User talk:Rankun

If you found this on a search for http://www.tfpoi.com Jay Zalowitz on google, you are seeing this page because i wanted you to see it on google,

http://www.tfpoi.com Jay Zalowitz's public email here.

Jay Zalowitz bingo expo tracking The Cody Report Cody Willard dj amlan computer repair memphis cheap domain regisration domain registration cheap domain regisration staking runescape runescape staking rankun stakingrunescapestocks staking runescape staking

Hello Rankun! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some pages to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Kukini hablame aqui 02:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Please read the instructions when requesting a peer review. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rankun. I would not list Seton Hall at GAC until you have sorted the issues that lead to its earlier failures at GA and FA. Regarding mentoring, I don't think I would be a good choice for that, for a number of reasons. I would suggest having a look at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User and see if someone there can help you. Good luck! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A wikimentor, as you put it, should give you advice in general. What I think you want is to get Seton Hall some sort of editorial recognition.

I am willing to help. In fact, I'll help write it and also give suggestions. Ok? I know nothing about the university so there will be times that I'll need to rely on you. Congolese fufu (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I try not to boss people around. However, see if you can find 2 FA about American universities that you like? (See WP:FA, Duke, Cornell, Michigan are among the FA's) This is just for a possible guide. Congolese fufu (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misunderstood me. Harvard or Princeton? The suggestion is to find one that you think is good. We'll use that as a model and better them. I know that Cornell, Michigan, and Duke are FA's. Congolese fufu (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started to re-do the Whitehead School of Diplomacy. I'll work on that for a few days. Make no mistake, this is a big project. It will take a while. My plan is to review each section and help write. My first idea is to describe the school first. Then mention why it is special. Then I'll move to the next section. The famous faculty list near the bottom might have to go depending on what other universities have. I know lists are usually frowned upon. Good luck. I have to go. Congolese fufu (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where to start, you ask? How about the history section. Look up as many non-Seton references as possible as long as they look and sound reliable. No blogs. News articles are respected. Slowly re-write it. Just a suggestion. I'll work from the bottom, you can work from the top. Congolese fufu (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yep, i am a shu student. id love to coordinate efforts. what is it that you think sould be done next? Mystache (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 3 - January 2008 December issue | February issue Project News There are now 3,301 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. With 1,789 current featured articles, that brings the total of good and featured articles to 5,090! The most recently promoted articles are: Hurricane Daniel (2006), Tarbosaurus, The Murders in the Rue Morgue, Wicca, Seth MacFarlane, Stanley Internment Camp, Hurricane Karen (2007), Interstate 155 (Illinois), Tropical Storm Ingrid (2007), Brian Sings and Swings, Winston Churchill, Mzoli's, John Kefalas, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The backlog at Good Article Nominations has recently exploded to 236 unreviewed articles! Out of 264 total nominations, 17 are on hold, 10 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 oldest unreviewed articles are: Attachment disorder, Byzantium under the Palaiologoi, Byzantium under the Angeloi, Wowowee, Tyrone Wheatley, Mina (singer), Jon Burge, Mercury Hayes, William Lowndes Yancey, and Toni Preckwinkle. The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (47 articles), Film and cinema (25 articles), Television and journalism (16 articles), Art and architecture (15 articles), and Politics and government (14 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 17 articles up for re-review. If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated! Reviewer of the Month Dihydrogen Monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month of December, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 of the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen Monoxide hails from Brisbane (which, incidentally, is almost a GA, kids ;)) and has been editing Wikipedia since August 2006. He mostly likes to review articles relating to music, Australia, or anything else that takes his fancy! He also has two articles waiting, and notes that there's still a huge backlog,... so get cracking! Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of December include: Awadewit (talk · contribs) Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) Derek.cashman (talk · contribs) Drewcifer3000 (talk · contribs) Elcobbola (talk · contribs) Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) Kane5187 (talk · contribs) M3tal H3ad (talk · contribs) Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) VanTucky (talk · contribs) Wassupwestcoast (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 166 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 7 new members that joined during the month of December: Majoreditor (talk · contribs) Bernstein2291 (talk · contribs) The4325 (talk · contribs) Pepsi2786 (talk · contribs) Monowi (talk · contribs) Rankun (talk · contribs) 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! GAReview Template Lots of you that frequent WP:GAN have undoubtedly seen the articles under review, marked with "Review - I am reviewing this article. ...". The articles have been marked as being under review by an editor using the {{GAReview}} template. The purpose of this template is essentially to prevent two editors from reviewing the same article at the same time, so it's essentially a common courtesy notice to other