User talk:IJReid/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

GA Cup - Round 4 (Semi-Finals)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 4 Happy New Year! We hope that all of our GA Cup competitors had an enjoyable and safe holiday season. Monday saw the end of Round 3. Eight contestants moved forward to Round 4—the top two contestants from each of Round 3's three pools and the top two participants of all remaining users. It was an exciting competition, especially towards the end. Round 3's highest scorer was Jaguar, Round 2's wildcard, with an impressive 305 points, the highest score in the GA Cup thus far. Pool B was the closest race; J_Milburn and Cwmhiraeth switched places a few times in the final hours of the competition, although J Milburn edged out Cwmhiraeth by just 9 points. Pool A was, by far, the most competitive; four out of five moved onto Round 4, and its competitors earned a cumulative 935 points and reviewed 59 articles. Ritchie333, who came in second overall with 255 points, reviewed the most articles (17). Peacemaker67 and Wizardman earned the two wildcard slots, with 184 and 154 points, respectively. Congrats to all! 114 articles were reviewed this round, as compared to 110 in Round 2 and 117 in Round 1. The key to success in Round 3, like in Round 2, was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates; everyone who moved forward reviewed articles from the pink nomination box (20 points) or reviewed articles that had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). Many of these articles had languished because their nominators had left Wikipedia and had little chance of passing to GA, so our competitors provided a great service by helping remove them from the queue. Also as in Round 2, The Boat Race articles proved to be popular review choices, with 10% of all the articles reviewed in December. We appreciate the competitors' continued enthusiasm, even during the busy holiday season. At least one competitor even reviewed articles while preparing for a holiday meal! For Round 4, participants have been randomly put in 2 pools of 4 contestants each. The top two in each pool will progress to the finals, as well as the top participant (5th place) of all remaining users. The semi-finals will start on January 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on January 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 4 and the pools can be found here. We received some excellent feedback about how to improve the GA Cup in the future, including the definition of "quickfails" and the use of pools, which we'll seriously consider as we move forward. As a result of this feedback and the experience we've gained, there will be some changes to the rules come next years GA Cup. Good luck to all our semi-finalists! It is the judges' hope that every competitor in the GA Cup continue to have fun and be enthusiastic about reviewing and passing articles to GA! Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. 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) 00:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dinheirosaurus

The article Dinheirosaurus 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:Dinheirosaurus for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gug01 -- Gug01 (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 launch newsletter

Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs)
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Song 2

Main page: User talk:IJReid/Archive 3 § Song

To make the song look like a tag like templates, type {| id="userpage" style="margin:auto; width:{{{width|}}}; text-align:center; border:{{{border-s|1}}}px solid {{{border-c|#ffc9c9}}}; background-color:{{{background|#FFFFF3}}}; padding:1em; padding-top:0.5em; margin:{{{margin-style|0}}};" {{#ifeq:{{{logo|yes}}}|yes| {{!}} }} before the text and |} after the text. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. IJReid ^discuss 22:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

your song

I like your song--Regisaurusjacobi 08:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you'd better watch out, you'd better not cry, you'd better not pout, I'm telling you why Christmas Velociraptor is coming to town He sees you when you sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for your life's sake Oh, you'd better watch out, you'd better not cry, you'd better not pout, I'm telling you why Christmas Velociraptor is coming to town Merry Christmas, and watch out for the Christmas Velociraptor, IJReid (talk) 25 December 2014

Elsevier access

Hello, IJReid. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Chris Troutman (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

A Velociraptor for you!

