This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Normally when a user retires I don't raise any sort of fuss no matter how close to them I was, but I really want to know what happened with iMatthew. He was a great guy, and it really bugs me that he would leave with bad feelings towards the Wiki. Could you fill me in, please? Cheers, SexySeaBass05:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LAX, since you seem to be the de facto leader of the Kliq, I think that you and I need to have a talk. If you could email me an exhaustive explanation of your side, as iMatthew has emailed me one of his, then I would appreciate it. The Kliq is unofficial, so if we have users retiring over membership within it, then MfD may be justified. SexySeaBass22:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I of all people can understand controversial actions being nothing personal. However, this group shouldn't be such a big deal to the members within it. I think that it was wrong of Matt to take things so seriously, as it really isn't a big deal. However, I also think that it's wrong to have the group voting to kick members out for any reason. That creates bad blood within the community, which is unacceptable for such a coalition. Your group is a less official equivalent of a project task force. Membership should have no strings attached. There should be no standards for admittance, and no grounds for dismissal other than inactivity. I feel like a dick for this, but if users are going to retire over this, then I'll have to take this to MfD. Cheers, SexySeaBass00:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's absolutely wonderful. Thanks for agreeing to take care of this, LAX. I have to say, you really are a great editor. It isn't often I feel compelled to praise someone like this, but you have really impressed me. I'm glad we could sort this out peacefully. Cheers, SexySeaBass22:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey LAX, if you go here you can see my third archive, but on the top you will see
"←Jump to Archive II Archive 3 Jump to Archive IV →". Its annoying me that when I click on Jump to Archive IV, its always a red link, but I MADE the fourth archive if you see, can you please help? RkORToN19:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See here (Image of it) and you see, when you click on the red link its going into edit mode on that archive, because it still thinks its not made, this is pissing me off. Do you know how to fix it? RkORToN19:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice. Background section is well written, Event section is in past tense, Aftermath section is well sourced, and the rest of the article is well formatted. It's got my stamp of approval!-- bulletproof3:1621:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, although I won't be able to contribute much for these next few days. I'm still trying to finish some business elsewhere. I'll notify you when I'm ready. BTW, did you get a chance to see WM XXIV? -- bulletproof3:1622:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah the event was incredible. Orlando, not so much. It was so hot and humid there. There wasn't a minute we weren't sweating. -- bulletproof3:1622:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I was all over the place. Like I told D.M.N, I'm looking over all of them right now trying to decide which to upload. I'll have most of them on my Photobucket account later though. -- bulletproof3:1622:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gone gone, WrestleMania was awesome, am good I didnt go thought. ^^^^^Hot and humid. Oh yea and that pyro accident. RkORToN00:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No but my seat was on the same east end of the stadium. We didn't find out about the accident until we got back home and saw it on the news. Funny thing though is that when the show was over and we were exiting the stadium we saw a long portion of the pyro cable that had snapped and caused the accident lying on the floor next to the exit tunnel between section 208 and 209. Take a look at the seating chart here. My section was 208 and the accident happened around section 314. The cables were hooked onto the stadium's southeast and southwest white lighting structures above the upper decks seen in this image (Just to help with orientation, the open end of the stadium where the set was at is the north end). The cables were hooked onto those structures and linked to the set. As you saw on PPV, the pyro was supposed to shoot down to the set during The Undertaker's celebration but one of the cables on the southeast structure snapped as the pyro was shooting down and hit the section below the structure (314) instead. Thankfully however, the injuries were minor and the accident wasn't as serious as first portrayed.-- bulletproof3:1601:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, LAX! A project you are involved in, The WikiCup ,has signed up for automatic message delivery from StormBot, an automated bot account using AutoWikiBrowser. StormBot will be delivering you news and notifications about the project on your talk page. If anything is wrong or you have any suggestions to make, please notify the creator, Stormtracker94. Thank you. This message was delivered by StormBotStormBot (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you sent it to someone before, do you know what to type in to get that barnstar that promotes wiki hate, it has that guy flipping someone off? SexySeaSquid18:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re:WrestleMania 23
I will be citing the article when I have time (likely near the beginning of next month when my semester is done and I'm less busy). I posted a notice on WT:PW, but I guess you didn't see it. :) But yeah, I'll get to it, but it will take me some time. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the other websites, just search through them. You have to find where it says that they have staff members, fact checkers, etc. etc.
