CTSWyneken

In regards of a recent copyright related note you left, the text I had added was inspired by a translation of the initial article [[1]] and similar. Very close indeed to the article you pointed, some historical facts would be worth remaining. In light of the rather directed comment left in the history, I believe this is the first and last contribution of mine to those pages talk.

• Yuck. Looks like the debate has gotten heated at times. How do you think I could best help? Are you looking for a sort of informal meidation, or just seeking outside views, or something else? I'll be happy to help if I →can. Johntex\^talk 19:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi - just wanted you to know a fair bit of damage had been done to the page on Augustine of Hippo. I have reverted to the latest, undamaged complete page I could find - but some changes for the better may be lost. Could you take a look too? The repairs may take a while, and I have only a little time at the moment. Thanks in advance Cor Unum 10:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey my buddy, how have you been? I would like you to take a look at the image of Rear Admrial Rafael Celetino Bemitez Image:Rear Admiral R.C. Benitez.jpg. Now, notice his Silver Star ribbon below his "Sub Wings". If I'm not mistaken, he was awarded more then one Silver Star Medal. What do you think? Tony the Marine 05:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don’t understand your point, will ask in the Talk section.

--
Leandro GFC Dutra 16:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I might not be looking at the right diffs, but it looks like all he did was add maybe one or two "cite" tags and change a bunch of puncuation marks? Homestarmy 22:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well i've always done it the ref=name way, but if he's gotten them all out of order that can't help the article out, i'll read the conversation again. Homestarmy 00:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Only two dust ups? You must be going soft!

I've not been editing at the cliff-face because I'm working offline on the sections from Wartburg to Peasants' War, getting the length down but trying to somehow fold in more substance, while tweaking out what I can't substantiate. It's very difficult. I do read everything at ML, but I'm not sure I'd enjoy getting into all the passing disputes (you see, I regard you as the sentry on the border, while I lurk in cowardly comfort with the port and the cigars). I must say, I'd rather hang-glide naked through a Borneo bat cave than get involved with the Luther and the Jews battle zone.

But I couldn't resist that "according to tradition" bait, even though I know you would have stepped in. I suppose "nailed" isn't strictly wrong, since it's part of the tradition (goodness knows why); but I somehow can't see Luther, confrontational chap though he was, marching up Wittenberg High Street with a bag of nails and a claw hammer and vandalising the expensive door of a church which employed him. qp10qp 01:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

They didn't have tacks? If that's the American word for drawing pin, you may be right, but they had tacks as I know them; delicate ones were used in leatherwork, for example, and in shoes. I'm aware of this bulletin-board point, and so I concede that Luther and others might have carried miniature hammers about their persons with which to tap pins into wood, but posted at least saves me imagining Luther as some mighty Thor of the door, his angry blows resounding through history; and it suits better his activity in the painting you describe. It's slightly annoying that we have to have this business in the article at all, but such a potent myth must be acknowledged, of course.

qp10qp 16:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I wish you a Happy Veterans Day. You are a true hero. Tony the Marine 03:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Thank you. You know maybe you didn't serve however, the your dedication to all things military in Wikipedia has honored us who served and therefore in my book makes you a hero. For me it has been a great honor to have befriended a somebody like you. Oh don't forget to zoom in on Rafael Celestino Benitez's image and confirm what I suspect about his 2nd Silver Star Medal. Tony the Marine 16:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

About the image. I don't have a high res., but if you zoom it just a bit, yoou will notice that he has a devise in the middle of his Silver Star ribbon which is under his sub-wings. Now, I'm sure that it is a silver star devise which would mean that he was awarded two Silver Star Medals. If you notice the same thing then we have something there. Tony the Marine 00:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dear CTSWyneken,

I received a message at 11:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC) from you stating that "If you continue [vandalising] you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others."

I am confused about what was considered vandalism and why. I only contribute positively and constructively, and I have never vandalised Wikipedia. In fact, I have created a group on MySpace that worships Wikipedia...

Confusedly, Mavaddat

• Thanks for the correcting the mistake, CTSWyneken. I was indeed correcting the link. The first link did not work, so I did a search on Google and found the second link (the one I posted) to have the referenced video clip. The clip itself is not obscene, except for some profane language by Penn (Teller doesn't talk), throwing Bibles, and impersonating the King.

• Mav

Hello, Sometime ago you did the GA review of the Joseph W. Tkach article. Since then a lot of progress was made. I have favour to ask of you. The article is now a FAC. I am uncomfortable about soliciting votes (conflict of interest), so I was wondering if you could ask your colleagues to review and vote on it. Thanks. --RelHistBuff 08:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just read you note, and I'm glad you enjoyed my contributions on the article on Martin Luther. However, I must confess I was puzzled at your request that I cite the source(s), since I did. I went back just a few moments ago to make sure, and, yup, sure enough:

"You plea to be heard..." [#47]

"I wish you peace and love in Christ....dear Katie..." [#105]

The only thing I can think of is the line or two I added to the beginning of Herr Luther's famous speech before the Assembly:

"Since your Majesity desires simplicity..."

I didn't cite a source b/c for the simple reasons that:
a)There was already a source cited for that speech itself and I didn't want to clutter the blockquote.
b)It was just one or two lines grafted on the main truck on the piece, and hopefully enhanced somewhat but distracted not at all from the body/message of the text.

However, if you feel those few lines merit having a source cited just let me know and I shall be happy to do so. Malplaquet 15:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Happy Thanksgiving to you and your love ones. This year I have the whole family over (last year my daughter, son-in law and little Nina spent it in Iowa). We'll put up the Christmas decos after dinner.

I'm going to work on some of the MoH's soon. I created a Category: Recipients of the Silver Star medal and added some names. Maybe you know of some people who were awarded the Silver Star medal and who do not have that cat. on their pages. You can help me out by adding the cat.

Take care my brother.

Tony the Marine 17:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering if you might have the time to comment on the Agripinna opera GA review, the discussion is proving quite....contentious, and I think more editors might be able to help form a real supermajority one way or another. I have the feeling that a no consensus result would be bad, as some people don't seem to like how many reviwers interpret the good prose criteria more strictly than others :/. Homestarmy 18:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Review away! It's currently on the candidates list. I think you'll find that I tried to explain any technical terms, but if you feel that improvements can be made then please feel free to review/comment. Best, Moreschi 20:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have done a major rewrite on the Opus Dei article and am requesting comments on its talk page. Although I personally believe the new article is a very good one, out of fairness, I went ahead and removed the GA tag. It was suchh a big rewrite, the article should be re-reviewed. Since you did the GA review, would you look over the rewrite and add back the GA tag if you feel the new article merits it? I also would greatly value any comment you'd like to make on the RFC. --Alecmconroy 08:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for your help on the page. I think that once the article is stable and we get the NPOV tag down, it has the makings of FAC. If you have any suggestions for how to improve it, or would like to further help out in the ensuing discussion about the NPOVness of the article, it would be greatly appreciated. :) --Alecmconroy 13:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Loremaster and I would appreciate it if you would look over the Ebionites article and provide suggestions to get it ready for nomination as a featured article. We recently finished incorporating the suggestions of Slrubenstein from peer review. Slrub suggested you would be a good person to work with to further improve the article and get a diverse perspective. I see you know Alecmconroy. Alec has been acting as our RFC to referee disputes over the article. Ovadyah 11:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Stop by when you can. :) Ovadyah 11:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the quick turnaround! Ovadyah 13:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

... [2] and consider commenting (and also check out the new lead to the article; the edit in question has already been made)? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey CTS, since you're looking into these things, I thought I'd point you to the discussion ongoing at Image talk:Cilice3.jpg. It's an image used in OD artile. There's a pretty strong consensus for using it in the article-- it's been in the article for several months, long before I did the rewrite last week. Nonetheless, User:Dominick has been trying to get the image deleted for copy.

