User talk:Biblioworm/Archive 2016

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Happy New Year, Biblioworm![edit]

Happy New Year!

Biblioworm,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message
By the way, did you know that this edit was the last edit made in 2015, and this is the first edit of 2016? (Times in UTC, of course). —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Biblioworm![edit]

Happy New Year!

Biblioworm,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests[edit]

(Discuss) – Portobuffolè → Portobuffolé – we're 3 agreeing and 1 opposing after 2 weeks, an admin is needed to move pages entitled "Portobuffolè" to "Portobuffolé" both in English and in all other languages Wikis, please could you do it Biblioworm? 151.20.56.164 (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Anthony already moved it, and I'm afraid a consensus on the English Wikipedia isn't enough to justify moving it on other Wikipedias. Even if that wasn't the case, I don't have the technical ability to do that, since I only have admin rights here. I also noticed that someone on Anthony's talk page disputed the move, so it might end up being reviewed. Biblio (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors 2015 End of Year Report[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors 2015 End of Year Report
Our 2015 End of Year Report is now ready for review.

Highlights:

  • Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page;
  • New record lows in the article backlog and on the Requests page;
  • Coordinator election results;
  • Membership news;
  • Changes around the Guild's pages;
  • Plans for 2016.
– Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by Jonesey95 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP vandal[edit]

Hi, BW. I've got a slow-rolling IP vandal @ Florida–Tennessee football rivalry. The IP has attempted to change multiple scores in a rivalry series win-loss table over the past two days. For obvious vandalism, I normally just use the rollback function, and the IPs usually give up, but I just realized that I'm bumping the limit on reverts. I would be grateful if you could semi-protect the page for three or four days until our budding vandal gives up and goes away. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirtlawyer1: Looks like the trouble is over (for now). Sorry I didn't reply sooner, but I'm having a hard time getting motivated to participate again after all the RfA reform work. Biblio (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, BW. Illegitimi non carborundum. If you're worn down now, just think how Kudpung feels after years of playing Sisyphus in the same game. You're too smart, and have too much to offer, just to give up. Reforming Wikipedia's processes is hard: 40 to 50 percent of your fellow editors will recognize the need and support a good proposal; 25 percent will recognize the need, but oppose because they believe they have a vested interest in the way things are; and another 25 percent will oppose because they believe the proposed reform is part of an admin-driven conspiracy to "oppress content creators". My suggestion? Find a couple of mediocre articles whose subjects you love and spend a week building them into Good Articles. Not difficult, feels good while you're working on it, and there's something to show for your efforts when you're done. It's good for editor morale. Let me know if you ever want a partner on an article you're building. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the reforms actually succeeded (!), if you're not aware, but the point is that successful or not, the work was very tiring. I probably won't be involved too much with RfA reform anymore, although there are one or two proposals that I might put forward in a few months. Even with those proposals, I probably won't be too involved; I'll just propose them and let it go. But I definitely won't ever be engaged at the level I was before; I don't really like being at the center of attention, anyway. Even before this, I was already planning to spend most of my time quietly working on content from now on, which I have found to be enjoyable in the past. The clerking RfC is still open, but there is little activity and it looks like it will be unsuccessful, anyway. After it closes, I'm done (with the exception of the one or two future proposals I mentioned above). Biblio (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was aware that the discretionary range had been widened, and the close was challenged and then re-opened, but given the voting margin it was obvious it was going to pass. It's incremental progress. Obviously, the clerking proposal has got more of an up-hill climb. Some form of referee is needed to reel in some of our more vocal participants, but too many regular participants seem to believe that it threatens their ability to comment "freely". I did not realize the clerking RfC was still pending; I will comment after reviewing the discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 January 2016[edit]

Thank you for granting my request as account creator. Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 05:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/Clerking RfC[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/Clerking RfC. Legobot (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking the editor who launched the RfC in the first place to comment on the RfC? ;) Biblio (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 January 2016[edit]

Creating a page of professional athlete[edit]

Hello, I want to create a page of professional football player, but here shows that it was previously deleted and I need to contact you. I want to create a page of player.[1] What I need to change? Best regards, Dragan Jevtic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prosports7 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gediminas Kruša

Please comment on Talk:Royal Tunbridge Wells[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Royal Tunbridge Wells. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Battle of Brunanburh[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Brunanburh 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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finally! Biblio (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Battle of Brunanburh[edit]

The article Battle of Brunanburh you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Brunanburh 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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good, and thank you. Maybe I can start working on another article once I get that dumb computer of mine fixed up. At the moment, I only have mobile and a slow, clunky, unreliable old desktop. ;) Biblio (talk) 12:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 January 2016[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Ethnocracy[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ethnocracy. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wessex - some cleaning needed?[edit]

I see that you previously have been improving the artikle Wessex. The paragraph "Contemporary use of the name" seem to be a mess. Perhaps you can take a look at it? --Finn Bjørklid (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 January 2016[edit]

RfA[edit]

This interpretation of your RfC is not strictly true , is it? No special authority has been accorded to something they - and anyone else - can already do. Altering the Bureaucrats' mandate in any way whatsoever requires a separate RfC. I fully understand the reasoning behind your addition of this caveat, but we do really need to avoid glibly bending the facts to support our wishes for clerking - which incidentally, it appears, the community threw out (much to my own disappointment). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Dank, not me. He closed the RfC and determined the consensus; he is known for his history of closing (messy) RfCs, so I think we can trust his judgement. Furthermore, the increased involvement by the crats has been met with a generally positive reaction. Why should we start yet another RfC? If we really want to keep the changes we've made, I think we ought to know better than to do that. The more chances we give them, the more likely the determined anti-reform club is to band together and somehow find a way to reverse the changes we've made. Quite frankly, I get the impression that the community has generally accepted the results of the two RfCs and is not receptive to the idea of starting more. Biblio (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The untargeted watchlist advertisement is beginning to seem like a bad idea, and I'm considering making a RfC to reverse just that one change, while leaving the others intact. Esquivalience t 20:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Esquivalience: Why is it a bad idea? If you want to do that because of Hawkeye's RfA, keep in mind that it almost certainly would have been a dramafest with or without the advertisement; he does seem to have a very controversial history. But if you're sure, keep in mind that you would have to advertise that RfC at the level that the Phase II RfC was advertised; policy indicates that the consensus of a few cannot overturn the consensus of many. And before you know it, people who hate the reforms in general will get ideas, and we might start having RfCs to reverse that inconvenient question limit, to reverse the expanded discretionary range ("Someone I don't like passed because of it!"), and especially the clerking ("Those clerks are power-hungry, censoring Nazis/Stalinists!"). (We've already had accusations along those lines.) We could end up right back where we started, and all the work (of which I did at least 90%) would have been for nothing. Do we want to take the chance? Biblio (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I take that back. However, a lot of the anti-editor army using fallacious logic will come from the watchlist notice. WP:CENT is OK, as most trolls focus on {{Centralized discussion}}-less AN and ANI; however it attracts (well-meaning) but still new editors and the sock loom. Anyway, I prefer if technical measures are applied to exclude editors with fewer than X edits (maybe by automatically placing the opt-out cookie)? Esquivalience t 23:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Josip Broz Tito[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Josip Broz Tito. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting my RfA[edit]

Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!!!1!!!!!!!!!1![edit]

The Original Barnstar
For improving RFA Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support[edit]

Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 GA Cup[edit]

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)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Maya civilization[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Maya civilization. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 February 2016[edit]

DYK for Battle of Brunanburh[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of state leaders in 2015[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of state leaders in 2015. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 February 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 February 2016[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Zionism[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Zionism. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 February 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Malcolm X[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Malcolm X. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 GA Cup-Round 1[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 1

Greetings, all.

The 3rd Annual GA Cup has officially begun, and you can start reviewing your articles/reassessments now! However, sign-ups will not close til March 15th if anybody (who wishes to sign up) has not signed up yet. We currently have 1 group of 33 contestants in Round 1, and we will have 16 Wikipedians left in Round 2. Please be sure to review this information and the FAQ if you haven't already,

If you have any questions, please ask us here where all of the judges (including our newest one, Zwerg Nase!) will be answering any questions you may have. You can also feel free to ask us on our talk pages/send an email to us (information is here).

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 March 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 March 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 16 March 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Coursera homepage.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Coursera homepage.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. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 23:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Biblioworm. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol.
Message added 06:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 23 March 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 GA Cup-Round 2[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 1

Greetings, GA Cup competitors!

Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. Sainsf took out Round 1 with an amazing score of 765. In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 742 points, and in third place, FunkMonk received 610 points.

In Round 1, 206 reviews were completed, more than any other year! At the beginning of March, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 490. We continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 2 so we can lower the backlog as much as possible.

To qualify for the second round, you needed to make it into the top 16 of participants. Users were placed in 4 random pools of 4. To qualify for Round 3, the top 2 in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 9th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 2 will start on April 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on April 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here

Also, remember that a major rule change will go into effect starting on April 1, which marks the beginning of Round Two. Round 1 had an issue brought up in the rules, which we are correcting with this clarification. We believe that this change will make the competition more inherently fair. The new rule is: All reviews must give the nominator (or anyone else willing to improve the article) time to address the issues at hand, even if the article would qualify for what is usually called a "quick fail" in GA terms. To avoid further confusion, we have updated the scoring page, replacing the term "quick fail" with the term "fail without granting time for improvements". We expect all reviewers to put a review on hold for seven days in cases such as these as well, in order to apply the same standards to every competitor. The judges will strictly enforce this new rule.

Good luck and have fun!

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On your "Thoughts"[edit]

At User:Biblioworm/Thoughts, I found your most interesting point was the lack of preemptive protection of WP:TFA's. That seems like a no-brainer to me. I'm assuming that has been proposed in the past, and shot down?... If so, that does seem like a ridiculously foolish decision. And, knowing this place, I'm guessing there's no point in revisiting it?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reading the page, IJBall. :) Yes, the preemptive protection of TFAs has been proposed many a time, but it is always rejected and has been listed on the perennial proposals page. Unfortunately, some editors seem to revere that page almost to the point of treating it as a policy; once something is there, any renewed proposal of it (regardless of the new evidence presented in its favor) is swiftly thrown away simply because it is listed on the page. The popular argument against such protection is that Wikipedia claims to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit; therefore, why should we squarely "contradict" that claim by protecting the most-visible article of the day? However, sometime in the near future, I plan to write a page in which I will defend my each of my specific proposed reforms and refute the arguments against them. I'll let you know when I'm done with that. :) Thanks. Biblio (talk) 06:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 April 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:YouTube[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:YouTube. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter

March drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 28 people who signed up, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

April blitz: The one-week April blitz, again targeting our long requests list, will run from April 17–23. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the requests page. Sign up here!

May drive: The month-long May backlog-reduction drive, with extra credit for articles tagged in March, April, and May 2015, and all request articles, begins May 1. Sign up now!

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis, and Baffle gab1978.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DRN help needed and volunteer roll call[edit]

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of people who have opened the Olympic Games[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of people who have opened the Olympic Games. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 April 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 April 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ooty[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ooty. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 May 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 GA Cup-Round 3[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3

Hello, GA Cup competitors!

Thursday saw the end of Round 2. Sainsf once again took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 996 (a higher score then he received in Round 1!). In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 541 points, and in third place, Carbrera received 419 points.

In Round 2, 142 reviews were completed! At the beginning of April, there were 486 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 384. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [1]; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months.[2] 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 lowering the backlog as much as possible.

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. We had an unusual occurrence happen in Round 2: because only one contestant submitted reviews in one pool, we selected the contestant with the next highest score to move forward to Round 3. (There will be a rule change for future competitions in case something like this happens again.) 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 will start on May 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on May 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.

Good luck and have fun!

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Cayman Islands[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cayman Islands. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Cup-Round 3 Clarification[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3

Hello, GA Cup competitors!

It has been brought to our attention that we made a mistake in the last newsletter. In the last newsletter, we said that the "4th place" overall would make the Final along with the top user from each pool. However, the users who will advance will be the top user from each pool along with "4th and 5th place" overall.

We apologize for any inconvenience or confusion that we caused.

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Education of the British Royal Family[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Education of the British Royal Family. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kosher tax (antisemitic canard). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 May 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Recall of MPs Act 2015[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Recall of MPs Act 2015. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Scranton General Strike[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Scranton General Strike. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 May 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Constitution of Medina[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Constitution of Medina. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 GA Cup-Finals[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3

Hello, GA Cup competitors!

