User:Jwanders/Old talk

GA Sweeps update

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) 00:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Completed!

Thanks to everyone's amazing efforts in February, we have reviewed all of the articles and are now finished with Sweeps! There are still about 30 articles currently on hold, and once those reviews are completed, I will send you a final message about Sweeps process stats including the total number of articles that were passed and failed. If you have one of these open reviews, be sure to update your count when the review is completed so I can compile the stats. You can except to receive your award for reviewing within the next week or two. Although the majority of the editors did not start Sweeps at the beginning in August 2007 (myself included), over 50 editors have all come together to complete a monumental task and improve many articles in the process. I commend you for sticking with this often challenging task and strengthening the integrity of the GA WikiProject as well as the GAs themselves. I invite you to take a break from reviewing (don't want you to burn out!) and then consider returning/starting to review GANs and/or contribute to GAR reviews. With your assistance, we can help bring the backlog down to a manageable level and help inspire more editors to improve articles to higher classes and consider reviewing themselves. Again, thank you for putting up with difficult reviews, unhappy editors, numerous spam messages from me, and taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive

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 17:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A sincere thank you from Wikiproject Good Articles

On behalf of Wikiproject Good Articles, I would like to express our gratitude to you for your contributions to the Sweeps process, for which you completed 21 reviews. Completion of this monstrous task has proven to be a significant accomplishment not only for our project, but for Wikipedia. As a token of our sincere appreciation, please accept this ribbon. Lara 00:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Aristarchus (crater)

Hi, Jwanders. I was reading the article Aristarchus (crater). I cannot find the original discussion for its good article status from August 15, 2006 or discussion for your Feb 29, 2008 GA review. I would like the article to link to those if they exist. The article only obtained its GA icon by a robot well after your reassessment. I also noticed the appendix matter's sections were out of order pretty much since the creation of the article. I'm not positive but I think the current appendix guidelines would have been in effect by the Feb 29, 2008 reassessment, so that should have been corrected before the article passed. Do you remember where I could find the links to the discussion for its GA status? Jason Quinn (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Minima and maxima (introduction)

The article Minima and maxima (introduction) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Redundant to Maxima and minima

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. ClaretAsh 05:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Merge previous

A tag has been placed on Template:Merge previous requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Recycling by material

A tag has been placed on Template:Recycling by material requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Waste management by region

A tag has been placed on Template:Waste management by region requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

ETNotice

Hi Jwanders, what's the deal with User:Jwanders/ETNotice? Is that still an active discussion? It's transcluded on a good deal of talk pages. --BDD (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Refactoring Hubbert Peak

Good job refactoring the Hubbert Peak discussion page. I want this page to be a featured article eventually, and the refactoring made it more clear how to get there. Thanks. GuloGuloGulo 02:31, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for refactoring. The page seems to need work, but discussion not going anywhere. Your refactoring really helps. I only wish now that we could make the Energy Development or Sustainability project a working reality. Tom Haws 22:06, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Stopping power

Good, solid edit, thanks. Just needs a wee bit changed, which I'll be putting on the draft page shortly. Arrkhal 04:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) (I hate it when I forget stupid stuff, like signing posts)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy Related Development by Civilizations

Hi. I'd like to make this project a reality. To do so, I think we need to do the following:

1. Simpler name. Maybe Sustainability or Energy Development. I favor Sustainability.
2. Simpler page. The page scares people. We should just start with sections for Participants, Guests, Polls, and List of Categories and Articles.
3. Personal invites. We can invite several people to add the project page to their watchlists and follow discussions there.

Your thoughts? Tom Haws 22:16, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

hmmm... First off, I confess I've yet to actually read the Peak Oil article. Silly real life getting in the way of important wikiing! Anyway, I've been planning on sitting down and going through it sometime this week, and I'll be much better able to discuss how to move forward once I do.

Secondly, I've only been on the Wiki for a couple of months, and am not to sure what a project really is or what they're for. I imagine there's a whole page about it in the "how to" section that I could easily find in a few seconds of searching, and I'll add that to my list of things to do this week. I do agree that the three points you mention would be very important if we want to move the project foward.