	A velociraptor for you instead of a kitten!
	I like your song. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

LOL. IJReid ^discuss 15:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Feed your velociraptor with this:

File:Feed your velociraptor.png

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, IJReid, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Cup - The Finals

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 5/Final GA Cup competitors and observers: Get ready, we're about to move into the finals of the inaugural GA Cup! Not nearly as important as another competition taking place this weekend, but significant none the less. No deflated footballs here, though! Thursday saw the end of Round 4. Out of the 8 contestants in the semi-finals, 5 have moved to the finals. The semi-finals continued to be very competitive. The highest scorer overall was Ritchie333 from Pool B, with an impressive 488 points and a total of 36 articles reviewed, the most of any competitor; close behind was Jaguar (last round's wildcard), with 477 points and 29 reviews. At times, the competition between them was a real horse-race, and exciting for the judges to witness. Both Ritchie333 and Jaguar have moved onto the finals. In Pool A, Good888 with 294 points, and Wizardman with 179 also won slots in the final. 3family6 with 285 points, won the wildcard slot. We also had one withdrawal, due to outside-of-Wikipedia priorities. Congrats to all! Although there were just 8 competitors, more reviews were conducted this round than in any other round—148, which demonstrates the commitment and enthusiasm of our participants. The most successful competitors, like in all previous rounds, reviewed articles that languished in the queue at GAC for at least five months (worth 18 points). The Boat Race articles were popular review choices again, with almost 20% of the articles reviewed this month. In other news, we received another report from GA statistics page maintainer User:AmericanLemming. See here [1] for his take on the effect the GA Cup has had on Good Article reviews. He believes that we've made a real difference. AmericanLemming says: "As you can see, ...the GA Cup has done wonders when it comes to getting the oldest nominations reviewed much sooner thanks to the system whereby you get the most points for reviewing the oldest articles." Everyone involved with this competition, especially the competitors, should be very proud of what we've been able to accomplish! The Final will start on February 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on February 26 at 23:59:59 UTC with a winner being crowned. Information about the Final can be found here. Good luck to all our finalists! Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. 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) 04:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Cup Feedback Form

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Feedback Greetings, all! 4 months ago the GA Cup began and now as it comes to a close, it's time to start thinking about the next competition! Below is a link to a Google Form with several questions. We want to here from you what you thought about the GA Cup. Just over half of the questions are required while the others are optional. If you don't want to answer one of the optional questions, feel free to skip it. Your responses will only be visible to the three judges. Thank-you to all particpants for making the first GA Cup a success and we hope to see you all come out again for the next competition! 2014-15 GA Cup Feedback Form Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hilarcotherium

Hi, recently I made the article of Hilarcotherium, but I need help to make a cladogram. More exactly, I'm interested in the cladogram in the left that you can see here: [2], apparently is very similar to those in the article of Antarctodon. Also, I'll appreciate if you can review the grammar of the article. Thanks in advance, --Rextron (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. I also have a cladogram request page for future requests. IJReid ^discuss 15:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I'll remember your request page. Cheers, --Rextron (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Carpenter map

Hi, I see you just added a map by Kenneth Carpenter to the Apatosaurus article. I assume you thought it was free due to the blog's license, but the problem is that when the blog authors post images created by other people (not to mention published in unfree journals), the images do not automatically become free. Only the images the blog owners have created themselves, or oif they specifically state that they have been given permission to publish the images under said license by the actual authors, not just permission to use them. FunkMonk (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It mentions that the version which I have uploaded (different from that in the paper) was given permission by Ken to be used under the CC by license. IJReid ^discuss 14:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'd quote the exact wording used then, to avoid confusion (it is not stated in the image caption): "He has kindly sent me the full-resolution version — which is four times as big as the one I extracted from the PDF — and gave me permission to post it here on SV-POW! under the CC By licence." FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