Tuesday saw the end of Round 3. Sainsf, for the third time, won with a sizable 487 points and a shocking 29 articles reviewed. In second, MPJ-DK had 168 points and 7 reviewed articles. In second place, MPJ-DK earned 168 points with just 7 articles, and in third place, Carbrera received 137 points with just 9 articles. Our two wildcard slots went to J Milburn with 122 points and Sturmvogel 66 with 101 points.

In Round 3, 65 reviews were completed! At the beginning of the GA Cup, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 3, there were 394. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of the GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [3]; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months [4]—nothing before 2016. 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 the Finals for the GA Cup so that are successes continue.

To qualify for the Finals, contestants had to earn the highest scores in each of the three pools in Round 3; plus, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users in all of the pools. For the Finals, users were placed in one pool of the remaining five users. To win the GA Cup, you must have the most points. The Finals started on June 1 at 0:00:01 UTC' and end on June 30 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about the Finals and the pools can be found here. A clarification: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round.

We wish all the contestants the best of luck!

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Avedis Zildjian Company[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Avedis Zildjian Company. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 June 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors June 2016 News

Hello everyone, welcome to the June 2016 GOCE newsletter. It's been a few months since we sent one out; we hope y'all haven't forgotten about the Guild! Your coordinators have been busy behind the scenes as usual, though real life has a habit of reducing our personal wiki-time. The May backlog reduction drive, the usual coordinating tasks and preparations for the June election are keeping us on our toes!

May drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's record-setting backlog reduction drive. Of the 29 people who signed up, 16 copyedited at least one article, 197 copyedits were recorded on the drive page, and the copyedit backlog fell below 1,500 for the first time! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

June Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz will occur from 12 June through 18 June; the themes will be video games and Asian geography.

Coordinator elections: It's election time again; how quickly they seem to roll around! Nominations for the next tranche of Guild coordinators, who will serve a six-month term that begins at 00:01 UTC on 1 July and ends at 23:59 UTC on 31 December, opens at 00:01 UTC on 1 June and closes at 23:59 UTC on 15 June. Voting takes place between 00:01 UTC on 16 June and 23:59 UTC on 30 June. If you'd like to assist behind the scenes, please consider stepping forward; self-nominations are welcomed and encouraged. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are eligible; remember it's your Guild, and it doesn't run itself!

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page mover[edit]

Hi Biblioworm,

I saw that you granted Music1201 the "page mover" user right. I also don't quite meet the requirements for the right, with just under 4 months expeirence. However, I'm very active around requested moves and have closed quite a few discussions there. Many times when I do close a discussion there, it requires administrator assistance, because there is already a page at the title I'm moving it to. When I find this happens, which is quite often, I usually file a technical move request, or leave behind {{db-move}}, which is quite inefficient. I'm also a file mover, and I often move pages as per WP:FNC#9. When this is done, it would be nice if I had the ability to suppress a redirect, because the redirect needs to be deleted otherwise. Lastly, I'm also very active at the WP:AFC project, and I sometimes have to move misplaced submissions which are in mainspace, in which case the redirect also needs to be deleted.

Anyway, what I'm asking is, could you possibly grant me the user right? I don't quite have as much experience as the guideline states, but I feel that I'm knowledgeable enough to have the right. Thanks, Omni Flames (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Omni Flames: Would you mind giving me some examples of recent RM closures that you performed? I can't seem to find any recent ones, but perhaps I'm missing something. Thanks. Biblio (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, here are two examples I found straight away [5][6], I can give you more examples if you need. Both of these required some admin assistance as there were already pages at where I was trying to move to. Omni Flames (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another reasonably recent one. This one required no admin help, I was able to move the pages myself. I would mostly use this right for moving files to de-eclipse commons, however. There are quite a few examples of this in my move log. Omni Flames (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You already have rollbacker, reviewer, and (most notably) file mover. You have almost 10,000 edits, with a clean block log and (as far as I can see) no recent warnings or notices on your talk page. And you have shown examples of closure experience. I don't see why you shouldn't be trusted with it, and the page mover guideline allows admin discretion.  Done. Biblio (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'll use it well . Omni Flames (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gnome[edit]

Thank you for answering the edit protection request. More than I could have hoped for. Much thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback permission request page[edit]

Hi Biblio, hope you're well! Just so you're aware, this edit[7] of yours may have knocked out an outstanding request by mistake? No worries if deliberate, just thought it might be worth a second look. Thanks! Mike1901 (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, disregard the above, I hadn't spotted the duplicate request. Whales and trouts welcome. (and thanks User:Widr for correcting my error!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike1901 (talk • contribs)
No problem. :) Biblio (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trout[edit]

Enough

This should've been a whale, but I hope a trout will do. Please strike through your comment.

