This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mastrchf91. 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.
The March 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I feel I have made the changes that you suggested in your comments. Please could you comment on the articles talk page if there are anymore improvements needed. Thanks for your help so far. -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The former governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, has withdrawn from the GOP presidential nomination race, after John McCain won enough delegates to secure the nomination.
The entire state of Arkansas was hit by a major snow storm this month, dumping more than 1 foot of snow in some areas.
Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on The Office (U.S. season 3) - Now that I've checked that out I'll have to go and rent it at some point. I also like the mix of list/paragraph format, good referencing and analysis. May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Admin coaching is mostly checking to make sure that you understand the responsibilities of being an admin. It mostly consists of questions that you might encounter in an RFA. I've created a page for this here. Add it to your watchlist. I'll try to update promptly, but I might be behind. If I am, feel free to give me a nudge. bibliomaniac15Midway upon life's journey...02:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I have seen NBC's ads that new espiodes of the show will begin again on April 10. That leads naturally to thinking that that date would be a good one to run the article as the Main Page FA, especially now that we have the free image of the Scranton sign I took. Do you think it's ready? It would certainly help attract more editors to the project. I can go put it in the longterm queue now if you want. Daniel Case (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I wrote that before I realized it was in FAR. Between logins, I printed out a copy, took it to the laundry and went through it with a red pen. Which I used a lot.
But, the bright side is I believe it could be fixed well before the 10th. I will post about specifics to the article talk page and start implementing some of the corrections (The comment at the FAR about the season summaries is dead on ... there is no need for that much detail). I think we could easily turn it around before April even begins. Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The office epsidoes
Hi, if you look at other production codes, you will see they are different, for example, an episode of The Office with a production code of 4005, is essentaly season forty, episode, five. If it had a production code of 405, the episode is season 4, episode five. I would suggest looking a other t.v. show episode lists like Scrubs to see what I mean. Thanks,--bobsmith319 (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The April 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
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.
I think you've demonstrated yourself to be a great potential admin, so I think I'll conclude our coaching. I don't want to nominate you immediately for RFA, because I would like you to keep working and gain more experience. You mentioned before that you wanted to pursue AIV and CSD when you become an admin, so I ask that you put some more focus on these areas. Remember to always be civil, prompt, and thorough when communicating. It was great coaching you, you are very experienced, and an RFA shouldn't be much trouble at all. bibliomaniac15Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead!21:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind shrinking the font size of your signature? It intrudes onto the lines above and below your post. Cheers : ) - Chardish (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I award you The Dwight Schrute Award of Excellence (the first one) for your amazing work on the Office project, and many of its articles. Good job! STORMTRACKER94 Go Irish!14:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading Image:72058.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Newsletter
All you need to do is make a list of all of the user's talk pages involved in the project on a separate page. The bot will take it from there. STORMTRACKER94 Go Irish!09:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The Office (U.S. TV series) still remains as a Featured Article Review candidate. Please continue to do all you can to improve the article and keep it at Featured status.
Another notice to anyone who hasn't received it yet: the WikiProject is going through a Membership Reconfirmation drive. If you are an active editor and have not already reconfirmed yourself, please visit the main page and move your name from Inactive Members to Active Members
Please continue to keep a look-out for anyone who has substantial experience in editing articles pertaining to The Office. If they're not already in the project, informing them about it would be a great idea.
The WikiProject page itself is still in need of some help. If anyone could spruce it up, that would be a great help.
Thanks for taking the time to read this fourth edition of the project's newsletter. As always, thanks to anyone who made any type of edit that improved an article relating to The Office. The size of the edit or edits does not matter, as any help ultimately helped out that article, and thus the entire Project. As always, don't forget to check into the project main page every once and a while, where I will periodically post announcements that are related to different events. Have a great month everybody, and happy editing!
If you would like to offer any suggestions on the creation, appearance, or any other matter of the newsletter, please message me at my talk page. I'm bound to miss something that's happened with the project, so if I miss anything, please inform me of the error.
Promotions
No promotions in the month of April
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
The May 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
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.
As I suppose you've noticed, we were unable to keep the gold star on The Office. Further issues were raised late in the game, many of which were valid but some of which ("too many pictures, even if they are free") were extremely picayune.
