User talk:Wikipedian2

Thanks for looking at my talk page - feel free to comment and i'll reply on this page, I am so busy editing that I probably won't be able to reply immedietly!

Your RfA

I saw it, and it's pretty unformatted. I hope you meant a second nomination for yourself, instead of User:Wikipedian2 2.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on your own talk page please. I'm sorry, but I don't think you're ready yet, given your daily activity here. See WP:NOTNOW.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank-you for considering anyway. Wikipedian2 (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice your Rfa as well and began some preliminary checks that will occur, and I respect your ambition, but honesty fell I should alert you to the policy regarding early attempts which are not quite ready to be compared to expected criteria. Again, I respect ambition, but an administrator is expected to be well in tune with policy and consensus. The simple act of moving forward without full preparation and credential, will be a negative consideration, and there is not enough motivation and ambition to overcome that fact. Please consider this and believe me I am trying to tell you a thing you can almost expect, if you do go forward. Even the malformed RfA, will be used to demonstrate that now is not the right time for you to attempt this thing. IMHO. My76Strat (talk) 04:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your criticism, which I will obviously fully take on board. The good news is I found what I was supposed to edit, and my RfA is no longer the mess it was in before. Wikipedian2 (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent RfA

I am sorry, but I have closed your Request for adminship prematurely. Simply put, you only have 441 edits on Wikipedia; while your edit count isn't the only determining factor, and numerous people have their own personal standards by which they judge RfA candidates, this particular RfA was all but assured of not passing.

I am sorry about this, and I hope you don't take it personally. If you continue to contribute to the project in a positive fashion, I am confident that you would be able to submit a successful RfA in the future. You may wish to consider applying for an evaluation by other Wikipedia editors for feedback on how to obtain the necessary experience. Once you are ready to request adminship again, there is a great admin coaching program available, as well as a guide to requests for adminship.

If you have any other questions about becoming an administrator, please don't hesitate to ask me. Good luck! Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised I hadn't replied to you yet! Thank-you for the advice, I appreciate your positive fashion to (what I now understand to be) such a doomed RfA. Have a good day. Regards, Wikipedian2 (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that you understand that! Maybe in six months or so.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Çan Meslek Yüksekokulu

Hello. I noticed that you tagged this for speedy deletion per db-notenglish. Please note that speedy deletion of non-English articles is only for such pages that have an equivalent on a foreign-language Wíkipedia, not for completely new entries. That is also why a speedy deletion request must have the corresponding interwiki article listed. If you find a page that's not been written in English and can't be sure that there's a similar article on another language Wikipedia, please tag it with {{Not English|<language>}} and list it at WP:PNT. If the page then has still not been translated after two weeks it will be proposed for deletion anyway. Regards, De728631 (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank-you for your advice on Çan Meslek Yüksekokulu - I will ensure that I apply this in future anti-vandalism activity. Wikipedian2 (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that not all articles that are contributed in a foreign language are vandalism. You should almost always assume good faith with those contributors, as they may not realize that Wikipedia is English-only and/or that there are other language Wikipedia projects. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 20:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will make sure to do this in the future. Thank-you for the advice. Wikipedian2 (talk) 09:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for the priviledge. Wikipedian2 (talk) 09:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not keep reverting updates even before they've been finished. It's impolite and bad form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.65.102 (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you believe this, but I am not the only one to be under the impression that you are harming Wikipedia, especially as User:Hamtechperson has given you a final warning for your edits on the same aritcle [1]. Also in future, can I please ask you to start a new section on my talk page. Thank-you. Wikipedian2 (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salut!

--some jerk on the Internet (talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 00:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Good work out there on the recent changes. Keep it up! --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of reviewing/warning

Since you've failed to respond; nothing I've done justified this - [2] 213.246.114.81 (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now responded on your talk page. Wikipedian2 (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning

I know its this gadget of yours which cries vandal every time somebody removed something from some article. Please be assured, that a Member of the July 20 plot is still a Member of the German Resistance. So there is no need for any warnings ... --Erich Mayer (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if my reversion has been inaccurate. Please add sources to the content to prove your edits are accurate, and I will remove my warning. Thank-you, Wikipedian2 (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, its redundant to have anybody in the category for German Resistance who is already in the category for members of the July 20 plot. As the latter is sourced in the article there is no need to provide any further information for removing the former. Yours --17:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erich Mayer (talk • contribs)

