THIS IS THE ARCHIVE OF USER PAGE COMMENTS FROM OCTOBER 11,2007 TO SEPTEMBER 3, 2008
I can't adopt you, I'm afraid, but I just thought I'd drop you a note to tell you that what I've seen of your edits so far is very encouraging - you're doing brilliantly! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 02:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words!--English836 02:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey there! How are you? My name is Arknascar44. I'm here to ask if you'd be interested in being adopted, so that I can help you learn how to be a successful Wikipedian and work well in our community. If you accept, I'd like you to say so on this page, or on my talk page. Then, we can get started. And don't worry; I won't be mad if you say no, so don't worry about it. Cheers, and happy editing, ( arky ) 02:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC).
Yes i wish to be adopted.--English836 19:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, English, I'm so sorry! I completely forgot...oh, sorry, sorry sorry! Don't worry; I'll have your adoption curriculum ready soon! Again, sorry, ( arky ) 02:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, your adoption curriculum is here (just scroll down until you see your name) and I've typed up your first lesson for you at User talk:English836/Adoption, where I will post all future messages as well :) So, it might be a good idea for you to keep an eye on it in case I add anything there. Cheers, ( arky ) 02:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you trying to avoid having any connection to previous users who edited here...or are you trying to be halfway blatant as to who you are? If you're trying to keep your identity unconnected to the previous one, then I suggest you change your editing as it's not hard to decipher. Metros (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The image comes from the NY state court system. Even if the FBI was now in charge of the case (which is not true, by the way, the first line of the most recent article says "State police continue...") the photo would still be from the state police. Metros 23:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You shouldn't be against uploading pictures. I realize fully that Wikipedia takes copyright seriously, but how hard is it for you to find the damn correct tag, and place it on the picture.--English836 23:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The onus falls on you, English836, as the uploader. Metros 23:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about onus, please use proper english. If this keeps up its going to Arbitration--English836 23:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
wikt:Onus. And this would be rejected very quickly by the arbitration committee, so I wouldn't waste your time. Metros 23:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I've added the correct copyright information to the image page. Turns out it's fair use after all :) ( arky ) 22:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
You rule dude, i knew there was a template, just couldn't find it. Thanks :) --English836 23:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Teehee...I actually found the template by accident in a Google search for the copyright information of mugshots instead of a direct site search :) ( arky ) 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Beekman Fire District, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I asserted notability. Everyone knows this administrator is biased and targets me along with a few other users, that i have communicated with via email. I think there is something in the bigger picture than him trying to "do his duty and keep everything encyclopedic". Im suggesting that this be brought to Arbitration, since this is not the first time I have had problems with this fop. By viewing my contributions you can see that he has targeted every article I edit for kicks. Someone should review this, and if deletion passes me and six other users will support it for a WP:DRV. Good Luck--English836 (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Well guess what, based on the AFDs on the various pages of yours that I've tagged for deletion, it appears I've been correct in the eyes of other editors. If you wrote about notable things and I was still doing that, then you could cry abuse; but that's definitely not happening in this case. Metros (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The AFDs on the other pages are only because you go down the list of my contributions scanning for articles that are "not worthy" in your mind. If Metros doesnt like it, he'll rally up his administrator buddies and all vote Delete on the AFD, which is strictly against policy, but when has policy stopped anyone. Im crying abuse on all the other 8 pages I've created that you and your misjudgment have caused to be deleted. If i nominated FCCLA or some other pointless high school enrichment program that you fancy, you wouldnt be so happy either. Also FCCLA doesnt even assert notibility, its nothing more than a after-school club, for future cooks and childcare professionals. Come on, this one is easy. Ignorance at its finest here on Wikipedia.--English836 (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
There is precedence for articles on these "after-school clubs". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DECA (organization). Obviously there are standards; not every school club is notable, but with 220,000 students in the organization in about 7,000 schools, I'd say that FCCLA exceeds that standard. Metros (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
So you are insinuating that a after school club is more notable than a Fire Department? A place for kids to go and hang out with friends and compete for pointless titles, more important than someone who risks their life going into a burning building? I think not; you my friend have quite alot of learning to do, as apparently you have no respect for employees Government Agencies. And your blatant lack of having any leverage on these articles is repulsive. --English836 (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
You're confusing importance and notability. A local fire department is not notable according to Wikipedia, though it is important to the area it serves. You don't believe that this club is important, but by Wikipedia standards, it is notable. Metros (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
No, nothing has been confused; per the request, notability has been established. Receiving the RFSI Life Safety Award is something that few fire department in the United States is granted each year, That alone makes it notable. Also the fact that one of the fire trucks crashed due to mechanical failure on the part of the manufacturer that ended up taking the lives of a crew is notable. Per WP:FD this article is perfectly notable.--English836 (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
There you go again with misleading, blatantly false information. Read your own source very carefully. Do you see the part that says "A total of 973 fire departments in the U.S., Italy, and Iceland received the 2003 Life Safety Achievement Award"? So did 1 US department receive it and all the others were in Italy or Iceland? Having one person die is not notable. Also, please show a source as to where this "mechanical failure" is discussed. Every article I can find on his death dicusses a possible heart condition, but nothing about the truck itself. WP:FD is not a notability guideline on Wikipedia. It does not set standards of inclusion, nor do I see any attempt at a guideline at the page you linked to. The appropriate guideline here is WP:ORG. Metros (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Does Florida reside in the North East? Go back to Global Studies. The North East has a district, the Midwest is a district, the southeast another, and west coast respectfully. --English836 (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Huh? What does geography have to do with anything? You stated "something that one fire department in the United States is granted each year". Where does the north east or southeast factor in? Metros (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
That was far from a personal attack, how anything I said could be received in a derogatory fashion is completely utterly unfair.
