User talk:Fromgermany

Re: Rav Aryeh Levin[edit]

I don't understand why you undid my edit on Rabbi Aryeh levin; why should the reference section include a word for word repetion of everything that is said in the main article??? Maybe I am new to wikipedia and am missing something, but I think there is no need to repeat the whole article in the reference section.Gavhathehunchback (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Francis Healy[edit]

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia. Secondly, I believe the only material I removed from the article was:

Healy has been the creative centre of Travis and has written all of the songs on their four studio albums. From the chirpy, bouncy feel of 1997's Good Feeling to the dark and more sober mood of 2003's 12 Memories. His humility and devotion has been another factor in the band's success. Although detractors like to criticise his band for being 'inoffensive', this would be perceived as half the point of the band with Fran being at the forefront of it all.

I find this material blatantly POV (not neutral) and to use excessive weasel words. If you could rewrite it neutrally and cite some sources for the material in it, that would be great. Johnleemk | Talk 06:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this "chirpy, bouncy feel" ist definitely POV, yes. And we do not know whether poor old Fran feels any kind of "humility and devotion" while he is writing all the songs. But can't we just keep the first sentence?? This is a pure fact or is it not???

--Fromgermany 11:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the "creative centre" part can be considered weaselly, IMO. But the rest of the sentence does appear all right. I'll add it back in. Thanks for notifying me. Johnleemk | Talk 14:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erection[edit]

Hi. I reverted your "Some scientists doubt this very much..." sentence on Erection. I don't object philosophically, but if we're going to claim scientists doubt it, how about we include a source? If you can add a source with that, I'll have no objection. Thanks. Nandesuka 13:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I DO have a source. Unfortunately it's only in GERMAN. Can I add a source written in German in the English WIKIPEDIA?? Or doesn't make that much sense?? --Fromgermany 17:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Endlich hast du mich gefunden![edit]

Sure, anything in particular you wanted to know? --Angr (t·c) 11:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At least a thousand things!!! :-))) Are you familiar with the German WIKIPEDIA as well? I have found out that there are some great differences between the English WP and the German one. Ich habe von dem ganzen "Computer-Zeugs" nicht so viel Ahnung. This is my main problem. But I'm willing to learn. --Fromgermany 11:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I work on de: as well too sometimes (see de:Benutzer:Angr). --Angr (t·c) 11:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's {{attention}} and {{attention see talk}}, but it's better to be more specific about what the problem is if you can. There's a whole bunch of cleanup tags you can use listed at WP:CR. --Angr (t·c) 11:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So it's the word "attention" I've been looking for. Great! Yes, the clean up tags are confusing for someone still not used to talk "Wikipedian". But So far you have been of a great help. Thank you very much. --Fromgermany 12:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris de Burgh[edit]

Reputation sections are common in articles about musicians/entertainers. The paragraph you removed contained reputation detail, it is therfore valid, IMO. The paragraph may be too long and top heavy with detail, but due to the distaste that the man is viewed with by a significant number of entertainers in both Ireland & Britian and who parody him regulary, to include an example of this is encyclopedic, IMO. If you feel the paragraph is excessive, by all means edit it down. The article at this stage of its development is little more than a stub, so I would think any detail, as long as its factual, which this is, is worthy of inclusion.--KaptKos 08:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oliver kahn[edit]

Hi. I don't know what EXACTLY would make the page look better, but I guess more facts would be useful, like more information regarding his career, his early years etc. I looked on the German WP, obviously didn't understand anything :) but if there's any useful material there it could be incorporated in the english article. Why IS Kahn such a tabloid delight, more so than other sportspersons? Is it because of his personal life? I was under the impression he isn't too keen on media exposure. Thanks Kinda crazy 18:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really?! That bad?! Man! Sad...he's been a great keeper. Is Bayern Munich as unpopular in Germany as well? I found a better souce of info than the German WP, Kahn's official website - www.oliver-kahn.de. Unfortunately for people like me who know precisely six words in German its pretty difficult :) So should I copy paste whatever I think will be useful and post it on your user page? I'm not able to open the page right now, so I'll do it later. Thanks! Kinda crazy 06:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Randy Harrison[edit]

Wow, considering all I did was add a category to the page, I don't know why you had to attack me when it clearly says in the history that I made the one minor categorical edit. Get your facts straight.