Stay tuned. --Jwanders 23:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just please add Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy development to your Watchlist and participate in any discussion and polls there. Thanks. It will be easy, I promise. We really need some additional input. We are kind of at a standstill on some issues. Tom Haws 05:48, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy development

Could I get you to chime in on the poll here? I appreciate it. It represents a sticky ongoing question. Tom Haws 06:43, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

...for updating the Maintenance COTW. -- Beland 02:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Image request for solenoid

Hi, and thanks for taking an interest. I see that I completely failed to give a helpful explanation of what was required on either the image request on the page itself.

Yes, one solid torus lies completely inside the other, but not in the most obvious embedding: the smaller torus winds around p times inside the big one before joining up. (In particular, this is only possible because the smaller torus is long and thin and bendy: it's topologically a torus, but geometrically it's not the traditional shape.) To try to be more explicit, imagine you have a huge orange plastic walk-in torus occupying your living room (the outer torus) and a very long, thin, flexible inner tube (the inner torus). Climb inside the big torus through the secret hatch in the side, and shut the hatch after you so that it's a proper torus again. Now temporarily cut through the inner tube so you have a long rubber cylinder, and drop one end and weight it in place with a stone, keeping the other end in your hands. Walk p times around inside the big torus, then when you get back to the stone for the pth time, pick up the end and glue it back to the one you're holding so that the inner tube becomes a topological torus again. You now have the two toruses embedded one inside the other in the correct way.

The way I think about it is that in every circular cross-section through the big torus you see p smaller circles corresponding to sections through the little torus: for greatest geometrical symmetry, these p circles should be regularly spaced in a circular pattern, and then their position within this circular pattern must gradually rotate as you vary the cross-section so that each one joins up to the next one in one traversal around the cross-sections of the big torus. I believe it would be possible (though hard work) to derive an explicit formula for surfaces corresponding to the two toruses and then produce an illustration using standard 3-d graphing tools. But I wouldn't like to discourage a completely different approach.

I hope at least some of what I've written here is comprehensible. —Blotwell 02:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Cool, I like it. If I had one criticism it would be that the colouring distracts attention from the internal construction which is presumably the main point of the picture. (Also, the caption's wrong because this picture isn't the solenoid, it's just the first step in the construction out of infinitely many steps, just as the unit interval with the middle third missing is only the first step in the construction of the Cantor set. In the second step you take another torus and wind it p times around inside the inner torus, so it goes p² times around inside the outer torus, and so on. The solenoid is the set of points which are inside all infinitely many tori. I wouldn't say no to more diagrams illustrating this, but they would surely be more difficult and I didn't intend them in my original image request.)

Incidentally, don't hesitate to edit the article text if you can add a comprehensible description of any of this. —Blotwell 01:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Map

I think perhaps you should include classifications for legalization , legalization only for medical purposes, and prohibition. I have no idea where you could find sources for the information but they must be somewhere. If you do this I think this could go in the Legal issues of cannabis article. --Revolución (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Hubbert peak

J, The argument that related postmortem works can be injected into an article bearing a proper name is long and fraught with compelling arguments to the contrary.

Allowing Hubbert's theories to be freely mixed with related theories begins the process of a straw man, moreover it makes every future discussion the subject of an unfair dichotemy.

for example: If Colin whoever, turns out to be a fraud, does that reflect on Hubbert. If Hubbert was wrong, does that reflect on Colin? So we argue that Hubbert guessed, he had a 1 in 15 chance of being accurate, and he, rather than the other 20 who guessed and are now forgotton, happened to be right - so what?

Now do we combine one guesser with a new guesser who is begging to be granted the defacto credibility of an earlier guesser by using his name? I suggest not. If the new guesser can do better than one right guess in a lifetime, then we can build a religion in his honor, but should we entertain this muddled pseudo-logic of granting heridity and lineage to future scientists? It's not a monarchy, it's not a prophethood; why should we imploy the metaphor of dynasties in the field of science. such reeks. Benjamin Gatti

Fix your sig

Your sig contains an unclosed 'small' or 'sup' tag. Please fix it. Radiant_>|< 22:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Actually this may be a false alarm, it seems Wikiformatting is acting up tonight. But since my sig does work, you may want to check it anyway. Radiant_>|< 22:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Sustainability topics (& hope you're still around)

Looks like you haven't been editing (under this account) since mid-Nov 2005. I hope it's just an extended holiday - if so, then hope to see you around. I'm focusing on areas such as the articles in Category:Appropriate technology, then soon on the related areas of Category:Sustainability and Category:Development. Cheers, --Singkong2005 02:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

