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!
Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
I'm just wondering if, seeing a lack of comments and activity on the nom, if you've made any progress on the comments given for the Independiente Topic. I'm planning on closing it soon for failure and am just seeing if you are still interested in it. GamerPro6420:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
How exactly is it still going on if it ended in September? But if you can't get it up to GA status, then put it up for Peer Review and after its done, then it can be added to the topic, the topic gets passed, and you have three months to get it to GA status. GamerPro6421:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Oh, never noticed. Thank you for updating me. Well, I will put it for peer review when my active peer review is closed, as I can't have 2 peer reviews at the same time. Additionally, I guess that in 3 months (maybe in one) i will have it at GA, surely. How much time do I have to put it at PR? — ΛΧΣ21™21:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Oh thank you a lot. I will ask Jaespinoza to take a look at the article to see if I missed something. Thanks again Erick, you always come to help, and I am glad and grateful for that ^_^ — ΛΧΣ21™06:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Please sign your comments Walter. I don't know if you are familiar enough with the previous two nominations or with the role of the closing user, but here it goes: I can't discuss. I just assessed the information and rationales and, along with the previous two nominations, came with such result. I have no duty to discuss with you or anyone because I am not a voter. I didn't voted; I just closed the nom in spite of consensus. If you have any other question, please come back here and I'll gladly answer. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™04:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for being complete obtuse in your explanation and wrong in your decision. Apparently you weren't familiar enough with the previous nominations as I made one of them and nothing has changed and no one is improving the article. The software is certainly not notable despite a few mentions and consensus is to delete it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
I am open to any objection to my close. Additionally, remember that you can always renominate in the future. Also, nothing has changed and no one is improving the article is not excuse enough to delete an article. I checked the previous two nominations and not one of them was closed as delete, so the rationales to delete the article were not strong enough to achieve their goal. No consensus is the closest to delete i can say by now. On another point, i didn't made any decision: Closers only follow consensus, and consensus there showed me that deletion wasn't the way. Although, you are correct; I am not too familiar with the previous nominations, although I scanned them to take any useful input from the voters there. Sorry if I sounded harsh in my previous comment, I didn't meant to be rude. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™04:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
I read the nomination page several times. Mostly, all delete votes based their arguments over this: "not encyclopedic" or WP:NOTDIR. The keep votes argumented that, apart from the list being widely useful, notable and well-sourced, it can be considered of encyclopedic value. This has been discussed in several other AFDs i have seen where the outcome was the same: Keep. I do saw some comments regarding how the list might be improved and such. Additionally, from what I have learnt, the rationales behind the votes are more important than the number of votes. Just in case: I had (and have) no personal inclination to keep/delete; I just read and expressed what i felt was the strongest rationales. Correct me if I'm wrong or give me some feedback of you wish, it will be all welcomed and useful. — ΛΧΣ21™22:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
I get the sense my point of view on this is out of step with the times, but WP:NAC counsels only closing an AfD as a non-admin if the AfD is totally non-controversial, to the point of being essentially uncontested. At least 50% of the contributions in this discussion were Delete votes, and most of them were policy-based (as you mention above). In this case, I think it's important to let an admin close the discussion. I don't even know if the result would change, having not read the entire AfD myself, but I personally think this was an inappropriate non-admin closure, one of arguably several I've seen from you in the last 24 hours (I have Sahi (software) on my watchlist having participated in a previous AfD on that article). I don't mean to diminish or attack your efforts at all -- on the contrary, AfD frankly needs all the help it can get, so I applaud you trying to do so -- I'm just suggesting that you exercise restraint in situations such as these. Just my totally unprompted two cents. Best regards, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb23:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes, those two were very controversial, although I considered the outcome to be somehow obvious. I always stick to non-controversial closes because of the reason you explained above; is best to let admins to do that (and I am not one of them). I guess I will follow your advice here. I would'nt like to see my talk page flooded with love/hate comments over an AFD that i closed. Thanks for your comments, they are very welcomed. — ΛΧΣ21™23:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I always wanted to ask, but I wasn't sure until now. I don't know if you comfortable talking about it now or ever, but I'm here for you. Erick (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, the situation here has been quite calm these days, but It's just difficult to accept that your country won't improve until 2019. Thanks for your support :) Is good to see people around the world worried abour our situation :) What do you wanted to know? — ΛΧΣ21™18:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