I thought I may have time to do it myself tonight, but I just don't. I hope this helps, because I feel bad that I can't help you more. Nikki31102:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey LAX, I'm Back temporarily until my GANs are reviewed and until I get some type of reply for a GAN i reviewed, so basically I'm semi-retired as I am not here like used to be, I log in like once a day, and do minor edits. Cheers, 3LVaK3r002:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think those might help. For 411, it at least proves that they have a staff of writers, so they aren't just accepting anything. For Pro Wrestling History, it proves that there is fact checking and mentions sources used. There's not really more you can do, but try and argue that. Nikki31122:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 3,868 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 267 total nominations, 57 are on hold, 13 are under review, and 2 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (27 articles), Sports and recreation (25 articles), Transport (24 articles), Music (19 articles), War and military (19 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Religion, mysticism and mythology (16 articles), Literature (14 articles), World history (14 articles), and Video and computer games (14 articles).
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of March, a total of 92 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 74 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 18 were delisted. There are currently 14 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. Congratulations to Nehrams2020 (talk·contribs), who sweeped a whopping 51 articles during the month! Jackyd101 (talk·contribs) also deserves congrats for sweeping a total of 26 articles!
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
To delist or not to delist, that is the question
So you’ve found an article that, on the face of it, does not merit its good article status. What next? Especially where there are many glaring issues that need addressing, it’s tempting to just revoke its GA status and remove it from the list, but although we are encouraged as editors to be bold, this approach (known to some as "bold delisting") is not recommended good practice. There are many reasons why a listed article might not meet the assessment criteria—it’s always possible that it never did, and was passed in error, but more likely the criteria have changed or the article quality has degraded since its original assessment. Either way, we should treat its reassessment with no less tact and patience than we would a fresh nomination.
This, in fact, provides a good starting point for the delisting process. Approach the article as though it has been nominated for GA review. Read it and the GA criteria carefully, and provide a full reassessment on the article talk page. Explain where and why the article no longer meets the criteria, and suggest remedies.
Having explained why the article no longer meets current GA criteria, allow its editors time to fix it! In keeping with the above approach, it may help to treat the article as on hold. There is no need to tag it as such, but give editors a reasonable deadline, and consider helping out with the repair work. Bear in mind that more flexibility may be required than for a normal hold—the editors did not request or expect your reassessment and will probably have other projects taking up their time. They may not have worked on the article for months or even years, and at worst the article may have been abandoned and its authors no longer active. As always, communication is the key. It sometimes helps to post messages to relevant WikiProjects (found at the top of the article talk page), or to contact editors directly (this tool is useful for identifying active editors for any given article).
Only once the above process has run its course, and sufficient improvement has not been forthcoming, is it time to think about delisting the article. Communicate your final decision on the article talk page, even if there was no response to your reassessment and hold, and take the time to fill in the various edit summaries on the article talk and GA list pages to ensure the delisting is transparent and trackable. If you have any doubts about your final decision, you can list the article at Good article reassessment or contact one of the GA mentors, who will be happy to advise.
Article reassessment is perhaps the single most controversial function of our WikiProject, and the one with the most potential to upset and alienate editors. Yet it is one of the most necessary too, since without the ability to revoke an article’s status we would be unable to maintain quality within the project. However, if we approach reassessment sensitively and with the goal of improving articles to the point where sanctions are unnecessary, we will ensure that delisting is the last resort, not the first.
As we near the 4,000 Good Articles milestone, the project continues to grow and to gain respect in the Wikipedia community. Nevertheless, we continue to have a large backlog. If every member of WikiProject Good Articles would review just one article each day during the month of April, the backlog would be eliminated!
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
Yeah that's it thanks, hey would you take over my adoption? Kevin said to ask maybe you and I think you are a good fit..I don't have any questions do you think I should graduate? SexySeaSquid20:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too warned him about the edits he left on the article. But it seems that the user has blanked out the warnings left on his talk page. ZenlaxTCS19:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Backlash (2004) has been listed for Peer review. Please review these articles and make suggestions for how it can be improved in preparation for a Good article nomination. Its peer review can be found here.
At WrestleMania XXIV, Shawn Michaels defeated Ric Flair after executing the Sweet Chin Music, which as a result, meant that Ric Flair was forced to retire from professional wrestling. The next night, at Flair's retirement ceremony on Raw, Triple H congratulated Flair for his 35 year career, and brought out retired and current superstars to thank him. Michaels, and the whole WWE roster came out later to thank him as well.