WIkiProject Environment

Hello and welcome to WikiProject Environment! --Alex 08:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Article Feedback

Thanks again for your feedback, I really appreciate that. When I read SynergeticMaggot, I reckon the main issue here is the source of information. However, since I researched the information on Indonesian websites (excluding Dewa Budjana's website), you and zillions other people probably wouldn't understand that, which is a huge problem. So, basically I've put the sources, although those are on the external links part (I'll move it to source part). Do you have any suggestion on this? Thank you - Imoeng 11:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dewa Budjana's references

Could you check it? I've made the references (its pretty hard to learn though) Imoeng 12:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Yeah, that looks perfect. The citation/references bit is one of the hardest things to get use to around here; I only started to really make sense of it yesterday, and I've been editing off and on for years! The amount you've learnt and done in three days is truly impressive"

I take that as a compliment, thank you!

Headingthe

Thanks for the note- it looks like a lot of people are receiving that problem. I tried fixing it; can you try it again? AZ _t 20:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Time Enough at Last

Hey, thanks for the feedback; I responded on that page (it's kinda hard to follow the page as far as watchlisting it) with a game plan of sorts for my vision of the template-to-be. I'm not sure what TTW (The TWilight Zone?) stands for in the templates I mentioned, but I suppose the new one can use those initials for consistency. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to unify the seven templates. One template to rule replace them all, and in the twilight? bind them. Moulder 17:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the (surprisingly easy!) template solution - haven't had a chance to play around with it and apply it to the other ep pages yet, but I plan to soon. One thing perhaps a bit more complicated is that I was thinking we could make the episode list a drop-down section the way topic areas on WP:GA are. Any thoughts on that?

And since you're a scientist who's probably had a good deal of experience with citations and such, perhaps you could take a look at [peer review request] for Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (I was actually split as to whether to request PR or RFF on that one). A weakness of WP is the lack of strict guidelines and reluctance to call anything a rule, leaving a lot of things in the grey area... Feel free to respond here this time since it's a new conversation. Moulder 17:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

So, I finally get home after a long day, dead tired, hardly even able to stand anymore, and want nothing more than to gently drift off to sleep. Of course, I think, "oh, maybe I should do some wikiing first!"

"No, NO!!," the other voice in my head replies (don't worry, there are only the regular two. I'm not crazy or anything) "you need to sleep!!".

"Yeah... I guess you're right... I'll just quickly check and see if I have any messages, yeah?"

And, of course, not only did I have a message, but the message posited a fun little coding puzzle that I of course couldn't just let lie there unsolved all night. Heh, check it out ;-)

But that's it (for tonight). I'm going to bed!! --jwanders^Talk 22:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

{{LinkedDate}}

Sure - I have done it before - I just have to find the template - and I don't have time right now to find it - my memory is that one needs to use HTML Characters in order to get it to work right when subst - and not wrongly insert extra stuff --Trödel 18:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

FAR/C process

Hi J

Thanks for your message about the backlog on the talk page. The four or five regular reviewers/managers of this process are only just coping with the volume; we'd like to give more attention to all of the nominations, but it's hard. You may be aware that the process has been significantly modified, about six weeks ago, I think. It's proving to be very popular—IMV, this is because the PR process typically doesn't provide what people need, and because of rising/changing standards for FAs.

Whatever the reason, the input of experienced editors will probably have a significant impact on WP's culture, although not immediately. We'd be delighted if you dropped in occasionally (or often) to review articles and/or help with the management of the process.

Tony 02:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind commenting/voting at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Right whale. The FARC vote will decide whether it will remain an FA or not.

