4,000 Years old Bronze Picture in History of China
Go head with the deletion. All the bronze pictues I uploaded got the approvals from the owner and I have attached the email from the owner too, if anyone can read the history of the images page or the files. From time to time, I got deletion tags and I have explain again and again and again how and from whom I got these pictures. The type of the tags had been changed at least 3 times too along with the policy change. Despite that, finally, they were all deleted now. Happy? you won? So, the only thing I try to say is that, you can delete those pictures, but you can not detroy the real 4,000 years fine bronze piece in China, and they are still there. Please read all the deletion notifications on my talke page and continue to abuse wikipedia's deletion friendly policies, continue to distort wikipedia and continue to turn wikipdedia into a coldwar machine!
You may cheat one person during entire of his life, or you may cheat all humans for a while, but you can not cheat all human in all time. Dongwenliang (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hej
Hej there, Fred, I only just noticed this talkpage had been created, that's how observant I am. Thanks for your good wishes. Bishonen | talk 19:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
LOL, it's just nice you weren't dissing me on purpose. /
This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with
GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 00:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
"Municipal towns" - a question
Hallo!
I am currently working with the municipalities of Sweden. Presently I am writing own articles about the seats (centralorter) as in the Swedish and German WPs. I have a question to you. In some articles about municipalities there are lists of the tätorter in the municipality. They are sometimes called "Municipal towns". I have figured out that you have written some of those lists. A tätort is normally called locality by Statistics Sweden (SCB). Where did you find the term "municipal town"? To me it sounds like some home-spun translation of the swedish term "municipalsamhälle", which was something else. Before I make some large-scale changes of this terminology it would be interesting to know if municipal town really is a term used in English to describe non-administrative buit-up areas like the Swedish concept of tätort. --Muniswede 13:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Muniswede.
"Municipal towns" just literally refers to towns of the municipality. If you want to call them localities instead, it's OK -- I don't think it is a big deal.
Thank you. I just wondered if the term had been found in some English language litterature, or if it was an "own" construction. I think "municipal" in this case could be misleading. You mean "in or of the municipality", but it could be interpreted as "towns with a municipal capacity", which they don't have. --Muniswede 20:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I now understand what you mean. Yes it is bad if it is interpreted in that way. /
There are a lot of articles about various "Ship Districts" in Sweden. I think you have written them (as "Mic". On that page I was directed to FredChess. I don´t know for sure if you are all the same. If not, just don't mind my questions!) Questions: Is "Ship District" an accepted term in English for the Swedish word "Skeppslag"? Did you find it somewhere in serious English-language literature on the subject? Or is it just some home-made translation? --Muniswede 21:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just letting you know that since a second club was given an article, I've added it to the AFD, and I invite your further comment if you so desire. FrozenPurpleCube 20:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fred. You had two !votes at the Lunds ASK AfD#2, so I line one out so as not to confuse the admin closing the AfD#2. -- Jreferee 22:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
emigrated to mainspace. Hope you like it. Bishonen | talk 09:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC).[reply
]
July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive
A new elimination drive of the backlog at
GA criteria
may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.
You have received this message either due to your membership with
Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 23:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Kite picture
Yes, I took that picture. I may be able to dig up the negative. I scanned and uploaded it to en.wikipedia.org years ago when wikipedia didn't keep track of a lot of things and before I started digital photography. Someone else moved it to Common. That is fine with me, but why the original history is lost? Beats me. I am not even a member of the Common. Besides, read near the bottom of my user page and associate me with some alternative identities. I might have done it in my altered ego. Kowloonese 06:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
En-6
That's a pretty accurate summary of the TfD debate surrounding the template. I would not be opposed to nominating it again, perhaps the consensus has changed. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 18:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i know you was the man who deleted that image, that image was used in spanish wikipedia for yuri gagarin article's image and result that we doesn't have that image, please can you upload it back because we need it for spanish wikipedia, Thanks.--69.125.75.220 16:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC).
