User talk:Zwerg Nase/Archive

File:Honda 006.jpg

edit

Hi Zwerg Nase. Thanks for adding all those photos to Formula One car articles. I have a question though: Is File:Honda 006.jpg a BAR 005 (from 2003) or a BAR 006 (from 2004)? The number '9' would suggest that it's a 006 from 2004 (when BAR carried numbers 9 and 10), although the coloured stripes near the front wheel look more like the 2003 livery than the 2004 livery. If it's a 006, then the image should be removed from the BAR 005 article. On the other hand, if it is a 005, then the filename should probably be changed, to avoid possible confusion. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey! Thanks for your comment. There are more great photos to come! You are absolutely right, it's confusing. When I found the pictures of the July 2004 presentation I figured they would be the 2004 cars. So I named the files here accordingly. But when I put them into the articles I found that some teams had run their 2003 cars, such as Honda. So I changed the description and put the photo into the right article. You are right, the filename should be changed, but I don't know how to do that. Do you? Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes. I'll take care of it. Thanks for the reply. DH85868993 (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks!! Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi

edit

Hello Zwerg Nase, thanks for your message. We do seem to have some overlapping interests & it would be a good thing if there was a bit more friendly interaction to help improve Wiki pages. I feel this would be more productive. I've worked up some obscure drivers' pages as well as some more well known ones. Some people have been complimentary!!:P.

BTW I noted an entry on the BT7 page (Repco) by another editor, which I am not certain is correct so have brought it up on his page for clarification. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I also read nowhere about the Repco naming. Let's see what he says.
I will be working on improving all the Lotus and Brabham car articles over the next few days, trying to add photos where they are missing (found some great ones for the Lotus 43 and got permission to use them, I will add them later tonight. Also I want to bring the 2012 Brazilian Grand Prix article up to Good Article standards. Maybe you could help me with that by copyreading it? Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Oh and I also found pictures for the 2012 Brazil race and got permission to use them. The author still needs to update the licences on Flickr though... Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
OK good stuff!! Good photos really help an article along I think. I might have to trawl through my photos to see if any are any use (after scanning!). I would be honoured to look at anything you'd like me to. So drop me a message if/when you need anything. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
PS, I've taken the liberty of tweaking up the bibliography on the Lotus 49 page and also added one item which I knew existed as I saw it in a bookshop towards the end of last year... Best Eagleash (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Perfect! Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
There you are you see. People make edits & chat about it & (I believe) the end product is improved. Whereas →→ the editor re BT7 has responded on my talk page... Eagleash (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, I think it was worth querying though, just to make sure...

All the time though I had in the back of my mind these pictures I took at Crystal Palace circuit in 2010. (Bit disingenuous of me really :P) I can't identify the model...

I'll have a look at Brazilian GP 2012 article later today hopefully. Best, Eagleash (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Tricky one.. maybe it's a F2 or F3 car? I'll try to put in the Brazilian GP pics asap! Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Almost certainly F3. Eagleash (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

ITN

edit

I said it on the nomination but I will also address you personally and thank you for your work; please don't let other users who feel few if any others meet their standards and knowledge get you down. I hope you continue to have a presence on ITN. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Best regards from Berlin :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Muss fragen, hast du wirklich eine kleine Nase?   Sca (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Es ist ironisch gemeint, ich habe eigentlich eine recht große ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Also vielleicht, 'a nose for news.'   Sca (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Haha   Sehr gut! Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Music of Germany

edit

Hi Zwerg Nase :) taking a closer look at ITN today, I've seen you commenting underneath my Berlinale proposal. Your user page suggests that you're very interested in Germany and its history and that you're an expert in the field of music. That I think makes you perfectly fit to have a look at Music of Germany, a Sorgenkind since ages. What's your suggestions to improve the structure there? I think it's very cluttered and a sheer mess. I think something like Music of the United Kingdom could be an inspiration, to trim the German article down to the core topics and then have sub articles for more thorough details. What's your stance? (we could switch to Deutsch probably, but it's also fun exercising constantly, to me at least :) -- Danke und prost Mahlzeit, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Horst! Hmm, der Artikel ist sicher ein Sorgenkind, aber das lässt sich ja über die ganze deutsche Musik sagen. Ich sehe das Problem weniger bei der Struktur als dabei, dass der Artikel ausgemistet und neu geschrieben werden müsste. Sätze wie "he is seldom played on the radio." oder "Most Liedermacher artists also record special albums for children." gehen ja gar nicht. Leider habe ich dazu aktuell keine Zeit, schreibe mir aber mal auf die ToDo-Liste, drüber zu schauen. Alles in allem muss ich aber sagen, dass mein Augenmerk was Musik angeht nicht wirklich auf deutscher Musik liegt, sondern eher auf guter Musik ;) Beste Grüße! Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Stuckism

edit

Thanks for the review. I'll do my best in these few remaining days to make the changes.lapsking (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've responded to all the comments; I'm checking the references to Stuckism.com to see if any further refs are needed, but we're basically there now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Alright, I'll see that I get through it until tomorrow! Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

2015 Football League Cup Final review

edit

Danke schön Lukas! :) '''tAD''' (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Beneath a Steel Sky

edit

Hello, are you still reviewing this article? The original nominator seems to have abandoned it, but if you don't mind I can take over fixing the issues. Cheers, Reyk YO! 16:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey! Yes, I will do it, probably over the weekend. It's good that you can take over :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

2012 Brazilian Grand Prix

edit

Hi again,

I've had a go at the Brazil '12 GP page. Please take a look and see if you agree (or not!). Cheers, Eagleash (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Good stuff! Also added the photos now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Good work, I'm afraid I've tweaked one of the captions.....please say if you disagree. Best Eagleash (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I've been tweaking again I'm afraid...one thing missing is the lap di Resta crashed out on. He completed 68 according to the results table, but did he actually crash on lap 68 or 69? It's these little things.... :P Eagleash (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
I just watched that part of the race again and I believe lap 68 is correct. Button was about to enter the final lap (71) when Di Resta, about 1 minute behind him crashed before the start/finish-straight. So Button had completed 69 laps and Di Resta behind him 68. Do I make sense? Good thing you double-checked though! Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Um not quite; Button entering 71 but completed 69? And if I read you correctly di Resta had completed 68 & was on his 69th but did not quite complete it? So he binned it on his 69th lap. If you agree I'll put it in [or you can :)]. Eagleash (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Button had not yet entered lap 71, so he was ON lap 70, having completed 69. Di Resta, almost one lap down, had completed 68. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
OK with you now.... :P
Update I've gone with "after 68 laps" and have added it. Hope OK with you... Eagleash (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
OK! Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
I thought about this again and figured that the wording now might be confusing as well. The race itself was not on lap 68 at the time of the crash. Maybe we can change it to "little over one lap to go". It should be clear that that means one lap for the race leader. What do you think? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well my feeling is that di Resta, is classified at 68 laps, so it may also confuse the issue if the sentence deviates very far from that. How it reads now would be my preferred wording if I were to be editing a page in similar circumstances. But it's just a personal opinion, others may differ! I'll leave it up to you as you are doing the most work on this page. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'll think it over and try to find a wording that makes both things clear. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
What about "on his 69th lap"...? Or.."towards/at the end of his 69th lap" leaving in "out of 71" or not according to how you feel. Think that would cover all. Eagleash (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Switched it to "shortly before the end of the race". It's vage, but at least it is not wrong ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey Zwerg. I know the review has closed, but my suggestion would be to cut down on the overlinks. Typically, a specific link should only appear once per article, and at their first mention (regardless if it's written as Jenson Button or Button). Although, this usually just applies to the written text and repeated links may be used in image captions and tables. At a quick glance, I counted Button and McLaren linked 4 times, and Alonso and Vettel linked 11 times. Twirlypen (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

My personal taste is that I like more links better (at least once every paragraph), since it annoys me if I have to search for the link in the article when I want to follow up on something. Let's see what the GA review says about the matter. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
While I personally tend to agree with you, it'll help your chances on a review to cut them down. More info is here. Good luck!! Twirlypen (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the tip! Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Talk:2015 Tour of Qatar/GA1

edit

Hi. Just wondering if you're going to be able to get a chance to review this sometime soon. I'm quite keen to write quite a few more similar articles and it would be good to get some feedback on one I've finished. Many thanks! Relentlessly (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Very sorry about the delay. A university paper is taking me longer than expected. I hope to get it done by wednesday. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Really no need to apologise! Thanks for doing it. Relentlessly (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