Will you answer the question? I was just attacked for not knowing geography and you can't even give the courtesy to explain where said attack derives out of. What does this district thing have to do with anything? Metros (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The attack derived from the so called non-notable RFSI award that is given to one company on the West Coast, one on the East Coast, the Southwest and Southeast. Obvisouly this department is located in the North East and Florida is not in the northeast. A Florida Fire Department would be able to win the award since they are not in the geo district.--English836 (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you please show a link to where this is explained? According to [www.michigan.gov/documents/cis/Residential_Fire_Safety_Institute_186058_7.pdf this PDF file], all a fire department needs to do to receive this award is give documentation that they didn't have a single structural death for that year. There is nothing in that guideline about regions. Metros (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
And here's a fire department in the same state that this one is in receiving the award in 2002. How did both receive the award that year? Metros (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
New Rochelle Fire Department is grandfathered was exempt from standrard regulations from 2002-2003 as they had just became ANSI and OSHA compliant. First year cert departments are able to receive the award. --English836 (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you please show a reference for that and for this regional thing? Thanks, Metros (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The first link provides nothing about that specific department and is, in fact, 2 years after the company received the award. So how can they be grandfathered in 2002 but not reach the grandfather standards until 2004? Also, the second link has no infornation about regions at all. In fact, that site does have a list of all the awards given out in 2006. As you'll see here, close to 20 departments won the award in New York alone. So how do we suddenly get from 1 in the whole USA to 1 in each region to 1 in each region plus new departments to double digits in each state? Metros (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
English, please be aware that edits like this is discouraged by WP:TALK. The recommended practice is to use strikeouts, e.g. "one[few]" to avoid losing the context of the discussion.LeadSongDog (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The matter has gone to WP:RFC, we'll see what happens.--English836 (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It is now being discussedMy actions and his related to this article are being discussed on Metros' talk page see User talk:Metros--English836 (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not. The article is not being discussed on my talk page, just user actions. Metros (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I Stand corrected Metros--English836 (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. In the past 10 hours or so I've been called a fop, been told to go back to global studies, and been called a child by you. All of these are personal attacks. Metros (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
A Fop is merely a sill person, look it up on Wiktionairy. I stated in my summary i felt as if i was fighting with a child, not CALLING you a child. Go Back to Global Studies was not slanted to be an attack, but some people are more sensitive then others.--English836 (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed you've added a lot of photos for east coast train stations. Are these actually self-made photos? Your user page says you reside in California which is quite a distance away. Remember that you can only claim photos of your own if you actually took them yourself. Metros (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Well if your that interested you can look at the meta data, you suppose I just hack someones computer on the east coast and steal their pictures?--English836 (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I just think it's bizarre you'd wind up on the east coast all the way from California in the middle of a school semester at your community college out there. That's all. Metros (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you On Job Training with a well-respected EMS provider--English836 (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey I saw you adding to Beekman Fire District to try and keep it from getting AfD'd; I'm looking to do the same thing. I saw the assertion that it's the first in the county, but I can't find any source to support that (I thought that this one did too, but on second inspection it doesn't say that in there). Any ideas? Or did you talk to WikProject Fire Departments and have someone who can source that? Thanks. -FrankTobia (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright I posted without reading all of the above. I see this is a bigger can of worms than I had anticipated. But still, let me know if there's anything I can do to help. I'm going to keep trying on my own. -FrankTobia (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the fire company existed under a previous name prior to 1937. Reason being is before that there are books about a Poughquag/Green Haven Fire Brigade which existed prior to 1937. The group merged creating the Beekman Fire District/Company, and I think this is where we are hung up.--English836 (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
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.
