I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Nofi, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Nofi. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 21:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daimanta, just placing the tag on top of an article (as you did with the Netherlands) does not semiprotect the article, the actual protection has to be done by an administrator. Putting up the tag gives a false sense of protection and should not be done unless the protection is real. Arnoutf 20:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was gonna post the same message here, after you put the {{sprotected}} tag back in. Adding the tag doesn't change the protection status of the article, and it should not be added if the article is not protected. Aecis^Bravado 20:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops my mistake, I will request sprotection asap. Thanks for the message :) Daimanta 23:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Daimanta. I have answered your question on: Talk:Dutch_nationality_law, namely that all option/naturalisation requests are approved by decision of the king/queen. Greetings, Tudor tgeorgescu

Could you please explain why did you marked the article Wireshark as a low-importance article in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Free Software? The software is one of the best sniffers and protocols analysers available. I hope that I do not need to say how important this kind of software is for learning about network communication and protocols, developing software, debugging communication problems, security assessment and functionality testing of software and whole systems, malware inspection, reverse engineering etc. etc. --pabouk 10:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting that my user page was wrongly appearing in categories. I've blanked it now. Gronky 16:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on Wikipedia. I don't really understand the low importance tag for the Psiphon article. Does this mean you consider the article to be of low importance or the subject matter is of low importance? In any case I respectfully disagree as to both. While the software in of itself may not be an earth shattering piece of programming it is a anti-censorship open source project. As such it has both news worthy importance and aspects of substance in that people may use it to evade censorship. The article also details possible pitfalls of using the software which could be crucial for individuals wishing to avoid being arrested in those countries that censor and punish free speech. A re-think might be in order. 151.205.101.214 10:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear poster, I have treated the articles as a "part" of WPFS. Therefore I assesed them on their importance to Free Software. While this may surely be an astounding piece of work, I think it means very little to Free Software as a whole. As you can see on my page, I have had comments on this before. If you want to change it, feel absolutely free to do so since I won't revert it. Daimanta 19:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation of what that means. I'm not going to touch it, as its obvious that you have put quite a bit of thought to it. And I really didn't mean a rethink by me as I know I'm not qualified to rate the article having contributed a bit to it. 151.205.187.88 22:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed you added this page. I cleaned it up a bit, but after a tiny bit of reading, I noticed that Knights of Honor is already directly a link to one of the two in the disambig page, and also includes a link to the other of the two. Is this page really necessary? GlassCobra 11:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. Apparently the version with uppercase letter refers to the fraternity. The lowercase version did not yield any article. I used the personal liberty to make that article myself as a disambuguation page. If you want to change it, please go ahead. Daimanta 11:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It'll probably be fine as is, but someone may come along and redirect it to Knights of Honor, with the uppercase H. Just to let you know. Happy editing! GlassCobra 11:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your request has been fixed. Waiting for more. Cheers. Carlosguitar 21:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Hello, check again. :D Carlosguitar 00:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Done, waiting for the last look. :) Carlosguitar 21:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I will try to find more sources. Bearian 23:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daimanta, thanks for the review of the European Union article. I think you did a fair and thorough job.
Of course our ambitions with this article are high (we hope to (re)gain Featured status in the future).
Could you please give a short statment (about 1-line is enough) what your overall impression is of our chances to take it to the next level. Please do not put much effort, I am just interested in the opinion of an informed outsider. Thanks again Arnoutf 18:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I just want to know why and what is wrong with the "unreliable" pages that you deleted the links of Taipei 101. If there was a guideline saying that wiki sources aren't "reliable" maybe I should have a look at it. Those "unreliable" sources happen to be in my school's Science and Engineering text books and of the Tuned Mass Damper and has been much agreeable by many in our engineering community for years. Unless if you yourself is a qualified engineer and you can proof that the source is unreliable, then by all means, - the sources you can say are unreliable. I wish I could provide proof, but if you really need to know, I can.

However, on the other hand, I must say you're doing a good job on getting Taipei 101 a GA. I know we and the others had a long run cleaning up the article. In your discussion, I can see you're expecting us to comment and help out in the article, or how should I say, "Fail it immediately due to a lack of response" but do also understand that not all of us Wikipedians are free to contribute all the time especially myself, I mean, in an environment where I can't really waste much valuable time. (Though I used to, contribute all the time 24/7)

Hope to hear from you, and thanks for your understanding!

SomeFormOFhuman

15:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at your comment and I want to respond to your questions. The reason I see a wiki is a unreliable source is that anyone can edit it(the essence of a wiki) and that the information can change on a daily basis. A source needs to be reliable not only on factual accuracy but also on persistence. If I know a source will vanish tomorrow due to cleanup or something, I would not link to it. Same goes with a wiki. If I don't know who writes something and if I don't know if the information is persisten, I won't use it as a source. And as a GA reviewer I hold articles to this standard.

