User talk:StraussInTheHouse/Archive 7

Add topic
Active discussions

Draft: Edmond J. Safra Foundation

Dear StraussInTheHouse,

I appreciate the opportunity to resubmit a draft following your invitation. This draft follows your suggestions. I added multiple sources throughout the text and edited out some sections of the text where the sources were lacking. My main objective was to follow the Wikipedia rules for quality content in encyclopedia format.

Example concerning objective tone:

Concerning the formal tone expected of a Wikipedia article, I also made some changes here. I removed the peacock terms, and rewrote some parts with a more factual tone. "Leading" and "major" were taken out from the first sentence, which initially read: "The Edmond J. Safra Foundation was established in 1999 by Edmond J. Safra, a leading international banker and major philanthropist, to ensure that needy individuals and organizations would always continue to receive his assistance and encouragement." It is now phrased: "The Edmond J. Safra Foundation was established in 1999 by Edmond J. Safra, an international banker and philanthropist , “to ensure that needy individuals and organizations would continue to receive his assistance and encouragement for many years to come.”

Example regarding sources:

The next paragraph initially lacked any source, it now includes four sources, as you can see in the new submission: "Following Edmond J. Safra’s passing in 1999, and now under the chairmanship of his wife, Mrs. Lily Safra, the Foundation has supported hundreds of projects in over 40 countries. Its work encompasses four areas: Science and Medicine, Education, Religion, and General Philanthropy."

I wish that you will find this new draft in compliance with all Wikipedia rules that aim to provide quality content on relevant subjects with a neutral point of view. I truly believe that the Edmond J. Safra Foundation is a subject worthy of interest for Wikipedia users.

I will be very happy to discuss any matter regarding this subject with you. Could you please give me your feedbacks on this ?

You can find the draft page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Edmond_J._Safra_Foundation#1._Science_and_Medicine

TychéS19 (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi TychéS19, apologies for the delayed response, I've been a bit busy lately. Thank you for message. I note that you have resubmitted your draft, however, the tone could still do with a little bit of improvement, although I recognise that this draft is an improvement on the previous draft. I am inclined to agree with your assessment that the topic could meet the organisation notability guideline. My advice to you now would be to convert the article from bullet points to prose. The problem with bullet points in an article about any company, organisation or person is that it can make the content come across as a curriculum vitae, which compromises the neutrality of the article. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Dear StraussInTheHouse, I am glad that you agree that the topic meets the organisation notability guideline. Many thanks also for your guidance on style and tone. I will rewrite this draft to convert bullet points into prose. If I understand correctly, the question of tone is one of format rather than one of specific text? Your help is deeply appreciated. Regards TychéS19 (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi TychéS19, format is an important element of ensuring that an article is written in an acceptable style, yes, however, the content of the text is also important, however, in this case I think the former presents the larger problem. King regards, SITH (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Dear StraussInTheHouse, thank you very much for your encouraging reply and suggestions, concerning the text for the proposed page on the Edmond J. Safra Foundation. I have rewritten the attached text in prose form in each of the three sections that had bullet points. Those sections are Science & Medicine, Education and Religion section includes the places of worship funded by the Foundation, regrouped by regions of the globe. I look forward to your review of this new text. Thank you again. TychéS19 (talk) 09:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Laura Stoker

Dear StraussInTheHouse,

I have been working to ensure that the sources in this short biographical page are reliable. As you can see, they point to official pages at the University of California, Berkeley, the ICPSR at the University of Michigan, and Google (mainly). This is my first biography and I appreciate your comments and help making this work for Wikipedia. Stoker just retired from UC-Berkeley and a number of us want to make sure that she is recognized along with Kent Jennings for her work not only on the Political Socialization study and as a scholar writing well cited articles but also as an important force on the Board of the American National Election Study. Some of these activities are hard to cite. But I've made a stab at it.

Thanks much! Profseldon (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi StraussInTheHouse, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Help add my first article please https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ali_Mansour_(actor) 197.48.21.186 (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

review please

hello StraussInTheHouse, Thank you, . Draft Meets the standards, and I have modified the references And she has enough sources. Draft rejected before adding sources to it. tour guide and actor in Egypt , Trusted sources , and have Fame And sources more than Ali Mansur for example. I hope you look again, and We want to accept articles, and Thank you very much. --Mohamed Omar 3 (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey!