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I was heavily involved in reforming RfA for over a year; I researched RfA history and statistics, wrote op-eds on it, and I was finally the founder of the project that finally passed reforms to RfA. There is nothing in policy that forbids voicing opinions and making suggestions as to what must be done. According to that logic, I could give you a trout for daring to tell an admin what to do. But I would never do that, because I believe that all editors, whether non-admin, admin, bureaucrat, or steward, are equally entitled to voice opinions and that no usergroup is superior to another. Bureaucrats are not emperors, just as admins are not governors. Biblio (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you've spent a lot of time thinking about RfA then that makes the situation even worse! It would be smarter to say that you have very little experience with RfA and voting in general. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"daring to tell an admin what to do"... Dude... seriously. Admins are not gods. You need to stop posting quick emotional responses! Admins work for me (and the rest of the community), and they don't even get paid... The way you handled this situation was incredibly poorly, and you keep digging the hole deeper and deeper. If you can't even handle my criticism then how are you gonna deal with real serious issues? Trolls would use you as a lolcow, and that is a very very bad position for any user to be in. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the point! Admins are not gods, and neither are bureaucrats. That's exactly what I said in the comment just above. Have you read the whole comment, or did you just stop reading, click [edit], and quote me completely out of context as soon as you saw "daring to tell an admin what to do"? That was an analogy used to make a point, not something meant seriously. Read the response I just posted on the RfA talk page. Biblio (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you understand that using language like that makes it worse? Stop digging please. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Using language like "it makes you look stupid" isn't very productive, either (and that "stupid" remark was evidently literally intended, not an analogy). Analogies like mine are used all the time to prove a point; it's surprising that they were completely misunderstood, even though I said loudly and clearly that I was simply using comparisons to make a point and that I did not seriously believe what I literally said. Biblio (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it literally does make you look stupid, even if you aren't. You could've learned from that, but you chose not to. That is your choice. Again, I understand the analogy and sarcasm, but I believe it makes your comment worse, not better. That is where we (probably) disagree. Please stop attacking straw men. You need to slow down, don't respond too quickly. Give yourself some time. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This a very strange waste of time. What have I to learn? That voicing my opinions on discounting poorly-researched, arbitrary drive-by votes makes me look stupid? That calling for substance-based rationales is unacceptable? That doesn't seem very logical to me. I never attacked any straw men; a straw man is attacking an argument that was never made, and all I did was respond to your clearly-stated argument that I am too lowly to be even making suggestions to bureaucrats. I doubt that most bureaucrats themselves endorse that position; on crat chats, they frequently respond to community comments on the bureaucrat discussion's talk page. As for taking my time, at least I read the comments before responding, and I never impulsively suggested the removal of any editor's user rights, as was done here. Anyway, I will be hatting this bizarre discussion. I'm rather disappointed that I never received any substantive answers to my main point, though. Biblio (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, mea culpa, I should've posted a whale. Please don't respond too quickly, give yourself some time to think about your responses first. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You seem to have misread what Bilbo Biblio said. Or stopped reading after you found something you disagreed with. The full sentence repeated, According to that logic, I could give you a trout for daring to tell an admin what to do. But I would never do that, because I believe that all editors, whether non-admin, admin, bureaucrat, or steward, are equally entitled to voice opinions and that no usergroup is superior to another. Biblo Biblio explicitly said that admins were not gods and that everyone is equally entitled to their opinions. --Majora (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
His name is Biblio (short for Biblioworm). I think Bilbo is a hobbit. You seem to have misread his name. I have read what he said. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My tired clumsy fingers have made two mistakes. Everyone makes them. --Majora (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even potatoes and we don't even have fingers! The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a cross-reference that I've commented (several times) back on the RfA talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Questions about deletions in relation to a permission you recently granted[edit]

Looks like this is a cleaned up, lets leave Biblio's page alone for now. If there is any other heavy duty mopping needed, feel free to leave me a talk message. — xaosflux Talk 04:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Special:Log/Music1201:

I can't see the deleted history of those pages as a non-administrator, but moving anything from the mainspace to one's userspace and requesting its deletion is at the least a bad practice. The redirects where this history would have resided after a full traditional WP:PM/C#4 have been created new. Does any history need to be restored and should this be allowed in the future? Pinging Mojo Hand the administrator who performed the U1's and Xaosflux an administrator who is familiar with this right and frequents WP:RFP/PM along with Music1201 who performed the moves. It is not my intention to imply any wrongdoing on anyones part, rather to point out some kinks that may need to be fixed and behavior that might need to be adjusted, in regard to this venture of a new user right. Best Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the piped users above to come here to not fragment this discussion. — xaosflux Talk 02:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Godsy, I've temporarily undeleted all these pages for review. - Any admin is welcome to redelete, if approriate, upon close of this matter. — xaosflux Talk 02:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Music1201/Temporary move spot/1 has a more substantial history than the rest.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Godsy: - Now that you have been able to review, if there are any of these you think should be merged to the now current redirect, can you indicate above then ping me, I'll complete then redelete. — xaosflux Talk 03:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I merged it in to The Fake Sound of Progress (song) history with the rest of the parts of the prior moves. Will redelete the others now. — xaosflux Talk 04:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Mojo Hand will you please review the deletion actions that you performed here? As some of these pages have histories of other editors, they do not appear to strictly qualify as WP:CSD#U1. — xaosflux Talk 02:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't notice that the pages had been moved from mainspace to userspace. I don't view that as an appropriate use of U1, and I wouldn't have deleted the pages if I had viewed the history more carefully. My mistake, and I support restoration as applicable.--Mojo Hand (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Thanks Mojo Hand, see note at the bottom, we will merge any needed old histories for these pages. — xaosflux Talk 03:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Music1201 I think something is going askew in your moves - "swaps" should normally be performed round-robin style such that other editors revisions are normally maintained. Please review your actions and comment. — xaosflux Talk 02:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Xaosflux, Godsy: The only pages I move to my userspace and then request deletion are redirects which cannot be moved over redirect because they have multiple lines of history (Usually 2) — Music1201 talk 02:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PM/C#4 is the suggested practice for such moves. With that method, the history is retained, as opposed to being speedy deleted as the above were.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Music1201: I think I see what you're doing wrong here. When doing a "round-robin" page move you shouldn't be leaving a redirect at any point in the process. I'll use your move of John Gallagher, Jr as an example here. You started by moving John Gallagher Jr. to User:Music1201/Temp/2 without leaving a redirect. This was the correct thing to do. You then moved John Gallagher, Jr to John Gallagher Jr. and left a redirect. This is where you went wrong. You shouldn't have left a redirect when performing this move. That way, instead of having to request the deletion of User:Music1201/Temp/2, you could've moved that page without leaving a redirect to John Gallagher, Jr, and retargeted it to point to John Gallagher Jr.. That way, you wouldn't have had to place a CSD tag on User:Music1201/Temp/2 and no history would've been lost. Hopefully that helps. Omni Flames (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Music1201: Do you agree with this strategy? If so please review the list of pages at the top, and indicate what they need to be merged in to (by an admin). — xaosflux Talk 03:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: Yes, that is the strategy I used, although I don't think history merges would be necessary, because if an admin closed the RM, they would simply delete the redirect, rather than moving it to userspace and requesting deletion. — Music1201 talk 03:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I rarely do these, depending on the case I restore the old history after moving over it. — xaosflux Talk 03:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Music1201: To be clear, that means using the suppress redirect on every step of the round robin move, so there should not be any more of these to delete in the future. Changing A-->B means b->c; a->b; c->a - suppressing at each step. If so, you may resume page moving. — xaosflux Talk 03:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I don't see any of this to be a problem with "Granting" per-se. — xaosflux Talk 02:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies that I didn't respond sooner. I was dealing was a very strange misunderstanding. As far as I can see, this was an honest mistake; I'm sure Music will not do this again now that he knows the correct way of handling these situations. Thanks to all those who dealt with the technicalities of correcting this issue. Biblio (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Biblio - I think this is about to close down - sorry for hijacking your page :D — xaosflux Talk 03:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please comment on Talk:At-will employment[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:At-will employment. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix your archive[edit]

