User talk:Redmarkviolinist/Archive 4

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

News! Tag & Assess 2008 is coming ...

Milhist's new drive – Tag & Assess 2008 – goes live on April 25 and you are cordially invited to participate. This time, the task is housekeeping. As ever, there are awards galore, plus there's a bit of friendly competition built-in, with a race for bronze, silver and gold wikis! You can sign up, in advance, here. I look forward to seeing you on the drive page! All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  • One Stripe (200 articles)
    One Stripe (200 articles)
  • Two Stripes (400 articles)
    Two Stripes (400 articles)
  • Three Stripes (600 articles)
    Three Stripes (600 articles)
  • Tireless Contributor Barnstar (1000 articles)
    Tireless Contributor Barnstar (1000 articles)
  • Chevrons (2000 articles)
    Chevrons (2000 articles)
  • Working Man's Barnstar (3000 articles)
    Working Man's Barnstar (3000 articles)
  • Barnstar of Diligence (4000 articles)
    Barnstar of Diligence (4000 articles)
  • Third place overall
    Third place overall
  • Second place overall
    Second place overall
  • First place overall
    First place overall

Thanks for signing up

I hope you don't mind but I'd like to comment on the first few articles.

  • We don't use the importance scale so there's no need to include it.
  • Just typing class=B doesn't work anymore. You have to complete the B-class checklist with a yes in each parameter.
  • Every article needs to be assigned to task forces.
  • For the Louise Currie Wilmot article, appropriate task forces might be: US=y (because she's American); Maritime=y (because she was in the US Navy) and biography=y (because it's a biography).

All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding work so far, Mark :) Any chance of stripping out unused parameters (that is, unused incomplete task force strings, like "Biography=", "Aviation=") for the articles you've assessed. This is mentioned in the instructions somewhere. They leave the page very messy and confusing for newbies, you see. Also would you have time to revisit early articles you assessed to ensure that task forces are fully assigned? All very picky, I know ... In the meantime, all the best and keep up the good work, --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
While I appreciate your enthusiasm for this drive I would be very grateful if you would please not take on any further ranges until the concerns raised by me here and Woody below have been addressed. In particular, please revisit the first few ranges, and check them carefully, adding task forces as appropriate in the many instances where this has not been done. It would also be good to go through the ranges and identify articles where the entire task force list has been copy-dumped and edit out the unused/unnecessary ones. I would appreciate a response to this message. --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Good man! --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 17 21 April 2008 About the Signpost
Features and admins
Features and admins
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Category: American Civil War

I noted you added this back to several articles. The WP:ACW has been working to not use this generic category, but instead to use more specific subcats. Wiki convention is not to use both the master cat and subcat on the same article. Thanks!! 8th Ohio Volunteers (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

I'm extremely sorry, but I accidentally did your range. I noticed that you haven't started yet, so I was wondering if I could move you to the 9500 range instead (or whatever I haven't done). I'm terribly sorry for the inconvenience. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 02:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'll fix it myself. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 02:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Maryland music groups

Did you mean to mark this as part of the military history WikiProject? It seems rather tangential to me - the only relevant entries are from the US Naval Academy and a single Civil War-era brass band. I don't mind, it's only a talk page after all, I'm just wondering if that was a mistake on your part. Tuf-Kat (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, somebody else has removed the tag from the talk page, so take it up with that person if you're concerned. Tuf-Kat (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Get Well Soon

Thanks for the get well message. My stomache has been on a steady downward slide for years, but as of late my never ending heartburn has triggered an abrupt resurgence of my halucinations, and an even more disturbing 'stabbing' like pain near my heart. Taken togather these two concerns are a severe enough that my upper digestive system doctor wants me in the hospital just as soon as school ends so he can do another endoscopy. I can not make sound editorial judgements when the hallucinations start up, hence the template. I'm hoping that summer break and the resulting drop in stress will improve my health (it has in the past), so if past evidence holds true I should be back on in full and health force the second or third week of May. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


adoption

um you said to leave a message on your user page sooooo I have! lol Flardox (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Milhist tag and assess

Hi there Mark. Just a follow-up from some of the ranges that you have been doing. Could you make sure that you include all of the available task forces? Also, please don't include all of the available parameters as for Milhist, this is an awful lot and can fill the talkpage with unneccessary code. Would you mind going through and checking the worklists that you have already completed? I went through this section and found half that could have an extra task force, and one tag that was broken. Time for a cliche I think: Quality over quantity. ;) If you have any questions, don't hesitate to leave a note on my talkpage. Thanks again for all your continued effort in this drive. It is appreciated. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Coaching