I could be bitter about this, but I'm not, and I think it will actually be a stronger FA (I'm aiming for a Main Page date of 9/27, when the next season premieres, which would really be the ideal date for the Main Page) by going through the whole PR/GA/FAC process that was either not present or skipped during the original nom. My current goal will be PR by the end of the month after addressing the lingering issues ... would you put something about this in the next newsletter? Daniel Case (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, in the meantime, I improved Dunder Mifflin enough to save it from one of those well-meaning AfDs, and I just nominated it for GA (I see you've got "Branch Wars" up, too). Daniel Case (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
GA Sweeps
Hello, since I'm not too familiar with the review work that you did, would you like to give me an example of 1 passed review and failed review that you wrote? This is just for quality assurance. OhanaUnitedTalk page04:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello there Eustress! Just a short while ago, you quick-failed the article Branch Wars, which I had as a GAN, due to lack of references in the lead, plot, and production sections. While I agree with the lead/production section problems, which I have remedied shortly after you quick-failed the article, the plot section doesn't require sources due to the episode's ability to be used as a source. Since the quick-fail concerns have been remedied, I was wondering if you'd like to take another look and review the article. No problem if you can't or choose not to though, I can simply renominate the article. Have a good day, Mastrchf (t/c) 00:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I did notice that later about the plot summaries and revised my GA review, but it did merit a quick-fail for the other two sections. Because it was failed, if you wouldn't mind re-nominating the article (we have to follow protocol, and if I nominate it, then I can't review it), then I'd be happy to revisit the article. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
RFA?
bibliomaniac15 would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact bibliomaniac15 to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mastrchf91 . If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
I've created the page. Excuse my little rant to the voters, because my last two nominees had their RFAs soured by some unfortunate circumstances. If you have any problems with my statement, let me know and I'll change it. Be on your guard, and refuse to answer any questions that may be flawed or badly worded. Good luck! I trust in you. bibliomaniac1521:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Err, that joke message thing-- no one has opposed for it yet, but I for one find it extremely annoying. You might want to consider removing it and/or formulate a response should an oppose arise for it. Chhers, good luck. Dlohcierekim00:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hah! It seems they may not be totally unfamiliar, hee hee. They were developed by wiser minds than mine. Hope they help. Dlohcierekim00:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey Mast, I'm not sure if I did a good enough job of it on my oppose, but I really didn't oppose because of the goof user box. I was trying to make a point out your lack of back-and-forth conversation... I couldn't imagine having to deal with that box. As for your RfA, outside of the talk issues, you seem to be a great future candidate. Civil, good work, good participation in AfD, etc. This is coming from someone who has high admin standards as well. I don't like recommending withdrawal against solid contributors like yourself... but say if you get to 10 opposes before 10 supports, consider it. Once you participate in more conversation here, you will be a top candidate come three months. Biblio looks like he had the best intentions, but I feel you were nominated too quickly here, the talk issue was way too obvious... it was caught by Capital, Wisdom, and myself almost immediately after reviewing. I may make a seperate message to Biblio shortly. The reason I come here is to maybe preemptively console you if there is a pile on opposition due to talk issues... that will likely be the only reason people are opposing, and most of them will note that with work in that area, you will pass in RfA 2. Feel free to ask me questions on this, or flat out disagree :), but good luck to you in the future. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs00:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
O.K cool, I'm going to make a subpage for it and show the user's I have in mind, I think this could work! O and as allway's WOOOOOO Pig-soooooie....RAZORBACKS lol. <font-family:"Tahoma">#1 Metallica FanYour Hancock17:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The article Casino Night you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Casino Night for things needed to be addressed. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Request for adminship
On this occasion, your request for adminship was not successful. I hope that you will continue your useful contributions to Wikipedia and may consider standing again in future. Remember, many of the objectors simply want to see more of your work! Warofdreamstalk00:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep working hard. You are definitely on the right track. Continue doing what you are doing, and I will be sure to renominate you. bibliomaniac1502:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Darn, I really hoped it would succeed. Keep up the good work, and the nom will hopefully succeed next time. RedThunder21:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello
Mastrch91 could you please tell me how you made The Random's Editor page fit your userpage so I could have on like that too. --Hippieslayer (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Hippieslayer
The June 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The Office (U.S. TV series) was delisted as a Featured Article on May 4. User:Daniel Case is currently in working to run the article through the entire gauntlet:Peer review, Good article nomination, and once again Featured Article Candidacy. Any help with the article through the next few months approaching the season 5 premiere would be greatly appreciated.
Dunder Mifflin was nominated for GA-status on May 8. It is currently on-hold after a review. Please visit the article and help improve it.
Survivor Man was nominated for GA-status on May 18, but has not yet been reviewed.