You could also volunteer to help one of the less fortunate FAR/C listed articles with a copy-edit or a section or two or by addressing one of the issues raised by the nominator (usually adding citations and lead paragraph improvements). --Maintain 04:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Vertical axis wind generators' article deleted by Jwanders

On 21:11, 2 August 2006 Jwanders deleted my contrib to "Wind Power" page, regarding vertical axis wind generators (Kitegen Project). I'm not interested in editing wars, so I simply wish to know why. It was not possible to integrate my contrib inside the page article? The text I submitted is a translation (from italian to english) taken from the italian Wikipedia page "Energia Eolica" linked to "Wind Power" page. Magius

Hi! The anonymous 80.181.113.234 (talk · contribs) added this section to your talk page signing as Magius.^[1] You replied on the talk page of the Magius article, though.^[2] Maybe you should reply directly on the IPs talk page, or ask if he is indeed Magius (talk · contribs)? -- ReyBrujo 17:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Chinese template

Thanks, this is for a proposed wikiproject about Chinese Romanization. Use Image:Zhongwen.svg if possible, otherwise, you don't need to include an image. For the text, you can do something like:

   * This article needs translation of pinyin to the corresponding chinese symbol(s).
   * This article uses Chinese Romanization, which should be translated into pinyin and the corresponding chinese symbol(s).
   * This article uses traditional characters, but should also include simplified characters.
   * This article uses simplified characters, but should also include traditional characters.
   * This article has faulty Chinese to English translations. 
   * This article has faulty English to Chinese translations.

Bibliomaniac15 19:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

COTW Project

You voted for Textile, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. Davodd 02:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sign your comment...

Go and sign your comment on mytalk page. And make it snappy! --Street Scholar 21:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't leave a "comment" on your talk page, I left a vandalism notice. I don't appreciate your tone and would thank you not to post here again. --jwanders^Talk 22:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yoshiaki Omura page

Thanks for the idea re Yoshiaki Omura page - I think I will take up your suggestion. My best regards.--Richardmalter 23:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Critique

Firstly, thanks for all your hard work in moderating the Good Article nominations.

I note that you meant no personal attack against me, and kept that in mind while writing this. I see that the Great Salt Lake article has already been discussed, so I'll leave that to whatever-the-process-is between you and the other guys.

However, in good faith, I must raise my concerns about your demotion of the Phoenix Zoo. I feel that, considering the standards (examples given on article talk page) of other good articles, this was up to the mark. I have slightly improved the article in ways which you illustrated were degrading to its' quality, and also discussed a few, and I ask that you reconsider. Note that I had never edited, nor know anyone who ever edited, this article before these fixes, and my editing was merely some MOS fixups which you were kind enough to point out. Thanks again, Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 09:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For moderating the levels of quality of the Good Articles when they're approved to maintain the high standards that GA's are associated with, I award you this Working Man's Barnstar. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 10:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Great Salt Lake improvements

On the one hand, I disagree with your decision to remove Great Salt Lake from the good articles list, but on the other hand, I am just glad that more people are pointing out ways to improve the article. For awhile now I have pretty much been the only one working on this article (that is not to say I wrote it all), so I need outsiders' perspectives into improvements that are necessary. Do you have any other issues with the article that could possibly be addressed? --Lethargy 22:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: I am glad that someone is judging articles more strictly for GA status, my only complaint was that these issues could have been fixed quickly to bring it up to those standards, and delisting it wasn't necessary in my mind. Again, thank you for your input and please post any more you have. --Lethargy 22:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Don't do that!

04:04, 6 August 2006 Jwanders (Talk | contribs) m (moved Battery to Battery (disambiguation): Moving primary topic, Battery (electricity) to Battery)

I don't know what else to say. I am just floored. And you marked the edits minor. I totally agree with Vegaswikian undoing these moves. I hate to be so negative, but … --Charles Gaudette 21:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi J, good to hear back from you. You can look at Wikipedia:Requested moves and Wikipedia:Disambiguation.

Did you look at this, What Links To: Battery?

In my New Oxford American Dictionary the word battery has one listing and 5 senses.

Also, take a look at the etymology:

"Middle English : from French batterie, from battre "to strike," from Latin battuere. The original sense was [metal articles wrought by hammering,] later [a number of pieces of artillery used together] ; on this was based a sense [a number of Leyden jars connected up so as to discharge simultaneously] (mid 18th cent.), from which sense 1 developed. The general meaning [a set or series of similar units] ( sense 3 ) dates from the late 19th cent."

