Was wondering about the deletion of the Brainburst entry. You wrote "Web content; doesn't indicate importance/significance." I am confused, as I thought the entry did exactly that. Unfortunately, I did not expect it to be deleted so quickly and I was not able to capture the source code (and if you could guide me to where I could get the source code so that I may take it to the Drawing Board forum, I would appreciate it).
Can you explain to me how it was not notable? I would like to know what I did wrong so that future entries can adhere to the wikipedia notability standards.
Why did you just delete Love Systems? I was just going to put up the link to the Dr Phil show that everyone was asking for. I'm following the directions - get more notable references - and the page with Nick Savoy which had the exact same issue was just voted to be kept. Camera123456 (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC) (Transcribed by —Animum (talk) 00:32, 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.
Thanks for responding on my talk page! It's great to see a polite admin :)
Anyway, I'm surprised you saw a consensus to delete on that page, but that's not really the point. People said they would switch if someone produced important 3rd party sources. In addition to CBS national radio and Fox News and Keys to the VIP, I had just found that morning that Love Systems is featured on April 11th on the Dr Phil show (an extremely well-known US TV show). I was about to add that to the record.
Is there any way to reopen the debate with that information? I'd hate to see all my work having gone to waste.
Thanks for your comments on my talk page. Yes, please restore the Love Systems page. I'd like to add the extra sources and then try again.
However, another situation happened - the Nick Savoy page was approved and then deleted. Even though even the "negative" posters agreed that it could be kept (see my talk page).
I worked really hard on these and I believe they are backed up by third party sources (The Dr Phil show, Keys to the VIP, CBS national, Fox Regional, The Globe and Mail, etc.)
Is there an admin I can work with to do this properly, without inviting abuse? :)
Thanks for restoring the article. Were you able to restore both? And how do I get to where they are? Final question (and I'm truly grateful for your patience) - there's an admin who just has it in for anythign I write and has repeatedly accused me of being or operating a dozen or so sock puppets without evidence...is there a procedure to work with a (different) admin to try to respectfully build a page and avoid one admin's vendetta? (I'm not the only one he's targetted; his talk page is full of people complaining about him). I'm newish here and he's just been ambushing me. Camera123456 (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
REPLY ***
Yes, please if I could have both pages so I can repost them when that admin stops stalking me and accusing me of being everyone's sock puppet. That admin is Rhaworth - check out his talk page (and mine). I don't know if he has a political agenda (the topic is very political) but it feels like it. I don't want to change wikipedia rules I just want to be able to operate fairly and without being stalked. IS there anything I can do or anyone I can appeal to? Or is it a king-of-the-hill kind of thing and I just have to wait until he gets bored? Camera123456 (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm afraid I'm currently too busy to take on any more review requests at this time. Good luck with the article, though! – Scartol • Tok01:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know that I have nominated Harry Potter for GA, and it is currently being reviewed. For more information on the review, please see Talk:Harry_Potter#GA_Review.
Hey Keilana, I want to thank you again for taking the time to admin coach me, it really helped me gain my confidence back with the tools. If you ever need my assistance please let me know, and I'll try my best to help. With my kindest regards. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk00:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although your deletion of the cabals was what I refer to as a "stupid" action considering it was not only against policy but a just set consensus, my proposal isn't just about that incident. It's about all such incidents, I just cited the most recent two. Lara❤Love00:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e17:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chaps mediation
Just an FYI that I have weighed in, finally. You may want to touch bases over there before we all start just spatting again, and let us know if you want additional information, etc. Montanabw(talk)04:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keilana, we appear to have a consensus or at least a majority vote, except the filing party has been offline since the 21st without comment, and the other party who hasn't polled on the issue is going to be offline indefinitely per her talk page. So to finalize and close this mediation, how long to we wait if some people do not weigh in in a timely fashion? Just wondering. Montanabw(talk)19:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you have a look at this by any chance?
I was speaking to my admin coach, User:MBisanz, about having an article I'm improving rated. He recommended you, but I don't want to bother you too much. But, if you could, would you be able to have a look at the Martha Logan article, and rate it? If it's not too much trouble. I'd really appreciate it. :) Steve Crossin(talk)(anon talk)08:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Even though it failed with 28 supports, 42 opposes, and 15 neutrals, I am grateful for the suggestions and advice I have received and I do hope to improve as a Wikipedian. If you ever need my help in any endeavor, feel free to drop me a line. --Sharkface21719:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help with the Simon Amstell page
Rachel Summers (talk) 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.
...for your participation in 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! Once again, thank you. "Absolute support"... I don't know what to say ;) EyeSerenetalk16:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have closed the DRV. No consensus was found to endorse your deletions, and you are so informed - this was not a particularly good application of WP:IAR. However, there is also not a consensus to restore the pages. To the extent there is a consensus, it is a consensus to use individual judgment. I've laid out in the DRV closure the path by which individual judgment is to be applied for this set of pages. GRBerry15:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
August 20
Thanks for deleting the latest attempt to add this new Birth. I undid two attempts yesterday by this user (from IP address 74.56.89.213) and put a comment on the user's talk page indicating that he would continue to be deleted. Not sure what we do from here. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I smell a previous cabal operator out for revenge. Equazcion•✗/C •03:28, 18 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Yay. He's wrong about one thing, that block button is mighty handy... Equazcion, he's this vandal I've been reverting lately, I doubt anyone's connected to the cabal people. Keilana|Parlez ici03:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering about those too. Rather strange that that'd be included in web fonts. I can't imagine why anyone would ever need it as a typable character, aside from uses such as this. Equazcion•✗/C •03:43, 18 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Hi, why have you removed the image I have added to Grove Park railway station? It shows the station, and I had it to the correct size to fit on the page (after adding the 300px thing, which I forgot.)
Please feel free to add it back if you decide it is actually suitable.
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
Thank you for putting up the 24 hour block due to 163.153.27.216's recent edits. This address is NAT'd and the edits came from multiple students. The district reports that they have identified the class that it came from and that the teacher is being notified of this improper use. --NERIC-Security (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you meant to do this, but you've just removed the entire history of your talk page. While you do have talk archives, sometimes people use diffs when referring to specific comments, and it also removes a level of verifiability when it comes to the accuracy of the comments. -- Ned Scott04:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm complaining or feel strongly about it. To be honest I'm not even sure why your talk page triggered my watch list. I also see you have a RTV note on the top of the page, and if this is related to that, I apologies. -- Ned Scott04:56, 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.
From my understanding of Right to vanish this is a right extended to users that elect to exercise their right to leave. Ie. since you are still active you should not be allowed to disassociate yourself from your previous edits. Taemyr (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of her edits are still there in her history. She has merely vanished from her older name to her current name. She has not disassociated herself with any former activities. MBisanztalk03:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
