User talk:Thurgate

Welcome to Wikipedia
Welcome!

Hello, Thurgate, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

GA reviews
Hi Thurgate. I'm glad to see you getting involved with a variety of areas on Wikipedia. Thanks again for reviewing my article for GA-status. I just wanted to let you know that there are a couple of steps to take once you've decided to promote an article, which I did for you this time. The first is replacing the GA nomination template on the article talk page with the GA status template (see here for example). Then, you'll need to add the article to the WP:Good Articles page in the appropriate section (see here). There are also instructions at the top of the WP:GAN page for articles that need to be put on hold or failed (in the green boxes just above the table of contents). Let me know if you have any questions, either here or on my talk page.

I have a few books that might be useful for the British battleships you're planning on working on (see here for the books I have), so let me know if you want some help. I can also point you to Sturmvogel 66, who wrote all of the articles on the British battlecruisers; he'll also have sources that might be of use to you. Keep up the good work! Parsecboy (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Once again thanks very much for the information. Thanks for helping me out in the GA-status issue as I was a bit confused as to what I needed to do after I had reviewed the article. Thurgate (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Not a problem at all - we all have to learn at some point, right? And let's face it, a lot of things here aren't the easiest to figure out on the first try. Parsecboy (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is very true! It also doesn't help that wiki is a bit of headache to get used to! Thurgate (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Duke of York
I just reviewed this article and you've done well to bring it up to B-class. However, it's still got a long way to go before it's ready for GA, IMO. If you'd like to work together to prepare it, let me know, as I'd be happy to help out. In the meantime I'd suggest adding links to the other ships mentioned and linking the jargon that naval books love to use. I'd also suggest putting it in strict chronological order as the bit about Torch is after the Battle of the Barents Sea. Detailing each of the convoys that the ship provided cover for would also be a good thing to do. You've got a good handle on the basic sources on the ship, but I think that sources that cover the sea war and individual battles in more detail would be useful. I don't know how far you want to take this article, but there's really no reason why it can't go all the way to Featured Article. Looking over the existing OMT FA-class articles would be handy as a guide to how to write those type of articles and what level of detail is necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for reviewing the article. I would absolutely love to work with you on the article, as I don't have many sources (unlike yourself, who has more books on ships then my local library!) and to be honest at the moment I am just trying to work on getting all of the King George V battleships up to GA. Then I shall go from their. Thurgate (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding some of the jargon and the extra links you suggested. Thurgate (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll pop in from time to time in the short term to see how you're doing and to make suggestions as I want to finish off my collection of RN ship GAs from A to Z with HMS York. But once I finish that one I can focus on filling in Duke of York. Don't be shy about asking questions of me about how or why I do things a certain way. Think about getting books from Inter-library Loan, depending where you live, to fill out your articles. I've scanned many a book that I've gotten from ILL; it's paid itself off many time over as I don't have to photocopy anything anymore. Books like Rohwer are pretty much a necessity if you want to work on WWII ship articles and sometimes they're not very expensive if you're willing to buy them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just ordered the Rohwer book that you have in your collection (as it was only 18 pounds of amazon). I have never heard of a Inter Libary Loan in the UK, so I think it might solely be something you have in America! Once again thank you very much for the comments and when you are finished with your articles I look forward to working with you :) Thurgate (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that there is a version of ILL in the UK, but check with your local library for details. It can save you a heck of a lot of money.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Their is a version of ILL in the UK, but it seems to be limited to University's. So in that aspect I'm rather limited. Thurgate (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that's less than optimum, I must say. Might be worthwhile to absolutely confirm that though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll check just to be sure, but I don't have much hope. On another note, what books would you recommended I get relating to British battleships? Thurgate (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Burt's three books and Raven and Roberts on BBs of World War II. And Oscar Parkes is useful as a supplement. Only Burt's book on pre-dreadnoughts is liable to be reasonable in cost, though. Details are in my library listing. I rely more on them than I do on Garzke and Dulin, to be perfectly honest, although I haven't done much with the BBs other than a couple of the early ones as I've been focused more on BCs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Might have to look into securing some of those books. Its so irritating though I could get Burt's book on German battleships for 20 pounds, but the cheapest I can find for his book on British battleships is 150 pounds of amazon. Why are none of these books printed any more!! Thurgate (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why I've used ILL so extensively. I only have a physical copy of the WWI book of Burt's, the others I've borrowed and copied.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Added most of the jargon and extra links you suggested, let me know if I missed any. Thurgate (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are some issues that need to be addressed: Do you reckon it now reaches GA criteria/standard? Thurgate (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Locations of publisher needed for all references as are the series and volume numbers of each book, if any. Separate fields are available in the book cite template for all this.
 * Fixed. Thurgate (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Konstam, Garzke and Dulin and the Shipcraft book are not edited, they're written by their authors.
 * Fixed. Thurgate (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines says no bullets in infoboxes.
 * Fixed. Thurgate (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Radars are missing from the infobox; provide links for all radars as well.
 * From my sources it seems that the Duke of York didn't have any radar when completed, but during her numerous refits different radar sets were added. So shall I list all the radar added from her refits? Thurgate (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See Chesneau, p. 54 for the ship's radar suite when completed. Additions should be tracked with the light AA changes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Added the radar when she was completed, but do you want me to add her refits as well? Thurgate (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be a good thing to do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Thurgate (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A related question is that you give armament stats for 1945. It's your call, but I'd suggest that you give all stats as completed as it's trickier to work backwards using your refit listing than it is to work forward.