Fred please i need that image... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.75.220 (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I trust you but anyway thanks, i had another image for gagarin's article to upload it in spanish wikipedia is the
please can you upload this image for me, i hope to not bother you, Thanks--69.125.75.220 00:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, fred i waited you for one week, to upload this image, yuri gagarin in space suit. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.75.220 (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure about the copyright. It doesn't state the original source and it is not possible to verify the copyright status. / Fred-J 16:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found a really neat Sweden-related article, Helgeandsholmen, just randomly surfing wikipedia. It hadn't been tagged as part of the Sweden wikiproject, and it looks like sort of an orphan. The article seems really well developed though, with a few more refs this could easily be a Good Article. Just thought I point it your way. Jeff Dahl 05:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the image description page This is a image I got permission from the owner Xu Hong to use them on wikipidia. This was discussed so many times with administrator Nardman1 and Jkelly [1] See here:[2]. I am not sure why you left these msg again. Please remove the deletion tag. I can forward the permission email if u want to see it.Dongwenliang 23:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the svg it looks good. Because I don't think it does. But -- it is accurate. Even if the cloth is based on the Serbian coat of arms. It is more important to be accurate than to be aesthetic.
I also didn't know the 1908 was wrong until I was informed of it recently.
No, you (and your informer) are essentially wrong. But, I forgot that you are just a destructive editor who instantly reverts to edit wars, despite the fact that there is an agreement to wait for a better vectorized version of the Swedish coat of arms. It's only a waste of time to communicate with you. --
Thanks for your opinion. You are of course welcome to inform me and my informers why we are wrong, when the svg is following the blazon as it is described on Coat_of_arms_of_Sweden#General_Description. Perhaps you have further information, that me and my informers are unaware of? / Fred-J 20:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Älmhult City Arms.png)
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media
).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Sweden greater coa1908-modern.png
Jag märkte att du håller på med att redigera en bild på det moderna stora riksvapnet. [3] Det finns redan en bild på det på Statens arkiv, vilket är platsen
fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale
.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. PxMa 23:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Gnesta_City_Arms.png
I have tagged
orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. Lokal_Profil 01:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Image:Åmål_City_Arms.png
I have tagged
orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. Lokal_Profil 00:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Image:Strömsund_City_Arms.png
I have tagged
orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. Lokal_Profil 00:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
WikiProject Good Articles
Newsletter for November 2007
The
Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tomelilla City Arms.png)
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media
).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Åsele.png)
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media
).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Värmdö_City_Arms.png
I have tagged
orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. Lokal_Profil 16:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mankell, Sidetracked.jpg)
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media
).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:The Emigrants, poster 1971.jpg)
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media
).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contoso
Hey! I originally created the contoso page. I watched it evolve and get updated and added to. It eventually had a list of nearly every imaginary Microsoft company.... then one day it was deleted. I tried searching logs and finding it etc, but couldn't. I see that you restored it... THANK YOU! I am not sure how you came across it, or why you restored it (I would love the know the answer to both of those questions), but thanks! Is there a way to restore it back to its pre-deletion state? Spooons (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Good Articles
Newsletter for December 2007
The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of article
Bosnian Mujahideen
- pls help me deal with a difficult editor
Hi, I'm having a problem with a
Bosnian Mujahideen (see edit history here [6]). He has also deleted links to the article on other articles. [7][8][9][10]
He seems to be basing his deletion of the article on two sets of arguments:
that the term Bosnian Mujahideen does not exist. In fact the term is used by published (research and books) experts.[11]. I admit though that there are other terms often used, such as El Mujahid, El Mujaheed or just Mujahideen (spelled in various forms).
claims the article is based on "false info/original research"[12] or "propaganda attempt or original research if you wish, based on unverified sources per WP:RS"[13]. As you will see from the references used in the article it is quite thoroughly sourced from what must be judged to be neutral and/or reliable sources.
states that "there is already particular article"[14] This refers to an article called 7th Muslim Brigade, which The Dragon of Bosnia is an editor of. Not only do I find this article to be blatantly POV and lacking in verifiable sources it also does not cover the Bosnian Mujahideen.
