Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for time you put into reviewing, passing, and copyediting ]. Your help was very much appreciated! ] (]) 05:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Michael Q. Schmidt is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.
I just saw your post at WT:FA; I believe schizophrenia has been through a few FARs. I'm not sure if it was ever delisted, but it's definitely been rehauled several times over its history. I think it's a great place to start. ceranthor04:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
In recognition of your unfailing dedication to improving Hawaiian volcanism articles, which I feel I have taken for granted for far too long. Thank you for your service! ceranthor20:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I think you should, avoids unnecessary clutter in infoboxes and is aesthetically smoother as well. Don't ask me what the Mountains project standard for this is, though, I haven't a clue, lol. ResMar03:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I was following the style of the Canadian ultras, though I hadn't decided the approach to use for the rest of the world's ultras. This could be the route I go with. I agree that it is aethetically more pleasing. Coincidentally I am actively trying to make other mountain infoboxes look cleaner, but I guess I went backwards on this set. It just never sat well with that we put a link to Ultra prominent peak (displayed as Ultra) at the 'listing' parameter; and I felt the Canadian ultras had it right, linking to List of Ultras of Canada in their infoboxes. --RacerXTalk to me03:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you, guess that means I should go change the Mauna Kea infobox too, haha. Perhaps you should bring it up on the project or infobox talk page? If you haven't already; I haven't checked. ResMar03:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Fascinating article. One query: "in neither case are the editors beholden to vetting the sourcing of the article in question (they rarely do; otherwise who would bother?)" I don't think you are using "beholden" correctly here, and I don't understand the "otherwise who would bother". Could you have a look? Best, AndreasJN46620:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I use beholden in the sense that irregardless of what the GA standards have to say on verifiability, reviewers are not truly obligated (synonymous) to do so. As for the latter point, I've added a note qualifying the statement. ResMar20:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I understand what you mean, but usually, you are beholden to someone–beholden means pretty much the same as "indebted" or "obliged (to someone)" (as in "much obliged to you"). See http://en.wiktionary.org/beholden
You know, as for checking sources in GA reviews, there is this nugget in the relevant guideline, Misplaced Pages:Reviewing_good_articles: Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained (my emphasis).
It then goes on to say, At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary).
I am a little bit wary that you might get a few complaints from GA reviewers if you imply too strongly that they generally don't bother to read the sources. I think what is definitely the case is that the process is very, very patchy, especially given that anyone can do it, regardless of how competent they are, and that only one editor's word is enough to pass an article. But I also know that there are GA reviewers who are quite meticulous about reading the sources and checking that the article content matches (I certainly did that on the few GAs I have reviewed).
In case you haven't seen it, there was also a discussion about the hoax problem here a few weeks ago. A change was made to the guideline as a result. Hope that helps. Regards, AndreasJN46621:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I made further qualifications to the footnote, but I'm hesitant to change the statement since it's still broadly true. If regular vetting was going on and things were still slipping through, it would be significantly scarier; besides, I'm entitled to my opinion here :) Cheers, ResMar22:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
It's coming along, little by little. All the geology and volcanology stuff is done, human history is about halfway there, and then there's Ecology and maybe Tourism that needs to be done, not to mention all the spiffing up. ResMar13:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing my DYK nomination for the article on Elizabeth Wolley today. I asked there if you'd mind taking a look at my Walter Buckler DYK nomination if you have time, and it occurs to me that you perhaps wouldn't have seen my comment there, so I'm leaving a note on your Talk page. Best, NinaGreen (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot · 12 February 2012
DYK for Jacob Little
On 21 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jacob Little, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that famed speculatorJacob Little, the Great Bear of Wall Street, died a broken man after making and losing several fortunes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jacob Little. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello there! Thanks for writing an op-ed. I have to admit though, I haven't read it all. I don't exactly think the phrase, "dearth of vandalism lasting more than a few seconds" is accurate. I just happened to go check for vandalism, and I found two examples (1, 2) that lasted over two hours. Why do you think vandalism is no longer a major problem? I am wondering where those statistics or that idea comes from. As you can see here, I've been interested in this idea previously. (I'm not just randomly complaining to you.) =) Biosthmors (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, those two edits are more exceptions than rules, aren't they? As West said, 40% of vandalism is now handled by bots—that's no small number, and the implementation and refinement of manual tools and automatic bots have done a lot. Nonetheless, I don't state that it's not a major problem, only that it's less of one. ResMar02:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
A 'Request For Comment' for Good Article Nominations is currently being held. We are asking that you please take five to ten minutes to review all seven proposals that will affect Good Article Nominations if approved. Full details of each proposal can be found here. Please comment on each proposal (or as many as you can) here.
At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support.
If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread.
Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal.
List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain
Hi. I think it may serve to cool tempers if you contributed to the discussion on the talk page. Simply reverting what appears to be a constructive and sensible edit without any acknowledgement to the other editor (other than "shove off and stop destroying content") is not helpful and displays a significant amount of article ownership. A little discussion goes a long way! --Escape Orbit23:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't care what x or y is saying on the talk page. They have an issue, they bring it up on the FLR. They started it, they may as well bloody well finish it. Besides, I'm penning a request to ANI at the moment. ResMar23:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
Hello! Now, some of you might be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with, the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.
A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)
Hi, I came here from this page, asking for help in sprucing up my talk page. Then I saw that was inactive, and followed the link to your page, to ask you the same: please could you renovate my talk page, with something that goes with my user page? Anything will be much appreciated, Matty.00714:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
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. GilderienChat|Contributions02:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Greetings Misplaced Pages Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Misplaced Pages Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Misplaced Pages Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Misplaced Pages Librarian
Misplaced Pages Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
In past Backlog Drives, the goal was to reduce the backlog of Good article nominations. In the upcoming drive, another goal will be added - raising as much money as we can for the Wikimedia Foundation. How will this work? Well, its pretty simple. Any user interested in donating can submit a pledge at the Backlog Drive page (linked above). The pledge should mention the amount of money the user is willing to donate per review. For example, if a user pledges 5 cents per review and 100 nominations are reviewed, the total donation amount is $5.00.
At the time this message was sent out, two users have submitted pledges for a total of 8 cents per review. All pledges, no matter how much money, are greatly appreciated. Also, in no way is this saying you must make a pledge.
Nice to see this get completed; a bit surprised too since my singular contribution to this effort occurred very nearly two years ago. How time flies! Guess I'll go dust off the trophy cabinet, and return to my previous level of - in - activity. Thanks as always, Cirt. ResMar05:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Resident Mario. A reply to your request at the Illustration workshop has been made. You may view your reply here. If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}
Meta
Misplaced Pages
Commons
--