Please fix your archive so that it accurately reflects our conversation; you undid this edit before you archived that section (in the next edit, one minute later) which makes it look like you had the WP:LASTWORD. Another (easier) option is to simply archive this section. Thanks in advance, (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Ultimately, Biblio can do what he/she likes with their talk page - & once a talk page discussion has been hatted, it is quite common for any subsequent comments to be reverted. As such, I don't see any wrongdoing here, and thus no 'fixing' is required by policy. Of course it is up to Biblio whether they accept your request, but just making clear that they do not have to. Mike1901 (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I assumed Biblio was a "he", but if that is wrong then I apologize for that. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He. And yes, editors can generally do what they like with their talk page. If I ever post anything on your talk page, you're just as welcome to revert it. Biblio (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sour grapes[edit]

If you are going to Italy, there is a round table presentation at Wikimania where you can witness an obnoxious chap discuss NPP. Please don't go anywhere near it. If you by chance make some leeway in improving that process also, you will soon find yourself constantly being targeted and talked behind your back. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndrew_Davidson&type=revision&diff=725268409&oldid=725125246 RedStenzo (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That diff doesn't come as a surprise to me. Biblio (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your efforts regarding the process to deal with requests for adminship privileges. Given the problems with English Wikipedia's consensus model and how the most frequently used discussion model is not well-suited for determining consensus, at this point in time, trying to make changes is an art of negotiating what is possible to get approved. One way or the other, someday the editing population will shift, if only because nothing stays the same forever, and the project will find a way to proceed. Good luck! isaacl (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 June 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Corina Abraham[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Corina Abraham. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TWL Questia check-in[edit]

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
  • When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
  • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! 20:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Historiography on Carlism during the Francoist era[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Historiography on Carlism during the Francoist era. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Singapore[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Singapore. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Governance reform[edit]

Hi, Biblioworm. I saw your question about the procedure for amending the Arbitration Policy and I've just posted a response.

I was curious what specific changes you had in mind, so I poked around and came across your page about governance reform. I appreciate your interest in reforming and updating Wikipedia processes, and will follow the discussion with interest.

For now, I'd like to make one suggestion regarding the focus of the governance reform discussion. It is that too often, governance discussions give undue weight to issues regarding ArbCom and arbitration, versus other aspects of governance (or some would say non-governance).

For those of us interested in governance issues on the project, the functioning and results of the arbitration process and even its administrivia receive an enormous amount of attention relative to any other aspect of governance. This is understandable, both because arbitration is the last stage in dispute resolution, the matters that come to arbitration are often the most prominent and most intractable of disputes, the arbitrators themselves are chosen in high-profile, community-wide elections, and for many years the ArbCom resolved several dozen cases annually.

I don't mean to diminish the role of arbitration and ArbCom even today. Nonetheless, it needs to be borne in mind that in recent years, the Arbitration Committee has decided far fewer cases than previously, as I wrote about several years ago here. This year, the trend toward a reduced caseload has accelerated dramatically. In the first half of 2016, the ArbCom has heard and resolved just two full-fledged cases—three if we include one case that started last year and finished in January. They were important cases, certainly to the participants, and I don't mean to suggest it wasn't important that they be resolved fairly and appropriately, in addition to the arbitrators' other duties and responsibilities.

However, even assuming a more typical caseload and taking into account off-wiki actions, the ArbCom is making maybe 20 or 25 decisions a year. By contrast, a noticeboard like ANI may resolve (or fail to resolve) 20 to 25 disputes per day, most of which are just as important to the editors involved as an arbitration case is to its parties. ANI has never been a well-oiled machine, to say the least, and whenever it is called upon to resolve anything other than a clear-cut, two-party dispute, the discussion often splays all over the place and the tone of discussion is often disappointing. If someone tallied the number of editors who have walked off or become disaffected with Wikipedia because of something that happened on the noticeboards, it would be non-trivial to say the least. I have been thinking about how the functioning of the noticeboards could be best improved, literally for years, and have frankly not come up with any ideas. If you are able to kindle a significant community-wide focus on governance reform, I would give noticeboard improvements priority attention. I'm glad to see them on your topic list.

I'd also suggest attention to some other aspects of desirable governance review—I'm going to self-plagiarize from a book review I wrote for the Signpost a couple of years ago:

[T]he failure to take stock of dispute-resolution successes and failures has struck me for years as a project-wide myopia. In the 13½ years of English Wikipedia there have been, in round numbers, a billion edit-wars, yet no one knows whether most edit-wars get resolved by civil discussion reaching a consensus on the optimal wording, or by one side's giving up and wandering away (or sometimes by everyone's ultimately losing interest and wandering away). Similarly, the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has decided several hundred cases since 2004, and community discussions on noticeboards have resolved thousands more content and conduct disputes, yet no one ever seems to have gone back and conducted any systematic review of which approaches to dispute-resolution worked better than others.

Is the 3RR noticeboard, which is sometimes the first place a new editor who has gotten in over his or her head comes to face with the Wikipedia "back office", doing a good job at defusing edit wars and diverting the warring parties' efforts into productive channels? How well is the relatively new content-dispute resolution noticeboard working out, and how can its efforts be further improved? What is the current and future role of the Mediation Committee and the Mediation Cabal?

So many questions, and I realize I'm not helping answer any of them—my point for now is just that if I were looking to lead a substantial investment of the community's most precious resource, which is its time, into a discussion of governance, changes to the Arbitration Policy would frankly be a low priority. Of course, YMMV.

A couple of other points in response to your first governance posting, just based on history. You question why ArbCom selects Checkusers and Oversighters. You should be aware that Wikimedia Foundation policy allows only two methods by which a project may make these selections—either by appointments by the Arbitration Committee (on projects that have one) or by election. In years past, there were a number of elections for CUs and OSs. There were at least two problems with these elections. The first was that sometimes, there were enough good candidates that the votes were split and no one received the 75% approval necessary to election, meaning that these important roles could not be filled. The second was a sense of election fatigue. In one particularly burdened year, English Wikipedia edits were eligible to vote in the Stewards election, a Checkusers-and-Oversighters election, an Audit Subcommittee election (now abolished), a WMF Board of Trustees election, the ArbCom elections, and I think I've missed one. There was a palpable sense of burnout and too many elections, and I would not recommend returning to that system. That leaves selection by ArbCom as the least bad alternative, and as a practical matter, I haven't seen any evidence that ArbCom hasn't made satisfactory choices.

