User talk:OhanaUnited

Welcome to OhanaUnited's talk page. Please read the following before making a comment in my talk page. If you leave a message here, I will reply in your talk page. I do not watchlist your talk page, unless you explictly indicate it clearly in your talk page or in your message. I also don't cross-post your message because I feel this is redunant. Comments which are rude, uncivil, or constituting a personal attack will be ignored and/or removed. If you come here to complain or rant about why I delisted an Good Article (GA) that you like/created/contributed, head over to this page. I have the same feeling as one of my favourite Wikipedia editor/administrator, LaraLove, towards how we got attacked by editors who object our delisting action. Because I find it difficult to follow a conversation with anonymous, IP users, in addition to the possibility of dynamic IP address, I may not always respond to these editors' comments. While not necessary, it may help if you create an account. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.

Archives
Archive 1 (December 18, 2006 - May 31, 2007)
Archive 2 (June 1, 2007 - July 3, 2007)
Archive 3 (July 4, 2007 - August 21, 2007)
Archive 4 (August 22, 2007 - October 19, 2007)
Archive 5 (October 20, 2007 - November 17, 2007)
Archive 6 (November 18, 2007 - December 31, 2007)
Archive 7 (January 1, 2008 - February 18, 2008)
Archive 8 (February 19, 2008 - March 31, 2008)
Archive 9 (April 1, 2008 - April 30, 2008)
Archive 10 (May 1, 2008 - May 23, 2008)
Archive 11 (May 24, 2008 - June 30, 2008)
Archive 12 (July 1, 2008 - September 18, 2008)
Archive 13 (September 19, 2008 - December 31, 2008)

Re: Portal link off the main page

Thank you for the heads up. Cirt (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Wei Man

korean editor kuebie is preparing a vote to change name to a korean one, and canvassing korean editors, vote no on name change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.158.150 (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding RfA

Regarding your comment here, I decided I'm ready. Would you be interested in nominating or co-nominating me? Cheers, Enigma msg 21:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: Click here if you're inclined to add a co-nomination. Enigma^msg 02:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I took the liberty of changing a few minor points (the tenses and I didn't want to imply that I did all the SSP work on my own). I hope you don't mind. Enigma^msg 03:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• My sincere apologies for getting you involved in this mess. If you want to withdraw your nomination, I completely understand. Enigma^msg 17:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Understood. Well, needless to say, I feel really bad about getting other people involved in a mess that was created by my own sheer stupidity. If I can ever try to make it up to you by helping you with something, please do let me know. Regards, Enigma^msg 18:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi OhanaUnited,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Titan globe.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 10, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-01-10. howcheng {chat} 05:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for closing the discussion and making the various changes to the associated pages. Looks like WP:FPR has two pretty old discussions that could use closing. Cirt (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

See this. Not sure if we should update Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Co-directors - thoughts?

Also, can you look into closing Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Greater Manchester ? I closed a few lately and will probably close Portal:United Nations soon as well.

Thank you, Cirt (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems prudent to me - could you do that? I am sorta newer than you in the position. Cirt (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely. Cirt (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, about WP:PPREV - ideally that shouldn't just be up to us, but to the other reviewers listed at the top of Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates. Also, nominators should get in the habit of posting a notice at talk pages of relevant WikiProjects related to that portal, that would get some more responses as well. Cirt (talk) 06:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Great idea - but a requirement for WP:PPREV, not WP:FPOC. Cirt (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah okay. Well, I would suggest you run that by RichardF (talk · contribs) - it has been a while but I recall he was interested in saving WP:FPORTs. Cirt (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability

Hi OhanaUnited - haven't contacted you for a while. I've been enjoying all your music (including How can you tell I'm Irish?). Anyway - to get to the point. We are going really well on the Sustainability re-edit. At present we are up to the "Implementing sustainability" bit. This consists of two sections, "Managing the environment" then another on "Managing consumption". As a student of Environmental Science I thought you might be able to cast your eye over these two sections and give us a bit of feedback: it would help us enormously towards drawing this work to a close. Many thanks ... and how do you develop perfect pitch? Granitethighs (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada

Hey, OhanaUnited. If you're still interested in WMC I think we should all have a meeting among interested wikimedians to see if there is enough drive to get Wikimedia Canada up and running. I've therefore been bold and tentatively scheduled a meeting, with the date and forum type still open to change. Check out meta:Wikimedia_Canada/Meetings/2009-02-04 and it's talk page to discuss how we should organize a chat and what date is best. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in on the RFA--I will do everything I can to uphold the policies of this site, and try to make it a better place. All the comments, questions, and in particular the opposes I plan to work on and learn from, so that I can hopefully always do the right thing with the huge trust given to me. rootology (C)(T) 08:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Fungi/archive1

Hi, you seem to be one of the go-to-guys for portals. They're a new arena for me- having never worked on one before, I've spent the last few days creating Portal:Fungi from scratch, and I'm fairly pleased with it. I have submitted it to peer review here, and I was hoping I could get some advice from portal regulars as to what is now needed to bring it to featured status. If you're busy, that's fine- is there someone else you could reccomend to give it a look over? J Milburn (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your thoughts. Sadly, there are no featured images here of anything relating to fungi on the English Wikipedia, but there are certainly enough high quality images that I can nominate via the portal's nomination method. Also, that's all of the FAs/GAs- I do have one on GAN now, and we have another that is very close to FA status at the moment, so hopefully some more should arrive shortly. I was wondering how I could publicise the portal a little? Am I free to post {{portal}} on all fungi pages? I know the scouting portal is well advertised, but I know others aren't so much... J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, so any articles that are used at the portal are fair game for the template? That's good. I'm finding some featured pictures on other Wikipedias and adding them to the portal, as you reccomended. Turns out we had one too, I just hadn't noticed it. Thanks again for your help. J Milburn (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ansonrosew

Thanks for the message. Whilst I take your point about possible confusion, WP:SPI already has a division of templates into general templates and CU only templates (basically, templates that imply certainty are restricted to CU, while templates that merely place a case along the spectrum of uncertainty are for more general use. {{inconclusive}} is one of the general templates. In the particular case that you raise, I do feel that I used the template with a very adequate written explanation. Had I simply used the template alone, I would more readily accept that there was an issue.

I've raised this on WT:SPI, as If I'm wrong on this, we need to change this to a CU only template, which will need agreement there, and all those involved need to be aware. Mayalld (talk) 07:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

File:Allaroundamazingbarnstar3.png		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		For being an indispensable asset to the Wikipedia community, for always doing good. Cheers! Eustress (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've admired your contributions for some time and was prompted to evaluate your service further after seeing your input at GA criteria talk. You do a lot for the community, so thank you! --Eustress (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you assess this article?

Hi OhanaUnited. I have much respect for your environmental work on Wikipedia, so I was wondering if you could lend your talents to give an assessment of Food waste in the United Kingdom. Barring one edit, the article has been entirely worked on by myself, so I'm in real need for some outside opinion to avoid bias in style and give some direction. The assessments for both Energy and Environment are forthcoming, so I would very much appreciate your outlook. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Look forward to the assessment. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You probably forgot, but you said you were going to do an assessment of the article over the weekend. I understand that you must be very busy, so if you haven't got the time I won't mind. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the nice assessment, I'm particularly flattered/surprised that it could be a GAN. The Collection section has been left blank purely because I have very little knowledge of collection policies and the websites with such information are yet to appear in my searches (I think it's too basic, maybe even common sense..). Many thanks again. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Templates

Even we non-cross-wiki experienced editors can make sense out of parser templates every now and then . See Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations#.7B.7BCheckedpuppeteer.7D.7D -- Avi (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

2008 Chinese Grand Prix GAN

I replied to your hold in the review. Apterygial 23:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Article in GAN

After some further substantial edits, Food waste in the United Kingdom has been listed under Food & Drinks as a GAN. I'm unsure whether you would like personally to review the article, since Environment seems to be your forte, but I thought I should let you know regardless so you could track the progress if you wished. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

How's the review going? Sorry for being horribly impatient, but I'm quite excited; this could be my first GA and I've invested a lot of time into it. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to know if you were getting on okay, but I'm probably being horribly overbearing and pushy so I'll just stop and let you get on. Sorry for that. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mizan biplob

FYI, the first account listed was never blocked. Cheers, Enigma^msg 07:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

GAN

Hi,

• You've put the GAN 'under review', but you haven't started the GAN discussion page - so the 'comments welcome', well, there's nowhere for folk to comment.