--Conor 20:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule[edit]

Please be aware that you have made the same edit to Morrissey three times. Wikipedia has the Three revert rule which is there to stop a 'war' between editors repeatedly changing back to their version: this rule says that no editor can revert a page more than three times in any 24-hour period. Please continue discussing your edit rather than repeatedly making it. David | Talk 20:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kicking out users[edit]

Hi Topbanana! At the moment there's problem about Bob Geldof. I made a few edits today concerning his year of birth, added sources to prove it was in fact 1954 etc. It seems the little edit war is not over yet. As there's this funny habit on the English WP that users are "kicked out" after three vandal edits, I would like to state that MY edits I have done so far today are NO vadalism at all. You're an andministrator/sysop so I thought I'd drop you a line to inform you that I am NOT a vandal. --Fromgermany 10:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fromgermany. I'm glad you've found a debate that interests you. Wikipedia admins are not babysitters; if someone disagrees with your opinion on a matter, that's for you to deal with. Personally, I've no idea when Sir Bob was born, sorry. - TB 23:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIV[edit]

Thank you for making a report about 67.190.160.103 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! TigerShark 00:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful information. I'll stick to it. I'm still learning how en.wikipedia functions. It's quite different from de.wikipedia, I can tell you. ;-) --Fromgermany 00:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spätzle[edit]

Auf Deutsch ist der Unterschied zwischen Klöße und Spätzle völlig klar. Doch „Dumpling“ auf Englisch meint bloß „klein gekochtes oder gedampftes Teigstuck“. Folglich sind Spätzle ja „dumplings“ (mindestens bei dem englischen Artikel). Elcobbola 05:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really?? Have you ever tried Spätzle? Or even "produced" them yourself??? Not a dumpling kind of thing in sight. Na ja, also ich bin zwar nicht der Meinung, daß der Begriff "dumpling" in dem Artikel korrekt ist (im Gegenteil; ich finde ihn sogar ziemlich irreführend), aber was werde ich mich mit dir streiten, huh?? Gruß --Fromgermany 11:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When Harry Met Sally[edit]

I'm curious as to what you meant in your edit summary when you said "Ms Ephron's personality rights are also being abused in this article, I'm afraid." I don't see what there is in the article that is abusive toward Ephron. Thanks. Wildhartlivie 18:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

It's about as easy as that. The long quote from the film - Ms Ephron's script - without any kind of footnote referring to her as the writer of the film script - not only is a violation of copyright but it is also a violation of Nora Ephron's personality rights. (See the policy of WIKIQUOTE.) Or did she give WIKIPEDIA permission to publish parts of her work without credits referring to her? --Fromgermany 18:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand about the copyright problem and the need for citation, but I'm confused about the mention of personality rights. I don't understand what you mean by it. Personality rights pertain to an encroachment on her personally, such as her image, name or likeness, and its use in publicity. I'm just confused by how that pertains to the article. Wildhartlivie 19:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When we - as Wikipedians - publish someone else's work without any kind of sign who the work belongs to (footnotes etc.) we violate the right of every individual to control any commercial use of his or her name. In our case Ms Ephron has no chance to control the use of her name/work unless she gives permission to publish her work or parts of it. The quote could be anyone's. Therefore we must label the quote as a, let's put it this way, "property" of Ms Nora Ephron. You may put the quote I deleted back into the article again, but only with a footnote stating:

the writer of the film script (Ms Nora Ephron)
the name of the work (filmscript of the film "When Harry met Sally")
the year the film was released/produced (1989)
the director (Rob Reiner)
the film company/companies which produced the film (Castlerock Entertainment and Nelson Entertainment)

Mind you, there are a lot of articles about films which violate the copyright severely.