Please continue to keep a look-out for anyone who has substantial experience in editing articles pertaining to The Office. If they're not already in the project, informing them about it would be a great idea.
The WikiProject page itself is still in need of some help. If anyone could spruce it up, that would be a great help.
Thanks for taking the time to read this fifth edition of the project's newsletter. As always, thanks to anyone who made any type of edit that improved an article relating to The Office. The size of the edit or edits does not matter, as any help ultimately helped out that article, and thus the entire Project. As always, don't forget to check into the project main page every once and a while, where I will periodically post announcements that are related to different events. Have a great month everybody, and happy editing!
If you would like to offer any suggestions on the creation, appearance, or any other matter of the newsletter, please message me at my talk page. I'm bound to miss something that's happened with the project, so if I miss anything, please inform me of the error.
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.
In case you haven't found out already, it made GA today. Thanks for your help in updating it, I really do appreciate it! --Mr.crabby(Talk)21:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've recently become fixing up The Injury (whcih just so happens to be my favorite episode), so I'll try to get to GA. I have almost no experience working with list articles, so maybe I'm the wrong person to ask, but if you're interested in getting an episode or character article up to FA-quality, just let me know. --Mr.crabby(Talk)22:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Re:Helpful Link
Thanks so much, I had no idea a page like that existed. I usually ended up going to OfficeTally or Google for my sources, this should be much easier. --Mr.crabby(Talk)19:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to do that (and don't have a program if I need one). Would you be interested in hosting? I need a person to do the July 4 show. If you could organize a thing I don't need to download, that would be great. RedThunder17:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The July 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Initiation was nominated for GA-status on June 25, and is currently on-hold after a review
Gay Witch Hunt was nominated for GA-status on June 25, and is currently on-hold after a review
There will be no collaboration this month due to the new collaboration process. By visiting the main page, you can nominate and vote on the article which you believe should be the Collaboration of the Month. Ideas for a weekly collaboration have also been tossed around.
Please continue to keep a look-out for anyone who has substantial experience in editing articles pertaining to The Office. If they're not already in the project, informing them about it would be a great idea.
The WikiProject page itself is still in need of some help. If anyone could spruce it up, that would be a great help.
Thanks for taking the time to read this sixth edition of the project's newsletter. As always, thanks to anyone who made any type of edit that improved an article relating to The Office. The size of the edit or edits does not matter, as any help ultimately helped out that article, and thus the entire Project. As always, don't forget to check into the project main page every once and a while, where I will periodically post announcements that are related to different events. Have a great month everybody, and happy editing!
If you would like to offer any suggestions on the creation, appearance, or any other matter of the newsletter, please message me at my talk page. I'm bound to miss something that's happened with the project, so if I miss anything, please inform me of the error.
I'd be glad to help out. You did a great job improving the article after my first failed nom, so I thank you for that. RedThunder19:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Portal:Arkansas is still being expanded, and is starting to look rather nice. Help out by suggesting changes on the talk page.
The project is currently in the process of reassessing a bunch of articles already tagged as Start-Class, to C-Class. Please help out!
Featured article
Featured Arkansas article of the month:
Monte Ne is an area in the Ozark hills of the White River valley east of Rogers on the edge of Beaver Lake in the U.S. State of Arkansas. From 1901 until the mid-1930s the area was a health resort and ambitious planned community. It was owned and operated by William Hope Harvey, a financial theorist and one time U.S. Presidential nominee. Two of its hotels, "Missouri Row" and "Oklahoma Row", were the largest log buildings in the world. Oklahoma Row's "tower section" is one of the earliest examples of a multi-story cement structure. The tower is the only structure of Monte Ne still standing. Monte Ne introduced the first indoor swimming pool in Arkansas, and was also the site of the only presidential convention ever held in Arkansas. (more...)
Following a manhunt in two states, police have arrested Nicholas Troy Sheley whom authorities suspect in eight murders in the United States. The FBI launched the manhunt on Tuesday after four victims were discovered on June 30, 2008.
At least 23 people have been killed in late afternoon in broad daylight, with dark (very dark) clouds tornadoes that ripped through the central United States on Saturday May 10 with over 150 reported injured and at least three people are missing.
