User talk:Jackturner3

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The current WikiProject Lutheranism Collaboration article is Lucas Cranach the Elder.
Help us improve the information about Lutheranism on Wikipedia.
CAST YOUR VOTE for the next collaboration


Lutheran Calendar of Saints[edit]

Your comment about creating separate pages for other Lutheran denominations makes sense, particularly considering that there is an existing precedent for separate liturgical calendars for the various churches of the Anglican communion. As I find information on the various other claendars that is available in English, which is unfortunately about the only language I can read well, I will try to create them as separate pages, except possibly in such cases as the claendars might have only minimal data. John Carter 16:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wikiproject Lutheranism: Seminaries[edit]

Jack, any particular reason that you rated LTSG as high importance and LTSP as mid-importance? I would think that all ELCA seminaries would have the same priority. Also, I'm not so sure about the ratings involved; level of detail is much greater for LTSP than LTSG, which seems more like a stub. Anyway, shoot me a message and help me figure out the importance ratings that you put in. --Apostlemep12 13:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I appreciate the explanation--that's the only logical justification I could have seen, but I wanted to make sure it was clear. You have any ideas about how we can motivate folks to improve these pages? I can do more work on LTSG and LTSP but don't have much background to work on the others.--Apostlemep12 14:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leonhard Euler Assessment[edit]

Why did you revert my assessment of Leonhard Euler? I can see no significant contribution he has made to Lutheranism, so why Euler is certainly significant to mathematics, I fail to understand how he is of any specific significance to Lutheranism. An expliantion of your reasoning would be most appreciated. jackturner3 19:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm so sorry. I accidentally pressed the [rollback] button and thought I had stopped the browser before the revert went through. I've reverted myself back to your version. —METS501 (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O Sacred Head[edit]

It's Lutheran in the sense that it was written by one of the greatest Lutheran hymnists -- Paul Gerhardt, is in every Lutheran hymnal I know of (hymnologists call is a part of the liederkern; kind of a canon of hymns that make a hymnal Lutheran), it is popular in my circles and is also popular beyond Lutheranism, as you have said. It is as much Lutheran as Luther's less famed hymns (think of "From Heaven Above," "Come Holy Ghost, God and Lord," etc.) This hymn has more of an association with Lutheranism than some of the politians we've listed in the project. That's why I tagged it in the first place. Oh, if it matters at all, this hymn is popular in my circles. It wouldn't seem lent if it wasn't sung here. Does that help?--CTSWyneken(talk) 18:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, although I'm knee deep in a few articles at the moment. The point behind the flag, at least in my book, is that it calls the attention of our folk to it and thus to get the Lutheran aspect enhanced by a few hands. --CTSWyneken(talk) 19:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been hovering between mid and low. It is, after all, only a hymn, but on the other hand, it is an important one. Whatever you settle on is fine with me. --CTSWyneken(talk) 20:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will the real LCMS please stand up?[edit]

Just kidding :). In response to your comment here, I would like to point out that LCMS is also the preferred abbreviation for the Lutheran Church in Malaysia and Singapore, which explains why it is used extensively in the article. Cheers. - Bob K 19:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Lutheran calendar[edit]

I can hardly tell if the article is factually accurate without in-line citations. It's definite quick-fail. Alientraveller 14:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the criteria would need to be changed. Wikipedia is a lot stricter on attribution than it was two years ago. Alientraveller 14:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

Updated DYK query On 25 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Western Rite Orthodoxy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 21:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 28 April, 2007, a fact from the article Lutheran Church of China, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 21:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars[edit]

Please stop by and give your opinion on the two proposed barnstars for WikiProject Lutheranism. Pastor David † (Review) 18:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination[edit]

Hi Jackturner3,

First of all, I would like to thank you for your contributions to the wikipedia. Secondly, I have decided to rescue myself from reviewing this article as it seems that our understanding of the policies are very different. So, I don't wish to ruin your hard work. Here is what I am going to do: I will make an archive of our discussion on the talk page leaving one last comment in response to your recent comments. You can then respond to it and we can archive that conversation. Then I will add back your nomination. How is that? I hope everything is going well with you in real life. Cheers, --Aminz 06:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liturgical calendar (Lutheran)[edit]

