User talk:Yamanbaiia/Archive3

Paul Reubens FA
Amazing job on your edits. I haven't nominated it for FA yet, I just put it through peer review. It seems as if with just a few tweaks it should be ready to submit.--The lorax (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, I think this should be attempted again. Its original nomination was arbitrarily not promoted, but I feel that most if not all loose ends have been dealt with and it's ready to be re-nominated.--The lorax (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Popego
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Popego, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Non-notable website

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  02:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Jerry Stahl
We discussed this a while back in connection with his CSI work and there have been some odd recent edits that have scrubbed out any discussion of his CSI work, despite that being the only sourced material, so I thought I'd get a second opinon. More at: Talk:Jerry Stahl. (Emperor (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

GA Sweeps invitation
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)