User talk:Wizardman/Archive25

Deletion review for Jonathan Kotula
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jonathan Kotula. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps June update
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 396 articles were swept in May! That more than doubles our most successful month of 163 swept articles in September 2007 (and the 2 articles swept in April)! I plan to be sending out updates at the beginning of each month detailing any changes, updates, or other news until Sweeps are completed. So if you get sick of me, keep reviewing articles so we can be done (and then maybe you'll just occasionally bump into me). We are currently over 60% done with Sweeps, with just over a 1,000 articles left to review. With over 40 members, that averages out to about 24 articles per person. If each member reviews an article a day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. I know that may be asking for a lot, but it would allow us to complete Sweeps and allow you to spend more time writing GAs, reviewing GANs, or focusing on other GARs (or whatever else it is you do to improve Wikipedia) as well as finish ahead of the two-year mark coming up in August. I recognize that this can be a difficult process at times and appreciate your tenacity in spending time in ensuring the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 1 June 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Browsing the archives
 * Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
 * Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
 * News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 23:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Obam articles proposed decision finding 14 link?
Your proposed finding 14, "14) Baseball Bugs ... has engaged in incivility, and removed talk page discussions while using the talk page as a forum himself" ends with this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barney_Frank&diff=prev&oldid=282164993 which seems to be an edit by Scjessey to the Barney Frank article, possibly relevant to the relationship between Scjessey and ChildofMidnight, but not a lot to do with Baseball Bugs. Did you mean to use a different link there? --GRuban (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding diffs after votes
I noticed that you have added a diff after votes have already taken place, which seems a little unfair. Is this part of the usual procedure? And for the record, I began monitoring Barney Frank when he started turning up all over the mainstream media, not because of any edits ChildofMidnight may have made. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"Oversight" request
Hi Wizardman, As an arbitrator you have super-duper deleting ("oversight") powers, right? I've been dealing on-and-off with a banned user who keeps coming back in a variety of guises, and I've been informed by User:Griffinofwales that one of the sockpuppets of the banned user made an attempted outing of another user quite some time ago:. I know the banned user did this to another user at some point, but that one was already taken care of. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:2008–09 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season/GA1
Please comment at Talk:2008–09 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season/GA1. I have addressed all your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Robert Rossen
I'll give the GA review a couple more days, so it's just over a week since I so kindly provided a few research leads to fill the gaps (geez!). But thanks for the reminder, I guess I'm too reluctant to fail articles when I can see some reasonable prospects - and when I can find that the subject is more significant than I realised (sigh). --Philcha (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

[[File:Vishal bhaashan excerpts.ogg]]
Hi, File: Vishal bhaashan excerpts.ogg was erroneously deleted, even though the copyright permission was emailed on permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Please advice on what more am I to do and how can I get the file back? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shweta1977 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

GA delisting
It could just be me, but you've unilaterally delisted a load of GAs today. Bloody good work, if you ask me. The light of common sense shining through, please, keep it up. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Sorry to bother you. I believe two editors who are uninvolved in the ADHD articles and scuro are going to try and hijack the arbcom to attack me. I have opened up an RfC here.Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  03:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking for you on IRC
Log on if you get a minute, please! iMatthew : Chat  (Review Me)   16:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert...
Congrats Wizard... You were mentioned by Stephen Colbert on his The Colbert Report on June 4, 2009 show - you're famous now... Dinkytown 03:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that as well. Wizardman, you are now officially a celebrity! I guess your hocus-pocus finally actually did something for you. ;)  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 06:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ya, check it here. There was also a throwback to the cabal, so if you'd like to make it official, photos submissions can be made to me via email. :D لenna  vecia  13:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I hereby award you the "Stephen T Colbert Barnstar for Public Humiliation" :P  Benders  Game  14:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You're out until the 9th? What? Are you getting a life now? :) seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  23:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this call for a congratulations or not, but it was awesome. --Bwryan2006 (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed :) — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   18:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it's something to be bragging about, actually. ++Lar: t/c 23:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought Colbert was joking when he mentioned your name, I had no idea he was serious. Suddenly I recognize your name on my watchlist, props to you man. I'd brag about it too. Great username, generic and corny, even if you didn't intend on it being that way, its still freakin great. Happy editing. -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  13:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Mifter (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Bleacher Creatures
I've been keeping half an eye on it, and I didn't want to fail it without giving him a chance. I left a note on Sportskido8's talk page, so he is aware of it. You are right though, so I'll fail it and let the article improve before another GA nom. Thanks. Aptery gial  04:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Bias, censorship, and Arbcom
Hi Wizardman. I was just reading about your fellow Arbcom member's sockpuppeteering and POV pushing. Are you guys close?