In response, I've got an editor trying to say it's a copyright violation. Obviously, I won't ask ya'll to comment on the related issue of whether the image should be on the article, but could someone clear of the copyright issue. The history of the image is

• I personally made the image myself-- it is a derivative work using GFDLed material I downloaded from Wikimedia Commons. I released the image I created under the GFDL (as, I believe, the GFDL requires me to do).
• The original work I modified was downloaded from [3]. It was uploaded in August 2004 by its author(s) who released under the GFDL.

So, it's an open and shut case of an OK image-- apparently Dominick is under the impression that the original author can't properly release it unless he issues a web-accessable "official statement" of some sort. Could you look over the issue and confirm that the copyrightholder's written statement is all that is required, not a web-accessable formal statement.

I assume he's wrong on the issue, and I hope he is, because 99% of the images on Wikipedia are in the same boat. --Alecmconroy 19:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

[4] Slrubenstein | Talk 16:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey - Quick note regarding your deletion of the "exodus from the church" paragraph. I think I take issue with the assertion that Lutherans believe the church "left them". In the sense that's obviously meant by the deleted text, I doubt I personally know any Lutherans who would have any issues with "left the Catholic church", and I know a few hundred.

Perhaps we could come up with a wording that better fits your take on things without losing the essential meaning of the paragraph? Brennen 21:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

It hardly strikes me as "very biased", coming from a once fairly immersed LCMS background, but I shan't argue credentials. I mean no disrespect, but I think it's possible that your close relationship with a strain of Lutheranism is blurring your perception of bias here. At any rate, I'll probably try to come up with a version that doesn't set anyone off too badly.

I agree that the article could use some serious work, but refactoring what's already present seems to me like a workable approach. Brennen 22:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

On the infant baptism bit, the individual in question isn't arguing that Lutherans don't believe in infant baptism, or that it shouldn't be mentioned in the article. It's more that s/he wanted to include a rant about the "unbiblical" nature of said practice, which obviously has no place in the article. There's a chance it's just Stephen Colbert inspired trolling/vandalism anyway - see Talk:Lutheranism#Controversy_section. Brennen 17:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Concur. The logical outcome of this sort of thing is detailing the complete objections of every other denomination, sect, religion, & ideological position to the individual points of Lutheran belief listed in the article, and then do the same for every other article with ideological content... But I suppose the absurdity is self evident. Brennen 20:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

The phrase is being challeneged. Cf Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Small_Minority. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

PS: Also Talk:Jesus#small_minority.3F. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the welcom wagon message, it was very helpful. I have a question for you. I recently created the Future of Forestry page only to have it nominated for deletion. It's been several days since any discussion on its AFD page and the last few people all said it should be kept...so can I just go onto the entry page and delete the "This article is being considered for deletion..." code?

Thanks again for helping out us newbies :-) Nothingcorporate 06:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

 

O.K., so maybe you don't believe in Santa, but I still want to wish you and your loved ones a "Happy Holidays" and all of the happiness in the world and the best new year ever. Your friend, Tony the Marine 23:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Merry Christmas in 100 languages

Hi, CTSWy. I'm inclined to revert your addition to the second paragraph, which implies that it is only a matter of some scholars' opinion that the Trinity is not expressly stated in Scripture. If it were, opinion would not be concerning whether the Trinity is taught, but whether the teaching is Scripture. As it is, the controversy is concerning whether the the doctrine should be concluded from the Scriptures as a whole, not whether the doctrine is anywhere stated in the Bible.

I've followed your editing for years, now (especially admiring what you've done on articles concerning Lutheranism), and would not wish to provoke you by a hasty revert. Shall we discuss this? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'll think about the paragraph, and about how to express it in a way that doesn't imply that the question of whether the doctrine is biblical has been decided to the satisfaction of modern scholars. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ebionites article passed GA. We are having a 2nd round of peer review to get it ready for FA nomination. Your perspective on changes needed to make it FA quality would be appreciated. Ovadyah 16:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Happy Christmas and a merry New Year! Keep up the good work at ML!

(I've made the mistake of trying to rebuild other articles from scratch and have become distracted from the Luther article, for the time being. Will be back, for sure.) qp10qp 18:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I was reading over the article again, and wondered if the word "ubiquity" is still used in Lutheran definitions, to understand "Real Presence". The article does not use this word, which has been a cause of difference between the Calvinist Reformed and the Lutherans. Is the omission an error? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

 

I wish you and your loved ones all the happiness in the world this coming year.

Oh, my apologies - if you'll note from my contributions, I was doing a lot of editing, and was kind of on autopilot. Upon reviewing it, I think the article meets most of the criteria for WP:NPOV just fine - I was mainly focusing on comments like (especially notable due to the use of our):

In December 1995, the staff voted to restructure our educational day to the 4x4 block format. The 4x4 scheduling format at R. Nelson Snider High School has students taking just four classes every day. There is more time for instruction and learning, with less time used for getting to and from classes and for classroom management. This productive use of school time translates into potential for additional labs, field trips, interdisciplinary activities and intense focus on subject matter.

This isn't exactly a cut-and-dry issue, as it's portrayed here, but it's hardly a serious POV problem - which is why I didn't go so far as adding a POV-related template. The clean-up is probably still necessary, though. I apologize if I came off as vindictive, or anything - it was mostly meant as a note to any clean-up editors. Thanks for calling it to my attention, though. --Haemo 23:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'll let you fix the broken link to a talk archive for May 20, 2006 for Book of Concord now that someone has decided to move it (but not all of it) to a different name. Keesiewonder ^talk 03:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Excellent; that's what I thought too. Keesiewonder ^talk 11:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Didn't last long, though. Keesiewonder ^talk 15:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Since you're a Seminary teacher type scholar person, (I'm bad with labels when things get all collage related heh) I was wondering if you might perhaps know of any good, general sources on the history of Christian Evangelism, or certain types of notable evangelism. I have recently come into the acquisition of a large amount of free time on my hands, and assuming my school does not once again rob me of two more successive weekends and all the weekdays in between with mountains of busy work, I want to dedicate my efforts to Approaches to evangelism. It was a very poor article when I first saw it, and it still is, but as I go look up references for each type of Evangelism I thought you might know some sources which might be highly, well, scholarly-ish for the task :/. I've already re-written the intro, which i'll probably end up changing as the article grows, and started working on the Open-air preaching section. I've only used a single article written by Charles Spurgeon and the Bible as references so far, and look how much Spurgeon alone got me from just one of his articles.... Homestarmy 22:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Would the History of Christianity volumes be hosted online somewhere like Google Books or something? Homestarmy 13:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Someone wants to rename the Categories of the Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, Silver Star and Bronze Star Medals, to something like this: "Category:Recipients of the United States Purple Heart medal".

I personally oppose this move because these military decorations are only awarded om the United States and therefore cannot be confused with some other country's decoration. I see no need for the move. As a person who has been involved with United States military related articles, I invite you to express your opinion here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. Thank you, Tony the Marine 02:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I just wanted to give you a few examples of how JWs use the term "Christendom." It is a special usage, not common usage. That is one reason I think it is POV. Check these examples out. They are the tip of the ice berg:

http://www.watchtower.org/library/pr/article_04.htm and http://www.watchtower.org/library/w/2004/3/1/article_02.htm (read the paragraph under the subheading entitled "They Are United By Love").--GFrege 01:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

E-mail for you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are invited to participate in Lutheranism WikiProject, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about Lutheranism. We are currently discussing prospects for the project. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

The Project page is up and running (bare bones at least). Come on by and sign up if you are still interested. -- Pastordavid 20:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think that I have a pretty good article here and I would like you to take a look and tell me what you think: Puerto Ricans in World War II. Tony the Marine 05:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

• I think that I have made some improvements in the intro, but you know me, I'm not that great when it comes to prose. Do you think that it has the makings of a "GA". Tony the Marine 21:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

