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. |
Hi Mllburn. While I've reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Between the Species and have cleared the same, I wanted you to know that in the QPQ column, in good faith, I've marked it as having been done by you. Could you please confirm the QPQ done against this nomination? Thanks. Lourdes 18:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Between the Species.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
As an adminsistrator, could you persuade Midnightblueowl not to engage in an edit war? I have inserted two small changes from an academic source, and she insists on deleting them on Heathenry (new religious movement) article.
She seems to be a dedicated wikipedian, and has served over ten years, but she does not "own" the pages she writes. She is presently engaging in a similar war on the the article on the United Kingdom Independence Party
I know I am being obsessional as well, but the errors on the heathen page are quite serious. I am by know means an expert on the subject, but even amateurs can see them
She has finally fixed the mistaken reference to a "hugh," but she insists that a polytheist faith can be monotheist, she does not seem to realize that Indo-European gods can be killed but do not die "forever,"and she has a strange obsession over using certain sources only for the article, although she uses a "rock star" as a source here Theosophy (Blavatskian) (Gary Lachman, from Blondie!
Do not get me wrong, I like Lachman's books, but why is there a different standard on the Heathen page?
She also has this objection over using books by heathens (such as Stephen McNallen) on the heathen page, but she uses "primary sources on the Order of Nine Angles page. (She has done a nice job there, although I know vey little about Satanists who practice human sacrifice.)
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks --Eswedenborg (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Thank you. Instead of a back-and-forth, a freeze is a good idea. I was certain that she would not delete two quotations from a book that she herself uses (Gardell was indicating that heathens are polytheists), but she seems determined to make the page "her page."
Is there a process for wikipedia to independently contact one of the professors that she uses? I am sure that any one of them could do a nice clean up" of the article. In particular, Stefanie von Schnurbein or Michael F. Strmiska would be good. --Eswedenborg (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I meant someone at Wikipedia contacting a professor. If I did it, Midnightblueowl would no doubt try to ban him or her.
Here is a great article: clear, factual and impartial: Emanuel Swedenborg
Even though I love Swedenborg and have studied his writings for years, I could not add to it if I tried.
In contrast, the heathenry article falls short. I am not a pagan, but it gives the impression that they are crazy fascists worshipping dead gods (or is it god?)
--Eswedenborg (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Not really. I have no problem discussing race in the article. In fact the present version ignores Casper Crowell.
My problem is the article emphasizes trivia and ignores fundamental notions. For example, instead of discussing the significance of Loki as a trickster figure, and perhaps then mentioning his "gender bending," the article simply mentions his gender bending. It is like discussing the director Ed Wood and never mentioning his movies, only his interest in wearing female clothing.
Be that as it may, the article could be fixed using the sources she has used in a proper way. But, you are no doubt a busy man, so I thank you for your time and I will stop bothering you!
Thanks again for the temporary lock on the article. Regards.--Eswedenborg (talk) 06:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
As an adminsistrator, could you persuade Midnightblueowl not to engage in an edit war? I have inserted two small changes from an academic source, and she insists on deleting them on Heathenry (new religious movement) article.
She seems to be a dedicated wikipedian, and has served over ten years, but she does not "own" the pages she writes. She is presently engaging in a similar war on the the article on the United Kingdom Independence Party
I know I am being obsessional as well, but the errors on the heathen page are quite serious. I am by know means an expert on the subject, but even amateurs can see them
She has finally fixed the mistaken reference to a "hugh," but she insists that a polytheist faith can be monotheist, she does not seem to realize that Indo-European gods can be killed but do not die "forever,"and she has a strange obsession over using certain sources only for the article, although she uses a "rock star" as a source here Theosophy (Blavatskian) (Gary Lachman, from Blondie!
Do not get me wrong, I like Lachman's books, but why is there a different standard on the Heathen page?
She also has this objection over using books by heathens (such as Stephen McNallen) on the heathen page, but she uses "primary sources on the Order of Nine Angles page. (She has done a nice job there, although I know vey little about Satanists who practice human sacrifice.)
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks --Eswedenborg (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Thank you. Instead of a back-and-forth, a freeze is a good idea. I was certain that she would not delete two quotations from a book that she herself uses (Gardell was indicating that heathens are polytheists), but she seems determined to make the page "her page."
