User talk:Wugapodes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Cite LSA

Hi, thanks for updating Cite LSA, I was wondering if you could make some changes to it to make it more compatible with other citaion templates. For example it uses "pagevegin" and "pageend", where a single field for "pages" would be useful. It also would be easier with parameters for chapters in addition to title, so that we dont need the "booktitle" parameter. Also pubplace would be better named as location. Such changes would make it easier to change from CS1 to Cite LSA which I am thinking of doing in most of my language articles.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

dude, you farked it up badly

Ummmm, please do take a look at the bottom of Taiwanese aborigines. Then fix what you farked. Thanx. • Serviceable†Villain 14:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Black Sign Variation at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Hello,

Your newly repaired nomination has been reviewed. While your interesting article meets most requirements, it still needs some citations to complete it. If you have any difficulty with this, please feel free to ask me for help.

Georgejdorner (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Georgejdorner Thank you for reviewing my submission and for your feedback. I'm unsure of what you mean by "cites needed to "close" the paragraph" in your comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Black Sign Variation. Is it simply that each paragraph should have a citation at the end for the information within it or is there another meaning I'm unaware of such as specific paragraphs need citations? Wugapodes (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Black Sign Variation

Thank you for your help with DYK Victuallers (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Black American Sign Language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar for You!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Black American Sign Language to Good Article status.  — Calvin999 19:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		For Black American Sign Language, a delightful article. BlueSalix (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

2015 GA Cup

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - June 2015 Welcome to the GA Cup! In less than 72 hours, the competition will begin! Before you all start reviewing nominations and reassessments we want to make sure you understand the following: This is a friendly competition so we don't want any cheating/breaking of the rules. However, if you do believe someone is going against the rules, notify the judges. All the rules are listed here. If you are a new editor or new to reviewing Good article nominations, it is imperative that you read the 4 essays/guides listed under FAQ #4. If you do not understand something, ask a judge for clarification ASAP! The competition is not entirely about who can review the most nominations. Per the "Scoring" page, there is different criteria in which you can earn more points. Theoretically, you could review 10 nominations and have 80 points but another user could have reviewed 5 nominations and have 100 points. Yes, we want you to review as many nominations as you can as this will greatly increase the number of points you earn, but you must also keep in mind that every single review will be looked over by a judge. If we find that you are "rubber-stamping" (in other words, the review is not complete but you still passed/failed the article) you may be disqualified without warning. The same applies with reassessments. If you just say that the article should be delisted or kept with no explanation, points will not be awarded. Remember, to submit Good article reviews and reassessments on your submissions page (Some of you have not created your submissions page yet. Only reviews/reassessments submitted on your submissions page can earn points. If you participated in the 2014-2015 GA Cup, you still need to re-create your submissions page.). Detailed instructions on how to submit reviews and reassessments can be found under the "Submissions" page. Ask a judge if you need clarification. Also, rather than creating a long list on what to remember, make sure you have read the "Scoring", "Submissions", and "FAQ" pages. Now some of you are probably wondering how on earth the rounds will work. The rounds will work in a similar fashion as the previous competition, with the exception of the first round. Round 1 will have everyone compete in one big pool. Depending on the final number of participants after sign-ups close, a to-be-determined number of participants will move on (highest scorers will move on) to Round 2. We guarantee that the top 15 will move on (this number may change), so make sure you aim for those top positions! Moving on to Round 2, participants will be split into pools. The pools will be determined by a computer program that places participants by random. More details regarding Round 2 will be sent out at the end of Round 1. It is important to note that the GA Cup will run on UTC time, so make sure you know what time that is for where you live! On that note, the GA Cup will start on July 1 at 0:00:01 UTC; Round 1 will end on July 29 at 23:59:59 UTC; Round 2 will commence on August 1 at 0:00:01 UTC. All reviews must be started after or on the start time of the round. If you qualify for Round 2 but do not complete a review before the end of Round 1, the review can be carried over to Round 2; however that review will not count for Round 1. Prior to the start of the the second round, participants who qualify to move on will be notified. Finally, if you know anyone else that might be interesting in participating, let them know! Sign-ups close on July 15 so there is still plenty of time to join in on the action! If you have any further questions, contact one of the judges or leave a message here. After sign-ups close, check the Pools page as we will post the exact number of participants that will move on to the next round. Because this number will be determined past the halfway mark of Round 1, we encourage you to aim to be in the top 15 as the top 15 at the end of the round are guaranteed to move on. Cheers from 3family6, Dom497, Figureskatingfan, 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, 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) 13:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Kill the Irishman GA nomination