Hey buddy! Glad to see your response at that MfD. I've missed seeing you around. We killed the Feb 09s without you, and there's under 100,000 orphans total now. You know, real exciting stuff, lol. Hope you're doing well in these trying times. ♠PMC(talk) 02:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Premeditated Chaos, great to hear from you! I've missed being around, I fell off the radar a bit before corona and when that hit I had quite a bit to deal with IRL. Awh heck, the Feb 09s were on my bucket list :P Looks like I'll be able to contribute more regularly in the coming weeks and months. Hope you're doing well too and I'm looking forward to more de-orphaning! SITH (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Hi User:StraussInTheHouse its been 7 days since the requested move for Gauhar Khan Tanaaz Irani & Sanjjanaa and no one has moved and renamed it can you please do it please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:4c8:55:da89:9d9d:9e31:3824:cc56 (talkcontribs)

Hi 2a01:4c8:55:da89:9d9d:9e31:3824:cc56, thanks for your message. I know this will probably sound frustrating but because it's a biography of a living person, my recommended action as a page mover would most likely to relist it to allow for further discussion. However, I'll leave it to another user to decide. Thanks, SITH (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
User:StraussInTheHouse could you do it now as someone has said support the move for Gauhar Khan and Tanaaz Irani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:55:DA89:8485:8018:5289:D6A0 (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Rosguill. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Professor and the Madman (band), and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

signed, Rosguill talk 21:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

When nominating articles for speedy deletion, do not mark them as reviewed, as they then will not be added back to the queue if the CSD is declined. signed, Rosguill talk 21:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

  Hello, I'm Nyook. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Ángel Di María have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Nyook 17:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Nyook, erm... think you warned the wrong user buddy   SITH (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Indeed... please accept my apology.--Nyook 17:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Nyook, no problemo! SITH (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 24 September 2020

As an editor with experience looking at these things, would you mind looking at and hopefully closing the move discussion on Talk:Richard Leonard (Scottish politician)? I will be happy to move the page and disambiguation page and add hatnotes. Alex (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Alex B4, I've closed the discussion, it appears the move itself has already been done by Jackmcbarn. Thanks, SITH (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Marathon Plovdiv

 

Hello, StraussInTheHouse. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Marathon Plovdiv".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Celestina007 (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject notifyin'

To editor Jerm: just an fyi, some WPs have an "article alert" section either on their main page or on a subpage, as in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Article alerts. Those pages usually show requested moves, but not always. The Math WP does get alerted to RMs, so there was no reason to alert them at relisting. And it is traditionally up to the relister to make sure WPs have been notified, and if not, to notify them on their WP talk page when the RM is relisted. Best to you! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 13:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

To editor Megan: wanted to notify you about the above as well. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 14:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Pageswap

Hi SITH

I'm contacting you here to ask for help at User talk:Buidhe/Archive 12#Pageswap, as I know you're an experienced Pageswap user.

And maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree completely. But it seems to have been used to circumvent one of the history suppression controls.

Is that a good thing? Is this use of Pageswap documented anywhere? In fact, is anyone looking after Pageswap that you know about? (And if not maybe you might even volunteer?)

Hoping to hear from you. Andrewa (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Andrewa, good to hear from you. I've had a brief skim through the discussion over lunch and I'd be happy to look into it further and put in my two cents this evening. I have been looking into streamlining the process for closers but unfortunately my MediaWiki knowledge is a bit dusty, but I'd be happy to collaborate on a fork should that be needed. One improvement I've long wanted to implement but never got round to doing is automatic redirect correction, but I digress. I'll ping you into my response this evening. All the best, SITH (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Middelburg

Shouldn't the page have been moved to Middelburg, Zeeland instead? Since I noted that there is also Middelburg, South Holland and possibly another. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Crouch, Swale, oops, my apologies, done. I presume pointing Middelburg, Netherlands to the DAB's Europe section will suffice? Thanks, SITH (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, yes the title should indeed probably point to the DAB, also note that the Dutch Wikipedia and Wikivoyage use "Zeeland" as the qualifier. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

