This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Look. I know things are a little heated over at the Wikicup, but we've gotten along fine in the past, and I don't want this to sour an otherwise respectful dynamic. You're right. I don't know enough about the rules or past cups, so I admit that some of what I've said is probably wrong. But I know it's just for fun, so can we please get past this and move on? RO (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC) |
Alright, I believe that I have done everything! Tell me whether it looks good or whether there's anything more I should do. :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214) talk to me! see my work 00:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Josh,
Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Cymbiola imperialis 01.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 30, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-09-30. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich ( talk) 23:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Chrome Division, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.-- Retrohead ( talk) 09:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
the Wikipedia article on the machpelah cave has this information: "Israeli authorities have placed restrictions on calling the faithful to prayer by the muezzin of the Ibrahimi mosque. The order was enforced 61 times in October 2014, and 52 times in December of that year. The reason given is that the call to prayer bothers Jewish settlers in the city." I believe it is unbalanced if it doesn't include the information here. I don't want to add it myself because of my partiality. Could you, please? -- Naytz ( talk) 18:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks!! -- Naytz ( talk) 17:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your copy edits. Do you think the prose meets FA standards? — Vensatry (ping) 12:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou for your constructive comments during the peer review. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rod Steiger/archive1 is underway if you'd care to comment further. Cheers. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Josh,
Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Calocoris affinis.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 7, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-10-07. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich ( talk) 01:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks for the GAN review, Josh! Regarding your comment about potential FAC, I know that there are indeed a number of older German sources on the subject (all of which are cited by Goodrick-Clarke), however it may well also be that there have been more recent studies undertaken too that I am currently unaware of. Unfortunately, my German is largely non-existent so I don't have any plans to utilise them in the near future. Best, Midnightblueowl ( talk) 17:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
— Calvin999 19:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Just trying to reach out to you one last time. If I don't get a response here for some reason, I think I'll just nominate it myself. Thanks! :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214) talk to me! see my work 00:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Milburn, can you please check if the above image is usable as a non-free content in the article, American Horror Story: Hotel? Its actually quite large, with blank spaces on either side, but reducing it would render them useless so it will make them useless. — Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 07:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
For being a diligent reviewer - it really is appreciated! Midnightblueowl ( talk) 21:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC) |
GA Cup competitors and observers: Happy Fall! Get ready, we're about to move into the finals of the second-ever GA Cup! Monday saw the end of Round 3. Out of the 8 contestants in the semi-finals, 5 have moved to the finals. The semi-finals were competitive. Our semi-finalists reviewed a total of 61 articles, or a grand total of 1,151 points. If you were to lump the top winners from each of the three pools together, it'd be a close horse race; they were within 35 points of each other, which can only mean that the finals will be an exciting race. Tomandjerry211, our top scorer in Round 2, again earned the most points in the semi-finals, with 288 points and 16 articles reviewed. Johanna came in second overall, with 251 points and 13 articles reviewed; Sturmvogel 66 came in third overall, with 221 points and 16 articles. Rounding out our wildcard slots are Zwerg Nase and The Rambling Man. These contestants were very strategic in how they reviewed articles. Like every other round in the history of the GA Cup, success depended upon reviewing oldest-nominated articles. For example, Johanna reviewed 5 articles that were worth the highest possible points. Congrats to all our finalists, and good luck! Stay tuned to this space for more information about the 2nd GA Cup, including overall statistics and how this competition has affected Wikipedia. We regret to inform you that Dom497, one of our original judges and co-creator of the GA Cup, has stepped down as a judge. Dom, a longtime member of WP:WikiProject Good articles, is responsible for the look of the GA Cup and has been instrumental in its upkeep. We wish him the best as he starts his university education, and are certain that he'll make an impact there as he has in Wikipedia. The finals started on October 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and will end on Ocober 29 at 23:59:59 UTC with a winner being crowned. Information about the Final can be found here. Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to
our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
I just replaced the cover with a 300px version. Please check it. Thank you. Mike:Golu · [ Confidential message ] 04:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Nacunda nighthawk.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
21:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
|
Hello, J Milburn. Rapid strep test, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know . You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot ( talk!) 00:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC) |
Not sure if you're interested, but we'd love to have you if you are. RO (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I had to withdraw the nomination because of certain issues. Since you did an extensive review during the FAC, it would be really nice if you could offer some comments at the peer review. Thanks, — Vensatry (ping) 13:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Trial of Elizabeth Gadge you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Johanna -- Johanna ( talk) 02:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
May you can review Give Me Your Everything against the GA criteria? Cartoon network freak ( talk) 05:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
J Milburn, thank you for taking the time to patiently explain to me the inherent difficulty in changing the points for GA Reviews in the WikiCup process.