FYI. --Keesiewonder ^talk 02:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Bob, seeing that you have looked at a number of GA nominees, could you have a look at this before it is nominated - just to see if it is ready. I know we have a couple of refs to fill in - but I have seen articles go through GA without perfect referencing (perhaps because perfection - as such - is more expected of FA's). If there is anything besides the ref that would be needed for the GA, could you leave a note on the peer review? Thanks. -- Pastordavid 19:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not to step on anyone's toes, but just how is "O Sacred Head, Now Wounded" specifically Lutheran in a way that many other popular hymns among Lutherans are not? I just ask because it's not one we sing very often (this coming Friday being the exception), in my experience it's not very popular, and it's use is far from restricted to Lutherans. If there's some overarching reason for keeping the Lutheranism tag on it, I'm all for that, but I have to say that as I understand the subject now there is little specific reason for keeping it. jackturner3 18:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

First, if you look the article states that St. Bernard is the author of the hymn and that Paul Gerhardt is the translator. If this is incorrect, I would encourage you to fix it. Second, I can understand that in your experience the hymn is imminently popular. Third, you are correct that this hymn would a tighter association with Lutheranism than some/most of the politicians that are also tagged, but maybe that says more about tagging politicians and celebrities than it does about this particular hymn. Like I said, I personally have no problem with keeping the tag. I just think that the "Lutheran" aspect needs to be emphasized in the article if at all possible. Maybe you're just the person to do that.

jackturner3 19:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. Since I'm almost done with the assessment of articles in the project (and I'd hate to leave just one without assessment), what would you recommend its importance as?

jackturner3 19:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'll err on the high side and put it at mid. Like you said, some people can't imagine Lent without it, and then there are parishes like mine where it never gets sung. Seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

jackturner3 20:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Ebionites article has been nominated for Featured Article. You are invited to show your support or suggest further improvements to the article. Ovadyah 08:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for providing feedback to the Justification (theology) article. Please leave comments as to how it can be improved. jrcagle 21:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am trying to fix up the BLS page so that the NPOV and No Source tags can be removed. I've started working on it but I don't really understand what the standards exactly are. I mean, when all the information is on a website, and you have a link to that website, how many outside sources do you need? --Uac1530 04:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

Please stop. If you continue to vandalise the userpages of other users, as you did to User talk:Doright, you will be blocked. Harassment is a violation of policy. Doright 19:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Bob, I don't know that I would call your edit harassment or vandalism, but it is probably best to just let it go. The consensus seems to be that, while blanking one's talk page without archiving is frowned on, it is still allowed. -- Pastordavid 21:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

It was harassment in the opinion of the administrator who reverted.[5] I would suggest taking that edit summary seriously.--Mantanmoreland 13:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Irregardless, the warning doright given is clearly innacurate, as his User Talk page is not a user page. Homestarmy 13:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The good news is, it is still all there in the article history for anyone to see. Pastordavid 21:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

CTSWyneken, After being away from WP for nearly a year. I had no intention of having any contact with you whatsoever. Wikipedia is certainly large enough. Unfortunately, within approximately one hour of my return, without warning or discussion I find you improperly reverting me on my user talk page. When asked to stop by an admin, you then make defamatory posts about me on the talk pages of others. Please do not stalk me or make gratuitously disparaging statements about me.

Please read WP:HARASS. "Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely."

"One of the tendencies of harassers is to come up with new and inventive ways to plague their victims."

You have been politely asked by a highly respected admin that is familiar with this case to, "Please don't harass him." And, I have cited you the administrative consequences if you continue. I hope there is no need to discuss this further. Just leave me be.Doright 21:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear Doright -- Please stop harassing me. This has been your pattern throughout your editing on Wikipedia. I do not have the time or the energy to pursue this with you. So, please, just drop it. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 02:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Folks, I do not intend to pursue this point. I restored the page because I thought blanking was against the rules and we were supposed to do that. In fact, I once had a user restore my talk page I had blanked in the process of archiving it. Since JayG reverted it, I assumed I was in error here and just dropped the matter. The above warning is a case in point as to why user talk pages should be archived and not blanked. As Homes said, it is certainly out of place. Well, you can certainly look at my talk page archives if you want to see why I do not intend to engage either Doright or Mantanmoreland on this. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

On another topic, I am setting up a collaboration for WikiProject Lutheranism. I am torn between choosing a big topic (like Lutheranism) or improving the Lutheran section/perspective on another article (something like Ordination). Thoughts or suggestions? -- Pastordavid 21:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good suggestion (Pastordavid 01:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)):Reply

 

The current WikiProject Lutheranism Collaboration article is Lucas Cranach the Elder.

Help us improve the information about Lutheranism on Wikipedia.
CAST YOUR VOTE for the next collaboration

I undid some vandalism of the BLS page - they changed the school motto to "All to the Glory of allah."

There have been problems with anonymous editors since I put the page up. Some of them are high school students - either from our school or other schools, but there are also many opponents of the school (you can check out the links on the site if you wish).

Can we block unregisted users from editing the page? How do I go about that?

Thanks.

--Uac1530 18:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Bob, I responded to the current thread on the talk page, and I also posted a notice on the editor's talk page. Hopefully this will be quickly dropped as counter-productive. I apologize that you have been subjected to this sort of questioning of your character - you have not done anything to deserve it. -- Pastor David ^† _(Review) 16:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please offer your opinion on the two proposed Barnstars for WikiProject Lutheranism. Pastor David ^† _(Review) 18:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, CTSWyneken. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:1915 Dance by Rodchenko.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:CTSWyneken/Archive 4. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

As you all know, some hacker cracked my password and I have been stripped of my admin powers. I can understand an admin. being blocked, but stripped of his powers without a fair hearing or consensus, I can't. I have stated that I changed my password and would like my powers back, however the chastizing going on in [[6]] has sadden me. It doesn't matter how many articles you have written, contributions you have made or how many years you have dedicated to making this project a credible one. A hacker, it seems has the power of making people consider you an untrustful person and turning some people in the community against you.

I have never abused of my powers and I have used Wikipedia as a medium to educate others. Yes, I have no regrets about having made so many contributions to the Pedia. I exhort all of my friends here to make sure that their passwords are strong ones so that you will not have to go through what I am going through.

I did promise some of my friends a couple of articles and as a good Marine I will keep my promise. To my friends here, Thank you for your friendship. Tony the Marine 00:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Do not interfere with the talk page anymore, and do not remove any more criticism from articles related to Martin Luther. As things stand, you should probably not be editing that article at all, at least not until this discrepancy is resolved, so I hope you will do whatever you can to clear it up. This is a serious matter of what (on the face of it) appears to be a deliberate attempt to distort what the last sermon said, although I very much hope there is another explanation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is not an attack on your church. Do not raise that particular straw man again, because it is offensive.

It is a criticism of your editing, your writing, your poor use of sources, your constant defense of Martin Luther, your filibustering on talk pages, your admission that part of your job description is to create online resources about Luther, and now what appears (on the face of it) to be a deliberately distorted description of Luther's last sermon. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is there already. It is on the page. Don't post it twice. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, it isn't good enough. You knew that was a seriously distorted account of the final sermon, and you let it sit there for 18 months. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

What faulty citation? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I intend to look for a knowledgeable academic to review your edits about Luther, both on Martin Luther and elsewhere. Whether I'll find one willing to do it, I don't know, but I'm going to start looking. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 00:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Are you off the ML article/discussion or just on vacation? When are you planning to come back? Perhaps soon. Griselinia 04:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Bob, I started this: [7]. Take a look and make changes if you so desire.--Drboisclair 02:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please, take a look a the new Template:Hymn infobox and give feedback on any missing item or any other possible improvements. (See also A Mighty Fortress is Our God, where it is used as a test). Thanks! Awolf002 12:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 23:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

There has been a big debate over this policy. I think you have valuable experience that makes you an important interlocutor on this matter. I suggest you forst go here for a very concise account, and then depending on how much time you have read over the WP:NOR policy and the edit conflicts that led to its being protected, or the last talk to be archived ... or just go straight to the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey there. I miss you. What have you been up to lately? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just noticed this in passing -- life in the real world has gotten very busy, mostly in creating online classes, but also in personal life. That, and I'm experimenting with Facebook. 8-) I don't miss the abuse one bit. I may come back to this again someday, but for now...