Hi, thanks for taking a look at Kill the Irishman's GA nomination. I've been working hard to improve the article and have closely abided by your advice. I was wondering if you can give me any more help and advice, if you feel that the article still needs further improving to meet the GA requirements. Thanks.

Metal121 (talk) 09:43, July 02, 2015 (GMT).

Metal121, thanks for the quick revisions! I've added some more to the review page based upon your revisions. It's still on hold as a few things need to still be addressed. Mostly, it's some sourcing and WP:OR problems that I went over on that page. If you have any questions, feel free to keep asking! Wugapodes (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Wugapodes, thanks for the extra guidance and advice - in regards to the article's GA nomination. It's much appreciated! I have further edited the article (including: the box office section, the section on Art Sneperger's death (by adding the correct references that support the information), the plot (adding references in regards to the plot of the actual movie), and I've re-arranged the article and edited it - in compliance with Wikipedia's MoS (Manual of Style). I'd appreciate it if you could take another look at the article for me. Again, thanks for all of your help! Metal121 18:46, July 02, 2015 (GMT).

Wugapodes, thanks for clarfying what you meant! I've attended to the areas that have needed addressing. This includes the lead at the top section, the rewriting of the paragraph on Licavoli (in the plot section), and the section on Art Sneperger's death. I feel that the new sources are adequate for the section on Sneperger's death and the rumours surrounding it, but if it isn't, then I will delete that section if need be. Again thanks for your help!. I look forward to hearing back from you.

Metal121 (talk) 10:07, July 03, 2015 (GMT).

Talkback

Hello, Wugapodes. You have new messages at Talk:Ellen Pao.
Message added 08:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Anarchyte 08:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Varieties of American Sign Language

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Varieties of American Sign Language, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Bolivian Sign Language. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Ellalan (monarch)

Hellow, thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. But why you removed tag of "move discussion" from Talk:Ellalan (monarch)? And your intro to RfC "Should the page be renamed or remain at this title?" is very uninformative and do not give idea of the topic. At least you change your intro as "Should page be renamed from Ellalan (monarch) to Elara?". If you can't change your intro then at least restore the "move" tag. Thank you. --Human3015 (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: per WP:RFC, a request for comment should have "a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue." Your statement that "The article title in its present form (Ellalan) is incorrect." is non-neutral and, as it was a paragraph, I assumed it was more an argument in the discussion than a statement or question for the RfC. So I added a question so that others who read the RfC know what is being discussed.

I shouldn't have removed the move tag, rather, it should have been substituted. I will fix that right now. Wugapodes (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

After putting the template back in, I realized that the template works strangely. It seems you put the template in correctly and the results just look weird. Wugapodes (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Empire State Building

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Empire State Building. Legobot (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