I know that feeling. Just a quick look at our Congress is enough to show why there Americans who are apathetic to politics. Just tell me, who is he, really and has he done? What was Venezuela like before he came? I'm not asking for a long answer and you're not the first native Venezuelan that I have spoken who is against him. Erick (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, here is my answer. Before Hugo Chavez came, Venezuela was in a very different position. I know and have to admit that the guy have made several improvements in the country, but his campaign and the way he governs excluding half the population of the country just doesn't work. Corruption and danger have plaged the daylife and everything now is just more difficult to accomplish. The external politics are too much wasting and consume like 25% of all the country's profits: and all just because he wants to get the support of fellow countries. He just wone the October 7 elections and by 2019, he would've spent 21 years as president (the third longest on our country's history). I have evalutated how this goes and I've reached the conclusion that Chavez might be the cause, but he's not the problem here: people is. If we don't change peoples minds we will never progress as a whole. Most venezuelan people likes to get everything easy, the don't like to work and their comfort is more important than the whole progress of the country. They don't care about security and enhancement if they receive their weekly food income. I know we are now like 14 million Venezuelans who are not like that, But the other 16 million does. My country is split into two and they fight each other like enemies in a very awful and pathetic way. I hoped we could achieve a change now, but it seems like we'll need 6 more years to wake up and open our eyes as a country. — ΛΧΣ21™00:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Hahc21! About this comment - this is just to let you know that we can't usually !vote "merge and delete" in AfD discussions, because merging content and then deleting the original page would violate Wikipedia's content licence. Have a look at WP:MAD for more details. Thanks. :) — Mr. Stradivarius(have a chat)14:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hey! Well, I actually voted delete, not merge. I just commented that any useful information may be moved to the album's article, if any. Thanks for commenting here; I will take a look at WP:MAD, as I have never looked at that page closely before. Thanks! — ΛΧΣ21™21:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
At the end of the page, I saw a user going and making some aggresive comments to another user, revealing IPs and other stuff. It was out of the main topic that is whether to keep/delete the article. I considered that it was better just to close it as no consensus to avoid more drama. — ΛΧΣ21™19:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Ah. Rather than focusing on the comments at the end, you should've read the discussion instead and closed it properly. Discussions often go off-topic (though, imo, this particular example is well on topic). And, particularly if a discussion is getting contentious, it is better not to do a non-admin closure. --regentspark (comment) 19:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, after the comments I've received this days, I chose to stay away from contentious closes, but i believed i did some good with it. Actually, I read the whole nomination and came with the no consensus close, but I may have been influenced by the comments at the end when doing it. — ΛΧΣ21™19:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
I don't mean to discourage you but the correct thing to have done would have been better to have collapsed that part of the discussion and ask the editor who posted it to either file an SPI or not make sock accusations. --regentspark (comment) 19:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Since I !voted delete I'd have closed it that way :) But, that aside, it is worth noting that there are only two newspaper interviews, fluff pieces, as sources and that the main keep !voter appears to have connections to the subject of the article (which is why the discussion is so muddy). --regentspark (comment) 19:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, I had no personal feelings about the article :) It may be eventually deleted/kept in a (surely) future AFD. I just saw that several keeps were discussing the fact that it was covered in some independent sources like The Telegraph and such, and that delete votes (in general) were arguing about spam and promotion XD. — ΛΧΣ21™19:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
There is only one keep voter who had a possible connection to the subject. But even then, per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: "Accusing another editor of having a conflict of interest in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and may result in sanctions against you." The problem with the three delete voters is they crossed the line and kept accusing COI and other personal issues off-topic to AfD. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
I think we do need to bother about the Futon bias, because the subject is likely to have more not-online print references than online ones, simply because many reliable sources there just are not online. I agree the NAC was procedurally not ok, and might well be challenged on that basis alone. Churn and change (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator.
Non-administrators should restrict themselves to the following types of closures:
Clear keep outcomes after a full listing period...
AfDs with little or no discussion may be relisted if they're relatively new, or closed as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination.
Speedy keep closures, per the criteria at that guideline.
Pure housekeeping, such as closing a debate opened in the wrong place, or where the page under discussion has been noncontroversially speedy deleted, yet the debate is not closed.
