The case is currently at the final stage of Mediation, at which parties are invited to post "Suggested Edits" which they wish to implement into one of the involved articles, as well as to support, oppose or propose amendments to existing suggestions. Further instructions are given at the Mediation location.
This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams202000:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interdictor Blog
Hey Dick, thanks for cleaning it up. I didn't think it appropriate for me to edit an article about my blog anymore than I already had (mostly eliminated vandilism). See you on the list. Ikilled00710:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No sweat. I tell people about that escapade of yours all the time, so I was interested in getting it cleaned up anyway. You know, I had lunch with your dad and Walter a number of times that semester when they were in Auburn after Katrina. DickClarkMises23:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for leaving me a note on my talk page. Yes., i agree that the reviewed might not be 100% correct all the time and so i will await your response to the comments. Cheers Kalyan16:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please forward the permission to permissions@wikimedia.org. Make sure that the permission specifiec that anyone (including outside wikipedia) may use the image. Also make sure that Misis.org in the permisssion clearly state that they are in fact the copyright owners of the work. /Lokal_Profil11:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It strikes me as a bit silly to require that I email permissions to the OTRS people every time I upload an image from Mises.org. I have uploaded at least a couple score of images from that source and released them under the GFDL. I am not sure why each release should require me to go and confirm my own action. This is not the first, or even second, time that I have confirmed a GFDL release of such content. I think this is an issue governed by WP:AGF, especially when we are talking about users like myself who have confirmed that they are authorized to release images from a particular source. Has there been a complaint about this image, or any other image that I have contributed? DickClarkMises19:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AGF concerns us believing whether or not you believed that the image was free. AGF doesn't apply to whether or not the image is actually free though. Since that is a legal question we may not assume GF. What you can do is either bunch all of the filenames up in one e-mail, and thus have them all covered by the same permission. Alternatively you can try and get a blanket permission to cover all images from that webpage, and then add that OTRS ticket # to all the affected images. /Lokal_Profil23:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged most of the images that I've uploaded from Mises.org with the newest OTRS ticket number, so that should resolve this issue, I think. DickClarkMises14:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any knowledge of Jeremy Sapienza? The article about him has been nominated for deletion. I've worked on it over the years, but it was never adequately sourced and that's a cause for deletion. The subject was also a contributor, as I recall. Anyway, I never cared about it much one way or another, but you may have more perspective. Cheers, ·:· Will Beback·:·20:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will, I know of Sapienza through Bob Murphy both because Bob used to frequently address Sapienza's arguments at anti-state.com and because Sapienza wrote the introduction to Bob's first book, Chaos Theory. I did a cursory search for third party sources, and initially just found a few remarks by Bob. I think these probably confer notability, but I don't have time to revise the article too heavily right now. I'll drop some sources at the AfD and hope someone else picks them up and runs with them. Cheers, DickClarkMises15:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your welcome. I don't know if its coincidence that it is you who welcomes me, but when I saw your user name I had to take a look at your user page.
I cannot contribute much at en:wiki as my english is rather poor but I'm trying to make interwiki links to and from pl:wiki especially with articles connected with Austrian School as since some time ago I'm humbly trying to develop those categories pl:Kategoria:Szkoła austriacka, pl:Kategoria:Przedstawiciele szkoły austriackiej on polish wikipedia.