It seems your desire for punishments against good faith editors abiding by NPOV policies and trying to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia will continue the well established tradition of improper activity by Arbcom. And here I thought Arbcom might help rein in some of the worst abuses by those engaging in grotesque incivility and policy violating behavior. Live and learn! ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Roger Federer Article: Use of Primary Sources
I noticed you were one of the reviewers for the Roger Federer article so I thought you would be the one to ask. I know Wikipedia guidelines state that secondary sources (e.g. news articles) are the usual choice for references. However, when citing sources for his ATP tournament results wouldn't the ATP website be the more reliable source to use (in preference to news sites etc.) and cite, despite its standing as a somewhat primary source? Cheers, Bittersweetsmile (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Please correct the falsehoods and misrepresentations
Hi Wizardman. I've been pretty patient, but perhaps I simply need to point out where you've erred in your Arbcom findings? The core of the case you've made against me is an accusation of edit warring, along with some trumped up fluff about "templating" that's pure untruth and should be removed forthwith. There's also the accusation that I attacked another editor who was teaming up with Wikidemon against me in making numerous frivolous and abusive reports against me on admin boards. And of course we have Wikidemon's own statement that he uses those boards for dispute resolution. So I would like to resolve the remaining accusation which is really at the core of the major sanctions you're pushing to impose against me, and that's regarding a claim of edit warring. Here is where Wikidemon posts that he's filed something against me. Please notice it's at the ACORN board, as I've always maintained. If you follow the thread back you'll see that he and Scjessey invoke BLP in an attempt to wikilawyer over well sourced content they object to despite there being no mention of any names in the edit (which I didn't add and attempted to discuss). So here again we see that Wikidemon has misrepresented the events and was using an ANI report abusively to harass and intimidate me. He obviously went into my edit history to trump something else up when he realized that he didn't have anything on the merits of the actual dispute. There was no ongoing edit war. I made two reversions that day to a totally separate and unrelated article and moved on. Here my contribution history for that day early late May 7 and early May 8.