2015 GA Cup - Round 2

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 2 Greetings, GA Cup competitors! Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. The Rambling Man, who was eliminated during the first round in our last competition, earned an impressive 513 points, reviewed twice as many articles (26) as any other competitor. It was a tight race for second for first-time competitors BenLinus1214 and Tomandjerry211, who finished second and third with 243 and 224 points, respectively. Close behind was Wugapodes, who earned 205 points. The change in our points system had an impact on scoring. It was easier to earn higher points, although the key to success didn't change from last time, which was choosing articles with older nomination dates. For example, most of the articles The Rambling Man reviewed were worth 18 points in the nomination date category, and he benefited from it. BenLinus1214 reviewed the longest article, A Simple Plan (at 26,536 characters, or 4,477 words), the 1994 film starring Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, and Bridget Fonda and directed by Sam Raimi, and earned all possible 5 points in that category. After feedback from our participants, the judges slightly changed the rule about review length this time out. Shorter reviews are now allowed, as long as reviewers give nominators an opportunity to address their feedback. Shorter reviews are subject to the judges' discretion; the judges will continue their diligence as we continue the competition. Despite having fewer contestants at the beginning of Round 1 than last time, 132 articles were reviewed, far more than the 117 articles that were reviewed in Round 1 of the inaugural GA Cup. All of us involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished thus far. The judges are certain that Round 2 will be just as successful. 16 contestants have moved onto Round 2 and have been randomly placed in 4 groups of 4, with the top 2 in each pool progressing to Round 3, as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 has already begun and will end on August 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here. Good luck and remember to have fun! Cheers from Dom497, 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.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Invisalign

The RFC here hasn't attracted any comments from un-involved editors yet. Wondering if you have a minute to take a look. The medical content is the only area left for improvement until it will be GAN-ready. If you do participate, the discussion string just above that one is relevant. CorporateM (Talk) 14:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists. Legobot (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Electromagnetic articulography

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of kings of Persia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of kings of Persia. Legobot (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wugapodes. You have new messages at Talk:Sakakibara Kenkichi/GA1.
Message added 14:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yunshui ^雲_水 14:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I've just had another look at that kabutowari section; I think I've found a way of rewording it which will satisfy both of us. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Norodom Ranariddh

Hi there, I have addressed and replied your suggestions to the GA. Apologies for being away for so many days due to real life concerns. Mr Tan (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Appreciated with thanks :) You are welcome to review other articles which I have nominated on GA list if you like :) Mr Tan (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Sakakibara Kenkichi

Many thanks for taking the time to provide such a thorough review. I'll even forgive you calling me pretentious! Much obliged, and best of luck with the GA cup. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Haha, I really did mean that in the nicest way possible! But it was no problem. You deserve the thanks for working so hard on the article! Like I said, keep up the good work! Wugapodes (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

ELBURDEN

I started a discussion on it once again. It says disputed links remain out. I've worked hard to try to understand the different viewpoints of the Pirate Bay dispute, but at this point I have to agree with the comments made before I became involved: editors simply aren't interested in following consensus. ELBURDEN documents consensus on how to address such disputes. I think it is more than two months overdue that we follow it and end this absolutely ridiculous dispute. --Ronz (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the links should not be there, that doesn't mean I am going to actively undermine a dispute resolution process. While you criticise others for not following consensus at ELBURDEN, consensus at WP:Dispute resolution is very clear: "Do not continue edit warring; once sustained discussion begins, productively participating in it is a priority." If you believe that the RfC has no consensus and should be closed, seek to close the RfC. But right now all that is happening right now is an unnecessary escalation of the situation which is beneficial to no one. Wugapodes (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

ELBURDEN says they don't belong.

I brought it up on the talk page before removing them.

It's beneficial to the encyclopedia and all involved that we move on. That's why we have ELBURDEN - so we're not wasting time on external link disputes. --Ronz (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

And when you brought it up on the talk page, another editor voiced their opposition citing the previous time you attempted this. You continued to do it. It is beneficial to the encyclopedia if process is followed. We don't have a deadline. No one's life depends on whether those links are removed today or two weeks from now or never. Summarily ignoring an active discussion is the opposite of beneficial to the encyclopedia. Wugapodes (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

That editor didn't address the guideline, rather focused on me. That violates WP:DR and WP:CON. It is just one of the many IDHT problems that dominate the dispute, preventing the applicable policies and guidelines from being followed. These problems have been going on from the dispute's very beginning, more than two months ago, before I ever was involved. --Ronz (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I brought it up on the talk page before removing them. - If you're talking about this latest occurrence, no, you did not. You removed the links first,[1] and then brought it up on the talk page 6 minutes later.[2] I won't comment on your other claims. I'm sure Wugapodes doesn't want his talk page filled with extraneous content. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Minor thing, my preferred pronoun is "they", not "he". Wugapodes (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