Thanks again for your welcome! Best wishes and sorry for my poor english... --Marioosz23:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You for Your answer. So it wasn't just a coincidence :) Of course I know Mateusz Machaj from his activities on promotion of the Austrian School in Poland. He is the founder of polish Ludwig von Mises Institute Foundation and he's doing a great job publishing many articles about Austrian School. I am just a humble enthusiast of economy and AS but I contacted him via email in purpose to get some advices needed to edit articles on polish wikipedia :) Cheers, Marioosz16:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you stop by here and weigh in on an article about an Alabama lobbying group? The AfD is getting down to the wire and we don't have consensus. I'd prefer either "delete" or "keep" to "No consensus," especially as this is a second nomination. If you know other active editors who may have a view, please invite them also. Thanks. -- Rob C (Alarob)16:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editor review
Two months ago, after I reviewed you, you left a question, "other reviews?" which went unanswered. I would encourage you to consider a second editor review if you would like more advice. ShalomHello07:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Jimbo seems to have blocked me for replacing an image of George Reisman. This image was released to the Mises Institute and I have been authorized by the institute to release Mises.org content under the GFDL. I am a little unclear what the problem is, since I tagged the new upload with the OTRS ticket number that was issued for other Mises.org content. If there is some other problem, I was unaware of it, and, frankly, I wouldn't have replaced the image if any reason had been given. My action was certainly taken in good faith, and I think this block was a little over-zealous. I am eager to hear why I was blocked. DickClarkMises 23:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'm not sure why he blocked, either, but I'll leave a msg on his talk page for you. The last time this happened it took him a few days to respond (he's a busy guy). I'm declining for now because it's Jimbo. Please be patient in the meantime! Thanks.— Chaser - T00:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Chaser, I understand your cautious posture on this. I generally trust Jimbo—I'd really just like to understand why he blocked me. If it was a mistake or misunderstanding because of, say, a poorly worded edit summary, great! If it wasn't a mistake, I'd like to know what I should have done differently. I've actually been out of town and away from my computer since Wednesday night, so I was rather shocked when I got blocked almost immediately after returning today (while working on unrelated material). Cheers, DickClarkMises00:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify; the block log says that you have been blocked for a week for "reinsertion of image contra otrs request". Apparently, there are issues with the image you tried to upload and OTRS have been involved - Alison☺00:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read the line in the block log. To better understand why I am confused, please see the following email I sent to Jimbo regarding my exchange with OTRS about this image. DickClarkMises:
Jimbo,
I have requested that your block of my account be reviewed. It seems that you blocked me
for uploading an image of [[George Reisman]]. I uploaded an image that was released to the
[[Mises Institute]] by Prof. Reisman. I have been authorized by [[Jeffrey Tucker]] to
release Mises.org content under the GFDL. I tagged the new image with the following OTRS
reference: https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=928593
While I don't expect you to take my word for it, I was not intentionally being contentious, but
rather attempting to provide a free image to better the project. What did I do wrong? There was
never any indication of what the problem was with this image. I include below a copy of a
12 June 2007 email from Mitch Hopper over at OTRS for your further consideration:
> Permissions <permissions@wikimedia.org>
> Dick Clark <clark@mises.org>
> Jun 12, 2007 8:42 AM
> Re: [Ticket#2007061110006913] Image:George_reisman.jpg
>
>Dear Dick Clark,
>
>Thank you for your mail.
>
>
>"Dick Clark" <clark@mises.org> wrote:
>
>> Please note that Image:George_reisman.jpg has been released by the [[Mises
>> Institute]] under the [[GFDL]] both for general use in Wikipedia and any
>> other use.
>>
>> (Query: Should I just go through and look up all the images I've uploaded
>> with permission from Mises.org and just send an email including all of them,
>> or is there some way to streamline this process? I have standing permission
>> from [[Jeffrey Tucker]] to release Mises.org images under the GFDL and I
>> regularly do so.)
>>
>> --
>> Dick Clark
>>
>
>We have received the permission for the image and have made the necessary
>modifications to the Image page.
>
>If you have other images, you can either reply to this E-mail and provide the
>URL or name of the image or add the text that I added to the image mentioned
>above to all the images yourself (this way will be faster). The text to add to
>the images is:
>{{PermissionOTRS|ticket=https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=928593}}
>Thank you for providing this to us, and for your contribution to Wikipedia.
>Yours sincerely,
>Mitch Hopper
Thank you for your reconsideration of this block.
Regards,
User:DickClarkMises
Dick Clark <crotalus@gmail.com>
Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com>
Jul 1, 2007 9:19 PM
Re: OTRS block
I responded at Gaillimh's talk page here, per his request in the edit summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gaillimh&oldid=140036262
I got no reply.
