This user may have left Wikipedia. SorryGuy has not edited Wikipedia since 22 June 2012. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
Hey there! I hope all is well. Anyway, just dropping by with a question; what did you mean by "didn't want to hurt [me]" in your support statement? I'm not offended or anything, and just was curious about that. At any rate, you never have to worry about offending me, just so you know. Cheers, Master of PuppetsCall me MoP!☺19:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Sorry if that was unclear. I meant that because I have never nominated a candidate before, I didn't want to nominate you, as I was afraid the nomination would not as strong as one offered by someone with experience in giving them. Further, I would say Majorly probably has more clout than me with the community. At any rate, I will clarify that over at the RfA. Warm regards, SorryGuy Talk 19:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hello, thanks for being active at AFD. When you relist a debate, however, there are 3 steps. The first step you did... subst the relist template into the discussion page, then comment-out the afd page transclusion on the log page, then place the transclusion onto the new logpage. If you do not complete the steps, then the bots don't recognize the log as closed, and interested editors reviewing todays log will never see the discussion. Let me know if you need any more explanation. Thanks, JERRYtalkcontribs04:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying that I missed the step of removing it from the January 26 log, correct? Looking at my contributions, it would indeed seem that I did not so, despite that I remember having the page open. I edit in multiple tabs so I guess it is possible that I just never saved the page. At any rate, thanks for pointing it out and fixing up by sloppiness. Warm regards, SorryGuy Talk 05:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for supporting my RfA, I totally wasn't expecting to get so much support, it was a really pleasant surprise. Melesse (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Melesse (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi SorryGuy. I took another look at the article, and you did fix some of my concerns (although I noticed that some of the new sources are missing publishers). I think the Academics section needs to be cited to something tangible, even if it is just the school website. Otherwise, that could be considered original research. I realize that the events section is really short, but I would merge those two paragraphs into one and delete all the extra detail about the car thing. By including so much detail, it makes the event sound pretty notable, and in the grand scheme of things it's just another fundraiser. Karanacs (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With the AfD backlog as it is and with what I consider sufficient time passed since first RfA, I had been considering asking for a nomination from one of those who offered one last time in the next few weeks. If you are offering a nomination, though, I would be honored to accept it. Cheers, SorryGuy Talk 07:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supporting me!My RfA passed with a final tally of 5 neutrals, 1 oppose and 148 supports, a turnout I couldn't have dreamed of. I'm going to do everything I can to help out the community, help with sysop tasks, and of course, contribute to the encyclopedia. If you ever need a hand with something, feel free to give a shout! Cheers! Master of PuppetsCall me MoP!☺17:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, versions of my sig seem to be doing the rounds on WP! I actually stole half the code from another user (can't remember who now) and created the rest myself, so it's not even totally original to me!! Pedro : Chat 15:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 58 supporting, 0 opposing, and 2 neutral. I hope to demonstrate that your trust in me is rightly placed and am always open to critiques and suggestions. Cheers. MBisanztalk04:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note, it was greatly appreciated (and rather flattering). Considering the time you've been here, compared to me, and the work you did in getting LOTR(!!!!!!) featured, I think you deserve it as much as anyone. I'm told I'll get the tools one day, meh. For now, I've got 2 articles dangerously close to FAC (shall I canvass your help with reviewing ;)), plus a few more that need some more lovin'. Oh, and school. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kosovo
I don't personally hold a position on the region, I was just making some simple edits, but I think it's going to have to be further protected. Epson291 (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to say you were, I have no opinion as well. I am simply attempting to keep discussion there to avoid having to further protect. If it becomes necessary, I will, but for now I think it can stay at semi. Cheers, SorryGuy Talk 01:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to improve the history section and not cause any disruption. I am proposing this new version for the history section User:Getoar/Notebook. It has far more sources than the current one and I am still working on it, which means I will add more. I believe it is more inclusive and less selective as to time period or issues.--Getoar (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In a case like this one, even if your edits are good faith, please try to develop consensus for them on the talk page. If clear consensus emerges, then your version will be kept. I would also recommend presenting what you told me to the AN/I, although I will do so for you if you do not. Thanks, SorryGuy Talk 22:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. You do it this time. I just want to see that people are actually paying attention to my proposal and to just ignoring it because it is by an Albanian. I took off some allegedly Albanian-POV elements such as the issue about the Roman Catholic Church (which is acutally true; Catholics had it worse during the Ottomans than the Orthodox; the latter had their church protected by the sultan).--Getoar (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of AN/I, like I said, have you actively proposed and attempted to gain consensus for your proposal on the talk page? If you do so calmly and present your case for that version reasonably, I am sure it will get proper consideration. Warm regards, SorryGuy Talk 22:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Getoar/Notebook is now proposed on the Kosovo talkpage and I am waiting for response. Earlier I made changes, perhaps without prior discussion, but I did offer my reasons in the edit summary. I believed that better sourced and all-inclusive texts are more acceptable. The history section was nevertheless tagged for lack of sources and verifiability.--Getoar (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can wait for a while and see what they say. But even if my version is not accepted I will challenge the current one (by tags and minor acceptable edits). It has practically no sources at least up to its later subsections.--Getoar (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can has thankspam?