Similarly, allegations of abuse of CU and OS tools are often best handled at the local level of English Wikipedia where possible, especially since they often relate to situations that the arbitrators are familiar with.

I could comment on some of your other suggestions, but I'm going to stop here, because it's not my intent at all to throw cold water on the enthusiasm that we need to bring about useful improvements in how we operate the English Wikipedia—and it's certainly high time for a fresh look at some of the entrenched systems and practices, after 15-plus years. And I expect you are looking to hear from some new blood in these discussions, rather than a rehash of "we tried that in 200X and it didn't work" types of negativity. So I'll stop here, but if you have any questions or would like my thoughts on any other specific aspects, I'd be glad to provide them. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you fully that the noticeboards need reform—everyone is well aware of the unfortunate "mob tendency" of such boards. My proposed reforms to address this issue mostly consist of (1) establishing more structured, but still straightforward, filing procedures and (2) instituting more protections for editors in danger of being blocked/banned. Details will be developed shortly. I don't have enough time now to address your point about the functionaries, but I will read your comments more thoroughly later today and respond if I have time. Thanks. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 17:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As I said, I'm looking forward to this discussion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Southern Levant[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Southern Levant. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C/e request[edit]

Hi, I apologise -- I've not finished the work on the High Command Trial. I thought I had a bit of time, but it looks like you've taken it on. If you'd like, I can remove it from the list. Again, very sorry! K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: No problem at all—you can remove the article from the list, as you said. Thanks for letting me know. :) Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 23:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors July 2016 News[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors July 2016 News

Hello everyone, and welcome to the July 2016 GOCE newsletter.

June Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 12 through 18 June; the themes were video games and Asian geography. Of the 18 editors who signed up, 11 removed 47 articles from the backlog. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part.

Coordinator elections: The second tranche of Guild coordinators for 2016, who will serve a six-month term until 23:59 UTC on 31 December, have been elected. Jonesey95 remains as your drama-free Lead Coordinator, and Corinne and Tdslk are your new assistant coordinators. For her long service to the Guild, Miniapolis has been enrolled in the GOCE Hall of Fame. Thanks to everyone who voted in the election; our next scheduled one occurs in December 2016. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are eligible; self-nominations are welcome and encouraged.

July Drive: Our month-long July Copy Editing Backlog Elimination Drive is now underway. Our aim is to remove articles tagged for copy-edit in April, May and June 2015, and to complete all requests on the GOCE Requests page from June 2016. The drive ends at 23:59 on 31 July 2016 (UTC).

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdlsk.

>>> Sign up for the July Drive! <<<
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 GA Cup-Wrap Up[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Final/Wrap-Up

Hello to our truly awesome GA Cup competitors!

Thursday, June 30 saw the end of the 2016 GA Cup. It was a huge success. In the final, our five competitors reviewed an astonishing 207 articles, the most in any GA Cup final thus far. We continue to reach our goals and make a substantial impact in how quickly articles are reviewed for GA status. On March 1, the start of this competition, the article longest in the queue had languished there since June 26, 2015 [8]; in the July 1, 2016 list, the average wait length is just four months [9]. 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 their enthusiasm, and for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success. Remember that most articles can't even be considered for FA status unless it's been passed to GA first, so our efforts have created hundreds of potentials FAs. That is, as they say, a big deal.

The final this time represented a real horse race between our 1st and 2nd place winners. First-time competitor (who had won all previous rounds) Sainsf earned an impressive 1456 points with 91 articles reviewed during the final. Close behind, in second place was Carbrera, also a first-time competitor, reviewed the most articles (94). Their enthusiasm was a treat to witness. Congrats to you both!

The competition went relatively smoothly, with very little drama this time. We had to clarify one rule: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round. We were strict about adhering to this clarification, especially at the end of the final. We intend on stressing it in the stated rules for our next competition, which will be announced soon, so watch out for it. We also intend on applying for a grant through Wikimedia to include gift certificates for our winners, to further incentivize the GA Cup.

MrWooHoo should receive special recognition for acting as our main judge, and for stepping in for the rest of the judges when real-life busyness took over. He reviewed the majority of the submissions during our final round. Thanks for your hard work, and for the hard work of all our judges. We look forward to the next competition.

Again, thanks to all our competitors, and congrats to our winners.

Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia[edit]

Hello Biblioworm, I got bored so I created a userbox ({{User WRWP}}) for your new WikiProject. I've inserted it under the participants/How to join section. I hope this helps, if not, feel free to revert the edit, or place the userbox somewhere else. -- Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was actually wanting something like that, but I didn't have time to do it. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 16:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 July 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valiantians[edit]

Hello,

Previously Valiantians was nominated for speedy deletion for A7 and you handled it. The user created the page without any substantial changes, so I renominated it for A7. Should this go through an AfD or PROD instead? Additionally, it looks like the user vandalized my wikipedia user page, however someone caught it and reverted it. Not sure if there's anything I should do about that part. Thanks. Dane2007 (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this user went and got himself blocked. For future reference, if you could still guide me, I believe I would use an AfD or PROD for a CSD:A7 where the user recreates the page, is that right? Dane2007 (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dane2007: I believe you could simply renominate the page under A7 if the rationale still applies. However, you should use PROD or AfD if the article is reposted with just enough changes to make A7 no longer applicable. Of course, you should not tag the article at all if its quality has enormously improved to the point where all issues have been addressed. I hope this is helpful for you, but don't hesitate to ask further questions if needed. :) Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 23:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

European Society of Surgery[edit]

Hi Bibliworm, You deleted created by me page about European Society of Surgery
Why I think that this page (European Society of Surgery) is important for Wikipedia community.
So a few facts: 1. This Society lasts very long (over 20 years)

2. Society members are one of the best surgeons in the Europe

3. The same like this society there are may others similar societies on Wikipedia for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Society_of_Aesthetic_Surgery, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Society_of_Cardiology, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Society_for_Trauma_and_Emergency_Surgery, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Society_of_Gynaecological_Oncology, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Society_of_Endocrinology

4. I'm sure that General Surgery should be also represented in Wikipedia - do you think that general surgery is not important or less important then eg. Aesthetic Surgery. Or you think that beauty is more important than struggling with cancers, cutting bladders etc.

