SEARCH...:


recently watched....:
  • 中代唯 [ja]
  • User talk:Jwanders [en]
  • チーチ・マリン [ja]
  • User talk:Gracefool [en]
  • WBOE [en]
  • Ethan [en]
  • Strona Głśwna [pl]
  • 뤬ޤޤξǤ [ja]
  • User talk:Cantus [en]
  • User:Smurrayinchester [en]
  • 1985 [gl]

    • jetzt mitverdienen


    Der freche Erotikshop!
    02 Logo 120x60

    Party Explosion - Click here!
    Final Fantasy III DS game

    Miller Brothers, Click here!
    www.easycar.com
    Estate
    Win a Supercar of your dreams........make Summer special this year

    00003 ORION - Logo
    Fancy a hot adventure? More fun for HIM and HER – Shopping at PABO.com!

    		LANGUAGE: ar | id | bg | ca | ceb | cs | da | de | et | en / / | es | eo | fr | gr | he | hr it | ko | lt | hu | nl | ja | no | pl | pt | ru | ro | sk | sl | sr | fi | sv | te | tr | uk | zh

    User talk:Jwanders

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Jump to: navigation, search

    I tend to do my wikiing in about fortnight long binges. If I haven't been contributing for a while and you'd like to reach me, please feel free to send me an email.

    Discussion here will be moved to User:Jwanders/Old_talk once it is no longer relevant.

    Feel free to write here in any language.—Vous pouvez écrire ici en n'import quelle langue.—Nango de kaitte kudasai.

    Contents

    [edit] Energy portal & future selected articles

    Hi! Over the past couple of months I've been spending much more time than I should developing the Energy portal, and intend asking for a portal peer review within the next day or so.

    The portal provides a showcase for energy-related articles on Wikipedia. One of the most prominent ways is via a the selected article that is currently changed every 6 weeks or so. It would be good to increase this turnover, and with three Wikiprojects dedicated to energy-related topics and a good number of articles already written, I'd like to suggest that members of each Wikiproject might like to use the 'selected article' to feature some of their best work.

    With this in mind, I'd like to suggest that your Wikiproject bypasses the normal selected article nomination page and decides collectively which articles are worth featuring - or these may be self-evident from previous discussions - and add short 'introduction' to the selected article at the appropriate place on page Portal:Energy/Selected article/Drafts, which includes further information. Your personal involvement would be welcome!

    Please make any comments on your Wikiproject talk page, my talk page, or on Portal talk:Energy/Selected article/Drafts, as appropriate. Gralo 15:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] WikiProject Environment barnstar

    I have created a barnstar for Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment. Please visit the talk page to vote for the barnstar since there are no votes for 2 months. OhanaUnited 03:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Please help improve Plug-in hybrid

    You are listed as a participant in WikiProject Energy development, so I am asking you to please consider helping to improve the plug-in hybrid article. This is an ad hoc article improvement drive. BenB4 08:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] GAC backlog elimination drive

    This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 00:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Environmental Record Task Force

    You are being recruited by the Environmental Record Task Force, a collaborative project committed to accurately and consistently representing the environmental impact of policymakers, corporations, and institutions throughout the encyclopedia. Join us!

    Hi Jwanders,
    I am looking at your edit history and think you would be a big help to our task force--I'm hoping you'll have a look and let me know what you think.
    Cheers,
    Cyrusc 21:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive

    A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

    You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 23:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] TfD nomination of Template:Infobox The Twilight Zone episode

    Template:Infobox The Twilight Zone episode has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Jay32183 03:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for November 2007

    The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for December 2007

    The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] WikiProject Good Articles January Newsletter

    Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

    The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Re: GA Sweep Request

    Some of the GAC review that you did will do, preferably a small selection of the articles that you reviewed to pass/fail. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

    Impressive reviews, really! This is an invitation to participating in GA Sweeps. Just follow the procedure under Process to sweep articles. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Graham scan GA review

    Thanks for the detailed GA review for Graham scan. The previous GA delisting was very brief, and as the nominator noted, both points had been addressed, but this left the article fairly far from GA quality. Two tiny things about the text on the talk page: On the "stability" section, one of your image tags is broken, and you did not sign the review, but I'm not sure if you are supposed to (I had to check the history for who to thank). JackSchmidt (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics

    Thanks for coming back to look at Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics after it was improved! Saved having to go through re-nomination etc so was dealt with before I got round to do a copyedit of the article! SeveroTC 20:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks for the relist. Sorry about the attitude. I really thought we'd have to go the the whole process again. I'm glad I was wrong. It was actually nice to have some feedback on the article to address. It's been pretty quiet for a while. -AndrewDressel (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Incorrect DGAs in articlehistory

    Hi, Jwanders, your DGAs have been showing up daily in the articlehistory errors; can you please read the instructions at Template:Articlehistory? If you scroll to the bottom of the article talk page after you work on articlehistory, you can see the red error category highlighted when there's a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Education of the public

    From WT:EDU: I think a good chance is looking in Category:Education by subject, where there are such sub-categories as Category:Environmental education and Category:Medical education. Hope this helps. Thanks. Twenty Years 00:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] OhanaUnited's RFA

    .: Thank you! :.

