Wikipedia talk:Articles written by a single editor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Something missing in our checklist[edit]

I am having a hard time fixing or tagging this article. The author is head-first into his subject and as a result, the article fails to explain its subject :-( What should we do in such a case ? Nicolas1981 (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Reference tag seems to do the job. The article is, after all, just a stub. But I did do some minor editing as well. By the way, did you check the editor's other contributions to see if they are similarly lacking? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's the editor's sole article creation. Nicolas1981 (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, just for fun, I checked his other edits and found he is prone to too inserting too many Wiki-links. He has been warned about this on his Talk Page. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What are you talking about ? The editor has never received any warning, his talk page has always been empty [1]. Please provide a link showing the warning you mention. Plus, the editor has only inserted wikilinks in one article as he wikilinked the items of a list, and as of today, all of the list's item are still wikilinked, so after a year nobody seems to have thought it was a bad idea [2]. Cheers Nicolas1981 (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, yes. I have no idea what I was talking about. Apparently I was looking at somebody else's edit trail. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. Nicolas1981 (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another quality enhancement effort going on[edit]

You might be interested in the demo of flagged revisions. Have fun ! Nicolas1981 (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kay, so new list, put up the one with inexperienced editors[edit]

What's new[edit]

So I wrote some python code (which I will put on my user page, GPL'd), to figure out a list of pages which, of the non-bot contributors, have one contributor. This list is filtered for redirects.

There were 60,000 of these. They can be found here (NOTE: High load time! 1.8 MB)

Of these pages, I made a separate list of all the pages whose sole contributor has made less than 100 edits. Surprisingly, there were only 2,000 of these. I picked 100 edits because at lesser numbers it decreased markedly. (for example, only 421 pages on wikipedia have both a single human editor, and that editor having made less than 15 edits!)

These 2,000 entries of single-author pages with "inexperienced" editors can be found here. I may put this up in the main list.

Requirements for reproduction of this using the same method[edit]

  • (For now) Linux. Macs might work too, but the main issue is that a couple parts, (I need to fix these), are dependent on unix commands.
  • Python3.0 (2.5 will work with several small adjustments) including python-sqlite3
  • (For now) an understanding of python code, as I have not documented the programs well yet, some of the comments in the code, or usage instructions are probably obsolete
  • A fast internet connection (at least 300kb/s down would be desirable.)
  • A hard drive with at least 80gb free space for temporary use (I have a 100gb, so I was able to do this)
  • Probably having a processor faster than 1 gHz, and 512 MB memory is desirable. Most computers are this good.

Benefits of the method[edit]

  • Comprehensive
  • This method can't take more than about 9 GB of data transfer from wikipedia. This is, while large relatively little compared to the amount that would be required for a comprehensive spider/wikipedia's webUI-based approach. Also, theoretically, querying toolserver would not take as much, but querying toolserver is far too slow (this was my initial approach)
  • No redirects, bots are controlled for.
  • secondary script can be used to made to recheck real time what pages on list are still or no longer one-author.


  1. Downloaded enwiki-20081008-stub-meta-history.xml.gz (provides comprehensive list of revision times, contributors (without content), and comments by page)

(8.4 GB download, 66 GB extracted!)

  1. Downloaded enwiki-20081008-page.sql.gz (strangely, more useful than 'redirects.sql.gz' for identifying redirects)

(480 MB download, 1.1 GB extracted)

scripts referred to below can be gotten a copy of here.