editors so that they don't pass or fail an article while you're in the midst of collecting and writing comments. However, just because an article is marked, shouldn't preclude another editor from contributing to the review. If you'd like to review it, go ahead; simply collect your comments and write them down on the article's talk page – but don't pass or fail the article – leave that to the other reviewer. To use this template yourself, simply write "#:{{GAReview}} ~~~~" on the line immediately following the article's nomination at WP:GAN. You can even leave additional comments as well (e.g. "#:{{GAReview}} I will finish my review in the next 24 hours. ~~~~"). Reviewers marking articles with this template should also observe some common etiquette; please don't mark more than 1-3 articles as being under review at a time, and please try and finish your review within 3-5 days of marking the article. GA Sweeps After openly requesting the community for more participants into the Sweeps, we have 3 more members on the board. They are (in no particular order) Canadian Paul, VanTucky, and Masem. Canadian Paul will be sweeping "Middle East and the World" articles. VanTucky will be sweeping "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" and "Literature" articles. Masem will be sweeping "Television episodes". We're still looking for more reviewers. Interested individuals should contact OhanaUnited for details. At this moment, participation in the sweeps project is by invitation only, as we desire experienced reviewers who have a thorough and extensive knowledge of the criteria. This is to ensure that articles that have "fallen through the cracks" would be found and removed, and that additional articles don't fall through the cracks during the sweep. Currently, there are 16 members working on the project, and we have reviewed 74 articles in December 2007. Of those that are swept, 275 articles are kept as GA, 126 articles are delisted, and 5 promoted to FA. Did You Know,... ... that the total number of good and featured articles is now over 5000? ... that GA was formed on October 11, 2005 and was formerly called "Half-decent articles"? ... that there is a bot (StatisticianBot) that gives a daily report on GAN? ... that many discussions were made over the years on whether GA should have a symbol placed on the main article space, yet at the end always removed? ... that there was a proposal to change the GA symbol to a green featured star? From the Editors Happy New Year, everyone! I'm just filling in for Dr. Cash as he's busy (or away) in real life. This explains why I wasn't prepared for a full-length article on GA process, and instead I resort to a tiny DYK for GA. OhanaUnited Happy New Year as well! I'm still here, and haven't totally disappeared. I had to cut back on editing and reviewing during the month of December as I made the transition from Flagstaff, Arizona to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. But I should be about settled in the Keystone State, so I'll be contributing more to Wikipedia again in the new year. Thanks to OhanaUnited for putting together much of the content for this newsletter! He's been working hard with the Sweeps, and the 'Did You Know' section is also a great idea, so I think that will become a regular feature now! I also figured out how to have a collapsible newsletter, so that will change our delivery options a bit. Cheers! Dr. Cash Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Gedling Town F.C. (talk | history | start review) • Reggie Barnes (skateboarder) (talk | history | start review) • Exile (American band) (talk | history | start review) • Jude Law (talk | history | start review) • Blackpink (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Sanctioned Suicide • Mezhyhirya Monastery • Fallout 3 • Muhammad in Islam • Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion • Northallerton • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013) Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ran that tool for you. Let me know if it worked, I've never used it before so I'm not positive I did precisely what you needed. Dylan (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once an hour? The script creates the categories for the WikiProject; once it's done, it doesn't need redoing, unless those categories get deleted somehow. Perhaps you're referring to this bot, which updates the chart of quality vs. importance. I'm pretty sure anyone (admin or not) can run that. Dylan (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I really don't know what I'm doing here -- I know as little about this as you do! I'd advise you to seek the support of a knowledgeable admin -- try Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. Dylan (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Seton Hall University Alma Mater, 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) 02:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Rankun! I am glad to see you taking such an interest in improving the SHU article and I assume you are enjoying your first year at SHU as well (I enjoyed attending SHU as well). I commend you for your work! I realize that you are putting a lot of time and efforts into your edits. But, I really hope you don't mind if I make a few suggestions regarding your edits. First of all, before we move outwards and create satellite pages on this topic, we should try to focus on the mainpage. That is, we really don't need to create separate articles for buildings, faculty, the alma mater, etc. In addition, such articles are discouraged by other users and by Wiki standards, see WP:Notability

I think it is also important to try to do complete jobs before we save our changes, rather than simply copy editing. For example, the College of Arts and Science page is currently using the School of Diplomacy style and it is also incomplete. It would be fairly simple to research the various links and numbers that are missing. So, rather than just putting "????", try to research it beforehand. I'm just saying this because it also looks bad for the University (mainpage) and us to have such unfinished work. As a general rule of thumb, I myself, like to get very familiar with the format of other GA and FA articles (especially other educational institutions), before I begin doing something.