You removed a valid category from the page. Instead it would be possible to add another valid category underneath or above others. Wikipedian2 (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for recent change to walker motifs. I was trying to clarify something that seemed to me vague, but I recognize I probably got the author's intentions wrong.slothropslothrop (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, everybody makes mistakes. Have a good day. Wikipedian2 (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Account Creation Interface Request

I have input a re-request to join the 'Account Creation Interface'. Wikipedian2 (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intergen Edit

I did post an edit summary, please read it- let me know what I need to do if that does not work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.131.50 (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because content is uncited does not give a user permission to remove it. The content was given the citation-needed template, and no more action was required due to the content not being vandalism. I will rollback your last edit to bring back the content. If you decide to undo my actions, I will be forced to continue with the warnings until you reach the point where I will be forced to report you for vandalism to administrators. If you disagree with me, then please feel free to take the routes outlined in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution, or please read Wikipedia_talk:Guide_to_administrator_intervention_against_vandalism if you believe my actions constitute vandalism. Wikipedian2 (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Gioia

The notice said that I could remove it if I made the necessary changed and explained why in the edit summary, which I did.71.142.74.66 (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see the revisions now, sorry about that.Wikipedian2 (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSD tagging

Hi, Wikipedian2. Thanks for the patrolling possible vandal edits. I just wanted to remind you to check an article's history before tagging for speedy deletion. As in the case of Swagger, the article was a vandalized disambiguation page -- so I reverted it. Also, even in its vandalized form, it wasn't gibberish and therefore didn't qualify for WP:G1. You may wish to review our speedy deletion criteria when tagging. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your advice. Wikipedian2 (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

...for removing vandalism from my talk. Cheers, Chzz ► 20:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Have a good day, Wikipedian2 (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vega space

Hi. I removed the speedy delete tag as there is a clear assertion of importance (working on ESA missions). I have no opinion on the strength of the article. It can be taken to AfD if you feel notability is insufficient. Cheers. Taroaldo (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will assume you are correct, and learn from this mistake. Thank-you, Wikipedian2 (talk) 23:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Altered speedy deletion rationale: User:KAIndofsortof

Hello Wikipedian2. I am just letting you know that I deleted User:KAIndofsortof, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a procedural note, really, but criterion A7 —— as all "A" criteria — only applies to article namespace, so it cannot be used to request the speedy deletion of a userpage or of a subpage; criterion G11 —— as all "G" criteria — apply to all namespaces. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for advising me further of the criterion on speedy deletion. I am still learning when it comes to new pages and all feedback is appreciated highly. Thank-you, Wikipedian2 (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Wikipedian2. You have new messages at WT:EF.
Message added 23:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have no idea how this works, but the page on me is rife with errors and is clearly intended to destroy my reputation and everytime I change it it gets changed back. Please help me fix this!!! John Ziegler (talk host) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.33.34 (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

jOHN gIOIA

Please don't delete this article on John Gioia please do a basic google search to see how notable he is. In any case no more prods, take it to AfD, a place I know it will survive but I don't want to have to be looking over my shoulder, make sense? LA Times, SF Chronicle, SJ Mercury. Contra Costa Times. Richmond Confidential. El Cerrito Patch. West County Times. KTVU News. Sites dedicated to opposing him. Sites that praise him. His political profile. Major, Regional, Local and many other sources are available. He is notable.71.142.74.66 (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As now you have added to the article, I no longer feel the need for it to be deleted. Regards, Wikipedian2 (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC) PS. Keep up the good work, its looking good![reply]

speedy deletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bosco Lowe declined

Poor writing and poor formatting do not make a page patent nonsense. In order to be deleted by this criterion the text of the article must be completely incoherent to the point where it has no meaning whatsoever. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank-you for informing me. I will take that on board. Regards, Wikipedian2 (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Glenn & Viola Walters Cultural Arts Center/1

I have nominated this article for re-assessment against the GA criteria as I feel that your review was superficial, lacked any useful detail on ways in which the article could be brought to meet the GA criteria, and was to put it mildly, unhelpful. You are invited to comment at the re-assessment page. I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, especially the section Assessing the article and providing a review. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am new at GANs and appreciate your feedback as I'm still very much learning. Thank-you, Wikipedian2 (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red Hair

Hi. I'm puzzled by your revert here. How is it vandalism? Am I missing something? Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, after re-reading the revision, I understand there was no vandalism present. Thank-you for highlighting the issue. Wikipedian2 (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Anderson

Please read through some of the revisions you've been making/undoing. I'm going to add more sources shortly, but you're undoing changes that corrected statistical errors, obvious vandalism, and unsourced attacks on the subject of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tag01 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why I rolled-back your revisions, please accept my fullest apologies. I have now corrected my error. Regards, Wikipedian2 (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

May I ask where the author requested deltion on Shawnimals. Baseball Watcher 21:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The CSD tag reason was incorrect, Reaper Eternal has now added a better reason. Thanks for your time, Wikipedian2 (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well just make sure you get the tag right. Cheers Baseball Watcher 21:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, everybody makes mistakes sometimes! Regards, Wikipedian2 (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manowar (Spellcaster)

I'm not "attacking" anything or anyone, just tried to remove obvious fake article (For ex: It says in the article: "Voimis on vocals". Voimis is an admin at ManowarFinland.com and has nothing to do with any vocals, for crying out loud!)