--CTSWyneken 14:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Facebook? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have reassessed Pedro del Valle as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. We are currently revisiting all listed Good articles in an effort to ensure that they continue to meet the Good article criteria.

In reviewing the article, I came across some issues that may need to be addressed; I have left a detailed summary on the article's talk page. As a result I have put Pedro del Valle's GA status on hold. This will remain in place for a week or so before a final decision is taken as to the article's status.

I have left this message because, from the article history, you have been a significant contributor. If you no longer edit this article please accept my apologies and feel free to ignore this message ;)

All the best, EyeSerene^TALK 12:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

You welcomed me to Wikipedia over a year and a half ago. I recently passed 25,000 edits and wanted to let you know that I still appreciate your early kindness in welcoming me to Wikipedia. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Consider giving your opinion on the research guide template.Shannon bohle (talk) 05:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Brights movement seems to be a British thing. I once said, "I seem to be pretty bright (intelligent) but not too Bright (naturalistic thinking)." In other words, I don;t seem to have much cnfidence in my sense of common Sense.

Can you tell that my typing skills are rusty? I wish I could hire someone to take dictation,

I would like you to send word to my sister, Dawn Marie Vanderhyde, nvywfe72@ yahoo.com, NAVy WiFE, DMV, &c. She is my durable power of attorney for medical affairs. We've talked enough that she knows I consuder you to be another sister, or at least a tolkienish Elf-friend. Dawn knows who SOPHIA is, anyway. I'm going down the membershio roll at User:Archola/The_Centrist_Fellowship. Dawny Dawny Doo, where are you?

I am suffering from lung cancer that invaded the human brain and required brain surgery. Trying to coordinate information in my environment is like waiting for the Pony Express. (Coordination is going to be difficult suce the lung tumor invaded my brain through the Cerebellum-Spinocerebellar tract complex. Oh, joy! Not to mention that I heard the doctors here at Skilled Neurosurgery discussing with my sis that they were planning to remove a bone from my skull and let my neck muscles support the back of my head.

Would you consider contributing to this? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 3 - January 2008   December issue | February issue   Project News There are now 3,301 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. With 1,789 current featured articles, that brings the total of good and featured articles to 5,090! The most recently promoted articles are: Hurricane Daniel (2006), Tarbosaurus, The Murders in the Rue Morgue, Wicca, Seth MacFarlane, Stanley Internment Camp, Hurricane Karen (2007), Interstate 155 (Illinois), Tropical Storm Ingrid (2007), Brian Sings and Swings, Winston Churchill, Mzoli's, John Kefalas, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The backlog at Good Article Nominations has recently exploded to 236 unreviewed articles! Out of 264 total nominations, 17 are on hold, 10 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Attachment disorder, Byzantium under the Palaiologoi, Byzantium under the Angeloi, Wowowee, Tyrone Wheatley, Mina (singer), Jon Burge, Mercury Hayes, William Lowndes Yancey, and Toni Preckwinkle. The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (47 articles), Film and cinema (25 articles), Television and journalism (16 articles), Art and architecture (15 articles), and Politics and government (14 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 17 articles up for re-review. If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!   Reviewer of the Month Dihydrogen Monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month of December, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 of the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen Monoxide hails from Brisbane (which, incidentally, is almost a GA, kids ;)) and has been editing Wikipedia since August 2006. He mostly likes to review articles relating to music, Australia, or anything else that takes his fancy! He also has two articles waiting, and notes that there's still a huge backlog,... so get cracking! Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of December include: Awadewit (talk · contribs) Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) Derek.cashman (talk · contribs) Drewcifer3000 (talk · contribs) Elcobbola (talk · contribs) Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) Kane5187 (talk · contribs) M3tal H3ad (talk · contribs) Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) VanTucky (talk · contribs) Wassupwestcoast (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 166 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 7 new members that joined during the month of December: Majoreditor (talk · contribs) Bernstein2291 (talk · contribs) The4325 (talk · contribs) Pepsi2786 (talk · contribs) Monowi (talk · contribs) Rankun (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! GAReview Template Lots of you that frequent WP:GAN have undoubtedly seen the articles under review, marked with "Review - I am reviewing this article. ...". The articles have been marked as being under review by an editor using the {{GAReview}} template. The purpose of this template is essentially to prevent two editors from reviewing the same article at the same time, so it's essentially a common courtesy notice to other editors so that they don't pass or fail an article while you're in the midst of collecting and writing comments. However, just because an article is marked, shouldn't preclude another editor from contributing to the review. If you'd like to review it, go ahead; simply collect your comments and write them down on the article's talk page – but don't pass or fail the article – leave that to the other reviewer. To use this template yourself, simply write "#:{{GAReview}} ~~~~" on the line immediately following the article's nomination at WP:GAN. You can even leave additional comments as well (e.g. "#:{{GAReview}} I will finish my review in the next 24 hours. ~~~~"). Reviewers marking articles with this template should also observe some common etiquette; please don't mark more than 1-3 articles as being under review at a time, and please try and finish your review within 3-5 days of marking the article. GA Sweeps After openly requesting the community for more participants into the Sweeps, we have 3 more members on the board. They are (in no particular order) Canadian Paul, VanTucky, and Masem. Canadian Paul will be sweeping "Middle East and the World" articles. VanTucky will be sweeping "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" and "Literature" articles. Masem will be sweeping "Television episodes". We're still looking for more reviewers. Interested individuals should contact OhanaUnited for details. At this moment, participation in the sweeps project is by invitation only, as we desire experienced reviewers who have a thorough and extensive knowledge of the criteria. This is to ensure that articles that have "fallen through the cracks" would be found and removed, and that additional articles don't fall through the cracks during the sweep. Currently, there are 16 members working on the project, and we have reviewed 74 articles in December 2007. Of those that are swept, 275 articles are kept as GA, 126 articles are delisted, and 5 promoted to FA. Did You Know,... ... that the total number of good and featured articles is now over 5000? ... that GA was formed on October 11, 2005 and was formerly called "Half-decent articles"? ... that there is a bot (StatisticianBot) that gives a daily report on GAN? ... that many discussions were made over the years on whether GA should have a symbol placed on the main article space, yet at the end always removed? ... that there was a proposal to change the GA symbol to a green featured star? From the Editors Happy New Year, everyone! I'm just filling in for Dr. Cash as he's busy (or away) in real life. This explains why I wasn't prepared for a full-length article on GA process, and instead I resort to a tiny DYK for GA. OhanaUnited Happy New Year as well! I'm still here, and haven't totally disappeared. I had to cut back on editing and reviewing during the month of December as I made the transition from Flagstaff, Arizona to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. But I should be about settled in the Keystone State, so I'll be contributing more to Wikipedia again in the new year. Thanks to OhanaUnited for putting together much of the content for this newsletter! He's been working hard with the Sweeps, and the 'Did You Know' section is also a great idea, so I think that will become a regular feature now! I also figured out how to have a collapsible newsletter, so that will change our delivery options a bit. Cheers! Dr. Cash Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Atlanta Braves (talk | history | start review) • LGBTQ culture in Puerto Vallarta (talk | history | start review) • Dick Simpson (politician) (talk | history | start review) • Darren Moore (talk | history | start review) • Pete Astudillo (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Wild Arms (video game) • Vyacheslav Molotov • Hans-Ulrich Rudel • Ben Nevis • The Nightmare • Walt Disney Animation Studios • Kingston upon Hull • USS Texas (BB-35) • Mehmed II's Albanian campaign • Battle of Plataea • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013)   Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

Hi, noticed you have a anti-vandalism barnstar. Would you mind talking to your fellow pastor Bob Waters? You welcomed him to Wikipedia a while back, and he has vandalised my user page twice now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ABobby_fletcher&diff=186377368&oldid=186359980

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ABobby_fletcher&diff=166000773&oldid=163891959