Updated DYK query On 19 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Liturgical calendar (Lutheran), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 17:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Thomas[edit]

Thank you very much for spending time to review Bishop Thomas for GA. --Drieakko 13:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pastordavid.jpg[edit]

Jack, unless I am mistaken, that was taken during the Great Fifty Days of Easter. I know that it is not the most illustrative photo, but perhaps it can be helpful for you. Pastordavid 15:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Featured List status for Calendar of Saints (Lutheran)[edit]

While you are correct about that particular guideline, I looked it over, and no comments had been posted in four days at the time I failed it, thus I did not believe that "things were being actively addressed" since the only oppose had already been dealt with, and the article simply needed more support to gain FL status, but then that wouldn't have stopped anyone from adding in another oppose later on. Anyway, another of the guidelines states that it should be delisted after 10 days, though as you said that is not the case if issues are being actively addressed. As I said, I did not see this to be the case, so I delisted it. If you believe all of the issues from the previous FLC have been dealt with, you are free to renominate it.--十八 04:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so I see. I'm sorry for what's happened, but I don't think that it should be relisted without renominating it due to the procedure process. If you relist it, I'll even provide a support vote for you, given that the tables are inserted as I agree with their inclusion.--十八 13:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to reinform me; I keep my eye on WP:FLC so that pages that are obvious fails or promotions can be failed and promoted when their time comes, so when you renominate it, I'll see it.--十八 16:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know[edit]

Updated DYK query On 2 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Orthodox Church of France, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 talk 15:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know[edit]

Updated DYK query On 4 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Julius Joseph Overbeck, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 talk 01:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lutheran calendar[edit]

I guess I'm unclear as to what the "point" is. If it's to compare the ELCIC et. al. calendar to its Anglican counterparts, then surely its worth noting that it stands in contrast to the ACoC one. If that's not worth noting, then neither is ECUSA. And next time, skip the "vandalism" bit. Carolynparrishfan 05:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still fuzzy as to why the Anglican situation in one of the countries where ELW is used is relevant, and not the other, but unlike you, I'm willing to Assume Good Faith for the time being. Carolynparrishfan 18:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I get the Australia thing, of course. But the Canadian BAS is basically a clone of the 1979 US BCP. The model was very closely followed. It's all the same family of books (as is, arguably, the Australian book). It just gives more context.
Vandalism, by definition, is something that is committed in bad faith. It's not a violation of the policy for me to point out that you, in objective fact, accused me of bad faith. My interests with regards to contributing the encyclopaedia are the same as yours, and to read a "hostile" tone into my edit summary (a text-based medium) is grossly unfair. Carolynparrishfan 21:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. You "infer hostility", I "assume bad faith". How silly of me to think otherwise.
I wash my hands of this matter. I still don't think you appreciate how you're contributing to the broader trend of shunting aside the Canadian perspective, but I have more to accomplish in my edits than managing the melodramatics of one article. Carolynparrishfan 00:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we got off on the wrong foot here. I'm really not trying to insult you here. Am I hypervigilant about anti-Canadian bias? Probably, with some justification. Nowhere did I accuse you of maliciously (in bad faith) contributing to such a bias. Indeed, I went of my way to state that you were likely unaware of the possible effect the article as it stood might have. I also happen to agree with you that no bias was committed here (you're that persuasive ;)
The edit summary wasn't meant to be hostile, and while I can see how it can be read that way, assuming good faith asks us to go with other interpretations when reasonably possible. By pointing out a perceived breach, I don't think I'm in contravention of the policy. I retract the word "fine", if it has inexorable hostile connotations for you. Personally, I can conceive of about 8 different tones with which it could be said, from agreement or resignation, to sarcasm, exasperation, and hostility.
Finally, I'll be perfectly happy if the article says something like "The ECUSA kalendar, on which the LBW kalendar was broadly based..." As it was written, the Canadian situation may not have been relevant, but there was no indication of why the US Episcopal one was either. So you can see why, not knowing the link, it would be reasonable of me to conclude that the ACoC situation was just as relevant in what appeared to be simply an aside on Anglican practices. Carolynparrishfan 15:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your Question about Martin Luther College, New Ulm, Minnesota[edit]