Is there a process for wikipedia to independently contact one of the professors that she uses? I am sure that any one of them could do a nice clean up" of the article. In particular, Stefanie von Schnurbein or Michael F. Strmiska would be good. --Eswedenborg (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I meant someone at Wikipedia contacting a professor. If I did it, Midnightblueowl would no doubt try to ban him or her.
Here is a great article: clear, factual and impartial: Emanuel Swedenborg
Even though I love Swedenborg and have studied his writings for years, I could not add to it if I tried.
In contrast, the heathenry article falls short. I am not a pagan, but it gives the impression that they are crazy fascists worshipping dead gods (or is it god?)
--Eswedenborg (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Not really. I have no problem discussing race in the article. In fact the present version ignores Casper Crowell.
My problem is the article emphasizes trivia and ignores fundamental notions. For example, instead of discussing the significance of Loki as a trickster figure, and perhaps then mentioning his "gender bending," the article simply mentions his gender bending. It is like discussing the director Ed Wood and never mentioning his movies, only his interest in wearing female clothing.
Be that as it may, the article could be fixed using the sources she has used in a proper way. But, you are no doubt a busy man, so I thank you for your time and I will stop bothering you!
Thanks again for the temporary lock on the article. Regards.--Eswedenborg (talk) 06:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Josh,
Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Tripedalia-cystophora.png is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on October 20, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-10-20. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I so appreciate your help! Melinda Pittman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melinda Pittman (talk • contribs) 22:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello Josh. Just to let you know that I have opened up a new sockpuppet investigation here. I strongly suspect that we may be witnessing the reappearance of an old friend... Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I do not even know what this is. Is this a process that she uses to eliminate editors who disagree? --Eswedenborg (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Dr. Milburn.
An interesting thing about errors: when they are inserted into an article, different people can find them!@
On the talk page of Heathenry (new religious movement), I have recorded the errors and the academic citations to correct them. Hope that helps. --Eswedenborg (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
On the "investigation," I do not share your confidence. Nothing is foolproof. The Romans killed Jesus--NOT Barabbas.
I note that Midnightblueowl managed to "take down" Osred Jameson as a "sock puppet." Anyone who knows anything about Odinism knows that he is an Australian Odinist leader, published author, and ill with cancer. Check his IP and he would have been posting from Western Australia. Clearly, Midnightblueowl had no idea who he is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Osred --Eswedenborg (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Osred --Eswedenborg (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok. I could be wrong. I hope it was not Osred. --Eswedenborg (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
On 13 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Between the Species, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the philosophy journal Between the Species took its name from a fictional periodical mentioned in a George Abbe novel? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Between the Species. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), 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.
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
On 20 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Anna L. Peterson, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Anna L. Peterson argues that the usual separation of animal and environmental ethics is based on mistaken conceptions of nature, humans, animals, and the relationships among them? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anna L. Peterson. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), 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) 00:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ATS. Ike Altgens is a Featured article candidate. I hope you have a few moments to check this article against the criteria so I may address any concerns and see this nomination through. My thanks in advance. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
| |
---|---|
Announcing two exciting online editathons |
(To subscribe: Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Happy Birthday, J Milburn, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a nice day! |
Warm regards, Mz7 (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Josh, is this old FA Main-Page-ready? I clicked on a link at random ("Crowds go wild for Connie") and it was broken. I prefer to schedule as many TFAs with anniversaries as I can; I think that's one way to demystify the process. For the moment, all I've got for Nov 26 is this one (apart from a US naval article, but I'm heavy on US articles as it is this month). - Dank (push to talk) 05:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:
In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:
Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email)
Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which 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 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. 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, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out. 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) 01:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which 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 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. 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, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out. 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) 01:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi there! As you may know, this November is Asian Women Month, hosted by Wikipedia Asian Month and WikiWomen In Red. Our goal is to encourage coverage of Asian women in order to help overcome the Asian content gender gap. Asian Women Month observes the rules of Wikipedia Asian Month. You will receive a special Asian Women Month barnstar if you create four articles in accordance with the rules for the event, as well as a postcard sent from an Asian community! Thanks for your consideration. Read more here! -Rimmel.Edits Talk 20:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The Reviewer Barnstar | ||
FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the six FAC reviews you did during October. . Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC) |
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi J Milburn.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Is there any chance you would be interested in reviewing Liliuokalani for GA status (like now)? I haven't nominated it yet since I don't want to bog it down in the GA review waiting process unless I can secure someone to review it. I am looking for an attentive and quick (but not sloppy) review that can struck up all the problems. Let me know what you think. Thanks. I'm asking a few other regular GA reviewer as well.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gary Varner 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 Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Michael Allen Fox 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! Yoninah (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, J Milburn. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
| |
---|---|
Two new topics for our online editathons |
(To subscribe: Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The article Gary Varner you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gary Varner 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 Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I have nominated Viking metal as a featured article candidate. I know you have a lot on your plate, but if you would like to comment on it, please see the review page. It's been languishing without much attention. Thanks, --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Greetings, GA Cup competitors! November 28, 2016 was supposed to mark the end of the first round. However, we needed 16 competitors to move on, and currently only 10 have completed articles. Thus, the judges have come together to let the participants decide what we shall do. Please complete this quick survey to let us know whether you would like a holiday break. There will be two options for what we will do next in terms of Round 2 depending on the results of this poll.