2014-2015 GA Cup Wrap-Up

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Finals/Wrap-Up The inaugural GA Cup is now over! The competition officially ended Thursday. Congrats to everyone who participated, and especially to our finalists. The winner of the 2014/2015 GA Cup is Jaguar! He earned an impressive 615 points, despite only being a wildcard in the Round 4. The key to Jaguar's success seemed to be reviewing lots of articles as well as reviewer the oldest nominations; he reviewed 39 nominations in this round. Overall, the key to everyone's success was reviewing articles that had been in the queue for at least three months, which was true throughout the competition. In second place was Wizardman, with 241 points, and following close behind in third place was Good888, with 211 points. Congrats! Although there were a couple of bumps along the way, the judges have thoroughly enjoyed managing this competition. We hope that the participants had fun as well. The GA Cup was a resounding success, and that's due to all of you. The judges sincerely thank each and every participant, and for the editors who were willing to subject their articles to this process. We learned a lot. For example, we learned that even with meticulous planning, it's impossible to anticipate every problem. We learned that the scoring system we set up wasn't always the most effective. The enthusiasm and motivation of Wikipedians is awesome, and we enjoyed watching what was sometimes fierce competition. We look forward to the second GA Cup later this year. We reached many of our goals. See here for GA Cup statistics. We made a big difference, especially in shortening the length of time articles spend in the queue, and in reducing the backlog. Overall, 578 nominations were reviewed throughout the competition and a total of 8,184 points were awarded. Everyone involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished through the GA Cup. Stay tuned for more information about our next competition. There will be some much-needed changes made in the scoring system next time. We appreciate your feedback, and commit to seriously consider it. If you haven't already, please fill out the feedback form here. If you're interested in being a judge in our second GA Cup, please let one of our judges know or click on the tab found in the feedback form. Again, thanks to all and congratulations to our winners! Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

One of several of Godot13's quality submissions during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
• AHeneen (submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
• Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
• And last but not least, Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Carnufex

Hello! Your submission of Carnufex at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! George Ho (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Apatosaurus

Thanks for your work in the article. I personally think all we need now before GA is the lede to expand. You might have a different opinion. I'm busy this week but if you do nominate, I'll help when I can. LittleJerry (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that, but maybe we should also put it up for a copy edit, just to fix some of the potential errors that we haven't noticed yet. However, we might want to get it as close to FA as we can before we nominate for GA, so I will still do a little more work. IJReid ^discuss 14:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you fix cites 21 and 51? LittleJerry (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Seems like ‎Gug01 did a "rubber stamp" GA pass, while himself removing stuff from the article without discussion. I don't think that is proper GA procedure. ‎Gug01, GA reviews are done by adding points to the review page for the nominators to respond to. Rarely if ever do GAs pass without any discussion with the editors. I would advise you to read through several previous GA reviews about similar subjects to prepare yourself for reviewing. This review certainly won't prepare the article for a FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realize. Do you think I should undo that edit and un-pass the article, leaving the review up to discussion? If so, I'll do it. Gug01 (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Just hit the undo button. Once I closed a review prematurely and asked what to do and that is how I was told to do it. IJReid ^discuss 22:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you should perhaps try to continue the review on the review page. Read the article carefully, and wherever you find something that might be an issue, bring it up on the review page. That's also the way to do FA reviews. Otherwise, we may ask to have the review page restarted. Seems like Unbuttered Parsnip may want to weigh in, after this[3] edit. FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you think of the situation, IJReid and LittleJerry? Will you try to run it at FAC anyway? Will you continue the review, Gug01, or should we have the nomination reset? FunkMonk (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

If possible I would prefer not skipping the GA review, and if needed, reset it. IJReid ^discuss 15:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah let's wait a little while for another GA review. LittleJerry (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You can ask an admin to reset the nomination to the original nomination date, so you don't have to wait two months again... FunkMonk (talk) 09:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Apatosaurus review

Since your an admin, could you reset the time stamp on the Apatosaurus GA nomination, as we had the review restarted because of a quick-pass without any comments. FunkMonk might have a bit more to say as he knows more than I on what to do and what was done. IJReid ^discuss 15:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks as though Cas sorted it. Let me know, though, if you need anything else. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay Firs. Thanks anyways. IJReid ^discuss 03:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 2

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Apatosaurus

Sorry I'm not able to help much. I've been very busy. As for the locomotion sentence, I did not write that part. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Carnufex

