User talk:Weebiloobil

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 18:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Weebiloobil. Thank you for your review of the Chrissie Watts article. I have addressed all the issues you have raised, and hopefully have rectified the problems. On the matter of the images, I have consulted with another editor who has strengthened the justification for the profile picture; however your critique may still be valid. See our comments on the review page: we have suggested that a possible counter arguement is that the other two images on the page do not provide of sufficiently identifiable view of "Chrissie", with her being rather blurred in the green dress image, and bending down in the image where she kills Den. However, it is a priority that the profile picture be kept, so if you still feel that there is a problem, the removal of the third image from the article would strengthen the need for the profile picture (as there would only be 2 in the article, and one rather blurry). Please see the comments on the review page. I hope all other matters are fixed. I am willing to delete the third image from the article in order to pass the GA review. Thanks again for your time. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 17:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a regular contributer to the Alpha Phi Omega wikipedia page (*way* too involved to review it), but I will try to answer any questions you might have. I do have a COI, I'm an Alpha Phi Omega alumnus and I'm on the National History and Archives Committee.Naraht (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No recent progress has been made on this article. You might want to close the review soon. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

First off, on behalf of myself and my co-coordinator Wizardman, I would like to thank you for the efforts that you have made so far in this GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a success, and that is thanks to you. See this Signpost article about what this drive has achieved so far. We're currently heading into the final week of the drive. At this time, if you have any GANs on review or on hold, you should be finishing off those reviews. Right now, we have more GANs on review or on hold than we do unreviewed. If you're going to start a GA review, please do so now so you can complete it by the end of the month and so that the nominator has a full 7-day window to address any concerns. See you at the finish!

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 16:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

GAN backlog elimination drives chart up to 1 May On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, I'd like to especially thank you for your efforts over this past month's GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a complete success, which hopefully results in more expedient good article reviews, increasing users' confidence in the good article nomination processes. Even if you made just a small contribution, it still helped contribute to the success of this drive. Here is what we have accomplished this last month in this drive. 661 total nominations were reviewed. 541 of them passed (~81.8%), 97 (~14.7%) failed, and 23 (~3.5%) ended on hold. The WP:GAN page started at 110,126 bytes length on 1 April and ended at 43,387 bytes length at the end of 30 April (a 66,739 byte reduction in the page, about 60.6% less). Excluding extremes, the longest wait for someone's GAN to be review was about 11.5 weeks at the beginning. (I mistook the figure when I reported to the Signpost that it was 13.) At the end, with the exception of one that was relisted, the longest wait is now at 10 days. 63 different users participated, each having completed at least one GAN, with others also having helped out behind-the-scenes in making the drive a success. The drive started with 463 GA nominations remaining and 388 unreviewed. At the end of the month, we ended with 89 remaining (374 or about 80.8% less) and 47 unreviewed (341 or about 87.9% less). For those who have accomplished certain objectives in the drive, awards will be coming shortly. Again, thank you for your help in the drive, and I hope you continue to help review GA nominations and overall improve the quality of articles here on Wikipedia.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there Weebiloobil! You may be wondering, what have I done to sound the alarm this time? Nothing. I'm messaging you in regards to the adopt-a-user program, which currently has a backlog of users wishing to be adopted. This doesn't make much sense, as we have a considerable list of users offer adoption, so there shouldn't be any backlog. I've begun to eliminate this backlog myself through a matching program, but I need your help to make it work. Of course, adoptees and adopters don't have to go through there, but I believe it helps eliminate the backlog because someone is actively matching pairs.

On the list of adopters, I have modified the middle column to say "Interests." It's easier working with other users that have similar interests, so if it's not too much to ask, could you add your interests in the middle column? For example, if I was interested in hurricanes, computers, business, and ... reptiles? I would place those in the middle column. Counter-vandalism and the like can also be included (maintenance should be used as the general term). The more interests, the better, since adoptees can learn more about you and choose the one they feel most comfortable working with. The information about when you're most active and other stuff can go into the "Notes" section to the right.

Finally, I've gone around and asked adoptees (and will in the future) to fill in a short survey so adopters can take the initiative and contact users they feel comfortable working with. We all know that most adoptees just place the adopt me template on their user page and leave it - so it's up to us to approach them and offer adoption. So, please take a look at the survey, adopt those that fit your interests, and maybe watchlist it so you can see the interests of adoptees and adopt one that fits your interests in the future.

Once again, thank you for participating in the adopt-a-user program! If you wish to respond to this post, please message me on my talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 05:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC).

Hello, I believe I have sorted out the issues. Feel free to let me know if you notice anymore. Thanks. -- Matthew RD 14:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for reviewing this article. Having gone through each section one to the next and tweaked the prose where appropriate, I believe that the points highlighted in your review have been addressed (e.g. the definite article preceding "Hood" is now in lower case throughout). Thanks once again! SuperMarioMan 03:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

And again for passing the article. SuperMarioMan 15:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw you were on the list of mentors for GAs and I was wondering if you would like to help me review Green Day. I have never done this before and I don't fully know what to do. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 00:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry its been a month. Can you please look at this again and give your opinion. The article is very close but I feel there are some problems. cheers--Guerillero | My Talk 23:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Please if you have time and you know anything to it (I have seen that you have made edits in the article area which owns relations on it) , please look on the article Audio theatre, somebody placed a erase discussion on it. after we have had a merge discussion. It would be interesting what you would say to the merge and the delete discussion. And possibly it could help to contact other people that they should help also. )-: Merry Xmas --Soenke Rahn (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

Can you help me please?