In the interest of avoiding an edit war I would like some assistance from you as an adminstrator.Osli73 11:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. There were no Bosnian Mujahideen, just particular units such as El-Mujahid, so I redirected that made-up term to the article about the unit (redundancy). According to ICTY, Serb propaganda fabricated much of these stories so this is not a right place for that. For example there is the whole article about Serb propaganda in the Stakić verdict:The media
One example of such propaganda was the derogatory language used for referring to non-Serbs such as mujahedin, Ustasa or Green Berets, although at the time there were no foreign volunteers in Bosnia.
Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting original research in any way. No original research, or NOR, is a corollary to two other policies:
Our original major content policy, neutral point of view (NPOV) encourages editors to add undisputed facts, including unbiased accounts of various people's views. It has traditionally forbidden editors from inserting their own views into articles, and demands that Wikipedia balance the relative prominence of differing viewpoints based on their prominence in the relevant field.
Our verifiability policy (V) demands that information and notable views presented in articles be drawn from appropriate, reliable sources.
Osli73, you were earlier blocked many times because of your behaviour: [15] so I advice you to stop propagating false info/original research.
You shouldn't misuse Wikipedia by uploading unverified photos, too. The war is over, propaganda should be over too. The Dragon of Bosnia 11:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Dragon of Bosnia,
the sources I cite (which you do not contest or mention) do specifically refer to the "Bosnian Mujahideen"
yes, the Bosnian Mujahideen were often referred to as El Mujahid or El Mujaheed, as I state in the article.
'your' article on the 7th Muslim Brigade is, in my opinion, (a) considerably less NPOV, (b) less well sourced (and not verifiable sources either) and (3) deals more with the Mujahideen as they were used in Serb propaganda rather than discussing the actual unit.
the article is based on verifiable and reliable sources (pls note the list of references). I have exclusively used American and British media and government sources as well as ICTY documents precisely to avoid the type of knee-jerk accusation of "Serb propaganda" which you claim.
I agree that Bosnian Mujahideen was a part of Bosnian Serb propagande during the war. That doesn't mean they did not exist.
Given the above, I can't see what the basis of your opposition to this article is really based on.
Osli73 11:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are already articles called 7th Muslim Brigade, and The role of foreign volunteers. This is just redundant
ICTY conclusion. So when you talk about NPOV, I juct can't understand your earlier actions. The Dragon of Bosnia 12:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Reject
Hi, are you from Sweden? I want ask you, "Why my editing article always reject in Wikipedia Sweden?" Thank you.Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Swedish Wikipedia? I don't know. / Fred-J 10:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added some of your suggested names to the text and removed the fact-tag. I hope you don't mind, but I thought that this pretty much addressed your complaints.
I'm in the middle of a cursory cleanup of the IPA on Wikipedia. I see that back in Aug-Sept. 2005 you added pronunciations to these two articles, with a breve in front. Since a stranded breve is meaningless in the IPA, I deleted it, but wonder if you might have been indicating tone. It would be great if you were, as we almost never get Swedish tone in Wikipedia articles. Please let me know if you were, and we can work out some more intuitive way of representing it. kwami (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can't help you. I didn't add the IPA to Växjö, it was added to Växjö Municipality at an earlier time ([17]) and I believe the same applies to Eskilstuna.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Floating front big.jpg
Thanks for uploading
Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline
is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Adventures of Nils.jpg
Thanks for uploading
Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline
is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mystery of Dalarö.jpg
Thanks for uploading
Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline
is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (47 articles), Film and cinema (25 articles), Television and journalism (16 articles), Art and architecture (15 articles), and Politics and government (14 articles).
The backlog at
Good Article Reassessment
currently stands at 17 articles up for re-review.
If every participant of
WikiProject Good Articles
could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
Reviewer of the Month
Australia
, or anything else that takes his fancy! He also has two articles waiting, and notes that there's still a huge backlog,... so get cracking!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of December include:
as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GAReview Template
Lots of you that frequent
WP:GAN have undoubtedly seen the articles under review, marked with "Review - I am reviewing this article. ...". The articles have been marked as being under review by an editor using the {{GAReview
}} template. The purpose of this template is essentially to prevent two editors from reviewing the same article at the same time, so it's essentially a common courtesy notice to other editors so that they don't pass or fail an article while you're in the midst of collecting and writing comments. However, just because an article is marked, shouldn't preclude another editor from contributing to the review. If you'd like to review it, go ahead; simply collect your comments and write them down on the article's talk page – but don't pass or fail the article – leave that to the other reviewer.
To use this template yourself, simply write "#:{{GAReview}} ~~~~" on the line immediately following the article's nomination at
WP:GAN
. You can even leave additional comments as well (e.g. "#:{{GAReview}} I will finish my review in the next 24 hours. ~~~~"). Reviewers marking articles with this template should also observe some common etiquette; please don't mark more than 1-3 articles as being under review at a time, and please try and finish your review within 3-5 days of marking the article.
GA Sweeps
After openly requesting the community for more participants into the Sweeps, we have 3 more members on the board. They are (in no particular order)
VanTucky, and Masem. Canadian Paul will be sweeping "Middle East and the World" articles. VanTucky will be sweeping "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" and "Literature" articles. Masem will be sweeping "Television episodes". We're still looking for more reviewers. Interested individuals should contact OhanaUnited
for details.
At this moment, participation in the sweeps project is by invitation only, as we desire experienced reviewers who have a thorough and extensive knowledge of the criteria. This is to ensure that articles that have "fallen through the cracks" would be found and removed, and that additional articles don't fall through the cracks during the sweep.
Currently, there are 16 members working on the project, and we have reviewed 74 articles in December 2007. Of those that are swept, 275 articles are kept as GA, 126 articles are delisted, and 5 promoted to FA.
Did You Know,...
... that the total number of good and featured articles is now over 5000?
... that GA was formed on October 11, 2005 and was formerly called "Half-decent articles"?
... that there is a bot (
GAN
?
... that many discussions were made over the years on whether GA should have a symbol placed on the main article space, yet at the end always removed?
... that there was a proposal to change the GA symbol to a green featured star?
From the Editors
Happy New Year, everyone! I'm just filling in for Dr. Cash as he's busy (or away) in real life. This explains why I wasn't prepared for a full-length article on GA process, and instead I resort to a tiny DYK for GA.
OhanaUnited
Happy New Year as well! I'm still here, and haven't totally disappeared. I had to cut back on editing and reviewing during the month of December as I made the transition from
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. But I should be about settled in the Keystone State
, so I'll be contributing more to Wikipedia again in the new year. Thanks to OhanaUnited for putting together much of the content for this newsletter! He's been working hard with the Sweeps, and the 'Did You Know' section is also a great idea, so I think that will become a regular feature now! I also figured out how to have a collapsible newsletter, so that will change our delivery options a bit. Cheers!
the talk page. The GA nom is on hold til tomorrow, sorry for the late notice, but I mistakenly assumed Berig was the nominator, as you have not edited the article. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 10:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay, no problem. Still, thank you for reviewing.
There's not much I can add to the article anyways; it isn't my field...
No trouble. I got some more expert advice in, so there are at least some good suggestions and links on the talk page now for the next time someone picks the article up. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prehistoric Sweden
Would you advise me to rename the Prehistoric Scandinavia article back to Prehistoric Sweden? I don't know enough about Norway and Finland to write the article under the current heading. And the current content does not fit that heading. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sundsvall.jpg
Thanks for uploading
Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline
is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (57 articles), Theatre film and drama (34 articles), Music (19 articles), Transport (17 articles), Politics and government (16 articles), World history (13 articles), and Meteorology and atmospheric sciences (13 articles).
The backlog at
Good Article Reassessment
currently stands at 8 articles up for re-review.
