User talk:OhanaUnited/Archive 15

Charts

I made the charts in Excel. I'm sure there is some easy way to save and upload them, but I just took screenshots of the page, cropped it, and then uploaded it. Speaking of which, I guess I better update the results of the sweeps page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's quite the low point. I'm done reviewing articles for a while. I may come back when it nears the end. However, it looks like the process is going to be discontinued. Which is a shame, since there's such a nice looking barnstar to go to those who review. Perhaps another advertisement asking anyone to review would beneficial. I recognize that we wanted to only feature reliable GA reviewers, but by opening it up to anyone and detailing the directions/guidelines, we may see some more participation. Some editors may be deterred by the invitation-only type process currently set up. We're nearly halfway done almost two years later (I had figured we'd be done in two years!). I know that this process was one step towards getting the sought after green dot in the top corner of articles, so maybe if it is mentioned on the various good article talk pages that this cleanup/verification process will help to improve the standing of the GA process, then maybe more will participate. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

For the barnstar, I'm not sure. 100 articles seems sufficient to me, but obviously some articles are shorter/longer than others. I'm not sure if Lara is the only one awarding it or if anybody can, but I'm sure if we started awarding it at the 100-mark, we may get more people eager to help out. Some editors work because they want to, while others enjoy awards. It shouldn't matter the reason, so long as the reviewers perform the task to the best of their ability. I created a worklist page of the remaining GAs that need to be swept. I think it would be best if reviewers could pick whatever articles are available instead of topics. Some reviewers have "saved" topics, and may not be contributing. The worklist option will allow for anyone to pick and choose (some reviewers were already doing this), and hopefully speed up the process. I took the August 2007 revision and removed all of the ones that have already been removed, as well as all FAs. I just compiled everybody's exempt FAs into one section, which decreased a few editors' total figures. I also removed some duplicates so the number is more accurate (its currently at 1,433, finally more than 50% done). I guess I'm good as an accountant, being able to rework the numbers and make the total increase (it's just all of those exempt FAs) :). Let me know if you have any comments on the changes. I'll likely be composing some invitations at the GA talk pages as well as updates for all current members. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily leading this project, you've definitely done more than I have. You didn't have failed attempts. This task is tedious and takes a lot of knowledge of editing/guidelines to review properly. It's great that you were able to recruit various members to assist in reviewing. I think we just need to step it up with current reviewers, and hopefully, recruit new ones. The graphs are up to date with what April's results were (but those did have some inacurracies with the duplicates and other numbering issues). Although it's great that the halfway threshold has been passed, it is the result of the ~100 FAs that I found. Not the greatest way to pass the halfway point, but no worries. When the next month's charts are updated they will have an increase reflecting the ~50% done (in addition to any reviews that are performed this month). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Below is the message being sent out to all members, just thought you'd be interested in seeing it:

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am contacting you because you have contributed or expressed interest in the GA sweeps process. Last month, only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process with 163 articles 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.

All exempt articles that have reached FA status have now been moved to a separate section at the end of the running total page. I went through all of the members' running totals and updated the results to reflect the move. As a result your reviewed article total may have decreased a bit. After removing duplicate articles and these FAs, the running total leaves us at ~1,400 out of 2,808 articles reviewed.

If you currently have any articles on hold or at GAR, please consider concluding those reviews and updating your results. I'm hoping that this new list and increased efforts can help us to increase the number of reviews. We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you know of anybody that can assist please direct them to the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, will get an award when they reach that mark. 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. 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) 03:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The above message was sent to all members listed on the running total page. I will be tailoring another message for current Wikiproject GA members, as well as another for the main project/GAN/GA talk pages. The individual ones may be sent out later tonight, since I've got a major commitment to attend to in 20 minutes (namely The Office). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

GA sweeps

Hi, I just saw the message about this quality control initiative, and think it's a great idea... had never heard of it before! I'd like to help out, and would be checking mostly science-related articles. I've done over 20 GA reviews, and have written about a dozen GAs myself, so I hope I have a decent understanding of what's expected. Let me know if this sounds ok with you, and I'll get started. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

re: GA Sweeps Invitation

Absolutely! I would love to help with this.--Unionhawk ^Talk 11:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

