me know! With regards to Daniel, I'll ask him what's going on next time I see him on IRC, but as it doesn't seem like he's about for now, I'm happy to start off without him. Lankiveil(speak to me)11:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Hey Bibliomaniac15, I'm not the poster but the orgasm question doesn't violate any guidelines. Friday's reason for removing "this is unlikely to head anywhere productive" seems a little subjective, and there is far worse on the page.
Ah, that explains it, though even before the alternate account was created, some people thought I was female. :) I see it as a compliment. :) I like the "rushing to support" as well. :) Acalamari20:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why, thank you for the polite decline. However, a time will come by the end of 2008 when I might want to ask again. Should that be appropriate? Because you sem like a very good administrator.
Another note: I really don't think that all of my priority on the wiki is social. I am trying not to be a bad editor and use the wiki for social reasons. Good evening/morning/afternoon, and keep up the good work! ♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥00:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky
revert of vandalism on Roll of Thunder Hear My Cry
I tried to make a good faith revert of earlier vandalism and in error i did not chek the version I reverted to. Please make sure that this will not damage my reputation. the first edit on my IP address user was not done by me. This is a dynamic IP address with Comcast and one's IP address can change after power outages. could you put a note on my talk page explaining to others what happened? --68.45.82.237 (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am doing a project for class and need to write a wikipedia article I was wondering if you could describe to me what goes into an article to make it successful on wikipedia.
Hey there, I see that you are an admin coach and have had many successful coachees. I have recently applied to have an admin coach and my question to you is...is there any way I can request that you become my admin coach? I can tell that your system works, and I'd really like to become and admin someday. Please contact me back at my talk page. Cheers! iMatthew200811:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went through an RfA a little less than two months ago, and it was an abysmal failure (see here). At the suggestion of a couple of users, I have been working to contribute more content (i.e. mainspace edits) to the encyclopedia, whereas my major contributions to the project previously were (and to a lesser extent still are) new page patrolling, AfD, abuse reports, and other areas that do not always show up right away when measuring a user's experience. I would love to serve the community as a sysop, the tools would assist me as as a NPP, clearing backlogs (particularly in AfD), and fighting vandalism (I make regular reports to WP:AIV and WP:UAA). I saw your name listed as an admin coach, and was wondering if you'd be willing to help me? If you are unable, is there anyone you could suggest I go to? Thanks so much for your time Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message about the recording! I'm not heading to RfA again anytime soon, and that wasn't what I meant request for coaching as, (especially considering that the many of successful candidates I've encountered have contributed for several years on the project and upwards of 10,000 mainspace edits). I was only looking for an honest evaluation of where I need to grow the most if I'd like to accept an RfA nomination down the road. Sorry if I wasted your time. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thank you for your opinion. I must, however, respectfully disagree. It's very notable, but the question after that is a matter of necessity. Does Pokémon Yellow need to be split off from Red and Blue? No, because even the two articles combined doesn't boost the kb size too much. On top of this, it makes both articles more featurable, and if you worked on Yellow for so long, people would merely react to it and complain that the content is similar - like Emerald and Crystal, the article is composed of modified gameplay and plot sections, modified to add in the changes made in these games. - A Link to the Past(talk)01:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliomaniac15...Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. Through it I have become aware of a great many people who can help me in my future editing endeavors. Even though I was not promoted, your support shows that I still have something to contribute to Wikipedia, even if it is minor edits to fix spelling and grammar to working in WikiProjects to help others make great articles. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 04:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been deleting most of them, but when I see an odd one, like where people voted or where the contributor is still active, I was MFDing. I'll know just to delete in the future. Thanks. MBisanztalk20:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed unanimously with the support of 100 editors. Your kindness is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Wizardman, Black Falcon and jc37 for nominating me. — Horologium
Hey there. I wanted to know if you would possibly become my admin coach. I am still a relatively new wikipedia user, but since joining the community, I have been very active. I think I have a lot to give and one day in the future, I would like to become an administrator, but there are still a lot of areas that I need more experience and support in and that is where i hoped that you could come in. I have been adopted by useight and he reccommended you. Thanks a lot for your time.Londonfella (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks a lot for getting back to me so quickly and I appreciate your honesty. I will take all your comments on board and hopefully come back when I have gained more experience. Londonfella (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 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).
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:
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:Good articles without topic parameter 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.
...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.