The DYK project (nominate) 00:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Zalmoxes

added links pointing to Isolation, Dacian, Striations and Congeneric

Apatosaurus

added links pointing to Enamel and Truncated

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Apatosaurus

Thanks! IJReid ^discuss 23:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the Diplodocoidea page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Haplocanthosaurus page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Apatosaurus

added a link pointing to Carnegie Museum

Diplodocoidea

added a link pointing to Carnegie Museum

Psittacosaurus

added a link pointing to Derived

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter

C/2014 Q2 (Lovejoy) is a long-period comet discovered on 17 August 2014 by Terry Lovejoy; and is one of several Featured Pictures worked up by The Herald (submissions) during the second round.

The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.

Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.

• Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
• LeftAire (submissions) worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:GA

Please don't substitute it like you did here. It breaks a bunch of stuff since it isn't supposed to be substituted. 76.254.58.111 (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 GA Cup

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 2nd GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Our inaugural competition, which ran from October 2014 to April 2015, was such a resounding success that we'd like to do it again. Currently, there are over 500 GANs ready to be reviewed; competitors in the previous GA Cup reviewed about 570 GAs, so we can again make a huge impact in helping editors improve articles in Wikipedia and decrease the traditionally long queue at GAN. The 2nd GA Cup will begin on July 1, 2015. As last time, five rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on November 28, 2015), but this may change based on participant numbers. The judges learned a lot during the 1st GA Cup which exposed weaknesses in its system. Using both the feedback from last year's participants and the weaknesses discovered, we've revised the scoring system to make it more fair. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same. We also are introducing three new judges: 3family6, Jaguar and MrWooHoo. So in total, there will be six judges. We hope this will allow the competition to run more smoothly. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on July 15, 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, Dom497, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo, and TheQ Editor.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Lepidus praecisio) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Lepidus praecisio, IJReid!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice. Not sure if you were aware of the existing Lepidus (dinosaur) I just wasted time primping. :)

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Whoops, sorry Animalparty. I searched L. praecisio because I thought it might be under that name and created the article when I saw it wasn't. IJReid ^discuss 15:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

it's all good. Cheers. --Animalparty-- (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Prodeinotherium at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Skeletal in that giant mammal paper

I don't know if you've noticed, but the skeletals in that new paper (at the bottom) are separated from the text and other images, so it is very hard to extract them. Either the compositions are reconstructed in Photoshop, or the skeletals are just uploaded here one by one. Taking screenshots will reduce the quality of the images. What do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Let me think about it. Is the text really necessary? IJReid ^discuss 04:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it should definitely be in the file descriptions. The best part is, though, that all the scale humans are exactly the same size. Also, see my comment here:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately for me, I don't have Photoshop anymore. Apparently the version I have is too outdated for my computer (Mac OS X). And I don't have the Adobe to open PDFs so extracting with the tools is relatively out of the question. Anyways, the skeletal are quite low-quality, so a screenshot might not be that much of a loss. IJReid ^discuss 04:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

