Naerii

Hi, I recently saw your user name in thr list of Peer review/volunteers, and was wondering if you could, please review this article about a Spanish power metal band, where I've been working for a long time. Remember, you don't need to help me if you don't feel like it, this is an invitation thaat I hope you'd find interesting. Thanks!  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 21:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Naerii. I am currently working on two pages that I hope can reach FAC or FLC status, and I was wondering if you might have a few minutes to offer a peer review. I'd apprectiate your time and advice, and I see you have an interest in albums and alternative music. I am not sure if you are familiar with Rufus Wainwright or not, but if you are interested I'd be happy to hear any advice or feedback you may have. I am currently working on Rufus Wainwright discography and List of awards and nominations received by Rufus Wainwright. Thanks so much! Whataworld06 (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Naerii! Just wanted to drop you a note and let you know that Malawi was recently listed as a Good Article, as part of your wonderful campaign to combat WP's systemic bias. If you want to contact me on the transfer details via e-mail, that would be great! Thank you. Dana boomer (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done. Your inbox should soon be announcing that you have mail. Dana boomer (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Did you get my e-mail? I sent it right before I posted the above message. Dana boomer (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Where have you been? Show some signs of life! NSR77 ^T_C 23:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad to hear you're doing good! The get-every-article-Featured took a pretty significant dip in 2008 (the last RHCP album Featured was OHM, one year ago this month). I'm beginning work on Mother's Milk, though, after months of procrastination. You should pop your head in every once in a while! Stay in touch. NSR77 ^T 03:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I previously invited you to the Muse WikiProject, and I now invite you to the task force!

Andre666 (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey I found your name on the PR volunteers list and I am here to request your help with this: Wikipedia:Peer review/All Hope Is Gone/archive1 Peer review. Thanks in advance for your time and effort. REZTER ^TALK ø 12:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Dear Naerii,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello Naerii/KamrynMatika,

I saw you reading this thread on Wikipedia Review. The specific post that I am pointing to is by Somey, where he says that I am actually 46 years old. This is completely untrue. I can prove it as well, it's just that I don't trust any Wikipedian who I've never even talked to on the Internet, let alone in real life. I don't even know your name. I just wanted to inform you, that Somey is a liar, and that he has only been saying this since I confronted him on his talk page at Uncyclopedia. He also says that I'm a woman, whose name is Linda. I found posts when I operated sock puppet accounts (now banned) "HappyWanderer" and "FurWissen2" in the tar pit that prove that Somey said that I was a minor, which is true. He is a liar. He also is not the owner of the site, and he only arrived in late 2006.

Jonas Rand

68.96.209.19 (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am contacting you because you have contributed or expressed interest in the GA sweeps process. Last month, only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process with 163 articles 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.

All exempt articles that have reached FA status have now been moved to a separate section at the end of the running total page. I went through all of the members' running totals and updated the results to reflect the move. As a result your reviewed article total may have decreased a bit. After removing duplicate articles and these FAs, the running total leaves us at ~1,400 out of 2,808 articles reviewed.

If you currently have any articles on hold or at GAR, please consider concluding those reviews and updating your results. I'm hoping that this new list and increased efforts can help us to increase the number of reviews. We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you know of anybody that can assist please direct them to the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, will get an award when they reach that mark. 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. 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) 03:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 396 articles were swept in May! That more than doubles our most successful month of 163 swept articles in September 2007 (and the 2 articles swept in April)! I plan to be sending out updates at the beginning of each month detailing any changes, updates, or other news until Sweeps are completed. So if you get sick of me, keep reviewing articles so we can be done (and then maybe you'll just occasionally bump into me). We are currently over 60% done with Sweeps, with just over a 1,000 articles left to review. With over 40 members, that averages out to about 24 articles per person. If each member reviews an article a day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. I know that may be asking for a lot, but it would allow us to complete Sweeps and allow you to spend more time writing GAs, reviewing GANs, or focusing on other GARs (or whatever else it is you do to improve Wikipedia) as well as finish ahead of the two-year mark coming up in August. I recognize that this can be a difficult process at times and appreciate your tenacity in spending time in ensuring the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 290 articles were swept in June! Last month was our second most successful month in reviewing articles (after May). We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. This may sound difficult, but if everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when we first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:32, 1 August 2009 (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 17:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

On behalf of Wikiproject Good Articles, I would like to express our gratitude to you for your contributions to the Sweeps process. Completion of this monstrous task has proven to be a significant accomplishment not only for our project, but for Wikipedia. As a token of our sincere appreciation, please accept this ribbon. Lara 00:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I am leaving you this message as part of a personal effort to revive the Queen WikiProject of which you are listed as a participant. If you are not interested in committing yourself to contributing to Queen related articles please go about removing yourself from the participants list on the project page. On the other hand if you are interested in the project and do wish to contribute, I encourage you to head over to the project's talk page to work towards outstanding tasks and share ideas on how Queen-related articles may be improved.

Thanks for reading this, and I look forward to your response. Such a legendary group deserves to be honoured with quality articles on Wikipedia and it is a great shame such a project has gone inactive.

TheStig 20:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Portal:History of Imperial China, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:History of Imperial China and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:History of Imperial China during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers/example, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Tom (LT) (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Californication (album) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply