This user may have left Wikipedia. LAAFan has not edited Wikipedia since 27 October 2014. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
In this round of the WikiCup, the bottom three contestants of the top eight were eliminated on September 30th, while the top five are continued for an additional month. On October 31, a winner will be announced.
Top 4
Sasata (1332)
Durova (1259)
Ottava Rima (1242)
Theleftorium (1041)
Eliminated 3
Candlewicke (534)
Mitchazenia (352)
Juliancolton (314)
Withdrawn
Shoemaker's Holiday (1183)
All scores are accurate as of 20:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC).
Content Leaders
As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most:
We have announced the intention to hire another new judge to cover for future judge absences. If you are interested please see the talk page for the WikiCup.
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list. --EdwardsBot (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
In this round of the WikiCup, the bottom three contestants of the top eight were eliminated on September 30th, while the top five are continued for an additional month. On October 31, a winner will be announced.
Top 4
Durova (1546)
Sasata (1477)
Ottava Rima (1254)
Theleftorium (1092)
Eliminated 3
Candlewicke (534)
Mitchazenia (352)
Juliancolton (314)
Withdrawn
Shoemaker's Holiday (1183)
All scores are accurate as of 18:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC).
Content Leaders
As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most:
It just came to me that multiple users have worked together on a bunch of content items, which means the newsletter counts are likely off. I'll try to put that all together and figure it out by the end of the round.
The end of the round, and the end of the 2009 WikiCup is this coming Saturday, October 31! To our top four: don't give up yet. Make sure that anything you have left to nominate is nominated today or tomorrow, for the slighted chance of it passing in time. The last day items will be accepted is Saturday, at 23:59 (UTC). It ain't over till the fat lady sings, of course!
GARDEN, iMatthewtalk, J Milburn, and TheHelpfulOne
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list. --EdwardsBot (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi! Just a reminder that we had a deal with the barnstar. Also I changed my username. I'm RuneScape Adventure for reminder. Thanks! RSA23Sign!00:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
In this round of the WikiCup, the bottom three contestants of the top eight were eliminated on September 30th, while the top five continued for an additional month. On October 31, the WikiCup ended, and Durova was crowned winner!
Top 4
Durova (1830)
Ottava Rima (1720)
Sasata (1627)
Theleftorium (1149)
Eliminated 3
Candlewicke (586)
Mitchazenia (376)
Juliancolton (349)
Withdrawn
Shoemaker's Holiday (1224)
All scores are accurate as of the end of the WikiCup.
Content Leaders
As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most:
Well, it was a long, long ride, with plenty of ups as well as downs (but I'm sure you'll agree, definitely more ups). It's been ten long months since our kick-off in January, and the level of competition has intensified so much so quickly. It's a wonder there was any puff left in our final eight by the end, but they fought to the death and, eventually, Durova pulled through, making her proficiency with FPs count as the contest drew to a close. Special mentions must go to the other members of the last four, Ottava Rima, Sasata and Theleftorium, all of whom put in a astonishing shift in their efforts to peel Durova away from her victory. Congratulations again!
The announcement of the ed17 as the newest judge to the WikiCup panel was made today - I wish him all the best in his new role.
The article for the Signpost overall is now be readable in a Signpost near you!
Remember to sign up for next year if you haven't already!
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The 2009 WikiCup Participant Award
This WikiCup Award is presented to LAAFan for their participation in the 2009 WikiCup. Your contributions along the way have greatly improved the quality of many articles, pictures, and sounds on the English Wikipedia.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello LAAFan. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Guy-Marie Bagnard, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Bishop and writer. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers06:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The MOTD Barnstar
This award is given to you for helping out Motto of the day. Thanks to your effort, MOTD has brilliantly and successfully passed the most difficult period of the year. In fact, there are mottoes scheduled until the end of the summer. For this reason MOTD would like to express heartfelt thanks to you for your support. We appreciate your efforts in further helping the project! – delivered by Simply south on behalf of Wikipedia:Motto of the day23:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On July 27, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sandy Ullrich, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An article that you have been involved in editing, Major League Baseball has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Regards Hekerui (talk) 09:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I have nominated Major League Baseball blackout policy, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major League Baseball blackout policy. 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.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. NDState 05:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
That sucks, hopefully that's taken care of soon. Here's what I plan to do with the article and the GA review. First, I'm going to mark it as failed, unfortunately, as the result of the users who have sent their comments in as well. They are quite valid, and convince me that this article needs some work yet. Second, I'll work on the GA concerns that Sarastro1 and others had while you're away, and help to build this article up. By the time you come back, hopefully it should be good enough that it can be re-nominated at GAN, or at least close to that mark. WizardmanOperation Big Bear00:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'll go through the article again, adding bits of info where I can. I went and saved a few good Sporting News files that feature him that I can use to flesh out the article; then we can re-nom it. WizardmanOperation Big Bear02:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
I actually don't have much time these days, so I have an idea: if you could send me an e-mail (so I have your address) I can send you the Sporting News pages I have on Veeck that could be useful for expanding. I'll just send the major ones, since passing mentions would easily number in the hundreds. WizardmanOperation Big Bear18:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
User:LAAFan has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as LAAFan's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear LAAFan!