AussieLegend, welcome to the discussion. You are incorrect. ELBURDEN has been brought up time and time again. The last two times by me. I'm referring to the [3], followed by [4]. You'll note those were four days ago. During that same period, you appeared to withdraw from discussing your points on why the links should be included [5]. --Ronz (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I know where you're coming from and understand your reasoning. Participation there has been far from cordial from all sides of the argument. And while my post on your talk page was probably harsher and more provocative than I intended, I meant it to convey that, while I believe everything you're saying is correct, undermining a dispute resolution process isn't the way to further it, and that continuation would probably end in an ANI report from someone over there. The last thing anyone needs is a block, and I intended it as a way to get you to realize that you were on that path. It was supposed to be more of a nudge than the shove it turned out to be, but I truly think that continuing to not go along with the process in such a contentious matter will not be good for anyone. That's my two cents. Wugapodes (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree. It's time to deescalate once again. --Ronz (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Black American Sign Language

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Black American Sign Language 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 Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Black American Sign Language

The article Black American Sign Language 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:Black American Sign Language for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:India

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:India. Legobot (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Black American Sign Language

The article Black American Sign Language you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Black American Sign Language 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 Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Paulo Francis/GA4

Wugapodes, I did give a second opinion on the nomination page. The article is clearly not a GA, and needs a great deal of work to get there. I've submitted a request at WP:GOCE, but it'll be a while before they get to it, and before any subsequent GAN it should also be peer reviewed. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Snježana Kordić

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Snježana Kordić. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alveolar approximant

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alveolar approximant 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 Tomandjerry211 (alt) -- Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Roku

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Roku. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 3

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 3 Greetings, all! We hope that everyone had a nice summer. Saturday saw the end of Round 2. Things went relatively smoothly this month. The top 2 from 4 pools, plus the top participant (the wildcard, or "9th place") of all remaining competitors, moved onto Round 3. We had one withdrawal early in Round 2, so he was replaced by the next-highest scorer from Round 1. Round 2's highest scorer was Pool D's Tomandjerry211, who earned an impressive 366 points; he also reviewed the most articles (19). Close behind was Zwerg Nase, also in Pool D, at 297 points and 16 articles. The wildcard slot went to Good888. Congrats to all! Round 3 will have 9 competitors in 3 pools. The key to moving forward was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates, as it has been in every round up to now. For example, 2 competitors only needed to review 2 articles each to win in their pools, and each article were either from the pink nomination box (20 points) or had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup continues to be a success in many ways, even with fewer competitors this time. For some reason, the competitors in the 2015 GA Cup have reviewed fewer articles in Round 2, which has made the judges scratch their head in confusion. We've speculated many reasons for that: the summer months and vacations, our competitors are saving their strength for the final rounds, or they all live in the Pacific Northwest and the heavy wildfire smoke has affected their thinking. Whatever the reason, Round 2 competitors reviewed almost 100 articles, which is a significant impact in the task of reviewing articles for GA status. We've considered that the lower participation this competition is due to timing, so we intend to discuss the best time frame for future GA Cups. For Round 3, participants have been placed randomly in 3 pools of 3 contestants each; the top editor in each pool will progress, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on September 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on September 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. Good luck to the remaining contestants, and have fun! 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.

Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Good articles by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alveolar approximant

The article Alveolar approximant you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Alveolar approximant 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 Tomandjerry211 (alt) -- Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Heavy metal music

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Heavy metal music. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Legal aspects of ritual slaughter

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Legal aspects of ritual slaughter. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United Nations

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United Nations. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shaun King (activist)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shaun King (activist). Legobot (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Electropalatography

Thanks for the barnstar! RoachPeter (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kansas River

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kansas River. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Roger Waters

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Roger Waters. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Microsoft

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Microsoft. Legobot (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Electromagnetic articulography

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Electromagnetic articulography 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 Spinningspark -- Spinningspark (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Slow Movement