Thank you for your help. Bobby fletcher (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 4 - February 2008   January issue | March issue   Project News There are now 3,485 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 206 unreviewed articles. Out of 251 total nominations, 37 are on hold, 7 are under review, and 1 is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Johan Derksen, Trafford, J. Michael Bailey, Greg Skrepenak, Paleolithic-style diet, Alan Dershowitz, Natalee Holloway, Slovenian presidential election, 2007, San Francisco Municipal Railway, and Marcela Agoncillo. The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (57 articles), Theatre film and drama (34 articles), Music (19 articles), Transport (17 articles), Politics and government (16 articles), World history (13 articles), and Meteorology and atmospheric sciences (13 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 8 articles up for re-review. If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated! GA Sweeps Update During January, 57 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 35 were kept as GA, 20 delisted, 9 currently on hold or at GAR, and 3 were exempted as they are now Featured Articles.   Reviewer of the Month Ealdgyth is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for January, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Ealdgyth, known in real life as Victoria Short, hails from Central Illinois, and has been editing Wikipedia since May 26, 2007. In this short time, she has made significant contributions to 9 Good Articles, including Baldwin of Exeter and Hubert Walter. Her interests in editing are in the areas of the Middle Ages, History, and horses. Outside of Wikipedia, she is starting her own photography business, and owns three horses. She likes to read science fiction, history, and geneology books. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for January! Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include: AnonEMouse (talk · contribs) Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) Casliber (talk · contribs) Derek.cashman (talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Drewcifer3000 (talk · contribs) Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) Johnfos (talk · contribs) M3tal H3ad (talk · contribs) Miranda (talk · contribs) Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs) VanTucky (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 176 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 15 new members that joined during the month of January: Atlantik (talk · contribs) Auawise (talk · contribs) Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Ddstretch (talk · contribs) Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) FamicomJL (talk · contribs) Hamiltonstone (talk · contribs) jackturner3 (talk · contribs) Kbthompson (talk · contribs) Keilana (talk · contribs) Miranda (talk · contribs) pcbene (talk · contribs) Skeeker (talk · contribs) Snowolf (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! On Hold versus Failing an Article This month, I thought I'd focus on a less technical and more of a procedural issue at WP:GAN – determining what the appropriate course of action to take when reviewing an article. Currently, there are four options to decide what to do with an article: Passing – it meets all six of the good article criteria; add it to WP:GA and add {{ArticleHistory}} or {{GA}} to the article's talk page. Failing it – it does not meet the criteria; remove the article's listing from WP:GAN and add {{ArticleHistory}} or {{failedGA}} to the article's talk page. On Hold – The article meets most of the criteria, but might fall short in a few areas; keep it listed at WP:GAN, add #: {{GAOnHold|ArticleName}} ~~~~ below the listing and add {{GAonhold}} to the article's talk page. Second Opinion – Similar to the on hold option, except an editor is either inexperienced or not knowledgeable enough about a given topic and asks another reviewer to offer another opinion before passing or failing; add #: {{GA2ndopinion|ArticleName}} ~~~~ to WP:GAN below the article's listing and add {{GA2ndoptalk}} to the article's talk page. So how to you know when an article fails outright, or fails initially, but meets "enough" of the criteria to be placed on hold? The answer to this question probably varies by about the same amount as there are reviewers of Good Articles! Everybody treats this slightly differently. The most important thing to consider is that articles should not be on hold for longer than about one week. Although there is no hard and fast time limit for this, most editors would probably agree that five to seven days is enough time to address any GA-related issues with the article to get it to pass. Some editors have extended this a few days in the past, due to other extenuating circumstances, such as an article's primary editor being very busy with school or work, so they have asked for extra time. But as a general rule, a GA nominee that is placed on hold should meet enough of the criteria to be able to be passed within five to seven days. Some examples of articles that might be placed on hold would be: the article is mostly complete, but might be missing one topic (subcategory). minor copyediting is required (needs a few minor manual of style, spelling, or grammatical fixes. mostly well sourced, but missing maybe a handful of references. a couple of images need to be tagged with appropriate copyright tags. On the other hand, an article should be failed if it: is missing several topic categories, or there are several sections which are very short (1-3 sentences per section). contains numerous sections which are just lists of information, as opposed to written out as prose. there's entire sections of text that have no references, or there are a lot of {{cn}} or {{unreferenced}} tags. has evidence of an active edit war in the article history. has major neutrality issues. has any {{cleanup}} or other warning tags in various places. Did You Know... ... that on July 19, 2007, 1,548 good articles that have not been categorized at all were categorized in 15 days? ... that in Chinese Wikipedia, articles need to have at least six net support votes before they are promoted to GA? ... that the English Wikipedia has the most Good Articles, the German Wikipedia has the second most (at over 2000), followed by the Spanish Wikipedia (at over 800), the Chinese Wikipedia (at over 400), and the French Wikipedia (at over 200)? ... that Simple English Wikipedia has zero Good Articles? ... that "Sport and games people" category has the most Good Articles? ... that Virginia Tech massacre (which is now a featured article) was promoted to GA just only about one month after the shooting incident, but took more than seven months to reach FA status? From the Editors Originally, I wasn't planning to do "Did you know" other than as a fill-in for Dr. Cash. However, I decided to continue writing this section until I ran out of ideas. OhanaUnited Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Dr. Cash Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Atlanta Braves (talk | history | start review) • LGBTQ culture in Puerto Vallarta (talk | history | start review) • Dick Simpson (politician) (talk | history | start review) • Darren Moore (talk | history | start review) • Pete Astudillo (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Wild Arms (video game) • Vyacheslav Molotov • Hans-Ulrich Rudel • Ben Nevis • The Nightmare • Walt Disney Animation Studios • Kingston upon Hull • USS Texas (BB-35) • Mehmed II's Albanian campaign • Battle of Plataea • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013)   Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 5 - March 2008   February issue | April issue   Project News There are currently 3,647 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 185 unreviewed articles. Out of 237 total nominations, 42 are on hold, and 10 are under review. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Ian Browne (cyclist), Tony Marchant, Reginald fitz Jocelin, Annie Russell, Brodie Croyle, and Jimmy Moore. The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (39 articles), Theatre, film, and drama (34 articles), Transport (23 articles), Music (21 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Culture and society (13 articles), Places (13 articles), and World history (12 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 13 articles up for re-review. If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated! GA Sweeps Update Two members joined the sweeps team this month. They are Jwanders and jackyd101. Jwanders swept Physics sub-category quickly and is now sweeping "Astronomy and astrophysics". Meanwhile, jackyd101 is sweeping "Armies, military units and legal issues". During February, 66 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 33 were kept as GA, 21 delisted, 17 currently on hold or at GAR, and 1 was exempted as they are now Featured Articles.   Reviewer of the Month Blnguyen is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for February, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Blnguyen is from South Australia and has been editing Wikipedia since 2005. He was also the reviewer for the month of December 2007, so this marks the second time that he has been GAN's Top Reviewer for the Month. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for February! Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include: Blnguyen (talk · contribs) David Fuchs (talk · contribs) Derek.cashman (talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Calbear22 (talk · contribs) Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) Jackturner3 (talk · contribs) TimVickers (talk · contribs) VanTucky (talk · contribs) Wrad (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 185 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 9 new members that joined during the month of February: Bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs) Canyouhearmenow (talk · contribs) Chrisisinchrist (talk · contribs) Ed! (talk · contribs) Juliancolton (talk · contribs) Kakofonous (talk · contribs) LOTRrules (talk · contribs) Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) Nousernamesleft (talk · contribs) Did You Know... ...that the shortest timespan for a GA to be listed and subsequently delisted is 8 minutes? (The article is Project Chanology and currently listed on WP:GAR) ...that the current nominations system started on March 10, 2006? ...that in May 2006, number of GA surpassed number of FA? 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! One GA Requirement - The Lead Section By Geometry guy In this issue, we will focus on one of the requirements for good articles: a good article article should follow Wikipedia's guideline on lead sections. So what does this guideline say, why does it say what it does, and how can good article reviewers help? The lead section is particularly important, because for many readers, it is the only part of the article which they will read. For instance, they may have come to the article by following a wikilink in another article simply to obtain a quick overview before they continue reading the original article. They may only read the first paragraph, or even the first sentence. On the other hand, one of the joys of Wikipedia is the way that it embodies the endlessly branching tree of knowledge; if a lead is well written, it may encourage even such a reader to read on and learn something new. This is reflected in the terminology: "lead" is a word taken from journalism, where it recognized that many readers will only read the beginning of a newspaper article, and so it is important to convey the key points first, before going into detail. Note that "lead", in this sense, is pronounced as in "leading question" and is sometimes spelled as "lede" by journalists to distinguish it from lead, the metal, which was once very important in typesetting. Wikipedia supports both spellings. Wikipedia:Lead section is written with all this in mind, and describes two different roles for the lead: first, it should introduce the topic; second it should summarize the article. This is not always as easy as it seems; indeed, it is almost impossible to write a good lead if the article itself does not cover the topic well. It has a side benefit that an article which satisfies this guideline is probably also broad: if the lead is both a good introduction and a summary, then the article probably covers the main points. The good article process is often the first place in which an article is judged against this criterion, yet many current good articles may not meet it. A common fault is that the lead is purely an introduction, while the rest of the article contains other information, which should be summarized in the lead, but isn't. So, how can reviewers help to improve this? One approach is to read the rest of the article, and not the lead, first. Make a note of the significant points discussed in the article. There is usually at least one important issue in each section. Then, go back to the lead and ask the following questions: Does the first sentence of the lead define the topic, as described in the article? Is the most important information mentioned in the first paragraph? Is the lead a suitable length for the article? The lead guideline recommends 2–4 paragraphs depending on the article length, but judgment is more important than counting. Are each of the significant topics that you noted mentioned in the lead? If the answer to each of these questions is "yes", then the article probably meets the guideline. If not, you may be able to fix it yourself by summarizing the article. If you can't, then it suggests that there are not only problems with the lead, but also the rest of the article. That is the beauty of Wikipedia:Lead section. Finally, there isn't universal agreement on whether the lead should contain inline citations. As long as the material in the lead is developed and cited elsewhere in the article, then inline citation is not required. There are exceptions, the most significant being quotations and controversial material about living persons. Good luck helping more articles meet this important criterion! From the Editors Well, this is somewhat GA-related but at the same time not totally GA-related. However, I think this is important. Thanks to everyone who supported me at my 2nd RfA. It passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. As many are impressed by my work in Good Articles processes, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone giving me a very enjoyable time at GA. There are 2 people that I want to explicitly say thank you to. They are Nehrams2020 and Epbr123. They patiently taught me how to do GA reviews properly in summer 2007. I couldn't achieve better without them. Now that I have the mop and the bucket, some of my time will be working on reducing Commons image backlog. Nevertheless, you will still see me once in a while in matters related to GA. OhanaUnited Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Dr. Cash Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Geometry guy (News Correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Atlanta Braves (talk | history | start review) • LGBTQ culture in Puerto Vallarta (talk | history | start review) • Dick Simpson (politician) (talk | history | start review) • Darren Moore (talk | history | start review) • Pete Astudillo (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Wild Arms (video game) • Vyacheslav Molotov • Hans-Ulrich Rudel • Ben Nevis • The Nightmare • Walt Disney Animation Studios • Kingston upon Hull • USS Texas (BB-35) • Mehmed II's Albanian campaign • Battle of Plataea • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013)   Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 6 - April 2008   March issue | May issue   Project News 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 oldest unreviewed articles are: A4232 road, New York State Route 63, Great American Boycott, First Great Western, Duck Soup, Sanja Matsuri, Code of Conduct (affiliate marketing), Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway, Aliens (film), and Roanoke Regional Airport. 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 backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 12 articles up for re-review. GA Sweeps Update 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!   Reviewer of the Month Dihydrogen monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for March, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen monoxide hails from Brisbane in Queensland, Australia, and has been editing Wikipedia since April 6, 2007. He has contributed to 8 Featured articles and is an avid reviewer and contributor to the Good articles program. Other reviewers should check out his Noob's Guide to GA Reviewing. Congratulations to Dihydrogen monoxide! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of March include: GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Limetolime (talk · contribs) Malachirality (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Wrad (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 195 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 13 new members that joined during the month of March: AndreNatas (talk · contribs) Dank55 (talk · contribs) English836 (talk · contribs) ExplorerCY (talk · contribs) JayJ47 (talk · contribs) Mastrchf91 (talk · contribs) MBK004 (talk · contribs) Million Moments (talk · contribs) Neparis (talk · contribs) Nicholas Perkins (talk · contribs) NimiTize (talk · contribs) PGPirate (talk · contribs) Zenlax (talk · contribs) 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. Delisting instructions From the Editors 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. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) EyeSerene (Article) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Atlanta Braves (talk | history | start review) • LGBTQ culture in Puerto Vallarta (talk | history | start review) • Dick Simpson (politician) (talk | history | start review) • Darren Moore (talk | history | start review) • Pete Astudillo (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Wild Arms (video game) • Vyacheslav Molotov • Hans-Ulrich Rudel • Ben Nevis • The Nightmare • Walt Disney Animation Studios • Kingston upon Hull • USS Texas (BB-35) • Mehmed II's Albanian campaign • Battle of Plataea • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013)   Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