Quick, let's delete the front page!
No seriously, thanks for contributing at my RfA which ended 68/0/0. I'm amazed and humbled by the result, and the warm and supportive comments that went with it. I've put the pic of Tiger here because although I know not everyone appreciates lolcats, to me it illustrates the possibility of taking things seriously with a light heart. I will try to do so, and remain open to the being slapped down if I do start being impossibly pompous.
Thanks Pedro : Chat for your generous nomination, and also to Master of Puppets for ripping off his thankspam without so much as a by-your-leave. To all who contributed - especially the eventually withdrawn (but very interesting) neutral and oppose - thank you! Now it's off to new admin school for me, before I dare do anything for real...
Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)09:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Block template
No worries - I actually had the same question for quite a while before stumbling on the answer. To get the sig into the block template, you need to assign a "sig=~~~~" parameter. For example, {{subst:uw-block1|sig=~~~~}} does the trick. Don't hesitate to ask if you have any other questions. In retrospect, I feel pretty dumb for being annoyed by it for several months rather than just simply asking someone.--Kubigula(talk)21:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RFA
Thanks for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully with 40 supports, 13 opposes, and 4 neutrals. For those of you who supported my RFA, I greatly appreciate it. For those who did not, I'm also thankful for your constructive criticism. If you need some advice or have some pointers for me, you know where to reach me! A special thank you to Majorly for all his time and effort he has placed in my nomination. Once again, thank you all for your helpful comments. Now off to new admin school! Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk01:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admin nom
Hi SorryGuy, thank you very much for the offer. I'm not sure that I haven't had any others because folks suspect I have them, but thank you for saying that ;-) I'm a little conflicted about whether to accept, to be honest. Lar and John have just barely agreed to be my admin coaches, and I'm concerned that the number of my mainspace contribs would make an RfA difficult to pass. I've asked Lar what he thinks, but he appears to be offline. Would you mind if it took me a little while to get back to you? Thanks again, Avruch T 02:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm going to hold off and aim at that slam dunk you mentioned. Hopefully my admin coaching will proceed soon and I'll have the time to make some more mainspace contribs (and help get A Moral Reckoning to GA status). I very much appreciate the offer and your understanding, thank you! Avruch T 03:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: editor review
Thanks for the compliments and the review! Yeah, I'm a huge Twinkle fan. In the beginning, it's somewhat difficult to use effectively and non-impulsively - you just gotta learn patience with it. A lot of users just use it indiscriminately, but it really is a great tool. I'll try my best to continue working at the capacity/level that I current am. Cheers! Wisdom89(T / C)03:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely. I totally understand what you mean about Twinkle, and as I said it does seem like your use it effectively. I would also say now that I am here and dealing with my internet's lag that it probably wouldn't be a horrible idea to achieve your talk page a little more frequently ;). Cheers, SorryGuy Talk 03:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you muchly for your support in my recent request for adminship, which was successfully closed on 76%, finishing at 73 supports, 23 opposes and 1 neutral. The supports were wonderful, and I will keep in mind the points made in the useful opposes and try to suppress the Larry David in me! Now I'm off to issue some cool down blocks, just to get my money's worth!