The Undertaker defeated Edge to become the new World Heavyweight Champion forcing him to submit to the Gogoplata. During the pyro celebration for Undertaker's 16-0 streak, a freak accident occurred just before WrestleMania went off-air. During the pryo shooting to the entrance stage, a firework went to the upper-level section of the crowd on top. Forty-five fans were injured, and currently, WWE is trying to investigate what was the cause of the pyrotechnic malfunction
NOTICE: If you are actively editing and contributing to articles under the scope of WikiProject Professional Wrestling, we suggest you add your name to the list of active members.
Since the last newsletter, the number of stub articles has continued to drop, while the total number of wrestling articles continues to grow. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve. Please check it out and see what you can help with (even if you can only add a few details or a couple of references).
Professional wrestling articles by quality and importance
Delivered: 17:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)
iAmBack
The Barnstar of Peace
I would like to thank you for your kind words when I retired. It is because of the efforts made by you and a few others that I have returned. I award you this barnstar for keeping the peace together, and for helping bring me back! iMatthew200819:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to let you know that I reported the user for repeated vandalism to WWE Films and the IP has been blocked for one month, so hopefully things will calm down on that article. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed the note on your talkpage. Are you just taking a break to "get away from Wiki", or is due to Real Life issues? D.M.N. (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Return
Eh, I cant keep of Wiki, but I returned. Keep in mind April Break, I will really try to take a WikiBreak, anyways PM me if you need anything. RkORToN01:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'm glad we got past that incident. To show the anger that I had at first, I'd like to give you this:
Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of disruptive edits, which earn warnings and blocks.
Example
Whack!
The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians.
To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place {{trout}} on their talk page.
I'll finish the aftermath review tomorrow. Sure, I'll get to No Way Out, but wasn't there another PPV you wanted me to review first? iMatthew200801:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The gold is really started to get boring. I think that if we change it, we would all get used to it. I might test it out in a sandbox. iMatthew200801:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I see that you have a newsletter interview scheduled for a future edition of the newsletter. Due to the fact that we have started the Editor of the week, we will stop the interviews. The EOTW will be interviewed instead. To be fair, you have one week to answer the questions in your interview, as all of the interviews will go out in next week's newsletter. Cheers! iMatthew200816:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it sucks though. SummerSlam is written well and I don't know why the sources are the problem. But, if you find new ones and stuff, I guess it'll pass. ;) -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)02:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't check all the times, but I think LifeStroke is in violation of 3RR on WrestleMania XXIV. Do you have time to check? I'm signing off now, so I don't have time to check or fill out a section on the 3RR page. I did notice: LifeStroke's has 6 edits involving the match since 04:43 on April 13. If I have the policy right, he's been beyond 3RR for a few edits. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. I filled it out, but I'm not sure if I did it right. He was at 7 reverts if I counted right (even if I messed up the number, it was over 4 reverts in a 24-hour period). RobJ1981 (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of templating you, I'll give you a normal message. I tagged this image as having a disputed rationale. I tagged it per WP:NFCC#1 which states that "non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". I believe in the two examples of usage, a free image of Shawn Michaels with relevant caption would be more suitable than a non-free image. Similar things were done for featured content like the December to Dismember (2006) article, where relevant free images are used even if the photo wasn't on the day of the event. Regards, — Κaiba09:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick comment: on your userpage, you say "[you've] decided to steal this one from Tiptoety". Well, he stole his userpage from Daniel. Just thought I'd get that out there. TheChronic02:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another note, I've been reading results and it seems that the feud between Triple H and Ric Flair ended at Survivor Series. I would like your input on what I should do. ZenlaxTCS19:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi LAX. Could I possibly ask you a favour? You may of noticed my temper levels zoom (no pun intended!) extremely high if you look at my contributions today on Wiki! Anyway, could I ask a favour to do with Wiki. Just so you know, the favour has nothing to do with professional wrestling, actually it has something to do with my other hobby which you just shamelessly edited! :P D.M.N. (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. The article you edited, the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix article is a Formula One motor race which took place in 1995. I nominated it for FA, but that was failed earlier today. I've put the article up for peer review in hope to improve the article further. Could you possibly peer review it, noting whether any sentences could be reworded, possible MoS breaches, or any bits in the article which sound plain and utter confusing, or somethings which may need to go into more detail. Is that OK? Thanks. D.M.N. (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, alright you can get credit too. No need to go all Vince McMahon on me. ;) But, let's talk about the GAB '07; would I get credit if the article passes GA? -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)00:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can vandalism be reported to an Admin such as yourself or do you have to report it on a special page? DeadmanUndertaker 02:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I am asking for verification on how abuse can be reported. DeadmanUndertaker 02:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. DeadmanUndertaker02:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WWE has invited Democrats running for president, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, to Raw to settle their differences in a wrestling match. The invitation video can be found here.
