User talk:Mastrchf91
|
January 2007-Early December 2007 |
New straw poll
[edit]You are a user who responded to RFC: Use of logos on sports team pages. As someone interested in the discussion a new straw poll has been laid out to see where we currently stand with regards to building a consensus. For the sake of clarity, please indicate your support or opposition (or neutrality) to each section, but leave discussion to the end of each section. — BQZip01 — talk 23:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- As a user who responded to the straw poll regarding non-free images in sports, your further input is requested with regards to the Straw poll summary and proposed guidelines on image use — BQZip01 — talk 01:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Very interesting point on #2, but I'm not sure I understand your problem with it. If there is an article about a season, there should almost certainly be a picture of something within that season. I can't really imagine a time where one wouldn't exist. Thousands of fans at the events (in at least many instances). Surely at least one person would upload photos to Flickr or another site and license them to be used. Tell you what, why don't you give me a worst case modern scenario and I'll see what I can find. We'll make this a test case (admittedly an anecdotal one) to see if this works? — BQZip01 — talk 04:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Most likely, it won't affect many articles. My entire point was that I couldn't fully support a guideline that might possibly support not using an image over using a fair use image. I couldn't really give you a worst case modern scenario; I'm sure that there are enough people who take cameras to games to support most if not all teams' pages. My apologies for not being able to give you a suitable test case. Mastrchf (t/c) 04:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Still, point taken. Perhaps a rephrase is in order? I think the season thing is a bit overblown, but I'd rather have a concrete guideline than remain wishy-washy. Thanks for your neutral POV though.
- "What makes a good man go neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?" -Zapp Brannigan
- — BQZip01 — talk 04:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- How about doing something like stating it is an absolute last resort to use such a logo? — BQZip01 — talk 08:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- That would work for me. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- How about doing something like stating it is an absolute last resort to use such a logo? — BQZip01 — talk 08:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Still, point taken. Perhaps a rephrase is in order? I think the season thing is a bit overblown, but I'd rather have a concrete guideline than remain wishy-washy. Thanks for your neutral POV though.
- Most likely, it won't affect many articles. My entire point was that I couldn't fully support a guideline that might possibly support not using an image over using a fair use image. I couldn't really give you a worst case modern scenario; I'm sure that there are enough people who take cameras to games to support most if not all teams' pages. My apologies for not being able to give you a suitable test case. Mastrchf (t/c) 04:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Very interesting point on #2, but I'm not sure I understand your problem with it. If there is an article about a season, there should almost certainly be a picture of something within that season. I can't really imagine a time where one wouldn't exist. Thousands of fans at the events (in at least many instances). Surely at least one person would upload photos to Flickr or another site and license them to be used. Tell you what, why don't you give me a worst case modern scenario and I'll see what I can find. We'll make this a test case (admittedly an anecdotal one) to see if this works? — BQZip01 — talk 04:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject College football January 2009 Newsletter
[edit]The January 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: The Office season episodes
[edit]Hi and thansk. :) I didn't get what meant by "change the key to the lists". Would you describe it please? Behnam (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Final version
[edit]As a contributor to the discussion regarding sports team logos, I am soliciting feedback as to the latest version of that guideline. Your support/opposition/feedback would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — talk 21:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- "I still cannot support a measure which says to not use an image instead of using an already uploaded fair-use image".
- Could you clarify that? — BQZip01 — talk 01:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's quite self-explanatory. Mastrchf (t/c) 01:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Could you clarify that? — BQZip01 — talk 01:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm confused. You oppose a measure that says "don't use an image" instead of using a fair use image? or "don't use an image instead of using a fair use image"? I'm sorry, but I don't understand the use of the word "image" in this context. — BQZip01 — talk 02:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- In simple terms, I cannot support the ridiculous notion that if no free alternative is in place, we should not have an image even if a perfectly good fair-use image is already uploaded. Mastrchf (t/c) 13:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Which seems to be exactly in line with my point about album covers. If you were referring only to logos, could you please qualify why they should be treated differently? J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- That really wouldn't be the most terrible use either. But that fight is one I'd choose not to take. As for this, the logo identifies the team. There is absolutely no detrimental effect to the article or the encyclopedia to have the non-free image included in the article as long as it is already uploaded, and frankly I think it's ridiculous for one to say there is. Mastrchf (t/c) 21:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I see your point...but why not support the latest version then? — BQZip01 — talk 07:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- That really wouldn't be the most terrible use either. But that fight is one I'd choose not to take. As for this, the logo identifies the team. There is absolutely no detrimental effect to the article or the encyclopedia to have the non-free image included in the article as long as it is already uploaded, and frankly I think it's ridiculous for one to say there is. Mastrchf (t/c) 21:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Which seems to be exactly in line with my point about album covers. If you were referring only to logos, could you please qualify why they should be treated differently? J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- In simple terms, I cannot support the ridiculous notion that if no free alternative is in place, we should not have an image even if a perfectly good fair-use image is already uploaded. Mastrchf (t/c) 13:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm confused. You oppose a measure that says "don't use an image" instead of using a fair use image? or "don't use an image instead of using a fair use image"? I'm sorry, but I don't understand the use of the word "image" in this context. — BQZip01 — talk 02:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
<-- "To further the goals of a free encyclopedia, do not use any versions of copyrighted logos including: team logos, logo(s) of a school, or athletic department logo(s)." That line is still included. Therefore, I still cannot support. Mastrchf (t/c) 12:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Opinion
[edit]As someone who weighed in before, I would like your input on this discussion.--2008Olympianchitchat 21:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject College football February 2009 Newsletter
[edit]The February 2009 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Non-constructive Contributions
[edit]Ya so you left a message on my talk page about non-constructive edits. There was a discrepancy between spellings in Kelly's info as her name was spelled KellEY in her infobox template, so I went back and changed what I thought to be a typo based on another, more important typo. 98.148.16.22 (talk)
GA Sweeps update
[edit]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) 03:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Re:Halloween (The Office)
[edit]Hey, thanks for fixing my error there, much appreciated! And thanks for your kind words about my Office work. I've been enjoying myself with it. :) Incidentally, if you'd like to help, I've got a while bunch of Office episode GAN nominations right now) that need review (as well as some Parks and Recreation ones, if you're a fan of that too), but you're obviously under no obligation. Thanks again! — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 22:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
End of The Office (US TV series) season 5 puts Seasons of The Office FT under retention
[edit]Hi, just to let you know you have 3 months from the end of The Office season 5, or until 14 August, to get the article to FL, or else the topic will be eligible for nomination for removal. Thanks ;) rst20xx (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Formal Mediation for Sports Logos
[edit]As a contributor to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos/Archive_1, I have included you in a request for formal mediation regarding the subject at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. With your input and agreement to work through mediation, I hope we can achieve a lasting solution. — BQZip01 — talk 06:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
GA Sweeps June update
[edit]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)
Request for mediation not accepted
[edit]
|
A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos.