Dear SorryGuy, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight. I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community. I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :) I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂11:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you deleted my article on Sydney band Rum Babas - I will obtain proof of their existence and nomination of an Aria award and I hope my article will be re-upped
(5b3TnY —Preceding comment was added at 09:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neon Bible
Hi, I saw you reverted my edit moving the story behind the title back to the lead. See I disagree with you there because the lead is supposed to give the reader all the important information about the article at a casual glance. The lack of connection between the titles of the book and album isn't that important. Also, all the info in the lead should also be mentioned in the body of the article, which is not the case here. If not Artwork, could you suggest another place to keep this information? indopug (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understood your reasoning for doing it, but I honestly do not think the origin of the title is appropriate for any of the current sections, and definately not worthy of its own section. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the main points of the article. However, I do not believe it says everything in the lead must be covered in greater depth within the text. If you have a solution, I am open to it, but personally I think it is fine where it is. While I am here, I would like to thank you for the copy-edit. It was well-done. Cheers, SorryGuy Talk 05:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its better with that "commercialized Bible" bit; add that to before the "Once the title of the album was decided upon..." sentence. I'm not sure if that book warrants mention in the article at all actually... indopug (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the barnstar. I do have a couple disagreements:
POV was a little harsh. Previous reviews did not have POV issues. Frankly, some of his stats are astonishing (like stealing more than the Red Sox franchise for 23 years). However, I noticed that when Babe Ruth out-homered every team, it isn't written as "astonishing." Although it should be. ;-)
I understand what makes a good lead, but I have no idea how the lead for the article should be written now. What is excessive or not enough? Please provide examples.
Hey, you offered a while ago to help make changes to the WPSchools banner and was hoping you were still willing. I have created a newer, more condensed and more functional version and would appreciate if you could move/copy it from User:Alanbly/WPSchools to Template:WikiProject_Schools. I have already created the new categories necessary for the move. It will also be necessary to re-add {{pp-template|small=yes}} back on once the move is completed. Thanks! Adam McCormick (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ack, the protection template needs to be inside <noinclude></noinclude> tags! It's being transcluded to the whole category. Can you fix this please? Adam McCormick (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you again, but we need your help again if you wouldn't mind terribly. We've made a couple bug fixes and would appreciate another move from User:Alanbly/WPSchools. And just as a reminder, be sure to uncomment the protection template. Thanks. Let me know if there are any issues. Adam McCormick (talk) 04:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bug you again so soon, but I discovered a further bug and corrected it. If you would bring the template over again it would be quite helpful. Thanks again Adam McCormick (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The schools project now has its first FL class article so I've updated the template at User:Alanbly/WPSchools with the new cat. When you have time, it would be great if you could move it over, and dont forget to uncomment the protection template. Thanks! Adam McCormick (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI In the mean time since this request I have been asked to make several other changes which are also ready to be moved. I have placed an edit protected notice on the page so I'll let you know if it gets done before you get to it. Thanks again! Adam McCormick (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can a request of an IP to be blocked on the basis of evading a ban be denied for an old warning? Evading a ban is an immediately blockable offense, and the puppetmaster had already been blocked, has had three of his socks. I provided links to the puppetmaster's identity and three of his socks that had already been blocked for performing exactly the same edit. Don't you think being blocked four times for the behaviour is sufficient warning? As for it maybe being someone else, how many people do you think are possibly obsessed with changing the number of black Hondurans from 150K to 350K? It doesn't seem like a widespread area of controversy which is inclined to draw in a wide range of people maniacally inserting the same false number into Wikipedia.
What would I have had to write to make you act instead of decline? As it is, it took several more hours to get the situation under control, with several more reversion cycles and finally going to WP:RFPP to get action taken. A lot more effort, a lot more time, and a lot more vandalism. I really need to understand how to get these things acted on at AIV, and I'm obviously not putting in enough for AIV to recognize blatant vandals and block them.Kww (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I will yield that it was not a great decline, and that I probably should have made the block. I simply looked at the contribs, saw the old warning, and saw the user was not active at the time. I didn't look into the socks, and I'm not sure why, so apologies there. The issue appears to be resolved, but I understand it took more effort on your part and I thank you for that and apologize there as well. Warm regards, SorryGuy Talk 00:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 4,050 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 227 total nominations, 16 are on hold, 14 are under review, and two are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (45), Sports and recreation (34), Music (18), Transport (15), World history (14), Politics and government (13), and Places (12).
Noble Story (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for April, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Noble Story joined Wikipedia on May 16, 2007. He is a big fan of the Houston Rockets, and edits many related articles, as well as articles on basketball in general. Congratulations to Noble Story (talk·contribs) on being April's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of April include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GA Topic
Do you know what a GA topic is? If you are not nodding your head, or don't know what I'm talking about, then you should pay attention to this article.