We apologize for sending out this newsletter late. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, 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, 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) 15:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
On 6 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gary Varner, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the philosopher Gary Varner has argued that all beings, including plants, have morally considerable interests? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gary Varner. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), 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) 00:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I just saw your edit on Strongarm. That was me completely goofing up. Sorry for giving you extra work! 64.183.45.226 (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
On 14 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kendra Coulter, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the labour studies scholar Kendra Coulter calls for interspecies solidarity between human and animal workers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kendra Coulter. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), 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.
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.
For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):
Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address.
After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.
The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email).
Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here.
If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2016 (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 01:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
I am trying to find how the WikiCup pages are set up so I delved into your contributions record for the turn of the year 2013/2014. I found some of the answers to my questions, but I am wondering about the page Participant5. So far I have set up an initial Round 1 scoreboard for 2017 here but some of the information on entrants is missing, this happens when they are entering for the first time and have no flag. I guess the "Participant5" page is connected with this and a template is involved, as I see plenty of information there when I click the edit button. Any advice you can give me on setting up the pages would be welcome. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello JMilburn, I am wondering if the sources that were on the roving mauler article are sufficient for notability? I think they are similar to those on the thought eater, even though the roving mauler was very much a one-note creature. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2017! | |
Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless! — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC) |
The most frustrating thing about this topic is that passing mention of the word is taken as cast iron proof that it's a widespread term, but actually all the reading I have done positions it ina tiny fringe of the vegan movement, and as the cited source says, it's Melanie Joy's term for meat culture and virtually unused outside of her work and discussion thereof. It's a term coined to tribalise food politics, but it hasn't worked. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Rough chameleon (Trioceros rudis).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 05:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
|
Hey Josh, wanted to send a note that Sabre Wulf (an article you reviewed for GA) is up for featured consideration if you have the time/inclination to review: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sabre Wulf/archive1. I'd appreciate your feedback. Happy holidays, czar 21:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
| |
---|---|
Women Philosophers & Women in Education online editathons |
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Greetings, GA Cup competitors! December 29th marked the end of the first round, after it was extended from its previously scheduled conclusion at the end of November. Because of the smaller pool of contestants this year, it was decided to keep sign-ups open throughout the month of December. This extension proved to be very helpful as we saw that more users signed up and completed many reviews. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an impressive 402 points, followed by Cartoon network freak with a close 338 points. Shearonink who signed up after our extension was in third with 170 points. We had a rule clarification in Round 1 which was that many articles were being passed with blatant copyright violations and plagarism occurring in the articles. Thus, the judges have concluded that if an article is passed even if it has a copyright violation/plagarism, we will not provide points for that article as it wouldn't be considered a "complete review" under the scoring rules. In the end, 94 articles were reviewed by 14 users who will all advance to Round 2. The judges had planned on having 16 contestants advance but since only 14 did, we are changing the pools in this round. We will be having 2 pools of 3 and 2 pools of 4 in Round 2, with the top 2 in each pool advancing to Round 3 as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 will begin on January 1 at 00:00:00 UTC and will end on January 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, 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, 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) 22:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
On 3 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Michael Allen Fox, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the philosopher Michael Fox became highly critical of animal testing following the publication of his The Case for Animal Experimentation, later writing a book in support of vegetarianism? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Allen Fox. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), 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.
