User talk:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Fan

		THE HALF BARNSTAR
		is hereby awarded to User:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Fan for helping Wikipedia:WikiProject Political Parties [YOU can get one too CLICK HERE] --Megapen (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

--

This page confuses me--I'm afraid I will mess it up. Just wanted to say "Thanks!" for the cookie! I don't know how to get outside the box! Grumpy otter (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wow!

Thank you so much for the barnstar! That's my first RickK. Much appreciated. Again, thanks! Cheers! - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 22:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adoption quiz

I'm not at all sure about this quiz. some of the questions seems peculiar, others confusing, and the entire thing would likely just overwhelm a new user. If a user wants an adopter, just drop a {{subst:dated adoptme}} on their user page and be done with it. xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 01:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur. All but (3) seem completely over the head of a new user, and even that isn't meaningfully answerable. — Lomn 14:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stopping by

Hello, LAA. I was just stopping by checking up on you. I noticed that WWS was kept. WikiZorro has been inactive for a while. Well, in his absence, you can always ask me questions if you have any. I've been busy lately, creating my own wiki called Wikirights the day after my birthday. Oh, and thanks for the birthday card. :) I got a lot of those. Anyway, I hope you do well. Best, RyRy5 (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HOORAY 4 U!

		Dear Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Fan,
		You are lucky enough to have found a golden barnstar in one of my flavoured userboxes. I hope you enjoyed it. I certainly enjoy them. You will come to my factory at exactly 9:00 a.m. on the 31th-or is it 31st? I always forget-to see what it is like to make these wonderful boxes. Til then, Editor510

[edit] Reply

Hello, Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Fan. You have new messages at RyRy5's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.

Hello, Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Fan. You have new messages at RyRy5's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.

I replied. I don't know where I said your reference was good... I was still writing my responce.--RyRy5 (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference Challenge

Yes, I'm back with 10 more. I believe I have learned since my first round. Here is my second round. Please tell me your opinion. Hope these are good...

• Note- For the numbers in (), those are for the number of references per article.

• List of transactions involving the Dallas Mavericks‎ (4), Craig Anderson (Australian pitcher)‎ (1), Jim Bailey (baseball player) (1), Ed Bahr‎ (1), Larry Jennings (1), Blue Riband (biscuits) (2).--LAAFan 18:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy you found my feedback useful. At the moment I've got some errands to run, but I'll be logging on again later today, and will take a look at your references then. The Transhumanist    19:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

First, I'd like to mention that the encyclopedia desperately needs references in scholastic subjects. Wikipedia is criticized because it can't be trusted, and therefore isn't viewed seriously as a reference work in: Science. Business. Politics. Wikipedia needs references in these areas the most, in order for it to be trusted as a resource in the field of education (by teachers and students), as a research tool (by scientists and journalists), as a reference aid in industrial, financial and managerial matters (by business students, employees, employers, craftsmen, workers, managers, and entrepreneurs), and as a trusted source about governments (by politicians, watchdogs, and everyman). It's important to prioritize, and for Wikipedia to be taken seriously it needs references in its most serious subjects. I mention this as something for you to think about and keep in mind. Any reliable references you provide are a good thing. Keep up the good work.

[edit] Evaluation of references

• List of transactions involving the Dallas Mavericks - I haven't been able to access these. The four references you provided here returned a "Server not found" error! Two days in a row. Not good. We can wait a few days to see if these come back online. If they don't, they'll need to be replaced.
  • Sorry. There was a problem with the code I had. I fixed it. Can you please go over those again? Sorry.....--LAAFan 17:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • News stories that cover sports-related events are preferred. The sports almanac you referenced may be the same level of source as Wikipedia ("fourth party").  :) They probably re-report the material, just like we do. (But who reported it in the first place? I couldn't tell where they got their data). If they simply re-report it from the initial 3rd-party sources, then referencing them is similar to Wikipedia citing the Encyclopedia Britannica. Do you see how that's a problem? Wikipedia needs to provide its own references, not cite other reference works like us - though I couldn't find anything in our policies about this - it's just common sense. It makes Wikipedia look bad, like we're cheating. But there is no reason to doubt the statistics there, so they'll do. Please dig deeper in the future. For example, if the New York Times reported that the Chicago Tribune reported about a fire, and the Chicago Tribune in its report said they saw it in the Boston Herald, we would want to go strait to the Boston Herald who reported it in the first place -- newspapers often publish stories that originally appeared in other newspapers. In those cases, it's best to acknowledge the original publisher. For more information see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 5#Citing other Encyclopedias.
• Craig Anderson (Australian pitcher) - - reliable reference, though they are a sports almanac, which means we might be re-reporting what they are re-reporting from some other publisher. It counts though.
• Jim Bailey (baseball player) - - reliable reference, though they are a sports almanac, which means we might be re-reporting what they are re-reporting from some other publisher. It counts though.
• Ed Bahr - reliable reference, though they are a sports almanac, which means we might be re-reporting what they are re-reporting from some other publisher. It counts though.
• Larry Jennings - tripod.com is not generally considered a reliable resource - it's a website for anybody to create their own websites. Magicref doesn't appear to be a reliable source according to WP:SOURCE (I saw no indication that it has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Unacceptable reference.
• Blue Riband (biscuits)
  • I couldn't verify that the first source meets WP:SOURCE.
  • The second article referenced wasn't written or originally published by findarticles.com but by Grocer (a publication in the food retail industry). You need to include information in the reference as to where it actually came from (and will be a good reference once you do).