Kind regards

--Fromgermany 21:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not at all concerned with the quote being put back in. I've just not run across the rationale of personality rights in relationship to a question of copyright violation in use of a quote. In the US cases I've seen, rights to the person usually are applied to things such as publishing unapproved candid photographs, etc., in relationship to violation of privacy.

However, and just in the spirit of discussion, it would seem that the writer of the script, the name, year and director of the film and the production and distribution companies would be apparent and implied, since the page is dedicated to that film. With proper citation, there is a certain amount of fair-use allowed for quotes or images that illustrate points in the article. Wildhartlivie 22:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Channing Crowder[edit]

Well I don't want it to look like I'm against the quotes being in the article. They did cause a minor disruption in the media so they probably deserve to be there. But the key is how they were presented. Since he was only joking, it should not make it seem like he was being serious and doesn't actually know those things.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for deletion would have been: unsourced quote. Yeah! --Fromgermany 23:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the quotes are real so they can be sourced. They were just said in a joking manner so that needs to be included if the quotes are.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so please add this to the article, that the quotes were just said in a joking manner. --Fromgermany 23:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cara Readle[edit]

This quote came from her MySpace page. Problem is that it's not generally considered appropriate to quote MySpace, despite the fact that it is undoubtedly her page. As a result, this article is now indefensibly short. Would you like me to add the MySpace link back in? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Put the quote back in - but just with a footnote verifying it. The lack of a footnote was the reason for my deletion. --Fromgermany 13:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penis article[edit]

Could you please read my section on the discussion page about the 'Penis; article.

The image needs to be replaced with a more representative one.

Thanks,

Pussycatt (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Peruvian dumplings...[edit]

I hope this was a misfire? Please be more careful in the future and have a nice day! Shinobu (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I swear, I did not do this Cocaine edit, honestly. Please feel free to check it via user check, if you like. My internet-provider is arcor. --Fromgermany (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at this edit, I think. I've dug in the history of the article for a bit, and I found this, which an anon later fixed and then you appear to have accidentally undone the fix. Can happen to the best of us. If you are still convinced you didn't do it, not even by accident, just change your password - life goes on. P.S. User check requires a special privilege and we don't all have it, but I believe this happened by accident, so what's the worry? Just be more careful in the future, after all it isn't like I never mess up. We all do. Shinobu (talk) 18:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Williams[edit]

I see nothing that constitutes an actual discussion before my comment on the talk page. Ergo, you have made no valid point, so you have no reason to howl on my talk page. Now THAT was unprofessional. Bouncehoper (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I must admit the sink pic on your page is fascinating....

Bouncehoper (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism[edit]

Thanks for reverting the recent vandalism done to the Institut Le Rosey article. The vandal seems to have a history of abusing the Le Rosey article in particular. I don't know how to go about this, but its obvious the user ID needs to be blocked from editing. If you could please block the user ID. Thanks for the help, -- AJ24 (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm not an ADMIN. I cannot block. When we "normal users" want IPs or user vandals to be blocked we must report it on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. This project page is constantly supervised by the admins and they do what they can to kick out vandals who only add disruptive edits. Usually the admins react within minutes after reporting. --Fromgermany (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isle Of Wight Festival 2008[edit]

I cant understand why this article was deleted under grounds that it was merely advertising and not informative enough!!! The page provides information about the event and how to acquire ticket sales for the event. It can be used as part of reference into the history and future of one of the most influential music events in the world. Please could you explain in greater detail why it was deleted, im not actively promoting the event, yet the greater publicity that it gets through all internet sources can only be seen as a good thing. The article is one of a series of articles, providing the most comprehensive details of an English music festival, year by year, on Wikipedia. It is foolish not to complete the collection of articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsseelig69 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I sent you the criteria for speedy deletion which say:

the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person. If you explain (even advise) how one can acquire tickets (!) then this is nothing but advertising. There are two more things why I think the article is not encyclopedic.

a) Please do refrain from adding articles about future events in an encyclopedia.

b) Please keep in mind: an encyclopedia is just to state facts and not unsourced, speculative material.