 * Fixed. Thurgate (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I normally link jargon and terms twice, once in the infobox and once in the main body of the article, but that's just me.
 * Everything in the infobox needs a citation for GA, either in the infobox itself, the less preferable method, IMO, or in the main body in a couple of descriptive paragraphs. I think the latter is a far better way to do things, but it does cause a few problems since it's very difficult to summarize the armour suite.
 * Think I've managed to cite everything. Using a split between the infobox and the design section. Thurgate (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Remember that this is an individual ship article, not the class article which should be replete with technical details on weapons, stats, etc. The focus of this article are the ship's activities, not turret weights or propeller size. Most of that sort of stuff belongs in the class article. The only arguable exception are weapon stats as some readers like to know shell weights, muzzle velocity, and ranges in ship articles so they can mentally compare them to other ships/weapons. But that's really a matter of taste, I've gone back and forth on including that level of info in ship articles.
 * What do you suggest I remove? Thurgate (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Stuff more suitable for the class article: propeller size, firing arcs, turret weights, etc. Again, review some of the FA-class ship articles and make a note of what they cover in the basic ship description. And do the same here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Added to the description section, is that enough detail or does it need more? Thurgate (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Too much! Trim it down in line with the stuff I mentioned earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad. I've trimmed it down, see if you think it works now, thanks. Thurgate (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Chesneau and Konstam differ significantly on the details of the refits and I can't be sure which is correct, although I lean towards Chesneau, until I get Raven and Roberts sometime this week once it's delivered to my local branch.
 * Yep I've found that. I'm going with a even split at the moment, but once you have any more information on the matter I'll change it per your suggestion. Thurgate (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Raven and Roberts agree with Chesneau, with the mild caveat that they say by April 42, etc. rather than the exact month.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just having a look at Chesneau again and I see what you mean, so do you think it would be better if I ditch the Konstam's ref's and instead go with Chesneau's version of the refits? Thurgate (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Konstam's written a lot about ships of different eras, but I'm not sure that he's really mastered any of them. I don't believe that the Osprey's are necessarily very reliable and value other books on the same subject more highly. OTOH, they're a good beginning reference. Anyway, I'd go with Chesneau and delete any and all references to Konstam if they're not supported by one of the other sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed - left a couple in as they are supported by Chesneau. Thurgate (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All of this stuff is a lot of work, as you may be finding out, so I tend to finish one article off before starting another in the same class so I can copy/paste the infobox, the references, and the ship description and make any necessary changes. I'd strongly suggest that you hold off on working on any of the other ship articles in this class until we get this one up to speed and then you can copy things and save yourself a lot of work in the meantime.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for taking the time to help me with this article! Thurgate (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have the time would it be possible for you to go over the article again and see if I have missed anything. Thanks. Thurgate (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, just got Raven and Roberts a few minutes ago, so give me a little bit of time to thumb through that and make comparisons with Burt, Chesneau, etc. In the meantime I'd suggest you look through any of the FA-class ship articles and compare it with what you've got thus far.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional comments! Also would you recommended I get Tarrent's book on the KGV class battleships? Thurgate (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen it, so I really can't say how good it might be. I've a few of his other books, though, and they're not that great. Certainly not up to Raven and Roberts or Burt.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, I might hold of getting it then. On another note, what do you think the article needs now? Thurgate (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not yet. I've rewritten a lot of the description, deleting extraneous bits, but it still needs text covering the pom-poms and the unrotated projectiles. And you need to clarify the stuff that I tagged (my comments will be visible in edit mode). You mentioned radars for the pom-poms, but don't ever say what pom-poms are. The service history is still lacking. For one Renown and Kenya are not destroyers. Always add the ship type when mentioning a ship for the first time so a reader doesn't have to go to the link to figure it out. The early service needs more details. More detailed comments on the service section later.
 * I've re-written the Armament section so that it covers the UP's and the pom-poms. See if you think it works now. Thanks. Thurgate (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also fixed the ship naming issue. Thanks for the heads up on that. Thurgate (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * By now I hope that you understand that I'm fairly strict on grading articles for GA for which this much info is available. But, I promise that you, by the time that we're done here, the article will be able to pass an ACR without too much trouble and could go for FA as well. I just tend to front-load the work required rather than add more details, etc. at each higher level.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You no what your doing unlike myself and it will only mean less work in the future, so its a bonus really! I am also trying to secure a copy of Raven and Roberts as it's currently going on e-bay for the cheap, cheap price of 25 pounds, so hopefully it wont sky-rocket in price and I will be able to get it. Also thanks once more for the detailed and extremely helpful comments! Thurgate (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Did some surgery on the article. No UPs were ever deployed on the ship, just on KGV and PoW. Lead is too short and you have an odd shift in the beginning of the service section from chronological to geographical sequence and back again that needs to be fixed. Try and get one sentence in the lede from every paragraph in the service section. Other than that you can probably send it up to GA for somebody else's opinion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the lead and sorted out the service section so see if you think it works now. Also thanks for fixing everything in the article! Per your suggestion I'm going to put it up for a GA review. Thurgate (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