Ach, sorry, I thought you were still taking exams. Well, I'm sure that you should get Battle of Marion at least to GA status; if you need help, I'll help. You should probably change your signature as well: Too unreadable. Familiarize yourself with policy; the best way to do this is to actually participate in policy processes such as AfD. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Saprotroph

Excuse me, but can you explain why you assessed this article as a B-class article? Whatever the assessing scale that WikiProject Fungi is using, it seriously needs to be revised if that is what you assessed this off of. If this was a mistake or typo, feel free to let me know. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 03:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(embarrassed shuffling of feet) gosh, I have no recollection of that one, and it was many moons ago. Yep, should be a stub or start article...(what was I thinking...) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Transhumanist RFA

I have removed the RfA of The Transhumanist that you have transcluded, as it is required that nominees accept the nomination before it goes live. -- Naerii 22:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed again. Don't readd it without verification that TT has accepted it, or you could end up blocked for disruption. cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Got your message. No problem, no harm done. Moving along, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Along these lines, I'm actually going to IAR and delete TT#6 that you created, because it was never accepted. It will make room for the (hopefully) real TT#6 that I will support, (just like I did for TT#4 and TT#5...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure. That's really up to TT, isn't it? And I should clarify, I !voted neutral in #5, I never !voted in #4. That said, I am planning on supporting #6. When he decides to run again, and assuming it's a legitimate, endorsed, accepted nomination, I'll support. Until then...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonel Kill Motherfuckers

You put "Speedy close" on this afd "per above" which did not make any sense to me. Speedy close should be used when you feel that an afd is completely without merit or has been use in a manner inconsistent with policy, such as when an afd is opened immediately after it has already passed as a "keep". Did you instead intend to use "Speedy Delete"? If so, could you amend you entry? Trusilver 23:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

I was wondering if you'd be willing to adopt me? Elluminate (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Lady Aleena's RfA

Redmarkviolinist...Thank you for participating in my nomination for adminship. Your comments have shown me those areas in which I need improve my understanding. I hope that my future endevors on Wikipedia will lead to an even greater understanding of it. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 05:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Business War Games

Dear Redmarkviolinist: First, thanks for taking the time to improve on my Business War Games page. Second, what it shows now are references to references but not the references themselves. In other words, if someone wahts to read the articel or book cited, where is the full refernce? m I missing something?

Cimas (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


Welcome!

Now that this Welcome rule is settled, please explain the folloiwng: you feel free going into someone's else work, change it in a way that reduces its value to Wikipedia's readers, and then throw in inchallantly, oh, you need to put the full reference inside the text? Do you consider other people's time as valuable as yours, son, or less valuable? Would you go looking for those original references now? If you want to be helpful, be helpful. If you just want to show your superior Wikipedia editing skills, please be aware that most of us don't care that much about the rules, we care about the content. Feel free to "drop me a line", but try and be truly helpful next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cimas (talk • contribs) 15:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


Not Welcome

You completely miss the point, and confuse being helpful with who needs to be helpful. In rational discourse and action, there is cause and thre is effect. You enetred a site- original work that was contributed to Wikepedia for readers' benefits- and you made a change without regard to consequences, then you moved on. Like a child who finished p[laying with a toy, you did not go back to check what was the result. Then you insist that form is more important than substance, so you send me reading about more rules (form), which is your right to think, but you should not be working on encyclopedias if this is your main interest, becasue you do not create knowledge, you destroy it with excessive form. Let others edit pages, since it is clear you do not have real regard to making them better. That will solve the problem, which did not exist (think about it) until you created it. That's cause and effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cimas (talk • contribs) 19:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? There is no research which is not original in the sense that when someone writes a value for Wiki, it has to be original, or it should be subsumed under another value. All the references were related to the text. Instead of taking responsibility for your sabotage of value, you like to use threats, don't you? Now grow up, kid,m this encyclopedia is not your play ground, it is used by real people to gain knowledge. If you can't understand that wait untiol you mature a little, and come back to this community. It is not aboput your technical prowess but about knowledge. If you want to refer this discussion to higher authority (administrator or Jimmy Wales) buy all means, let see who is right about your disragrd for basic etiquette and your careless work on the Business War Games site. If you are an administrator, let's see if we can take this privilege away from you. You are a menace to this adult encycolpedia. If you don't want me to start raising this issues about responsilbility of what you did on your Talk page, get out of Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cimas (talk • contribs) 20:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Stress

Funny, I was just following that on ANI this morning. I think you handled it fairly well, but this comment: "I am going to kindly ask you to leave me alone before I do get a higher authority figure to block you," could have been left out; he wouldn't have gotten blocked if you had reported him, and threatening other users is not a good idea.