• From a quick look at the article, I'm concerned about NPOV balance. I'm not claiming there is OR or anything, just that almost all the substance is based on the WRAP stuff, supported by newspaper articles. Surely there are other scientific analyses. My concern is, the WRAP report does not appear to cite their sources; consequently, comments such as,

"359,000 tonnes of potatoes per year are thrown away, 49% (177,400 tonnes) of which are untouched"

...makes me wonder - what does 'untouched' mean? Are they then used for animal food, perhaps?

I hope these comments make sense; I'd just like to see a more balanced viewpoint, rather than stating the views of WRAP without comparing their findings with those of other research.

Cheers, --  Chzz  ►  14:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

reply

User talk:Chzz --  Chzz  ►  16:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Formula One

Hi. If you have a minute, could you do me a massive favour and take a look at Portal:Formula One, and let me know if there are any major issues at the PR? I'm considering merging selected article and selected race, to raise the numbers, but I'm not really sure. I've never done anything remotely like this before, so I'd love to know if I've gone in the right direction. Thanks a heap, Apterygial 08:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've replied to your points at the PR. Congratulations, by the way, on your day. :) Apterygial 09:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. I thought I'd go with two pictures which describe both sides of F1. Apterysock 01:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy OhanaUnited's Day!

OhanaUnited has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as OhanaUnited's day! For outstanding work on good articles and administrative tasks, enjoy being the Star of the day, OhanaUnited! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 01:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ohana

Thanks a lot for a fantastic, informative article review whilst managing to put up with my nagging! The review that the largest obstacle towards GA is the MoS compliance (which unsurprisingly is something I'm not terribly good and complying to..), so I'll have a go at sorting that out. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've made a lot of minor edits per MoS (hopefully) on the article Food waste in the United Kingdom, as you requested in the review. I hope there's nothing obvious that the article is lacking or needs amending. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

re Featured portal sweep

Agreed on both points. Cirt (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

GA review of 243 Ida

Reyk and I have, I think, addressed the issues you brought up in your review. Can you take a look for any remaining problems in the article? Thank you for reviewing it. Wronkiew (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

GAN of Black Drongo

I have chipped in and helped, and think we have addressed everything. Can you let us know if we have still left something unaddressed and I will try to fix. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Mission accomplished

The uncategorized Good articles elimination drive, that I believe you spearheaded is complete. I did my 20 last night and this morning attempted to do a few more and the category is now empty! I don't know if you want to mark it "complete" or anything. Keep me in mind for similar projects. J04n (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Food waste in the United Kingdom update

The article has received a number of minor edits by myself and other users as per WP:MoS and WP:Overlinking, which should hopefully address the question of whether the article follows MoS guidelines. I won't make any further changes until you've had a chance to look over what has been done. Thanks in advance. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for passing the article Ohana. Very grateful for all your hard work on getting it through to this stage. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we calm down a bit on Sustainability article?

I have brought up several issues that I feel are important. I have not edited the article for a few days... and the comment you made on the talk page today I think was a bit much. Please take such disputes to requests for comment, requests for mediation, or requests for arbitration rather than the method of saying Unfortunately, skip is driving almost all of us crazy by his absurd reasoning and pushing personal POV since October 2008. (I am getting close to pulling my hairs out) Clearly, skip, the consensus here is that you are disruptive. Consider this as a final warning, after which we have no choice but to determine whether you should be blocked. This is your last chance, don't blow it.

Was that really the best way to comment or communicate with a fellow editor, on the talk page of an article? If you look at the article history you will see that I have made some good edits and multiple edits of reffing and citing information. I brought up an aspect of the editing on the talk page of a team member having linked his own book in the article. I felt this should have been brought up. Please calm down. skip sievert (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are way to personally involved in the team on the page... and also as a personal editing partner with members of the team (Sunray in particular) to make the statement you made, which I found personally insulting, demeaning and not appropriate. I have done a lot of grunt work on that article. My talk page also requests that conversations started elsewhere be done where started. I feel that you are baiting me with the last communication. Please stop. Please take such disputes if you feel they are disputes to requests for comment, requests for mediation, or requests for arbitration. skip sievert (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruption

I have had some difficulties with a particular editor, since he first asked for help here: [1]. But he obviously didn't like my suggestions for the Energy Accounting article and before long I was being accused of personal attacks [2]. I looked more closely at many of the articles in Category: Technocracy movement and found that there was much repetition across the articles [3] and that a pro-technocracy POV was being pushed [4]. I tried to help fix the situation but my edits were reverted [5] and tags removed [6]. The matter went to Wikiquette alerts but wasn't discussed fully. The editor in question has made 22 contributions to my talk page and I have tried to patiently respond, to little avail. I have found all of this quite disruptive to my normal article writing activities, but would still like to improve the Technocracy articles. My most recent attempt to do this was reverted here: [7]. Can you help please? Johnfos (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sunray and Johnphos edit together on multiple articles as do other editors involved. It is pretty obvious that a group of editors are trying to make a lot of fuss over several edits that do not deserve the attention. I feel that you are baiting me with the last communications here. Please stop. Please take such disputes if you feel they are disputes to requests for comment, requests for mediation, or requests for arbitration and connect them to some element of an article. skip sievert (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"Sunray and Johnphos edit together on multiple articles." Nonsense. Please do not make false accusations. Sunray (talk) 06:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that my editing with user Johnphos has been problematic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive59#User:Johnfos

It is probably better not to flame matters any more aspects of this. Johnphos has reverted the Sustainability page in accordance with the team there. Lets just drop this. skip sievert (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability editing

I am pleased that you are willing to take this further and will support you however I can. This current round of continual allegations regarding neutrality, sourcing, conflict of interest, etc. leveled at various article editors all but stopped editing of the article in the midst of a peer review. He does not respect the consensus of the article editors nor the advice of outside reviewers. Here are examples of his failure to respect the views of others.

1. RS Noticeboard: [8] Note this summary of the above discussion by TP and Skip's disagreement with the RS noticeboard editors. [9]
2. COI Noticeboard: [10]

Let me know if there is anything else I can do to help. Sunray (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar!

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	For your participation in the Spring 2009 GAN backlog elimination drive, in which you reviewed 5 articles, you are granted this barnstar! Great work! —The participants on the Spring 2009 GAN backlog elimination drive 21:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition, you may use the userbox located at User:Drilnoth/Userboxes/GAN backlog elimination drive to indicate your participation on your user page. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Too long to discuss

You stated that the items on my block log were too listed to be summarized. There were only five blocks. 1 was for "3RR" which was 4 "reverts" - 2 edits then 2 edits 23 hours later, on a section that had nothing to do with the section being edit warred. The next was by a CoI admin and a reprisal block for leading consensus against her friend and then an admitted CoI attempt to indef block me for false "legal threat" claims (I said I was going to report her to ArbCom for abusing her admin privileges and violating CoI. Then her and her friends trying to change the NLT page to claim that any threat placed anywhere would be grounds to indef block which I reverted twice (and was blocked, with her "reviewing" the block). SWATJester and thebainer upheld my interpretation of their changes as being wrong, and they violated consensus procedure in trying to change it in the first place. The Moreschi block had no basis behind it besides the fact that I provided sources over a content dispute and one of his friends didn't like that I didn't give in. His block was heavily controversial. Nandesuka, the last one, is a friend of mine and has worked with me after that block. He can talk to you about that experience if you want. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

GA sweeps medal

It's in my contribs. Check Malleus' talk page, for an example. لennavecia 14:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Fungi

Hi, seeing as you were the only person who commented on the peer review, I wondered if you may be interested in commenting at the above location. It's been open for over a week now, and no one has commented. Thanks J Milburn (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Barnstar challenge

Hello, OhanaUnited. You have new messages at Download's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

243 Ida FA nomination

Hey OhanaUnited, Wronkiew and I have just nominated this article for FA status. Since you reviewed it, I thought you might like to know. Reyk _YO! 01:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Tom Sayle SPI

Hiya.. could you please reconsider the decline? There's more evidence, and as I just pointed out on the page, he's now following the standard pattern of demanding proof right before being outed as a sock. //roux   16:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

More Sustainability

Could you please check out the proposed content at [[11]] and comment on its appropriateness for Wikipedia - and if you think of anyone else who would be able to help out with an informed view that would be great too. The central problem is how to write about a modern view of sustainability as something that requires change on a large scale, without falling into the traps of being prosletysing, biased or political. Not an easy balancing act; I have done my best but can no doubt improve.--Travelplanner (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Charts