If every participant of
WikiProject Good Articles
could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
GA Sweeps Update
During January, 57 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 35 were kept as GA, 20 delisted, 9 currently on hold or at GAR, and 3 were exempted as they are now
Featured Articles
.
Reviewer of the Month
horses. Outside of Wikipedia, she is starting her own photography
business, and owns three horses. She likes to read science fiction, history, and geneology books. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for January!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include:
as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
On Hold versus Failing an Article
This month, I thought I'd focus on a less technical and more of a procedural issue at
WP:GAN
– determining what the appropriate course of action to take when reviewing an article. Currently, there are four options to decide what to do with an article:
On Hold – The article meets most of the criteria, but might fall short in a few areas; keep it listed at
WP:GAN
, add #: {{GAOnHold|ArticleName}} ~~~~ below the listing and add {{GAonhold}} to the article's talk page.
Second Opinion – Similar to the on hold option, except an editor is either inexperienced or not knowledgeable enough about a given topic and asks another reviewer to offer another opinion before passing or failing; add #: {{GA2ndopinion|ArticleName}} ~~~~ to
WP:GAN
below the article's listing and add {{GA2ndoptalk}} to the article's talk page.
So how to you know when an article fails outright, or fails initially, but meets "enough" of the criteria to be placed on hold? The answer to this question probably varies by about the same amount as there are reviewers of Good Articles! Everybody treats this slightly differently. The most important thing to consider is that articles should not be on hold for longer than about one week. Although there is no hard and fast time limit for this, most editors would probably agree that five to seven days is enough time to address any GA-related issues with the article to get it to pass. Some editors have extended this a few days in the past, due to other extenuating circumstances, such as an article's primary editor being very busy with school or work, so they have asked for extra time. But as a general rule, a GA nominee that is placed on hold should meet enough of the criteria to be able to be passed within five to seven days. Some examples of articles that might be placed on hold would be:
the article is mostly complete, but might be missing one topic (subcategory).
minor copyediting is required (needs a few minor
manual of style
, spelling, or grammatical fixes.
mostly well sourced, but missing maybe a handful of references.
a couple of images need to be tagged with appropriate copyright tags.
On the other hand, an article should be failed if it:
is missing several topic categories, or there are several sections which are very short (1-3 sentences per section).
contains numerous sections which are just lists of information, as opposed to written out as prose.
there's entire sections of text that have no references, or there are a lot of {{
has any {{cleanup}} or other warning tags in various places.
Did You Know...
... that on July 19, 2007, 1,548 good articles that have not been categorized at all were categorized in 15 days?
... that in Chinese Wikipedia, articles need to have at least six net support votes before they are promoted to GA?
... that the English Wikipedia has the most Good Articles, the German Wikipedia has the second most (at over 2000), followed by the Spanish Wikipedia (at over 800), the Chinese Wikipedia (at over 400), and the French Wikipedia (at over 200)?
... that Simple English Wikipedia has zero Good Articles?
... that "Sport and games people" category has the most Good Articles?
... that
featured article
) was promoted to GA just only about one month after the shooting incident, but took more than seven months to reach FA status?
From the Editors
Originally, I wasn't planning to do "Did you know" other than as a fill-in for Dr. Cash. However, I decided to continue writing this section until I ran out of ideas.
OhanaUnited
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Victoria Station.jpg
Thanks for uploading
Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline
is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Boken om Pippi Långstrump, 1945.jpg
Thanks for uploading
Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline
is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Phoenix - AwardBIOS CMOS Setup Utility.jpg
Thanks for uploading
Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline
is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Österåker City Arms.jpg)
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media
).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (39 articles), Theatre, film, and drama (34 articles), Transport (23 articles), Music (21 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Culture and society (13 articles), Places (13 articles), and World history (12 articles).
The backlog at
Good Article Reassessment
currently stands at 13 articles up for re-review.
If every participant of
WikiProject Good Articles
could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
GA Sweeps Update
Two members joined the sweeps team this month. They are Jwanders and jackyd101. Jwanders swept Physics sub-category quickly and is now sweeping "Astronomy and astrophysics". Meanwhile, jackyd101 is sweeping "Armies, military units and legal issues".
