Please click here to leave me a new message. Remember to sign your posts by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
||This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any threads with no replies in 4 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. An archive index is available here.
Happy New Year
And a very happy new year to you too. :) Hope you're up to some good projects around here. bibliomaniac15 19:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
To whom it may concern, while it is true that the media can drudge up anything on anyone at anytime, it is untrue and unverifiable that there is any evidence of a CRIMINAL CASE pending against the parties that are referenced in the links. I will also submit to you that the name Mike Manuel is copyrighted and prtected with published fines for unauthorized use, that CAN be verified. Also the image you have is not authorized for publication. Thank you for your consideration and immediate attention to this matter. (Stoobscd (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC))
- I am sorry that you have made this comment because if you look in the links that were sourced you will find the case numbers, jurisdictions, as well as the judges name. I would think that would qualify as verification. The article never said that they were found guilty of anything. It simply states that they were being sued for securities fraud. I am unsure as to what you are talking about when you say his name is copyrighted? I don't think anyone in this instance has done anything to violate any form of copyrights. This is an encyclopedia and comon knowledge materials are not a copyright violation. Thank you for contacting me. Canyouhearmenow 21:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
You are now a reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
There's a spot in the infobox template to put an image of a person's signature. A crop of the signature or a recopy into a .png or .svg should be fine to put in that spot. bibliomaniac15 20:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Any additional reverts will be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Please stop editing Lucy's page. It's getting to be annoying. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I will advise you only once that you do not come onto an editors page and leave such a message. Especially telling them not to edit an article that they were responsible for taking to WP:GA status! I will warn you about this no more! I suggest you educate yourself to proper wikipedia etiquette and read WP:Civil and apply it when dealing with other editors. You could find yourself in a lot of trouble here if you don't. Thank you..--Canyouhearmenow 20:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
You are taking Lucy's page in the wrong direction. Please stop reverting edits and let people who really want the page to succeed continue editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- I am not taking Lucy's page in any wrong direction. That article is a WP:GA article and will remain that way until we can bring the standards up to a WP:FA. I will not allow you or anyone else to make edits to that page that are not verified and sourced. Adding red links as you did does not constitute a good edit and therefore they will be removed or you will be asked to fix it. If you do not, then I have no other choice but to fix it. Unsourced materials must be removed immediately from WP:BLP. I would suggest you read up on it and implement it. Also, I would suggest that maybe if you are serious about being an editor of regular on wikipedia that you might consider creating yourself a username so that its easier to identify who we are speaking with. If you choose not to do that, at least sign your posts on my page by adding four tildes Thank you. --Canyouhearmenow 11:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
New York Emmy Awards
Just wondering why you removed the single source tag from the article :). Hope you are well. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I removed it because I am in the middle of creating these articles and just setting them up. I will be going back to add more to them and various sources. We are in a article building mode. So, there is no need for the tag when an editor just set the page up. We should always give them a chance to build the article when we know the article is in its infancy before placing tags. I appreciate you being on the lookout though! Thanks for you attention! --Canyouhearmenow 22:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, my apologies for not checking the edit times. I shall be sure to check them next time :). --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Its perfectly fine. I appreciate your attention to helping wikipedia! --Canyouhearmenow 23:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Happy to be of help - excellent job, and keep up the good work! --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey there, I noticed your background on the Good Article wikiproject and thought you'd be the best person to ask. I have recently done work on Nadia Ali's article and brought it from a Start-class to B rating. I think the article is ready for a Good Article status and have nominated it for that. Could you please give it a review and see if there's any changes I need to make? Thanks! Hassan514 (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I will give it a review sometime over the weekend if you don't mind. I can tell you that just from looking at it, the header needs to have cites and sources. There is a lot of information being given in the header that leads the reader up into the article. It makes a lot of claims about her career and for that reason you need to make sure it is properly sourced. It will not pass without that. Thanks for your contributions! --Canyouhearmenow 10:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hey there, thanks for your reply. I am a bit confused about the lead to be honest. The way I worked around it was looking at other Good Articles in the Electronic Music wikiproject and most don't cite any sources save a few, which do for statistics like copies sold or chart positions. Also, the facts I have mentioned there are basically a summary of information present in the article, which is all cited properly. Do you want me to cite everything? Because then for most sentences I will have multiple references. The reason I didn't cite anything was based on information in the MoS about the lead and what I was advised by other editors, so I'm a bit confused on what exactly to do. Also, you mentioned some of the language in the article needs to be changed, could you please point out some of the changes you want to suggest. I have been working consistently on the article for almost 2 months now so I'm at times blind to some glaring errors, which others have pointed out. Thanks so much! Hassan514 (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ok sorry, I was out of town and didn't have a chance to respond very quickly. At this point lets move this conversation over to the subjects review talk page and lets get our review done ok? See you over there. --Canyouhearmenow 11:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I have requested reassessment on Lucille Ball article. Please join in for discussion. --George Ho (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the invite George. I have taken the liberty of making some comments on the talk page. I appreciate your attention to this article! --Canyouhearmenow 10:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
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)15:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - October 2012
|The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter
- Project News
- 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.