I do believe that, unfortunately, there is a bit of a token economy created whereby participants are incentivized to focus their efforts on other ways to gain points and shifted away from GA Reviewing. But you are also definitely correct that any form of Quality improvement and content contribution to Wikipedia -- is a very very good thing indeed ! :) Hopefully there can be at least some slight tweaking involved to at least emphasize the important of chipping in to do some GA Reviews -- at least a teensy weensy bit more, in the future. Thanks again for elucidating WikiCup issues to me. — Cirt ( talk) 03:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC) |
Hi, any chance you could give this a review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Marilyn Monroe/archive1? A core article if ever there was one which really needs a good review.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
This will be the last favor, I swear, and I owe you a bazillion once this FAC is done. It just needs a formal source review at this point. If you could do that, that would be great, but if not, no worries. :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214) talk to me! see my work 03:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
This is long overdue, but I thought it would have more meaning after everything was done with the article. This is just a little way of showing that your help with me on the article has meant a lot to me, and I couldn't have gotten it to FA without you.
You've been very civil and kind throughout the whole thing. If someone else had given that first round of comments, the article probably wouldn't be where it is now! Here's to hoping we run across each other again! Cheers! Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214) talk to me! see my work 03:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC) |
Hey, I want to use some info from the PDF's you sent me. But how do I make one of the further reading's you added on the article into an inline citation elsewhere? — Calvin999 10:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The old revision that you deleted—is it the same as the current revision or bigger? -- George Ho ( talk) 04:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi J Milburn, thanks for the reply. I've nominated the article now. Could you please read " Change the World" one time, and correct the grammar or typo mistakes? Thanks very much! :-) Matthias! -- Matthiasberoli ( talk) 15:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Per this thread, does this make sense to you ( [2])? That submission was 5x expanded and a GA, but Miyagawa says that because I listed GA as a reason at DYK the entry is ineligible for Wikicup points even though it was also expanded five times. The version I nomed had 1,012 words ( [3]), and the version when I started to expand it had 177 words ( [4]). So this was both a 5x expansion and a GA, but Miyagawa says my "intention" was GA, so it doesn't count. RO (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The second-ever GA Cup is now over! The competition officially ended Thursday. Congrats to everyone who participated, and especially to our finalists. The winner of the 2nd GA Cup is Zwerg Nase! He earned 408 points, over 100 points more than he earned in all previous rounds. He tied with our second-place winner, Sturmvogel 66 with 367 points, in number of articles reviewed (24), and they earned almost the same points for reviewing articles that were in the queue the longest (Zwerg with 322, Sturmvogel with 326). Basically, they tied in points, but what made the different for Zwerg was the advantage he had in reviewing longer articles. It seems that the rule change of earning more realistic points for longer articles made a difference. All of our contestants should be proud of the work they were able to accomplish through the GA Cup. Congrats to these worthy opponents! Our third and fourth place winners, Johanna and Tomandjerry211, also ran a close race, with 167 points and 147 points respectfully. We had one withdrawal; we found it interesting that competitors dropped out in Round 2 and 3 as well. One of the original judges and co-creator of this competition, User:Dom497 stepped down as judge during Round 3; as stated previously, we will miss his input and wish him the best. The judges were pleased with our results, even though fewer users competed this time compared to our inaugural competition. We recognize that this might be due to holding the competition during the summer months. We intend on looking more closely when we should conduct this contest, as well as other aspects of the GA Cup. We've set up a feedback page for everyone's input about how we should conduct the contest and what rule changes should be made. If you have any ideas about how we can improve things, please visit it and give us your input. Again, thanks to all and congratulations to our winners! Please stay tuned for the start of GA Cup #3. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo. |
— Calvin999 22:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar | |
Congratulations on making it all the way to Round 3 of the 2nd Annual GA Cup. Although you didn't make the Final/top 5 (which was very hard), we'd like to commend you with this barnstar. We hope to see you next year! MrWooHoo ( talk) 23:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC) |
By introducing a token economy system, WikiCup is making it about eight (8) times more rewarding to nominate to GA than to review for GA.
This means people will be incentivized to gain points by focusing all their energies on flooding Good Article nominations, and not reviewing, as reviews are less points.