Sorry I don't speak engish very much and didn't read the rules, as I see you have your own system to delete pages. I won't touch the page anymore. But in my opinion the system isn't working very well if these kinds of 100% obvious nonsense articles stay many hours here, but the comments are removed instantly. Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.113.163 (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank-you for your concern. As you have highlighted - there are problems with the article in question. Due to this, it is being considered by a voting system at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spellcaster_(Manowar_album) for deletion, where anybody who is registered can vote to reach a consensus as to whether an article should be deleted or not. If the community finds that the article is in violation of Wikipedia's policies, an Administrator will remove it. I hope this helps, Wikipedian2 (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian2, I'd like to thank you for reverting the edit to my talk page, but 91.153.113.163 is right in that your edit should not have been marked as reverting a personal attack. Also, voting is evil, so WP:AfD is a discussion process aiming to reach consensus. Thanks, though, and good luck. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 20:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also, if you do stumble upon an edit like the one you did, it would be best to simply advise the user to show some civility. Wikipedian users do use some poor language choices when things get heated up, and, well, that's just how it is sometimes. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 20:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

For your kind comment on History of the horse in Britain's GA review :o) It's only my second-ever article - and I had a nearly-five-years WikiBreak between this and my first one, so I am absolutely delighted. Pesky (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well even at first glance it was obvious you had worked hard to meet the criterion. Carry on the good work.Wikipedian2 (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughly enjoyed doing that article; now I have to decide what my next one will be! Pesky (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Everest/GA1

Thank you for taking the time to review Timothy Everest for WP:GA. I would like to discuss a couple of points arising from it. I appreciate it is highly unlikely that I will be able to persuade you of the article's neutrality. Nevertheless, I would point out that it is a fair reflection of the sources. I assure you that had I discovered any reliable sources stating anything negative about Everest, it would have been included (if notable). I refer you to WP:V “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.“
Re: Stability – you note: “The article has been recently recommended for deletion by an editor.” and you failed the article on this criteria. The “Stable” criterium is: “it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute”. Two drive-by tags added by an IP do not constitute an edit war. Please re-assess this section.
Re: Overall Assessment – you note: “as it has been recently recommended for deletion under WP:PEACOCK, I cannot say the article is very stable.” The 'editor' was an IP who did not recommended for deletion under WP:PEACOCK, but under WP:NOTABILITY. As was noted on the TalkPage, the “list of references and independent sources at the bottom of the article establishes the subject's notability beyond the shadow of a doubt.” Please amend your review to reflect this. Many thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

Hi Wikipedian2. I have closed your RfA to prevent a pile-on. Running 12 days after a previous run is generally not a good idea. Please consider asking an experienced editor for advice before you try another run; they will be able to help figure out whether or not it's a good time for you to run. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Best, 28bytes (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you!

Armbrust has given you a cupcake! Cupcakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cupcake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. ^†

GAN reviews

Hi, with regards to your reviews, I am pleased that you are using a template to help you with the reviews, but you do need to examine each point.

Talk:History of the horse in Britain/GA1 A one line review, eight minutes, that failed to address any of the criteria
Talk:Timothy Everest/GA1. Nine minute review and instant failure. You used a template, but failed to check any but one criterion. That one you got wrong. The notability tag was placed by an IP and subsequent discussion on the talk page determined its removal. You could have put the article on hold to allow discussion with the nominator. I renominated this article with the original ttimestamp so that another reviewer can undertake a full review.
Talk:Legacy of Leonid Brezhnev/GA2 You used the template and passed it in 18 minutes despite expressing concern about neutrality.