There are ten GA top-level topics (but you will spot the eleventh as this article goes along). These topics are: Arts, Language and literature, Philosophy and religion, Everyday life, Social sciences and society, Geography and places, History, Engineering and technology, Mathematics, and Natural sciences. Each of these topics are further narrowed down to more specific topics. For example, Arts can be narrowed down to Art and architecture, Music, and Theatre, film and drama. But let's not get into sub-topics in this article because of its depth.
Now you will probably ask, "I already knew this, so what is your point?" What I want to illustrate is that some people often forget a step when they promote an article to GA. After they have posted their review in the article talk page, added the article name to the corresponding topic in the good article page, increased the GA count by 1, and added the {{GA}} to article talk page, many reviewers tend to forget to add the topic parameter in {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}}. You can browse the topic parameter abbreviations at on this page as well as what each top-level GA topic means, because sometimes it can be chaotic and confusing to pick a topic. For example, should On the Origin of Species be placed under the Natural Science topic (because it's related to evolution), or under the Language and Literature topic (because it is a book)? The correct answer is to place it under Language and literature topic, because its categorization as a proper title supercedes other categories.
Let's go back to the page that shows GA topics; does anyone spot the eleventh topic? Yes, Category:Good articles without topic parameter is the 11th topic, only it shouldn't be there. Articles that do not have a topic parameter in either {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}} will be placed in this category. The topic "Uncategorized" is not very informative, is it? So if you have time, you can consider cleaning up the articles that are left in this category and move them to the appropriate category by adding a topic parameter.
That's it for this month, I hope you learned a little from it.
GA Sweeps Update
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of April, a total of 26 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 15 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and two were delisted. There are currently six articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. One article was exempted from review because it was promoted to FA. Two articles were exempted from review because they were already delisted by another member in the community.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
...that different languages have different symbols representing GA? (Alemannic uses , Bavarian uses , Czech and French use , Estonian, Icelandic, and Swedish use , Esperanto and German use , Polish, Spanish, and Turkish use , Portuguese uses , Russian uses , Ukrainian uses )
Note: Lithuanian and Serbian have their own symbol but only uploaded locally. Other languages not listed above either have the same symbol as english or they don't have GA process.
From the Editors
There is currently a debate on adding a small green dot to the top right corner of all Good Articles that pass the criteria, similar to the small bronze star that is added to the top right corner of Featured Articles. Members of WikiProject Good Articles are encouraged to participate in the debate on this page.
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
Thanks for letting me know. At this point, it is actually more of a third opinion, but the suggestions are good and I will do my best to get to them in the coming days, although I am little harried in real life right now. Cheers, SorryGuy Talk 05:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WBOSITG's RfA
Hello SorryGuy, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for your participation in my RfA which was passed with a final tally of 114/10/4. I'm both shocked and honoured to gain so much support from users whom I admire and trust, and I hope I can avoid breaking that backing by being the best administrator I possibly can. I will take on board the opposition's comments and I hope to improve over the coming months and years. Once again, thank you! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The Lord of the Rings has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Davémon (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)?
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Petcoconvention.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Freshmen Exibitions 046.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:National Botball 059.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:John Swigert Monument.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Friday End of Year 033.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GA Sweeps invitation
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.
We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Wikipedia Freedom Fighters
Apparently many admins who have not been active have received the email. See WP:AN discussion.
File source problem with File:John Swigert Monument.jpg
File Copyright problem
Thanks for uploading File:John Swigert Monument.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
File source problem with File:National Botball 059.jpg
File Copyright problem
Thanks for uploading File:National Botball 059.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
I have done a GA Reassessment of the Preuss School article as part of the GA Sweeps project. I find the article to not meet the current GA Criteria. Here is my review. I will hold the article for a week and I am notifying all interested editors and projects. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive
WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April.
Are you still active here? Just thought I'd let you know I plan to have a crack at polishing Neon Bible up to FA, if you're interested. If you're not active, it's alright. ;) f o x11:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Patrol survey
New page patrol – Survey Invitation
Hello SorryGuy! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artists and songs at both Live Aid and Live 8 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MSU Interview
Dear SorryGuy,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
I started the review of this article (which you nominated). There doesn't seem to be anybody involved. Didn't know if you had an interest in being that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. WJBscribe(talk)11:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.
Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.
Hi, if you are active on Wikipedia and are still interested in helping out with urgent tasks on our large Schools Project, please let us know here. We look forward to hearing from you.
Sent to project members 13:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC). You can opt of messages here.
RFA thanks 
:.
Quick, let's delete the front page! 