5. My wife is a part of this Society. She works with General Secretary of this Society - prof. Jan Kulig. Because I'm Software Developer in Ericsson Poland she asked me to write this article. If you read it and you claim that I wrote sth wrong please point it and I will be editing this article as long as possible to make it better.

If you have more questions to me please write or we can meet via Skype and discuss about details "face to face".

With best regards
Krzysztof Siarkiewicz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksiarkiewicz (talk • contribs) 11:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After further review and talk after the deletion from Ksiarkiewicz, I believe the page should be restored and tagged correctly to bring it up to encyclopedic standards in line with the other societies pages. Dane2007 (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ksiarkiewicz. I would be more than happy to restore your article, and I am willing to work with you on this talk page to bring that about. Before the article is restored to mainspace, however, there are some improvements that need to be made, so as to being the article in line with our content policies. Most importantly, you must be able to demonstrate that this society meets the notability guideline (I encourage you to read the guideline). Unfortunately, the guideline does not define an organization's notability based on its length of existence, skill of its members, or the existence of similar articles on Wikipedia. A subject is likely notable if it has received substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. In other words, the coverage must be more than simply a passing mention, and the reliable sources themselves must be secondary (e.g., not a primary source, such as the organization's website). Secondly, articles must be written from a neutral point of view—promotion (or, for that matter, degradation) is not permitted. So, if you can (1) demonstrate substantial, reliable third-party coverage and (2) write the article in a neutral, unbiased manner, the article will very likely be retained. You did mention that your wife works with this organization, and unfortunately this may result in conflict of interest concerns among other editors, so you will have to ensure that you are in compliance with the COI guidelines before proceeding. Finally, I observed that much of the article was copied from the organization website, and as per the copyright policy, this is not permitted unless the website's content is under a free license.
I am simply telling you what site policies and guidelines say. We do not have to agree with them, but compliance is necessary if the article is to be retained. Otherwise, the chances are that someone will file a successful nomination for deletion via the community deletion process, and I have no control over that. I fully understand that all the information may seem overwhelming and complex, so do feel free to leave a message here if clarification is necessary. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 02:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I would like to work for improve this article according to your notices. During next few days I will try to learn as much as possible to raise my skills and understand rules of Wikipedia. I have to clarify also that European Society of Surgery is non-profit organization and my wife doesn't work for it but only participate in meetings and trainings (because she is surgeon). I mentioned about her because:
(1) I want to be transparent and also
(2) I think that the best knowledge about each organization has person who is involved in. I will be back later next week.
BR
Chris
@Ksiarkiewicz: If you wish to do so, you can start a new draft in your userspace, which can then be moved into article space once it is finished and in compliance with the content policies. User:Ksiarkiewicz/European Society of Surgery would probably be the best place to do it—you can click the link and begin working on the page just like you would when creating one in the main article space. Do make sure that the new article satisfies the notability guideline and the neutral point of view policy. Finally, ensure that your wording is original and not copied verbatim from any website. Once again, do not hesitate to ask any further questions if necessary. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 21:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Biblioworm and Biblio: Hi, I've just finished first draft of article. I tried to keep rules, but I'm sure that it might be better ;-) Therefore I'd like to ask you to do review of my text and give me feedback. It is located in place you suggested: User:Ksiarkiewicz/European Society of Surgery.
BR
Chris
@Biblioworm and Biblio:Hi again. Did you look at my article as I wrote above? Do you have any clues how can I improve it? If no, when can you agree to publish it. 21:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Best Regards
Krzysztof
@Ksiarkiewicz: Sorry for not responding sooner—I've been quite busy lately. I think some improvements could be made, but I would strongly recommend seeking advice at the Teahouse, where new users can ask for help on all issues. Questions are typically responded to very quickly. The volunteers there are quite friendly and helpful, so I think fresher perspectives on this issue would be beneficial for all of us. Just start a new thread there and ask for advice on how to get the article up to standards. Their team will certainly respond much faster than I ever could. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 19:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Abkhazia[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abkhazia. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:History of Gibraltar[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of Gibraltar. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 GOP VP Selection.[edit]

The reason why I deleted your edition, is because its not official yet, when trump makes the announcement, then it will be official, second, we don't delete the pictures of speculated candidates, if you look back at 2012, the pictures still there, so lets leave it like that. take the 2012 vp selection for example.

@Angelgfg12345: As I said on your talk page, the information about the news reports and Trump's scheduled announcement should stay, even if the speculation gallery remains. The reports of Pence being Trump's running mate are covered in our main article, United States presidential election, 2016, so its sub-articles should also include it. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 23:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Biblioworm:, Alright, go ahead and make the changes. thanks for explaining.

questia[edit]

  • hey there's a cengage email address on the Questia page (search for cengage). If you are requesting renewal, could you try an experiment and just try to do it through that email address? If nothing happens I'll give you a new code... tks!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Lingzhi. If you have the ability to give me the new code on the spot, I would much prefer that. It appears that the email address belongs to the customer service manager for the Questia and Highbeam divisions of Cengage—that email address probably receives dozens of messages per day, and I suspect that it would take weeks to process mine. As for the problem with using the same email address for a new account, I think I can work that out rather easily. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 23:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You've got mail.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Lingzhi. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 06:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 July 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Elizabeth Dilling[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Elizabeth Dilling. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Philippines v. China[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Philippines v. China. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Moderators/Straw poll[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Moderators/Straw poll. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 August 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precious[edit]

reforming Wikipedia

Thank you for uncontroversial page moves and publishing articles for creation, for thoughts about reforming Wikipedia, for example RfA and arbcom, for "We must grasp the fact that real people with lives and feelings are behind those words and signatures.", - Mike, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Gerda! I do try to think of ways to improve this place as much as I can. Unfortunately, there is probably only so much one person can do to effectually change such an entrenched system. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 00:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's small steps, ARCA for example, clarification of a problem is the first step in solving. In the case of the infoboxes, clarification that there is no problem. We could deal with them like with images and tables, no? But see Gustav Holst. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rogožarski IK-3/GA1[edit]

Biblioworm, just wanted to touch base with you to see whether you planned on returning to this review soon, since you opened four other GA reviews on August 8, one of which has already passed, without revisiting this one you had opened on July 17. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. Biblio (talk) Reform project. 22:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Hindupur[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hindupur. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A heads-up, not a request[edit]

