This is an archive of past discussions with User:Edmund Patrick. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thank you for the GA pass. I will, of course, keep my eyes open for additional info to add to the article. I'd like to one day be able to get a FT from this article and its related articles. Acdixon(talk • contribs • count)02:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem, interesting article about the good old days :) I write mainly bird articles, and it's easy to miss odd bits when you are too close to the subject. Jimfbleak (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
New policy proposal that may be of interest
I'm tapping this message out to you because you were involved at the AfDs of Eve Carson or Lauren Burk. Following both of these heated debates, a new proposal has been made for a guideline to aid these contentious debates, which can be found at WP:N/CA. There is a page for comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions should you wish to make a comment. Thanks for your time, and apologies if this was not of interest! Fritzpoll (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I was just a bit confused by it. I am going to have it be BC/AD, rather than BCE/CE. I've seen years' articles using this system, so I'll keep it at that. I think it's all uniform now. And I agree, statements that are not common knowledge (unfortunately there is very little statements that are common knowledge in the article) should be sourced. Thanks for giving me that source, and adding a few on your own. Also, it's nice to know that I can pass for being "more knowledgeable about this subject". I have no background in timekeeping devices (I don't even wear a watch), much less their history. I picked it from a category of short articles as part of an admin coaching task :) Justin(Gmail?)(u)21:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I was just reading the website you gave, and while I appreciate it, the history of it is not very well covered. It goes in depth, but its reliability is questionable, with statements like "Sometime in 1946 or 1947 the RAF most likely decided it wanted a new pilot's watch", and "G&S almost certainly then approached all their major contributors". It would be a good source for an article on the watch, especially one that needed help writing about the design. So I'll leave that ref out. I'll look for some good refs later, but if I don't find any I'll probably just merge that section with its 3rd-level-heading, and salvage any material I can. As you can see, the ref you gave me differs significantly from the current information, so it will be difficult to judge which account is accurate. Justin(Gmail?)(u)21:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Simply untrue fabrications
How O how can someone who had been dead over ten years have had any input into the Salem witch-trials??? What utter nonsense man!!!! I really do question your motive for wanting to sling mud at someone who I doubt very much you've ever read or even understand. It's all too easy to deride what we don't understand and come from on high with negative judgements. Every major writer on Browne in the 20th century recognises that Browne's involvement was a slight but unfortunate one. This whole PC nonsense stems from Edmund Gosse's vitriolic attack in 1905, every major writer on Browne, J.S.Finch, Huntley, Nathanson all state quite the opposite to you. Just what is to be achieved by an agenda based on prejudice?? I strongly recommend that you read Malcolm Letts Notes and Queries article which long , long ago dismissed such prejudiced notions upon a great man of science and literature.Norwikian (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
All your help with the GA-review of Ring of Pietroassa has earned you some tasty cookies. Enjoy! —Aryaman(Enlist!)16:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)) has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
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.
There are currently 4,266 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 157 unreviewed articles. Out of 215 total nominations, 44 are on hold, 13 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 categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (31), Sports and recreation (31), Transport (24), Music (13), and Art and architecture (11)
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of May, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 71 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 11 were delisted. There are currently 15 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions.
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
Giggy (talk·contribs) (a.k.a. Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk·contribs)) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for May, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Giggy had a whopping 45 reviews during the month of May! Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May 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!
New GA Review Process - Review Subpages
In case you haven't noticed, we initiated a new process for GA Reviews at the end of last month. The {{GA nominee}} template was modified to direct new reviews initiated on an article to begin on a subpage of article talkspace (e.g. [[Talk:Article/GA#]], where '#' is the current number of GA reviews conducted for the article, incremented automatically, starting with 1). The primary reason for this change is to address some concerns made by several Wikipedians that previous GA reviews are not easily accessible in archives, the way that featured article reviews and peer reviews are, since the review is conducted on the article's talkspace, instead of in a subpage of the featured article space or peer review space. The reason we opted to move GA reviews to article talkspace (instead of GA space) is to better maintain the personal relationship between editor(s) and reviewer(s) by keeping reviews done in an area where editors can easily access it. Nonetheless, we still desired to have better archiving and maintenance of past reviews, so that GA ultimately becomes more accountable.
When an article is nominated, the nominator adds the template using a substitution, by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=<name of subtopic for article at GAN>}}, as well as lists the article (as usual) at WP:GAN in the appropriate category.
When a reviewer initiates a review of an article, all that needs to be done is to read the template on the article's {{GA nominee}} template on its talk page, and click on the link to start the review. When the reviewer clicks on that link, they will also see some instructions on how to start a review of a GAN. For new reviewers, there's also a link to the Good Article criteria, as well as to the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles page and the mentors list. Once an article is reviewed, the GA review page should be transcluded onto the main article talk page, by adding {{Talk:Article/GA#}} to the bottom of the talk page. This is to ensure maintain the transparency of the GA process, as well as to make editors of the article in question aware that the review is taking place. When an article is either passed or failed, there's really nothing different to do in the process, although reviewers are encouraged to utilize the {{ArticleHistory}} template, linking to the GA review subpage with the 'action#link' parameter.