I too would like to help.Johnherrick (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I had been reassigned and had no time to respond to earlier requests. I will be on the sidelines and watch for a while. Small edits will be discussed on User talk pages if that is OK.Johnherrick (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

re:GA Sweeps

Sure. But I'll ease into it slowly-I'm familiar with the criteria and proccess, but have been simply "observing" for the past 6 or so months. ResMar 13:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 5

Could you re-vote on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 5. The user who edited before you did something strange and because your edit conflicted with theirs, I had to restore the page to the version before. Sorry for the inconvenience, Malinaccier (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for supporting me in my recent RfA, which unfortunately did not pass with a final tally of (45/39/9). I plan on addressing the concerns raised and working to improve in the next several months. Special thanks go to MBisanz, GT5162, and MC10 for nominating me. Thanks again, -download ׀ sign! 03:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ruqun discussion

Please join in the discussion of ruqun at its talk page. Thanks. 116.15.179.16 (talk) 05:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

GA sweeps

I heard about this GA sweeps thing somewhere, but how do I join? --ErgoSum•talk•trib 21:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

GA sweeps

I see what have some sweeps going on, and I'm wondering if I could lend a hand? Renaissancee (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have not done any GA reviews at the moment. I'll try one right now, but I'd rather not join sweeps at the moment now that I think about it. Once I feel ready again, have a few reviews under my belt, and more presentable status, I'll contact you, okay? Thanks. Renaissancee (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

I would like to help with the sweeps. I feel I have a good understanding of the criteria, not the best, but I will keep a tab open with the criteria. mynameinc^{Ottoman project} 01:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Transclusion

Hi. The inflation article had a transclusion posted for the whole week of the reassessment, someone would have to be blind to miss it, especially since it's the first thing anyone would notice on top of the page, where it's also linked. After the review is over, why keep a transclusion? It's still the first thing visible on the top of the talk page, and the review is closed, so it should not be edited either. Is there a policy for this or just your taste? Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The difference between transcluding or not is mostly negligible and I'm basically fine either way. I removed them as not necessary because they are closed debates that are linked in the most visible part of the page. As for the guideline: omitting something does not elevate the opposite to standard. Someone wrote me that this small issue prevents a bot (via complaints against the person maintaining it) from updating the article histories of the recent good articles, which is unfortunate, but it is what it is. All the best Hekerui (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi, this is Maori-wannabe I am just requesting adoption because you are an admin so I just figured you'd be the best choice for an my Adopter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maori-wannabe (talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Some questions about FA

Hi OhanaUnited, 在下甚感好奇，在英文维基百科的FAC中，对于一些完全没有使用footnote而只是在文末列出参考书籍的条目，社群的态度是怎么样的？是否会对评选FA产生影响？谢谢—Ben.MQ (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't Help But Comment On Your Username

I am also Canadian...and a US Citizen. My ancestors were the original French Protestant settlers of Nova Scotia and I am also a Mayflower descendant. My late father was a Canadian Naval officer, and I was born in Honolulu, Hawaii while he was stationed in Japan. My mother is of Portuguese and Hawaiian descent. So, the word Ohana has a very special meaning to me. I have spent my entire life as a citizen of North America, but now make my home in Edmonton. I am a graduate of The University of San Diego (BA, Political Science, 1981), owned and operated my own businesses all over the Western US for 26 years, and now work as an Intake Coordinator and Recovery Coach at Hope Mission, Edmonton's largest homeless and addictions recovery outreach center. I try to help my ohana every day. I do however have a lot of time on my hands, and would love to get involved in any aspect that Wiki may need. So, if your ohana is in need of a dedicated researcher, please do not hesitate in contacting me. Aloha... Kimosterling (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

Got any time?...