It all boils down to the word battery not being as clear cut as you think it is, and that changing the Battery article will have non-trivial side-effects. --Charles Gaudette 23:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Need Feedback

Hey Jwanders, how are you? Umm, so, I came up with a problem cause I've made Portal:Indonesia but I found there is no place to get feedback for portals (I've asked at WP:HD as well, but no one has replied it). So my only option is to ask people individually, hahahah. So, yeah, do you mind checking the portal? Cheers -- Imoeng 18:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

JPG -> SVG

Hi! I replaced your image [3] with an svg version [4]. If you have any suggest, I would greatly appreciate it, if not - could you mark the JPG version for deletion? Best, 4^@ 09:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose this week's WP:AID winner

Draicone ^(talk) 12:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:FAR

Hi Janders! You asked a while ago how to help with the backlog at WP:FAR, and I don't think anyone ever answered you. There are several older FARs (at the bottom of the list) that have not had enough reviews for consensus. We need more people to review the articles, and vote Keep or Remove, in the cases that don't have a clear consensus (at least 3 votes one way or the other). Sure would appreciate the help ! Sandy 12:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Energy portal

Hi! As a contributor to WikiProject Energy development, I thought you might like to be aware of the opportunity to contribute to the new Energy Portal, now that there is one... No need to reply. Gralo 17:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Energy portal & future selected articles

Hi! Over the past couple of months I've been spending much more time than I should developing the Energy portal, and intend asking for a portal peer review within the next day or so.

The portal provides a showcase for energy-related articles on Wikipedia. One of the most prominent ways is via a the selected article that is currently changed every 6 weeks or so. It would be good to increase this turnover, and with three Wikiprojects dedicated to energy-related topics and a good number of articles already written, I'd like to suggest that members of each Wikiproject might like to use the 'selected article' to feature some of their best work.

With this in mind, I'd like to suggest that your Wikiproject bypasses the normal selected article nomination page and decides collectively which articles are worth featuring - or these may be self-evident from previous discussions - and add short 'introduction' to the selected article at the appropriate place on page Portal:Energy/Selected article/Drafts, which includes further information. Your personal involvement would be welcome!

Please make any comments on your Wikiproject talk page, my talk page, or on Portal talk:Energy/Selected article/Drafts, as appropriate. Gralo 15:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Environment barnstar

I have created a barnstar for Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment. Please visit the talk page to vote for the barnstar since there are no votes for 2 months. OhanaUnited 03:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please help improve Plug-in hybrid

You are listed as a participant in WikiProject Energy development, so I am asking you to please consider helping to improve the plug-in hybrid article. This is an ad hoc article improvement drive. BenB4 08:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

GAC backlog elimination drive

This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 00:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Environmental Record Task Force

You are being recruited by the Environmental Record Task Force, a collaborative project committed to accurately and consistently representing the environmental impact of policymakers, corporations, and institutions throughout the encyclopedia. Join us!

Hi Jwanders,
I am looking at your edit history and think you would be a big help to our task force--I'm hoping you'll have a look and let me know what you think.
Cheers,
Cyrusc 21:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive

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

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 23:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox The Twilight Zone episode

Template:Infobox The Twilight Zone episode has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Jay32183 03:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for November 2007

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for December 2007

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles January Newsletter

Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: GA Sweep Request

Some of the GAC review that you did will do, preferably a small selection of the articles that you reviewed to pass/fail. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Impressive reviews, really! This is an invitation to participating in GA Sweeps. Just follow the procedure under Process to sweep articles. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Graham scan GA review

Thanks for the detailed GA review for Graham scan. The previous GA delisting was very brief, and as the nominator noted, both points had been addressed, but this left the article fairly far from GA quality. Two tiny things about the text on the talk page: On the "stability" section, one of your image tags is broken, and you did not sign the review, but I'm not sure if you are supposed to (I had to check the history for who to thank). JackSchmidt (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics

Thanks for coming back to look at Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics after it was improved! Saved having to go through re-nomination etc so was dealt with before I got round to do a copyedit of the article! Severo^TC 20:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the relist. Sorry about the attitude. I really thought we'd have to go the the whole process again. I'm glad I was wrong. It was actually nice to have some feedback on the article to address. It's been pretty quiet for a while. -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect DGAs in articlehistory

Hi, Jwanders, your DGAs have been showing up daily in the articlehistory errors; can you please read the instructions at Template:Articlehistory? If you scroll to the bottom of the article talk page after you work on articlehistory, you can see the red error category highlighted when there's a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Education of the public

From WT:EDU: I think a good chance is looking in Category:Education by subject, where there are such sub-categories as Category:Environmental education and Category:Medical education. Hope this helps. Thanks. Twenty Years 00:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

OhanaUnited's RFA

.: Thank you! :.