DCM
On 7/1/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com> wrote:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tibor_R._Machan&action=history
>
> is the reason you were blocked. You re-inserted an image without
> discussion, even though Gaillimh had removed it.
--
Dick Clark
Dick Clark <crotalus@gmail.com>
Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com>
Jul 1, 2007 9:29 PM
Re: OTRS block
Jimbo,
This image was created by Chad Parish, a Mises Institute employee. The image
was covered by the same OTRS ticket number I mentioned earlier. He offered
no rationale for the removal, so after asking for an explanation via the means
the editor specified, I replaced an image I knew to be free and that was
certified as such with the OTRS folks. I don't understand how or why the free
status of this image is being disputed.
I am not trying to be contentious here--I am just genuinely stumped.
Regards,
DCM
On 7/1/07, Jimmy Wales < jwales@wikia.com> wrote:
>
> And having gotten no reply, you chose to put it back anyway? Wrong
> answer.
Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com>
Dick Clark <crotalus@gmail.com>
Jul 1, 2007 9:38 PM
Re: OTRS block
I have unblocked you. NEVER EVER EVER revert an OTRS ticket unless
you have CONFIRMED that it is the right thing to do.
What Jimbo said, basically. Many OTRS tickets are issued for legal reasons & it's best to always check with them first. Jimbo's unblock message was, "time off for good behavior" :) Either way, if you've any issues or autoblock problems, just let me know - Alison☺02:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, OTRS had already been notified of the content release authorization. I checked with the editor who removed the image, got no response, and thus assumed that Gaillimh understood my rationale for replacing the image. Is it the case that any administrator's word can cause an image to be unreplaceable, even in the face of proper OTRS authorization? It seems like a terrible disincentive to the contribution of free content. The proper OTRS procedure was followed to begin with. If someone disputed my release, I should have been contacted as the authorized representative of LvMI who opened the OTRS ticket to begin with. I have been a contributor to this project since 03/2005, and I believe in it and want it to grow. Someone else though, who just came in to make free content available, would likely be very offended by this sort of treatment. This is an issue of great concern to me in light of WP:BITE, WP:AGF, etc. Were Gaillimh and Jimbo simply unaware of the previous OTRS ticket? Was there some later dispute that arose? No one seems to be willing to answer these questions about why the free status of this image was disputed in the first place. I've asked Gaillimh to reply here, but as of yet have received no answer. DickClarkMises02:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree. There were definitely wires crossed here somewheres. I'd say best wait until Gaillimh shows up here and you guys sort out what happened. In the meantime, feel free to edit away - Alison☺02:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there was a later ticket. The deletion log for the image and the removal of the image from the article both specify ticket #2007062210007884, while the email you pasted above specify an earlier ticket (#2007061110006913). So, I'd guess (and guessing is the only thing I can do with these tickets) that there was a later dispute/issue. --cesarb18:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I've responded to your e-mail. If you had e-mailed me earlier, as I mentioned in my edit summary, you would have received a more timely response. Also, it's bad form to post e-mails on-wiki like this, so I implore you to remove this content from your userpage, as the situation has been resolved. No worries, of course, it's just basic social graces. Cheers gaillimhConas tá tú?00:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I've not received your email. Could you try again, please? Also, could you refer me to an example discussion where the convention you mention is noted? My inclination is include all the discussion that took place. Had I not been blocked, the above emails would presumably have occurred on-wiki at a talk page. I'd like this to be an open process with no privileged communication. It is hard to collaborate if information is not available for other editors to review. DickClarkMises02:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, it seems as if you've now received my e-mail! Expect a follow-up from me in a few minutes. With regards to your concerns/comments here on this talk page, it's just basic social graces not to publish e-mails without the express consent of the other party or parties. This has nothing to do with clouding transparency or anything (in fact, feel free to publish my e-mails sans my address and name), but with proper behaviour. gaillimhConas tá tú?18:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, good catch on the category there! I was a tad sleepy, and guessed via caliber I think... Either way, THANKS! --SXT4021:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's always the 5.7 :) Hrm, n/m only the .gov is allowed to have effective rounds for that here in the US... --SXT4006:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive
A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.