    [edit] Plasma (physics)

    Hi Jwanders. When you updated the ArticleHistory template, here, you created an error in the template. I've fixed it. Please see Template:ArticleHistory and follow the instructions when you next update a template. Thanks and best, PeterSymonds | talk 11:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Articlehistory errors

    You've got two populating Category:ArticleHistory error; would you like me to help you with them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

    You don't have to build articlehistory if you're not interested or don't know how; just use the old templates, so others don't have to clear out articlehistory errors. It's much harder to go back and rebuild a complete history when an AfD was left out, then to just let GimmeBot run the whole thing from templates. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Thank you

    Thanks for the barnstar, I really appreciate it. I noticed on your user page that you have multiple user boxes, and since you have joined in the sweeps, you could add {{User:LaraLove/Userbox/GAPQTF}} if you wish. Thanks again, and based on your current rate, you should catch up to me in no time! Happy editing, Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] GA Sweeps update

    This is a form message being sent out to all of the GA sweeps reviewers. Thank you for all of your dedicated work in the difficult and time-consuming task of ensuring the quality of articles within the GA project. Many reviewers have taken time out of reviewing articles at WP:GAN (this may be one factor in the expansion of the backlog), writing articles, and probably getting some sleep! I have sent this message out to update you on our current progress and to remind you to please keep up with completing your reviews and updating GARs/holds. As of March 1, 2008, we have swept 20% of the 2,808 GAs we started with. At our current progress, all of the articles will be assessed in just under three years (based on when we started). If we want to complete the sweeps sooner, we need to continue reviewing at a higher rate (consider doing one or two more reviews a week or whatever you feel comfortable with) and inviting new, experienced reviewers. If you are taking a break, focusing on GAN, writing your own GAs, or are already reviewing articles like crazy, I still want to thank you for all of your hard work and hope you are pleased about our current progress. Keep up the good work and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] WanderBot

    Congratulations on starting a bot account, and thanks for rescuing my description of GA from the archives! Of course it is not up-to-date: in particular, GAR is now sufficiently automated that I no longer hate closing discussions! In terms of small steps, I suggest the next one might be to put in a bot request to do category listing in the VeblenBot style: Carl's original request is here. If you mention also that the bot may do category intersections as well, then we might have a bot capable of automating GAN. Geometry guy 17:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] GA storm articles

    Thanks for the second opinion of Hurricane Kenneth. As I said, other GA articles on the same subjects have used the same techinical language without always explaining. I hate the imply something, but I have noticed that most of these articles have often been reviewed by somebody who is an expert in the field/members of the same wikiproject. I just found one now where the reviwer clearly had made significant contributions to the article long before the GA nomination so it was not part of the review process (Tropical Storm Jose (2005)). Though some users such as the nominator of Hurricane Kenneth re-nominated their articles if this occured, I do not believe this is always the case. I was wondering if you could advise me on how to proceed? I'm quite concerned even though I've only checked 4 or 5 articles. Million_Moments (talk) 09:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

    Yes, I find overuse of jargon is a common problem on wikipedia and especially in GA. As to how to proceed, I'm not sure what would be the best option. I think it's important we remember to take the long view here and keep things in perspective: although jargony GA articles are not good, I'd think it's less important in a specific hurricane article than in a general topic (see Special relativity, for example). Also, my impression is that the "hurricane people" have put together a very effective process of getting articles dependently up through both GA and FA, so I feel they must be doing something right.
    On the other hand, as you suggest, this may be a case of being too close to the topic. I wouldn't assume bad faith, but just that it's not easy to recognise jargon you're familiar with. It's deliberate that the GA process does not restrict reviews from the same project from reviewing: I suspect that if we did, articles on storms and roads, for example, would never get reviewed. But we still expect these reviews to be done properly.
    More concretely, yes if you feel comfortable with it, you're welcome to delist any GA articles that you feel don't meet the criteria. The instructions for this are at good article reassessment but note that you only need to post the article for reassessment there is disagreement. If the article is "within reach" of GA status, you can post a list of what needs to be done and wait a few days to see if the article improves; if it doesn't, or if substantial work is needed, you can delist it directly. In either case, include a detailed review on the talk page explaining which good article criteria the article doesn't meet.
    You could also drop a note at the hurricane project, explaining your general concerns and that your delisting isn't a personal vendetta against the project, but an effort to help them maintain a high standard. If it is rampant, you might open a discussion on the talk page of WP:GAN—we might need to revisit the "same project non-restriction" or come up with a new solution. And of course, if you have any questions or encounter any problems, feel free to ask.
    P.S. If you'd like to ensure the GA status of more articles, you might consider joining the Good article project quality task force. We're reviewing all GA articles to ensure they still meet the criteria. To ensure only trusted reviewers, "membership" is by requested invitation only, by we're not as elitist as that makes it sound ;-) --jwandersTalk 16:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    Whoops, am I supposed to re-review hurricane kenneth now changes have been made or are you? Million_Moments (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    I really need to know if I am supposed to re-review hurricane kenneth or if you do it now they've made the improvements. I would have thought it was you. I am being asked by the nominator. Million_Moments (talk) 11:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry to take so long to get back to you; I've been unwell. I don't think it really matters who closes the nom—generally, I defer to the original reviewer, as for second opinion I don't review the article completely but focus only on the aspects in question.--jwandersTalk 16:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Kenneth 05 GAC nom

    Hey, I cleared up those jargon terms you pointed out. I hope that the article now passes the GA criteria. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

    The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)