I really don't think that you have grasped reviewing and am asking you to seek a mentor at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Mentors before undertaking any more reviews. Please read and understand Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. You also need to need to fully understand the policies and guidelines governing each criterion. We all make mistakes, but I am afraid that yours are far too frequent. Thank you. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for these very serious mistakes, I will be keeping away from this area in future as its seen I'm not cut out for it. Thank-you for your time. Wikipedian2 (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic Removal of Links to One Site

I found that you help answer user questions/concerns and was wondering if you could help. I see that a Wikipedia user, has set out to sytematically remove Wikipedia's links to our site. He/She has created a working list.

We started our site in 2003. Since then, an extremely diverse set of Wikipedia contributors (who are unaffiliated with our site) used our articles as a source for hundreds of Wikipedia articles. We're huge fans of Wikipedia and we think it's an immensely valuable resource. In fact, we were (and are) very happy to have been able to help (in our own very small way) to Wikipedia's continual rise. As you can imagine, it is distressing to have the attributions removed.

I know that most Wikipedians work for the greater good, but I question whether that's the driving force in this instance. It seems suboptimal for one Wikipedian to systematically go through and undo the work of hundreds of Wikipedia editors.

I would really appreciate some advice about how to proceed. Thank you.

Vrsti (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user has a conflict of interest and should refrain from editing Wikipedia.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I haven't made any edits and I'm not proposing to do so. I'm just wondering if this is sanctioned behavior -- isn't it concerning that someone's singling out a particular site and removing hundreds of naturally-given citations? Wouldn't the community want to know about this?Vrsti (talk) 05:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vrsti, I'm sorry to hear you are not happy with one of the editor's actions. The way you can take this forward is by reporting it to the Administrator's noticeboard for incidents. There - people will comment and may ask questions, after which a decision will be met on what to do next. People have already given you excellent advice on what to next on your talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vrsti), but feel free to ask any more questions. Thanks, Rob Wikipedian2 (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Nathaniel Currie into the mainspace

re creating Nathaniel_Currie_(Ontario_politician) for me. Thanks very much for move Wikipedian2. I was aware that I could simply create the article myself and I guess that would have been the best way to do it, if I'd known about the backlog at the time. That said, these were my thoughts when I did it that way:

I wanted some feedback on the (Ontario Politician) suffix for future disamb purposes. Does this conform to Wikipedia standards? If I create the article myself, is there a way to get comments on this?
I was hoping to find out how to get a review, without getting into peer review, which this article is not ready for. I'm still fairly new to the Wiki process and am more interested in a good article than anything else.

Thanks again for the effort. CJ_WeißSchäfer (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CJ3370, Thank-you for your time in creating a new article, this is appreciated. Due to the backlog (which you have already identified) - full feedback and review on WP:AFC was probably slightly optimistic. Though I am more than willing to answer your questions; the suffix appears to me to meet the purposes of disambiguation, and is actually encouraged in biographical articles where there may be people of a similar name. I personally would of excluded the "Ontario" part as it seemed unnecessary, but causes no harm.

I see no reason why you cannot ask for peer review, but if you are uncomfortable with your article being peer reviewed, you could look at who are the regular reviewers, and politely ask one of them on their talk-page. I would help you, but I don't feel qualified enough to give a detailed review. Feel free to ask any other questions. Regards, Rob Wikipedian2 (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That RfA reform thing

Kudpung has asked me to 'nudge' some people .. as I'm an idle get, I'm just going through the entire Task Force list so my apologies if you didn't need a nudge! You can slap me about over on WP:EfD if you like :o) Straw polling various options: over here - please add views, agree with views, all that usual stuff. Pesky (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI mention

I have (briefly) mentioned you at WP:ANI, please see WP:ANI#User:Jasper Deng and COI. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the courtesy. Wikipedian2 (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Culverhouse Review

Thanks for taking the time to review my Hugh Culverhouse GAN. I see that you failed it for not including any images. The criteria says that it contains images, "if possible". I did spend too many hours trying to track down a public-domain image, but it turns out that he was a rather private personality, and there are no photographs available apart from those that are the property of newspapers. A website gave me permission to use a photograph of him, but I was made to remove it, as there was no evidence that the website had permission to use it. You can suggest image sources, but trust me, I've tried them all. If that's the sticking point that keeps this from GA status, than this can never be a GA. I was under the impression that images were good to have but were not required. What's the definition of "if possible" in the critieria?