Thank you for your comments on the merge discussion here, my apologies for not replying sooner! Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fa La La (album)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fa La La (album). Legobot (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:3D electromagnetic articulography transmitter coil configuration.pdf.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:3D electromagnetic articulography transmitter coil configuration.pdf.png. 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. --B-bot (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Carly Fiorina

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carly Fiorina. Legobot (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Constructed action and dialogue, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pragmatic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Political Correctness RfC

Hi, you moved the new RfC back to the old one, but the two are vastly different. The old one was about whether it was to be listed as a pejorative or not. This is about whether it's generally or primarily. I added a note to the beginning of the RfC to note and clarify this difference. I apologize for undoing your move. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Campus sexual assault

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Campus sexual assault. Legobot (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alienation (EP)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alienation (EP). Legobot (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rebel Heart Tour

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rebel Heart Tour. Legobot (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Legobot (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Syro-Palestinian archaeology

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Syro-Palestinian archaeology. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

FAC @ Norodom Ranariddh

Hi Wugapodes, I hope all's well for you, and I have put up the above article for FAC sometime back. As I remembered that you had reviewed this article for its GA stage, I felt it was only right for me to extend an invitation for you to visit the FAC, express stand on the article's worthiness for FA status and/or pass any commentary on any areas of possible improvement as you may see fit. The article has changed somewhat since it passed GA a few months back. Please do not feel obliged or pressured if you do not wish to do so or am unable to. See you! Mr Tan (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!

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)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!

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)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker. Legobot (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

CANVASS

Hi, can you confirm you're not an admin please? For that reason I've chosen to discuss your edit summary at ANI her at user talk in my report about me, seeking education on SPAM vs APPNOTE. Your edit sum said it was the scale of the postings that made my acts a CANVASS problem. Please show me something - anything - in our guidelines that limits the number of pages to which one can send an identical WP:APPNOTE?

You see, I have trouble believing that the US cattlemen's association page watchers were going to see it at the Sierra Club's page, and I'm also pretty certain the Sierra Clubbers aren't hanging out at the Sovereign Cit's Movement. All these subjects are likely to be interested, from a variety of viewpoints. Thus, you seem to be claiming that by trying hard to pull in diversity I somehow stepped across a line that converted APPNOTE to disruptive CANVASSING.

That could be, and I invite you to explain why with logic... or it was just a gut feeling, or what?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

My user rights log is empty as I am not an admin (or any other privileged user for that matter).

Anyway, I recommend you read WP:CANVASS in full as that's where most of what I'm going to quote is drawn from. WP:APPNOTE itself says: "The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic" There's a reason the recommended number it states is "one", because too many is problematic. Additionally, the topic should be "directly related". While the Sierra Club may be interested, it's a stretch to say they're "directly related" to the Oregon Occupation.

So what's the problem with excessive cross posting anyway? Well, the arbitration committee has stated that "The occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice. Excessive cross-posting goes against current Wikipedia community norms" (IZAK case). Wikipedia:Canvassing#Spamming and excessive cross-posting says that "If the editors are uninvolved, the message has the function of "spam" and is disruptive to that user's experience. More importantly, recruiting too many editors to a WP:dispute resolution can often make resolving the dispute impossible. Remember the purpose of a notification is to improve the dispute resolution process, not to disrupt it."

Remember that article talk pages are for discussion about improving that article (WP:TALK#USE states "Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article."), so posts about another discussion somewhere else likely doesn't contribute to improving that article. For example, the Oregon Occupation has little to do with improving coverage of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association so a post there, while maybe of interest to some of them, is not very appropriate for the article's talk page since it won't be particularly helpful for improving that article. If it were, for example, a discussion about a policy change related to farming articles, it might be good to post there because that would affect that page. Further, while not votestacking is important, when you invite 9 different pages all with differing views to one discussion on a page they weren't following in the first place, it can create a lot of drama and not much consensus.