  1. Wrote script to split up 1008smh.xml (stub meta history) into more manageable, 10-20MB or so blocks. It is simply crazily inefficient to try to do location seeks and location tells on a 66gb file. And every other operation on it that you would write would crash... ended up with about 13,000 files.
  2. Wrote script to take blocks of xml, pull out the bare minimum information (pagename, pageid, revisor, revisor, revisor). Revisors are listed once for each revision, and put it into a csv
    • ignores revisions of bots based on a list from the 'bots' category...
    • removes redirect pages
    • removes pages of a namespace other than articles (eg. 'user', 'wikipedia', 'talk')
  3. amended script to have following functions
    • from a csv, make a separate csv of only the pages with a single revisor.
    • turn a csv of pages into just a list of titles.
    • count up from the csvs the number of edits each and every user and ip address has made in the 'article' namespace and record it all in a folder.
    • take a csv of single-author-pages and return only those whose editor has less than a certain number of edits.
  4. Wrote script to take a list of wiki page titles and check whether those pages, real time, have one and exactly one non-bot editor (and that the page is not a redirect). Why didn't I just use this in the first place? It would take forever and probably more bandwidth and really whack wikipedia's server.
    • Will upload anything I'm missing to my user page soon... moving back to school
    • haha yes, by now I am moving back to school, sorry for the delay :D
As you can see, this project's infrastructure took more work than I anticipated, and it's still rather messy code! It is at least object oriented. Next time around, I will clean up the code.

-Monk of the highest order(t) 12:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks so much ! I awarded you a barnstar for this. It is the only barnstar I have ever given in 5 years, so you deserve it :-) The source code is long but seems to be well commented, I will run it when I have time, maybe at the next Wikipedia data dump. Thanks again ! Nicolas1981 (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aww, you so sweet :) -Monk of the highest order(t) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]

30852 Debye and 6376 Schamp and Dairago have been created by bots, so I think they should not appear on the list, right ? Cheers Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How fast is this list updated?[edit]

When I looked at the pages for Anti porn and anti pornography (first pages redirects to the second) they had several dozen contributions by different editors. Is the algorithm used to generate the list flawed, or has it been awhile since it was last run? Efidos2

Hi Efidos2, and thanks for your contributions ! The list is generated from the most recent Wikipedia data dump, which was released in October 2008. The algorithm very recently performed a second-pass check with the online version of Wikipedia, but those articles somehow got through, we have to investigate, thanks for reporting ! :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New & Improved article list - now with subsections!![edit]

Hi Raoul, I found it too much of a pain to scroll through the list (as it was) so I've broken it up into more easily digestible chunks. Hope thats OK with you. Mattopaedia (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How does one get to this list? Yours in puzzlement, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Go to WP:ASE and click the link to the articles list - I've just made it easier to see. It's in the 3rd paragraph.Mattopaedia (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice :-) I have changed the links so that users reach directly the list of articles in "A". That spares them a click, and will probably cause less confusion. When the "A" articles are all reviewed, please someone change the links to another letter. Thanks! Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about 0-9? Mattopaedia (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the earliest version of ASE, people would start with articles that don't begin with a letter, and many people were confused because those articles are usually not typical Wikipedia articles. Nicolas1981 (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, it would be nice if someone could find how to have a margin between the "Go to articles list" box and the text, that would be great! Right now the text is really too close to the box. Thanks! Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it possible to have the link go to a random letter in the alphabet — possibly to avoid having too many people working on the A page at the same time? GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we can do it, it would be very useful :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Competing edits[edit]

How do we avoid having two editors picking up the same article at the same time? GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You really can't. Edit conflicts are a problem all over wikipedia. You could perhaps edit the list to move the article page into the reviewed column before you edit the article, but this still won't work if you and another editor happen to click the same things at the same time. Mattopaedia (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I think the procedure should be as you said — to move the name from one column to the next when you pick it up. In this light, I've edited the "A" page with suggested wording. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given the number of articles and number of edits per day, we practically will never run into this problem. I don't think reviewers should move the item *before* reading it. First reason: when I really don't understand an article, I just leave it for someone else to review. Second reason: when I am interrupted from ASE reviewing to a real-world event, I will forget about going back to the list and moving back the article. Third, it makes the instructions longer and a bit more confusing. So, that's a lot of disadvantages to protect us from a non-existing problem. I suggest letting the instructions as they were. What do you think about this? By the way, it would be nice to use transclusion for all of the letter pages, would someone have time to try this? Nicolas1981 (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have run into edit conflicts (very frustrating), and if everybody is guided to the A page, there may be more of them. If you are interrupted in reviewing an article, then it would still be in the "Under review" column, and nobody but you should pick it up. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi George, I agree with Raoul's reasons for not moving the article first. I'd also add that the edit conflict could arise outside of WP:ASE, since another editor could just as easily stumble across the article some other way and decide to edit it at the same time as you. In that case, editing the list first (obviously) won't make a scrap of difference.
I think we should leave the instructions as they are, for the sake of simplicity. If you want to move the article first, then that's fine, as long as you're confident that real-world distractions won't make you forget that you were about to edit some article (sort of defeats the purpose if articles are listed as reviewed when they're really not). If the general guideline is to move the article intro "reviewed" after you're done with it stands, then that's what most people will do, and this discussion will stand to point out to people the alternative method is fine too, notwithstanding the risk of forgetting about some article you've moved but haven't finished (or started!) editing. Cheers! Mattopaedia (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remove from list when finished?[edit]