My name is the Rev. David G. Peters. I'm a WELS pastor in Union Grove, Wisconsin (Trinity Luth. Church), having been graduated from Martin Luther Academy (1976), Northwestern College (B.A., 1982), and Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary (M.Div., 1987; S.T.M., 1999). I'm also a Ph.D.(a.b.d.) in Patristics & Reformation Studies at Marquette University.

Martin Luther Academy was the preparatory department of Dr. Martin Luther College in New Ulm, MN. Although the college only trained Lutheran school teachers (awarding only the B.S.Ed. degree), the prep department had three programs from which all students had to choose: teacher's course, pastor's course, or general education course. MLA was moved off of the DMLC campus after the 1978-79 school year when it was relocated to the former Jesuit high school (Campion) in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, where it was renamed Martin Luther Preparatory School. In 1995 MLPS was amalgamated with Northwestern Preparatory School on the campus it shared for 130 years with Northwestern College in Watertown, Wisc. The name of the merged prep schools is Luther Preparatory School. Simultaneously, NWC was moved up to New Ulm and amalgamated with DMLC.

The sole purposes of all these schools has for many, many decades been to train pastors, teachers, missionaries and staff ministers for the congregations and schools of the WELS. The selective liberal arts curriculum at Northwestern College (awarding only the B.A. degree) provided a well rounded pre-theological training focused on the study of foreign languages (Greek, Latin, Hebrew, German were all required; Spanish was a recently added elective). The balance of NWC's curriculum emphasized American and world history, English literature and composition, philosophy, psychology, music, lab sciences, and religious studies. Over 95% of NWC graduates matriculated at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary for theological and pastoral training.

Any WELS pastor can verify the accuracy of what I've written. The best book on the history of NWC is Holding the Course by Carlton Toppe (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publ. House).

You may contact me at Pastor@TrinityUG.org or 262-878-4156. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.53.125 (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seung Sahn[edit]

Thank you for reviewing the article Seung Sahn, it is much appreciated. I've reworked much of the initial biography, and rearranged the layout of the criticisms section. Please let me know what else will need to be done to get the article GA status. Thank you. (Mind meal (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Your GA review of Elias Zoghby[edit]

Hi, Jack, thanks for reviewing the article on Elias Zoghby. Your review comments explain why the article fails criterion 3a. However, I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why you believe the article fails criteria 1a (prose), 2a (references) and 3b (focus). It would help if you provide brief explanations for each, especially for 1a and 2a. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the follow-up comments and for re-evaluation of criterion 2. I'm going to expand the article and then re-submit it to GA Nominations. There's a new book which was just published on Zoghby which will help. Meanwhile, I can address issues such as the image caption. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus in Islam[edit]

Hi Jack, thanks for your review of Jesus in Islam. I've left some comments on the talk page. Regards, ITAQALLAH 17:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I've made the changes you suggested. ITAQALLAH 18:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jack. Are there any other changes that you'd recommend be implemented? Regards, ITAQALLAH 15:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. ITAQALLAH 19:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jack, just to remind you... it's ~ 7 days since you put the article on hold. ITAQALLAH 15:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I shortened the lead down to one paragraph and inserted an image.[1] ITAQALLAH 15:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! :-) ITAQALLAH 18:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Genpo Merzel[edit]

Thanks for the review of Dennis Genpo Merzel. One small thing: I'm not sure what you mean about the copyright status of the photos in the articles; they are both licensed under Creative Commons 2.0 - I obtained them from Flickr under said license from musician Ottmar Liebert. Thanks again. (Mind meal (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