On the April 21 edition of Raw, the King of the Ring tournament will return for one night only. The entire tournament will take place on Raw.
Since the last newsletter, the number of stub articles has continued to drop, while the total number of wrestling articles continues to grow. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve. Please check it out and see what you can help with (even if you can only add a few details or a couple of references).
Based on the active members list, there are currently 41 members currently active in WikiProject Professional wrestling.
NOTICE: If you are actively editing and contributing to articles under the scope of WikiProject Professional Wrestling, we suggest you add your name to the list of active members.
Next week we will start the Editor of the Week. This will take the place of the Member Interviews. The EOTW will be given their own interview instead. To be fair, this week we will post all of the interviews that were on the schedule. Click the link next to the user's name to see their interview:
Delivered: 16:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)
Can I help you?
On Backlash (2006), when Cena had Edge on his shoulders he didnt hit the FU, he dropped him out of the ring when Triple H delivered Cena a low blow and he didnt go for the cover either. I'm just saying because on Backlash on the event section for the last match right at the end what is written is not true. Cheers.- Orton80 (talk) 3:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
True, I guess. I give props to Nikki for writing SummerSlam '88. Anyways, how 'bout if we work on SummerSlam '04, since we did write that and stuff. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)01:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be fair and stuff, I was just writing the event, because I wanted to finish the article. I think the event can be cut down and stuff, right? -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)01:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, it was good to read, but it was way long. But yeah, we can totally work on SS. P.S. You do know that RAW should be capitalized for the refs.? -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)02:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's what Nimi did too, see here and I guess its only for the article and not the refs. But, whatever. Anyways, yeah that's cool, but you leave me with some weird matches, but that's cool. Hey, do you think you can write an awesome lead for Vengeance '06? As you did for Vengeance '05. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)02:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that you have been interested in finding secret pages. As you may or may not know, Wiikipedia administrators are discussing whether or not to delete secret pages. I am complilng a petition against deleting secret pages here. If you are interested in saving secret pages, sign this page. Thank you. Together, we can beat the system!
Wow, another retiree, but the double redirects are Yfixed. However, I tried to look for redirects to the TNA Roster, but when i clicked on the "what links here" i got nothing.--~SRS~01:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Be my guest, though I'd like to give a try at the WHC feud if you don't mind. I think all of the feuds featured could be improved quite a bit as there's some missing history (such as Undertaker/Edge's origins with last year's MitB cash-in, Cena's feud with Orton, etc.) Also, I'm not exactly keen on the list format of Money in the Bank. Thanks for the help. -- Oakster Talk 20:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
iMatthew2008 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! I thought it would be nice to leave you with my 5,000th edit on Wikipedia. Have a nice day LAX! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
The newsletter has been redesigned. Thank you to WBOSITG, MFC, and IMatthew for your design contributions. This shiny new newsletter is a result of their combined efforts.
Thank you to Enigmaman for participating in the previous Award Center Collaboration of the Fortnight. Please note that if you wish to be given credit for work completed, you must sign up for the collaboration first. This week's collaboration is Luc Besson.
Apologies for the late newsletter. The editor has been swamped lately due to school and vacation. If in the future a fortnightly delivery schedule cannot be kept, this newsletter will be delivered monthly.
A lively discussion about the future of the Award Center is currently being being hosted on the Award Center talk page. Input is always welcome.
Oh, I totally forgot about Armageddon. I guess we will have to post-pone 'Slam and work on Armageddon. And yeah, the next time we work on a PPV, it should be in a sandbox. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)01:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, NO. Of course not, I didn't think you would mind him helping us with Armageddon. Besides, the three of us have GA's to our names, don't we? ;) -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)22:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I don't necessarily think that adding the Royal Rumble to the lead works, maybe if it were mentioned at the New Year's Revolution article. ZenlaxTCS20:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'mOnBase has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend and remember :"All men are created equal, but ambition, or lack of it, soon separates them." Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
There are currently 4,050 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 227 total nominations, 16 are on hold, 14 are under review, and two are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (45), Sports and recreation (34), Music (18), Transport (15), World history (14), Politics and government (13), and Places (12).