How do we fix this, without even allowing a "note" about it?
Can we please do something to help stem the tide and address the backlogs?
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 17:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
J Milburn, please, I am NOT saying the WikiCup is "evil". I like the WikiCup. I haven't tried it yet myself, but I think it's great to encourage high quality contributions from our community. Please don't read things into my mind that are not there. Thank you, — Cirt ( talk) 17:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
J Milburn, thank you for acknowledging that I do not think WikiCup is "evil". Far from it. I love the idea of fostering high quality contributions. But there is a token economy going on that results in incentivized GA nominating and basically discouraging spending time on reviewing. As noted, above, by Rationalobserver, the top three Wikicup participants have 8,876 points between them, but have done only four reviews combined. Do you see that as a problem? — Cirt ( talk) 18:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
( talk page stalker)But how many GAs have they nominated? The answer isn't very many, so while there may be some degree of disparity between the number of GA reviews and nominations, it's not a large number. DYK is on a QPQ basis so all the points there are balanced by all the necessary reviews. And I've seen Casliber review at FAC so, again, I doubt there's any problem here that can be laid at the foot of the Cup rather than a decline of the # of GA reviewers. And if you tally up the numbers of GA vs the number of GA reviews, which is quite easily done by paging through the result of each round, I think that you'll find that there are more reviews than noms.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 18:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
@ J Milburn:Perhaps there's some compromise fix we can come to here to at least partially address the discrepancy? Something between the status quo and my ideas? What do you think? Do you have any suggestions? — Cirt ( talk) 22:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Cirt: @ Adam Cuerden: @ Rationalobserver: The judges have now opened some straw polls for determining the rules of next year's competition; see Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring#2016 WikiCup points discussions and the subsequent section (if you've not done this before, you just sign your name in a numbered list in the option(s) you prefer- typically, most votes wins, but it's up to the judges to make a call on the appropriate way forward given the spread of opinions). Josh Milburn ( talk) 09:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.
This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is Godot13 ( submissions) ( FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. Cwmhiraeth ( submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. Cas Liber ( submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.
Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to Rationalobserver ( submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.
A full list of our award winners are:
We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.
Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs · logs), Miyagawa ( talk · contribs · logs) and Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · logs) 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, since you provided an extensive review during the previous FAC, will it be possible for you to review the article this time around? — Vensatry (Talk) 13:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Josh; I kept an eye out for socks as you suggested, and found a lot more than I was expecting. I've called for a check user investigation here. Best, Midnightblueowl ( talk) 12:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
First thanks v much for the detailed FAC comments. Second, can you revisit when you get a chance. Ceoil ( talk) 22:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
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)
13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Josh, I have nominated Andrew Johnston (singer), an article you brought to FA status, for TFA. The nomination is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#December 25. Thanks. sst✈ (discuss) 15:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Just popping by to say a big thank you for undertaking the review of the GAN for Heathenry (new religious movement). It was a lengthy article and must have taken some time but I do hope that you found it to be of some interest! Kind regards, Midnightblueowl ( talk) 11:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey, when I logged on to wikipedia I noticed your recent messages on my talk page about my edits on Kaitlyn Maher. I wanted to apologize. The first edit was mine, but I do not recall undoing the others. I share this account with my younger brother so it must have been him that kept making the edits. Anyways, I apologize for my brother's rash behavior and hope the edits did not offend you. Cheers! 112aws — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112aws ( talk • contribs) 01:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey—wanted to leave a note that based on your peer review, I've brought Killer Instinct Gold to FAC:
Thanks for your help! czar 14:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi there! Have you got time to look over Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Inna discography/archive1? Thanks in advance. Cartoon network freak ( talk) 19:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I took your advice and told my brother to register his own account. He hasn't done that yet, but I've made it clear that he cannot make edits on my account like that, and I've also changed my password. Cheers! ( 112aws ( talk) 22:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC))
To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 15:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy Saturnalia | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC) |
Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.
After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine ( User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason ( User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew ( User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.
We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.
The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.
If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk), Figureskatingfan ( talk), and Godot13 ( talk).-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Why do you say these are inappropriate? In any case, I have converted information about Waiting for the End to prose, and The Catalyst's information in the caption was already covered, so the samples have been removed. I also feel that the live album part is worth mentioning, but it would seem out of place when the album cover is missing. What do you suggest I do? dannymusiceditor ~talk to me!~ 20:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a happy New Year! -- Tremonist ( talk) 15:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Many years ago, in the year 2007, you have redirected Peep Bowling to Rollercoaster Tycoon 3. I do not think that Peep Bowling should exist because it is simply a fad on Youtube such as this video, and not an intended feature in the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshiman6464 ( talk • contribs) 05:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
J Milburn,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Johanna
(talk to me!)
22:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Just a reminder that there is an ongoing discussion regarding the potential creation of WikiProject Adele. All comments are welcome and appreciated! MaranoFan ( talk) 07:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Happy New Year! | |
There are things that are sometimes left undone and there are things that can be left sometimes unsaid. There are things that can be sometimes left unsaid, but wishing someone like you can’t ever be left, so I take this moment to wish you and your loved ones a joyous and wonderful New Year. Cartoon network freak ( talk) 21:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC) |
Many thanks for the Brian Williamson GAN review! Hope that you had a good festive period. All the best for now, Midnightblueowl ( talk) 16:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.
We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.
We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
....at the Isabella Beeton PR. Long time no see; hope all is well! Cassianto Talk 18:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
On 14 January 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jo-Anne McArthur, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the photojournalist Jo-Anne McArthur (pictured) was the "main human subject" of the 2013 documentary film The Ghosts in Our Machine? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jo-Anne McArthur. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
On 14 January 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Ghosts in Our Machine, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the photojournalist Jo-Anne McArthur (pictured) was the "main human subject" of the 2013 documentary film The Ghosts in Our Machine? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for your comments at the recent PR for Isabella Beeton. I have dropped the good lady into FAC for comments and thoughts. If you have time for any, I'd be delighted to hear with them. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 15:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I remember you asking me several years ago if I had access to Sydowia (I think you were working on Meinhard Moser at the time). I just learned that all articles of this journal up to and including 2003 are now freely accessible here, in case you wanted to pick up where you left off ... Seriously, I think the Moser article is pretty good and I'd be happy to help if you wanted to give it a push further! Sasata ( talk) 19:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
you deleted my post on Jimfbleak's talk page. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 23:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Once again - many thanks! Glad that you found the subject to be of some interest! Midnightblueowl ( talk) 14:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Meinhard Michael Moser you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sasata -- Sasata ( talk) 19:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
The article Meinhard Michael Moser you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Meinhard Michael Moser for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sasata -- Sasata ( talk) 20:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 3rd GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been two GA Cups; both were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 500 nominations listed and about 450 articles waiting to be reviewed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 3rd GA Cup will begin on March 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on July 31, 2016), but this may change based on participant numbers. There will be slight changes to the scoring system, based upon feedback we've received in the months since GA Cup #2. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same. We're also looking to spice up the competition a bit by running parallel competitions. Finally, there's a possibility of assisting a WikiProject Good Articles backlog drive in the last three weeks of February, before our competition. Please stay tuned for more information as we get it. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on February 20, 2015. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to
our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Josh, thanks very much for the fantastic comments and copy edits on Sir Michael. I'm running a bit behind with things at the moment so may not get to it for a few days or so. But be rest assured, I'm much looking forward to answering them. Cassianto Talk 21:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to come at you out of the blue, but I noted your rightful rejection (for the third time) of Jonathan Mitchell being a featured article. This is a determined effort by the user nominating it to gain a publicity boost for the subject - promotional in other words. The user has also confessed to a COI in this matter (see the talk page of the subject) and has been told not to edit the article directly (see the edit history - in particular from admin Jytdog). I can tell you that there is no more reliable sourcing available aside from the subject's own blog (which is naturally not permitted) and I agree with your concern over the Mass blog. The whole idea by User:Ylevental is to promote Jonathan Mitchell as the face of the Autistic community in order to attack the neurodiversity movement (Mitchell's personal blog does carry the tag line "We don't need no stinking neurodiversity"). I also agree with you about borderline notability, with much reliance on Newsweek and the other two magazine articles (LA and New York), but there was an AfD that resoundingly came back as "Keep" so consensus is that it stays. Just my two cents and I would recommend that Ylevental be told to leave the whole thing alone as he isn't going to get his way, and he shouldn't be behaving like a promoter - which is what he is doing. I don't know if that warrants a block (is non paid promotional editing against the rules?) but honestly all that will do is cause socking for which an SPI was lodged (and failed because it took too long to investigate resulting in stale statistics). Ylevental even added the Osborne material through an IP and it was allowed despite socking (I know who his provider is and where it came from and there was a match - I can't provide those exact details due to privacy of course preventing another SPI). 1.132.97.74 ( talk) 02:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi there,
So recently I noticed that you did a small peer review for Habits (Tove Lo song). Since you done other peer reviews, would you mind looking over Help Is on the Way? I put it up for peer review a little more than a week ago, but it seems no one took the bait. As I say on the review page, I'm willing to review any articles you may have up for PR/GA/FA etc. Thanks for reading! Famous Hobo ( talk) 03:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
...has been started here. Thanks once again for all you help. Cassianto Talk 17:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
An update. I am afraid you accidentally deleted all the comments of the earlier reviewers. I have restored them now. Sainsf <^> Talk all words 04:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
I have a couple quick questions related to the edits you have done to the page. I have uploaded a resized version of the cover that should comply with the expectations for the site and I completely understand the removal of the image, but I am confused on your comments about the audio sample.
I have used Good Girl Gone Bad as one of my templates in creating and expanding the page as it is both a featured article and an album I am familiar with. This page uses two audio samples that I believe have the same quality of the samples I used for my page. I did not notice a big difference between the samples from either pages and why one set of samples is allowed and another is flagged. Also, I do not follow your concern with having multiple audio samples. I chose to include a sample from the single and a sample from a song prominently discussehttps://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:J_Milburn&action=edit§ion=2d in the promotion/review of the album. I could also limit the audio samples to just the single from the album.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Aoba47 ( talk) 16:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.
Twenty-two Good Articles were submitted, including three by Cyclonebiskit ( submissions), and two each by MPJ-DK ( submissions), Hurricanehink ( submissions), 12george1 ( submissions), and Cas Liber ( submissions). Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by Adam Cuerden ( submissions) (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by Cwmhiraeth ( submissions). Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with J Milburn ( submissions) completing nine.
If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 ( talk · contribs · email) -- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Greetings, all. The 3rd Annual GA Cup has officially begun, and you can start reviewing your articles/reassessments now! However, sign-ups will not close til March 15th if anybody (who wishes to sign up) has not signed up yet. We currently have 1 group of 33 contestants in Round 1, and we will have 16 Wikipedians left in Round 2. Please be sure to review this information and the FAQ if you haven't already, If you have any questions, please ask us here where all of the judges (including our newest one, Zwerg Nase!) will be answering any questions you may have. You can also feel free to ask us on our talk pages/send an email to us (information is here). Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to
our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 03:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that Cas Liber ( submissions) claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan ( talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 ( talk · contribs · email).-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Tatjana Višak at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Edwardx ( talk) 20:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey man,
I appreciate the review. I thought I had exhausted all the possible articles but I appreciate the stuff you've found. Although I am having trouble locating a link to the Calgary Herald article you mentioned in the review, as well as the title of the documentary or movie-thing that the youtube video was from. Could you possibly send the link for the former? And if you have any ideas on how to ID the movie from the youtube clip that would be awesome.
Thanks again. Disc Wheel ( T + C) 01:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey, im in the [5] course and when i went on the dashboard and choose two articles to review, for some reason on the page itself of the course it has two names of wikipedia pages in the "assigned" column (one being my article, that of Anna Hamilton Phelan) and there are none in the "reviewing" column. How is this possible? and how can i remove the the other article thats in the "assigned" column next to my name?
Thanks Pepito gun ( talk) 19:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
On 22 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tatjana Višak, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the philosopher Tatjana Višak argues that utilitarians should oppose the killing of animals in agriculture, even if they have lived happy lives? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tatjana Višak. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
You are invited... | |
---|---|
Women Writers worldwide online edit-a-thon
|
-- Ipigott ( talk) 15:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cold Comfort (Inside No. 9) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Numerounovedant -- Numerounovedant ( talk) 08:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
The article Cold Comfort (Inside No. 9) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cold Comfort (Inside No. 9) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Numerounovedant -- Numerounovedant ( talk) 18:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
The Surreal Barnstar | |
Good work on the GA, also working with you has given me a new perspective of working on similar articles. Thank you! Numerounovedant Talk 18:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC) |
Greetings, GA Cup competitors! Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. Sainsf took out Round 1 with an amazing score of 765. In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 742 points, and in third place, FunkMonk received 610 points. In Round 1, 206 reviews were completed, more than any other year! At the beginning of March, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 490. We continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 2 so we can lower the backlog as much as possible. To qualify for the second round, you needed to make it into the top 16 of participants. Users were placed in 4 random pools of 4. To qualify for Round 3, the top 2 in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 9th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 2 will start on April 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on April 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here Also, remember that a major rule change will go into effect starting on April 1, which marks the beginning of Round Two. Round 1 had an issue brought up in the rules, which we are correcting with this clarification. We believe that this change will make the competition more inherently fair. The new rule is: All reviews must give the nominator (or anyone else willing to improve the article) time to address the issues at hand, even if the article would qualify for what is usually called a "quick fail" in GA terms. To avoid further confusion, we have updated the scoring page, replacing the term "quick fail" with the term "fail without granting time for improvements". We expect all reviewers to put a review on hold for seven days in cases such as these as well, in order to apply the same standards to every competitor. The judges will strictly enforce this new rule. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to
our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you could help produce a few articles towards this in April? The idea is that people can use the Amazon vouchers to buy books for their future projects. I'm sure the getting articles to GA is compatible with the WikiCup too!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
On 5 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Siobhan O'Sullivan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the political scientist Siobhan O'Sullivan argues that animal activists should focus on the inconsistent treatment of animals relative to other animals, not relative to humans? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Siobhan O'Sullivan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 09:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi J, I do need some advice here or perhaps some admin action over what has become a very tendentious situation that began when I edited Buster Keaton Rides Again. I noted that the screenshot title page could be replaced by a poster or cover art from the DVD of the film. Once the screenshot image was orphaned, the editor who had uploaded the file, complained to me that the original image should be used. I did explain on his home page the rationale behind the use of the infobox image. That didn't seem to help as the next thing was the editor canvassing his "mentor" ( Masem) who used the same argument as to removing the image I had used, and later replaced with a more appropriate "dedicated" poster/cover art. Regardless, I again posted on the editor's talk page, the reasoning behind the infobox image, and as a "sign-of-good-faith", re-introduced the screenshot image as a non-free illustration, taking care to make sure it qualified by providing a rationale and a reference source. For awhile, that seemed to suffice, although the editor made it a point to re-edit my edits, and challenge the use of one of my sources of information. I made a comment on his talk page to the effect that actions like that should not take place. The next thing that occurred was that the editor again challenged the use of the infobox image, insinuating that the image used was "created" to supersede the screenshot. My reaction led to a long exchange on the discussion page which was erroneously listed as for discussion but it appears that the editor really meant to have the infobox image deleted. I went back through the article history to find only one edit made by the aforementioned editor in 2013 than a barrage of edits that were un-doing my previous edits. The edit history on other articles is precisely the same pattern of edits. What do you suggest? Nothing I say or provide as background seems to make any difference. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 14:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The Guidance Barnstar | ||
Thanks for your patient guidance on how to work with citations, it will help me a lot in FACs to come. Will remember all that you said! Sainsf <^> Feel at home 18:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC) |
pulse of the earth | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 459 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The section requested by both you and Tim Riley at the featured article nomination for Jane Austen has now been written and added. What is next for the featured article nomination to continue. Fountains-of-Paris ( talk) 14:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I think we should ask for temporary PP on that page because of the IP-hopping POV people; Alt-Right and a few others got temp PP for this exact reason. I'm not sure if it's a single person or coincidence but the Racialists are restless. I wanted a second opinion, though... Ogress 21:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello J Milburn, I noticed your recent nomination of the aforementioned image for deletion. I would like to say that I disagree with your explanation. Without the inclusion of the image, the article honestly looks bland and plain. I have created a better caption for the image in hopes that it will stay; I hope you can reconsider your decision or perhaps help me out otherwise. I would appreciate it, thank you. Carbrera ( talk) 01:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey Josh! I opened a Peer Review for Kalki Koechlin, (after a long and exhausting FAC) and I would really appreciate some help. I need some help with the "Media Image" section of the article, so if you find some spare anytime soon could you take a look on just the section and help me arrange it in a better way. I am a little divided on the structure of the section. All the help would be really appreciated. Thank you! Numerounovedant Talk 17:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Per your comment on the peer review, would you have a moment to leave a quick review of this one? czar 02:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Josh, how are you? I hope all is well with you. I was wondering whether you might possibly have time to look at this Peer Review. If you do, I would be very happy to help you out with anything now or in the future to return the favour. :-) Of course, if you don't happen to have time, no worries at all! Have a good day. Moisejp ( talk) 18:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)