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than waiting a week for you to return, I'm dropping a note in now. I think I've dealt with all the missing citations you picked up in the review. And thanks for picking up the GAN so fast, I was expecting to wait quite a while. -- Sabre (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Biblomaniac15,
Thank you for the rollback feature. Not quite sure what it entails, but the article pages on it seem very informative. I'm sure it'll help with reverting vandalism. All the best, Mark t young (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I see that you deleted the image that I uploaded (Image:San Isidro-Lima), and I understand there are guidlines and regulations pertaining to the uploading of images on Wikipedia, however you did not leave an explanation on my talkpage for the cause of the deletion as for me to see if there would be an opportunity to find out what was done incorrectly, and possibly re-upload it with the correct license. I would appreciate it if you would do this as to correct this incident.
You deleted an earlier version of Autobytel created by another editor. I wanted to let you know that I found some useful references about the company and added them to the article. I think the article now establishes notability. --Eastmain (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added the link so that you can Undelete! MAY 7th 2008 Would You Please Undelete
Visit this site: http://horaciozambrana.ning.com/ The article Horacio Zambrana was deleted and I placed a reason on the talk page explaining why it should not be deleted. I just joined today. Would you please tell me why the article Horacio Zambrana was deleted? And could you please undelete it?Hzambrana (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I Think I Understand A Little More About Notability Now.
Well, this is the only site for him (Horacio Zambran). So I guess it should be kept deleted. Thanks for helping me figure out whether this person should be added to wikipedia. Maybe in the future when he is more notable, I'll redo the article. Thanks again!Hzambrana (talk) 05:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bibliomaniac15, I was wondering if you could help me get even more experienced on the English Wikipedia. If you could somehow keep a eye on me, ask me questions about that policy, what action would you do for example. Thank you, I hope I'm not bothering you with this message. Best regards --Kanonkas : Take Contact 15:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - Could you please tell me more about your deletion of this page? This book is an important work by a nationally known author with who has dedicated his life to reducing the incidence of preventable medical errors in the USA. Every source is properly cited - His work is every bit as important as
How can I make it not blatant advertising in your view? Let me post the article here for your review:
<removed for ease of access>
Thanks for some feedback. Specifics would be very appreciated.
Please excuse the length of the subsequent rant, for it is quite rant-like, overzealous and under-specific. I'm also certain the grammar is wrong too - I was a little tired when writing it!
I realise that the CSD are quite strict, and for good reason, but I couldn't help but feel that this image should be deleted. I am aware that the author has not tagged it and thus it will, assuming status quo, be deleted. My case is that the image has no content, no referencing articles, for it has no essentially nonsensical and serves no purpose. It is clear that the image is just the natural logarthim, ln(x). I do not see any possible argument for keeping this image at all, especially when you consider that the user appears to have been registered just to post nonsense (which has been deleted from other talk pages prior to this.
I don't see that there is a need for a reply to this post, but I guess my original action as well as my current writing is born (borne?) from a mixture of several policies and their intent. WP:SNOW says that if something is obvious to everyone, just do it, don't wait for arbitrary time delays; whilst this policy is targeted at group behaviour, the concept of action before administration is the underlying concept with the SNOW policy encompassing a particular case of this concept. Secondly,WP:IAR - this is a risky policy to invoke, but nevertheless I shall attempt to do so - "There's way too much red tape on wiki. Sometimes that tape is rather sticky" Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/Versions is an embodiment of the concept that if red tape is preventing you from making a clearly required move, ignore the policy or guideline and perform the needed action. I believe this is pertinent in this situation.
By combining these two concurrent ideas in two separate policies it is evident that action is how one may improve wikipedia. Where no arguments, even of limited plausibility, can be constructed to oppose actions - action should be the path taken.
My comment is it is clear that the image should be deleted, but nor does it fall into CSD squarely. As an alternative to removing the tag, two options may be worth consideration - the image could have been transferred to ifd, rather than straight ifd tag removal or alternatively it could have been speedily deleted, possibly after conferring with other speedy deletion editors despite not being directly under a named criteria. To place a final overarching phrase; probably containing more force than I wish it to: I feel the clear path of action was not taken as the letter of the law was not engaged, wherase the spirit of the law, namely ifd, was.
My apologies for being critical, and no replies are necessary for this post - just another viewpoint. Kind regards User A1 (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The May 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. SteveCrossinBot (talk) 07:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![[3]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Image:Devanagari_INSCRIPT2.png){kind=link}