--Fromgermany (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnaroo Music Festival[edit]

Announced dates are not speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.79.223 (talk) 07:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK the dates were not announced yet. 76.181.79.223, if you could link to a source, that would be great. -₪-Hemidemisemiquaver (talk) 07:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WEll, that's just the point. There seem to be NO sources. And as long as there are no sources to verify the information it's pure advertising and pure speculation - very un-encyclopedic, is it not?? --Fromgermany (talk) 07:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavin Urquhart[edit]

You didn't finish this AfD page, so I finished it for you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were quicker than me. I'm just at it. :-) --Fromgermany (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tokio Hotel[edit]

How long ago did you request semi-protection? and why was it turned down? The usual reason for turning down semi-protection is that other ips are making valid contributions. As this is a particular problem is with one particular ip (though i believe there has been other ip vandalism recently), the best way to deal with it in my opinion is to warn the editor that removing sourced material for no good reason other than a personal opinion is disruptive, if a final warning is ignored then it should be taken to the admin noticeboard and a block requested. --Neon white (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I have just requested protection yet again. Let's see what happens, shall we? ;-)

--Fromgermany (talk) 08:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic copyright[edit]

Hi there,

I just wanted to question your removal of quotes from Allmusic reviews from the various Duran Duran articles I have worked on. I believe that these selective quotes qualify as fair use of text, and they are fully credited and cited. Could you please explain why you don't believe that they should be used here? — Catherine\^talk 07:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes are far too long and therefore make a violation of copyright, no matter if they are fully credited and cited. And it's only one single point of view which is presented about each single. This makes it a POV and is not very neutral at all. --Fromgermany (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used selected quotes which serve to describe the musical effect and technique of the song, which I cannot do in my own words without it being original research. I can search out quotes from others to improve POV if you like, but it didn't seem necessary for what are relatively short and simple articles. My reasoning for fair use: the "purpose and character" of the use is educational, not a mere reproduction of the review. The "amount and substantiality" of the quotes varies from song to song, since the amount of the review which describes the music varies. I can reduce the length of the quotes used to improve this, if necessary. The "effect upon the work's value" is less clear, and I understand some doubt here; I would hope that the prominent credit and citation of the Allmusic site would actually lead more people to the full work. I'd like to ask for some more opinions about this from others, if you don't mind. — Catherine\^talk 16:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you've not been formally welcomed, so...[edit]

Hi Fromgermany, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
If you'd like to tell us about yourself and meet other new users, be sure to introduce yourself at our new user log.

Good luck, and have fun. —Animum (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Delta Force[edit]

If you check the IP's edit history, he's been undoing my edits at a dozen pages, so protecting a single page won't really help. He'll just find another page to vandalize. Also, simply blocking the IP won't do any good either, as he can change IPs quickly. I don't know if he's using an open proxy or what. This guy has been harassing me since about May of this year; I had really hoped that he would've gotten tired, but unfortunately he hasn't. Thanks for your help. Parsecboy (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's most annoying and very sad indeed. Well, at least I asked for a protection of Delta Force. Let's see what happens, shall we?! --Fromgermany (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ps If you feel harrassed I'd suggest you changed your user name.

Well, eventually he'll get bored. It's nothing serious enough to warrant changing my username; besides, I'm sure he'd figure that out in short order anyways. Thanks again for your help. Parsecboy (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tootsie[edit]

Next time, I suggest you just tag reasonable unreferenced material^{[citation needed]} rather than deleting it. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Connor (singer) and Marc Terenzi edits[edit]

Thanks for the edits but there is a reason I am undoing them. The Sarah ones some of the grammar edits were good but then you removed a bunch of information for no reason (and I mean relevant info not just random facts). Same for Marc's. So I do agree they could probably be cleaned up grammar wise but I dont think there's a need for removing all that info.