First ladies and gentlemen of Texas

Refer to your move above on First Ladies and Partners of California. You moved a great many pages like this. Please move them all back. The way I read the thread on Talk:First Ladies and Partners of California is that the original editor withdrew all the move requests, nullifying the request. — Maile (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Maile66, I closed the discussion in accordance with procedure, but I have been convinced that I made an incorrect determination of consensus per Born2cycle's above thread. I am in the process of re-opening the discussion. Hope this helps. SITH (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. — Maile (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Close at First ladies and partners of California

I appreciate your efforts but I think you erred in your close at Talk:First_ladies_and_partners_of_California#Requested_move_1_February_2021 by favoring a comtroversial guideline (MOS:JOBTITLES) over broadly accepted policy (COMMONNAME). As I noted in my comment, which you did not acknowledge in your close and may have missed, usage in books clearly favors the established title, in plural form. That's COMMONNAME, a policy. In addition, there was no consenus among the participants favoring the move given the equal number of Opposes as Supports. This makes the close look like a super vote, especially since "no consensus" is the default action. For these reasons I request you recognize there was no consensus and reverse your close (close anew as no consensus), or at least revert the close to let an admin close; either would avoid having us spend community resources at a move review. Thanks! --В²C 08:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) yes, I would second that. MOS:JOBTITLES is an incredibly contentious and argued-over part of the style guide, and whenever this comes up in RMs or discussions on main page usage, there simply isn't a community-wide consensus that Wikipedia's preference for decapping should override real-world usage, in cases where the subject under discussion genuinely is a job title. Which it is, of course, plural or otherwise. "List of First Ladies of the Philippines" is simply forming a list of the holders of that office known as "First Lady of the Philippines". See also here for a similar discussion regarding "modified" job titles, in which moves wee rejected. Given the failure of participants in the discussion to persuade their peers of the merits of the move, and the genuine evidenced reasons given by those opposing, no consensus appears the only way to close this. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi Born2cycle and Amakuru, hope you’re both doing well. I must have missed your !vote, perhaps because it was below the incorrect withdrawal. You make a good point which, on reviewing the whole discussion again (and not missing out any tail-end !votes), was hitherto unconsidered. This changes the picture as there is a legitimately applicable policy-versus-guideline debate. As such, I’m willing to compromise on giving it another relist, I don’t feel that a no consensus closure at this point would be appropriate considering the potential for further input. As an aside, I’m all for non-admins, page movers and admins alike closing discussions as long as they are adept at assessing consensus but I accept the overlooked !vote puts an entirely different spin on it. I am on tablet at the moment and my computer is updating, I can either undo the moves myself and re-open and relist the discussion in the morning or, if you’d prefer it to be done this evening, please feel free and just pop this diff in the edit summary. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Update: the computer's back in action now, I'm on it, will update here when done. Just for clarity for my above reply, the extended closing statement was meant to summarise the discussion for ease of viewing consensus, not intended as a supervote, however, I appreciate that given the policy-based argument which I missed that it might have come across that way. I tend to only close RMs for which I have no horse in the race but the length and depth of my closing statement varies wildly! Cheers, SITH (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Born2cycle, Amakuru, and Maile66: now re-opened and relisted, hopefully the bot will pick it up and do its part soon. I've linked my closure as a permalink but not copied it out so as to not cause excess clutter. I've kept the other two collapsing actions made alongside my closure as the reasons for them are still valid, but I've amalgamated it into one collapse box. Thanks, SITH (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

GAR for GELOwen

G. E. L. Owen, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus, thanks for the heads up, I've replied on the linked page and to the original nom below. I agree with you on the weight issue, it's something I identified in my initial review, and as I say, it could well be that I should have pressed for further changes, however, I don't think we're singing off the same hymnsheet with regards to criterion 3(a). Granted, there's always room for improvement, but I think the coverage was both broad enough and focussed enough to satisfy the criterion (at least, if what I've been taught about Owen is relatively complete). I'll liaise with the original nom further as there looks to be a source you've identified which could help further verify existing content and maybe even expand it, but as I say, I think if these changes are implemented, the article should remain GA-class. Cheers, SITH (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Owen