Noble Story (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for April, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Noble Story joined Wikipedia on May 16, 2007. He is a big fan of the Houston Rockets, and edits many related articles, as well as articles on basketball in general. Congratulations to Noble Story (talk·contribs) on being April's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of April include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GA Topic
Do you know what a GA topic is? If you are not nodding your head, or don't know what I'm talking about, then you should pay attention to this article.
There are ten GA top-level topics (but you will spot the eleventh as this article goes along). These topics are: Arts, Language and literature, Philosophy and religion, Everyday life, Social sciences and society, Geography and places, History, Engineering and technology, Mathematics, and Natural sciences. Each of these topics are further narrowed down to more specific topics. For example, Arts can be narrowed down to Art and architecture, Music, and Theatre, film and drama. But let's not get into sub-topics in this article because of its depth.
Now you will probably ask, "I already knew this, so what is your point?" What I want to illustrate is that some people often forget a step when they promote an article to GA. After they have posted their review in the article talk page, added the article name to the corresponding topic in the good article page, increased the GA count by 1, and added the {{GA}} to article talk page, many reviewers tend to forget to add the topic parameter in {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}}. You can browse the topic parameter abbreviations at on this page as well as what each top-level GA topic means, because sometimes it can be chaotic and confusing to pick a topic. For example, should On the Origin of Species be placed under the Natural Science topic (because it's related to evolution), or under the Language and Literature topic (because it is a book)? The correct answer is to place it under Language and literature topic, because its categorization as a proper title supercedes other categories.
Let's go back to the page that shows GA topics; does anyone spot the eleventh topic? Yes, Category:Good articles without topic parameter is the 11th topic, only it shouldn't be there. Articles that do not have a topic parameter in either {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}} will be placed in this category. The topic "Uncategorized" is not very informative, is it? So if you have time, you can consider cleaning up the articles that are left in this category and move them to the appropriate category by adding a topic parameter.
That's it for this month, I hope you learned a little from it.
GA Sweeps Update
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of April, a total of 26 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 15 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and two were delisted. There are currently six articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. One article was exempted from review because it was promoted to FA. Two articles were exempted from review because they were already delisted by another member in the community.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
...that different languages have different symbols representing GA? (Alemannic uses , Bavarian uses , Czech and French use , Estonian, Icelandic, and Swedish use , Esperanto and German use , Polish, Spanish, and Turkish use , Portuguese uses , Russian uses , Ukrainian uses )
Note: Lithuanian and Serbian have their own symbol but only uploaded locally. Other languages not listed above either have the same symbol as english or they don't have GA process.
From the Editors
There is currently a debate on adding a small green dot to the top right corner of all Good Articles that pass the criteria, similar to the small bronze star that is added to the top right corner of Featured Articles. Members of WikiProject Good Articles are encouraged to participate in the debate on this page.
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
On the event section for Backlash (2006) it says that John Cena delivered Edge an FU. That's incorrect because when Cena had Edge on his shoulders for an FU, Triple H delivered Cena a low blow, which made Cena drop Edge out of the ring. Just letting you know because its telling a lie and I'm teling the truth. Cheers.- Cimmo (talk) 5:34, 24 May (UTC)
New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I informed her, mayby this time we'll be lucky. Because you put alot of effort in this article, and deserves to be an FA. Haha, I still remember when you asked me 2 review the event section, and you asked me whether it was cut down good;good 'ol days. =D~SRS~20:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I believe we can do the same to Armageddon, with your background writing skills, with my event writing skills, and Blues aftermath writing skills, we will have a new FA..XD~SRS~20:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to do a variation, since the image will go under the title. Note:I fixed the wikilink to my other sandbox, don't know how i missed that. =)--~SRS~01:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that HBK vs. Jericho is for the IC title? I can't seem to find it on WWE.com, it just says that he is the champion. -GuffasBorgz7-10:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they do seem to make it very confusing. I think that if it was for the IC title they would promote that quite a bit on the main page. We will have to find out in the weeks to come. -GuffasBorgz7-10:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey
Sorry I haven't been online in so lling, I haven't been able to (see my talk page for more info). Just thought I would let you know that I have not retired from Wikipedia and don't plan to. If anybody asks, just tell them to check my talkpage. Thanks. TJSpyke19:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. Hmm, this is puzzling. I'd better think this over for a while, lest I do something stupid... again 0.o --Cheers, SexySeaBassTheOriginal01:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