Thank you for participating in my 2nd RfA and supporting me! My RfA passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. I would like to take this opportunity to thank AndonicO and Rudget for nominating me. I also want to thank LaraLove for persuading me to keep going after I failed my first RfA. To be really honest, I am surprised that my RfA passed without any oppose or neutral. Being an administrator means more responsibilities, especially when I'm now an administrator on both English Wikipedia as well as WikiSpecies. I promise everyone that I will use the tools effectively to serve the community. If you need help on anything, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page and I will get back to you as soon as possible. Last but not least, remember the motto for Ohana: "When it comes to family, nobody gets left behind." Once again, thanks for placing your trust in me to help the community. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Plasma (physics)

Hi Jwanders. When you updated the ArticleHistory template, here, you created an error in the template. I've fixed it. Please see Template:ArticleHistory and follow the instructions when you next update a template. Thanks and best, PeterSymonds | talk 11:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Articlehistory errors

You've got two populating Category:ArticleHistory error; would you like me to help you with them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to build articlehistory if you're not interested or don't know how; just use the old templates, so others don't have to clear out articlehistory errors. It's much harder to go back and rebuild a complete history when an AfD was left out, then to just let GimmeBot run the whole thing from templates. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the barnstar, I really appreciate it. I noticed on your user page that you have multiple user boxes, and since you have joined in the sweeps, you could add {{User:LaraLove/Userbox/GAPQTF}} if you wish. Thanks again, and based on your current rate, you should catch up to me in no time! Happy editing, Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update

This is a form message being sent out to all of the GA sweeps reviewers. Thank you for all of your dedicated work in the difficult and time-consuming task of ensuring the quality of articles within the GA project. Many reviewers have taken time out of reviewing articles at WP:GAN (this may be one factor in the expansion of the backlog), writing articles, and probably getting some sleep! I have sent this message out to update you on our current progress and to remind you to please keep up with completing your reviews and updating GARs/holds. As of March 1, 2008, we have swept 20% of the 2,808 GAs we started with. At our current progress, all of the articles will be assessed in just under three years (based on when we started). If we want to complete the sweeps sooner, we need to continue reviewing at a higher rate (consider doing one or two more reviews a week or whatever you feel comfortable with) and inviting new, experienced reviewers. If you are taking a break, focusing on GAN, writing your own GAs, or are already reviewing articles like crazy, I still want to thank you for all of your hard work and hope you are pleased about our current progress. Keep up the good work and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WanderBot

Congratulations on starting a bot account, and thanks for rescuing my description of GA from the archives! Of course it is not up-to-date: in particular, GAR is now sufficiently automated that I no longer hate closing discussions! In terms of small steps, I suggest the next one might be to put in a bot request to do category listing in the VeblenBot style: Carl's original request is here. If you mention also that the bot may do category intersections as well, then we might have a bot capable of automating GAN. Geometry guy 17:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

GA storm articles

Thanks for the second opinion of Hurricane Kenneth. As I said, other GA articles on the same subjects have used the same techinical language without always explaining. I hate the imply something, but I have noticed that most of these articles have often been reviewed by somebody who is an expert in the field/members of the same wikiproject. I just found one now where the reviwer clearly had made significant contributions to the article long before the GA nomination so it was not part of the review process (Tropical Storm Jose (2005)). Though some users such as the nominator of Hurricane Kenneth re-nominated their articles if this occured, I do not believe this is always the case. I was wondering if you could advise me on how to proceed? I'm quite concerned even though I've only checked 4 or 5 articles. Million_Moments (talk) 09:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I find overuse of jargon is a common problem on wikipedia and especially in GA. As to how to proceed, I'm not sure what would be the best option. I think it's important we remember to take the long view here and keep things in perspective: although jargony GA articles are not good, I'd think it's less important in a specific hurricane article than in a general topic (see Special relativity, for example). Also, my impression is that the "hurricane people" have put together a very effective process of getting articles dependently up through both GA and FA, so I feel they must be doing something right.

On the other hand, as you suggest, this may be a case of being too close to the topic. I wouldn't assume bad faith, but just that it's not easy to recognise jargon you're familiar with. It's deliberate that the GA process does not restrict reviews from the same project from reviewing: I suspect that if we did, articles on storms and roads, for example, would never get reviewed. But we still expect these reviews to be done properly.