Why not just remove the name of the article when you are finished with it instead of moving it from one column to another? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am quite neutral about this, both methods have their advantages and drawbacks. Removing is the easiest, but moving a || is not very difficult either, and I think the columns gives a motivating feeling of progress. Nicolas1981 (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I lean toward remove because I can't see keeping them forever. The sense of progress also comes with whittling down the list to zero titles (until new ones are added). Just wondering how others feel about this, because it's not at the top of my list of problems today. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not really fussed about this one. Although it would be better this way if you want everything transcluded. Mattopaedia (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Anyway, at some point in the future, we will remove all of the content, run the list generator, and show only the fresh new data. Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article transclusion[edit]

I experimented with the X page. See here.

The transcluded articles didn't like being stuffed into a table, so I went with having it as sections, which has the advantage of listing each article in a table of contents. Otherwise its just going to be a very long page & recreate the PITA that I was avoiding by breaking the original very long page up. Unfortunately though, all headings in the transcluded articles will also appear in the TOC. That might get confusing. At the very least its a bit messy. After doing this, I'm not really sure there's any real advantage to having the articles trancluded. So I reverted myself. Raoul, what were you attempting to achieve with transclusion? If there's some great vision you have, that I'm just not getting, then maybe we could look into this further. Mattopaedia (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can call me Nicolas ;-) Your experiment was interesting, although it makes editing articles less obvious. In fact, when talking about transclusion, I was thinking of creating a page that would only contain the small instructions and the linked alphabet. This page would be transcluded in all 0-9 to Z articles. The benefit is to factorize common wikicode. For instance, editing the instructions of this page would impact all of the sub-pages immediately. I did an example here, it is really simple. It would be nice to do it for the other letters as well. Cheers :-)
Nice, very neat! I'll just get my scissors and glue ... voila! It is done! Mattopaedia (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great :-) Thanks a lot! Nicolas1981 (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confusing. Not sure what transclusion means. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit this article, the first line is an example of transclusion. Cheers Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first line is From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia /Wikipedia:Articles written by a single editor | Articles list However, I am sure you are taking care of everything OK, so I won't belabor the point any more. P.S. I am doing quite well on the G page these days.GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Music tags[edit]

For articles dealing with popular-music recordings, I have found these tags useful (I usually use both of them):