To help me in being an SPI clerk? — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Seriously? Why not assume good faith that I want to contribute and think I could do a good job as a clerk? — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Bessie Smith stamp.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Bessie Smith stamp.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

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 that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ww2censor (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Titan globe.jpg

Hey, the image is up for delisting. --Muhammad(talk) 04:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps June update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 396 articles were swept in May! That more than doubles our most successful month of 163 swept articles in September 2007 (and the 2 articles swept in April)! I plan to be sending out updates at the beginning of each month detailing any changes, updates, or other news until Sweeps are completed. So if you get sick of me, keep reviewing articles so we can be done (and then maybe you'll just occasionally bump into me). We are currently over 60% done with Sweeps, with just over a 1,000 articles left to review. With over 40 members, that averages out to about 24 articles per person. If each member reviews an article a day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. I know that may be asking for a lot, but it would allow us to complete Sweeps and allow you to spend more time writing GAs, reviewing GANs, or focusing on other GARs (or whatever else it is you do to improve Wikipedia) as well as finish ahead of the two-year mark coming up in August. I recognize that this can be a difficult process at times and appreciate your tenacity in spending time in ensuring the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

GA sweeps - possible volunteer

I noted the message here that possible volunteers for GA sweeps should leave you a message. I might be able to help out. You can see what I've been doing at GA through my list of reviews here. Let me know if the sweeps team are happy for me to proceed. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

zh-OTRS

I was basing it off of [1] which also claimed to be from their governmental entity (look at the email URL). MBisanz ^talk 18:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to remember that. Thanks for the feedback. MBisanz ^talk 05:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for mentorship (WP:GAR)

Hi, I've been working on an extremely long-drawn out review of Birbhum district which I've reviewed and extended the hold period twice. Although the editors seem to be doing a good job with the changes, I'm still uncertain on whether to pass or fail the article - particularly with respect to references and prose, and I want to take a final decision at the end of the present hold period. Could you please go through the review here and provide me with your feedback, as well as anything I've overlooked or missed out? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you see any problem with the references? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Mantodea

Thank you for taking the time to add a relevant project page. I replaced Wikinews with it because I think it isn't that relevant. Again, thanks, I wouldn't have thought of that. ZooFari 02:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Food waste in the United Kingdom returns

Probably not to your relief, but I wanted to inform you that I'm considering the article for FAC. There have been over 100 edits since the article passed the GA mark, and hopefully they have all been for the better. However, a majority of those edits have been from me, so the article does need some other eyes to look it over. I've contacted a volunteer from Peer Review an former LoCE member, but your help would be incredibly appreciated. Your expertise were crucial at the GA level, you have an interest in the environment and you probably boast other qualities that would come in handy and don't need flattering! If you have the time, and can forgive me for being an impatient twit last time I requested your assistance, your help would be gratefully received. Thanks in advance. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Something that hadn't even crossed my mind, so thank you for that. I do recollect hearing some news about anaerobic digestion/disposal of food waste (I'm rapidly becoming obsessed by the topic...) so I'll see if I can trawl up some sources and statistics. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 08:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

Hi, I am interested in helping on the GA sweeps project. I have reviewed 35 articles at WP:GAN, I think I have a pretty good grasp of the criteria. My review record is at User:Jezhotwells/GA_Reviews Jezhotwells (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Titan Globe

Kaldari has proposed a replacement image. Please consider updating your !vote. wadester16 04:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Next FPOC promotion

Just curious when its going to happen, as Cirt & I's nom has a bunch of supports, and there hasn't been really much activity at all.Mitch/HC32 20:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew

Thanks for your help with pages on Diorhabda tamarisk beetles JamesLTracy (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Admins checking anybot articles before deletion

I responded to your comment about admins checking the bot articles before deleting. I don't see how they would know if an edit is just cosmetic or not. Because your user page says you're an admin, I asked you on the deletion page to try this with a few of the IP edit articles, grab random ones from the list Kurt Shaped Box created and comment about what you can tell from the edits on the discussion page of the AfD article? I don't think an admin without a knowledge of phycology or micropaleontology could tell whether the changes are superficial or substantive, because, for example some of the diatoms are fossil species, in the non-IP edited articles the taxonomies in the boxes are mixed (red algae and diatoms) while the article is about a completely different organism (dinoflagellate), yet the article has been edited. Would an admin recognize the mixed taxonomies?