I have asked several people to help me and they have been really helpful but I need real editorial guidance to make the article on Mdvanii better. I am slowly learning the process to add all the appropriate citations, but it very hard for me for the moment as it's all very technical, therefore adding them is very slow for the moment. I have written it with an associate in NY who iniitated the article (I am in Switzerland)...the subject is a controversial artwork/doll which has a few stalkers so we already had a major vandalism which was corrected.....several of the one time (new to wiki) people who edited and left comments have usurped the artists names (BillyBoy* & Lala) and have made comments about the authors of the article (myself and my asociate in NY) as being "too close to the subject" which is absolutely not true. Infact, I think these comments are biased as they be detractors of the artists work, for which there are a few. I think it is biased to say we are biased.

I want to make the article completely neutral. The history is very rich however and we have all the citations, documentation and tv appearance set to back up each and every statement within the article ...all of it is just needing to be inserted correctly.

If you can help me, or guide me to someone will to really work on it with us, I'd be really grateful. The subject is fascinating and really has alot to be said for it there is so much information, but it is our express goal to make it be a completely wikipedian encyclopedic article (neutral) and not seem in any way a "puff piece" as it was called at the beginning (I have since really cleaned it up considerably)....

I hope to hear from you, directly on mytalk page if possible...

The article is MDVANII....

My kind regards, Alec Jiri Alec jiri (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Weebiloobil - I'm an experienced Wiki user but newcomer to Wikipedia, and so far have only done grammar editing here. I saw your name on the Wikipedia: Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters page. I'd like to be adopted! I'm interested in improving an article, Sociology_and_complexity_science, but would like to learn more about standards and "encyclopedic style" before I contact the original poster Bcastel3 and begin work on the page. For the moment, I can only work on it occasionally, maybe once or twice a week. Please let me know on my talk page if you'd be interested in adopting me. In any case, thank you for your work on Wikipedia and for being willing to adopt newbies! - Regards, Mary Lee

Meclee (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Weebiloobil&action=edit

Weebiloobil - Thanks for adopting me! I actually understand most of your comments! I've already read some of the background material you recommended, and thank you for the additional info links! I've also found another page related to the Sociology_and_complexity_science that also needs some editing and may be a candidate for merger (I failed to "watch" it and need to find it again). I know there is a process on that as well. Right now, my time is limited, but I will get back to you soon with more questions! Thanks again! Meclee (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Weebiloobil - The first step I'd like to take is to propose a merge of Sociology and complexity science into the article Social complexity. Both are the same topic. It appears the rules allow this without making a formal proposal, but I did find a process for tagging and using 'merger' templates, which I think I've followed. I've also notified the Sociology portal talk page and placed a note on Bcastel3's talk page. I've started the outline and definition of basic concepts in a personal sandbox. When you have a moment, I'd appreciate it if you would look at what's there to see if I'm proceeding in the right vein. Thanks again. Meclee (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Weebiloobil - I've been BOLD! The article Social_complexity was a stub so meager as to be more confusing than helpful, so I've now replaced it with an early version for later further merger with Sociology_and_complexity_science. I suppose bots will be around to inspect the change (as well as some of the users interested in sociology). Meclee (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Weebiloobil! My first award! I am beaming! *:-))) Meclee (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Social_complexity is now a 'final draft' for consideration before merging with Sociology and complexity science. The article may be 'overlinked', and I think I've broken some other rules, so general feedback is welcome.Meclee (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Weebiloobil! My apologies as well, end-of-semester is always busy! Thank you for the cookie

Meclee has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

! I'll do some 'wrap-up' on the Social_complexity article taking your suggestions and some others, then I will do the redirect. After that, I'm going to work on the Social_network article. All beginning next week. Hope your holidays are merry & bright!Meclee (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hope your New Year is going well! Meclee (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Hope you had great holidays and your new year is going well. I've been being bold, doing major overhauls and creating articles. Now I've gotten myself into working on some Sociology project backlog tasks, such as trying to create some subcategories to diffuse the main cat. Have read what I can find on categorization, but most seems to assume you already know what you're doing. Does one create a category or subcategory page the same way one creates an article, but named with 'category'? Does one add the main cat to the subcat page to link it to the main cat? All terribly vague... Will experiment a bit, but when you have time would appreciate some guidance. Thanks! Meclee (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Weebiloobil. I'm leaving you this message because you have previously been involved as an adopter with Wikipedia's Adopt-a-user program. A clean-up of this program is currently underway, and as part of the process I am trying to find out who is and isn't still interested in remaining an adopter.

If you would prefer not to be part of the adoption program anymore, you need do nothing; when the overhaul of the project is completed your name will be removed from the list of active adopters. However, if you have current adoptees, an active adoption school or an interest in adopting in the near future, then please let us know by signing here.

If you want to remain in the project and can currently take on more adoptees, there is a serious backlog at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user; it would be enormously helpful if you could take on one or two of the users there. Please do keep an eye on the project for upcoming changes, we could use your opinions and your help! Yunshui 雲‍水 09:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.

If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)