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

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 7 - May 2008   April issue | June issue   Project News 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 oldest unreviewed articles are: Fighting Tommy Riley, Brock Lesnar, Cluj-Napoca, Wolf's Rain, Brian Kendrick, and North and South (TV serial). 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). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 17 articles up for re-review.   GAN Reviewer of the Month 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: Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Drewcifer3000 (talk · contribs) Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Gary King (talk · contribs) Jbmurray (talk · contribs) Kaypoh (talk · contribs) Lpangelrob (talk · contribs) Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Realist2 (talk · contribs) Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 212 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 17 new members that joined during the month of April: Affinity likely (talk · contribs) Climie.ca (talk · contribs) Edmund Patrick (talk · contribs) Eustress (talk · contribs) IMatthew (talk · contribs) Kironide (talk · contribs) Makeshift Thackery (talk · contribs) Mm40 (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Noble Story (talk · contribs) Peanut4 (talk · contribs) Realist2 (talk · contribs) SorryGuy (talk · contribs) Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) WBOSITG (talk · contribs) Will381796 (talk · contribs) 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. Did You Know... ...that there are slightly less than twice as many Good Articles as Featured Articles? ...that the total number of Good Articles and Featured Articles combined is 6,085? ...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. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (Article, GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Atlanta Braves (talk | history | start review) • LGBTQ culture in Puerto Vallarta (talk | history | start review) • Dick Simpson (politician) (talk | history | start review) • Darren Moore (talk | history | start review) • Pete Astudillo (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Wild Arms (video game) • Vyacheslav Molotov • Hans-Ulrich Rudel • Ben Nevis • The Nightmare • Walt Disney Animation Studios • Kingston upon Hull • USS Texas (BB-35) • Mehmed II's Albanian campaign • Battle of Plataea • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013)   Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 8 - June 2008   May issue | July issue   Project News 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 oldest unreviewed articles are: Choctaw, One Night Stand (2007), Justin Tuck, Tristan Tzara, The Stake Out (Seinfeld episode), Impalement arts, Backlash (2007), Adelaide Rams, and Sam Cowan. 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 backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 4 articles up for re-review. GA Sweeps Update 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: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) Eustress (talk · contribs) GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs) Juliancolton (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs) Also, with 19 nominations, Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) is the nominator of the month, followed by TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) with 8 nominations submitted. Member News There are now 216 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 6 new members that joined during the month of April: Jack Bethune (talk · contribs) Jordan Timothy James Busson (talk · contribs) Limetolime (talk · contribs) Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Fan (talk · contribs) Mm40 (talk · contribs) Redmarkviolinist (talk · contribs) 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. Did You Know... ... that there are slightly more than twice as many Good Articles (4,266) as there are Featured Articles? ... that Giggy has some really neat and useful tools to assist reviewers in conducting their reviews? ... that there are ten experienced reviewers listed on the GA mentors list that can offer assistance or a second opinion in reviewing articles? From the Editors A GA working party has initiated discussion on ways to improve the Good Article project and processes. The goal of the working party is to come up with suggestions for improvement based on recent issues and concerns raised in the past, primarily in the wake of the Great Green Dot Debate of May 2008. The discussion can be found here. Members of the working party include: Dank55 (talk · contribs), Derek.cashman (talk · contribs), EyeSerene (talk · contribs), Giggy (talk · contribs), Gwinva (talk · contribs), LaraLove (talk · contribs), Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs), and OhanaUnited (talk · contribs). Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor) Giggabot, Giggy (Distributor) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Atlanta Braves (talk | history | start review) • LGBTQ culture in Puerto Vallarta (talk | history | start review) • Dick Simpson (politician) (talk | history | start review) • Darren Moore (talk | history | start review) • Pete Astudillo (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Wild Arms (video game) • Vyacheslav Molotov • Hans-Ulrich Rudel • Ben Nevis • The Nightmare • Walt Disney Animation Studios • Kingston upon Hull • USS Texas (BB-35) • Mehmed II's Albanian campaign • Battle of Plataea • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013)   Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