What skeletal would we want? All of them? Should I bother with the Indricotherium? IJReid ^discuss 04:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to work out something with the skeletals in Photoshop. The indricothere probably can't be used, the text says it's based after the Gregory S. Paul skeletal silhouette... FunkMonk (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I've uploaded a screenshot of the M. exiles skeletal. It is as big as in the paper, and if it is made any larger it becomes too pixelated. I think that taking screenshots is our best option to getting these skeletals. IJReid ^discuss 15:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, if we don't care about the text, the most accurate way is to select the image (first skeletal, then the guy), copy it, and place it in an image editor, if we want it completely unaltered. FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I've done that, yet it turns out ridiculously small. Maybe half the size of the one in the paper? IJReid ^discuss 15:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, well, the problem is that upscaling images does not add any information, it only makes it blurrier. Perhaps we should make compilations of related animals, instead of uploading single skeletals, since they're not really helpful as skeletals due to their small resolution. FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm uploading them by the species, so M. primigenius etc. get two. Anyways, as they are in the paper, they do not seem too blurry. Any smaller and most detail is lost, yet any larger and they are quite blurry. We should ping users that might be involved in this, like anyone you've worked with on these proboscidean pages. IJReid ^discuss 16:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the woolly article is a bit too image heavy already to support more images, but there are quite a few short probosciean genus articles that could be expanded and where the images would be helpful. FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Will get on it soon. IJReid ^discuss 17:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey FunkMonk, could you upload the image in this paper for the Prodeinotherium page. Also, how should I upload the four skeletal of some genera, all in one line or as a 2 by 2 square(ish) image? IJReid ^discuss 04:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd put them on a single row, the article probably didn't due to the the limited space of the paper. Here's the image you requested:[5] I read German, so feel free to ask if there's something from the paper you want to use. By the way, seems Archive has become harder to get images form, I had to change .php to .jpg in the filename after saving... FunkMonk (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, and thanks. IJReid ^discuss 14:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Wait, you read german? Can you skim through it to see if there is anything about Meyers description of P. bavaricum, like Meyers comparisons, systematics and basic description? Feel free to add it directly to the page. IJReid ^discuss 14:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a technical description of the lower jaw based solely on the fragments shown in the image, so I guess it's not of much use compared to later papers. FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks. IJReid ^discuss 20:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The article looks good! And by the way, here's an article that also makes the point that the scraps used to estimate size in that new paper can't really be used for anything definitive: http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/14/the-largest-beasts-to-walk-the-earth/ FunkMonk (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, this pdf has an abstract about Deinocheirus we could use: http://eavp2015.uni.opole.pl/biblioteka/docs/Abstract-book.pdf FunkMonk (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Continuing up here, the phenomena article doesn't seem to make any negative comments about pretty well-represented specimens like Prodeinotherium, so I think it only warrants mention in external links. Also, only the last few sentences of the Deinocheirus abstract could be used here, as the others seem too complex for me, never mind laymen. But thanks for mentioning these. If you find the time, Prodeinotherium will soon be trying for GA and after maybe FA. IJReid ^discuss 04:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I was meaning more when it coems to the"largest mammal" articles in general. As for Deinocheirus, it is actually only the last line or paragraph of that abstract (it had a fast metabolism and grew fast etc.) that we would need to summarise. FunkMonk (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Opisthocoelicaudia

Hi! I'm sorry it took me so long, but I think it is past time to nominate our Opisthocoelicaudia article for GA. If you like to, please nominate it! I still miss one book that might be interesting, but that can wait until the possible FA candidature (I should have it by then). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Would you like to be the nominator, after all it was mainly your effort? IJReid ^discuss 00:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware of your answer. It doesn't matter for me who the nominator is. I would do the FA nomination myself, if it comes to that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Apatosaurus

Hi. Would you like to renominate Apatosaurus again sometime? LittleJerry (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, when are you available? IJReid ^discuss 01:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Anytime this week I guess. Should we check the papers to make sure the specimens studied are not Brontosaurus? LittleJerry (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but if they are maybe we could mention that "related animals like Brontosaurus". IJReid ^discuss 04:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

All mentions up to the paleobiology section are of Apatosaurus, or mention the possibility that the specimens are not Apato (like AMNH 460 and FMNH). Although I'm not sure if "Einstein" was included in the BYU specimens in the phylogeny found as E. parvus. And also, come september this year, all of Gilmore's figures are PD, so those could make a useful addition later on. IJReid ^discuss 04:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay. So do you what to wait until then to renominate? LittleJerry (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Yah probably, should mention this on the collab page. I have a print copy of Gilmore's paper, so I can scan all the figures to make them quite large. IJReid ^discuss 19:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Ankylosaurini) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Ankylosaurini, IJReid!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Do you think this could be tactfully discussed under Ankylosauridae for better context? I haven't read Arbour & Currie 2015, but unless there is significant new content to add for this clade (besides 2 people gave it a name), perhaps a merge?