I made the charts in Excel. I'm sure there is some easy way to save and upload them, but I just took screenshots of the page, cropped it, and then uploaded it. Speaking of which, I guess I better update the results of the sweeps page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's quite the low point. I'm done reviewing articles for a while. I may come back when it nears the end. However, it looks like the process is going to be discontinued. Which is a shame, since there's such a nice looking barnstar to go to those who review. Perhaps another advertisement asking anyone to review would beneficial. I recognize that we wanted to only feature reliable GA reviewers, but by opening it up to anyone and detailing the directions/guidelines, we may see some more participation. Some editors may be deterred by the invitation-only type process currently set up. We're nearly halfway done almost two years later (I had figured we'd be done in two years!). I know that this process was one step towards getting the sought after green dot in the top corner of articles, so maybe if it is mentioned on the various good article talk pages that this cleanup/verification process will help to improve the standing of the GA process, then maybe more will participate. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

For the barnstar, I'm not sure. 100 articles seems sufficient to me, but obviously some articles are shorter/longer than others. I'm not sure if Lara is the only one awarding it or if anybody can, but I'm sure if we started awarding it at the 100-mark, we may get more people eager to help out. Some editors work because they want to, while others enjoy awards. It shouldn't matter the reason, so long as the reviewers perform the task to the best of their ability. I created a worklist page of the remaining GAs that need to be swept. I think it would be best if reviewers could pick whatever articles are available instead of topics. Some reviewers have "saved" topics, and may not be contributing. The worklist option will allow for anyone to pick and choose (some reviewers were already doing this), and hopefully speed up the process. I took the August 2007 revision and removed all of the ones that have already been removed, as well as all FAs. I just compiled everybody's exempt FAs into one section, which decreased a few editors' total figures. I also removed some duplicates so the number is more accurate (its currently at 1,433, finally more than 50% done). I guess I'm good as an accountant, being able to rework the numbers and make the total increase (it's just all of those exempt FAs) :). Let me know if you have any comments on the changes. I'll likely be composing some invitations at the GA talk pages as well as updates for all current members. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily leading this project, you've definitely done more than I have. You didn't have failed attempts. This task is tedious and takes a lot of knowledge of editing/guidelines to review properly. It's great that you were able to recruit various members to assist in reviewing. I think we just need to step it up with current reviewers, and hopefully, recruit new ones. The graphs are up to date with what April's results were (but those did have some inacurracies with the duplicates and other numbering issues). Although it's great that the halfway threshold has been passed, it is the result of the ~100 FAs that I found. Not the greatest way to pass the halfway point, but no worries. When the next month's charts are updated they will have an increase reflecting the ~50% done (in addition to any reviews that are performed this month). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Below is the message being sent out to all members, just thought you'd be interested in seeing it:

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) 03:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The above message was sent to all members listed on the running total page. I will be tailoring another message for current Wikiproject GA members, as well as another for the main project/GAN/GA talk pages. The individual ones may be sent out later tonight, since I've got a major commitment to attend to in 20 minutes (namely The Office). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

GA sweeps

Hi, I just saw the message about this quality control initiative, and think it's a great idea... had never heard of it before! I'd like to help out, and would be checking mostly science-related articles. I've done over 20 GA reviews, and have written about a dozen GAs myself, so I hope I have a decent understanding of what's expected. Let me know if this sounds ok with you, and I'll get started. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

re: GA Sweeps Invitation

Absolutely! I would love to help with this.--Unionhawk ^Talk 11:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

I too would like to help.Johnherrick (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I had been reassigned and had no time to respond to earlier requests. I will be on the sidelines and watch for a while. Small edits will be discussed on User talk pages if that is OK.Johnherrick (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

re:GA Sweeps

Sure. But I'll ease into it slowly-I'm familiar with the criteria and proccess, but have been simply "observing" for the past 6 or so months. ResMar 13:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 5

Could you re-vote on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 5. The user who edited before you did something strange and because your edit conflicted with theirs, I had to restore the page to the version before. Sorry for the inconvenience, Malinaccier (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for supporting me in my recent RfA, which unfortunately did not pass with a final tally of (45/39/9). I plan on addressing the concerns raised and working to improve in the next several months. Special thanks go to MBisanz, GT5162, and MC10 for nominating me. Thanks again, -download ׀ sign! 03:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ruqun discussion

Please join in the discussion of ruqun at its talk page. Thanks. 116.15.179.16 (talk) 05:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)