on the criteria for notability of accademic books? If you have time could you comment here Slrubenstein | Talk 09:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

The The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 10 – August 2008   July issue Project News 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 oldest unreviewed articles are: Juggernaut (wrestler), Dark Angel (wrestler), Irrigation in Peru, Tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting, Coltrane for Lovers, Bayshore Freeway, Jon Cryer, Heather Mills, New York State Route 273, and Tsugaru clan. 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: Gary King (talk · contribs) Giggy (talk · contribs) Lpangelrob (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Peanut4 (talk · contribs) Also, with 17 nominations, Mr.crabby (talk · contribs) is the nominator of the month. Member News There are now 223 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 7 new members that joined during the month of July: 97198 (talk · contribs) Carbonrodney (talk · contribs) Gary King (talk · contribs) Omaga99 (talk · contribs) Protonk (talk · contribs) RSkyhawk (talk · contribs) Samuel Tan (talk · contribs) 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 August 2007? ... 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)? ... that the GA project was recently mentioned in a Wall Street Journal article entitled, "Wikipedians Leave Cyberspace, Meet in Egypt," on Wikipedia on August 8, 2008? From the Editor Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps Correspondent) Nehrams2020 (Article Correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Atlanta Braves (talk | history | start review) • LGBTQ culture in Puerto Vallarta (talk | history | start review) • Dick Simpson (politician) (talk | history | start review) • Darren Moore (talk | history | start review) • Pete Astudillo (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Wild Arms (video game) • Vyacheslav Molotov • Hans-Ulrich Rudel • Ben Nevis • The Nightmare • Walt Disney Animation Studios • Kingston upon Hull • USS Texas (BB-35) • Mehmed II's Albanian campaign • Battle of Plataea • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013)   Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

Hey, I think this policy has changed a bit in the past year and have just made some new proposals, maybe you would comment? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

[If you have time will you look over this? Did I do wrong? I care what you think. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/SlrubensteinII#Response] Slrubenstein | Talk 03:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

	<font=3> Wishing you a "Feliz Navidad and a Happy new Year" Tony the Marine (talk)

Man I've missed inter-acting with you here. How you been? I'm sorry for the late greeting, but my wife is hospitalized and that is where I spent my Christmas. Take care, Tony the Marine (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

here when you have some time (concerns a proposal to Verifiability policy) Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am inviting you to comment, in your capacity as a librarian, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Alphabetization and collation. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I think there was considerable discussion as to how to represent Christian views at the Jesus article; just wanted to make sure you know about this recent edit. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

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) 08:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

An article that you have been involved in editing, Indiana High School Forensics Association, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indiana High School Forensics Association. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Abductive (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

CTSWyneken,

Your Request for Adminship (RfA) process was reviewed and studied by our research team at Carnegie Mellon University early in our project to gain insights into the process. We reviewed what voters discussed about your case, and what qualifications you brought to the table as a candidate. In total 50 cases were personally read and reviewed, and we based our further research questions in part on your case.

In continuing our research, I would like to personally invite you to participate in a survey we are conducting to get perspective from people who have participate in the RfA process. The survey will only take a few minutes of your time, and will aid furthering our understanding of online communities, and may assist in the development of tools to assist voters in making RfA evaluations. We are NOT attempting to spam anyone with this survey and are doing our best to be considerate and not instrusive in the Wikipedia community. The results of this survey are for academic research and are not used for any profit nor sold to any companies. We will also post our results back to the Wikipedia community.

This survey is part of an ongoing research project by students and faculty at the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science and headed by Professor Robert Kraut.

Take the survey

Thank you!

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free comment on my talk page.

CMUResearcher (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi CTS, It has been a long time and I hope you are well - Merry Christmas. Are you still actively editing at WP? If so I have a favor to ask. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is a discussion going on whether the name of that German church body can be translated or not (it appears like this on the english pages of this church's homepage). One user changed the name of this Church (actually a federation of several Lutheran, United and Reformed churches) and it's regional member churches to the German form because he says their names can't get translated. so the article on the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria now appears under its German name because he says the "concept" can't be translated into English. Please go to the discusson page of the Evangelical Church in Germany and have your say --93.130.249.56 (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

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.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Matthew C. Harrison requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Jimmy Pitt talk 14:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Brother! Just got back from Houston. I was one of Matt's 643! Will do on Matt's page. Blessings!--Drboisclair (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Have you read books by non-Christians about Jesus (e.g. Morton Smith, Geza Vermes, Paula Fredrickson)? I ask because we have a LOT of articles that in one way are another claim to be non-religious views of Jesus (especially claiming to be "historical" views of Jesus, and articles that embrace the view that he never existed). The number of articles, their titles, and what they cover is not in my view rational, and finally, a number of other people agree that some should be merged or split up and renamed. So there is a need for a well-informed discussion of what are the different topics/questions/debates out there, so what articles do we need to cover them properly, to organize not just different views but different kinds of views or different views of different topics or questions. This discussion is going on at the talk page of the historicity article.

I tried to start a discussion in the section "content vs. title" (or maybe it was "title vs. content") but it gained no traction until someone starteda new section on trimming the article bloat. This discussion continued into subsequent sections and if you have time you should read them all. It is basically all discussion from August 29 to the present.

I am writing to you because you have always been an eminently reasonable editor, and moreover as a librarian you have a knowledge of the literature - I am not sure but I assume you know works by non-Christians, and by people who regardless of faith write as historians (i.e. who do not write as clergy or theologians). This is important because I think the discussions are hampered by some people who know books reflecting their own views very well, but who do not know and thus do not understand the literature beyond.

Well, I know you are busy and seem to have cooled a bit to WP but I hope you will consider putting this article on your watchlist and participating in the current discussion. The current discussion is not just about this one article, its implications go much further. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

Happy Thanksgiving Tony the Marine (talk), 25 November 2010

I have placed a copyright notice on F. C. D. Wyneken, because of the clear copying into the article of material going back to October 2005. Having read your user page I'm now aware that the source is one of your articles. The situation, however, still needs to be put on a proper basis. I started editing the article because of the style; and was led to check for an online source because of footnote numbers left in the text. It seems to me that you would probably want to reconsider the material anyway, at this distance of time. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on File:WartburgLutherstube1900.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

At On the Jews and Their Lies are you saying that there are no online versions of this material that are not copyright infringing? If so, please delete my recent addition of an external link to another source, or reply in the affirmative, and I'll do so. Editor2020 (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I just dropped by the Wyneken page and noticed that you deleted much of the material there that is related to my essay on his life and work. I will likely restore it, since I give permission to anyone who wishes to use my work. I would donate it all to the public domain, were it not that my lawyer friends tell me an author really can't do that. I'll post my permission on the talk page as well. Is there anything else I need to do to be sure everyone knows it is OK? It has been years since I have been able to edit and write for Wikipedia. --CTSWyneken^(talk)

Thank you, but I'm afraid that the permission process is a little more formal than that. :) We need external verification, since we have no means of verifying identity on account creation, but this may be a little complex in this situation. According to the website, copyright is "©1999 Tentatio Press". As Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials explains, authors who sign license with publishers may surrender their right to subsequently rerelease their content. We have in the past accepted content donated by authors only to find out that the publisher did not approve this donation. Ordinarily, a letter from Tentatio Press permitting reuse would suffice, but I have not been able to find an internet presence for Tentatio Press to ask, which can make matters more difficult.