More concretely, yes if you feel comfortable with it, you're welcome to delist any GA articles that you feel don't meet the criteria. The instructions for this are at good article reassessment but note that you only need to post the article for reassessment there is disagreement. If the article is "within reach" of GA status, you can post a list of what needs to be done and wait a few days to see if the article improves; if it doesn't, or if substantial work is needed, you can delist it directly. In either case, include a detailed review on the talk page explaining which good article criteria the article doesn't meet.

You could also drop a note at the hurricane project, explaining your general concerns and that your delisting isn't a personal vendetta against the project, but an effort to help them maintain a high standard. If it is rampant, you might open a discussion on the talk page of WP:GAN—we might need to revisit the "same project non-restriction" or come up with a new solution. And of course, if you have any questions or encounter any problems, feel free to ask.

P.S. If you'd like to ensure the GA status of more articles, you might consider joining the Good article project quality task force. We're reviewing all GA articles to ensure they still meet the criteria. To ensure only trusted reviewers, "membership" is by requested invitation only, by we're not as elitist as that makes it sound ;-) --jwanders^Talk 16:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, am I supposed to re-review hurricane kenneth now changes have been made or are you? Million_Moments (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I really need to know if I am supposed to re-review hurricane kenneth or if you do it now they've made the improvements. I would have thought it was you. I am being asked by the nominator. Million_Moments (talk) 11:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to get back to you; I've been unwell. I don't think it really matters who closes the nom—generally, I defer to the original reviewer, as for second opinion I don't review the article completely but focus only on the aspects in question.--jwanders^Talk 16:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Kenneth 05 GAC nom

Hey, I cleared up those jargon terms you pointed out. I hope that the article now passes the GA criteria. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Edinburgh Congestion GA Hold

Thanks for taking care of that. In theory, my ISP says they have fixed the issue. I'll believe it when it lasts for a few days! Thanks again though! Ealdgyth | Talk 21:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

Sorry, but I'm too busy at the moment to take on any peer reviews. Good luck with the recycling article! – Scartol • Tok 16:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Peter Evans (swimmer)

Hi there. Can I have a few more days please, I have been busy this week. I have started addressing some of the points. Thanks, Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, not a problem at all. I saw you've been doing work on your other noms as well.--jwanders^Talk 06:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Please have a look to see if anything else needs to be improved. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Vital Articles at 1000!

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For all your work in paring down Vital articles to 1000 entries. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review idea

Hi, I have made a proposal that no peer review request be archived without some response. To aid in this, there is a new list of PR requests at least one week old that have had no repsonses beyond a semi-automated peer review. This list is at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog.

There are just over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, so I figure if each of these volunteers reviewed just one or two PR requests without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog (as there have been 2 or 3 such unanswered requests a day on average).

If you would be able to help out with a review or two a month from the "no responses" backlog list that would be great (and much appreciated). Please discuss questions, comments, or ideas at the PR talk page and thanks in advance for your help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Vicarious arousal

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Vicarious arousal, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Vicarious arousal. Mattisse (Talk) 23:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Backlog

Would you mind removing the backlog template from User:Jwanders/GARedraft? It is showing up on Category:Wikipedia backlog. Cheers Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

ET

I took the liberty to categorize your template sub page (User:Jwanders/ET), hope you don't mind. – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 11:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

April GA Newsletter

The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Automated Peer review problems

Hi Jwanders, I noticed your message at User talk:AndyZ regarding problems with the automated peer review script. I seem to be having the same problems. If you managed to fix it, could you tell me how you did it? I'm on Mac OSX.4.11 & Firefox, but not too computer savvy, so I didn't really understand your message on AndyZ's talkpage. Anyway, hope you can help, thanks, --BelovedFreak 17:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My edit of you private page

I took the liberty of editing your private page, WanderBot/GAN, because the syntax for the template {{shortcut}} is in the process of being updated. Your implementation, which worked previously, broke the new syntax. You can find more information at CAT:SHORTFIX. Best wishes. --DRoll (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I also just edited that page, to stop it from showing up in Category:Wikipedia backlog. --Sapphic (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

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

Request for Peer Review help

Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

GA subpage

Because GA nominations are now on a subpage, there's no way to access it after the bot archives it. I was able to fix the temporary Failed GA template, but when the bot archives it there's no way to go to it again. Can this be fixed? Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 00:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles newsletter

Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Nova delisting

I just noticed that Nova laser was delisted, and a generic message posted to the talk page. I cannot find any history of the delist, no discussion, nothing. The reason given in the message isn't even true. Considering the time it took me to get this up to GA, the fact that it was failed without so much as an attempt to call me into the process is extremely upsetting. Maury (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry this has upset you, as that was of course not my intention. Unfortunately when I review a page and find it needs delisting, there is no way of knowing who has done significant work on that page and who to contact (Perhaps there should be a talk page header template listing people to contact when making significant changes to a page).