You don't have to take it to deletion review. Several admins talked to me and endorsed my view. If you wish, you may renominate the article, as I closed it as no consensus. I have no personal feelings about it and won't be against you doing that. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™02:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Before you ask, I have not started the review because I am on the week of exams in my university and have 4 FLCs, 1 FAC, 2 TFCs and one proposal opened here XD I will start the review ass soon as possible. — ΛΧΣ21™16:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Hi again, I was kinda bored today so I decided to create an "ad" for any upcoming BED's. Instead of placing an "ombox" box at the top of the nominations place, why not try something like this? (Click on the image to see the rest)--Dom497 (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hey! I guess we can use that, but I recommend changing the "guess what" phrase to another one. Many GA people will see that phrase and think "Oh no, not another drive." We should use a more appealing phrase, like I did when i designed the GA Drive Ad in the past drive. — ΛΧΣ21™19:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Better. Much Better. You can also add something like "The content needs you, help us assess the good content on Wikipedia." :) — ΛΧΣ21™16:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
OMG I love it. I will use it ony my page. Very sexy XD I will make sure it is used on the next drive. Thanks Dom :) — ΛΧΣ21™19:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hey! It may be unnecessary, although I thought that reminding participants of it may work well. I can remove it if you believe it will make more harm than good. I don't want to be the breaking point of another RFA havok u.u — ΛΧΣ21™01:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I read his comment. I will take a look at the link you gave me. Thanks, there's still things to learn about how people behave here ;) — ΛΧΣ21™01:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Actually, I have no clue about what Malleus is talking about. His overreaction worries me, as he could now be the one making this RFA the hell that Sigma's was. I kind of regret now writing out the general note, because as Kudpung wrote me above. Now we have Malleus going in and making nonsense comments like "It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to work out what's going on here." Or he took it personally, or he just loves to pick a fight. — ΛΧΣ21™03:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
I believe he finds himself guilty, and believes that community have an axe to grind on him for his actions. And that's why he may have taken my comments at heart, when they were not directed at him whatsoever. — ΛΧΣ21™03:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I hope that I will be able to improve based on the feedback I received and become a better editor. AutomaticStrikeout22:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
You are very welcome. You are a great user and of course you will become better and better with time. Actually, I was thinking about nominating you in November but you ran sooner. Keep up the good work and, by January, I may be willing to nominate you. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™01:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
That is very kind of you. I will probably wait until April, my one year anniversary, and I already have two likely noms, but I will try to remember to let you know when I'm going to run if you'd like to co-nom as well. AutomaticStrikeout02:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Hahc21! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host)
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey there - I did get your email, I just never got around to it. I don't think running for RFA is something I want to do anytime soon - I have too much to do and I've done little outside of DR lately. But thanks again :) StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes!22:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Haha yes. Also, since the current state of RFA is well messy, I would have moved your nom to 2013 one way or another :) See you soon ^.^ — ΛΧΣ21™22:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I noticed you closed the discussion without comment with the statement "this dispute has been resolved". Admittedly, it probably was starting to go in circles and needed either to be closed and moved elsewhere or to get the attention of a volunteer, but "resolved" seems like the wrong word. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Blame the template :S. My closing comments pretty much sums up my thoughts about the dispute: "Seems like a rough consensus that every addition to the list of examples needs a proper reliable source to back up the claim has been reached, otherwise it should be considered original research." You can continue a polite debate on the talk page, as I believe that nothing else would've been solved there. If you need me to make more comments at the talk page or any other place, I'd gladly assist you. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™00:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion
Hi again, have you started designing the new newsletter for WP Good Articles? I don't want be publishing a news letter last minute because that will just lead to all sorts of disasters. ;) --Dom497 (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
OMG No o.0 I will do it today. I have an idea in my mind but haven written anything. I will print my ideas on code today to see what I can design. I will contact you when finished ;) — ΛΧΣ21™20:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
I know I've been bugging you a lot but I'm going to have to ask you again if you got the code ready or not. Its getting close to November 3.--Dom497 (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes. I have two designs: User:Hahc21/sandbox/Newsletter for talk pages [is not done yet, needs more work i'll do today] and this: User:Hahc21/sandbox/Newsletter2 which will be the complete issue (and will be stored on a WP good articles subpage). I added the information from the past newsletter to make a better example. I will update the info today after I go back home, I am heading to the airport in an hour and won't be able to work much. — ΛΧΣ21™19:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