During February, 66 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 33 were kept as GA, 21 delisted, 17 currently on hold or at GAR, and 1 was exempted as they are now
Featured Articles
.
Reviewer of the Month
Blnguyen is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for February, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Blnguyen is from South Australia and has been editing Wikipedia since 2005. He was also the reviewer for the month of December 2007, so this marks the second time that he has been GAN's Top Reviewer for the Month. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for February!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include:
...that the shortest timespan for a GA to be listed and subsequently delisted is 8 minutes? (The article is
WP:GAR
)
...that the current
nominations
system started on March 10, 2006?
...that in May 2006, number of GA surpassed number of FA?
This WikiProject, and the
Good Article program
as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
One GA Requirement - The Lead Section
By
Geometry guy
In this issue, we will focus on one of the
guideline on lead sections
. So what does this guideline say, why does it say what it does, and how can good article reviewers help?
The lead section is particularly important, because for many readers, it is the only part of the article which they will read. For instance, they may have come to the article by following a wikilink in another article simply to obtain a quick overview before they continue reading the original article. They may only read the first paragraph, or even the first sentence. On the other hand, one of the joys of Wikipedia is the way that it embodies the endlessly branching tree of knowledge; if a lead is well written, it may encourage even such a reader to read on and learn something new.
This is reflected in the terminology: "lead" is a word taken from journalism, where it recognized that many readers will only read the beginning of a newspaper article, and so it is important to convey the key points first, before going into detail. Note that "lead", in this sense, is pronounced as in "leading question" and is sometimes spelled as "lede" by journalists to distinguish it from lead, the metal, which was once very important in typesetting. Wikipedia supports both spellings.
Wikipedia:Lead section
is written with all this in mind, and describes two different roles for the lead: first, it should introduce the topic; second it should summarize the article. This is not always as easy as it seems; indeed, it is almost impossible to write a good lead if the article itself does not cover the topic well. It has a side benefit that an article which satisfies this guideline is probably also broad: if the lead is both a good introduction and a summary, then the article probably covers the main points.
The good article process is often the first place in which an article is judged against this criterion, yet many current
good articles
may not meet it. A common fault is that the lead is purely an introduction, while the rest of the article contains other information, which should be summarized in the lead, but isn't.
So, how can reviewers help to improve this? One approach is to read the rest of the article, and not the lead, first. Make a note of the significant points discussed in the article. There is usually at least one important issue in each section. Then, go back to the lead and ask the following questions:
Does the first sentence of the lead define the topic, as described in the article?
Is the most important information mentioned in the first paragraph?
Is the lead a suitable length for the article? The lead guideline recommends 2–4 paragraphs depending on the article length, but judgment is more important than counting.
Are each of the significant topics that you noted mentioned in the lead?
If the answer to each of these questions is "yes", then the article probably meets the guideline. If not, you may be able to fix it yourself by summarizing the article. If you can't, then it suggests that there are not only problems with the lead, but also the rest of the article. That is the beauty of
Wikipedia:Lead section
.
Finally, there isn't universal agreement on whether the lead should contain inline citations. As long as the material in the lead is developed and cited elsewhere in the article, then inline citation is not required. There are exceptions, the most significant being quotations and controversial material about living persons.
Good luck helping more articles meet this important criterion!
From the Editors
Well, this is somewhat GA-related but at the same time not totally GA-related. However, I think this is important. Thanks to everyone who supported me at my 2nd RfA. It passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. As many are impressed by my work in Good Articles processes, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone giving me a very enjoyable time at GA. There are 2 people that I want to explicitly say thank you to. They are Nehrams2020 and Epbr123. They patiently taught me how to do GA reviews properly in summer 2007. I couldn't achieve better without them. Now that I have the mop and the bucket, some of my time will be working on reducing Commons image backlog. Nevertheless, you will still see me once in a while in matters related to GA.