— Maile (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The Reviewer Barnstar | ||
FAC can't function without people like you contributing reviews. Thank you for the FAC image review and the source review you did during December. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC) |
Hello, Josh, and Happy New Year to you. I plan to take this to FA. Do let me know if you wish to leave comments at the PR page by pinging me. Thanks. — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
We wish you a prosperous New Year 2017! | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless! — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC) |
It is bad faith when within 15 minutes an editor opposes an articles promotion by linking to false information and making inaccurate statements. That is the first thing any other editor will see and will immediately dismiss it. All of the non-comic stuff was taken out, the media section has a summary per MOS. If that isn't an accurate display of bad faith I don't know what is.
I'm genuinely incensed here that Curly Turkey can say " These are the minor and superficial changes that have been made since the first FAC closed. I hope you don't think you can just keep throwing this back at FAC until it happens to slip through." which is a completely baseless and defamatory accusation when I last listed it fifteen goddamn months ago, and you've made a comment accusing ME of bad faith for challenging him on that. Wtf J? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Comb of excellence | |
I award this (Fine-tooth) Comb of Excellence for really going through Good Article Nominees with one. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC) |
J Milburn, new hooks have been proposed for this nomination, since you had issues with the previous ones. Do they address your concerns? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Clare Palmer 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 Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The article Clare Palmer 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:Clare Palmer for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I was surprised to read the recent AfD discussion on Dimitris Vardoulakis. It was odd that WP:AUTHOR was not mentioned, as publishing academics can also qualify under this SNG. In any case, I asked the closing admin to move it to my userspace: User:K.e.coffman/Dimitris Vardoulakis. I generally don't do articles on philosophers, I mostly create articles on historians (User:K.e.coffman#Historians), but I would be surprised if someone tried to nominate them for deletion. I also commented at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diego Bubbio discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I think we should form specific juries in every field to decide whether an article is notable or not. For example, I think referring to citations is not an appropriate criterion in philosophy (as opposed to empirical sciences). The people who are to judge about an article should themselves be familiar with that article's atmosphere (in this case, philosophy). --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I saw your note at the FPC. For the record, I am not looking for a debate either, but for perspective I will volunteer that at this time I find the protestors to be incredibly disrespectful to Hillary Clinton. She said in her concession speech, and I quote, "Donald Trump is going to be our president, we owe him an open mind and a chance to lead." Despite this, all I have seen over the last three days are people so consumed by hatred that they can not even honor Hillary's final request as a presidential nominee, and in my eyes that speaks poorly of the photographed crowd (or any of the others that have gathered). Now I'm certain that in due time I'll be protesting over some decision made or not made by trump, and I am certain of that because even the guys I have voted for have eventually let me down, but to me its seems prudent to give the man chance. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
...currently living in Kingston, Ontario. In the real world, I'm ...
The article Clare Palmer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Clare Palmer 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 Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
| |
---|---|
Black Women & Women Anthropologists online editathons |
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging
> That's great. Do you have a reference?
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
So, it appears we're tied for 9th place at 44 points. I know you've competed in this Cup before. From my cursory overview it looks like there has never been a tie going into the next bracket. Do you expect we both advance? Chris Troutman (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, GA Cup competitors! Sunday saw the end of Round 2. Shearonink took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 499. In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an astounding 236 points, and in third place, Cartoon network freak received 136 points. Originally, we had plans for one wild card for 9th place, however it appears that both Chris troutman and J Milburn were tied for 9th place. Therefore, we have decided to have both advance to Round 3. In Round 2, 91 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased to a little over 6 months. It's clear that 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 3 so we can keep decreasing the backlog. To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 has already started and will end on February 26 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. Also, we'd like to announce the departure of judge Zwerg Nase. We thank him for all his hardwork and hope to see him back in the future. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, 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.
|
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if I'm allowed to ask this, but if you are still an GA reviewer, could you review an article for me? I just wanted to know if you were available before I mention the article. -- MCMLXXXIX 15:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Created Thomas Russell Sullivan. Just an FYI. --RL0919 (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to... Women's History Month worldwide online editathon Facilitated by Women in Red | ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
I have a WikiCup newsletter sitting ready to send in my sandbox, but I don't know how to send it. Can you help? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, ((User|JUDGE1)), ((User|JUDGE2)) and ((User|JUDGE3)) ~~~~~
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).
And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:
The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.