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello LAAFan, Sabrinamagers 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. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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 MuZebot00:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball managers in 2010 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please see my edit here. I also restored the image Williams keeps inadvertently removing. On my talk, I'm trying to clear up his concerns and nudge him towards that article's talk page. CityOfSilver22:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hello LAAFan! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey
Hello both of you, sorry I was not able to get to you in a timely manner. It appears MOTD is fine for now, but I will make an effort to help keep it up and running. Cheers. --LAAFan22:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I used an edit summary! Most of the stuff I removed was unsourced, horribly formatted stuff. This was recently added material, and I have the right to remove it per WP:BURDEN. I was just about to restore the only part of the information that was sourced before you came and reverted me. 216.119.153.205 (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
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. 13:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)15:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - October 2012
There are currently 15,862 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 345 unreviewed articles. Out of 439 total nominations, 24 are on hold, 66 are under review, and 4 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article! Even just reviewing one will help!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Social sciences and society (80 articles), Sports and recreation (70 articles), Music (63 articles), Theatre, film and drama (52 articles), and History (41 articles). Please consider reviewing articles within these sections.
There are currently 13 articles up for reassessment at Good Article Reassessment. Please help out and go to WP:GAR and review an article! Remember that anyone can review articles that are listed under "Community Reassessment" even if another user has already listed their opinion...the more opinions, the better!
Member News
There are currently 222 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to all the new members that joined during the past 17 months! If you aren't yet part of WikiProject Good Articles and interested in joining WikiProject Good Articles, go here and add you name. Everyone is welcomed!
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!
If you haven't done so already, please remember to add your name to this list if you are still interested/active with this WikiProject. If you are no longer interested/active you don't need to add your name anywhere, you're name will be moved into a "inactive participant" list at the beginning of November. Inactive users will not receive future newsletters from this WikiProject via their talk page.
GA Task forces
There is currently not much going on at this time but there is a very large backlog. Until the next backlog elimination drive, please help reduce the number of nominations by reviewing articles and helping other reviewers that may need second opinions.
Thanks to everyone who committed some time to help reduce the nominations backlog during the June-July 2012 backlog elimination drive. Most barnstars have been given out but there are still a few left. Participants that haven't gotten a barnstar yet should get it soon.
Possible Fall/Winter 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive
A discussion is currently being held on the WikiProject's talk page on weather another eliminations drive should take place within the next few months as the last one proved to be extremely successful. Please take the time to go to the the talk page and include your opinion on if you would be interested in taking part in a Fall/Winter 2012 elimination drive.
Good Articles of the Month
Each month, 5 random good articles will be choose to be featured here as the good articles of the month.
Having references included in articles is one of the most important aspects to a good article, let alone Wikipedia! Without them, no one would ever know what is true and what is false and Wikipedia probably wouldn't be where it is today. So this month, I will talk about how to check for references, how reliable they are, and so on and so forth.
The first thing to do when reviewing an nominee is to do a quick scan of the article. One of the things to look for is if the article has references! If you don't see a list at the bottom of the article page, quick-fail it.[2] For newcomers, quick-failing is failing an article when you spot a problem before actually conducting a full review. If you do find a list of references (and in most cases you will) make sure to look through each and every one. If you want to save some time, use this tool as it will tell you if there are any problematic references in the article you are reviewing.
Next, check the reliability and type of the references/sources. In terms of the type of reference, check to see how many primary and/or secondary sources are included. Primary sources are the ones published by the subject of the article. For example, if the subject of the article has to do with the iPhone 4s and the source is published by Apple, it is considered a primary source. Secondary sources are those not published by the subject of the article (or in close relation to it). Newspapers are examples of secondary sources and considered one of the better types to include in the article (not saying primary sources are bad). If you find that most/all of the references are primary sources, notify the nominator about this issue(s) and place the article on hold once you have completed the review. Only in the event that a secondary source can't be found as a replacement, then the primary source can remain. If there is a good mix of primary and secondary sources, that is perfect and no references need to be changed.
Now, reliability. Forums are generally not considered reliable and some blog's may not be reliable either. Newspapers, most sources published by the subject, some blogs, etc. are considered reliable. If you don't know wether the source is reliable, ask for a second opinion. For more info about how to identify wether a reference is reliable or not, visit this article.