KGV class
The main article on the KGVs needs expansion of the Service and Refits sections, I would be happy to help if required. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 19:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yer that would be sound. I was just going to go into it after I've done the individual ship articles, but if you got the sources we can on to it now tbh. Thurgate (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What to you suggest we do for the refit section. Individual tables or give each ship a paragraph? Thurgate (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you got hold of the book yet? Thurgate (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have got a couple, still waiting for the rest. You can look at User:AirplanePro/Sandbox/3. It's a rewrite of the Service section (or at least will be). Wikicopter what i do s + c cup&#124;former 01:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're more then welcome to edit the sandbox, 'cause outside comments are exactly what I need and want. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup&#124;former 01:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Kk, I'll add stuff from the articles I'm doing. Thurgate (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're a good copyeditor you could have a go and get it all into British English. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup&#124;former 06:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted your recent edits. I really think you need to discuss these major edits on the KGV class talk page, of very well sourced material before making such bold changes.Damwiki1 (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ &bull; ♥ • ♦ &bull; simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 17:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Email
Wikicopter what i do s + c cup&#124;former 16:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Thurgate, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Thurgate/Sandbox 2. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

TB
 Imzadi 1979  →   16:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Ping for M-30  Imzadi 1979  →   16:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ping for M-43.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ping for M-183.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

HMS Hermione
Kirk (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:James Dutton (Royal Marines officer)/GA1
Thank you for the review. I think I've addressed the issues you raised. If you have any other suggestions for improvements, I'd be grateful to hear them. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

KGV GT
You should turn your focus to the KGV article, as it would go well into a good topic, and you have almost all the others (except Howe) either ready or getting ready. Wikicopter what i do s + c cup&#124;former 04:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Soviet cruiser Chervona Ukraina/GA1
I've added a description section to this article as you noted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

HMS Anson (79) GA review
Just reviewed this article. A few points for you to respond to at Talk:HMS Anson (79)/GA1.  Harrias  talk 20:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive


On behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, we would like to take the time and thank you for your contributions made as part of the March 2011 Good articles backlog elimination drive. Awards and barnstars will go out shortly for those who have reviewed a certain number of articles.

During the backlog drive, in the month of March 2011,
 * 522 GA nominations were undertaken.
 * 423 GA nominations passed.
 * 72 GA nominations failed.
 * 27 GA nominations were on hold.

We started the GA backlog elimination drive with 378 GA nominations remaining, with 291 that were not reviewed at all. By 2:00, April 1, 2011, the backlog was at 171 GA nominations, with 100 that were left unreviewed.

At the start of the drive, the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 101 days (Andrei Kirilenko (politician), at 20 November 2010, reviewed and passed 1 March 2011); at the end of the drive the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 39 days (Gery Chico, at 24 February 2011, still yet to be reviewed as of this posting).

While we did not achieve the objective of getting the backlog of outstanding GA nominations down to below 50, we reduced the GA backlog by over half. The GA reviews also seemed to be of a higher quality and have consistently led, to say the least, to marginal improvements to those articles (although there were significant improvements to many, even on the some of the nominations that were failed).

If you would like to comment on the drive itself and maybe even make suggestions on how to improve the next one, please make a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011. Another GA backlog elimination drive is being planned for later this year, tentatively for September or October 2011. Also, if you have any comments or remarks on how to improve the Good article process in general, WikiProject Good articles can always use some feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles.