Thanks for uploading Image:Cliffordstoll.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. howcheng {chat}06:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hoppe
Hi DickClarkMises, I just want to reiterate that I do not have a personal opinion of Mr. Hoppe, and am judging his Wikipedia page solely on the lack of peer praise, and secondary sources that claim Hoppe has had significant influence on the field of economics.
(As a complete aside, I can't help but notice the freakish similarities in our backgrounds. My undergraduate degree is in philosophy, I grew up a Suzuki practitioner, and I went to Hoover High School - but it was in Ohio.)
Removing warnings
I know it's frustrating when users remove properly-placed warnings from their user talk pages. However the general consensus in the community today is that such behavior is acceptable. See WP:USER#Removal of warnings. It does mean that subsequent visitors to the talk page have to check the history, but I think we've gotten used to that now. ·:· Will Beback·:·21:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I created a ruckus. It seems to me, though, that it may be a good idea to give a pre-warning to those of us unfamiliar with the mores of Wikipedia a pre-warning that certain behavior is considered unacceptable before a tag is placed on his or her Talk page. I had no idea reverting 3 times was a "bad" thing. I've reverted vandalism on other pages several times over. Thank you for your time, --Bremskraft21:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 3RR warning you received was the warning. The general practice is to warn before blocking. While removing properly-placed tags from your talk page is permitted, it isn't a sign of good faith either. I urge you to review the core policies of Wikipedia before editing as aggressively as you have recently. Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset Ignorance of the policies is a poor excuse for creating a "ruckus". ·:· Will Beback·:·21:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will Beback, thank you for linking to "core policies" page. I will be sure to read it thoroughly as time permits. However, I would like to say quickly that I have been civil and assumed good faith. I did not delete anything on the Hoppe page, or "aggressively edit" the Hoppe page, and I think I brought forward a legitimate issue. Please do not speak to me as though I am a child. It does not serve you well as an administrator. --Bremskraft23:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for uploading and donating the subject image in the 164×233×8 (30673 bytes) size. Would you still have the larger 415×593×8 (30912 bytes) size available for upload, and be willing to donate that, too? Thanks! — Jeff G.(talk|contribs)09:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Americans For Prosperity, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 207:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimania in Atlanta!
Hi! I noticed your involvement on U.S. South-related articles, categories and WikiProjects, and I wanted to let you know about a bid we're formulating to get next year's Wikimania held in Atlanta! If you would like to help, be sure to sign your name to the "In Atlanta" section of the Southeast team portion of the bid if you're in town, or to the "Outside Atlanta" section if you still want to help but don't live in the city or the suburbs. If you would like to contribute more, please write on my talk page, the talk page of the bid, or join us at the #wikimania-atlanta IRC chat on freenode.org. Have a great day!