Hey, I'm just curious where do you normally go to find references for The Office episode articles? Cheers! GaryKing (talk)06:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I should get my hands on the DVDs. Those are very useful – although personally, I'd really prefer text references over audio as it can be easily checked back on whenever needed. GaryKing (talk)17:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The Office cast names
I've looked through the descriptions and the vast majority of them do not list the cast names in the plot descriptions. Seeing that to be the case, I removed them for consistency's sake. Is there a policy that states all of the episode descriptions should list cast names next to character names? Skydiver99 (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
If you feel its ready we can nominate it, but I'll be on vacation starting Sunday for a week, so I won't be able to help out with changes that are needed after that. --Mr.crabby(Talk)23:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Really? Dinner Party doesn't seem to have much production info besides the strike stuff (which we could add to any post-strike episode). I think personally production content is key, and therefore I'd go with Chair Model or Goodbye, Toby. But I guess we'll worry about that after Night Out is or isn't featured. --Mr.crabby(Talk)00:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
sorry man i didnt mean it to be threatening. i dont wanna hurt him lol. ill just remove it-Sector311 (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
yeah i didnt remove the comment because people have replied to it. but i did explain myself. -Sector311 (talk) 03:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: A favor
I've copyedited the lead; by the looks of it, the article needs significant work. I recommend just withdrawing the FAC to give yourself time to work on the article without the added pressure of an ongoing FAC. Or, if you've got the time and the patience, then you can leave it open. However, if the article is already getting opposes this soon, then that definitely means a significant amount of work is required, and also that more opposes are likely to follow. Trust me, it's no fun working on an FAC that doesn't go well from the start – I speak from personal experience ;) GaryKing (talk)06:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: Request
Hey, I've seen that you do a lot of copyediting, and I was wondering if you could help me. The article "Night Out" is up as an FAC, and a third party copyedit has been requested. If you get the time, could you copy edit it? It'd be a great help to me. - Copied from my talk page
Hi there! I normally don't copy edit FAC articles because I don't feel I'm familiar enough with the FAC criteria and the current consensus amongst more experienced editors about the language style of featured articles, but I'll take a look after the weekend (a little busy this weekend) to see if I can help. Cheers! -SamuelTan14:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey there. I just glanced through your article; it needs quite a bit of work in terms of language and sentence structure, because some portions read awkwardly. I will help copy edit it as far as I can, but I suggest posting it on WP:PR to get more help.-SamuelTan08:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
DYK question
Perhaps you could explain in more detail this determination? I have been adding significantly to the article for the last week, and I think the expansion of the article has easily been 5x (compare this version to the most recent one here). Could you indicate your math, please? - Hexhand (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, I am not sure we are looking at the same article. I think the article has expanded drastically in the past week, and I think that if all you are looking at is edit history (wherein more than half the edits not mine were either vandalism or bits on spelling, etc.) or word count (which I think might be a bit misleading, as I've removed quite a bit of spurious and unfounded info from the article, replacing it with actual cited info), you might be missing the larger picture. Could you maybe have another look, please? - Hexhand (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
So, the actual point of DYK is to foment creation of new articles. Clearly, improving articles a lot isn't enough for eligibility, which doesn't really foster a lot of drive to improve articles after they have been created. Aside from pursuing GA or FA, that is. I am not sure how you were able to check article size, as I couldn't find a way to confirm what you were saying.
And I wanted to apologize for my wee tantrum yesterday; you were trying to explain a lopsided rule, and I blamed you for it. It was unfair of me, and I am sorry if I harshed your buzz. I would welcome any assistance you could provide me in learning to improve my editing skills, especially where it concerns DYK and rating the articles I am working on. Thanks for having taken the time to respond to my concerns politely and helpfully. :) - Hexhand (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
If I shrink them (referring to the Gunpowder Plot DYKs) up a bit, can they still be considered, or do I have to resubmit them? - Hexhand (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for assistance, M. Can you be persuaded to strike the not ready icon and refer the matter to another for evaluation? I'd like to try for a triple crown as well. ;) - Hexhand (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so very much for your assistance; without it, I would still trying to figure out how to follow the proper protocols. Thanks again for your help, M! - Hexhand (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I was able to get it to work. Say, could you tell me the story about how you achieved your triple crown? - Hexhand (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if you knew of a bar chart wherein I can add dollar amounts over a period of years? I've been to Template:Bar_box, but haven't found an example there that would assist me, as most of them indicate percentages. - Hexhand (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
RFD Closures
When closing an RFD as keep, please remember to remove the {{rfd}} template from the redirect. There were three redirects that I just removed the tag from where you had closed the debates. Appreciate your participation at RFD. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:SECFanfareticket.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mastrchf91. 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.