I understand people make mistakes, and perhaps Werdna and you were simply having an off day and weren't interested enough at that time to investigate and see what was really happening. But as the Arbcom hearing has gone on now for some months, there is really no excuse. If you have any questions, please let me know. But encouraging Wikidemon's abusive behavior and sanctioning good faith editors who make every effort to abide by policy is totally unacceptable. I trust you will correct this error as soon as practicable and move that the prosoposed sanctions against me be dropped. I will certainly do my best to use talk pages as much as possible and I'm encouraged that the worst abusers and most uncivil participants on the political articles will not be harassing me in future. If the Arbcom result reduces the incivilities on those article talk pages, I think we can start making some real progres to fix the NPOV violations that are so widespread. Thank you kindly for your consideration. Let me know if I need to clarify anything for you. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct that I'm fed up. Here's why: the case has dragged on for months. If you look back I supported it being taken because I had hoped that Arbcom could step up the enforcement to rein in the incivility that is well documented by myself and others in the evidence. Instead the case dragged on and on, and when third parties reported Scjessey, for example, for his incivility while the case was ongoing they were told to wait for Arbcom. So I've had to wait all this time for Arbcom, and now based on the flimsiest misreprestations of evidence, y'all are trying to impose a one revert rule and a 6 month topic ban on me. And your argument that since stuff is passing it must be right is utter bullshit. You presented the evidence in such a way, and consensus being what it is, that others were bound to follow your lead. I've presented you clear evidence now about the actual history of events and what actually led to my being blocked for edit warring. It was an abusive report. It was the fifth (if I remember right) attempt to use admin reports for dispute resolution by the same editor, and he says he's done nothing wrong and has openly stated he uses the admin boards for dispute resolution. It's not too late to fix this thing. Don't impose outrageous sanctions on good faith editors who have long contribution histories. I've worked long and hard to improve the encyclopedia including our polical coverage. Grundle and I have started articles and contributed a great deal, yet we're getting hit with the heaviest penalties while the well documented campers are getting slaps on the wrist. And We were reluctant and late participants to the Arbcom process in the first place, because, if Grundle feels the same way I do, I'd rather edit and improve the encyclopedia than deal with this nonsense. It takes too long, it's punitive, and in this case (and apparently others) the outcome bears no relation to the problem. I edit lots of articles, many of them are contentious. Sometimes I run into problems, I'm trying to get better all the time and to learn from my mistakes. But if you follow through in the direction you're heading you will be making a very big mistake. Please read my prior post and see that Wikidemon was making a report against me because he didn't like my comments on the ACORN article talk page, not the article he said I edit warred on. Using reports to go after another editor in that way is inappropriate. Yet this supposed edit warring is at the core of your evidence against me. There's a reason that both Scjessey and I have been consistent in saying it was a mistaken reading of the situation. Look at my edits from around that time. Two edits in the midst of all those others. Please be reasonable. You're right I'm tired and frustrated. It pisses me off to wait so long and to spend that amount of time depicting the incivility and nastiness on those articles with diffs, and now to be punished based on this trumped up evidence. Please fix this Wizardman. I don't mind taking a break from the Obama stuff, but at the very least don't restrict my ability to revert on all articles. I work on lots of stuff most days. I make hundreds of edits. Sometimes I revert. I will certainly try to be diligent about using talk pages, but a once a week revert rule is not a workable or a reasonable solution. I can't be looking over my shoulder all the time wonderign if maybe I reverted soemthing that wasn't vandalism and trying to keep track of whether I already reverted something that WEEK on any given article. I do lots of good work here and I need you help to make sure I can continue to do so. Look at my contribs on a day to day basis and see if you think that's fair. Thanks again for your consideration. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but this isn't about pleasing every party. It's about getting the facts and the outcome right. If you're not up to properly evaluating the evidence then recuse yourself. I don't need someone who can't be bothered investigating to figure out what actually went on fucking up my experiences here. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't old evidence, because I didn't discuss that block before in any detail. I found the whole episode distasteful, so I wanted the whole issue left in the past, as I told you before. It's unfortunate that it, like the other "evidence" against me is being trumped up in order to sanction me.

If you care to look you'll find that the dispute was on the ACORN page (where Wikidemon posted the ANI notice itself!!!) and not the other page where there was no ongoing issue and that it was used in a battlefield approach by Wikidemon to get me. On the Obama article, there were a couple reverts, discussion, a couple reverts, it was over. Wikidemon wasn't even involved.

And more substantially, aside from your failure to come to grips with the events that took place, is the effect that the editing restrictions you've proposed will have. Just today, for example, I've had to revert the edits of a stalker who's unhappy with my enforcement of BLP policy on the Irfan Yusuf article. But in the future, will I be able to revert things like that after your unreasonable sanctions are approved? How does this kind of sanction relate to the issues on a specific subject area (where core policies are being violated by the way)? What does inhibiting the ability of a good faith editor to continue to work here effectively have to do with the shakey and trumped up evidence that you've cited on a tiny subset of articles?

After witnessing your fellow Arbcom member creating new accounts and using subterfuge to edit with a clean slate, I would think you would want to apply appropriate sanctions that actually deal with the problem as it exists, instead of putting major contributors in impossible situations. If you want to censor those who want various perspectives included in our political articles, then at least stick to doing that instead of creating an even bigger problem. Think about it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A brief comment from Wikidemon
I'll be brief because I am getting an early start on avoiding ChildofMidnight. For the record, the claims made above about the things I said and did, and the allegations about my subjective intentions in saying and doing them, are substantially untrue. I have denied them before. I do not wish to re-argue the present Arbcom case here or anywhere else, and hope that the proposed stay-away restriction and topic ban remedies, should they be enacted, will allow me to move on and preclude the making of these sorts of accusations against me following the conclusion of the case. Wikidemon (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible candidate for adminship?
I saw on tRFA that you are looking for candidates. I've seen doing good work lately, and he has 15,000 edits and a hopeful admin box on his user page. FYI -- Aunt Entropy (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