FA[edit]

I'm not quite ready to support yet, but thanks for reminding me, I'd forgotten I'd commented. For someone who knows nothing about the topic, it reads well, and it's not far off. However I picked up a couple of typos ([ instead of [[ on two wikilinks, one of which proper needs redirecting still), so a final copyedit would be good. I also feel that the web references have not been fixed per the other comment. Also (not an issue this) personally I think that {{reflist|2}} looks better for notes than {{reflist}}. I'm away for a couple of days, I'll look again when I return. ~~~~

Roman Catholic Church[edit]

Thank you for your time spent reviewing this GA nomination. I think your GA to do list is very good and gives me excellent guidelines to follow to help bring the article up hopefully to FA status eventually. I am going to address your concerns as my time allows and I hope that you will once again in the future come back to review the page when it gets renominated for GA. Thanks! NancyHeise (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask you to elaborate a little to help me address the fail on GA criteria #3. I am not sure what to change since you didn't leave a comment there. Could you please leave a comment to provide guidance for us on the talk page under criteria number 3? Thanks! NancyHeise (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC and an offer[edit]

I was surprised to see the FAC for Liturgical calendar (Lutheran) close already - I made some organizational suggestions that I would be glad to discuss if you think it would help. I have been the (near) single author on three FAs - it is a lot of work and I can sympathize. Anyway, let me know if/when you want more feedback, and sorry about the FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would be glad to look at intermediate revisions too (not just the "final" version) if you think that would help. I looked for more images on Flickr (nothing much) and Commons (have you seen this Image:Rok liturgiczny - Liturgical year.jpg? - I know Lutherans do not use "Ordinary Time" but something similar might be helpful). As for the bot, it closes FACs based on the decision of Raul654 or one of his deputies (and by the way "FAR" is for reviewing articles that are already featured but may no longer meet the FA criteria). My guess is that with no supports, two opposes and lots of suggestions for improvement, they pulled the trigger sooner rather than later. Again, let me know how I can help and hang in there, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Glad to help (and sorry to be slow in replying). Sometimes a break from an article gives a fresh sense of perspective. I also would try looking at what others have written on the topic for ideas on organization, etc. Part of the idea I had came from looking at the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions section Calendars (Christian). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For all your hard work on articles and for helping out with many Good Article reviews, even after bad news. Given with respect and admiration, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Church[edit]

Hi again. Sorry to bother you but I am taking a look at the Church History section in order to rewrite it per your comments on our GA fail. I am not sure what you are looking for and I just want a little more guidance on what needs to be changed here before I go ahead. I would like to know if you think the first section of the Church History part is OK. It looks to me like a brief overview of the Early Church which is how I was going to approach this. If there are any sections of Church History that are OK with you, please let me know so I don't mess them up with a rewrite. Thanks for your time and help. NancyHeise (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK after bothering you, I can see what is wrong here. You're right, there are some very important church issues missing from this history. I can also see some things that are not really important enough to be included in a brief overview and should be eliminated. I will be working on this over the next week and invite you to come see the page and give me some criticisms if you think I am going about it all wrong. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review of Thomas of Bayeux[edit]

Thanks for reviewing it! I have tried to address your concerns with the lede length and the sentence structures, but I'll confess to having stared at the article so much that any spelling and grammatical errors just don't show up. You know how it goes, you look at something too much and it looks right, even if it isn't. Might I beg a pointer to the ones you saw? thanks! Ealdgyth | Talk 16:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me finish up what I'm working on, and I'll do another pass through and make sure there isn't anything glaringly wrong. Then I'll declare this edit finished! Ealdgyth | Talk 17:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've stared at it some more. I moved a few things around and attempted to make sure everything was as clear as I can make it. Be bold! Ealdgyth | Talk 17:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 holds[edit]