The GA process precisely because two people (nominator and reviewer) are needed for a page to reach GA status, but only one is needed to delist it. Where this not true, pages that don't meet the GA criteria would be harder to delist, and thus render the GA status meaningless.

In the case of Nova laser, unfortunately, it was passed under an older set of GA criteria, which most importantly didn't include a need for inline citations. The article an present only references 4 sources and has a mix of inline citations and general references, while the criteria state that "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements" all must be cited. In practice, for scientific articles such as this, one citation at the end of each paragraph is usually sufficient.

Once such citations are added to the article, it should be brought back to good article nominations. I realise this probably seems like a long and convoluted process, but again that's in order to ensure the GA standards are being met as well as possible.

If you disagree with this delisting and would like to appeal it, you're welcome to do so at WP:GAR. Unfortunately, I'm on an extended wikibreak at the moment, so won't be able to personally help you with the process :-( --jwanders^Talk 15:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh give me a break. There are exactly two non-minor editors in the page in question, and you're saying you couldn't figure out who to talk to? And that only one of those two was part of the GA didn't seem useful. And the fact the I posted a detailed message immediately before your post on the talk page didn't twig you onto it either? Are you joking? Maury (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not joking. I was trying to be helpful. But by your tone I sense that your just looking for someone to yell at. I suggest you give yourself some time to cool down before coming back to this. When you do, I'm sure you'll find plenty of active editors in the GA project willing to help. --jwanders^Talk 01:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that first reply was rather harsh. I do understand how upsetting it can be to work on achieving something here only to find it's "fallen apart" while your back was turned. But that's really not the case here. All the work you did to get the article up to the old GA criteria is still there, it's only the criteria that have changed. And, yes of course if I knew you had been working closely on the article I would have dropped you a message—but I didn't, and can't change that now. But, at least you do know now how the article can be improved, and can do the work you would've done if you'd been told sooner.--jwanders^Talk 02:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking for mentoring

You're up on the list of GA mentors, and I'm running my first GA review on Kimberella which I think is relatively close to passing (just need a good quick definition for a protostome and a couple other minor details which are listed on the talk page). Would you mind taking a look at it before I sign off on it? It's not a long article. SDY (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Chemistry Article Peer Review

Howdy, I pulled your name off the peer review volunteers page. I've got an article on acid dissociation constants that I'd like to get up to A-Class under Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry and hoped you might be willing to take a look, particularly since you mentioned making technical articles acessable among your interests. Many thanks! EagleFalconn (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Interested Editors needed

Hello. I am looking for people who would like to help building the following article. It is currently in need of practical people who appreciate reality. If I could get people who are interesting in the medical aspects of living on a extra solar planet (people NOT bacteria), that is what is survivable/tolerable/habitable, it would be great. I am lacking in experience in finding the right people to edit this article that we are trying to finish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Explodicle/Planetary_human_habitability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Explodicle/Planetary_human_habitability

If you know someone could you pass this on, thanks. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Diffusion damping's Peer Review

Hello. I noticed you sometimes like to perform peer reviews of scientific articles in need. Would you mind checking out Diffusion damping? -- rmrfstar (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request

Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Another review request

or 2 .... I would appreciate evaluation of rewrites I've done on Composting toilet and Composting in hopes of getting them on as GA candidates, particularly re: "making technical subjects accessible to a general audience" thanks for any help Red58bill (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update

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) 03:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps June update

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) 18:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps July update

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) 17:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps August update

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) 19:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Infobox The Twilight Zone season 1 episode list

Template:Infobox The Twilight Zone 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 Deletion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Infobox The Twilight Zone season 2 episode list

Template:Infobox The Twilight Zone 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 Deletion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)