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Animalparty, maybe a discussion of the talk page is worthwhile. I think that Ankylosaurini should be merged, but perhaps Ankylosaurinae should be separated? IJReid ^discuss 02:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Opisthocoelicaudia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Opisthocoelicaudia 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Opisthocoelicaudia

The article Opisthocoelicaudia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Opisthocoelicaudia 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 July

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

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

2015 GA Cup - Round 2

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 2 Greetings, GA Cup competitors! Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. The Rambling Man, who was eliminated during the first round in our last competition, earned an impressive 513 points, reviewed twice as many articles (26) as any other competitor. It was a tight race for second for first-time competitors BenLinus1214 and Tomandjerry211, who finished second and third with 243 and 224 points, respectively. Close behind was Wugapodes, who earned 205 points. The change in our points system had an impact on scoring. It was easier to earn higher points, although the key to success didn't change from last time, which was choosing articles with older nomination dates. For example, most of the articles The Rambling Man reviewed were worth 18 points in the nomination date category, and he benefited from it. BenLinus1214 reviewed the longest article, A Simple Plan (at 26,536 characters, or 4,477 words), the 1994 film starring Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, and Bridget Fonda and directed by Sam Raimi, and earned all possible 5 points in that category. After feedback from our participants, the judges slightly changed the rule about review length this time out. Shorter reviews are now allowed, as long as reviewers give nominators an opportunity to address their feedback. Shorter reviews are subject to the judges' discretion; the judges will continue their diligence as we continue the competition. Despite having fewer contestants at the beginning of Round 1 than last time, 132 articles were reviewed, far more than the 117 articles that were reviewed in Round 1 of the inaugural GA Cup. All of us involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished thus far. The judges are certain that Round 2 will be just as successful. 16 contestants have moved onto Round 2 and have been randomly placed in 4 groups of 4, with the top 2 in each pool progressing to Round 3, as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 has already begun and will end on August 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here. Good luck and remember to have fun! Cheers from Dom497, Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

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

Amargasaurus

Hi Reid, thank you, btw, for your nice redrawing of Vulcanodon's foot skeleton ([6]). I think we need another redrawing, this time of the skull of Amargasaurus in order to show the shape and position of the various skull openings. Do you have some time left to help out? If so, I would gladly send you the template. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack sure. I can pretty much do it whenever. A link to the template you would like to do do is fine. Should I make a version without and with labels so that it can be used on different languages? IJReid ^discuss 19:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Great! Here the link to the template: [7]. Its from

• p. 175, Fig. 5.5A, in Novas, Fernando E. (2009). The age of dinosaurs in South America. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-35289-7.

Its only a photograph (I only have a printed version of the book). The redrawn image should do two things: First, it should show which parts of the skull are known and which are not (we do not need to differentiate between the individual bones here, just a simple grey fill for the area which is known would be fine I think). Second, it should show the location and approximate form of the different skull openings (in the template, these are: af=antorbital fenestra (not preserved); o=orbit; no=external naris (only visible in topview), ltf=lateral temporal fenestra, stf=supratemporal fenestra (very small)). These fenestrae would need clear labels. Also, it might be easier for the reader if the fenestrae would be colored. So these are my thoughts, but please do it differently if you got better ideas. Thanks a lot, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the great drawing! There are only few minor issues, but I can fix them myself quickly. Thanks again, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I think maybe the caption and Commons description should mention what animals the unknown parts are based on? FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It is mentioned on commons already. IJReid ^discuss 15:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, it only mentions the source, not the animals? FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh. Well some of the jaw is based on Dicraeosaurus, but the rest is from the reconstruction in the paper. IJReid ^discuss 18:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi! @FunkMonk: Thanks, I have added it to the image caption. @Reid: I've done some minor fixes in the drawing, hope you like them :) --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)