- 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. 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
- 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?
- ^ 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!
|Delivered October 3, 2012 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter any longer, please remove your name from this list.
→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 05:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles - Participant Clean-up (Second Call)
You are reciving this message because you have not added your name to the list of active WikiProject Good Articles participants. Though you may have recived the first message sent out in September, some users may have had that message archived before coming online to read it and therefore never saw it. If you are deeming yourself inactive with the WikiProject please disregard this message as your name will be moved to an "inactive participant" list at the end of the clean-up. If you are still active with the WikiProject, please be sure to include your name on this list. The current deadline to add your name to the list (if you are still active) is November 1, 2012. A third and final message will be sent out during the last week of the clean-up before the deadline. Thank-you.--EdwardsBot
WikiProject Good Articles - Participant Clean-up (Final Call)
You are receiving this message because you have not added your name to the list of active WikiProject Good Articles participants. Though you may have recived the past two messages sent out in September and October, some users may have had that message archived before coming online to read it and therefore never saw it. If you are deeming yourself inactive with the WikiProject please disregard this message as your name will be moved to an "inactive participant" list at the end of the clean-up. If you are still active with the WikiProject, please be sure to include your name on this list. The deadline to add your name to the list (if you are still active) is November 1, 2012. This will be the last message sent out before the deadline which is in 2 days. Thank-you.--EdwardsBot
The GAN Newsletter (November 2012)
The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (December 2012)
The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (January 2013)
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - February 2013
Good Article Nominations Request For Comment
A 'Request For Comment' for Good Article Nominations is currently being held. We are asking that you please take five to ten minutes to review all seven proposals that will affect Good Article Nominations if approved. Full details of each proposal can be found here. Please comment on each proposal (or as many as you can) here.
At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support.
If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread.
Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal.
WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
Hello! Now, some of you might be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
- Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with, the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
- Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
- Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.
A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)
This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat|Contributions02:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive
Hello! A GAN Backlog Drive will begin in less than 4 days!
In past Backlog Drives, the goal was to reduce the backlog of Good article nominations. In the upcoming drive, another goal will be added - raising as much money as we can for the Wikimedia Foundation. How will this work? Well, its pretty simple. Any user interested in donating can submit a pledge at the Backlog Drive page (linked above). The pledge should mention the amount of money the user is willing to donate per review. For example, if a user pledges 5 cents per review and 100 nominations are reviewed, the total donation amount is $5.00.
At the time this message was sent out, two users have submitted pledges for a total of 8 cents per review. All pledges, no matter how much money, are greatly appreciated. Also, in no way is this saying you must make a pledge.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or leave a message on the Backlog Drive talk page. And remember, there are less than 4 days before the drive starts!--EdwardsBot (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive
Hello! Just a friendly reminder that the GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on December 31, 2013!
If you know anyone outside of the WikiProject that may be interested, feel free to invite them to the drive!
If you have any questions or want to comment about something regarding the drive, post them here--EdwardsBot (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Larnelle Harris image
Hi, was the photo taken in 2008? The year should be in the caption. Thanks. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive
It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:
- This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
- Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
- The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
- An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.
Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.
More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.
I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!