Hi StraussInTheHouse, I'm sorry that my negligence has led to your review being questioned. I agree with everything you wrote in your comment and I still believe your construal of criterion 3a was justified. I'll work on the article and address the most pressing issues. My apologies and best, Modussiccandi (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Modussiccandi, no problem!   I've just seen your reply, please could you clarify which one you're having trouble getting institutional access to (and enable Special:EmailUser) and I'll take a look to see if mine gives it me, in which case I'll send over the PDFs? With regards to the allegation, I think the best way to deal with it is to basically put what's there now in a section headed "Personal life" (a la MOS:BIO and MOS:ORDER) which could also include the usual run-of-the-mill data. For example, the infobox mentions his wife, if you can find a source which gives the date of their marriage, that could precede the allegation. Given these changes, I think demotion would be manifestly unjustified, at present, it's a coin toss. Cheers, SITH (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Edit: FWIW, I wouldn't call it negligence, we're all human, if I could format an ISBN correctly without this I'd have to be both a librarian and a machine :P SITH (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the offer. The two books in question are A. C. Grayling and Andrew Pyle (2006), The Continuum Encyclopedia of British Philosophy and Donald M. Borchert (2006), Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Let me know if any more info is needed. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Modussiccandi, myah! Neither are online through mine either. I'll do some other searches to see if any kind soul has put the PDFs up the flagpole. Both are available to consult in paper form though, if the worst comes to the worst. SITH (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for checking. My university is still almost completely locked down, so I have a very hard time accessing print resources at the moment. With that said, I've already done some work to improve on the neutrality issues which might help stave off a potential de-listing. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
StraussInTheHouse, We are all volunteers trying it improves things. You guys did a good job, but I think a little bit more is needed for a GA level. Sadly I can't seem to access any sources you don't have from my end beyond snippets :( I am pretty sure the article can stay listed (neutrality is already addressed). Let's see if we can get access to any other source that contains his biography. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021 GAN Backlog drive

  The Invisible Barnstar
Thank you for completing 3 reviews in the March 2021 backlog drive. Your work helped us reduce the backlog by over 52%. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Cheers Eddie891   SITH (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Typo

In this AfD, you say " I'd strongly oppose any slow closure" when you apparently meant snow closure. I would fix the typo since its really confusing and hurts the thrust of your argument. (Also, feel free to delete this message; I'm just providing it as a friendly heads up). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Spirit of Eagle, d'oh! Thanks for the heads up, very kind of you. SITH (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

new draft, could use any advice you have

Hi SITH Hope all is good, you were a great help a few years ago when i made my first draft of this , I have made a brand new one and have added in publications and circulations amounts to help with notoriety, Does this look ok to you?. As the last one was deleted is there anything else i need to do for it to be reviewed for approval, Thanks in advance Mickmonaghan343 (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Luca_Stricagnoli

Hi Mickmonaghan343, it looks to me that you’ve established biographical notability for Stricagnoli, which is good. I can see a reviewer pausing over the tone as it is a little CV-like. Other than that, the Awards section is probably best off using a tabular format. But as I say, the criteria for inclusion appear to be met with reliable sourcing, so this draft shouldn’t be deleted IMO. Which draft was deleted? You can request restoration under certain circumstances. Hope this helps! SITH (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I made one a few years ago but it was praising him to much so this one is short and to the point, i really appreciate the quick reply and the advice and ill get working on the above. last time they said he wasnt notable enough so i spent alot of time on the references and with including the paper circulations i hope i am not going overboard. It has been so long i had forgotten if it will be reviewed in time automatically as i didnt start this in sandbox i just clicked on the old article and it gave me the option to restart so i wasnt sure if it would be eventually reviewed or remain in limbo Mickmonaghan343 (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive:
  • This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.

Click here to opt out of any future messages.

--Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello StraussInTheHouse:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 3000 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Orphaned non-free image File:Fresh patch logo (cropped).jpeg

 

Thanks for uploading File:Fresh patch logo (cropped).jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

 Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive:
  • On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.

Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages.

--Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

  • AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
  • The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives.
Click here to opt out of any future messages.

(t · c) buidhe 04:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)