J&S application - status?
Hi Wizardman,

Regarding my application to take part in the J&S guidelines discussion per this decision, it appears that the deadline has passed. According to FloNight, discussion of the application has taken place but the outcome was not disclosed, apparently through clerical error. Could you look into this? The most recent official status request is here. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Reassessment of John_Baldwin_(educator)
John_Baldwin_(educator) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ruslik_ Zero 15:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

GA on hold
Just wanted to give you a heads-up that I've placed your GA about Billy Joe Tolliver on hold. Nothing too major, just a scattering of changes that I wasn't sure enough about to fix myself. Pretty good work about the guy's career. I've just never been too sure about reviewing biographies, since most don't give an overview of more than the portion of the person's life that gives him/her notability. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ping. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats! I've passed it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: admin
Sure, we can give it try (though my English isn't exactly "great", so I might have trouble answering some of the questions). I've been wanting to become an admin for a while now, mostly to help out with CSD and PROD. Cheers,  The Le ft orium  11:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Rocky Balboa GAR
I addressed the issues you raised at the article's GA page. Let me know if you notice anything else. Thanks for continuing to help out with Sweeps, you're making great progress this month! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 15 June 2009 ==


 * Book review :Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
 * News and notes: License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
 * Wikipedia in the news: In the Google News, London Review of Books, and more
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemistry
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Tori Keeble
Hi. Thank you for deleting the Torie Keeble page, which I nominated as I am almost sure it was neither real nor notable. I was interested to see that you deleted it today on the 14th when I was expecting it to go on the 18th as I'd got the impression it was "7 uncontested days after nomination" or words to that effect - is there some freedom of movement for administrators in this that lets you zap things earlier if you are clear they're, er, rubbish? Cheers, DBaK (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent - works for me, thanks! DBaK (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Rachael English DYK
This deletion may have been premature. The last set of comments were suggesting that a few lines be cut from the article, not rejecting it from DYK altogether. Could you please take another look? Thanks,--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for restoring this DYK nom. I've now moved the questioned text out of this article as suggested by the DYK editors.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Gurdwara NanakLama Sikkim India
I noticed you removed this from the Articles requested for more than a year. Would you hazard to guess if there is any similarities between that article and this ? If so, would it justify an article on Wikipedia? In my opinion yes, but I thought I let you see if it is worth it, otherwise it is all good. Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Guido den Broeder/ME/CVS Vereniging
I'm not going to revert you, but I must admit that it's getting more and more difficult to recognise the priorities of people at Wikipedia. This page (and others by this user) were only kept the 14th in an MfD Miscellany for deletion/Guido den Broeder subpages, you now delete them at the request of a banned user? Bizarrely, I previously deleted other pages by the same user, only to get them undeleted by other admins at the request of the same banned user. I don't understand why you would ignore process to cater to the whims of a banned user, while a request of an admin to do the same gets rejected. Fram (talk) 07:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's what I thougt as well, but I was clearly wrong. I'm glad I'm not the only one to make such mistakes :-) Fram (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

GA on hold
Just a reminder that Scott Zolak is still on hold for GA as it has some issues that have not been addressed yet in the "Professional career" section. It's nothing major, just a few minor tweaks or clarifications are needed. If you disagree with any of the review comments, please reply with your concerns on the talk page. If you are busy and need some time to get around to it, that's fine, but I wanted to make sure you are aware. Thanks. Strikehold (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Joey Hamilton
As the reviewer when I first nominated this article for GA, I was wondering if you could check it out now that I've made improvements to it before I re-nom it.-- Giants27 ( c  |  s ) 02:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your time and your support in my RfA. My apologies for my ambiguity in Q1. I'll do my best to be more concise in the future. Thank you again. — Ched : ?  04:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Stub usage
Hello ,

I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the stub template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.