Noticed you've placed holds on Thomas de Dundee, Thomas de Buittle and Nicholas de Balmyle. I just wanted to let you know that Deacon has just started a short wiki-break and maybe you could extend your holds by say a further 7 days? Rgds, Bill Reid | Talk 16:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Bill Reid | Talk 17:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look and let me know what you think[edit]

I have rewritten the first part of the church history at Roman Catholic Church - the section on Roman Empire. Could you please take a moment and read that section and let me know if this is OK. I will continue a rewrite of the other sections if you are ok with this one. I just want to make sure before I spend any more time. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am finished with the next history section - the Middle Ages at Roman Catholic Church and would like to know what you think if you have time. Thanks! NancyHeise (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am finished with all content for this article in the history section. I have to add some references but I want to know if you think the content is OK. Am I missing anything? Please let me know what you think. Thanks again! NancyHeise (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ready for another look at Roman Catholic Church. Thanks! NancyHeise (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter[edit]

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natalee Holloway[edit]

Please see Talk:Natalee Holloway regarding your recent review. - auburnpilot talk 17:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)e[reply]

RE:3 GA Nominees[edit]

Hi. Thanks for reviewing these. I've tried to address your concerns. Incidentally, to explain the two points with which you seemed to have most issued 1) Although use of semicolons is declining in English ... I realise this ... I used them sometimes to clarify the relationship between statements and footnotes. 2) I find 3 or 4 = headers prettier than 2. Small points, but just explaining myself. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blessed Ash Wednesday[edit]

Thinking of you as we start Lent. May you have a blessed journey to Easter, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA in articlehistory[edit]

FYI, I corrected the errors, which you can see lit up in red by scrolling to the bottom of the talk page after editing articlehistory. [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the article link above (Roman Catholic Church). I fixed other errors in the template, but what triggered the error was a faulty topic listing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Church Thank You[edit]

For your time and effort in reviewing this and guiding us editors in making the article a Good Article! Thanks! NancyHeise (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thelema[edit]

Hi, thanks for passing Thelema as a good article. One note and a question. There seems to be a problem with the little image for point 2c. I assume this was an "aye"? Also, you note that some of the prose needs improving. Would you mind pointing out one or two places where such improvement is most needed? Will in China (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thurstan[edit]

I think Ive addressed your concerns, so when you have a chance, feel free to tell me I totally muddled things worse! (grins). Ealdgyth | Talk 16:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It is hard to necessarily write about something you know a LOT about, and still make it comprehensible to someone who doesn't have your background. Your review was quite helpful!Ealdgyth | Talk 17:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allah[edit]

Hi Jackturner3,

Thank you for the review. Please take a look at the talk page of Allah where I have posted a comment in reply to your review. Best, --Be happy!! (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Celestial Masters GA review[edit]

Thanks for the review, you got it just in time, as I am going to China today and my future editing ability is in doubt due to wikipedia being banned there. I deleted the image in question and replaced italic html tags with wikipedia-appropriate ones. Hope that is enough for a promotion! Zeus1234 (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Wow, awesome. Thanks for the review of pied-noir! I'll get back to you as soon as issues are addressed! Lazulilasher (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I addressed the concerns which you raised in the GA review (as well as a few other small cp edits) and believe that the article now satisfies your criteria. Thanks for the review, again. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchism in Cuba[edit]

Hey there, thanks for doing the review. I'm curius though, the Alfredo Lopez photo has a fair-use rationale, I'm curious what more of one you think it needs? I'll try to get on fixing the prose a bit and let you know when it's ready. Cheers! Murderbike (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for reviewing Ganesha Purana and Consorts of Ganesha. A request: please update class = GA of Wikiprojects banners on talk pages, when u pass an article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CrimethInc.[edit]

Yo Jack, I've had a go at rewriting the CrimethInc. article which you (justly) failed for GA so as to include more criticism and detail on activities. I was wondering if you could give the article a quick informal glance to see if it was what you had in mind? Regards, скоморохъ 13:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kleidion[edit]