Finally, I'm sure you know that before we submit the article for GAC or FAC, we need to finish our work completely so that it is presentable. Most of our work can come from doing our own research. As I think you mentioned briefly before about asking help from the faculty in editing, I am not sure how much of a help that would be to involve such people. I think we have it under control ourselves. Of course, other editors are welcome to contribute voluntarily. Please also remember to sign every one of your posts with four tidles, that way others know who they are exchanging with.

I really do look forward to working with you on this and other articles and feel free to leave me a message on my talk page anytime for help or otherwise. Best, aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 03:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will help the SHU article. I added my name to the wikiproject list. However, world domination is not my intent! Congolese fufu (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Seton Hall University Alma Mater, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seton Hall University Alma Mater and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, take it easy on the GA and FA noms for SHU, the rapid pace seems to be taking a toll on the reviewers. We should probably take about two weeks or so and continue as much as we can on this past weeks pace and then we should be soidly within GA bounds. Mystache (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the bounty will help. How about a $25 bounty to be divided by up to 5 editors who help, based on the top 5 number of edits (with a provision that too many disruptive or meaningless edits is a disqualification and that you are the sole judge). Congolese fufu (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Karen Boroff, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated for speedy deletion because before you added the opening paragraph it read like a curriculum vitae - with the opening paragraph it is obviously much better. You might want to consider creating articles in a user sandbox (see WP:Sandbox) in future avoid potential speedy deletions. --ukexpat (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because of overzealous attacks against me by Jehochman, I will no longer be editing the three articles that I was working towards FA status nor Congo articles. Jehochman went on a rampage RFCU. His RFCU claims were disproven and according to another user, he lied about the category.

WP:SOCK#LEGIT allows multiple accounts for segregation and security. The multiple accounts edited separate articles.

A multiple account was necessary because of the controversial nature of User:Profg. Editing about him would bring stalkers to the 3 FA contenders. Edits about User:Profg were never meant to defend him but to point out things that the community was overlooking. The community shouldn’t overlook everything that a user says simply because he is bad. One member of the community said he was seeking a ban just to make it easier to accuse others. These is a diabolical scheme.