Thanks again Dementia13 (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this failure was incorrect. I shall re-list this with the original timestamp. Wikipedian2, if you cannot correctly apply the GA criteria, please desist from reviewing. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you was given permission, then email the evidence to the email team. I'm guessing it was probably in the form of an email by the newspaper - so do it! Thanks for the feedback, but everybody makes mistakes, and I used the criteria. And it would seem it is possible, just the editor hasn't pushed to get the evidence of permission looked at. Regards. Wikipedian2 (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What bits of Criterion 6:

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

do you not understand? Jezhotwells (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need for an aggressive approach. Thank-you. I have already explained my rationale, and accepted my mistake - no need for bullying. Wikipedian2 (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you took offence, and I see that this review was posted before my earlier comment, so I apologise if my tone was perceived as aggressive. It was not meant as such. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jezhotwells' RfA

I have removed the above-named RfA from WP:RfA as the candidate has declined the nomination.

If you want to put forward someone for RfA, you need to discuss it with them. They need to both agree to the nomination and to have answered the 3 standard questions before the RfA is transcluded .

Regard, -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 23:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jez is a highly experienced editor.I rather think that if he had wanted to be an admin, he would have been one for a long time already. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nomination, but I don't feel the urge at present. --Jezhotwells (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Task force WP:RFA2011 update

Hi. As of 20 June: More stats have been added on candidates and !voter participation. Details have been added about qualifications required on other Wikis for candidates and RfA !voters. Some items such as clerking, !voters, and candidates are nearing proposal stage. A quick page`link template has been added to each page of the project. Please visit those links to get up to speed with recent developments, and chime in with your comments. Thanks for your participation.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 08:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

WP:RFA2011: RfA on other Wikipedias

A detailed table and notes have now been created and posted. It compares how RfA is carried out on major Wikipedias (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish). If you feel that other important language Wikipedias should be added, please let us know. This may however depend on our/your language skills!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 22:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

RfA Reform update

Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.

I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:

Have a look at the min requirement proposal and familiarise yourself with the statistics, I'd appreciate comment on where we should put the bar.
Any final comments would be appreciated on the clerks proposal.
Feedback on the two newer proposals - Pre-RfA & Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Sysop on request. Both are more radical reforms of RfA and might run along side the current system.

Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

News and progress from RfA reform 2011

RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.

(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.)

The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere.

A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits.

The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments.

The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals:

Improving the environment that surrounds RfA in order to encourage mature, experienced editors of the right calibre to come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their time to admin tasks.
Discouraging, in the nicest way possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to guide them towards the advice pages.

The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space.

We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus.

New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern.

Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 16:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Articles for Creation Appeal

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1018 submissions waiting to be reviewed.

Do you have what it takes?

Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
Are you autoconfirmed?
Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog.

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation using AWB on 20:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Appeal

Articles for Creation is backlogged and needs YOUR help!

Articles for Creation is desperately in need of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors and administrators alike, to help us clear a record backlog of pending submissions. There is currently a significant backlog of 1018 submissions waiting to be reviewed. These submissions are generally from new editors who have never edited Wikipedia before. A prompt, constructive review of submissions could significantly editor retention.

Do you have what it takes?

Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
Are you (at least) autoconfirmed?
Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog.

Click here to review to a random submission_{Article selected by erwin85's random article script on toolserver.}

We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 1 or 2 reviews, would be extremely beneficial.

On behalf of the Articles for Creation project,
AndrewN ^talk 23:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Backlog

Articles for Creation urgently needs YOUR help!

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1018 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk.

Do you have what it takes?

Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
Are you autoconfirmed?
Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions.

PS: we have a great AFC helper script at User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js which helps in reviewing in just few edits easily!

We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 2 or 3 reviews, it would be extremely beneficial.
On behalf of the Articles for Creation project,
TheSpecialUser ^TSU

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1018 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk.

Do you have what it takes?

Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions.

PS: we have a great AFC helper script at WP:AFCH!

News

Good article nominee

04 Aug 2012 – Parental brain (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Carina1205 (t · c); see discussion

AFCH script improvements

1.16 to 1.17
- Batman still works!

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation. If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.
Happy reviewing! TheSpecialUser ^TSU

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject:Articles for Creation October - November 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 22, 2012 – November 21, 2012.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

EdwardsBot (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation needs YOUR help!

Articles for creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1018 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our help desk.

Do you have what it takes?

Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. Plus, reviewing is easy when you use our new semi-automated reviewing script!
Thanks in advance, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs}

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation at 22:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC). If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.

WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter

Delivered 00:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC) by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist.

Wikiproject Articles for creation Needs You!

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 13:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject AFC needs your help... again

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.

Delivered at 12:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC) by EdwardsBot (talk), on behalf of WikiProject AFC

October 2013 AFC Backlog elimination drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. --Mdann52talk to me!

This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations \| June 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[purge-1] Information may not be current due to caching. Click here to purge this page's server cache.

[1]