|
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
GA Sweeps July update
[edit]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) 17:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
GA Sweeps August update
[edit]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)
Hi, I'm trying to get this article about Arkansas history reviewed for Good Article status and was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at it. Thanks, --The_stuart (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
GA Sweeps update
[edit]Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps 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) 00:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive
[edit]| 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 17:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox The Office (US) season 2 episode list
[edit]
Template:Infobox The Office (US) season 2 episode list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox The Office (US) season 1 episode list
[edit]Template:Infobox The Office (US) season 1 episode list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox The Office (US) season 4 episode list
[edit]Template:Infobox The Office (US) season 4 episode list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer
[edit]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:LocalAd2.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:LocalAd2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
- I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
- I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
- If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
- To opt out of these bot messages, add
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}to your talk page. - If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Invitation to particpate in the December 2010 Wikification Drive
[edit] | Hi there! I thought you might be interested in the December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We're currently recruiting help to clear a massive backlog (22,000+ articles), and we need your help! Participants in the drive will receive barnstars for their contributions! If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks! |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 18:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC).
Please confirm your membership
[edit] | This is an important message from WikiProject Wikify. You are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Wikify. As agreed upon by the project, all members will be required to confirm their membership by February 1, 2010. If you are still interested in assisting with the project, please add yourself to the list at this page—this will renew your membership of WikiProject Wikify. Thank you for your support, WikiProject Wikify |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 20:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC).
March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive a week away
[edit]WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. 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. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 00:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Good article reassessment
[edit]An article that you have been involved in editing, E-mail Surveillance has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments good article reassessment page . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. . Fences&Windows 17:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)
[edit]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. 13:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Update for: WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)
[edit]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)15:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - October 2012
[edit]| The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||
→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 05:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles - Participant Clean-up (Second Call)
[edit] |
WikiProject Good Articles - Participant Clean-up (Final Call)
[edit] |
The GAN Newsletter (November 2012)
[edit]
| ||||
| ||||
| Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited | |
|---|---|
 |
|
The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (December 2012)
[edit]
| ||||
| ||||
The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (January 2013)
[edit]
| ||||
| ||||
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - February 2013
[edit]
| ||||
| ||||
Good Article Nominations Request For Comment
[edit]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
[edit]
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) 01:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC) |
DYK RfC
[edit]- 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|Contributions03:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive
[edit]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. |
GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive
[edit]If you know anyone outside of the WikiProject that may be interested, feel free to invite them to the drive! |
March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive
[edit]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
[edit]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)
Research to understand article reviews
[edit]Hi,
We’re a team of researchers at Stanford University, and we’re interested in how editors review nominated articles for GA status. Rather than just looking to the assessment guidelines, we’re also interested in how individual editors then use these guidelines to evaluate articles.
We were hoping if you’d be able to spend some time with us, and help us understand how you would differentiate, say, a C-class article from a Good Article.
Looking forward to hearing back! Our email address is jc14253 AT cs DOT stanford DOT edu
Justin Cheng and Michael Bernstein Stanford University http://hci.stanford.edu/
Jcccf (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Sleeping Dogs
[edit]Hey man! Would you consider doing a peer review, or giving some feedback on Sleeping Dogs (video game)? I would like to get some feedback about issues that need to be resolved. After that, I would like to nominate it for a featured article. Thanks for you for your cooperation! URDNEXT (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject Good articles Future GAN Backlog Drive
[edit]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)
GA Cup
[edit]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) 01:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles - GA Cup
[edit]
 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) To receive future GA Cup newsletter, please add your name to our mailing list.
|
Thank you for creating Battle of Old River Lake. Do you think you could add in-line references to it please?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
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) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]
Hello, Mastrchf91. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
2019 US Banknote Contest
[edit].png){kind=logo}
|
US Banknote Contest | 
|
|---|---|---|
| November-December 2019 | ||
|
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here | ||
Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Good article drive notice
[edit] | Good Article Nomination Backlog Drive The March 2021 GAN Backlog Drive begins on March 1, and will continue until the end of the month. Please sign up to review articles and help reduce the backlog of nominations! |
-- For the drive co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The article Behind Enemy Lines (novel) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (books) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)