Latest comment: 16 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion
I never said that..I dont even know what you are talking about..--3LVaK3r0 14:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
No, you are a great editor. You just still have to learn some of Wiki's policies, but on the other hand you are a great help around here, especially in the WP:PW community.--3LVaK3r0 19:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Now I feel bad. Today, both you and Matt retired, and I am part of the reason why. =( –LAX 20:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
I would rather talk about this via e-mail. Please mail me if you would like to talk. –LAX 20:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yahoo IM. Use the online messenger. –LAX 20:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Done. So, do you want to talk via Yahoo! IM? Or.. –LAX 21:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I've also been thinking of this. And wiki is too much interference in my life. Lets Retire in Peace (R.I.P)3LVaK3r0 23:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
And Zenlax,--3LVaK3r0 23:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Gone... forever. It was just becoming way too series to exist. –LAX 22:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hey I have one more thing to say 'cause I know that some snooty admin will bust me but I saw your new's letter to all kliq members, and me and you lived like thirty minutes apart lol. CrymeTyme-94 23:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
There are currently 3,868 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 267 total nominations, 57 are on hold, 13 are under review, and 2 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
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 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!
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!
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 good article status. What next? Especially where there are many glaring issues that need addressing, it’s tempting to just revoke its GA status and remove it from the list, but although we are encouraged as editors to be bold, this approach (known to some as "bold delisting") is not recommended good practice. There are many reasons why a listed article might not meet the 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 GA review. Read it and the GA criteria carefully, and provide a full 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 Good article reassessment or contact one of the 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.
As we near the 4,000 Good Articles milestone, the project continues to grow and to gain respect in the Wikipedia community. Nevertheless, we continue to have a large backlog. If every member of WikiProject Good Articles would review just one article each day during the month of April, the backlog would be eliminated!
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
Backlash (2004) has been listed for Peer review. Please review these articles and make suggestions for how it can be improved in preparation for a Good article nomination. Its peer review can be found here.
At WrestleMania XXIV, Shawn Michaels defeated Ric Flair after executing the Sweet Chin Music, which as a result, meant that Ric Flair was forced to retire from professional wrestling. The next night, at Flair's retirement ceremony on Raw, Triple H congratulated Flair for his 35 year career, and brought out retired and current superstars to thank him. Michaels, and the whole WWE roster came out later to thank him as well.
The Undertaker defeated Edge to become the new World Heavyweight Champion forcing him to submit to the Gogoplata. During the pyro celebration for Undertaker's 16-0 streak, a freak accident occurred just before WrestleMania went off-air. During the pryo shooting to the entrance stage, a firework went to the upper-level section of the crowd on top. Forty-five fans were injured, and currently, WWE is trying to investigate what was the cause of the pyrotechnic malfunction
NOTICE: If you are actively editing and contributing to articles under the scope of WikiProject Professional Wrestling, we suggest you add your name to the list of active members.
Since the last newsletter, the number of stub articles has continued to drop, while the total number of wrestling articles continues to grow. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve. Please check it out and see what you can help with (even if you can only add a few details or a couple of references).
Professional wrestling articles by quality and importance
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
The Barnstar of Peace
I would like to thank you for your kind words when I retired. It is because of the efforts made by you and a few others that I have returned. I award you this barnstar for keeping the peace together, and for helping bring me back! iMatthew2008 19:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
So, what's up with you and the craziness of fixing all the Raw's? -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 02:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oh, well not to say crap or whatever, but I noticed that you ended up replacing "RAW" with "Raw" on the refs. for HBK's article and you do realize that they didn't need to change. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 02:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Well, don't forget that Raw is also RAW. So, I'll fix it if you want. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 02:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Exactly what Bdve said, you don't need to change the ref. settings. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 02:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
First of all, RFCs should be put on the talk page of the article, and they should include more than just the template name. See Template:RFCpolicy list. MessedRocker (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Four IP edits in the last three days? Of which only one possibly constituted actual vandalism? Semi-protection is used for heavy and persistent vandalism - this article in no way qualifies at this point in time. GBT/C 14:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Only where that vandalism is so heavy it is causing considerable disruption to the article to fix it all the time. Again, that is not the case here - only one of the edits in the last week is actually clear cut vandalism. Semi-protection would be a completely over-the-top response to such a low level of vandalism. As a comparator, have a look at the history of an article that was semi-protected recently, and the large levels of vandalism it was experiencing. GBT/C 16:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! I see that you have a newsletter interview scheduled for a future edition of the newsletter. Due to the fact that we have started the Editor of the week, we will stop the interviews. The EOTW will be interviewed instead. To be fair, you have one week to answer the questions in your interview, as all of the interviews will go out in next week's newsletter. Cheers! iMatthew2008 16:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