Hi, you had this under GA review for a second opinon and its been more than a week since you last commented. I'm now happy to pass the article, are you? Leave a note on the talk page if your OK with the article now and I'll do all the fiddly stuff. Regards.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National symbols of Pakistan review[edit]

Hi Jack. Apologies for taking over the review of this article; as you hadn't replied for a few weeks, I've assumed you were on a real life imposed wikibreak (something's really got to be done about real life taking over from us here, eh? ;-) --jwandersTalk 16:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter[edit]

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western Rite Orthodoxy[edit]

Hello. I've looked up what I can with this article, and I see you're right. There aren't many sources to go on. The next time you'll be active enough to deal with content issues, please feel free to nominate the article again to get another reviewer. I'll deal with any manual of style or other concerns the other reviewer raises. If you could put any of the MA theses online as a PDF somewhere, it would help. Thanks. Gimmetrow 07:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAR:Allah[edit]

Hi, Aminz has renominated the article. I read your viewpoint[3] and there is also reassessment. I think the article has reached good article criteria. Of course I don't expect this article discuss about the concept of God in Islam due to the fact that there are some other articles such as God in Islam and Tawhid. This issue has clarified at the beginning of the article. However I'd like to know your idea about the issue before accepting it as a Good article.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A photo for you[edit]

You might like this: Image:Lutheran Paraments.jpg Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Towson United Methodist Church[edit]

Hi,

Since you last failed this GAC, I've done a major rewrite and expansion to address the gaps identified. I wonder if you'd take a look at it, to see if it's ready for GA reassessment now? JGHowes talk - 19:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April GA Newsletter[edit]

The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Christianity[edit]

Hello Jackturner3!

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity

The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter[edit]

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

Western-Rite Orthodoxy[edit]

Thanks. It's not on my watchlist. Lima (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good articles newsletter[edit]

Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation COOKIE MONSTER[edit]

In support of Operation COOKIE MONSTER (OCM) I'm presenting WikiCookies in appreciation for military service to the United States. Happy Independence Day! Ndunruh (talk) 04:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter[edit]

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) 20:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian presidential election, 2007[edit]

Hi. You reviewed this article at GA back in February. The article has since been impreved and is now on peer review. I'd be happy if you can check it again. Greetings. --Tone 11:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:LTSPlogo.gif)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:LTSPlogo.gif. 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) 05:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:LTSSlogo.gif)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:LTSSlogo.gif. 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) 07:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:LutherSeminarylogo.GIF)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:LutherSeminarylogo.GIF. 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) 07:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:LSTClogo.gif)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:LSTClogo.gif. 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) 07:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NewCIULogo.gif)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:NewCIULogo.gif. 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) 05:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox for GA reviews[edit]

The userbox {{User Good Articles reviewed}} has been updated so that it can now link to a page in your user subspace where you keep track of all your GA reviews, if you have such a page. This can be done by adding a | and then the name of your user subpage (or subsection of your regular user page) wherever you have the template called. For example, on my user page I am using

{{User Good Articles reviewed|6|User:Rjanag/GA reviews}}

which displays as

This user has reviewed 6 Good Article nominations on Wikipedia.

There is more information on how to do this at Template:User Good Articles reviewed.

Note: If you are not interested in doing this, you don't have to do anything; the template will still work for you exactly as it does now.

Best, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps invitation[edit]

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

translation impossible[edit]

There is a discussion going on whether the name of that German church body can be translated or not (it appears like this on the english pages of this church's homepage). One user changed the name of this Church (actually a federation of several Lutheran, United and Reformed churches) and it's regional member churches to the German form because he says their names can't get translated. so the article on the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria now appears under its German name because he says the "concept" can't be translated into English. Please go to the discusson page of the Evangelical Church in Germany and have your say --93.130.249.56 (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive a week away[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 00:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthus: January 2012[edit]


ICHTHUS

January 2012
Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)[edit]

Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.

If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Update for: WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)[edit]

Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - October 2012[edit]