If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks! Ω (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice
Nice userbox. :P -- Cirt (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed it too. Bathrobes, tee hee! I bet he'd enjoy my name too.  Royal broil  04:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of redirects.
QQ: Wouldn't something like "Ferrière, Adolphe" be considered a common misnomer in that there are cases where some individuals that would search under that type of format for an individual? I.e. I know in many cultures it is common to write the surname first, followed by the first name, but I am unsure of how that would apply when listing it here on Wikipedia. Can you give me an example of a common misnomer for future ref? I have already read this:. Cheers. Calaka (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm fair enough, I will not bother in future articles to redirect "surname, firstname" formats. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Nelson Jobim
== Wikipedia Signpost : 22 June 2009 ==


 * Special report:Study of vandalism survival times
 * News and notes: Wikizine, video editing, milestones
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

re: Obama article probation working group‏
Where is this discussion taking place? Just saw the e-mail now. Tarc (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wilfrid Lacroix
Do you mind tossing that one back onto the suggestions page and into the special holding area for Canada Day, since it's Canada related.-- Giants27 ( c  |  s ) 21:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks, didn't even know there was an image to it.-- Giants27 ( c  |  s ) 22:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

RfA Query
Hi, thanks for posting a question. Just one query, you said "When should no consensus closed on AFDs default to keep" et cetera, what do you mean by no consensus? I just want to make sure I don't take it in the wrong way. I think that you mean when should an AfD never be closed as keep/delete, correct me if wrong.

Thanks a lot,  ceran  thor 14:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK thanks
Thank you for getting Trans March included on the Stonewall anniverary, it means a lot to myself and of course, many of our readers. -- Banj e b oi   01:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Pajhwok Afghan News
Whats your reasoning for this not being a reliable source?©Geni 12:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tha answer. Might be better to pick something a bit more vauge like BLP in future.©Geni 23:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Eileen Joyce
Hi. I have no issues with this edit. It reads better in your version.

Just to let you know this has nothing to do with active vs. passive voice. Both the old version ("she would play") and the new version ("she played") are in active voice. They're also both examples of the past tense, but the first may have a special name (conditional past or something like that; I've asked @ Talk:Past tense). A passive version of the active sentence "She played 50 concerts a year" would be "Fifty concerts a year were played by her". Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps July update
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 290 articles were swept in June! Last month was our second most successful month in reviewing articles (after May). We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. This may sound difficult, but if everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when we first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Poor you
Your ISP needs instructions to get your connection to the hotels. &mdash;harej (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Emanuele Filiberto, Duke d' Aosta
Just wondered why you deleted this page, as it wasn't a redirect as your deletion summary stated. (Even if it was a redirect, I don't immediately see the benefit of deleting it.) Cheers &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Assessments
I just wanted to thank you for all the assessments you have done recently! Take care. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 10:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC) == Wikipedia Signpost : 6 July 2009 ==


 * News and notes: Commons grant, license change, new chapters, usability and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia and kidnapping, new comedy series
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Food and Drink
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK Hook
Hi. I noticed that you just updated the queue for DYK. There was some discussion on the DYK page about the proper wording of the DYK for Voyage. In particular, the DYK should not be "...that Peter J. Bowler complained that he was interviewed under false pretenses for The Voyage that Shook the World, a creationist documentary about the life Charles Darwin and his voyage on the Beagle?" But rather "...that Peter J. Bowler said that he was interviewed under false pretenses for The Voyage that Shook the World, a documentary about the life Charles Darwin and his voyage on the Beagle?" JoshuaZ (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK
Sorry about that. I was looking for a variety and some are easier to check than others, etc, wasn't even looking at the dates, just the subject of the hooks, very little verified, sorry again. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  15:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they seem to be being verified at a much slower rate so I thought if some were verified or could be verified with relative ease that it would be OK to add them to keep the queues going. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  16:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

inre this diff
I believe all the concerns had finally been met, but unfortunately, the editor expressing those concerns did not response before the DYK's removal. Might you care to check hook ALT 5 against the article and its sources? Or ask, as I have done, that Shubinator look in? Thank you, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for KATR-FM
Thanks for the note on this but I dont see a DYK entry mentioning KATR-FM--RadioFan (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jorge Bechara
Hi, you closed this discussion as delete - someone keeps on removing text from the archive. I've reverted twice already so wondered if you could take a look. Thanks Smartse (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

re:Talk:Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians/GA1
fixed issues. Nergaal (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Your quit message
.. worries me. :(  iMatthew  talk  at 17:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama amendment
I would like to draw your attention to this comment I made about your proposal to limit editing restrictions to the Obama-related articles. I hope you find my opinion on the matter useful. Thank you for taking a look at this, by the way - it is much appreciated :) -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)