As for 'uncited' Marc's does need more references; I'll clean that up tonight. Sarah's could use more but she actually does have a bunch of references. I'll clean that one up to. If you want to clean the grammar edits please do; but please dont remove all that info. --Thegingerone (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very bizarre that a tag is removed before the tag's requirements are fulfilled. Please read the WP guidelines. I do not add tags to articles just for the sheer pleasure of it. :-( --Fromgermany (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I keep writing you and you keep ignoring what I say; quit being so childish in your writing to me at least be civil! The things you are reverting are not gossip, are cited, and perfectly 'encyclopediac'. You make no valid reasons for your dispute and just revert; you dont FIX or CHANGE anything. Im seeking a third party editor because Im tired of your attitude. You obviously dont speak English very well or know what wiki is for. --Thegingerone (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least I seem to know how to speak English. If you just actually EDITED the article and changed 'Sarah' to 'Connor' it would be fine. But you keep taking out cited info and well frankly I have nothing more to say to you on the matter you apparently dont speak enough English to understand me. --Thegingerone (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Correcting minor grammatical mistakes[edit]

Kein Problem! ;) Ich Leibe Ein Chance Für Deutsch Lernen. In Letzte dann 5 mehre Jahren ich will Bekommst Ein Deutsch Bewohner. Aber ich Denk in Kiel ich Leiben in. Und Für dein Info ich Jeden tag hast Schreiben Problem in Englisch, so natürlich ich will habe Problem in Deutsch Geschrieben. Vielen Dank und Schön Sylvester und Neu Jahre :)
MKLPTR (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Germany Invitation[edit]

Hello, Fromgermany! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008[edit]

We would like to remind you not to attack other editors as you did on User talk:Thegingerone. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors and remember to assume good faith and be calm in your dealings with other editors. This talk page entry is unacceptable. Despite the fact that this occurred in January, it is still inappropriate and unacceptable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject British Empire[edit]

If you've no idea who I am, you are receiving this message because of your British Empire UBX! If you are a regular editor to articles related to the British Empire please sign up (no pesky newsletters!) to the project and help better organise and improve articles within our scope! Thanks --Cameron (T|C) 21:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello Fromgermany! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 943 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Sebastian Krumbiegel - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Krumbiegel[edit]

Hello, Fromgermany, I came across this article, which you created years ago. It still needs references, but I know nothing about this man, Can you help? Thanks, Markiewp (talk) 06:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Hi Fromgermany!

I have put together a survey for female editors of Wikipedia (and related projects) in order to explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement. It'd be wonderful if you could participate!

It's an independent survey, done by me, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you'll participate!

Just click this link to participate in this survey, via Google!

Any questions or concerns, feel free to email me or stop by my user talk page. Also, feel free to share this any other female Wikimedians you may know. It is in English, but any language Wikimedia participants are encouraged to participate. I appreciate your contributions - to the survey and to Wikipedia! Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWomen's Collaborative[edit]

WikiWomen Unite!

Hi Fromgermany! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative.

As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:

Liking the WikiWomen's Collaborative on Facebook and share your tips, projects, and connect with other WikiWomen
Join the conversation on our Twitter feed
Reading and writing for our blog channel

We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved!

Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWomen's Collaborative: Come join us (and check out our new website)![edit]

WikiWomen - We need you!

Hi Fromgermany! The WikiWomen's Collaborative is a group of women from around the world who edit Wikipedia, contribute to its sister projects, and support the mission of free knowledge. We recently updated our website, created new volunteer positions, and more!

Get involved by:

Visiting our website for resources, events, and more
Meet other women and share your story in our profile space
Participate at and "like" our Facebook group
Join the conversation on our Twitter feed
Reading and writing for our blog channel
Volunteer to write for our blog, recruit blog writers, translate content, and co-run our Facebook and receive perks for volunteering
Already participating? Take our survey and share your experience!

Thanks for editing Wikipedia, and we look forward to you being a part of the Collaborative! -- EdwardsBot (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quixotic plea[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 05:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite[edit]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest[edit]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!