Hi, Thanks for your quick review. Due to the fact that I'm not a native speaker I can't review the lingual aspects correctly. May I ask your help with the other articles.--Seyyed(t-c)14:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
That's fine, it's been a while since I reviewed any GA candidates and so I assumed it was still the same as when I last performed one (although I did check the newer criteria), so not problem at all. BigHairRef | Talk18:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
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)?
Hello and thanks for your thorough review of Lafayette's article. I, and the other editors on the page have responded to your points below the official review. I think they all have been addressed. As well, the article has been edited according to suggestion. Please let us know if there is anything else errant that you notice. On behalf of SPOTLIGHT, Lazulilasher (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've revisited the points which you raised in your review. Hopefully you would be able to return and let us know if we're on the right track. Kindest, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Lazulilasher and I, along with others, have copy-edited the article and addressed your issues. We thank you for the GA review. Could you take another look at it and, if warranted, promote it to GA? Thanks. On behalf of Spotlight, Mm40 (talk | contribs) 18:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
We have look at your third review and all your changes seem to be good. If you could look over the article one final time and perhaps promote it, it would be greatly appreciated. I, on behalf of Spotlight, thank you for your review. Also, sorry for posting twice last time. Mm40 (talk | contribs) 12:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
Dear EP,
I see you in Oxonian bid list and wholly correct remark re C.U., whither I go for collegiate noshup shortly. (Damn black ties! make one look like waiter or first violin.) User:Addbot wants me to assist bid, but (a) won't give my details to facebook and (b) can't see what I can do, though would like to attend a wikimania. Can you suggest any courses of action? Hope your gnomons are o.k. and not too much wikirage at St Ed: I am in petroglyphs just now, best wishes to you & co from, yrs truly, Eebahgum (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Rest utterly assured that said sap has screw loose in re Iohannis, tristis est quia crassitudinem indicat illi qui falsam identificationem adtribuit. If not, indeed, prompting ridicule by mocking and humiliation P.-Eye-style, raising shoulders, flapping of hands at face-height and making bibbling noises - by leading experts. I recently witnessed an explosive reassurance vis-a-vis this from eminent irreproachable source. Also advice from patriarchal archaeo (ad Occidentem intendens): "If you don't know, don't pretend that you do, as you will be found out." Eebahgum (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, Mr. Patrick, to renominate Olmec for GA. After finally just now closing out the last of the 46 {{fact}} tags that Wandalstouring added, I find that I myself no longer have the time or at present the patience to devote to trying to get this thru Good Article. This last go-round with Wandalstouring has soured me on the whole GA process: there seems to be a great deal of downside - nasty discussions, complaining, twisting prose into knots to satisfy a random person's viewpoint - and there is no upside that I can see. I'm not complaining about you, Edmund -- I thought our journey was going along well and we were nearing the end of the road. But I myself don't have the energy to go through this a third time with a third person. Sorry, Madman (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
That's perfectly understandable. I'm sorry that your experience was so negative, but I can assure you that it wasn't typical. GAN is much more often a collaborative process than it is an adversarial one. Your second reviewer has either never read or has forgotten the good article criteria, and clearly fails to appreciate the difference between GA and FA, noob or not. I wasn't suggesting a third person though, just that Edmund Patrick pick up the review where he left off. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Edmund again, eh? That's certainly enticing. But I wasn't kidding about the lack of time at the present. There're also a couple of fixes I would like to make to Olmec and a DYK I'm working on, but if I can still take you all up on this offer in a week's time, I'm in. Madman (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Edmund, my chap, I have decided to let sleeping dogs lie and not renominate Olmec for GA status. There are some outstanding issues that I just don't have the time to tackle. I appreciate your insight and help and your great attitude. I'm sure we'll meet again. Thanks, Madman (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
GA reform redux
I've recently had a chat with a couple of the contributors, and we think it may be worth revisiting the GA reform proposal put together by the working party during the Summer. Since you contributed to the proposal's development, I was wondering if you'd care to comment? I've left a brief recap at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Reform#GA reform redux; your input would be much appreciated. Thank you, EyeSerenetalk13:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Userpage
Hey mate!
I was just visiting your UP and it seems that I could not view any of the userboxes in the collapsible boxes other than those on the left. Maybe it's a prob with my FF3, or simply malformatting. Just thought I'd give you a nudge about it.
Hey, I looked the article over and changed any US english terms I found to British English but I didn't find that many.. maybe I'm missing something. Anyway, cheers for taking a wee look at it and I hope you decide to give it a review
Some time ago you indicated your support of the Oxford 2010 Wikimania Bid, and it was recieved with much gratitude. I now ask if you could could help support our bid by contributing to the bid page that is located at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2010/Bids/Oxford. Now is the critical period for work to continue on the bid as the official bidding period has now started and the jury has been formed.
I do not ask for huge swathes of time, just enough that with eveyrone working on this, it can be completed in time to the high standard required in a bid. For the bid page, an excellent source of information is the travel wiki article on the City of Oxford which is found at: http://wikitravel.org/en/Oxford. The chance of bringing Wikimania to the UK is the best so far and i expect the best chance for many years. With a fresh and stong UK chapter we have an amazing opportunity to put ourselves on the map. If you have any questions, please mail them to the Wikimedia UK mailing list, email me or post a message on my talk page and i will answer as quickly as possible.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Edmund Patrick. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