F1 car articles; complete results heading...

edit

Hi Lukas, Good result on the Brazil 2012 article... I just wanted to let you know that on the car articles, where the heading (Complete results ... etc.) appears at the end of the text but then there's a bit of a gap before the table appears after the infobox... if you put {{-}} at the end of the text it will create a clear space and the heading appears immediately above the results table. You can see what I mean at the de Tomaso and Brabham BT7 articles, (where I've already done it). Best, Eagleash (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I didn't know that.. thank you!! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 05:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Danke sehr

edit

Thanks for your comment re Günter Grass. Sca (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

German help

edit

Hi, I've been working on the article on Hakan Çalhanoğlu. I noticed at the bottom of the page that he was player of the year in the 3. Liga in 2013. Can you find a source for this? (I doubt there is sufficient coverage of this league in English sources) '''tAD''' (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Here you go: [1], [2], [3]. Glad to help :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

April 2015

edit

  Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Roberto Firmino, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. GiantSnowman 12:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me, but if you take a look into the source, one of the sources did not reference anything said in the sentence and the other one contained a quote that was misused. I am currently reviewing the article for GA status, so it would be very much appreciated if you would not interfere. Thank you. I will take both sources away again, because they are not useful in the context. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I invite you to try and have me blocked - and I also invite you to read WP:BOOMERANG in the meantime. There is no way this article could possibly pass GA with the poor quality of content. GiantSnowman 13:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. Nevertheless, I as a reviewer am supposed to give the nominator seven days time. I highly doubt he will have it done by then, but I give him that time. Feel free to contribute to the discussion at the right place. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

edit

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Add sources
2004 Formula One season
Brabham BT24
Rodleen Getsic
Williams FW25
Alfredo Ferrari
Williams FW28
Cleanup
Bugatti Prototypes
NEC
Hesketh Racing
Expand
Lancia D50
FIA Formula Two Championship
2014 Oregon Ducks football team
Unencyclopaedic
Scarborough Fair (ballad)
The Goon Show
Cybersquatting
Wikify
Emerson Fittipaldi
Roberto Merhi
Ferrari 250 GTO
Orphan
Al Waqf, Egypt
Ashmoor Hockey Club
Assemblies (Jehova Shammah)
Merge
BRM P57
Red Bull GmbH
Mindfulness
Stub
McLaren MP4/11
Hesketh 308C
McLaren MP4-17
Ferrari F300
9,10-Diphenylanthracene
Ferrari F399

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Suggestion

edit

Just for future reference, you might want to consider using level three subsections for your F1 race articles...I. E. Breaking up the free practice sessions so that they each stand out. Same thing with qualifying.--Nascar king 16:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Free practice

edit

Free practice 1

edit

Lewis Hamilton was the fastest in free practice one yada yada yada...

Free practice 2

edit

Yada yada yada

Free practice 3

edit

More yada yada yada--Nascar king 16:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I do prefer to keep the article free from too many unnecessary headings, especially when the paragraphs are that short. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Royal baby

edit

Yeah, but George was a boy!   Sca (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Asking a favor

edit

Since you seem to have a knowledge of motorsports, I was wondering if you'd review the three NASCAR race articles I have nominated for GA status?--Nascar king 17:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I was already thinking about that, even though I have no knowledge whatoever of NASCAR... So I might not be the right person after all. I will do the four reviews I started today and then take a look at one, if no-one else has done it then. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your GA Review of The Eraser

edit

Hi there. I see you've completed a Good Article review of The Eraser. That's great, we always need good editors to help out with the backlog, so thanks for doing that :)

One thing to note is that the article contained a reference (#9) that was a dead link - the GA shouldn't really have been passed until that was fixed. (For info, an easy way to spot these is to click the "external links" thing in the 'GA toolbox' that appears on the right hand side of the GA review page.) Don't worry about it now, since I've left the nominator a note on their talk page and they will resolve the issue. You'll see that I also made a couple of other suggestions about the article there too.

One other thing to note is that you didn't change the "class" field values in the WikiProject templates on the article talk page to "GA" - I've done this now, so don't worry about that either, but it is mentioned clearly on the instructions page.

Keep up the great work - cheers! — sparklism hey! 08:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

You are right, I was a bit sloppy there. Thanks for keeping an eye out! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
No problem :) — sparklism hey! 09:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Flowers and kisses to you both. Popcornduff (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks

edit

Thanks for your passing of GA for Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup), I worked a lot on that article over the last nine months, even though I didn't nominate it. Something tells me that you enjoyed that game more than the nominator! ;)

Here's a funny anecdote. My mother got Germany in the sweepstakes at her place of work, and even though it was the World Cup she only had a small interest and hadn't seen a match up to that point. She decided to watch the first half of said game to get a taste of the tournament – and it was enough for her to watch until the end! '''tAD''' (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I can believe that :) It was really a weird game. When Kroos scored his second goal, I thought it was a replay of his first, I just couldn't believe what was happening. And the sight of that little boy crying still haunts me sometimes :D Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
I tried to providce some solace... Serten Talk 12:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Gagne

edit

I was a bit shocked that German WP listed Verne Gagne in its RD section. Sca (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Didn't realize that, I am never on that page. Helpless cause... Zwerg Nase (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Just wondering: Are you active on German WP? Sca (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
No, I gave that up quite a long time ago. It's a vicious circle really: The quality of the German WP is low, so people turn away from it, which naturally does not make it better... Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Surprising, since it's one of the largest WPs. (I have noticed they have a lot of unreferenced articles.) Schade. Sca (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Its a combination of the Hasselhoff effect (hairs on the chest and a strong and competent Wrestling portal on the de:WP. Serten Talk 13:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Lotus 49

edit

Hello Lukas,

I was looking at the 49 article yesterday after it was sent to me via suggest bot. I noticed that it refers to the earlier BRMs as being the first to use the engine as a stressed member, when in fact it was the Lancia D50 of 1954. (F1 trivia quizzes do have their uses!) I haven't got a ref or I'd change it myself... do you have anything? Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Never mind; found one. Eagleash (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
OK :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

2015 Monaco Grand Prix

edit

I'm not really sure that the information about changes coming to Formula 1 belongs in the race article since none of the changes affect the race itself. It seems to detract from the race report itself.--Nascar king 11:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I guess there will be more discussion about it once they arrive there and I'd say that is of interest to an article about the race. Let's see what's gonna happen :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

The Inbetweeners 2

edit

Thanks for another GA pass. May I ask if you have seen this film? As the franchise itself has been cited as evidence that comedy doesn't travel well. '''tAD''' (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ah well... He is right in a way, British English is often harder to understand also for us non-native speakers. But then again, I guess the main reason is that Americans (generally speaking) couldn't care less about what is produced anywhere else in the world. Also: I don't believe that TV show was ever popular outside the Commonwealth. And I don't believe a movie such as this would be that successful without the success of the TV show before it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
I know an Italian exchange student who was told by her host mother that all British teenage boys act like those seen in this series. I can confirm as a 19-year-old Englishman that this is 100% true. Also, the range of dialects in England alone is ridiculous compared to what would be found in a similar area in America or Australia. For example, where my grandparents came from, "how are you" would be "how bist". I wonder from which language that originates! ;)
Thank you and keep up your good work '''tAD''' (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
"Bist" is actually German for "you are". Glad to solve that riddle ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015

edit
 
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) 23:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

A Møøse once bit my sister…

edit

No realli! She was Karving her initials øn the møøse with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given her by Svenge – her brother-in-law – an Oslo dentist and star of many Norwegian møvies: "The Høt Hands of an Oslo Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge Mølars of Horst Nordfink"…

[We apologise for the fault in this message. Those responsible have been sacked.]--Cardinal Ximinez (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

DYK nomination of Senatus consultum ultimum

edit

  Hello! Your submission of Senatus consultum ultimum 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! David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please see new note on DYK nomination template. Yoninah (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Horst Wessel

edit

Thank you so much for starting the review so fast! I would, however, highly appreciate you would wait a few hours before starting the review. You see, a good friend of mine intend to do some copyedits and I strongly believe it would make the article much better. Best, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 13:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

No problem, I'll probably do the review on Saturday :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Okay, two of my friends have now finished their copyediting, you may review the article now. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

A barnstar for you!

edit
  The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your contributions to the 2015 Berlin ePrix! It's great to see such a good article about Formula E! Wild8oar (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thank you!! It's very motivating to see that the work is appreciated :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

DYK for Senatus consultum ultimum

edit

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

edit

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Add sources
Owner-Driver (NASCAR)
Lotus 49
Leonardo da Vinci–Fiumicino Airport
Gérard Ducarouge
Hamilton College, Scotland
2011 Formula One season
Cleanup
2011 British Formula Three season
Micah Stock
Belinda Stewart-Wilson
Expand
Electronic Arts
Lotus 48
2012 British Grand Prix
Unencyclopaedic
Fernando Alonso
Processed cheese
Peter Kruse
Wikify
Freerunning
Franz Rosenzweig
2013 German Formula Three season
Orphan
2011 Mini 7 Racing Club season
Andrew Ashe
2013 Ekayana Monastery bombing
Merge
Umpire (cricket)
Ford Retail Group
Andronikos I of Trebizond
Stub
McLaren MP4-19
BRM P138
Stackify
Brabham BT51
BRM P126
BRM P133

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

GA-review of Horst Wessel

edit

I've responded and made edits according your points made in the GA-review. Vielen Dank, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'll have a closer look tomorrow, I gotta go to bed now :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

ITN

edit

Note proffered compromise on Turkish election. Sca (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The blurb as posted by TRM has the additional virtue of getting "Yangtze" without "River" off ITN. Sca (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

2015 Daytona 500 GA reassessment

edit

2015 Daytona 500, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Harrias talk 09:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 2015 Monaco Grand Prix

edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2015 Monaco Grand Prix 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 Techtri -- Techtri (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 2015 Monaco Grand Prix

edit

The article 2015 Monaco Grand Prix 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:2015 Monaco Grand Prix for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Techtri -- Techtri (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

DYK nomination of 2015 Spanish Grand Prix

edit

  Hello! Your submission of 2015 Spanish Grand Prix at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please see new note on DYK nomination template. Yoninah (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

2015 Tour de Suisse

edit

Hi Zwerg, thanks for your comment on the ITN nomination. It's true there are some busy beavers writing cycling articles lately   I just nominated the article on GA, but will take a few days easy Wikipedia-wise since the article took a lot of time and effort, I'm a bit wiki-exhausted :P So if you want to review it, which would be awesome, could you wait a couple of days? :) Looking forward to your answer. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 13:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

On 1 July, the GA Cup starts, in which I participate. Should the nomination not be taken over by someone else until then, I will gladly review it in the context of the cup :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Awesome timing! That will give me ample time to do the final classifications top 10s tables (mountains, sprints, etc.) Mattsnow81 (Talk) 15:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

DYK for 2015 Spanish Grand Prix

edit

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015

edit
 
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) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of Senatus consultum ultimum

edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Senatus consultum ultimum 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 Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

2015 GA Cup

edit
 

Welcome to the GA Cup! In less than 72 hours, the competition will begin! Before you all start reviewing nominations and reassessments we want to make sure you understand the following:

  • This is a friendly competition so we don't want any cheating/breaking of the rules. However, if you do believe someone is going against the rules, notify the judges. All the rules are listed here.
  • If you are a new editor or new to reviewing Good article nominations, it is imperative that you read the 4 essays/guides listed under FAQ #4. If you do not understand something, ask a judge for clarification ASAP!
  • The competition is not entirely about who can review the most nominations. Per the "Scoring" page, there is different criteria in which you can earn more points. Theoretically, you could review 10 nominations and have 80 points but another user could have reviewed 5 nominations and have 100 points. Yes, we want you to review as many nominations as you can as this will greatly increase the number of points you earn, but you must also keep in mind that every single review will be looked over by a judge. If we find that you are "rubber-stamping" (in other words, the review is not complete but you still passed/failed the article) you may be disqualified without warning. The same applies with reassessments. If you just say that the article should be delisted or kept with no explanation, points will not be awarded.
  • Remember, to submit Good article reviews and reassessments on your submissions page (Some of you have not created your submissions page yet. Only reviews/reassessments submitted on your submissions page can earn points. If you participated in the 2014-2015 GA Cup, you still need to re-create your submissions page.). Detailed instructions on how to submit reviews and reassessments can be found under the "Submissions" page. Ask a judge if you need clarification.

Also, rather than creating a long list on what to remember, make sure you have read the "Scoring", "Submissions", and "FAQ" pages.

Now some of you are probably wondering how on earth the rounds will work.

The rounds will work in a similar fashion as the previous competition, with the exception of the first round. Round 1 will have everyone compete in one big pool. Depending on the final number of participants after sign-ups close, a to-be-determined number of participants will move on (highest scorers will move on) to Round 2. We guarantee that the top 15 will move on (this number may change), so make sure you aim for those top positions! Moving on to Round 2, participants will be split into pools. The pools will be determined by a computer program that places participants by random. More details regarding Round 2 will be sent out at the end of Round 1.

It is important to note that the GA Cup will run on UTC time, so make sure you know what time that is for where you live! On that note, the GA Cup will start on July 1 at 0:00:01 UTC; Round 1 will end on July 29 at 23:59:59 UTC; Round 2 will commence on August 1 at 0:00:01 UTC. All reviews must be started after or on the start time of the round. If you qualify for Round 2 but do not complete a review before the end of Round 1, the review can be carried over to Round 2; however that review will not count for Round 1. Prior to the start of the the second round, participants who qualify to move on will be notified.

Finally, if you know anyone else that might be interesting in participating, let them know! Sign-ups close on July 15 so there is still plenty of time to join in on the action!

If you have any further questions, contact one of the judges or leave a message here.

After sign-ups close, check the Pools page as we will post the exact number of participants that will move on to the next round. Because this number will be determined past the halfway mark of Round 1, we encourage you to aim to be in the top 15 as the top 15 at the end of the round are guaranteed to move on.

Cheers from 3family6, Dom497, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo.

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

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Schnelllöschung der Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität

edit

Hallo Zwerg Nase, ich weiß, dass die HU Berlin sich gerne auf ihre gloreiche Geschichte bezieht (Hegel, Marx, Heine!) und auch heute wieder Eliteuni ist, aber das ist nur eine Sichtweise auf die Geschichte, sprich POV. Daher ist ein eigenständiger Artikel zur Frederick William University mit Hinweis auf die Neugründungen nach 1945 (FU Berlin und HU Berlin) imho durchaus hilfreich. --Kolja21 (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ich kann dem nicht folgen. Es ist die selbe Universität. Noch nichtmal eine Neugründung. Wenn Du mir einen Präzedenzfall in Wikipedia zeigen kannst, wo solche Fälle anders behandelt werden, wäre ich überrascht. Außerdem: Warum denn dann ein Artikel mit dem Titel Frederick William University und nicht Berlin University? Außerdem kommt der Artikel in die Quere mit der disambiguation page. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Die Uni erhielt 1828 den Namen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität und ist bis heute unter dieser Bezeichnung bekannt. Es ist nichts ungewöhnliches in Wikipedia, dass bei bedeutenden Einschnitten zwei Artikel angelegt werden. Die BKL "Frederick William University (disambiguation)" ist korrekt. Die Vermischung der beiden Unis bringt lexikalisch keinen Vorteil und führt zu der Absurdität, dass Personen des 19. Jhs. angeblich an der HU studiert und gelehrt haben. Gruß --Kolja21 (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Tut mir leid, aber alles davon ist nicht korrekt. Weder ist die Uni heute noch unter diesem Namen bekannt, noch zieht irgendjemand in Zweifel, dass Personen wie Bismarck oder Marx als Alumni der HU zu zählen sind. Welcher Vorteil soll denn lexikalisch aus dem zwanghaften auseinander friemeln der Universitäten entstehen? Mal davon abgesehen müsstest Du ja Deiner Logik folgend sofort einen getrennten Artikel für die Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität in Breslau erstellen, damit er sich nicht mit der Universität Breslau überschneidet... Gruß, Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Zudem ist, bei allem Respekt, Frederick William University kein Artikel, der den Anforderungen von Wikipedia gerecht wird. Ich finde es bemerkenswert, dass Du eine Seite aufrecht erhalten willst, die für den Zeitraum, den sie abdecken soll, nicht einmal detaillierter ist als der eigentliche Artikel. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
O.k. ich sehe, du hast an der HU studiert. Das erklärt den Fanatismus (3 LAs in 24 Stunden). --Kolja21 (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Es erklärt lediglich, wie ich dazu komme, dass es mir auffällt und warum mir die Geschichte bewusst ist. Ich möchte doch für mich in Anspruch nehmen, hier einen ausreichend objektiven Standpunkt einnehmen zu können. Deutsche Studierende sind für eine Loyalität zu Ihren Hochschulen ohnehin nicht bekannt. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Und von allem bereits erwähnten abgesehen, sorgt ein einzelnen Artikel Frederick William University nur für Verwirrung, weil er so tut als sei die Berliner die einzige und wahre Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität gewesen. Der Artikelname sollte zur disambiguation page führen. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 2015 Monaco Grand Prix

edit

The article 2015 Monaco Grand Prix you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:2015 Monaco Grand Prix 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 Techtri -- Techtri (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Talk:2015 Tour de Suisse/GA1

edit

Hi! Will you come and see what has been done once in a while? I commented over there. Sorry I don't know the GA conventions, I'm slightly nervous. When I have completed something you ask, do I put the 'done' template myself? Thanks for your attention. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 19:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dear Matt, you can put a "done" on something when you have made changes, and then I will decide wether or not it solves the issues I raised. I will look at the article regularly and see what you are doing. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Who is reviewing it? That drill sergeant or you? He removed referenced and pertinent info. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 14:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Dear Matt, first of all, there is no reason to get abusive. I am the reviewer. I did not ask DiscWheel to participate in the review, but no one can stop him from doing so and I do agree with what he is writing. When it comes to him removing stuff from the article: Well, on the one hand it is the nature of Wikipedia that everyone can edit and every time. Then again, I would have preferred him to change as little as possible too during the review process, since the more un-arranged changes are made to the article, the harder it is for me to see through it. I will write him asking to refrain from making significant changes without debating them first while the review is in progress, but that is about as much as I can do. Right now, I am reading through the article again and will leave notes on it on the review page as soon as I'm done. Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hello! About your first point on the talk page of the article, does that mean that you deem steephill.tv unacceptable? Thanks. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 16:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Forget this, I wrote something on the GA talk section :) Mattsnow81 (Talk) 19:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

GR referendum

edit

Is it all over but the shouting? Sca (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

No clue... Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

ITN post

edit

I only removed your post because the discussion had been closed; feel free to start a talk page section for it. I wanted to tell you that (while I personally believe Ongoing not appropriate for sports events in progress) the World Cup is a tournament composed of different matches, while the Tour is a single event held over three weeks. It also does not get the level of attention of the World Cup. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I would disagree in two points: 1) I believe that the Tour gets a bigger coverage, at least if you take a world-wide average. And 2) the Tour is also composed of different stages, I fail to see a difference there... Just as in a World Cup, where you might lose one match and still win the tournament, you might lose time at a Tour stage but still win the overall classification. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

CyclingQuotes

edit
 
WOW!

Hello :) Did you get any feedback if it is a RS or not? It would be a shame if it isn't because it is quite comprehensive, but I don't want to reference anything further to it if it is not considered RS, be it races or info on cyclists' articles.   Mattsnow81 (Talk) 22:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

You can follow the discussion here. It seems to be tricky... I would tend to accepting it, but I cannot make that decision myself. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, I added my grain of salt. An IP writes the Tour de France stages, he is a very good writer, but lacks the reference fiber. I try to help him, but he is not talkative. Oh well. Are you watching the Tour a bit?   Mattsnow81 (Talk) 17:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I do, four spectecular stages so far, weren't they? And so deserved for Martin today! Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Oh yes! Although I like Sagan a lot, I was happy for Martin, what power to resist to the bunch like that! I hope Sagan wins a stage this year, but don't worry, if he does and I write it on his article, I'll be very encyclopedic. Have a great Tour and don't forget to ring my bell if there's anything, I edit everyday. I'm sorry I dropped out a bit of the TDS work, as I said I put too much pressure on myself. I put 3 edits on it this morning lol Mattsnow81 (Talk) 17:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I was glad to see that :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Just put a few small ones in. Is there any chances the article will be a GA? If too much reconstruction is still needed, I'll go to something else. Besides, I think the seventh day is today right? Mattsnow81 (Talk) 18:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I still need to take a closer look at all the changes, but I believe it is not far from GA. With all the work being done, don't mind the seven days. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
OK, I'll hunt some time gaps at the end of the stages, those we'll never find a ref for and stamp them out. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 18:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
New batch of pics taken today just came in from a French wikifriend, they are just awesome as you can see! Now onto categorizing all that stuff :P Mattsnow81 (Talk) 21:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
That's a whole lotta photos! And a well deserved red number for Nibali, he really made the stage with his attacks. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Cyclingquotes-wise, my remarks to them on Twitter seem to have touched the mark, as they now say: POSTED by Emil Axelgaard or identify some new writers. This Axelgaard is a great connoisseur I've been told in private messages, but also a pricky boss. Anyway, it would be useful to use them for the 2015 Tour. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 05:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

That is good news, the more sources the better :) So, Froome seems unbeatable this year doesn't he? Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
We'll see tomorrow, first mountaintop finish! Bummer for Basso though, he announced he has testicular cancer :( Mattsnow81 (Talk) 16:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I am sure that is not the Armstrong succession he had in mind in 2006... Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
No :( This Tour has been pretty exciting so far, can't wait for the mountains. Look at Sagan's results! Pity he didn't take a victory. Maybe on one of those lumpy stages looming... Mattsnow81 (Talk) 17:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm too much of a Degenkolb supporter to hope for Sagan victories ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
LOL This is a declaration of war!   Mattsnow81 (Talk) 18:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Speaking as a historian, you sure that declaring war is the best idea when it's Slovakia against Germany ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm in the French part of Canada, Quebec hahaha. Well that is not much better lol Mattsnow81 (Talk) 20:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Quebec? That's cute ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
If you get our only tank, we'll defend with war beavers and moose! Mattsnow81 (Talk) 20:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your comments

edit

"What you are doing is searching for a good table for one article that technically suits not everyone but your preferred way of display, which is obviously mobile devices."

While it's true that I work to accommodate mobile users, when have any of my edits ever prioritised mobile users over desktop users to the point where the desktop version is rendered unusable or broken?

Never. There is a long-standing consensus that, where possible, mobile, desktop and tablet users should be equally accommodated. If this is not possible, desktop users get priority, but for the most part, it is usually pretty easy to make both work. Given that I always check the functionality of my edits on the desktop site after making them and have never had a problem, I fail to understand how my edits prioritise mobiles over desktops.

I understand that you have troubles when using Firefox. I would suggest that you go to VPT; when I can use a desktop, Firefox is my browser of choice, and I have never had a problem with it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

As I understand it, you were the driving force behind the change in tables for this season, is that correct? The fact is: They do not accommodate mobile and desktop equally. The new ones don't work with Firefox while the old ones did work in mobile browsers, with the slight problem that the borders are quite light. I did go to VPT and they told me that the decision to move away from wikitables in the first place was not smart. I agree with that. If anything, we should switch back to the old wikitables and have them fixed at VPT for mobile view. That way, everyone would be happy. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Agreekment

edit

Die immerwährende Krise? Sca (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Abwarten und Tee trinken. ich bin da recht entspannt... Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Well, you Germans with your €23 billion (milliarden) trade surplus shouldn't mind paying Greek pensioners to sit in the Aegean sun and play dominoes. Someone has to do it.   Sca (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Better use to money to have me sit in the sun! (Only there's no sun to be seen in Berlin...) Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I see what you mean. Vielleicht scheint Morgen die Sonne wieder. ( – Werner Stelly). Sca (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Sca: Funny, you were practically looking at me through that webcam Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hmmm, you work at ... GHI? Sca (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
What's that? :D No, I work at Humboldt University of Berlin. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
As a ... Dozent? Sca (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Jeez, I wish. I am a student assistant in the administration ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Trotzdem bin ich neidisch. Give my regards to Unter den Linden – or whatever Lokal you frequent. Sca (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 2015 Austrian Grand Prix

edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2015 Austrian Grand Prix 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 Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of Senatus consultum ultimum

edit

The article Senatus consultum ultimum 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:Senatus consultum ultimum for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 2015 Austrian Grand Prix

edit

The article 2015 Austrian Grand Prix 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:2015 Austrian Grand Prix for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015

edit
 
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) 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

