Nicelabel Pro 6 Keygen Free !!TOP!!
CAMERON: Look right over there. You see 5 birds coming in? That's the prettiest sight you've ever seen. These free-flying birds, man, coming in, and they just come right over top, like a concord and they're calling.
Nicelabel Pro 6 Keygen Free
FOXHOLE: Y-Marsh got into the trumpeter swan reintroduction program in 1989. We first released trumpeter swans in 1991; in Œ93 we had the first wild nesting swan in Ontario in over 200 years. That's a free nest. That was a big day for us when we had wild-produced trumpeter swans.
It looks like the backlog at WP:GAC seems to have picked up again this past month. In response, I've started a proposal for a fall 2007 review drive. You can review it here. Please feel free to make suggestions and/or revisions. Discussion can be done on it's talk page. The drive would start on September 1, which is one week away. So it would be good to get everything finalized in the next 3-5 days, if there is interest in pursuing this. Dr. Cash 23:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are improvements to be made, sure, and I think the sweeps idea is excellent, especially if an automated page can be used to make it a continuous process rather than a huge periodical effort. Because anyone can list or delist, this kind of informal checking by expert reviewers is free of bureaucracy. In contrast, if we wanted to use sweeps as a process for making GA appear reliable enough to merit a green dot in mainspace then we would face the issue of how to select, in a transparent way, the experts who can certify articles - a bureaucratic nightmare.
If we want to clear up backlog, I actually do like the idea of having someone scan through the list and do quickfails once per week, but I ask why someone can't just do this of their own free will? I'd do it, but I'm hesitant in quick failing for various reasons that I won't get into. Also, other things can be done, like at least two nominees have notes asking that the article not be reviewed for several weeks. Shouldn't we just consider these nominations withdrawn? (Especially since, for at least one, it was added by someone who is blanket nominating all "high profile" articles that they can find, some of which have already passed the A Class review). Cheers, CP 00:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The MoS-editors (people interested in style guidelines) think that there are several benefits. I keep up with style page changes, and I know there are several small things (punctuation, wikification, page layout) where we MoS-editors want to know if wikification guidelines seem picky or wrong; we'd also like to know how people respond to punctuation and language usage recommended by popular style manuals such as The Chicago Manual of Style. My goal is to make a first pass through every new GAN, making my best attempt to catch those things that I know MoS-editors want feedback on. After I do or don't get feedback, and while I've still got the article in my head, I'll make more edits to try to comply with the "well-written" criterion, but I will use a light touch, hopefully to keep the feedback coming. If I can finish the GAN review, great, but I usually won't. I don't mean to interfere with the normal GAN process in any way; anyone should feel free to do a review at any time, to make more "well-written" changes than I have, and to finish the review, and I will continue to monitor feedback. This is an exercise in scientific data-gathering, and also an attempt at civility. GAN reviews are the first place that some editors encounter a list of "you must do this, you can't do that, MoS says so", and I want them to get the impression that MoS-editors are listening to their feedback and that we care. Of course, this impression will be trashed on further exposure to MoS, but at least we'll get off on the right foot :) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Greetings, I was thinking of asking the main contributor of the Nabulsi soap article to nominate it for GA status. However, since there are no good articles on soaps, I was unable to compare any good article with Nabulsi soap. Basically, I'm wondering if it meets the broad coverage criteria. It has sections on the soap's "physical description", "production process", "history" and the soap "today". The article is completely referenced to reliable sources, it meets the MoS, has good prose, free images with suitable captions, its stable but it might be showing a little bias (maybe and anyhow that's a separate issue). I just need to know if it meets the broadness criteria. Regards, --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]