Finally, one of the more basic things to look for is that every statement in the article has at least one reference! The only case that a statement doesn't need a reference is when it is common sense that the statement is defiantly true and/or in the case where the statement can't be challenged, as per what Wikipedia says, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation."
From the Editor
After a long 18 month hiatus, the third volume of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter is here! Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue of the newsletter here or on the editors talk page.
Also, Happy Halloween...in advance!!!
PLEASE READ: If you do not wish to receive future WikiProject Good Articles newsletter's on your talk page, please remove your self from this list. If you are viewing this newsletter from the WikiProject Good Articles page or on someone else's talk page and want to receive future newsletters on your talk page, please add your name to the list linked above.
^Before quick-failing the article, verify that one of the several referencing templates is correctly placed at the bottom of the article. If the template is not placed, try to place it to see if references are displayed. If this proof returns no references, then proceed to quick-failing.
Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005!
You are reciving this message because you have not added your name to the list of active WikiProject Good Articles participants. Though you may have recived the first message sent out in September, some users may have had that message archived before coming online to read it and therefore never saw it. If you are deeming yourself inactive with the WikiProject please disregard this message as your name will be moved to an "inactive participant" list at the end of the clean-up. If you are still active with the WikiProject, please be sure to include your name on this list. The current deadline to add your name to the list (if you are still active) is November 1, 2012. A third and final message will be sent out during the last week of the clean-up before the deadline. Thank-you.--EdwardsBot
WikiProject Good Articles - Participant Clean-up (Final Call)
You are receiving this message because you have not added your name to the list of active WikiProject Good Articles participants. Though you may have recived the past two messages sent out in September and October, some users may have had that message archived before coming online to read it and therefore never saw it. If you are deeming yourself inactive with the WikiProject please disregard this message as your name will be moved to an "inactive participant" list at the end of the clean-up. If you are still active with the WikiProject, please be sure to include your name on this list. The deadline to add your name to the list (if you are still active) is November 1, 2012. This will be the last message sent out before the deadline which is in 2 days. Thank-you.--EdwardsBot
A 'Request For Comment' for Good Article Nominations is currently being held. We are asking that you please take five to ten minutes to review all seven proposals that will affect Good Article Nominations if approved. Full details of each proposal can be found here. Please comment on each proposal (or as many as you can) here.
At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support.
If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread.
Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal.
Hello! Now, some of you might be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with, the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.
A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. GilderienChat|Contributions03:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Good day, LAAFan. It has come to my attention that you have significantly contributed to List of St. Louis Cardinals managers and also previously nominated it as a FLC. I have reworked it and would like to co-nominate it with you as a featured list but would first like your review, if you please. I hope you will find the changes satisfactory.
PS. If you have not seen the article with the recent revisions yet, I hope you will not be alarmed by one significant modification I made. You had separated the table at the 1900 season, and the reason you gave in your prior nomination for the break was that MLB did not officially recognize postseason play prior to 1900. I combined the two tables, but if you will notice at the bottom of the table, St. Louis' American Association records and play is subtallied by itself. I also added a footnote explaining MLB does not officially recognize postseason play prior to 1903 and wikilinked accordingly. Of course, total franchise history from 1882 to the present is tallied as "Grand totals." Let me know if you have any questions or reservations. Elcid.ruderico (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
In past Backlog Drives, the goal was to reduce the backlog of Good article nominations. In the upcoming drive, another goal will be added - raising as much money as we can for the Wikimedia Foundation. How will this work? Well, its pretty simple. Any user interested in donating can submit a pledge at the Backlog Drive page (linked above). The pledge should mention the amount of money the user is willing to donate per review. For example, if a user pledges 5 cents per review and 100 nominations are reviewed, the total donation amount is $5.00.
At the time this message was sent out, two users have submitted pledges for a total of 8 cents per review. All pledges, no matter how much money, are greatly appreciated. Also, in no way is this saying you must make a pledge.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:
This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.
Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.
More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.
I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!
TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.
If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.
At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.
As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!
As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:
For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.
For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).
The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.
WikiProject Good articles is holding a new competition, the GA Cup, from October 1, 2014 - March 28, 2015. The Cup will be based on reviewing Good article nominations; for each review, points will be awarded with bonuses for older nominations, longer articles and comprehensive reviews. All participants will start off in one group and the highest scoring participants will go through to the second round. At the moment six rounds are planned, but this may change based on participant numbers.
Some of you may ask: what is the purpose for a competition of this type? Currently, there is a backlog of about 500 unreviewed Good article nominations, almost an all time high. It is our hope that we can decrease the backlog in a fun way, through friendly competition.
Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors! Sign-ups will be open until October 15, 2014 so sign-up now!
If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the four judges.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:20veeck184.2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowserCheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5 good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages.
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi LAAFan! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 months.
Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members.
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Richard Montgomery has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