2015 Tour de France GAN

edit

Just letting you know that I've just nominated 2015 Tour de France for GA. Me and Matt, along with others, have been working on it over the duration of the race. Of course I don't expect you to take it on, but since you have done the last few cycling GANs I thought I'd give you the heads up. BaldBoris 01:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads up! I will try to include it in my second GA Cup round :) Will you also nominate the two stage articles? Those were quite good as well as far as I could see. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
OK good. It was featured ITN yesterday and is second at the moment. No they won't be nominated by me, the first is nearly there though. The second only has preview text, which is still helpful. BaldBoris 20:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 2015 Austrian Grand Prix

edit

The article 2015 Austrian Grand Prix you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:2015 Austrian Grand Prix 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 Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

ITN for Operation Martyr Yalçın

edit

--SpencerT♦C 18:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 2015 Canadian Grand Prix

edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2015 Canadian Grand Prix 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 Relentlessly -- Relentlessly (talk) 08:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

2015 GA Cup - Round 2

edit
 

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)Reply

Birds of a feather?

edit

Hey, Nase, maybe you could work something out with this FP nominee. Hübsch, nicht? Sca (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

 
That's what I imagine Cleopatra's nose to have looked like ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
What would Elizabeth Taylor say? Sca (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
"Jūs turite gana nosį!" Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Ar jūs kalbate Lietuviškai? Sca (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
No, unfortunately not :D Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Ich auch wirklich nicht – nur einige Wörter und Sätze. Sca (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 2015 Canadian Grand Prix

edit

The article 2015 Canadian Grand Prix 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:2015 Canadian Grand Prix for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Relentlessly -- Relentlessly (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi ZN. Just to let you know that I have responded to your edits on the review page and we're very nearly there! Relentlessly (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 2015 Canadian Grand Prix

edit

The article 2015 Canadian Grand Prix you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:2015 Canadian Grand Prix 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 Relentlessly -- Relentlessly (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of Senatus consultum ultimum

edit

The article Senatus consultum ultimum 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:Senatus consultum ultimum for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Zeitgeist

edit

The day time stood still – in Pyongyang. Sca (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I was really surprised they didn't do that sooner! Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 2015 British Grand Prix

edit

The article 2015 British Grand Prix 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:2015 British Grand Prix for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Degenkolb, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tony Martin. 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) 09:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 2015 Berlin ePrix

edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2015 Berlin ePrix 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 Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 2015 Berlin ePrix

edit

The article 2015 Berlin ePrix 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:2015 Berlin ePrix for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015

edit
 
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) 11:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

August 2015

edit

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Humboldt University of Berlin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * Faculty of [[Humanities]] and [[Social Sciences]] ((Social Sciences, [[Cultural Studies]]/Arts, Asian/African Studies (includes [[Archeology]]), [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 2015 Berlin ePrix

edit

The article 2015 Berlin ePrix you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:2015 Berlin ePrix 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 Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ted Kennedy GA update

edit

Hey! Thanks for taking on the Ted Kennedy GA I put forward. I've been terribly busy lately and haven't gotten around to improving it with your recommendations. I may miss the deadline, so though unlikely, I may need an extension. Thanks. I'll try getting it done on the 26th though! Spilia4 (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Spilia4: No problem, take your time! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

John Clarke GA Review

edit

Hello, and thanks once again for reviewing the John Clarke article. I believe I have answered your concerns, so please take a look at Talk:John Clarke (Baptist minister)/GA1, and let me know if you have any additional comments. Cheers.Sarnold17 (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Klose

edit

Sorry if you were confused by me pinging you. We were looking for references of each individual goal that Klose had scored. I imagined that because his career went back to 2001 and some were in obscure friendlies on the other side of the world, not all of them would have written reports in English. However, I was wrong, and they are now all sourced. Sorry for the hassle. '''tAD''' (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Alright, good to know :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Again, sorry if you find this hassling, but your suggestions on the Kane GA reminded me that I have Hakan Çalhanoğlu in the queue, with no personal life section at all. The English-language sources on such trivia would likely be from blogs on German/Turkish football, and thus be unreliable. I have no fluency in German (nor Turkish!), so if you have time, could you do as simple a search as you did for Kane, and send the links to me with a basic summary of what is being said in each one? '''tAD''' (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sure thing, I'll send you some tomorrow and also finish the Kane review :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is withdrawing a nomination as simple as taking the tag off the talk page? I made a big mistake putting it up, I clearly know better. See Saido Berahino and Martin Ødegaard for occasions when I painted a fuller picture of a footballer. '''tAD''' (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have no clue if that is possible. Of course I could open the review and quick fail it? Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
That unfortunately looks the only possibility. You don't even need any comment on why you're quick failing it, that is documented here if any admin wants to know. Well, I will certainly not rush to such nominations again! '''tAD''' (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Lotus 49

edit

Lukas, you might like to keep an eye on the 49 article, there's a 'new' IP editor adding stuff to many F1 articles. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

JESUS CHRIST! I have already been fighting with this sh*t in the Matra articles yesterday... Thanks for the note! Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Is it the same editor? The IP contribs show only edits today (I think). They have also drafted an article by creating a/the talk page Talk:Hill GH2. Must be a relative of Therius!! Eagleash (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Well, it is the same thing both IPs do... but of course I cannot be sure. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I seem to have been chasing this guy all afternoon! He's run through a couple of dozen F1 articles and started another by creating a draft in the talk page again. I'm loathe to actually report him...it's not vandalism as such...but if we hadn't picked up on it, it would have been quite disruptive. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

A barnstar for you!

edit
  The Original Barnstar
I Z105space, hereby award Zwerg Nase this Barnstar to award him for his efforts on getting the first nine 2015 Formula One race articles to Good Article status. Keep up the great work and all the best for the remaining eight race articles! Z105space (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thank you so much! It is nice to be appreciated :) The last two are not GA yet, but I have a good feeling ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Oops, My mistake. I've corrected the barnstar to say nine. Z105space (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tyrrell 001, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pedro Rodríguez. 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) 09:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of Senatus consultum ultimum

edit

The article Senatus consultum ultimum 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:Senatus consultum ultimum for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Maik Łukowicz

edit

Please may you correct the translations I put for the references on this article? (yes, 3. Liga players pass notability, if you think that's stretching the purpose of an encyclopedia, you get the FOURTH tier of English football here too!)

On a secondary note, this player was, as you see, accused very tenuously of a very serious charge which should be taken more seriously and not reported at the drop of a hat. I can remember the same ridiculous accusations being made against Laurent Koscielny, you're a smart man, I don't need to tell you why such accusations are offensive towards both Łukowicz and Koscielny. '''tAD''' (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey Sorry, I didn't have much time today. i'll look into it tomorrow! Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

For the title of the Bild reference, I used a lower headline because I couldn't make sense of the big headline (my wonderful translation machine doesn't like the German verb order). Would it be better to have the big headline rather than the lower one? As well, I do not know German media very well, but the little I have read equates Bild to The Sun, should a better reference be found for a legal incident involving a living person? Danke '''tAD''' (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@The Almightey Drill: I changed the header. As for Bild as a source: Yes, it is the most notorious yellow press paper in Germany. But then again, they are quite reliable when it comes to football news. But if you want to be on the safe side, you can use this source instead. The header reads: Alleged Hitler salute: Charges against Lukowicz dismissed. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Gun Show Loophole

edit

In regard to the GA review, please let me know how I can help with the process. Thanks for your help! Darknipples (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 3

edit
 

Greetings, all! We hope that everyone had a nice summer.