OhanaUnited
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (27 articles), Sports and recreation (25 articles), Transport (24 articles), Music (19 articles), War and military (19 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Religion, mysticism and mythology (16 articles), Literature (14 articles), World history (14 articles), and Video and computer games (14 articles).
The backlog at
Good Article Reassessment
currently stands at 12 articles up for re-review.
GA Sweeps Update
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of March, a total of 92 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 74 were found to continue to meet the
GA criteria, and 18 were delisted. There are currently 14 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. Congratulations to Nehrams2020 (talk·contribs), who sweeped a whopping 51 articles during the month! Jackyd101 (talk·contribs
) also deserves congrats for sweeping a total of 26 articles!
Reviewer of the Month
Dihydrogen monoxide
!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of March include:
as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
To delist or not to delist, that is the question
So you’ve found an article that, on the face of it, does not merit its
assessment criteria
—it’s always possible that it never did, and was passed in error, but more likely the criteria have changed or the article quality has degraded since its original assessment. Either way, we should treat its reassessment with no less tact and patience than we would a fresh nomination.
This, in fact, provides a good starting point for the delisting process. Approach the article as though it has been nominated for
reassessment
on the article talk page. Explain where and why the article no longer meets the criteria, and suggest remedies.
Having explained why the article no longer meets current GA criteria, allow its editors time to fix it! In keeping with the above approach, it may help to treat the article as on hold. There is no need to tag it as such, but give editors a reasonable deadline, and consider helping out with the repair work. Bear in mind that more flexibility may be required than for a normal hold—the editors did not request or expect your reassessment and will probably have other projects taking up their time. They may not have worked on the article for months or even years, and at worst the article may have been abandoned and its authors no longer active. As always, communication is the key. It sometimes helps to post messages to relevant WikiProjects (found at the top of the article talk page), or to contact editors directly (this tool is useful for identifying active editors for any given article).
Only once the above process has run its course, and sufficient improvement has not been forthcoming, is it time to think about delisting the article. Communicate your final decision on the article talk page, even if there was no response to your reassessment and hold, and take the time to fill in the various edit summaries on the article talk and GA list pages to ensure the delisting is transparent and trackable. If you have any doubts about your final decision, you can list the article at
GA mentors
, who will be happy to advise.
Article reassessment is perhaps the single most controversial function of our WikiProject, and the one with the most potential to upset and alienate editors. Yet it is one of the most necessary too, since without the ability to revoke an article’s status we would be unable to maintain quality within the project. However, if we approach reassessment sensitively and with the goal of improving articles to the point where sanctions are unnecessary, we will ensure that delisting is the last resort, not the first.
The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.
You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Good Articles
May Newsletter
The May Newsletter for
WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (45), Sports and recreation (34), Music (18), Transport (15), World history (14), Politics and government (13), and Places (12).
The backlog at
Good Article Reassessment
currently stands at 17 articles up for re-review.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
Noble Story (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for April, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Noble Story joined Wikipedia on May 16, 2007. He is a big fan of the Houston Rockets, and edits many related articles, as well as articles on basketball in general. Congratulations to Noble Story (talk·contribs) on being April's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of April include:
as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GA Topic
Do you know what a GA topic is? If you are not nodding your head, or don't know what I'm talking about, then you should pay attention to this article.
There are ten GA top-level topics (but you will spot the eleventh as this article goes along). These topics are: Arts, Language and literature, Philosophy and religion, Everyday life, Social sciences and society, Geography and places, History, Engineering and technology, Mathematics, and Natural sciences. Each of these topics are further narrowed down to more specific topics. For example, Arts can be narrowed down to Art and architecture, Music, and Theatre, film and drama. But let's not get into sub-topics in this article because of its depth.