Thanks for uploading Image:2007.11.29 - Joesph Saia and Patrick Quigley-AHS.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
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.
There are currently 4,266 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 157 unreviewed articles. Out of 215 total nominations, 44 are on hold, 13 are under review, and one is 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 (31), Sports and recreation (31), Transport (24), Music (13), and Art and architecture (11)
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of May, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 71 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 11 were delisted. There are currently 15 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions.
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.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
Giggy (talk·contribs) (a.k.a. Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk·contribs)) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for May, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Giggy had a whopping 45 reviews during the month of May! Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May 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!
New GA Review Process - Review Subpages
In case you haven't noticed, we initiated a new process for GA Reviews at the end of last month. The {{GA nominee}} template was modified to direct new reviews initiated on an article to begin on a subpage of article talkspace (e.g. [[Talk:Article/GA#]], where '#' is the current number of GA reviews conducted for the article, incremented automatically, starting with 1). The primary reason for this change is to address some concerns made by several Wikipedians that previous GA reviews are not easily accessible in archives, the way that featured article reviews and peer reviews are, since the review is conducted on the article's talkspace, instead of in a subpage of the featured article space or peer review space. The reason we opted to move GA reviews to article talkspace (instead of GA space) is to better maintain the personal relationship between editor(s) and reviewer(s) by keeping reviews done in an area where editors can easily access it. Nonetheless, we still desired to have better archiving and maintenance of past reviews, so that GA ultimately becomes more accountable.
When an article is nominated, the nominator adds the template using a substitution, by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=<name of subtopic for article at GAN>}}, as well as lists the article (as usual) at WP:GAN in the appropriate category.
When a reviewer initiates a review of an article, all that needs to be done is to read the template on the article's {{GA nominee}} template on its talk page, and click on the link to start the review. When the reviewer clicks on that link, they will also see some instructions on how to start a review of a GAN. For new reviewers, there's also a link to the Good Article criteria, as well as to the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles page and the mentors list. Once an article is reviewed, the GA review page should be transcluded onto the main article talk page, by adding {{Talk:Article/GA#}} to the bottom of the talk page. This is to ensure maintain the transparency of the GA process, as well as to make editors of the article in question aware that the review is taking place. When an article is either passed or failed, there's really nothing different to do in the process, although reviewers are encouraged to utilize the {{ArticleHistory}} template, linking to the GA review subpage with the 'action#link' parameter.
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) 20:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
There are currently 4,675 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 141 unreviewed articles. Out of 186 total nominations, 28 are on hold, 14 are under review, and 3 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 (28 articles), Sports and recreation (27 articles), Music (22 articles), Transport (18 articles), and War and military (13 articles).
There are currently 4 articles up for re-review at Good Article Reassessment. Congratulations! There really is no "backlog" here! :-)
GA Sweeps is Recruiting Reviewers
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.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
ThinkBlue (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for July, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. ThinkBlue had a whopping 49 reviews during the month of July! ThinkBlue was also one of our two reviewers of the month from June, and has been editing Wikipedia since December 1, 2006, and is interested in articles dealing with Friends, Will and Grace, CSI:Miami, Monday Night Raw, Coldplay.
Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of July 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 Sweeps Process
The GA Sweeps process has recently reached its first year anniversary. If you are unaware of what GA Sweeps is, it is a process put in place to help ensure the integrity of the ever-growing number of GAs, by determining if the articles still meet the GA criteria. Experienced reviewers check each article, improving articles as they review them, and delisting those that no longer meet the criteria. Reviewers work on a specific category of GAs, and there are still many categories that need to be swept. In order to properly keep track of reviews, a set date was used to determine what articles needed to be reviewed (since any future GAs would be passed according to the most recent GA criteria).
The number of GAs that were to be reviewed totals 2,808. Since the beginning of Sweeps, the progress has reviewed 981 by the end of July 2008 (or exempted them). For a table and chart breakdown of the current progress, see here.
With more than twenty editors reviewing the articles, progress is currently a third of the way done. At this rate, it will take another two years to complete the Sweeps, and active involvement is imperative to completing on time. We are always looking for new reviewers, and if you are interested in helping in speeding up the Sweeps process and improving your reviewing skills, please contact OhanaUnited.
Did You Know...
... that the goal of GA Sweeps is to reviewed all articles listed before 26 August2007?
... that the entire category of, "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" has been swept?
... that of all subcategories, "Recordings, compositions and performances" in the Music category has the most articles (240 articles in total)?
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. In the past 10 hours or so I've been called a fop, been told to go back to global studies, and been called a child by you. All of these are personal attacks. Metros (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:2007.11.29 - Joesph Saia and Patrick Quigley-AHS.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