" know we and the others had a long run cleaning up the article. In your discussion, I can see you're expecting us to comment and help out in the article, or how should I say, "Fail it immediately due to a lack of response" but do also understand that not all of us Wikipedians are free to contribute all the time especially myself, I mean, in an environment where I can't really waste much valuable time."

I am probably one of the most relaxed GA reviewers of the lot. Most of them simply pass or fail articles on the current status. I actively try to improve the article to GA standards and most of the time I get helpfull responses that turn the article into an article that deserves GA-status. This approach requires a synergy between the editors and the reviewer. If I don't get a response I simply judge it on it's current merits and as I saw it, the article simply wasn't worthy of GA status. I hope that answers your question.

With kind regards,

Daimanta 17:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see... Well if there were more article touchups in the near future, will you still be reviewing it to a GA?

SomeFormOFhuman

00:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I still am. I will look at it further now. Regards, Daimanta 00:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear. :-)

SomeFormOFhuman

01:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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 01:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reminder that you have labelled Taipei 101 at WP:GAN with the {{GAReview}} template 11 days ago. Reviews should ideally be completed with 5-7 days, so if you could complete your review in the next 24 hours, or remove the template from the page so someone else can review the article, that would be great! Thanks! Dr. Cash 21:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, this review just took somewhat longer. Regards, Daimanta 22:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article. After reading your comments, I made some changes to the lead section. I would appreciate if you would look over it again and tell me what you think of the current revision. Thanks a lot. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 00:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for looking it over. I really appreciate. I hope that the quality of the article's factual information and prose is much improved than its previous version. I will probably renominate the article very soon. If not, I will send it in to peer review for a little bit more tweaking. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 02:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put an example or two of what I thought you meant by director's comments, etc. One is in the lead section. Is that what you mean? (I also fixed the other problems you pointed out. I think I am going to reread the whole article and check for these seemingly common mistakes.) Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 22:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask you to look it over one more time, and decide whether this article is ready to pass or not? Thank you for you generous input. I found many flaws which I have not seen before and you have been a big help. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 23:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How come I have to tell you whether I pass or fail an article as GA or not. I am just asking because I do not have a good picture of the Wikipedia guidelines and I just want to know how the process works. Thank you. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 21:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the GA reviewer is the only person that has the power to promote the article. Not everbody can do that. Simply spoken, you aren't allowed to promote an article someone else is reviewing. I hope that answers your question. Regards, Daimanta 22:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I knew that, I just did not notice you were reviewing the article. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 22:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you added the article Edward Teller to Featured Article Review. As the person adding the article, ideally you would submit an opinion when the article reaches the "FARC" stage. The link is: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Edward Teller. –Outriggr § 07:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings, Before I continue, I must say this is my first time that I would like to nominate an article towards GA.

I am in full force to re-structure the Chrysler Building article. Also, I do not know to nominate an article to GA status. So far, you're the only person whom I know that I can rely for help on GA nominations. Can you kindly give me a hand on this? P.S, if there are certain edits or comments you can contribute to the article, your help is greatly appreciated. I'll do the ammendments accordingly.

Thank you very much.

SomeFormOFhuman

11:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes! Please do rate the article! I have just finished cleaning up and added alot of sources. I will add the article in WP:GAN right now. Thank you!

Someformofhuman Talk now! | My Contribs

00:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources added... See talk page. Thanks!

Someformofhuman Speak now! 11:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks alot for the award! Indeed, my very first one so far! Someformofhuman Speak now! 01:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

Are you still doing anything with the CoD4 GA nomination? The article's gone backward since the review started, and in addition to failing several standard criteria (namely 1, 2 and to an extent 5), it now also fails per quick fail criteria 3, and I severely doubt that all its issues can be dealt with in a time reasonable to a GA review (which has already gone on a long time). -- Sabre (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty much done. It fails on not being up to standard and the fact that there has not been any attempt at fixing it. I was kinda hoping it would but it's too bad. Regard, Daimanta (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being patient with the review though. Im sure many others wouldnt of failed it almost emidtly BonesBrigade 02:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove articles from the list at Good article nominations after you have reviewed and passed/failed them. Thank you. --Mika1h (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem.

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

Since you did the GA review for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film), I wondered if you could at least take a look at that article's FAC. Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 01:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Daimanta (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

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) 08:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For better and faster discussion between WikiProject Software Members a IRC channel has been created: irc://irc.freenode.net/##WikiProject-Software. For instant access click here: http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=##WikiProject-Software. Please use your Wikipedia nickname. You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Software or one of its departments. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 17:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Slavery in ancient Greece for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 18:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]