Can you by any chance give me any information on Tentatio Press? I see that they are (or were) located in Huntington, California, but I haven't been able to find out much more about them than that. Alternatively, you may be able to verify release of the material yourself if you contact the Wikimedia Foundation by email associated with your work, but you should not only include the license release at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, but also confirm that you know that you have not abrogated your rights to reproduce this material. If it turns out that you have assigned your rights to the publisher, and they protest, it would be a matter to be resolved between you.

I'm happy to try to help you with this, or explain further, if needed. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

(I've copied this over from my talk page in case you don't come back soon. My talk page archives pretty routinely. If you want to discuss this, please come back by my page. Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC))Reply

Thank you! If you're willing to assert that you did not assign rights to your publisher, it would be sufficient for you to mail Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries to the Wikimedia Foundation (but please do confirm that). That would be the next step we'd have to take anyway if Tentatio Press said that they do not own copyright, but you do. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. :) To answer your question, citing yourself in a Wikipedia article is allowed within limits; see WP:SELFCITE. I think you'd want to be careful not to do too much of it and to check with other editors if you think it might be controversial in a given area. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've processed the permission statement.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! CTSWyneken^(talk)

Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.

If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume III, No. 1 – October 2012   September-December 2008, 2009, 2010, January-April 2011 | November 2012  Project News[1] There are currently 15,862 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 345 unreviewed articles. Out of 439 total nominations, 24 are on hold, 66 are under review, and 4 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article! Even just reviewing one will help! The oldest unreviewed articles are: General sejm, Prime Minister of Vietnam, Tanisha Thomas, Kosta Pećanac, and Jilly Kitzinger. The categories with the largest backlogs are: Social sciences and society (80 articles), Sports and recreation (70 articles), Music (63 articles), Theatre, film and drama (52 articles), and History (41 articles). Please consider reviewing articles within these sections. There are currently 13 articles up for reassessment at Good Article Reassessment. Please help out and go to WP:GAR and review an article! Remember that anyone can review articles that are listed under "Community Reassessment" even if another user has already listed their opinion...the more opinions, the better! Member News There are currently 222 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to all the new members that joined during the past 17 months! If you aren't yet part of WikiProject Good Articles and interested in joining WikiProject Good Articles, go here and add you name. Everyone is welcomed! 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! If you haven't done so already, please remember to add your name to this list if you are still interested/active with this WikiProject. If you are no longer interested/active you don't need to add your name anywhere, you're name will be moved into a "inactive participant" list at the beginning of November. Inactive users will not receive future newsletters from this WikiProject via their talk page. GA Task forces There is currently not much going on at this time but there is a very large backlog. Until the next backlog elimination drive, please help reduce the number of nominations by reviewing articles and helping other reviewers that may need second opinions. Thanks to everyone who committed some time to help reduce the nominations backlog during the June-July 2012 backlog elimination drive. Most barnstars have been given out but there are still a few left. Participants that haven't gotten a barnstar yet should get it soon. Possible Fall/Winter 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive A discussion is currently being held on the WikiProject's talk page on weather another eliminations drive should take place within the next few months as the last one proved to be extremely successful. Please take the time to go to the the talk page and include your opinion on if you would be interested in taking part in a Fall/Winter 2012 elimination drive. Good Articles of the Month Each month, 5 random good articles will be choose to be featured here as the good articles of the month. Barry (dog) I Love Bees Miles Copeland (Home and Away) London Country North East The Daily Show Some Tips About References/Sources Having references included in articles is one of the most important aspects to a good article, let alone Wikipedia! Without them, no one would ever know what is true and what is false and Wikipedia probably wouldn't be where it is today. So this month, I will talk about how to check for references, how reliable they are, and so on and so forth. The first thing to do when reviewing an nominee is to do a quick scan of the article. One of the things to look for is if the article has references! If you don't see a list at the bottom of the article page, quick-fail it.[2] For newcomers, quick-failing is failing an article when you spot a problem before actually conducting a full review. If you do find a list of references (and in most cases you will) make sure to look through each and every one. If you want to save some time, use this tool as it will tell you if there are any problematic references in the article you are reviewing. Next, check the reliability and type of the references/sources. In terms of the type of reference, check to see how many primary and/or secondary sources are included. Primary sources are the ones published by the subject of the article. For example, if the subject of the article has to do with the iPhone 4s and the source is published by Apple, it is considered a primary source. Secondary sources are those not published by the subject of the article (or in close relation to it). Newspapers are examples of secondary sources and considered one of the better types to include in the article (not saying primary sources are bad). If you find that most/all of the references are primary sources, notify the nominator about this issue(s) and place the article on hold once you have completed the review. Only in the event that a secondary source can't be found as a replacement, then the primary source can remain. If there is a good mix of primary and secondary sources, that is perfect and no references need to be changed. Now, reliability. Forums are generally not considered reliable and some blog's may not be reliable either. Newspapers, most sources published by the subject, some blogs, etc. are considered reliable. If you don't know wether the source is reliable, ask for a second opinion. For more info about how to identify wether a reference is reliable or not, visit this article. Finally, one of the more basic things to look for is that every statement in the article has at least one reference! The only case that a statement doesn't need a reference is when it is common sense that the statement is defiantly true and/or in the case where the statement can't be challenged, as per what Wikipedia says, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation." From the Editor After a long 18 month hiatus, the third volume of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter is here! Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue of the newsletter here or on the editors talk page. Also, Happy Halloween...in advance!!! PLEASE READ: If you do not wish to receive future WikiProject Good Articles newsletter's on your talk page, please remove your self from this list. If you are viewing this newsletter from the WikiProject Good Articles page or on someone else's talk page and want to receive future newsletters on your talk page, please add your name to the list linked above. Contributors to this Issue Dom497 (Editor of this Issue) Did You Know... ... that 2,100 articles have been reviewed during all backlog elimination drives combined? ... that out of 4,055,039 articles on Wikipedia, only 15,846 are good articles?   ... that there are currently over 400 video game good articles? Notes ^ As of October 2, 2012 at 19:05 (UTC). ^ Before quick-failing the article, verify that one of the several referencing templates is correctly placed at the bottom of the article. If the template is not placed, try to place it to see if references are displayed. If this proof returns no references, then proceed to quick-failing. Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Atlanta Braves (talk | history | start review) • LGBTQ culture in Puerto Vallarta (talk | history | start review) • Dick Simpson (politician) (talk | history | start review) • Darren Moore (talk | history | start review) • Pete Astudillo (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Wild Arms (video game) • Vyacheslav Molotov • Hans-Ulrich Rudel • Ben Nevis • The Nightmare • Walt Disney Animation Studios • Kingston upon Hull • USS Texas (BB-35) • Mehmed II's Albanian campaign • Battle of Plataea • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013)   Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 05:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume IV, No. 1 – January 2013 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Featured editorial: Skyfall by Hahc21. Project News: A record, and issue and a future. Good Articles of the Month: See which articles were picked this year of records: 190 articles passed in December! GA Task Forces: Results from the drive Member News: Two crucial users leave the project Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot · 3 January 2012

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply