![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hi Neil,
Thanks so much for your feedback ages ago to the [ Technologies] page. I'm just posting here because we've taken the insight that both you and Jeremy112233 offered, and have made updates along what I hope are the correct lines.
It would be lovely to have your feedback. Hopefully we got it right this time.
Thank you again!
DianneDianneDianne ( talk) 15:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
You sir are very wrong and not able to discern what is every legitimate source.
Hello Neil, I would just like to let you know that the changes I made were correct. I am a history teacher myself, and the contributions i made come from a very long career of studying californian history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.35.198 ( talk) 05:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
We are preparing to take a closer look at Featured articles promoted in 2004–2010 that may need a review. We started with a script-compiled list of older FAs that have not had a recent formal review. The next step is to prune the list by removing articles that are still actively maintained, up-to-date, and believed to meet current standards. We know that many of you personally maintain articles that you nominated, so we'd appreciate your help in winnowing the list where appropriate.
Please take a look at the sandbox list, check over the FAs listed by your name, and indicate on the sandbox talk page your assessment of their current status. Likewise, if you have taken on the maintenance of any listed FAs that were originally nominated by a departed editor, please indicate their status. BLPs should be given especially careful consideration.
Thanks for your help! Maralia ( talk) 03:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Please don't tell me what to do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BDCA:890:3D63:DB1E:1564:3465 ( talk) 22:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:38, 22 October 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)
13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello TWL users! We hope JSTOR has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!
Sent of behalf of
Nikkimaria for
The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated List of cetaceans for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. sst✈ discuss 18:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Neil916, I'm not sure why the bot never posted this to your page, but the nomination was failed three weeks ago by David Eppstein, after waiting for a response for over six weeks after the review was posted. (The article's talk page shows that the nomination was failed.)
You may wish to renominate the article, once you've addressed all the issues that were raised by David, but the review you just replied to is closed and cannot be reopened. Best of luck, whatever you decide to do. BlueMoonset ( talk) 02:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The article
Grodziskie you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Grodziskie for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
David Eppstein --
David Eppstein (
talk)
00:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Grodziskie 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
David Eppstein --
David Eppstein (
talk)
01:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Neil916,
Regarding the comment you left on my talk page a few months ago, yes, it would be absolutely excellent if you could scan the missing pages in Stephen Sears' To the Gates of Richmond: The Peninsula Campaign. I'm sorry I couldn't respond earlier. ( check here, if you don't remember. :-))
Come to think of it though, I will be working extensively to improve articles related to the topic. If you don't mind, and if it won't be a burden, could you scan as many pages as possible? The pages I've already gotten (210-248; 338-352) don't need scanning. Thank you in advance. Don't worry if it's a burden. Cheers, -- ceradon ( talk • contribs) 05:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
Brianhe RfA Appreciation award |
Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe ( talk) 07:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
Hello! Your submission of
Grodziskie 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!
North America
1000
15:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The article
Grodziskie you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Grodziskie for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Kpalion --
Kpalion (
talk)
03:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Grodziskie 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
Kpalion --
Kpalion (
talk)
14:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I am trying to reorganize the references on the Grodziskie article as outline at Help:List-defined references and Template:Reflist. Now, in the article, the references all have numbers to the appropriate citations, but in the list of references, they all use the "·" character instead of the number of the reference. I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong. Can you spot it? Neil916 ( Talk) 16:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent articles, including Bernard of Wąbrzeźno, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The article
Grodziskie you nominated as a
good article has failed
; see
Talk:Grodziskie for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Kpalion --
Kpalion (
talk)
19:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() | Hello, Neil916.
Grodziskie, 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
![]() |
Hi Neil, I just thought, if you're into rather obscure historical Central European beer styles, then maybe you'd like to write an article one day about Jopenbier / piwo jopejskie ? In English Wikipedia we have an article about Jopen, which is a Dutch beer brand, but I'm talking about a thick, syrupy porter historically brewed in Danzig/Gdańsk. The barley wort was fermented in open vats under thick layers of mold (probably impossible to recreate today as the original mold strains have been lost). If you're interested, I can help with Polish sources. — Kpalion (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
Impressive body of work coming in! Keep it up and you've got a good chance of winning the whole contest! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC) |
![]() | On 19 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Grodziskie, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the light, crisp, smoky, and highly carbonated Grodziskie beer was once nicknamed "Polish Champagne"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Grodziskie. 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. |
— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your work so far! Can you do me a favour though and always add every entry you do to the main list here as well as the entries page, regardless if yet approved or not as that's the master list of all articles being done. It's just veyr time consuming for me to be judging the articles, trying to contribute myself and chasing up what people have done and filling it out for people each time. So if you can take care of that this would be a great help, there's some part filled out ones underneath so you just need to add country, article name and then you username. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Did you add Synodontis notatus to the main list? was going to add it but didn't want to double it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
Impressive work coming in for the African Destubathon, playing the game well too as you've moved into the top 3. Great job! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC) |
Hi, an editor has alerted me to the fact that you've been copying a lot of the text exactly for multiple articles. The idea is more original prose. I can understand in species where it is difficult to find enough text for a destub that some text may be used again to pad it out but in some cases it's 3/4 of the whole article. If he's working hard to destub articles with original prose each time it's a bit of a mismatch. I don't want to put either of you off though, as it's still destubbing work, and you're both working hard, and it's much appreciated. What do you think on this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps if you kept it to no more than 750 bytes copied text Brigade Piron would be happier with that? I personally don't mind of course as I greatly appreciate the work you've done on this, I just want to keep everybody happy :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm really sorry that you stopped contributing to this as I certainly had no problem with your articles myself. You were one of the most valuable contributors. But I had a complaint so had heoped to find a solution, I hadn't read your response until now as you didn't ping me unfortunately. I would likely allow you to have continued as before, but if health is the issue, that's vital to productivity, so hope you feel better soon.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, as you did a lot of wildlife articles I think you could claim enough articles to win some vouchers under "Most geography and wildlife articles destubbed" if you want them at here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
After a well-deserved break, feel free to continue contributing towards this!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, please carefully read the instructions at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon for collecting your prize. I will need you to send me an email, your wiki name, what I owe you and your preference for currency in dollars or pounds/country of residence.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I've sent you $45, you'll need to claim it and then confirm it on the Destubathon talk page, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!