Now you will probably ask, "I already knew this, so what is your point?" What I want to illustrate is that some people often forget a step when they promote an article to GA. After they have posted their review in the article talk page, added the article name to the corresponding topic in the
on this page as well as what each top-level GA topic means, because sometimes it can be chaotic and confusing to pick a topic. For example, should On the Origin of Species
be placed under the Natural Science topic (because it's related to evolution), or under the Language and Literature topic (because it is a book)? The correct answer is to place it under Language and literature topic, because its categorization as a proper title supercedes other categories.
Let's go back to
ArticleHistory
}} will be placed in this category. The topic "Uncategorized" is not very informative, is it? So if you have time, you can consider cleaning up the articles that are left in this category and move them to the appropriate category by adding a topic parameter.
That's it for this month, I hope you learned a little from it.
GA Sweeps Update
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of April, a total of 26 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 15 were found to continue to meet the
GA criteria
, and two were delisted. There are currently six articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. One article was exempted from review because it was promoted to FA. Two articles were exempted from review because they were already delisted by another member in the community.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and
criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited
for details.
Did You Know...
...that there are slightly less than twice as many
Featured Articles
?
...that the total number of
Featured Articles
combined is 6,085?
...that different languages have different symbols representing GA? (Alemannic uses , Bavarian uses , Czech and French use , Estonian, Icelandic, and Swedish use , Esperanto and German use , Polish, Spanish, and Turkish use , Portuguese uses , Russian uses , Ukrainian uses )
Note: Lithuanian and Serbian have their own symbol but only uploaded locally. Other languages not listed above either have the same symbol as english or they don't have GA process.
From the Editors
There is currently a
this page
.
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. Lokal_Profil 22:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bollnäs City Arms.png)
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media
).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale
.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (31), Sports and recreation (31), Transport (24), Music (13), and Art and architecture (11)
The backlog at
Good Article Reassessment
currently stands at 4 articles up for re-review.
GA Sweeps Update
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of May, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 71 were found to continue to meet the
GA criteria
, and 11 were delisted. There are currently 15 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and
criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited
for details.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
talk ·contribs)) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for May, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Giggy had a whopping 45 reviews during the month of May! Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs
) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May include:
as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
New GA Review Process - Review Subpages
In case you haven't noticed, we initiated a new process for GA Reviews at the end of last month. The {{GA nominee}} template was modified to direct new reviews initiated on an article to begin on a subpage of article talkspace (e.g. [[Talk:Article/GA#]], where '#' is the current number of GA reviews conducted for the article, incremented automatically, starting with 1). The primary reason for this change is to address some concerns made by several Wikipedians that previous GA reviews are not easily accessible in archives, the way that featured article reviews and peer reviews are, since the review is conducted on the article's talkspace, instead of in a subpage of the featured article space or peer review space. The reason we opted to move GA reviews to article talkspace (instead of GA space) is to better maintain the personal relationship between editor(s) and reviewer(s) by keeping reviews done in an area where editors can easily access it. Nonetheless, we still desired to have better archiving and maintenance of past reviews, so that GA ultimately becomes more accountable.
When an article is nominated, the nominator adds the template using a substitution, by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=<name of subtopic for article at GAN>}}, as well as lists the article (as usual) at
WP:GAN
in the appropriate category.
When a reviewer initiates a review of an article, all that needs to be done is to read the template on the article's {{
ArticleHistory
}} template, linking to the GA review subpage with the 'action#link' parameter.
Did You Know...
... that there are slightly more than twice as many
Featured Articles
?
... that Giggy has some really neat and useful tools to assist reviewers in conducting their reviews?
... that there are ten experienced reviewers listed on the
GA mentors list
that can offer assistance or a second opinion in reviewing articles?
From the Editors
A GA working party has initiated discussion on ways to improve the Good Article project and processes. The goal of the working party is to come up with suggestions for improvement based on recent issues and concerns raised in the past, primarily in the wake of the
Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly unfree Image:Plenisalen Riksdagen Sweden 300dpi.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered,
Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity 18:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC) --TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity 18:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
add the relevant
copyright tag
.
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 [[ Talk:Image:Plenisalen Riksdagen Sweden 300dpi.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ViperSnake151 18:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]