Again, on behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, thank you for making the March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive a success.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 21:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

National Maritime Museum Warship Histories project is go!
Hello! I'm very pleased to say that the collaboration with the National Maritime Museum which I mentioned earlier in the year is going ahead. They have put a load of their data on Royal Navy warships up on their website. Please do drop by GLAM/NMM to find out more, start work, and/or help suggest ways of moving forward. :-) The Land (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Some problems with your sandboxes
Dear Thurgate, I have taken the liberty of editing a couple of your sandboxes (User:Thurgate/Sandbox and User:Thurgate/Sandbox 2) to try to stop them showing up in categories. I hope this is OK with you and I was doing the right thing. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC))

KGV class ships
Hi Thurgate, I noticed you put Duke of York, Howe, and Prince of Wales up for GAN again. You'll see that I went though Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea and added the relevant material to Duke of York - you might want to consider looking through for the other two articles to see what you can add. It's essentially a must-have source for warships of the Second World War, since it usually has details others don't cover (as was the case with Duke of York), and especially since it's accessible on Google Books. If there's a page you need but can't see in GB, I have a hard copy (I think Sturmvogel does as well), so I can help you out if need be. Anyway, great work on the articles already, I'm glad to see you back around. Parsecboy (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi! Good idea to add Rohwer, i'll add him to the other articles in the coming days and thanks for the offer but I have a copy of Rohwer on me :) Thurgate (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Slamet Rijadi
Hi Thurgate and thanks for the review. I've replied at the nomination page here Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Pavle Đurišić & Omarska camp
I have implemented your suggestions at Talk:Pavle Đurišić and Talk:Omarska camp. -- ◅PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 16:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Troy H. Middleton review
Hello, and many thanks for taking on the GA review for the subject article. Though I've begun making necessary changes, I'll need a day or two to rewrite the lead. I greatly appreciate your feedback.Sarnold17 (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries and take as long as you need to sort it all out :) Was a very nice read and very detailed! Thurgate (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Aub Koch Review
Thanks for your comment and the GA award. As it's my first, I appreciate it very much.Lexysexy (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Jacobus_Deketh/GA1
Could you please pass it? I have done the things you outlined. Also, the 'according to who' bit &mdash; check the reference, according to 'ten Hoeve'. Thanks! --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 14:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a really, really slim article to be passed as GA: five paragraphs with a couple of internet hits: no books, no articles... Drmies (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Troy Middleton article
I've finished editing the Troy H. Middleton article based on your comments. Since I've rewritten the lead, let me know if it needs anything.Sarnold17 (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Dobroslav Jevđević
Peacemaker has implemented your suggestions at Dobroslav Jevđević. -- ◅PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 21:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please take a look at the Dobroslav Jevđević article and tell us if it is satisfactory? -- ◅PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 19:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry did not see the changes and I am now happy it meets the GA standard. Thurgate (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Middleton article
Thanks again for doing the GA review for the subject article. I thought your comments were excellent. Also, kudos to you for all the work you have done and are doing in reviewing articles for GA status.Sarnold17 (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Reassessment for Jacobus Deketh
FYI, a GA reassessment has been opened on Jacobus Deketh, which you can find here. Malleus Fatuorum 19:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I really hope you will respond. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:HMS Duke of York (17)/GA2
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

KGV class GAR
You may not have noticed, but I've started the review of this article. It's incomplete, but I'll work more on it if you respond to my first round of comments. If there is no response in 7 days, I'll fail it for lack of response.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)
Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.

If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Update for: WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)
Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - October 2012
Delivered October 3, 2012 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter any longer, please remove your name from this list. → Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 05:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles - Participant Clean-up (Second Call)
{||}

WikiProject Good Articles - Participant Clean-up (Final Call)
{||}

The GAN Newsletter (November 2012)
---
 * }
 * Read this newsletter
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 November 2012
 * }

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (December 2012)
---
 * }
 * Read this newsletter
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 December 2012
 * }

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (January 2013)
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

DYK RfC

 * As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat&#124;Contributions 03:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Titan's Cross nomination
As you are listed as a member of Operation Majestic Titan, you are receiving this message to notify you that a new Titan's Cross nomination has been opened. You are therefore cordially invited to iVote or offer your opinion on the nomination. Sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 05:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive
{| |}

March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive
It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:


 * This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
 * Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
 * The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
 * An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.

Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.

More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.

I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!

--Dom497

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

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

User:Thurgate/Sandbox 2
Dear Thurgate, I think it might be good to edit the above to prevent the page appearing in its categories. ie it is listed in Categories: Battleship classes / King George V-class battleships (1939) / World War II battleships of the United Kingdom. What do you think? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC))
 * Oops my bad, always forget about the categories whenever I'm working an article, I've removed them now. Thurgate (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries and best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for May 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited King George V-class battleship (1939), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malaya (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles Future GAN Backlog Drive
Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!

TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.

If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.

At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.

As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!

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

GA Cup
Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!

As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:

For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.

For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).

The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

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

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)