The Crusades article is at PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Crusades/archive2. I know this within your sphere of interest, so if you're interested, please do have at it. But if it doesn't seem interesting, then just let it pass by. :-) Cheers!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review in progress[edit]

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I responded at Talk:Rommel myth/GA1. Looking forward to more feedback. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the last round of revisions has been implemented as suggested. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Republic of China general election, 2016[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Republic of China general election, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Anglo-Saxon weaponry[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Anglo-Saxon weaponry 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 Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 August 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bougainville counterattack/GA1[edit]

Hi, As a friendly reminder, will you be able to review this GAN soon? If not, you may wish to vacate the review. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D:. Hi Nick. Please see the message I left at the bottom of the page. Some things unexpectedly came up in real life, and for several weeks I hardly had time to even log in. Biblio (talk) Reform project. 16:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Han Chinese[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Han Chinese. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Dersim massacre[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dersim massacre. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Anglo-Saxon weaponry[edit]

The article Anglo-Saxon weaponry 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:Anglo-Saxon weaponry for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gliflozins Pharmacokinetics Table Edit[edit]

I had provided the reference of the table I added in the table caption right below the table. I had cited an international peer-reviewed paper. Also, a lot of the parameters currently mentioned in the table are incorrect or not present in the reference. I request you to kindly restore the table I added. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.197.229 (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Alexander the Great[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alexander the Great. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Anglo-Saxon weaponry[edit]

The article Anglo-Saxon weaponry you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Anglo-Saxon weaponry 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 Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 September 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News

Hello everyone, and welcome to the September 2016 GOCE newsletter.

>>> Sign up for the September Drive, already in progress! <<<

July Drive: The July drive was a roaring success. We set out to remove April, May, and June 2015 from our backlog (our 149 oldest articles), and by 23 July, we were done with those months. We added July 2015 (66 articles) and copy-edited 37 of those. We also handled all of the remaining Requests from June 2016. Well done! Overall, we recorded copy edits to 240 articles by 20 editors, reducing our total backlog to 13 months and 1,656 articles, the second-lowest month-end total ever.

August Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 21 through 27 August; the theme was sports-related articles in honor of the 2016 Summer Olympics. Of the eight editors who signed up, five editors removed 11 articles from the backlog. A quiet blitz – everyone must be on vacation. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdlsk.

>>> Sign up for the September Drive! <<<

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:New York[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New York. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On my absence[edit]

I'm sure that many have noticed my unannounced absence and are awaiting the completion of several tasks (such as GA reviews), so I thought it would be appropriate to briefly explain my period of inactivity. Put simply, some completely unforeseen personal issues suddenly came about, leaving me with no time whatsoever to do anything here. I apologize to all who have been patiently waiting for me, but real life and family are always more important. Thank you for understanding. Biblio (talk) Reform project. 05:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Menelik II[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Menelik II. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:ISIL territorial claims[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:ISIL territorial claims. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Diesel engine[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Diesel engine. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Hello, Biblioworm. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Cup Announcement[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

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 October 31, 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.

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) 22:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 September 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Han Chinese[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Han Chinese. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Leninism[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Leninism. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Cold War II[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 October 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

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)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:United States involvement in regime change[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States involvement in regime change. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 November 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Popular election[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Popular election. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]

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) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi Biblioworm.

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)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ACE 2016[edit]

Hi,

I just wanted to let you know that I've removed your recent post on the ACE 2016 page. The page is preferably for discussion of the details of the election itself. Furthermore, commenting on specific candidates is best suited in a guide. If you'd like to express your thoughts on the candidates, I encourage you to create a guide an place it on the ACE template. If you need help with any of that, please let me know. Mike V • Talk 03:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite obviously some sort of templated message, because I created a voter guide days ago and added it to the ACE template (in fact, my guide was one of the very first ones). I don't see what harm it would do to leave my comment as is, but I'm not going to waste time on discussing it. I suppose I'll just move it to a new section on my voter's guide. Biblio (talk) Reform project. 05:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Biblioworm. 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)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 November 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Operation Castor[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Operation Castor. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Cold war (general term)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold war (general term). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

4th Annual GA Cup - Round 1[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

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.

  • If the survey indicates that the competitors want a break, we will have a 2nd round after the break ends with just the 10 competitors who have reviewed articles, starting in January (with a specific date TBA).
  • If the survey does not indicate that participants want a break, we will extend Round 1 until the end of December.

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)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News

Hello everyone, and welcome to the December 2016 GOCE newsletter. We had an October newsletter all set to go, but it looks like we never pushed the button to deliver it, so this one contains a few months of updates. We have been busy and successful!

>>> Sign up for the December Blitz! <<<

Coordinator elections for the first half of 2017: Nominations are open for election of Coordinators for the first half of 2017. Please visit the election page to nominate yourself or another editor, and then return after December 15 to vote. Thanks for participating!

September Drive: The September drive was fruitful. We set out to remove July through October 2015 from our backlog (an ambitious 269 articles), and by the end of the month, we had cut that pile of oldest articles to just 83. We reduced our overall backlog by 97 articles, even with new copyedit tags being added to articles every day. We also handled 75% of the remaining Requests from August 2016. Overall, 19 editors recorded copy edits to 233 articles (over 378,000 words).

October Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 16 through 22 October; the theme was Requests, since the backlog was getting a bit long. Of the 16 editors who signed up, 10 editors completed 29 requests. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part.

November Drive: The November drive was a record-breaker! We set out to remove September through December 2015 from our backlog (239 articles), and by the end of the month, we had cut that pile of old articles to just 66, eliminating the two oldest months! We reduced our overall backlog by 523 articles, to a new record low of 1,414 articles, even with new tags being added to articles every day, which means we removed copy-editing tags from over 800 articles. We also handled all of the remaining Requests from October 2016. Officially, 14 editors recorded copy edits to 200 articles (over 312,000 words), but over 600 articles, usually quick fixes and short articles, were not recorded on the drive page.

Housekeeping note: we do not send a newsletter before every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your Watchlist.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdslk.

>>> Sign up for the December Blitz! <<<

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Fidel Castro[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fidel Castro. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Gibraltar[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gibraltar. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 December 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC[edit]

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk 15:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–16)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–16). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho[edit]

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Please comment on Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon![edit]

 

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Biblioworm/Archive_2016&oldid=1143715977"