Sure. You'll be writing the lead, then, and I'll copyedit? By the way, an article that you wrote is at GAR, and I've addressed most of the issues brought up; see here: it would be helpful if you provided page numbers and explained the scope. I've commented in the main text where page numbers would be helpful in the form of a <!-- NEEDS PAGE NUMBER -->. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, no. Not the part about you writing the lead, the part about English cannon. Sorry about the confusion again... you're perfectly welcome to write the lead. ;) Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have reverted the removal of conspicuous nonsense. See [1] and the talk page of that article. You're not the only one. Fortunately, Geni fixed it, and I've semi-protected the article for a while. DGG (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone who participated in my RfA, regardless of their !vote. I have withdrawn the nomination as a failure at 19 supports, 45 opposes, and 9 neutral statements.
As has been written and sung, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need — and what I need is to go back to working on our shared project. Not everyone has to be an admin; there is a role for each of us. After reflection, I feel I don't have the temperament to secure community consensus as an admin at any point, and I will not be applying again in the future — and hey, that's all right, 'cause I stay true to the philosophy that adminship is no big deal: I tried, I failed, and now I'll return to doing what I've always done. I have an extremely strong belief in the consensus process, and the consensus was clear. I will be devoting my energies to volunteering at MedCab and working up a complete series of articles on the short stories of Ernest Hemingway, among lord knows what else. Thanks again to everyone who spared the time to weigh in on this one. It was made in better faith than it probably seemed. Mr. IP《Defender of Open Editing》14:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks for the great support at my RfA. I really appreciate the time you took to review my contribs under this account. As it turns out, I won't be serving the community in an admin capacity - maybe for the best - but I will definitely keep looking for every other way to help, and look forward to working with such diligent and open-minded editors in the future. Cheers! Mr. IP《Defender of Open Editing》14:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 4,675 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 141 unreviewed articles. Out of 186 total nominations, 28 are on hold, 14 are under review, and 3 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 (28 articles), Sports and recreation (27 articles), Music (22 articles), Transport (18 articles), and War and military (13 articles).
There are currently 4 articles up for re-review at Good Article Reassessment. Congratulations! There really is no "backlog" here! :-)
GA Sweeps is Recruiting Reviewers
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
ThinkBlue (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for July, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. ThinkBlue had a whopping 49 reviews during the month of July! ThinkBlue was also one of our two reviewers of the month from June, and has been editing Wikipedia since December 1, 2006, and is interested in articles dealing with Friends, Will and Grace, CSI:Miami, Monday Night Raw, Coldplay.
Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of July 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 Sweeps Process
The GA Sweeps process has recently reached its first year anniversary. If you are unaware of what GA Sweeps is, it is a process put in place to help ensure the integrity of the ever-growing number of GAs, by determining if the articles still meet the GA criteria. Experienced reviewers check each article, improving articles as they review them, and delisting those that no longer meet the criteria. Reviewers work on a specific category of GAs, and there are still many categories that need to be swept. In order to properly keep track of reviews, a set date was used to determine what articles needed to be reviewed (since any future GAs would be passed according to the most recent GA criteria).
The number of GAs that were to be reviewed totals 2,808. Since the beginning of Sweeps, the progress has reviewed 981 by the end of July 2008 (or exempted them). For a table and chart breakdown of the current progress, see here.
With more than twenty editors reviewing the articles, progress is currently a third of the way done. At this rate, it will take another two years to complete the Sweeps, and active involvement is imperative to completing on time. We are always looking for new reviewers, and if you are interested in helping in speeding up the Sweeps process and improving your reviewing skills, please contact OhanaUnited.
Did You Know...
... that the goal of GA Sweeps is to reviewed all articles listed before 26 August2007?
... that the entire category of, "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" has been swept?
... that of all subcategories, "Recordings, compositions and performances" in the Music category has the most articles (240 articles in total)?
I note that you are an admin and have posted a vandalism warning to IP User 78.144.209.229 for bad edits to Charlton Heston among others. 78.144.209.229 is back at it after having been banned - see this edit on Heston:
Dreadstar† 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.
A tag has been placed on SierraSil, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. StickyParkin17:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was an article you moved to someone's userspace so the system/twinkle has decided you wrote it fr some reason:) I'll notify the 'real' author too. StickyParkin17:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOT NEW
I understand that you left a message on my talk page. For your info, I am not new! I have been on wikipedia since august 22 2008. I just was not logged on!Nosebutton (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
User:Keilana/Archive10 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Keilana/Archive10's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Keilana/Archive10!
I was working on a "company page" and I wanted to make sure Wikipedia several admins would approve the page. Whenever you have time, could you give me some pointers on how to improve the page? The page has to go through a DRV before it can get back up. Any feedback is much appreciated!
Keilana, I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year. Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future. Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)
Hello, On behalf of the concerned parties in the mediation case of The Man Who Would Be Queen. I know that none of you have to accept our case. I felt that asking all of you would be the best first approach. If you have any interest in mediating for us, or not, please indicate this on the talk page of the mediation case. If you are outright interested, want to mediate this case, and need no other convincing then please indicate that as well and we can get the ball rolling. If not we will not bother you anymore. Thankyou. --Hfarmer (talk) 08:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I may add to what Hfarmer wrote above, we very much need your help. As a group, we have had an enormous number of disputes on a set of related pages, and parts of this dispute have even put WP in The New York Times. The pages themselves remain an embarrassment to WP, and I hope you can help us solve our long-standing impasse for our own good as well as for WP's.
I can’t imagine what you or any other mediator uses in deciding which cases to take. I can’t say that the specific issues we need help addressing are novel (COI, incivility, etc.); however, I do have some confidence that most people would find the subject matter rather engaging. Such issues include the nature of transsexuality, the controversies between how (some) scientists describes transsexuality versus how (some) transsexual activists describe transsexuality, a book on the topic that immediately became wildly controversial, and the individual activists and scientists involved (some of whom participate here), all of which became quite ugly. The most complete (yet brief) description of where we now stand (in my opinion) is here.
Thank you for your attention, and I hope you can help us to resolve this wide-ranging problem.
My apologies to you and those who are involved in your dispute, but I'm swamped right now and wouldn't be able to take the time with your case. Best of luck to all of you. Keilana|Parlez ici02:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Mediation request for article on Rick Warren re controversy over his position on gay rights
Greetings Keilana. I'm party to an open task mediation described here. Because you're an active mediator who has experience working on cultural issues, I think you might be able to help us work together to resolve our disagreements. Please consider taking the case. Thank you. Benccc (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.
We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Keilana — I think that 9/11 Truth Movement should be moved to 9/11 Truth movement, as it describes a social phenomenon, not an organization. While a number of sources call it "9/11 Truth Movement", they do not specifically say that it is generally being called so. However, a long article in the Financial Times says that the people supporting these views are "an army of sceptics, collectively described as the 9/11 Truth movement" [2]. Could you unprotect the page, or possibly make the move yourself? — Regards. Cs32en12:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— 16 March 2009