I've been playing around with the new layout and I was wondering how you expect the banner to work. Unless we remove the links to the most recent past article and future article name, it will not work because then changing the banner will change all the newsletters that use the banner template from your subpage. So for example, in the November 2012 issue, the "back" link will bring you to the October newsletter and the "forward" link will have December. When it comes to write the December newsletter, we will have to change the "back" link to November and "forward" to January. Do so will also change the November issue (make sense?). That's the issue.--Dom497 (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
The banner will be substed when the newsletter is sent to talk pages. I am still doing some tweaks to it to be perfect but I guess that your issue is solved when the template is substed. Also, as you suggest, we can remove the links to past and future newsletters; i always considered them unnecessary but I left them because you may have found some usage for them. — ΛΧΣ21™19:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
OMG they are amazing. I didn't realized you added them lol. Well, I have an option: Let's change that "past month - next month" thing and only write "Archives". Then we won't have to be breaking our heads with the continuity and we will have an additional page to organize the newsletters. And by the way, the new information for the Nov newsletter is ready? I was about to write a featured editorial about the future of drives, since I will make a request for comment over backlog drives starting November 1. — ΛΧΣ21™19:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hey again, I was just thinking that for the RfC, maybe you should include a proposal on the elimination of barnstars. Me personally, I would oppose to it because then there is no "motive" to participant in the drive. What is the purpose of spending time reviewing lots of articles when you get nothing in return?--Dom497 (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hey! I am thinking about how to tweak it. As it is, we won't reach consensus over the usage of barnstars. Wizardman and I have reached this cinclusions that will be applied in the next drive and are not subject to community approval: No barnstar for #1 place, No leaderboard. The other barnstars will be reduced to 3, I guess, but I will ask community how to measure the barnstars. I was thinking on proposing that barnstars will be given to the best review, but i am not sure it'll work. Let me see how can I add it there to the RFC. — ΛΧΣ21™00:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion
Do you know why the text string: "Enter single in the field Search. Select Title in the field Search by. Select single in the field By Format. Click Go" is appearing with ref #85? Thanks again for the accessdate advice, cheers! ~ GabeMc(talk|contribs)00:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it is appearing there after the publisher and accessdate :) if you ever need help when using {{singlechart}} or need chart positions, just give me a shot and I'll see what i can do for you :) Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™00:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Oh well, i didn't read well :S Actually, that information ("Enter single in the field Search. Select Title in the field Search by. Select single in the field By Format. Click Go") is part of the template call. Let me explain myself: The BPI has no direct link for each artist's each album's certification history but a general javascript-enabled page where you can live-search the certification in its most updated level. Because of this, when you cite using the {{Certification Table Entry}} template, it writes this additional information so that the reader is aware of how he/she must look for the information in case he/she is interested into finding it. Do you want it removed? — ΛΧΣ21™01:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, I recommend that it should stay :) It is part of the template for a reason, although with a little coding you can remove it. It is, indeed, helpful to others, so you might want to keep it. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™01:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
The second row in the chart under "Charts and certifications" needs to be changed from "Austria (Ö3 Austria Top 75)" to (Ö3 Austria Top 40) but I can not find where to change it. Can you please help with this issue? Cheers! ~ GabeMc(talk|contribs)23:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
You would have never been unable to do it directly from the article. It is (was) an issue from the {{singlechart}} template itself. I have solved the issue. Now, "(Ö3 Austria Top 40)" should appear. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™23:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! And yes I will be taking part, but when is it? — M.Mario (T/C)
Well, a request for comment will take place from November 1 to November 15 wehere we will discuss the future of the GAN drives. So, technically, the next drive may take place in December 2012 to January 2013. — ΛΧΣ21™15:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes, please. Imma need your help on it. I'd be very glad to receive all the help possible. I am now awaiting for the reviewer to continue with the review :) — ΛΧΣ21™15:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
The image is free; it belongs to the public domain and as such is not a violation. I clearly know NFCC; you should take a look at the respective guidelines concerning public domain images and look at the rationale of the image before leaving this kind of warnings to experienced uploaders like me. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™03:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I guess I was confused. Seems like you were talking about this: File:Pedro Elías Gutiérrez.png. Never noticed it was copyrighted: It should belong to the public domain per the laws of my country. It was taken from a website which has no permission to use the image and therefore the NFCC rationale holds no water here. I will find the correct information to prove that it belongs to the public domain. #Confused. — ΛΧΣ21™03:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I was working solely off the tags on the image assuming them to be correct. I've also previously removed non-free images from other of your sandboxes (e.g. User:Hahc21/sandbox/Sandbox1) so I wasn't sure you were actually aware of that portion of the policy. Now if the image is public domain that would be great to sort it out and get it retagged appropriately.