Saturday saw the end of Round 2. Things went relatively smoothly this month. The top 2 from 4 pools, plus the top participant (the wildcard, or "9th place") of all remaining competitors, moved onto Round 3. We had one withdrawal early in Round 2, so he was replaced by the next-highest scorer from Round 1. Round 2's highest scorer was Pool D's Tomandjerry211, who earned an impressive 366 points; he also reviewed the most articles (19). Close behind was Zwerg Nase, also in Pool D, at 297 points and 16 articles. The wildcard slot went to Good888. Congrats to all!

Round 3 will have 9 competitors in 3 pools. The key to moving forward was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates, as it has been in every round up to now. For example, 2 competitors only needed to review 2 articles each to win in their pools, and each article were either from the pink nomination box (20 points) or had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup continues to be a success in many ways, even with fewer competitors this time. For some reason, the competitors in the 2015 GA Cup have reviewed fewer articles in Round 2, which has made the judges scratch their head in confusion. We've speculated many reasons for that: the summer months and vacations, our competitors are saving their strength for the final rounds, or they all live in the Pacific Northwest and the heavy wildfire smoke has affected their thinking. Whatever the reason, Round 2 competitors reviewed almost 100 articles, which is a significant impact in the task of reviewing articles for GA status. We've considered that the lower participation this competition is due to timing, so we intend to discuss the best time frame for future GA Cups.

For Round 3, participants have been placed randomly in 3 pools of 3 contestants each; the top editor in each pool will progress, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on September 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on September 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.

Good luck to the remaining contestants, and have fun!

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

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

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

Your GA nomination of Senatus consultum ultimum

edit

The article Senatus consultum ultimum you nominated as a good article has failed  ; see Talk:Senatus consultum ultimum 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 Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 Vattenfall Cyclassics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Martin Mortensen. 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) 11:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ideology of the SS

edit

Hey there mate. Hope you didn't forget you started the review? :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 00:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I didn't, my real has just caught me out a little this week. I'll be in the library over the weekend and do the review then. Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good. :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 13:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015

edit
 
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) 05:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup

edit
 
Hello, Zwerg Nase. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

HazelAB (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Reference errors on 30 September

edit

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

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) 00:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Our photo obsessed chum

edit

Hello Lukas, admin are aware of the probs we've been having with the IP editor. Overall, the admin I spoke to, Bretonbanquet & I feel that as he's shown more willingness to co-operate recently, it would be most beneficial if we trod fairly gently when trying to keep things under control. 'Softly softly' and all that... Goodness knows how much damage he might do if he was provoked. Anyways, up to you how you proceed if you come across anything further. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I agree that that seems like the smart way. Zwerg Nase (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hi, the admin I spoke to a couple of weeks ago said to list the IPs and diffs. I've got a list of IPs but diffs would be impossible... I really don't know how to approach an ANI. Eagleash (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, I also have no experience with this... Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of Richard von Weizsäcker

edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Richard von Weizsäcker you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomandjerry211 (alt) -- Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

SS ideology

edit

Was hoping to get back to you before you went on holiday, but are you satisfied with the article now in terms of passing for GA? Let me know. Happy holidays! :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Serdar Tasci

edit

Hi, I am on a wikibreak till 14. We have the Durga Puja now, which for us the Bengali Hindus, the equivalent of the Christmas of Christians. Hope you will wait. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sure thing, take your time! Happy holidays :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of Richard von Weizsäcker

edit

The article Richard von Weizsäcker you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Richard von Weizsäcker 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 Tomandjerry211 (alt) -- Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 2015

edit
 
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) 21:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

DakshinaChitra has been nominated for Did You Know

edit

GA-review of SS ideology

edit

Me and Obenritter made some comments. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 14:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dear Jonas Vinther, I've seen them. I have been pretty busy over the weekend and spent the past days working through my backlog, starting with the easiest things. Since the ideology review is the toughest spot, it was last on my list, but you can expect a reply tomorrow! Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Sounds perfect, vielen dank mein freund. :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 21:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your time, input and GA review as to this article. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
A final thanks for your work on Ideology of the SS and for your final edits in correcting my citation dates...I wrote that at 0300 AM local time so I was getting sleepy. :-) Your superlative attention to detail is most appreciated. Hochachtungsvoll...--Obenritter (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Obenritter: Thanks for your message, it was a lot of fun to work on the article :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

DYK for DakshinaChitra

edit

Materialscientist (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

German empire

edit

you undone what i done ,basically you took names of states of the map what yhy were apose to be on ,i know it wasnt perfect ,im new to this ,so pease if you want to make that place better just use edit source , if you read it ,tankk you and i hope you have a nice day/night — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parshdarsh57 (talkcontribs) 12:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Parshdarsh57: No, that is not what I did. I removed your butchering of the other map, no names of states were reverted. Will revert again now. Also, please learn to sign your edits with ~~~~. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

reply to Zwerg Nase i kow hat you mean ,i dint butcher it ,i want to put he names back n the top by trying to put it on top bu the map didnt show up so i keept trying to fix that but i counld but i did put something asking someone to fix it on the german empire talk .and you did o it not entencial but by undoing my thing can you please try and put both things correctly and dont use that aggresion ,im done here with it its upto other people to try and put things right </nowiki>.12:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)~

I still don't understand what you were trying to do so I cannot try to do it myself. What names were supposed to be on top where? Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Meteora

edit

I am really sorry for the mess in the article. I really appreciate your approach for the article. This actually was one of my initial efforts for a Good Article. The problem is, being a student, I can't give it the time it requires. But still I would try my best to make it reach the criteria. I also appreciate your corrections in the article. Once again thanks and sorry. Mike:Golu · [ Confidential message ] 04:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Golu7276: Thanks for your message, your work is appreciated! Let me know if you should nominate it again, then I'll take another look at it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Translations

edit

If you ever get bored with your own "wiki-todo list", you might be so kind as to take a look at this.

Of course, you're more than welcome to sign up as a project member, and add your own suggested "article for translation" candidates. But don't feel you have to do that in order to jump in on one of the ones suggested by ... well, me for instance.

Long shot? Yup. Do long shots sometimes come good. Yes. And thanks for thinking about it. Regards Charles01 (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Charles01: Thanks for your message! I gotta say though that I usually prefer writing my own articles, since I enjoy all the research that goes into it :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
edit

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

A barnstar for you!

edit
  The GA Cup Winner Barnstar
We, the judges from the 2nd Annual GA Cup, would like to congratulate you for getting the most amount of points and winning the GA Cup! You are a clear representation of what we need more in the GA process and we would like to commend your efforts by giving you this trophy in the form of a barnstar. Thank you very much for participating, and we hope to see you next year! MrWooHoo (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
@3family6: @Jaguar: @Figureskatingfan: @MrWooHoo: Thank you to all the judges for their good work! Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
You're welcome!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

2nd Annual GA Cup - Round 4

edit
 

GA Cup competitors and observers: Happy Fall! Get ready, we're about to move into the finals of the second-ever GA Cup!

Monday saw the end of Round 3. Out of the 8 contestants in the semi-finals, 5 have moved to the finals. The semi-finals were competitive. Our semi-finalists reviewed a total of 61 articles, or a grand total of 1,151 points. If you were to lump the top winners from each of the three pools together, it'd be a close horse race; they were within 35 points of each other, which can only mean that the finals will be an exciting race. Tomandjerry211, our top scorer in Round 2, again earned the most points in the semi-finals, with 288 points and 16 articles reviewed. Johanna came in second overall, with 251 points and 13 articles reviewed; Sturmvogel 66 came in third overall, with 221 points and 16 articles. Rounding out our wildcard slots are Zwerg Nase and The Rambling Man. These contestants were very strategic in how they reviewed articles. Like every other round in the history of the GA Cup, success depended upon reviewing oldest-nominated articles. For example, Johanna reviewed 5 articles that were worth the highest possible points. Congrats to all our finalists, and good luck!

Stay tuned to this space for more information about the 2nd GA Cup, including overall statistics and how this competition has affected Wikipedia. We regret to inform you that Dom497, one of our original judges and co-creator of the GA Cup, has stepped down as a judge. Dom, a longtime member of WP:WikiProject Good articles, is responsible for the look of the GA Cup and has been instrumental in its upkeep. We wish him the best as he starts his university education, and are certain that he'll make an impact there as he has in Wikipedia.

The finals started on October 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and will end on Ocober 29 at 23:59:59 UTC with a winner being crowned. Information about the Final can be found here.