--Dom497 --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
GAN March 2014 Backlog Drive
The March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! Sent by Dom497 on behalf of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I appreciate your criticism and think I understand the point you were making. If I could just respectfully point out that -- while I understand your concerns about an over-reliance on tagging -- the article as it existed before was a disaster, in my opinion, re NPOV, BLP, MOS. Yours, Quis separabit? 19:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the article was in need of some update. I have just been very busy and had not gotten around to working on it. The links that you removed were in fact old links and in need of updating. I will at some point go into a research mode again and find the sources to incorporate into the article as needed. But again, thank you for understanding my point and for helping.--Canyouhearmenow 22:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Understood. Two heads are usually better than one, so I look forward to working with you. Quis separabit? 15:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Canyouhearmenow, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! — xaosflux Talk 17:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
You removed some content in article Skiing, I think the material is relevant but the contributer did not add citation properly. Please see discussion page. --Erik den yngre (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Erik den yngre: I responded upon the articles talk page. Thank you for your work. --Canyouhearmenow 17:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Can you explain to me why you deleted the 01:21, 12 June 2014 edit I made to the George Jepsen page where I updated the page with current 2014 nomination information? The page has been cited as looking like an advertisement, and I added his Republican opponent. Deleting that makes this look more like a partial advertisement. I am new to wikipedia and just seek clarification.EditorJohnny (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I had originally accepted the revision and then was made aware that this article and your account might be involved in an issue of being a sock puppet. I then decided to do a revision and allow someone who was more qualified to deal with the investigation to do the acceptance of the revision. So that is why I took the actions I did.--Canyouhearmenow 02:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt response. The George Jepsen article has no relationship to any "sockpuppet" review. It has to do with a different article. What makes you think the review has anything to do with the George Jepsen article/biography? No offense to you, but I am beginning to have second thoughts about being involved in Wikipedia whatsoever. I have other things to devote my time and energy than to have to constantly have to "defend" myself and my minimal edits. EditorJohnny (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, when someone is under an investigation of this sort, all of their contributions become suspect. I am not a part of that investigation so I am not aware of the particulars in this case. I simply took the position that I would let the investigators review the contributions instead of myself and that's why they were edited the way they were. Also, if in fact the allegations are not substantiated then I would suggest that you continue editing in a constructive fashion and continuing to be an asset to us all here on Wikipedia. Sometimes things are just merely misunderstandings and can be rectified without a great deal of fanfare!--Canyouhearmenow 10:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whitechristian2013/Archive - I've blocked the new sock per WP:DUCK. Dougweller (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I did not know of this situation but I did know the inclusion was improper. You cannot use wikipedia as your source! LOL Let me know if there is anything I can do to help. --Canyouhearmenow 12:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Just let me know if you see that alleged Turkish Nazi group being added anywhere. I think it is just a website and someone is trying to promote it. Dougweller (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- I did a search on it earlier and it seems to lead to a propaganda site that promotes a certain agenda. I will keep my eyes open and let you know if I see anything. --Canyouhearmenow 14:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for warning users for making nonconstructive edits. However, I've noticed that you're not leaving time and date stamps with the warnings, such as on User talk:126.96.36.199. Please ensure you do so as it's helpful for other editors to know when the warnings were issued without having to look at the page history. To do this, please sign the warnings with four tildes (not three), or press the sign post button. Thanks again. CT Cooper · talk 15:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- I just noticed that I had done that. I have been chasing this guy all morning and was adding warnings as fast as he was making edits. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. --Canyouhearmenow 15:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
MacBookPro page Edit
Hi there! :)
I am new to wikipedia and have no experience adding content to a page. So please excuse my "intrusion" by means of not using wikipedia rules.
The link to the site i am trying to add is quite essential to the whole MacBookPro experience. It reveals the reality of how negative this has been for thousands of now abandoned users with very expensive but now completely useless laptops of this brand and line of laptops. Apple denies there is anything wrong with the MBP made in 2011 and is denying any free repair or at rare cases giving a free or flat rate logic board replacements with refurbished ones that sometimes fail within days. A objective article should contain all the information regarding its object of interest and thus i belive this information belongs to the pag on MacBook Pro. If you can kindly assist me in formatting the link so it can be properly added this will be truely appreciated and by the way would personally give a little more faith in the objectivity of the whole wikipedia ecosystem as a trustworthy one. You do understand this is not a SPAM or attempt of Vandalism as the previous reasons for the removal of it(which makes me think that apple inc is deliberatly trying to hide any possbile information about the issue!) will the truth prevail or at least the right for it to exist?
p.s. sorry for writing anonymously but i am not registered yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate your efforts to write something for informative purposes. However, we must use civility in all aspects of writing here on Wikipedia. You can't write things in a WP:POV fashion. If it is a problem that has been reported on you would need to write it in an encyclopedic fashion. The link you are trying to add has to be done in a wiki fashion. I checked the link you are trying to share and it seems to go to a information page which is telling people that the page is experiencing difficulties. I would think that a better avenue to follow would be a third party source that is talking about the difficulties of that product. If you continue to try to add this page link, I can see where editors will continue to take it down. It needs to have some verbiage of how it is causing a problem to be allowed as an article inclusion. The fact that it is a page that shows they are having technical issues does not amount to a reliable explanation nor a reliable reason to allow it into the article. I believe once you find a reliable third party source you will not have any objections to it being added to the article.--Canyouhearmenow 03:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Beasley up is still a free agent
You ruin wikipedias credibility — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- First of all, please do not come onto my page and leave such uncivil remarks like this. If you don't like one of my edits then you may come and speak with me about it, but you need to follow WP:Civility. Second, I have nothing to do with this article except reviewing it. So, if you have a problem with something that was taken away from it or added to it, I doubt I am the one you are looking for! --Canyouhearmenow 12:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject Good articles Future GAN Backlog Drive
Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!
TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.
If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.
At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.
As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!
Sent by Dom497--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!
As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:
For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.
For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).
The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.
--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles - GA Cup
WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup
WikiProject Good articles is holding a new competition, the GA Cup, from October 1, 2014 - March 28, 2015. The Cup will be based on reviewing Good article nominations; for each review, points will be awarded with bonuses for older nominations, longer articles and comprehensive reviews. All participants will start off in one group and the highest scoring participants will go through to the second round. At the moment six rounds are planned, but this may change based on participant numbers.
Some of you may ask: what is the purpose for a competition of this type? Currently, there is a backlog of about 500 unreviewed Good article nominations, almost an all time high. It is our hope that we can decrease the backlog in a fun way, through friendly competition.
Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors! Sign-ups will be open until October 15, 2014 so sign-up now!
If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the four judges.
Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement
Re: Emily Schooley article. There is a little bit of press about a world premiere play she just did (findable under a Google news search) but I am still not sure if that is enough according to what others think is notable.Sadfatandalone (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sadfatandalone I left a message on your page. Let me know when you get the article to a good place and I will review it for you to see if I can get it pushed through review. I would not suggest just re-creating the article as it will surely be moved for deletion again. That article really has some editors on alert. I await your request.--Canyouhearmenow 00:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I am moving this here because the IP blanked it from their talk page. I am pinging @220.127.116.11: so that he is aware of this discussion. Chillum 19:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Chillum it is evident that this IP is continually trying to edit war. The rules are in our favor and I support you putting the wording back to the original inclusion using the term "famously" as that is what was used in the quote and source. Remember there is the WP:3RR and if they continue then I suggest taking them to an admin board for appropriate actions to be taken. This is simply ridiculous and is nothing more than a cat and mouse game. I refuse to take part in it especially after I have debunked the stated argument for the peacock rules application. Please let me know if you need me.--Canyouhearmenow 19:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- The article is back in its earlier state, the IP stopped edit warring on the article and began to discuss on the talk page. I am grateful for that, which is why it is so disappointing that this editor is willing to get blocked over not being allowed to alter someones comments.
- While I am an administrator it would not be appropriate for me to take any admin action given I am involved in a content dispute here. If the edit where the IP altered the other users comments is removed and the IP reverts again then that will be a clear 3RR violation and a report to WP:EWN can be made so an uninvolved admin can make a decision.
- Note this IP has already had ample warning about edit warring, it is not obvious because he blanks them. Chillum 19:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
AN glitch, minor
Your comment  removed SummerPhD's and some others, I think. (This happens periodically on AN and ANI, not your fault). Why is your edit marked as minor? NE Ent 03:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- NE Ent I didn't make it as a minor edit. I have noticed there is a few bugs that have happened lately. I think it may be a software issue? But thank you for restoring my comment.--Canyouhearmenow 03:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
"Excuse me, but if you are.." I request you to add the username of the person who you were referring to, it is getting a bit confusing. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I was speaking of the IP in question.--Canyouhearmenow 03:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have done that for you, hope you won't mind. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- No.. thank you. I simply thought it was implied until I went back and saw your comments and could see where the lines were getting a bit blurred. That particular IP is a real piece of work and continually stirs other editors up. Even when you point out the proper application of the rules they continually want to argue. I hope you guys can deal with him/her appropriately! Again, thank you for fixing my comment.--Canyouhearmenow 04:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Emily Schooley Article
I have found two new sources that come up in Google News and have tried to clean up the article. The info boxes for her films don't seem to be displaying correctly right now, but I think the article sources should now be noteworthy and verfiable (newspaper, Digital Journal). Could you take a look? Sadfatandalone (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes I will be happy to take a look. Whatever you do, do not create this article on mainframe yet until we make sure that the sources are notable enough otherwise you are going to run right back into a situation where is will be place back into WP:AfD status. You know how frustrating that was for you last time. So let me look when I get a moment and I will chime in okay? --Canyouhearmenow 16:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. My revised version is up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sadfatandalone/sandbox Sadfatandalone (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:
- Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
- Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips .
- Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.
Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.
Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)