Just to let you know, I'll be pretty inactive the following week or so because of real life events. I might not reply to comments so quickly. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 02:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ageism is a hotly debated issue on Wikipedia. On one side, there's vehement anti-ageists like User:Basketball110, User:Milk's Favorite Cookie and User:DiligentTerrier whom (I'm sorry if they read this, but I have to be honest) themselves are not at all mature. However, there are extraordinarily mature young Wikipedians, such as User:Anonymous Dissident, User:Keilana, and a bureaucrat named Ilyanep(?); all of the above passed adminship at thirteen years of age or younger, but the young users who are not mature don't seem to want to admit that these are the exceptions rather than the norm. You should read DHMO's blog for some fascinating opinions on ageism on Wikipedia which basically are the same as mine. While Cimas may have made a few inappropriate, disparaging, remarks about your age, I don't feel he was being overly ageist. Age alone never fails a RfA, though, if you look through AD and Keilana's RfAs, where their age is openly mentioned. In fact, it may even boost support from editors who are surprised at their age, as can be seen in my own RfA. However, age, together with a lack of maturity, can easily sink a RfA, as seen at MFC's RfA. Hopefully this gives you a view about age on Wikipedia. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 02:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Under 18's

ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 03:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

GAN reviews

Hello, I see that you have been doing a lot of reviewing for Good Article nominations lately. You may want to revisit the instructions for reviewing/putting articles on hold; I've noticed that you are mixing up your templates, such as the "On Hold" one at Talk:Operation Varsity, which I've since fixed, and this edit at the GAN page, which removed the original nomination for Operation Varsity; you are supposed to copy and paste "#: {{GAReview|status=onhold}} ~~~~" below the nomination entry. That still needs to be fixed, btw. Also, another user has voiced disagreement with one of your GAN fails at Talk:Battle of Glasgow, which you may want to address; this article probably should not have been failed so quickly. It takes a while to get used to the GAN reviewing process, so I suggest taking it slow at first. :) Best of luck, María (habla conmigo) 13:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

GAN: Double Tenth Incident

Thank u for your review but I seek further clarification. Pse reply to my queries at the article talkpage here. Thanks! -- Aldwinteo (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Check my response on the talk page. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 17:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Darrell S. Cole

Hello, I was hoping to get some more input on the Darrell S. Cole you failed for GA. I need to ask some additional questions in order to fix the problems you noted on the articles talk page. You stated that there were not enough reliable articles, how many do I need? Also you said that there are all caps but other than abbreviations I didn't know what you meant could you give me some examples? Also, regarding the comment that it didn't have enough coverage of the topic, he was 24 years old when he died, he wasn't alive long enough to do much, is length itself a reason to fail or is it a matter of finding info, without crossing the original research line there just isn't much out there on some of these biographies including this one? Thanks for the extra input.--Kumioko (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Also wouldn't it have been appropriate to put the article on hold for a period of time before a flat fail?--Kumioko (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians under 18

I've deleted this page as an extreme privacy issue. Feel free to take to WP:DRV, but no underage users should be broadcasting their age in a centralized fashion. MBisanz talk 17:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I would have deleted this myself if MBisanz hadn't. GlassCobra 17:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Redmark, please review the essay Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy both for your own safety and other's. MBisanz talk 20:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for you own safety and the safety of others I politely ask you to at least remove the photograph of yourself, if not all other information stating you are under the age of 18. Please understand this is not a demand, and I am not forcing you to remove this type of information, but I hope that you understand the reason for my request and insure your safety by removing the information. Thanks you, Tiptoety talk 21:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, there is only my first name, and a pic, and my age, but there isn't a state, or even a country that I live in, but I get your point. I'll leave my age, but the pic, certainly, can go. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 21:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, that is very much appreciated. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 22:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user

adoption offer

Hi Redmarkviolinist,

I thank you for your offer. I am a semi-experienced editor, and currently topic-banned. I noticed you are quite young, and very active, esp. on military history. What I am looking for is coaching regarding the WP:NPOV policy (and other applicable policies of course). I am curious whether you are holding strong views toward the September 11, 2001 attacks. You can read something about me here. Do you feel that this coaching can be a good idea, or should I look further?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Reviews

Hello. I am a member of WP:WGA and as an experienced reviewer, I must say that your recent reviews were very poorly done. The comments you made during the reviews, (including to the articles 36th Engineer Brigade (United States) and 15th Sustainment Brigade (United States) which I am trying to promote) were ambiguous, easily correctable, and, in one case, completely wrong. I understand if you were just trying to move the qeue along so that your own articles could be promoted faster, but please do not waste other's time and energy by arbitrarily failing their articles without reading the guidelines for a GA review (or putting them on hold to allow such easy mistakes to be fixed). You are not the first person in the past few weeks who has done this, and it has made the GA review process more problematic for the rest of us who review articles. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 00:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you give me some specifics, please? This way I know what to fix in the future. Thanks, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 02:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Here are the things I noticed:

  1. First off, failing an article should be a last resort only. When you see an article that looks like it could almost be there, but has some problems, put it "On Hold." This gives the nominator some time to look over the article and fix the problems you have with it. Putting an article on hold will move up the quee without failing the article, as people tend to review articles that aren't on hold. An article should never be immediately failed after its first review.
  2. Red links by themselves are not a reason to fail a GA. If the majority of the links are red, then there is a problem. Otherwise, red links are usually not considered an issue in GA. A and FA articles, though, deal with them much more. If you choose you can put them down as an issue when you put an article on hold, because it takes about ten seconds to get rid of red links.
  3. There is no requirement for a "number" of sources in a GA. For example, note the 3rd Sustainment Brigade (United States) article, which was passed GA with just seven different sources. GAs have been passed with as few as five references. The only requirement for sources in a GA is that the specifics of the article be cited well. If that can be done with five sources, its just fine. See WP:GACR for the exact details of sources and GA's.
  4. Images are not a requirement for a GA. They are recommended but a lack of them is not a reason to fail a GA. In your review of 15th Sustainment Brigade (United States), you mentioned that there were only images of the unit patch. This is incorrect as you can see on the article, there are two photographs, 11 award images, three tables, and three insignia. Ample illustration for an article of any quality.
  5. The size of an article is not important, as long as the topic is completely covered. I direct you again to the sucessful GA 3rd Sustainment Brigade (United States). It's very short, but that is because the brigade is brand new (just like the 15th SB) and all the information about the unit has been covered in the article. An older topic should be held to a higher standard as more information should be avaliable about it, but the coverage of the topic is more important than the article's actual length.
  6. Your overall specifics were also problematic. In many of the failed GA's you said something to the effect of "this article could be expanded" or "it needs more references" but you need to state exactly what needs to be expanded or sourced. Otherwise the review is no help to the nominator, as they don't know how to improve the article.

Remember: GA is not a competition. Our purpose here is not to see who can make the most GAs but to improve as many of our articles as possible. Ideally, we can get every article nominated up to GA quality. If you want some examples, take a look at my review history, it was a learning process for me to review GAs well, too. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 03:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for shedding some light on this section for me. I can safely say that I will try to to better on this. One thing, though. Can you assess Battle of Marion? The previous assessor said the main thing that needs to be improved is that there needs to be more references, even though there are 30. If you could take a look at that for me, it would be greatly appreciated.

-Also, do you know Dreamafter?

ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 03:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Any time. If you have any more questions about GA, let me or someone else from the project know. About the Battle of Marion, the Sources aren't combined, that's the problem. Two or three of the references are exactly the same, and they need to be combined into one reference with all the different citations linked to them. The bare minimum number of citations for an article is one citation per paragraph, but a good writer adds many more than that. Every fact that isn't common knowledge should be sourced, even if it means you have to use the same reference over and over. This makes the article as verifiable as possible. As to Dreamafter, I have seen his/her work and am familiar with the user, but I have had no interactions with them. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 23:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: U-18 attacks

Ouch. I've read some of the other ones on your main userpage, those are VICIOUS. I've been fortunate enough to not run into anyone like that (although I tend to keep my arguments to the rationally-minded Military History Project). But still. Harsh. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Most people just can't comprehend that there are those of us under "The Age" who are actually capable of 1: thought, and 2: Good writing. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Adopt me!

Hey, glad to hear that you're willing to adopt me! I've been slowly figuring things out, so I don't need any help at the moment, but I'll definitely tap you for some information help sometime. WP is a crazy maze. Incidentally, my email is imperfectlyinformed@gmail.com -- if you could drop me a line with an email address or something I would appreciate it. As my Userpage says, ideally I'd like to have someone that I could instant message when I have a quick question. It's just faster. Maybe we can figure something out. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 10:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Three things

Hi Mark!