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

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

Your GA nomination of 2015 Hungarian Grand Prix

edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2015 Hungarian Grand Prix 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 Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 11:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 2015 Hungarian Grand Prix

edit

The article 2015 Hungarian Grand Prix 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:2015 Hungarian Grand Prix for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 12:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Archiving refs

edit

I noticed you added some refs to 2014 Russian Grand Prix. May I kindly request you to archive those links? This will prevent link rot in the future. Regards, Tvx1 13:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sure thing! Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Tvx1: I just realized that by archiving the links, you can circumvent the access restrictions on autosport.com articles... Nice! Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. I guess the web archive has a basic registration with them. You still can't access the paid content though. Tvx1 23:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Newspaperarchive.com

edit

You should have received an email containing a link to a Google form for Newspaperarchive.com access - could you please either complete that form or email me if you did not receive it? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Nikkimaria: I sent you an email that I did not get the email from you. Seems like both ways don't work... Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hmm. I've re-sent, can you check both inbox and spam folder again? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Nikkimaria: Yup, spam folder it was. I filled out the form now! Thank you :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Helmut Schmidt

edit
 
Schmidt, 1977

What do you think about a blurb for Schmidt? Sca (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Tricky. At the moment, I am so worried about the state of the article that I cannot really think about that option. Considering that he was 96 and died naturally, it might not be warrented. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
He was very old, but he kept on making political comments and popped up in the news hin und wieder. (Kept on smoking, too. Amazing he lived so long being a heavy smoker all his adult life.) Sca (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Added a few refs to the Personal Life section Sca (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I think we're good to go on refs. Sca (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Endlich geblurbt!   Sca (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Schmidt article got 48,000 views on Tuesday. Wow.
Kohl will be next, I suppose. His article seems very well referenced. Sca (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I have already done quite a lot of work on Kohl since I expected him to die first. Tough luck I guess. His time as chancellor needs expanding, but it should be easy to bring his article to ITN Main Page level. Maybe I'll get him to GA even beforehand, but it's probably not gonna be too long. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Good work. As you may know, news org's routinely pre-write detailed stories about big-name figures, especially those getting on in years, so when one dies they don't have to scramble.
I have to admit the "Nazi Gold Train" story does seem fascinating, if dubious. Alas, hardly any of the news stories explain that when it purportedly happened, Wałbrzych was German and was called Waldenburg. I've tried to make that clear at Wałbrzych. – Sca (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Op. cit. – Added plans for Schmidt's state funeral. Since Spiegel today said in zwei Wochen, I said planned for Nov. 25. Sca (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Sca: Other sources say 2-3 weeks. So I changed it slightly. Will try to add some reactions to his passing tomorrow. Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Oh, is it nighttime in Berlin?   Sca (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Indeed it was ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps we should refer to the VW Abgasskandal as a "wirtschaftsblunder" – Ha. Sca (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Haha :D Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
"overbearing consensus" – overwhelming. Overbearing connotes coercion. Sca (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Reply
@Sca: Sorry about that. In the end, I am simply not a native speaker... Zwerg Nase (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Your English is much better than my German. Just thought you'd like to know. Sca (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Dear Sca, thank you for your kind words! No blame to you though, German is so much harder than English! Damn, it's almost 4 in the morning, and I am still awake, still pondering about what happened today... It is troubleling me to the greatest extent.... I am a person who is politically active. What do we do? How do we react? What might have we done wrong? It seems like there is no answer.... Zwerg Nase (talk) 02:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Zwerg, sent you an email reply. Let me know if you received it. Danke. Sca (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I thought Merkel's statement was a good one. Sca (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

ITN

edit

331dot (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Zwerg, good work on Günter Schabowski.
I think of Schabowski as the Little Dutch Boy in reverse, except that he was an accidental hero. Sca (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Sca: A nice thought :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I thought Bornholmer Straße was a pretty good flick about those events. Sca (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I actually watched that movie a couple of weeks back as well, quite entertaining! Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I actually have some personal experience of die Mauer. Sca (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Sca: Wow, exciting! Unfortunately, I'm too young to have experienced any of that. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I've seen Berlin both ways, with and without the Wall. Apparently it was part of the training of the DDR Grenztruppen never to smile or engage in smalltalk.
Speaking of Berlin, what do you think of the Stadtschloss reconstruction? Seems like a waste of money. The Hohenzollerns weren't exactly role models for human development. Even the 'great' one, Friedrich II, was an ambivalent figure – known mainly for his wars, not his philosophical bent (much less his Francophilia). Anyway, he preferred Potsdam. Sca (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Sca: I might be one of the few people actually supporting the reconstruction. The Palast der Republik was a disgrace and I just feel that the center of Berlin was so much nicer before the war. Speaking of the war, I just found this awesome footage a couple of days ago: Youtube. Made me notice once again what a barrier is created between us and the past when we only have low-res b/w pictures of something. There was an amazing exhibition last year in Berlin about color photography before 1914. Breathtaking! Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I've seen that footage before – those are great images, both in terms of human interest and history. The death of a great empire. The first time I visited Berlin, in '71, you could still see traces of that in East Berlin. There's a lot of interesting WWII imagery on YouTube.
Once in the '90s I was briefly inside the Palast der (sogenannte) Republik. A weird structure. The Commies were stupid to tear down the Stadtschloss – just as they were stupid to tear down many other historic buildings – and I can see why Germans wanted to replace the Palast with a replica of the Schloss. Better that than another modernist monstrosity.
Perhaps the worst example of Communist architectural obtuseness was their decision to tear down the Königsberg Castle and replace it with the hideous (and never used) House of Soviets. I've seen it – it's depressing just to look at.
Probably the most impressive postwar reconstruction is Warsaw's painstakingly recreated Old Town (Stare Miasto). And they did it during the Communist era, too. The Poles also did a nice job on Danzig/Gdańsk – after the Soviets idiotically burned it down, after they conquered it.
Well, as you can see, this is a topic that fascinates me. Sca (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Rightly so :) I've not been to Königsberg yet, but it sure interests me to see it. Have you ever been to Dresden? It's a good job at reconstruction, though one might argue that it turned to look like kind of a baroque puppet house... Anyway, all those examples are harsh reminders of what toll war takes not just on humans in terms of loss of lives, but on loss of culture as well. Just look at Syria right now. It's depressing! Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I was in Dresden briefly in 1971. It was still a wreck then.
WWII was tragic for all Europe.
PS: I see the Poles have finally restored the Johanneskirche in Gdańsk/Danzig. It was still a massive ruin when I was there in '96. Sca (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Wish the Russians would do the same with Kant's house in Königsberg. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
It's odd that they don't. They make a big point of honoring his Grabstätte. And from what I've seen online, they've cleaned up and refurbished quite a few other monuments from German times. Sca (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Here's an interesting war film, which I just watched. Sca (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
And here's a gallery of pre-WWI 'color' photos. Sca (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Nice :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sockpuppet investigation on your impersonator.

edit

FYI, I have opened a sockpuppet investigation on the impersonators that have haunted me, you and a few other WP:F1 members lately. You can find it here. I've done that because I'd like the actual sock master to be identified and stopped. Regards, Tvx1 23:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Tvx1: Thank you! I'm interested to see what comes out of that. Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Was für eine...

edit

Auseinandersetzung. Leider typisch bei ITN. Sca (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Sca: Komisch, oder? Ich glaube, mir wurde eine alte Version des Artikels angezeigt, die sehr kurz war, aber ich finde ihn immer noch nicht ausreichend. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Habe den Artikel nicht gelesen, und habe keine Lust ihm eben durchzuschauen. Müll. Sca (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Bob

edit

Emailed you a review (deutsch) of Dylan's Basel performance. Hey, nun habe ich deinen Geburtstagsdatum bemerkt – ein Tag (und 41 Jahre) nach meinen! Sca (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, mine is fairly easy to remember ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015

edit
 
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) 03:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

2015 Dauphiné GAN

edit

Just letting you know I've finished the 2015 Critérium du Dauphiné if you want to review it. Took a bit longer than I had expect, but got there in the end. BaldBoris 20:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@BaldBoris: Great news! Will review it as soon as possible! Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Verwandter ...