The Transhumanist    18:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good articles newsletter

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 8 - June 2008 May issue Project News There are currently 4,266 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 157 unreviewed articles. Out of 215 total nominations, 44 are on hold, 13 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Choctaw, One Night Stand (2007), Justin Tuck, Tristan Tzara, The Stake Out (Seinfeld episode), Impalement arts, Backlash (2007), Adelaide Rams, and Sam Cowan. The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (31), Sports and recreation (31), Transport (24), Music (13), and Art and architecture (11) The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 4 articles up for re-review. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of May, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 71 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 11 were delisted. There are currently 15 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details. GAN Reviewer of the Month Giggy (talk · contribs) (a.k.a. Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs)) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for May, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Giggy had a whopping 45 reviews during the month of May! Congratulations to Giggy (talk · contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May include: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) Eustress (talk · contribs) GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs) Juliancolton (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs) Also, with 19 nominations, Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) is the nominator of the month, followed by TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) with 8 nominations submitted. Member News There are now 216 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 6 new members that joined during the month of April: Jack Bethune (talk · contribs) Jordan Timothy James Busson (talk · contribs) Limetolime (talk · contribs) Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Fan (talk · contribs) Mm40 (talk · contribs) Redmarkviolinist (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! New GA Review Process - Review Subpages In case you haven't noticed, we initiated a new process for GA Reviews at the end of last month. The {{GA nominee}} template was modified to direct new reviews initiated on an article to begin on a subpage of article talkspace (e.g. [[Talk:Article/GA#]], where '#' is the current number of GA reviews conducted for the article, incremented automatically, starting with 1). The primary reason for this change is to address some concerns made by several Wikipedians that previous GA reviews are not easily accessible in archives, the way that featured article reviews and peer reviews are, since the review is conducted on the article's talkspace, instead of in a subpage of the featured article space or peer review space. The reason we opted to move GA reviews to article talkspace (instead of GA space) is to better maintain the personal relationship between editor(s) and reviewer(s) by keeping reviews done in an area where editors can easily access it. Nonetheless, we still desired to have better archiving and maintenance of past reviews, so that GA ultimately becomes more accountable. When an article is nominated, the nominator adds the template using a substitution, by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=<name of subtopic for article at GAN>}}, as well as lists the article (as usual) at WP:GAN in the appropriate category. When a reviewer initiates a review of an article, all that needs to be done is to read the template on the article's {{GA nominee}} template on its talk page, and click on the link to start the review. When the reviewer clicks on that link, they will also see some instructions on how to start a review of a GAN. For new reviewers, there's also a link to the Good Article criteria, as well as to the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles page and the mentors list. Once an article is reviewed, the GA review page should be transcluded onto the main article talk page, by adding {{Talk:Article/GA#}} to the bottom of the talk page. This is to ensure maintain the transparency of the GA process, as well as to make editors of the article in question aware that the review is taking place. When an article is either passed or failed, there's really nothing different to do in the process, although reviewers are encouraged to utilize the {{ArticleHistory}} template, linking to the GA review subpage with the 'action#link' parameter. Did You Know... ... that there are slightly more than twice as many Good Articles (4,266) as there are Featured Articles? ... that Giggy has some really neat and useful tools to assist reviewers in conducting their reviews? ... that there are ten experienced reviewers listed on the GA mentors list that can offer assistance or a second opinion in reviewing articles? From the Editors A GA working party has initiated discussion on ways to improve the Good Article project and processes. The goal of the working party is to come up with suggestions for improvement based on recent issues and concerns raised in the past, primarily in the wake of the Great Green Dot Debate of May 2008. The discussion can be found here. Members of the working party include: Dank55 (talk · contribs), Derek.cashman (talk · contribs), EyeSerene (talk · contribs), Giggy (talk · contribs), Gwinva (talk · contribs), LaraLove (talk · contribs), Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs), and OhanaUnited (talk · contribs). Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor) Giggabot, Giggy (Distributor) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Choctaw • One Night Stand (2007) • Impalement arts • Backlash (2007) • Sam Cowan Reassessment: Madonna (entertainer) • Sweeps / List: references (All Categories), image tags (All Categories), article quality (All Categories) Possible GAs Needing References: Clarinet • Carleton University • Appalachian Mountains Task forces: Project quality • Unreferenced GA Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations queue: 214 articles (45 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 10 June 2008 | edit

Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)