What good does is exposing User:HappyBirthdayClubMember? That’s like exposing the identity of Santa Claus. Congolese fufu (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Carol Chumney, 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) 00:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Template:UniversitiesCOTF, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please visit WP:UNI/COTF to nominate a topic. We have a system set up for those purposes. Please do not edit this template again, as further unauthorized edits will be considered as disruptive activity. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Karen Boroff, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Boroff. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. JASpencer (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I belive the community has spoken!Rankun (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome. Really quit nice of you. Leave Power Behind (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rankun, and welcome to Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help
contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing! Bewareofdog (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 4 - February 2008 January issue | March issue Project News There are now 3,485 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 206 unreviewed articles. Out of 251 total nominations, 37 are on hold, 7 are under review, and 1 is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Johan Derksen, Trafford, J. Michael Bailey, Greg Skrepenak, Paleolithic-style diet, Alan Dershowitz, Natalee Holloway, Slovenian presidential election, 2007, San Francisco Municipal Railway, and Marcela Agoncillo. The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (57 articles), Theatre film and drama (34 articles), Music (19 articles), Transport (17 articles), Politics and government (16 articles), World history (13 articles), and Meteorology and atmospheric sciences (13 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 8 articles up for re-review. If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated! GA Sweeps Update During January, 57 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 35 were kept as GA, 20 delisted, 9 currently on hold or at GAR, and 3 were exempted as they are now Featured Articles. Reviewer of the Month Ealdgyth is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for January, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Ealdgyth, known in real life as Victoria Short, hails from Central Illinois, and has been editing Wikipedia since May 26, 2007. In this short time, she has made significant contributions to 9 Good Articles, including Baldwin of Exeter and Hubert Walter. Her interests in editing are in the areas of the Middle Ages, History, and horses. Outside of Wikipedia, she is starting her own photography business, and owns three horses. She likes to read science fiction, history, and geneology books. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for January! Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include: AnonEMouse (talk · contribs) Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) Casliber (talk · contribs) Derek.cashman (talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Drewcifer3000 (talk · contribs) Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) Johnfos (talk · contribs) M3tal H3ad (talk · contribs) Miranda (talk · contribs) Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs) VanTucky (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 176 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 15 new members that joined during the month of January: Atlantik (talk · contribs) Auawise (talk · contribs) Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Ddstretch (talk · contribs) Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) FamicomJL (talk · contribs) Hamiltonstone (talk · contribs) jackturner3 (talk · contribs) Kbthompson (talk · contribs) Keilana (talk · contribs) Miranda (talk · contribs) pcbene (talk · contribs) Skeeker (talk · contribs) Snowolf (talk · contribs) 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! On Hold versus Failing an Article This month, I thought I'd focus on a less technical and more of a procedural issue at WP:GAN – determining what the appropriate course of action to take when reviewing an article. Currently, there are four options to decide what to do with an article: Passing – it meets all six of the good article criteria; add it to WP:GA and add {{ArticleHistory}} or {{GA}} to the article's talk page. Failing it – it does not meet the criteria; remove the article's listing from WP:GAN and add {{ArticleHistory}} or {{failedGA}} to the article's talk page. On Hold – The article meets most of the criteria, but might fall short in a few areas; keep it listed at WP:GAN, add #: {{GAOnHold|ArticleName}} ~~~~ below the listing and add {{GAonhold}} to the article's talk page. Second Opinion – Similar to the on hold option, except an editor is either inexperienced or not knowledgeable enough about a given topic and asks another reviewer to offer another opinion before passing or failing; add #: {{GA2ndopinion|ArticleName}} ~~~~ to WP:GAN below the article's listing and add {{GA2ndoptalk}} to the article's talk page. So how to you know when an article fails outright, or fails initially, but meets "enough" of the criteria to be placed on hold? The answer to this question probably varies by about the same amount as there are reviewers of Good Articles! Everybody treats this slightly differently. The most important thing to consider is that articles should not be on hold for longer than about one week. Although there is no hard and fast time limit for this, most editors would probably agree that five to seven days is enough time to address any GA-related issues with the article to get it to pass. Some editors have extended this a few days in the past, due to other extenuating circumstances, such as an article's primary editor being very busy with school or work, so they have asked for extra time. But as a general rule, a GA nominee that is placed on hold should meet enough of the criteria to be able to be passed within five to seven days. Some examples of articles that might be placed on hold would be: the article is mostly complete, but might be missing one topic (subcategory). minor copyediting is required (needs a few minor manual of style, spelling, or grammatical fixes. mostly well sourced, but missing maybe a handful of references. a couple of images need to be tagged with appropriate copyright tags. On the other hand, an article should be failed if it: is missing several topic categories, or there are several sections which are very short (1-3 sentences per section). contains numerous sections which are just lists of information, as opposed to written out as prose. there's entire sections of text that have no references, or there are a lot of {{cn}} or {{unreferenced}} tags. has evidence of an active edit war in the article history. has major neutrality issues. has any {{cleanup}} or other warning tags in various places. Did You Know... ... that on July 19, 2007, 1,548 good articles that have not been categorized at all were categorized in 15 days? ... that in Chinese Wikipedia, articles need to have at least six net support votes before they are promoted to GA? ... that the English Wikipedia has the most Good Articles, the German Wikipedia has the second most (at over 2000), followed by the Spanish Wikipedia (at over 800), the Chinese Wikipedia (at over 400), and the French Wikipedia (at over 200)? ... that Simple English Wikipedia has zero Good Articles? ... that "Sport and games people" category has the most Good Articles? ... that Virginia Tech massacre (which is now a featured article) was promoted to GA just only about one month after the shooting incident, but took more than seven months to reach FA status? From the Editors Originally, I wasn't planning to do "Did you know" other than as a fill-in for Dr. Cash. However, I decided to continue writing this section until I ran out of ideas. OhanaUnited Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Dr. Cash Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Gedling Town F.C. (talk | history | start review) • Reggie Barnes (skateboarder) (talk | history | start review) • Exile (American band) (talk | history | start review) • Jude Law (talk | history | start review) • Blackpink (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Sanctioned Suicide • Mezhyhirya Monastery • Fallout 3 • Muhammad in Islam • Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion • Northallerton • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013) Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Cody Willard.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must show it is a notable company. This has to be done by published articles in reliable sources--not PR--from third parties referring to it, and/or by information about market share. The bar for assets under management seems to be rather high; I've seen $500 Million rejected here as not particularly notable. (I have personally no opinion on that--just advising you about what seems to be the practice)DGG (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references need to be unconnected with the firm., None of the present ones are usable for notability. I see you are not happy with some of my comments. I suggest that edit summaries are not the best place to make them, and that you keep to the talk pages. I strongly support pages for businessmen and corporations, whenever there are adequate references and demonstrations of notability. If I think there might be, i will suggest what might help strengthen the article. If i don't think there is, though, I will nominate for deletion and let the community decide. DGG (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will. I imagine the reason you want me to is because you saw I was reviewing the other article. Well, I wasn't. I had actually been reviewing Aberdeen Grammar School, but when I failed it, I forgot to remove my name from the GAN list! So everyone thought I was reviewing the next one in line... anyways, it doesn't really matter; I'll review your article. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passed.