P.S. While this is a template for maximum efficiency, I would appreciate a note on my talk page so I know you got the message, and what you think. This is time-sensitive, so your urgent cooperation is appreciated. :) Mike H.I did "That's hot" first!06:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for welcomming me to Wikipedia. I had some old messages, including a telling off because I am on a common line, can these be transfered to me now I've signed up to prevent other users at www.wjminvest.co.nz from seeing the talkpage when they use wikipedia? Thank you Fetu's dad23:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wp Alabama
Hi DickClarkMises! You are receiving this message because we've noticed your excellent edits on Alabama related articles. We need your help at the Alabama WikiProject! This is a new WikiProject and there is much work to do. Please head over to the project page, add your name, and help us enhance and increase the coverage of Alabama related stories. JodyByak, yak, yak14:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Heather_higgins.gif. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast19:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you have a moment, can you take a look at this external link that was added to the Bastiat article? I do not think it is appropriate, but I am uncertain: [1] When one looks at the title it's been given, Marx on Bastiat and Carey, one might think it is a direct excerpt from Marx's Grundrisse in which he deals with Bastiat and his thinking. But, in fact, it is not. The link leads to a blog in which an author offers his interpretation of Marx's interpretation of Bastiat. I think this places it outside our standards of acceptability. I'd like to hear your opinion on the matter. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'16:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Philanthropy magazine.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Philanthropy magazine.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations has recently exploded to 236 unreviewed articles! Out of 264 total nominations, 17 are on hold, 10 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (47 articles), Film and cinema (25 articles), Television and journalism (16 articles), Art and architecture (15 articles), and Politics and government (14 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
Reviewer of the Month
Dihydrogen Monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month of December, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 of the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen Monoxide hails from Brisbane (which, incidentally, is almost a GA, kids ;)) and has been editing Wikipedia since August 2006. He mostly likes to review articles relating to music, Australia, or anything else that takes his fancy! He also has two articles waiting, and notes that there's still a huge backlog,... so get cracking!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of December include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GAReview Template
Lots of you that frequent WP:GAN have undoubtedly seen the articles under review, marked with "Review - I am reviewing this article. ...". The articles have been marked as being under review by an editor using the {{GAReview}} template. The purpose of this template is essentially to prevent two editors from reviewing the same article at the same time, so it's essentially a common courtesy notice to other editors so that they don't pass or fail an article while you're in the midst of collecting and writing comments. However, just because an article is marked, shouldn't preclude another editor from contributing to the review. If you'd like to review it, go ahead; simply collect your comments and write them down on the article's talk page – but don't pass or fail the article – leave that to the other reviewer.
To use this template yourself, simply write "#:{{GAReview}} ~~~~" on the line immediately following the article's nomination at WP:GAN. You can even leave additional comments as well (e.g. "#:{{GAReview}} I will finish my review in the next 24 hours. ~~~~"). Reviewers marking articles with this template should also observe some common etiquette; please don't mark more than 1-3 articles as being under review at a time, and please try and finish your review within 3-5 days of marking the article.
GA Sweeps
After openly requesting the community for more participants into the Sweeps, we have 3 more members on the board. They are (in no particular order) Canadian Paul, VanTucky, and Masem. Canadian Paul will be sweeping "Middle East and the World" articles. VanTucky will be sweeping "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" and "Literature" articles. Masem will be sweeping "Television episodes". We're still looking for more reviewers. Interested individuals should contact OhanaUnited for details.
At this moment, participation in the sweeps project is by invitation only, as we desire experienced reviewers who have a thorough and extensive knowledge of the criteria. This is to ensure that articles that have "fallen through the cracks" would be found and removed, and that additional articles don't fall through the cracks during the sweep.
Currently, there are 16 members working on the project, and we have reviewed 74 articles in December 2007. Of those that are swept, 275 articles are kept as GA, 126 articles are delisted, and 5 promoted to FA.
Did You Know,...
... that the total number of good and featured articles is now over 5000?
... that GA was formed on October 11, 2005 and was formerly called "Half-decent articles"?
... that many discussions were made over the years on whether GA should have a symbol placed on the main article space, yet at the end always removed?
... that there was a proposal to change the GA symbol to a green featured star?
From the Editors
Happy New Year, everyone! I'm just filling in for Dr. Cash as he's busy (or away) in real life. This explains why I wasn't prepared for a full-length article on GA process, and instead I resort to a tiny DYK for GA.
OhanaUnited
Happy New Year as well! I'm still here, and haven't totally disappeared. I had to cut back on editing and reviewing during the month of December as I made the transition from Flagstaff, Arizona to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. But I should be about settled in the Keystone State, so I'll be contributing more to Wikipedia again in the new year. Thanks to OhanaUnited for putting together much of the content for this newsletter! He's been working hard with the Sweeps, and the 'Did You Know' section is also a great idea, so I think that will become a regular feature now! I also figured out how to have a collapsible newsletter, so that will change our delivery options a bit. Cheers!