On a somewhat related note, I see that you uploaded File:Venezuela National Anthem, Gloria al Bravo Pueblo.png with the explanation that it's PD because "official item legally exempt from copyright in its country of origin". Can you be more specific about that? Is it just {{PD-old}} because it's been around for so long or does it fall under {{PD-VenezuelaGov}}? If neither of those, a particular source or statute backing up it's copyright status would be great so we could move the image to Commons so our sister projects can use it too. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Oh yes, I have seen that you removed several images and I thank you. Sometimes I forget to remove them (even when I know that they are a violation :S). Well, the image does not need to meet {{PD-old}} to fall under {{PD-VenezuelaGov}}. All official symbols are public domain and they cannot be copyrighted by anyone, regardless of the age (our coat of arms was redesigned in 2006 and it still falls under that law). And thanks to pointing me to the law template. I didn't know that it existed. — ΛΧΣ21™03:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
You are very welcome :) I saw such a good work and I thought it was unfair not to give its creators their well-deserved credit. If you ever need anything, just send me a message :). Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™12:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, It is not me the one removing britney's compilation albums, I just added S&M Remix to Britney's discography. It was someone else. It looks like it was me but it is not.Thanks
PD: Sorry for my english--Albes29 (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hey. Sorry if it looks like you; I know that the one edit warring is Zefron12. I just reverted to your last revision of the article. I apologize for any missunderstanding. (PD: Don't worry, I an not native speaker too :P) Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™20:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Ok, Thanks, you don't need to apologize, it was my mistake. I saw my user name and I thought you were thinking it was me the one that is doing that. I just realize that you just reverted to my last edition. Thanks again.--Albes29 (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Independiente (Ricardo Arjona album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
You will note that Editors Grotekennis ("I have not had time to take part") and Dominus_Vobisdu ("Not at all interested. Never was. Thanks") are suddenly active again.
The summary of your finding of the Dispute resolution noticeboard and supported by all the editors who participated was, "all of the sources that have been added to the article and do not talk about the ACL should be removed and the content it was supposedly supported, removed too". Ignoring that, Grotekennis blatantly uses sources (currently [30] to [34]) and content which do not talk about ACL.
I know Wikipedia is different - but in law, Grotekennis' response is called contempt of court.
Grotekennis has demanded 'scientific research' while dismissing and removing 'scientific research' references and citations which do not suit him.
Interestingly, last week Australia's Kirby Institute's Surveillance and Evaluation Program for Public Health at the University of New South Wales - released its latest scientific research. Refer HIV cases in Australia is on the risehttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/hiv-cases-in-australia-is-on-the-rise/story-e6frg6n6-1226497432701 An interesting read. The head of the Institute, Associate Professor David Wilson, said the real rise in the number of cases, "was of concern". Jim Wallace's concern is further validated. Also interestingly the Jensen citation supporting Jim Wallace (also deleted) refers the need for 'compassion and objectivity' http://www.smh.com.au/national/anglican-archbishop-backs-christian-lobbys-gay-views-20120910-25ogi.html Jensen went on to say, "It's very hard to get to the facts here because we don't want to talk about it, and in this country censorship is alive and well".
Grotekennis is determined to get his way. He is obviously not concerned about undermining the credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Can I suggest something? Flowing from your summary above and putting your words into actions, how about you modify the ACL article to reflect your summary above. Otherwise the Wiki P&Gs along with all of Wiki's Dispute resolution processes - are a waste of time. Wikipedia's credibility is compromised. Sam56mas (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes, i know. Sorry for not addressing it quickly. I have exams this week and have been very busy. I'll give you my help as soon as I can. — ΛΧΣ21™00:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for what you have done - However the edits are now (once again) reverted by Dominus_Vobisdu ("Not at all interested. Never was") who claims "POV changes without consensus". He is obviously not interested in your dispute resolution or concerned about undermining the credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. I would appreciate your response. Sam56mas (talk) 07:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Sorry about the issue involving Bluerim. I have told him in the past about how it affects you (the reviewer) and can cause you confusion. --JDC808♫04:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, it confuses me a bit, but it's okay. Just let me know when both of you reached a settlement so I can continue without watching how the words change each 30 minutes :P — ΛΧΣ21™04:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, it is annoying. Unless he makes anymore tweaks, or reverts my last two edits, I have no further tweaking other than what you recommend and replacing the IGN review (also mentioned this on the review page). --JDC808♫04:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, the article was almost ready to be promoted... Now I have to scan it again -.- But it's my duty to do it :) I will do it today, I guess, or tomorrow morning. — ΛΧΣ21™04:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Before I nominate List of God of War characters for GAN, I would like some outside opinions (as in, never contributed to this particular article) on issues that me and Bluerim have had disagreements on for awhile. Would you be able to provide some comments/opinions to the issues as listed here? --JDC808♫18:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
It all depends on if the article passes the nomination or not. If it does, the topic is promoted. If not, its closed as fail and you can nominate it again when the article does reach GA status or higher. GamerPro6413:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