In my opinion, the best way to publicize is on WikiProject talk pages. For example, you would reach 170 people, all of whom are interested in Oregon-related things by posting once to Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Oregon. Another post on Talk:Bundy standoff gets you another 88 views, and this topic is directly related to their coverage as coverage of the Oregon Occupation may be pertinent to coverage there. Wugapodes (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

First, APPNOTE doesn't say "one", does it? And if you think Sierra Club is a stretch, you probably haven't read "Malheur Refuge Takeover Just the Latest Twist on a Long Running Story". Thanks for a calm explanation, even if it hasn't convinced me my shout outs were even remotely disruptive. But I'm still listening and willing to learn. I'll watch for further input at the ANI thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC) PS the project tip is interesting. I don't do much with that wikispace but will try to remember this idea next time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vehbi Koç

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vehbi Koç. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Request edit

Hi Wugapodes. I have a COI with Juniper Networks, which I brought up to GA a while back. It's a multi-billion dollar network equipment company that provides the hardware for a lot of ISPs, etc. There is an article on one of their product families Juniper MX-Series that is currently somewhat promotional and relies heavily on primary sources. I have shared a draft on the Talk page that would make it less promotional, replace primary sources with secondary ones, focuses on history and development rather than product brochure information, and even adds the criticism that they were late to market.

It seems pretty obvious that it shouldn't be a COI problem, but I have gone through the usual process of suggesting my draft on the Talk page about 1.5 months ago. I was hoping you might be able to spare a moment and take a look if you have time. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 16:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 23 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Juniper MX-Series page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to an online editathon on Black Women's History

Invitation
	Black Women's History online edit-a-thon 1 to 15 February 2016 Hosted by Women in Red Sponsored by AfroCrowd Supporting Black WikiHistory Month

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Women in Red events by removing your name from this list.)--Ipigott (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

A request

Thanks for the reply on WT:GAN. Now, there is an article I had nominated for GAN status a few days ago, it's at this pipelink. Is it alright if you could review the article? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 17:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the review. Really appeciated.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Linguistic Society of America

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Linguistic Society of America 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 Maunus -- Maunus (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal of a WikiProject Translation studies

Hi Wugapodes. Thanks for asking about my proposal. I have just written a short answer on the project proposal page.

Just to give you an idea, the possible ideas to be included in the project are translation, translation criticism, machine translation, computer-assisted translation, language localisation, translation associations, translation awards, etc.

Best regards, --Fadesga (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wugapodes. Thanks to your support, the WikiProject Translation studies is now open! Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

bot errors

@Wugapodes: division by zero Lonjers french region rename bot (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Mustafizur Rahman GA review

Hi. I thought it would be courteous for me to mention that I have started a discussion at Talk:Mustafizur Rahman about the article's good article status, which you recently awarded. Your input would be appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Billy the Kid

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Billy the Kid. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup 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)

Your GA nomination of Linguistic Society of America

The article Linguistic Society of America you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Linguistic Society of America 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 Maunus -- Maunus (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon

You are invited...
	Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red Sponsor: Art+Feminism 1 to 31 March 2016

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
--Rosiestep (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Clarity on dispute resolution

Hey, you were trying to clear the situation. Dispute resolution process was brought up. Again I apologize if I were mistaken about the noticeboard. Then someone wrote that a dispute resolution can't happen alongside an RfC. Is there really such a rule? I mean an RfC is "Request for Comments", not necessarily directly in command of the situation? I do thank you for trying to clear the situation. Most people don't want to bother even reading through even a bit let alone getting to understand the matter. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It's no problem. So what was meant was that the dispute resolution noticeboard doesn't take disputes that are being resolved by an RfC because the consensus level of an RfC is greater than the noticeboard (ie, more editors are notified and participate in an RfC than at DRN so the consensus is stronger). However, DRN and RfCs are for content disputes while ANI is largely for issues of editor conduct. When I said "resolve the dispute" I meant the editor conduct issues rather than the content dispute. Hopefully that clears things up for you! Wugapodes (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the guidance. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Australian head of state dispute

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Australian head of state dispute. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Article Ban

Hello, you requested an article ban from Political Correctness for me for some reason. Sorry, but what bad behavior at the article has happened this year? What forum shopping? I ask for diffs from this year, not vague accusations. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

One of Adam Cuerden’s several quality restorations during round 1

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)