Thanks for uploading Image:Keltec plr-16.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ˉˉanetode╦╩22:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are now 3,485 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 206 unreviewed articles. Out of 251 total nominations, 37 are on hold, 7 are under review, and 1 is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (57 articles), Theatre film and drama (34 articles), Music (19 articles), Transport (17 articles), Politics and government (16 articles), World history (13 articles), and Meteorology and atmospheric sciences (13 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
GA Sweeps Update
During January, 57 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 35 were kept as GA, 20 delisted, 9 currently on hold or at GAR, and 3 were exempted as they are now Featured Articles.
Reviewer of the Month
Ealdgyth is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for January, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Ealdgyth, known in real life as Victoria Short, hails from Central Illinois, and has been editing Wikipedia since May 26, 2007. In this short time, she has made significant contributions to 9 Good Articles, including Baldwin of Exeter and Hubert Walter. Her interests in editing are in the areas of the Middle Ages, History, and horses. Outside of Wikipedia, she is starting her own photography business, and owns three horses. She likes to read science fiction, history, and geneology books. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for January!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
On Hold versus Failing an Article
This month, I thought I'd focus on a less technical and more of a procedural issue at WP:GAN – determining what the appropriate course of action to take when reviewing an article. Currently, there are four options to decide what to do with an article:
Failing it – it does not meet the criteria; remove the article's listing from WP:GAN and add {{ArticleHistory}} or {{failedGA}} to the article's talk page.
On Hold – The article meets most of the criteria, but might fall short in a few areas; keep it listed at WP:GAN, add #: {{GAOnHold|ArticleName}} ~~~~ below the listing and add {{GAonhold}} to the article's talk page.
Second Opinion – Similar to the on hold option, except an editor is either inexperienced or not knowledgeable enough about a given topic and asks another reviewer to offer another opinion before passing or failing; add #: {{GA2ndopinion|ArticleName}} ~~~~ to WP:GAN below the article's listing and add {{GA2ndoptalk}} to the article's talk page.
So how to you know when an article fails outright, or fails initially, but meets "enough" of the criteria to be placed on hold? The answer to this question probably varies by about the same amount as there are reviewers of Good Articles! Everybody treats this slightly differently. The most important thing to consider is that articles should not be on hold for longer than about one week. Although there is no hard and fast time limit for this, most editors would probably agree that five to seven days is enough time to address any GA-related issues with the article to get it to pass. Some editors have extended this a few days in the past, due to other extenuating circumstances, such as an article's primary editor being very busy with school or work, so they have asked for extra time. But as a general rule, a GA nominee that is placed on hold should meet enough of the criteria to be able to be passed within five to seven days. Some examples of articles that might be placed on hold would be:
the article is mostly complete, but might be missing one topic (subcategory).
minor copyediting is required (needs a few minor manual of style, spelling, or grammatical fixes.
mostly well sourced, but missing maybe a handful of references.
a couple of images need to be tagged with appropriate copyright tags.
On the other hand, an article should be failed if it:
is missing several topic categories, or there are several sections which are very short (1-3 sentences per section).
contains numerous sections which are just lists of information, as opposed to written out as prose.
there's entire sections of text that have no references, or there are a lot of {{cn}} or {{unreferenced}} tags.
has evidence of an active edit war in the article history.
has any {{cleanup}} or other warning tags in various places.
Did You Know...
... that on July 19, 2007, 1,548 good articles that have not been categorized at all were categorized in 15 days?
... that in Chinese Wikipedia, articles need to have at least six net support votes before they are promoted to GA?
... that the English Wikipedia has the most Good Articles, the German Wikipedia has the second most (at over 2000), followed by the Spanish Wikipedia (at over 800), the Chinese Wikipedia (at over 400), and the French Wikipedia (at over 200)?
... that Simple English Wikipedia has zero Good Articles?
... that "Sport and games people" category has the most Good Articles?
... that Virginia Tech massacre (which is now a featured article) was promoted to GA just only about one month after the shooting incident, but took more than seven months to reach FA status?
From the Editors
Originally, I wasn't planning to do "Did you know" other than as a fill-in for Dr. Cash. However, I decided to continue writing this section until I ran out of ideas.