First, I don't know whether you've seen it yet but I left you some feedback about your assessing and tagging. I have unresolved concerns about the speed and accuracy with which you'd doing this and would be grateful if you checked all your ranges in the light of my comments. I'd also appreciate comment from you.

I'm in the process of doing this. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 12:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Second, you asked me to GA review the Battle of Marion. I have read it and could not pass it without further work. (Some examples: the intro needs beefing up; some of the sections are distinctly stubby; it needs a copy-edit, and I'd prefer to see more paper refs. I also personally prefer short cites/full sources see Hamlet as an example, but that's not a deal breaker.) Unfortunately, I just do not have enough spare time to shepherd it through GA.

Third, I'm puzzled about your tally at WP:MHA-T&A08#Participants. You claimed 2200 but your ranges show only 1800 articles. Why did you change it to 2000 after I set it to 1800?

I did some work in worklist B, but it should actually be 1900 instead. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 12:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to hearing from you. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Redmarkviolinist, I am going to offer some advice. I am not trying to be a teacher, but my advice will help your reviews for GA nominations be less opposed by editors.

You have stated for several GA nomination reviews that the article being reviewed does not have enough reliable sources.

I advise you to look at the Good article criteria. You will see that a GA nomination cannot be failed because you consider that there are too few reliable sources used. It is perfectly acceptable for only two or three reliable sources to be utilised by an GA class article.

If you follow my advice, and realise that GA nominations cannot be failed on the basis of your perception that there are not enough reliable sources employed, then your GA nomination reviews will not come under less a degree of opposition from experienced editors (I am not calling myself an experienced editor, but I am sure you have noticed the relatively large number of experienced editors who have voiced concern regarding your GA nomination reviews).

I am not doing this because you have failed my GA nomination, although the failure did lead me to look up other reviews you have done, which lead to me seeing several comments against your reviews by experienced editors. I am not bitter, and I do think you will make an excellent editor one day, based on the fact that you are very active, if you just follow the guidelines of Wikipedia. Hope to see you around.

Thank you for reading.EasyPeasy21 (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your checkuser request on my page

No, not without you providing some supporting evidence, similar to how it's done on WP:RFCU. Asking checkusers directly does not mean you can forgo the evidence requirement. --Deskana (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Belleville Philharmonic Society

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Belleville Philharmonic Society, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Grey Wanderer | Talk 23:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history 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) 02:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

GA stuff

G'day.

I'm here from Talk:Double_Tenth_Incident#Second_opinion. I saw what you did there. I thank you for trying to help out at GAN...it is appreciated. But please, please, please, before making a pass/fail decision, could you possibly ask one of the GAN mentors to take a quick look, in future. I'd be happy to. I'm sure this will make this easier for everyone, and help the project a great deal more.

Best regards,

dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa

I know that he/she is one of your adoptees. So you know, he/she has been asking me about information about helping out at DYK. I said that I would be willing to mentor. Royalbroil 22:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Milhist contest

The contest runs on a monthly basis, so it is measured from the beginning of the month. At the beginning of the month the article was a start class article. Admittedly you assessed it as GA not long after midnight, but it was still assessed as GA in May. I think arguing over semantics is demeaning the contest, Kyriakos put in the work and this should be reflected in his tally at the end of the month. Regards Woody (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I get your point. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 20:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for being understanding. It is a loose system so as to accomodate what is best for the editors who enter it. Regards and happy editing with this months entries. Woody (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Kalka River

I had also thought you put the starting class as the class that it was at the start of the month. If not, I would be more than happy to change it from Start to GA if it is indeed the class when you nominate the article. Also thanks for doing the article's GAC. Kyriakos (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

GA: James Graham

Thanks for your review of James Graham (soldier), and passing the GA. I'm sure this is an oversight, but you forgot to remove the listing from WP:GAN, and to add it to WP:GA. Not a problem on this occasion, since I've sorted it, but do remember next time to go through the full pass process, so we can all keep track. Thanks. Gwinva (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. I don't know how I forgot that. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 22:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
:-) We all do things like that sometimes! Gwinva (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

Hi Mark. Just a note. When you pass a GA-Nomination, my suggestion is that your change the template on the GAN Page IMMEDIATELY. For instance, in the most recent one (Battle of N'Djamena (2008)‎), you didn't remove the template, and I put the article down as being reviewed by me, and promptly disagreed with your decision to immediately pass the article (it needs a copyedit, and then it should be fine). Just as a friendly reminder so as to avoid confusion. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 04:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I already got the message above :). My mistake. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 04:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

re: Checkuser

Ping! --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ping! --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Ping! --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)