User talk:Kilo-Lima

This user may have left Wikipedia. Kilo-Lima has not edited Wikipedia since November 2012. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

ARCHIVE LIST

I (and presumably some of the other participants in the discussion) would appreciate it if you could add a closing rationale to your decision at Talk:Vladimír Búřil#Requested move. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done Regards, KiloT 18:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, Jenks24 (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how you came about the conclusion that there was "no clear cut consensus on the move" here. [1] There was indeed a consensus that "AhwazI" is not an appropriate term for the title as far Wikipedia policy on common names goes. Many of the "oppose" votes were canvassed on another article's talk page, and overall the oppose votes were in the minority by the margin of 1 to 2. The oppose arguments were also rather weak (see [2]) and did not address the main point that "AhwazI" contradicts our main Wikipedia page titles which are Ahvaz, and Iranian Arabs, so the loaded term "Ahwazi" is clearly against our policy on naming. Even Greyshark09 who is the creator of the page, and had been canvassing votes against the move, had actually conceded that "2005 Ahvaz unrest" was the more policy-appropriate term than "2005 Ahwazi unrest". [3] In light of all this, could you please reconsider your closing decision or at least realist the RM for further discussion and wider community input? Kurdo777 (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the admin has also said: "Users are welcome to merge with Khūzestān Province." , but I think the best article to merge is Politics of Khūzestān Province. In fact ( contact ) 07:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I closed the move with this because the majority of people were saying to merge, and not to move. So if merging, the page could just be turned into a redirect. Also, contrary to your interpretation, I felt that the opposing comments had enough weight to merit a no-move. Regards, KiloT 11:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you explain the way of thinking which led you to conclude that the result of the vote was "move"? I'm asking because only Wladthemlat was wholeheartedly supporting it (and a Slovak nationalist called Bizovne along with a few others), most of the remaining voters didn't insist on "tragedy" as maniacally as Wladthemlat did. You've mentioned the definition of the term massacre, which involves killing unresisting human beings. However the villagers DID resist the gendarmes and the priest when he wanted to consecrate the temple. And besides, there's no consensus among contemporary sources as far as the term usage's concerned. That's why I've proposed some alternative terms, but Wladthemlat didn't seem to like any of them. -- CoolKoon (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, well I think that different dictionaries are going to have different definitions depending on what one you use. The Free Dictionary says The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly, i.e. without mention of the persons resisting and Dictionary.com says the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals. Regardless of the definition, however, I felt that more sources referred to the act as massacre and not tragedy. By all means, please feel free to add a WP:RFC, or even just request a move back on WP:RM, on the article for a more broader input if you wish. Regards, KiloT 13:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my biggest problem with the "massacre" term is twofold. This specific even COULD be categorized under the umbrella term of "massacres", but I feel that the term is not the appropriate one. Furthermore my other problem is with the fact of notability itself and its political abuse: according to my research the term "massacre" isn't by far the only name of the terms and I've found at least another one with prevalence comparable to that of "massacre" ("affair"). However Slovak editors who favor the "massacre" term seem to push this mostly for more altruistic (e.g. political) reasons than the sole prevalence of the term itself. Since I believe that Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and should remain to be one, I'm strongly against any hints of politics in their articles, including the ones that deal with Central (read: Eastern :P) Europe. So anyway thanks for the advice. -- CoolKoon (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time and effort to move Wikipedia:Announcements to Wikipedia:Milestones. Guoguo12 (Talk)  18:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although there was no agreement on exactly what to at Las Vegas, there was overwhelming consensus in favor of the proposed move Las Vegas -> Las Vegas (disambiguation). The only disagreement was whether to move Las Vegas, Nevada or Las Vegas Valley to Las Vegas, but even there I think it's safe to say consensus favored the latter. It's disappointing to see this closed as no consensus. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was incredibly long winded and at several points I felt went off on a tangent. Perhaps it was the several alternative proposals put forward. I highly recommend refiling at WP:RM if you are still not satisfied and wish for the page to be moved. Regards, KiloT 22:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to complain on user User:CoolKoon who named me "Slovak nationalist called Bizovne" [4]. It was a personal attack. Thank you. Regards, --Bizovne (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to check out the edit log of the user above. The overwhelming majority of his edits consist of reverts marked as "minor edits" and removals of Hungarian place names and/or replacing them with their Slovak counterparts (ignoring even the naming convention set by Elonka after after countless amounts of discussion a few years ago). I think such acts (removal of Hungarian town names "for kicks") DO constitute nationalism, regardless of the fact that Bizovne denies this accusation (and so do ALL the Slovak nationalists BTW and they'll give you the most amazing excuses to why they aren't nationalists and why their hatred towards Hungarians does NOT constitute nationalism at all). -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Also, I have no agenda to push, especially with the "help" of any IP socks if necessary (unlike Bizovne) so my conscience is perfectly clear. -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have already assisted closing a rename proposal of 2005 Ahwazi unrest article (which was now consensus). Since we had a major dispute and a merge proposal had been issued by user Alborz Fallah, which has been actively discussed, but later has become dormant in light of a compromise, offered to me by user Kurdo777. Essentially, we agreed to rename it to 2005 Ahvaz unrest per WP:GF and in accordance with WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME, while Kurdo777, who claimed to represent those in favor of merge would step off the merging demand. Since i'm an active party of this discussion, I'm kindly asking your assistance to close the debate which is outdated and has reached a compromise by renaming the article. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kilo-Lima,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at [email protected] (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at [email protected]. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talk • contribs) 03:47, 20 February 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)