OhanaUnited
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
Your argument for removing the astroturf cat is that the cat itself is unencyclopedic, and I see you've nominated it for deletion. Fair enough. But assuming the cat "survives", then your argument for keeping the cat off of STATS will be invalid, and I'll be adding back in. So you might want to start thinking of another reason for keeping it off, depending on how the deletion discussion goes.... Yilloslime(t)23:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you are right. If the category is kept, my argument will be that the STATS article must make it self-evident that such a category is appropriate, per the same guideline that I cite at CfD: Wikipedia:CAT#Some_general_guidelines, #7. If an article doesn't assert the quality to which the category is associated, the category is simply unwarranted. DickClarkMises (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Harryelmerbarnes.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Harryelmerbarnes.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Harryelmerbarnes.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Harryelmerbarnes.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Hi, I'm not sure who to contact for this, but I thought you'd interested since you're a member of the Economics WikiProject. There is an article called Fortune Global 500. This article is a copy and paste of the list of the 500 largest companies in the world by revenues published by Fortune magazine every year. Fortune magazine lists these companies by countries and cities. They list Shell as being a company from the Netherlands and not a dual company from Britain and the Netherlands (contrary to Unilever). One British Wikipedian doesn't like that and has changed the article, writting that Shell is a dual British/Dutch company, contrary to the source from Fortune magazine. I tried to explain that the article being simply a copy and paste of the Fortune Global 500 list, we have to respect their editorial choices, otherwise it's not the Global Fortune 500 list anymore, it becomes something else. Unfortunately I feel like I'm preaching in the desert, so to speak. If we start changing things from the list based on what we think is right or wrong, then why not also change EADS which Fortune magazine lists as a Dutch company (because it is legally incorporated in the Netherlands for tax reasons), whereas in fact EADS is a Franco-German company with top management in Paris and Munich? As you can see, this could lead to endless changes to the article. I thought on Wikipedia we had to write information that matches with the sources we use. It would be nice to hear from you on this point. Keizuko (talk) 17:08, 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 saw you created a redirect in Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. to Lew Rockwell, incidentally at precisely the same time I was doing the reverse. If you disagreed with my action, I didn't mean to just wipe out what you did -- so if that is the case, we should chat and come to consensus. I undid your action simply b/c I thought it was an accidental reaction to the confusion I created by fumbling with the redirect command for a few minutes.PStrait (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your revision to Shell Account
I removed the shell providers from the article because they were not considered historic (AKA from the 80s and 90s). If you read the discussion, the three that were remaining were actually historic, unlike the two that you re-added, which have existed since 2000. LordKenTheGreat (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly welcome your reversion, but I found it appropriate to revert the addition of Silence is Defeat since it was added by the owner, which would constitute an violation of WP:COI. LordKenTheGreat (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD nomination of LewRockwell.com
An editor has nominated LewRockwell.com, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LewRockwell.com and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:59, 25 March 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 welcoming me. I am the translator of "Defending the undefendable" in Dutch; that's why I made that edit on Walter Block's page. I wrote a big article for the Dutch Wikipedia on the book.
Dirk74 (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism by user 4.240.69.116
I received a message suggesting I had vandalized a page, with the user ID listed as 4.240.69.116
This message was posted to me. However, not guilty, and I do not know why this message was addressed to me. Brews ohare (talk) 23:23, 25 April 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.
Hey, I think we talked on facebook before about the SULS Libertarians petition. How'd it turn out? I'm just graduating this Sunday...had Rounds this semester for drafting. It was a great class. I hear he's pretty active with the Beacon Hill Institute and sympathetic to other libertarian causes. Pretty rare among SULS profs. -Tim Swampyank (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page you refer to appeared at Category:Articles with broken citations because the citations I repaired where broken. Did you bother to look at the result of your action. Those citations are once again broken and non functional. Now either repair the citations the way you think they should be or restore my edit. It's up to you. I'll be watching. By the way I recommend that you always check the results of your edits. If people did that then I would no be following them around cleaning up after them. --DRoll (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