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, thanks for the tip :-) The first one does not seem to be widespread yet (only Girl 2 Lady so far it seems) but the text is a valid recommendation from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums. I love the second one and use it quite often. Usually I don't specify a date, because I am lazy and SmackBot is good at it. Cheers Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, if you edit any "Album" page, somebody from the Albums project will probably look at it, too. That's who put the text on the Girl 2 Lady page. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't add that first template to articles. First of all, I don't think the article is a good place to list things that should be added to the articles. Second, certainly not at the top of articles. The fact that info is missing should be obvious to any reader who's interested. The unreferenced tag is acceptable, because it gives a warning to readers that something might not be right. The stub tag is acceptable at the bottom, because not only is it at the bottom, but it's an appeal for new editors. Very general tips on what should be included in an article should not be in article space. I would say that the article's talk page would be a good place for such suggestions. Feel free to mention, "see WP:ALBUM for further guidance," or something like that.
In addition, I would like to make a personal appeal to editors not to use the unreferenced tag unless there is specific information that is questionable. It really puts the validity of our encyclopedia in doubt when these tags are all over the place and there is no info given that is doubtful. In particular, in the case of album stubs, most of the info in the article is found on the album itself, and therefore doesn't need to have references - the source is obvious. -Freekee (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, how would you suggest tagging an album, since the Albums project wants all this information? As for the validity of the encyclopedia, it is enhanced when we have Sources. Anyway, the next editor to handle the article can remove the tag if he or she thinks it is redundant. Our job with articles on this page is to give a second look to articles that have had only one look before. A third look couldn't hurt either. There are some good tags for this, too, one of which is:Template:Expert-verify

Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think a stub tag on the article makes it clear that there is info lacking. As I said, the template would be fine on the talk page, though the album project tag and class rating would already be there. (I wouldn't say we require the info, exactly. The info is required if we're going to increase the class rating. And it's certainly recommended, but I would say it's a problem not to have it. Okay, not an urgent problem. :-) ) This third template looks reasonable, but I would prefer it were used only on articles with a fair amount of writing. In other words, not on stubs. Stubs have so little info, it's hardly worth asking for verification - unless a particular statement seems a bit extraordinary. Then you might put a tag directly on that statement, asking for a reference. -Freekee (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's an interesting conversation. Personally, if I encounter an album that seems to miss important facts, I would tag it as {{Album-stub}}. This way, sooner or later an albums expert will check it and fix it or do whatever he/she knows is appropriate. ASE reviewers are not required to know the intricacies of all WikiProjects, so stubs are a convenient tool. And hopefully stubs can be found for any topic. Nicolas1981 (talk) 11:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for all the information. I now lean toward tagging a deficient Album article with a stub; for example, {{punk-album-stub}}, which I've done at, for example, Greatest History. Often the article itself will tell you what genre is the album. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like stub tags. They imply that there is info missing from the article, ask for help improving it, and are not big flashing orange banners complaining that the articles suck. And stub articles are small enough that the tag is still visible, even at the bottom of the article. I put them above navboxes, though. For those unaware, there is a list of album stub templates here. If the genre is unknown, it is best to use the by-year templates at the bottom. Also, see song stubs and musician stubs. Thanks for all your hard work! -Freekee (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More tag ideas[edit]

To get quick notice from another editor, I found the use of Wikipedia:Speedy_delete to be effective. I used a {{db-nocontent}} tag and got almost immediate results from another editor, as you can see by going to . This will probably get more immediate notice than will a stub.

One advantage is that you can put the following template on the Talk Page of the author, which should get him or her to clean it up or add more content pretty quick:

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Gumira School, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

this is the same information appearing in the Gumira article. In other words, repetitive.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, in the example you mention (Groves High School (Georgia)), a positive effect is that the article got much better. However, if the article had really been deleted, I feel it would have been a loss, as the infobox contained valuable information. My practice is to not use speedy except for advertisement or nonsense, but that's up to everybody. Warning the creator is a brilliant idea, I can't believe I didn't think about it. We should think of a template we could paste to a user's page, for instance after an {{unreferenced}} tagging on his creation we could say: "Thanks for creating article XYZ! Information in Wikipedia must be verifiable (wp), so the next step is to find references for the facts you mentioned. See this howto to see how to add references." or something. However, I feel it should be up to everybody to use it or not, and should not be part of the ASE instructions. What do you think about it? Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a good idea. Could you develop such a tag and post it somewhere on WP for discussion and consensus? GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This is a fun project. I've completed the G page, but I'm taking a WP:Wikibreak for a while. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk)

I had noticed your hard work on this letter, thanks a lot for this, and enjoy your break :-) We'll be very glad when you come back! Cheers Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm back — working from the end of the alphabet toward the front. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyrighted article content[edit]

Can I just first say that I think this project is an excellent idea and it is doing a great job. I've been working on the Z-page and have almost finished it apart from one troublesome article that I need a second opionion on. This article Zentrum für Zeithistorische Forschung clearly has large parts of its text copied from a copyrighted source ( and I'm unsure whether to request its speedy deletion or is there some other notice/tag that can be put on the article and author's talk page? Cheers | Tango22 (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Tango22 :-) Wikipedia:CP has all informations, maybe you need to use {{subst:copyvio | url=insert URL of source here}}. The link you provided sends me to a page in German, though, even after I click on the English flag. Cheers Nicolas1981 (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cheers for the quick response, have put copy vio tag on the page with a URL in English and also informed the article's author, thanks for your help! Tango22 (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Broken Links and Generator[edit]

Hello, I took a break and decided to return :) I have already finished the rest of the articles in the W section. Anyways, does the generator remove broken links (perhaps like a deleted article)? If it doesn't, is there a way you can implement it? Cheers, ZooFari 16:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your work :-) Removing red links would be a good thing. It would need some coding and running a script every once in a while, though, so I am not too sure it is. By now I suggest moving red links to the "reviewed" column manually when seeing one. The red links were blue links at the time the generator ran. Cheers Nicolas1981 (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remove from list when finished? (Part 2)[edit]

After having spent much time on this project, I am again requesting a consensus on removing the links when finished with them. I now strongly favor removal, inasmuch as it takes a multitude of keystrokes to move the article titles from one column to another. It would be much simpler if, after checking several stories, one could just delete the article titles by highlighting them all and getting rid of them with one keystroke. I hope you agree with me, because the current method is slow and, frankly, not very rewarding for the editor. Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I sometimes just remove links too. GeorgeLouis, these days you are contributing a lot (thanks a lot for that!) so I think removing instead of moving would spare a lot of your time. So just remove them if you prefer (sometimes I do) :-) I suggest to not change the directions yet, though. We have to debate whether we want moving between two columns, or removing from a simple list. Then we will implement that when we generate a new list. Cheers Nicolas1981 (talk) 01:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this indicates wp:consensus of two, I shall take the easy way out. The sooner the instructions can be changed, though, the more folks are likely to continue editing in this project. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As seen in part 1 of this debate, I and Mattopaedia are neutral, you are for removing, nobody is against removing. So I guess the consensus is with you. The painful part is switching from two columns to a basic list, that's why I suggested waiting for the next generation. Nicolas1981 (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Could anyone regenerate the list, following Monk of the highest order's instructions above? The current list is nearly one year old, and a sizable portion of the articles have been fixed. Regenerating the list would let us focus on the articles that need to be edited right now, including all those that slipped through a year unnoticed by editors. Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The most practical way to update the list would probably be with a toolserver query. I wrote a quick draft of such a query at [3], but it still needs a bit of tweaking to match all the features of the dump-based system. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting idea Ilmari! I don't think I have a toolserver account though, does it mean I can't run this SQL query against toolserver? Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation to participate![edit]

Hello! As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal, and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary (January 15) and on our new project, the Contribution Team.

I'm posting across WikiProjects to engage you, the community, in working to build Wikipedia not only through financial donations, but also through collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.

Please visit the Contribution Team page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. DanRosenthal Wikipedia Contribution Team 18:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List refreshed![edit]

After 1.5 years, I updated the list with fresh new pages to check! I plan to refresh the words more often, so I just added a short list, please message me every time it becomes empty. Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When something needs more work...[edit]

Hi, I am new to this. I have looked at several pages. Some I thought were good, so I will remove them from the list. Some (people and companies) I marked for notability - will someone else pick these up if I remove them from the list? Some, for instance about small villages, seemed non-notable, but I am not sure of the criteria for place notability. Nothing in the short articles was notable. Some were marked as stubs already. Again, do I mark for notability and then remove from the list for someone else to pick up? Any advice welcome. Copperhazel (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]