It's worth a try.

One reason some people don't register for accounts is because no matter how badly wikipedia writers treat IPs it's nothing compared to how badly they treat newly registered users. I either write as an IP or I don't write as all. IP editors have contributed greatly to the phycology articles, particularly single-celled organisms. And they've improved a number of the bot articles to the point they might be saved. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The only articles I've saved are one on a major angiosperm species and a fossil diatom in the other IP's list. Another editor removed angiosperms so I assisted with editing the articles he/she pulled. I tried working on another fossil species, but it would have required many more hours of work.

I spent most of my time looking for a group of articles that could be saved, so I systematically checked diatoms, dinoflagellates, coccoliths, and various obscure Chromalveolata, and the macroalgae to find a bot-editable group. There is not one, because the categories are also a major problem. This is how I know there is no group without serious problems and how I became familiar with some phycology editors (from going up from the genus, not necessarily the anybot articles).

This is also how I realize the magnitude of the problem comes from fundamental issues with the underlying code. It appears from some edits that anybot picked up strings without re-intializing string holders between genera in single runs. This means that moving from a genus of one species with long input to the other carried over information. This is how so many articles from single-celled species have tetraspores (a type of spore formed in a multicellular structure). This makes it inherently difficult for anyone but a phycologist to check the articles. In the worst articles I recognized that the family, class, and genus were from three different divisions/phyla. I recognized this because it was a diatom family name (easy to recognize if you're half familiar with diatoms), and a major family of red algae (most of the familiar of the largest red algae are in that family), which made me check the genera. This is a large amount of knowledge to see how bad an article was-I don't think the average admin has this background. Articles this bad had been edited by human editors for other issues, such as the correct category, and by competent plant/protist editors, including a number of edits, still leaving the worst of the article intact.

It is worth every effort to try to save some number of the articles. I think if you looked at the IP editor's articles and saw if it was possible to tell whether substantive edits had been made, this would give everyone an idea of whether or not your suggestion of admins glancing at the articles to see if they can be saved is useful. If you do that and comment on the article, I will check your comments. Maybe something good could come of trying this.

Or move the articles the phycology editor offered to edit?

I can't think of any other way of saving articles without continuing to cause problems for people who use wikipedia and run into the information on wikipedia mirrors. An article that gets a couple of hundred page hits a month over 4 months with bad information is serious business.

I think the situation is hopeless, but I'm still looking for a light. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Henry College question

I've responded to your query on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser

I think this case will require checkuser intervention. How do I relist it? Enigma^msg 20:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Gaga nom.

Yes I know. hat is what I am trying to say. --R.I.P. Michael :( 13:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for a review

Hello, I am new to Wikepedia and a bit overwhelmed with the whole process but motivated to learn. I have actually learned quite a bit (I think) by searching through the site. I have recently responded to a "red link" on the Marie Selby Botanical Garden for a person who happens to be my great grandfather, Mulford Foster. Since I have already written and am in the process of publishing his biography I thought I would be in a position to write his Wikepedia page.

Here's the next step. I would appreciate some feedback on the article before posting. It is still "in construction" and I don't know how to link a reviewer to my article. It is called User:DianeRR/Mulford B Foster.

I am in the process of trying to align the bibliography citations with the actual footnotes as they are not in the correct order currently. I'm finding it a bit difficult to keep trying to review if via a small laptop screen but slowly but surely getting there.

I would appreciate any help?

Thanks --DianeRR (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for review help

Thanks for the review and suggestions. I will look over the links and change the headings and footnotes to the recommended format. I needed that extra direction! DianeRR (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you,... You left a message regarding not to leave promotional material, as you feel that this article is a form of promotion. I would have to kindly disagree with your view,.. since other student associations are included in wikipedia, moreover, other student unions. I could understand if the article was utilized as a form to recruit, or promote a event, however, it only outlines the A.C.A. mandate,... If you could let me know which particular part of the article is promotional? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennstarfish (talk • contribs) 06:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)