Nousernamesleft has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 22:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Cody Willard.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Egm green.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once you improve it, I'll consider withdrawing my oppose. Until then, you have a minimum of 10 days to improve it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² —Preceding comment was added at 17:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Opposes are not "put on hold" -- if the article improves, then of course I would reconsider my opposition. Instead of concentrating on individual opposing !votes or wanting to change people's minds, concentrate on improving the article. María (habla conmigo) 17:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

don't worry... every comment is constructive. --jskellj - the nice devil 17:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment. All the best. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have expressed interest in undergoing the Admin coaching program. However, after reviewing your edit history, I feel you may need more experience editing (i.e., >2,500 edits & 4 months of activity) on Wikipedia before you can know for certain your ready to begin the process of becoming an administrator. Therefore, at this time, your application for Admin Coaching has been declined. My suggestion would be to seek adoption from a more experienced user who can help you experience all of the various components of editing an encyclopedia. If you decide adoption is not for you, there is also the editor review process that may help you find areas to improve upon in our editing. If you would like to talk more about this, please feel free to leave me a my talk page. MBisanz talk 21:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 5 - March 2008 February issue | April issue Project News There are currently 3,647 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 185 unreviewed articles. Out of 237 total nominations, 42 are on hold, and 10 are under review. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Ian Browne (cyclist), Tony Marchant, Reginald fitz Jocelin, Annie Russell, Brodie Croyle, and Jimmy Moore. The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (39 articles), Theatre, film, and drama (34 articles), Transport (23 articles), Music (21 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Culture and society (13 articles), Places (13 articles), and World history (12 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 13 articles up for re-review. If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated! GA Sweeps Update Two members joined the sweeps team this month. They are Jwanders and jackyd101. Jwanders swept Physics sub-category quickly and is now sweeping "Astronomy and astrophysics". Meanwhile, jackyd101 is sweeping "Armies, military units and legal issues". During February, 66 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 33 were kept as GA, 21 delisted, 17 currently on hold or at GAR, and 1 was exempted as they are now Featured Articles. Reviewer of the Month Blnguyen is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for February, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Blnguyen is from South Australia and has been editing Wikipedia since 2005. He was also the reviewer for the month of December 2007, so this marks the second time that he has been GAN's Top Reviewer for the Month. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for February! Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include: Blnguyen (talk · contribs) David Fuchs (talk · contribs) Derek.cashman (talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Calbear22 (talk · contribs) Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) Jackturner3 (talk · contribs) TimVickers (talk · contribs) VanTucky (talk · contribs) Wrad (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 185 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 9 new members that joined during the month of February: Bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs) Canyouhearmenow (talk · contribs) Chrisisinchrist (talk · contribs) Ed! (talk · contribs) Juliancolton (talk · contribs) Kakofonous (talk · contribs) LOTRrules (talk · contribs) Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) Nousernamesleft (talk · contribs) Did You Know... ...that the shortest timespan for a GA to be listed and subsequently delisted is 8 minutes? (The article is Project Chanology and currently listed on WP:GAR) ...that the current nominations system started on March 10, 2006? ...that in May 2006, number of GA surpassed number of FA? 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! One GA Requirement - The Lead Section By Geometry guy In this issue, we will focus on one of the requirements for good articles: a good article article should follow Wikipedia's guideline on lead sections. So what does this guideline say, why does it say what it does, and how can good article reviewers help? The lead section is particularly important, because for many readers, it is the only part of the article which they will read. For instance, they may have come to the article by following a wikilink in another article simply to obtain a quick overview before they continue reading the original article. They may only read the first paragraph, or even the first sentence. On the other hand, one of the joys of Wikipedia is the way that it embodies the endlessly branching tree of knowledge; if a lead is well written, it may encourage even such a reader to read on and learn something new. This is reflected in the terminology: "lead" is a word taken from journalism, where it recognized that many readers will only read the beginning of a newspaper article, and so it is important to convey the key points first, before going into detail. Note that "lead", in this sense, is pronounced as in "leading question" and is sometimes spelled as "lede" by journalists to