So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I made a serious mistake in the GA Cup finals, and advanced too many people. I'm very sorry, but you were one of those competitors. ROund 3 was your last round, I'm sorry. If you started any reviews since then, I am willing to take those on. Again, very sorry.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks for the GAN, Josh! Hope that all is well. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, GA Cup competitors! Sunday, February 26 saw the end of Round 3. Shearonink finished in first with 616 points, which is more than the point totals for all the other competitors combined! In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an impressive 152 points, followed by Sturmvogel_66 in third with 111 points. Chris troutman and Kees08 each received a wild-card and were able to advance to the Final Round. There was a major error on the part of the judges, and initially, 8 users were advanced instead of 5. This has been corrected, and we sincerely apologize for this confusion. In Round 3, 71 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait is still holding steady at a little over 6 months, the same as for the previous round. By the end of all three Rounds, the total number of nominations increased slightly - this suggests that users are more willing to nominate, knowing that their articles will be reviewed. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Final so we can keep tackling the backlog. In the Final Round, the user with the highest score will be the winner. The Final has already started and will end on March 31st at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Finals and the pools can be found here. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, 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 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) 19:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello again. Thank you for your help with the Kazon. I have been working on a page for the Vidiians and I have recently put it up for GAN. I was wondering if you could review it as you were a big help last time. I understand that it is a busy time of the year so it is okay if you do not have the time or energy for this. Hope you have a wonderful weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Annora Brown 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! Yoninah (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi J Milburn, I hope all is well. You've been kind enough to review articles on two previous GANs for Ealing comedies, Passport to Pimlico and Whisky Galore! (1949 film). I now have the third (and probably best) from that year, Kind Hearts and Coronets, which I have recently nominated. If you have time to review this I would be most grateful, but I understand if you are already busy elsewhere. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
On 18 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Annora Brown, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Annora Brown was commissioned to paint 200 Albertan wildflowers, some of which are now extinct? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Annora Brown. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), 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.
— Maile (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Four years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hey J Milburn, since the closure of the FA nomination of Fallout 4: Far Harbor, I've tried to get it up to FA standards based on what you and others said in the nomination, and suggestions outside of that. I'd love to know your opinion on the article now and if there are any improvements that could be made. The page is here if you wish to leave any comments. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Bill (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 Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Devil of Christmas 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 Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
On 27 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Devil of Christmas, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "The Devil of Christmas", a 2016 episode of Inside No. 9, was filmed using authentic 1970s cameras? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Devil of Christmas. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), 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) 00:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The article The Bill (Inside No. 9) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Bill (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 Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to Women in Red's | ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Four Award | ||
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Cortinarius violaceus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC) |
Four Award | ||
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC) |
And for special price Josh I will throw in one of these...
The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:
Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.
So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
The article The Devil of Christmas you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Devil of Christmas 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 Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).
Hi Josh please could you review Why is there something rather than nothing?, and give a 'Keep' or otherwise view? All best User:JCJC777—Preceding undated comment added 07:05, 3 May 2017
Hello! Your submission of The Riddle of the Sphinx (Inside No. 9) 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! ISD (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
On 9 May 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Bill (Inside No. 9), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that due to the English North-South divide, Craig, a character in "The Bill", is unfamiliar with diddlums, piss-mints, and bluecocks? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Bill (Inside No. 9). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), 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.
Vanamonde (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Riddle of the Sphinx (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) 18:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
On 17 May 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Riddle of the Sphinx (Inside No. 9), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Riddle of the Sphinx (Inside No. 9). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), 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.
—David Levy 03:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Number 9 | |
For you continued efforts for improving articles relating Inside No. 9. Congratulations on another GA. NumerounovedantTalk 07:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC) |
The article The Riddle of the Sphinx (Inside No. 9) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Riddle of the Sphinx (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) 07:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to Women in Red's June 2017 worldwide online editathons. | ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Empty Orchestra 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 Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).
Hello again! I hope that everything is going well for you. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide any feedback/commentary on my current FAC. I understand that it is a busy time of the year so I completely understand if you do not have the time or energy to look at this nomination. Thank you either. Great work with your current projects; have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Empty Orchestra 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
On 19 June 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Empty Orchestra, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "Empty Orchestra", an episode of Inside No. 9, features a karaoke version of Yazoo's "Only You" sung by Janet, who is played by the Deaf actor Emily Howlett? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Empty Orchestra. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), 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.
Vanamonde (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to Women in Red's July 2017 worldwide online editathons. | ||
|
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Hi there! Several months ago, you reviewed my article Astronomica for GA status. Well, since then, I've put in a lot of work into it and am currently nominating it at FAN. I was wondering if you would be willing to peek at the article and maybe leave some comments on the FA nomination page? I'd love to see this article be the best it can be! Thanks.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)