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)15:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume III, No. 1 – October 2012 September-December 2008, 2009, 2010, January-April 2011 | November 2012 Project News[1] 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 oldest unreviewed articles are: General sejm, Prime Minister of Vietnam, Tanisha Thomas, Kosta Pećanac, and Jilly Kitzinger. 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. Barry (dog) I Love Bees Miles Copeland (Home and Away) London Country North East The Daily Show Some Tips About References/Sources 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. Contributors to this Issue Dom497 (Editor of this Issue) Did You Know... ... that 2,100 articles have been reviewed during all backlog elimination drives combined? ... that out of 4,055,039 articles on Wikipedia, only 15,846 are good articles? ... that there are currently over 400 video game good articles? Notes ^ As of October 2, 2012 at 19:05 (UTC). ^ 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! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Atlanta Braves (talk | history | start review) • LGBTQ culture in Puerto Vallarta (talk | history | start review) • Dick Simpson (politician) (talk | history | start review) • Darren Moore (talk | history | start review) • Pete Astudillo (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: 1980 National League West tie-breaker game • Ben Nevis • Concorde • The Nightmare • Walt Disney Animation Studios • Kingston upon Hull • USS Texas (BB-35) • Mehmed II's Albanian campaign • Battle of Plataea • 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

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 05:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume III, No. 2 – November 2012 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Request for Comment: An RFC about the Backlog Elimination Drives has been started this month. Go and voice your opinions! Featured editorial: A Matter of Time: The Future of Backlog Elimination Drives Project News: Over 345 unreviewed articles, 13 at reassessment Good Articles of the Month GA Task Forces: A calmed GA community awaiting for an RFC Member News: 223 members of the GA Wikiproject Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 November 2012

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume III, No. 3 – December 2012 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Featured editorial: "Drive-By Reviews": A Retrospective About Reviews During Backlog Drives Project News: A backlog elimination drive is being held now at GAN. Good Articles of the Month: Our picks for November, 150+ promotions. GA Task Forces: Results from the Backlog Elimination RfC Member News: 227 members of WikiProject Good Articles and counting Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 December 2012

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume IV, No. 1 – January 2013 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Featured editorial: Skyfall by Hahc21. Project News: A record, and issue and a future. Good Articles of the Month: See which articles were picked this year of records: 190 articles passed in December! GA Task Forces: Results from the drive Member News: Two crucial users leave the project Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot · 3 January 2012

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a happy Birthday message to you, Kilo-Lima, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume IV, No. 2 – February 2013 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Featured editorial: Time to make a Sweep by Hahc21. Project News: Several proposals are currently ongoin at the project, including two requests for comment. Good Articles of the Month: See which articles were picked this year of records: 282 articles passed in January! GA Task Forces: Some minor notes this month Member News: Member news Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot · 12 February 2012

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bud-NO.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 01:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. Gilderien Chat|Contributions02:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! A GAN Backlog Drive will begin in less than 4 days! 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. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or leave a message on the Backlog Drive talk page. And remember, there are less than 4 days before the drive starts!--EdwardsBot (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Just a friendly reminder that the GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on December 31, 2013! If you know anyone outside of the WikiProject that may be interested, feel free to invite them to the drive! If you have any questions or want to comment about something regarding the drive, post them here--EdwardsBot (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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!

--Dom497

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! Sent by Dom497 on behalf of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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!

Sent by Dom497--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup 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. Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] To receive future GA Cup newsletter, please add your name to our mailing list.

Thanks for uploading File:AmericanPsychoBook.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:San Pelly official.PNG. 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lap is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lap 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 20:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ecstasy (film) (2006). Since you had some involvement with the Ecstasy (film) (2006) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Bearcat (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Growing elephant ear plants. Since you had some involvement with the Growing elephant ear plants redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Sciences humaines.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Alien morphs in the Alien franchise is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Alien morphs in the Alien franchise until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tommy Walker(The Who). Since you had some involvement with the Tommy Walker(The Who) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:San Pellegrino - location.PNG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, low quality map, replaced with push-pin map at San Pellegrino Terme.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 05:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Statureoflibertyfromthemuseumofjewishheritage.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, low-res, no obvious use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 05:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]