distinguish it from lead, the metal, which was once very important in typesetting. Wikipedia supports both spellings. Wikipedia:Lead section is written with all this in mind, and describes two different roles for the lead: first, it should introduce the topic; second it should summarize the article. This is not always as easy as it seems; indeed, it is almost impossible to write a good lead if the article itself does not cover the topic well. It has a side benefit that an article which satisfies this guideline is probably also broad: if the lead is both a good introduction and a summary, then the article probably covers the main points. The good article process is often the first place in which an article is judged against this criterion, yet many current good articles may not meet it. A common fault is that the lead is purely an introduction, while the rest of the article contains other information, which should be summarized in the lead, but isn't. So, how can reviewers help to improve this? One approach is to read the rest of the article, and not the lead, first. Make a note of the significant points discussed in the article. There is usually at least one important issue in each section. Then, go back to the lead and ask the following questions: Does the first sentence of the lead define the topic, as described in the article? Is the most important information mentioned in the first paragraph? Is the lead a suitable length for the article? The lead guideline recommends 2–4 paragraphs depending on the article length, but judgment is more important than counting. Are each of the significant topics that you noted mentioned in the lead? If the answer to each of these questions is "yes", then the article probably meets the guideline. If not, you may be able to fix it yourself by summarizing the article. If you can't, then it suggests that there are not only problems with the lead, but also the rest of the article. That is the beauty of Wikipedia:Lead section. Finally, there isn't universal agreement on whether the lead should contain inline citations. As long as the material in the lead is developed and cited elsewhere in the article, then inline citation is not required. There are exceptions, the most significant being quotations and controversial material about living persons. Good luck helping more articles meet this important criterion! From the Editors Well, this is somewhat GA-related but at the same time not totally GA-related. However, I think this is important. Thanks to everyone who supported me at my 2nd RfA. It passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. As many are impressed by my work in Good Articles processes, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone giving me a very enjoyable time at GA. There are 2 people that I want to explicitly say thank you to. They are Nehrams2020 and Epbr123. They patiently taught me how to do GA reviews properly in summer 2007. I couldn't achieve better without them. Now that I have the mop and the bucket, some of my time will be working on reducing Commons image backlog. Nevertheless, you will still see me once in a while in matters related to GA. OhanaUnited Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Dr. Cash Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Geometry guy (News Correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Gedling Town F.C. (talk | history | start review) • Reggie Barnes (skateboarder) (talk | history | start review) • Exile (American band) (talk | history | start review) • Jude Law (talk | history | start review) • Blackpink (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Sanctioned Suicide • Mezhyhirya Monastery • Fallout 3 • Muhammad in Islam • Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion • Northallerton • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013) Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

Hi, this is just to let you know that I removed the lists in the "practices" section of the article as per your suggestion. I hope this addresses your concern. Thanks for help. --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm already booked with User:Canyouhearmenow and User:Belinrahs. However, you can contact my good friends User:Malinaccier, User:Revolving Bugbear, or User:Keilana, or anybody who doesn't have their status full in Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status for another. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 23:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. Seeing that you're not very experienced right now, I think that adoption would be a much better choice for you to get a good footing. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 23:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wiki your so fine your so fine you blow my mind (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Oh wiki your so fine your so fine you blow my mind (talk) 06:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Yearbookphotoyouman.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Yearbookphotoyouman.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) 04:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. you were seeking adoptation so here I am. I'm not rely active on Wikipedia right now, but I'm online most of the time, and know my way around here a bit. I'm an admin on the Icelandic wikipedia among others. I see you have been active for a few months. I was looking trough your contributions and thought I'd point a few things out. Welcoming new users is a great way to make friends, please bare in mind to put the welcome not to their talk page. Also, links to disambiguations should always be at the top of articles. See my fix here. There are just small issues and as far as I can see you are making good faith edits. Let me know if you want to be adopted by me :) --Steinninn 06:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for congratulating me on my good fortune:-)--Pataki Márta (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]