edit

... von [4] dir? Sca (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not that I know of. The name is surprisingly common. I would have liked the von though... Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
You could change your username to Zwerg von Nase, or maybe von und zu der Nase. (But perhaps you have der Nase voll of my lame jokes.) Sca (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Oh well, immer der Nase nach! Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Was bedeutet das? Sca (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Well, something along the lines of "Follow your instincts" Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I figured it had to mean more than gerade aus! It's a bit like the English phrase, Follow your bliss. (Which is what I'm trying to do on Wiki.) Sca (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Staatsakt

edit

Added description of state funeral for Schmidt, based on this. Sca (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Zwerg, now I see there's an AP story that quotes Kissinger more extensively (who it says spoke in German!). Could you take a look and see if my addition needs modifying? Danke. Sca (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Sca: Already pretty good. Will look into what more I can add. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm re-reading, after many years, A.J.P. Taylor's biography of Bismarck, and found this interesting:
At Friedrichsruh and Varzin he wore glasses so as to observe nature. When asked why he did not wear them in Berlin, he answered that he found nothing to interest him there.
Ha. Sca (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Sca: Ahh, Bismarck quotations. Have I already told you my favorite one? Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Die einfachen Leute sollten besser nicht wissen, wie Leberwurst oder große Politik gemacht wird. Thats my favorite. Long no see! Polentarion (Serten renamed) Talk 23:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Famous in English, too. Sca (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Well, the quote is Gesetze sind wie Würste, man sollte besser nicht dabei sein, wenn sie gemacht werden. But it is a misquote. My favorite one is Ich konnte nicht schlafen, ich habe die ganze Nacht gehasst. Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I just read that one in A.J.P. Taylor, too. Probably quite genuine. Poor Otto. Sca (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Stille Post at its best. If you need a little bit more occult night cap, go for User:Polentarion/Anton, Parapsychological topics in the GDR has not yet been translated completely. Polentarion Talk 00:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Here's an interesting, though rather slow-paced, interview with Schmidt talking about Kissinger. Sca (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom elections are now open!

edit

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

2015 GA Cup Wrap-Up

edit

 



The second-ever GA Cup is now over! The competition officially ended Thursday. Congrats to everyone who participated, and especially to our finalists.

The winner of the 2nd GA Cup is Zwerg Nase! He earned 408 points, over 100 points more than he earned in all previous rounds. He tied with our second-place winner, Sturmvogel 66 with 367 points, in number of articles reviewed (24), and they earned almost the same points for reviewing articles that were in the queue the longest (Zwerg with 322, Sturmvogel with 326). Basically, they tied in points, but what made the different for Zwerg was the advantage he had in reviewing longer articles. It seems that the rule change of earning more realistic points for longer articles made a difference. All of our contestants should be proud of the work they were able to accomplish through the GA Cup. Congrats to these worthy opponents!

Our third and fourth place winners, Johanna and Tomandjerry211, also ran a close race, with 167 points and 147 points respectfully. We had one withdrawal; we found it interesting that competitors dropped out in Round 2 and 3 as well. One of the original judges and co-creator of this competition, User:Dom497 stepped down as judge during Round 3; as stated previously, we will miss his input and wish him the best.

The judges were pleased with our results, even though fewer users competed this time compared to our inaugural competition. We recognize that this might be due to holding the competition during the summer months. We intend on looking more closely when we should conduct this contest, as well as other aspects of the GA Cup. We've set up a feedback page for everyone's input about how we should conduct the contest and what rule changes should be made. If you have any ideas about how we can improve things, please visit it and give us your input.

Again, thanks to all and congratulations to our winners! Please stay tuned for the start of GA Cup #3.

Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo.

Need your assistance

edit

Grüß Gott Zwerg - Schau mal an bitte: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Obenritter. Wir versuchen, die endgültigen Mitgliedschaft-Zahlen der SS zu finden. Wir haben dem Thema gründlich recherchiert, aber kein Glück gehabt. Kannst Du offizielle Information irgendwo finden? Wir wären Dir sehr verbunden, falls es möglich ist.--Obenritter (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Obenritter: Also die Zahlen im April/Mai 1945? Oder die höchste Mitgliedszahl? Ich vermute mal, beides ist sehr schwer zu sagen, da es sich natürlich, v.a. im Krieg, ständig ändert. Vermutlich ist es am besten, im Artikel tatsächlich die Zahlen von verschiedenen Zeitpunkten in einer Tabelle zu zeigen. Meine Bücher habe ich inzwischen in die Bibliothek zurückgebracht, aber wenn ich das nächste Mal da bin, kann ich nochmal reinschauen. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Ausgezeichnet. Ja, wir hatten die Absicht, jahrliche Zahlen in dem Wiki-artikel (Schutzstaffeln) in einer Tabelle zeigen, aber begegneten wir widersprüchliche Zahlen. Ich hoffte zumindest, dass es gab offizielle Ergebnisse aus einer deutschen Quelle...deine Hilfe darüber wird unverzichtbar sein.--Obenritter (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Obenritter: Ich habe es leider bisher nicht in die Bibliothek geschafft, denke aber beim nächsten Mal dort daran! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Zwerg Nase: Kein Prob. Wir haben zur Zeit Information mit Quellen gepostet. Bis dann....--Obenritter (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

DYK...

edit

... that there's an obersorbische Wikipedia? Sca (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Things people spend their time with ... :D Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Is it just an intellectual effort to preserve the language, of which German WP says, Nach Hochrechnungen sprechen ... etwa 13.000 Obersorbisch? Perhaps it's similar to such efforts on behalf of Gaelic? Well, the Irish have their own country, but the Sorbs never will. What's the point? I can't see a political objective. Sca (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
If they want to preserve their language, they could just teach it to their children ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 2015 Italian Grand Prix

edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2015 Italian Grand Prix 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 Z105space -- Z105space (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Vikander

edit

Alicia Vinkander is an actress and I just thought that format was better! I put an hour into that! A lot of actors have that format, Michael Fassbender, Octavia Spencer, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesse urbancsik777 (talkcontribs) 23:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Jesse urbancsik777: several things here. First and foremost, do not think that your work is not appreciated. It appears that the WikiProject Film does not have a clear consensus on how to do this but looking at the best (featured) articles, it appears to me that the way it is dealt with now is the preferred one. Secondly, once more, please stop edit-warring over this. Behaviour like that can get you blocked from editing and it would be a shame if that would happen so early in your Wikipedia career. Third, if you post on my talk page, please do not do so in the middle of any section, but start a new one with the "New Section" button. And lastly, do not forgot to sign every post you make on a discussion page with four tildes (~~~~). Regards, Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Masur

edit

Polish article (in English). Sca (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Techie stuff

edit

Are you following this? Sca (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Sca: No, I do not usually follow these things. It seems to be over anyway? Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Jedenfalls hab ich der Sache nicht wirklich verstanden. Sca (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Happy New Year!

edit

Happy New Year to you and your loved ones, you really seem like a good person :) As for me, I'm coming back as soon as they hit the road. Probably I'll be rusty lol. :) Mattsnow81 (Talk) 22:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Mattsnow81: Thank you so much for this, it is really appreciated! :) I hope you have a great year as well! Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Rindt

edit

Sorry, I've been a little out of editing mode recently. Which bits of the article do you require looking at? Otherwise I'm kind of searching for things and probably not finding them! On another note, do you mind terribly if I fiddle with the MSport archive links a bit? Eagleash (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Eagleash: If there is anything wrong with the Motor Sport links, feel free to fix it :) I am concerned about the fact that both films have more than 20 citations to them. So I believe it would be good if some of them could be replaced with one from the book? Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
OK, I'll see what I can do... :) Eagleash (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Eagleash: Thank you! :) You can use the sfn-template for the Henry references. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
No; I can't cos I've no idea what that's all about!! Eagleash (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Eagleash: OK, just do it as you are right now, and I'll go over them afterwards! Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
I've done a few; it's harder than I thought... finding the ref'd bits and then searching the book: and the book and films are probably looking at it from different perspectives, so although neither are wrong or inaccurate, they don't precisely coincide very often. Bit pushed for time now. Try to have another look tomorrow if I can. Sorry. Eagleash (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Eagleash: Thank you for your work! I saw that you changed some of the Motor Sport Magazine references but not all. Is there a specific reason? Does a certain convention on how they have to look like exist? Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
I just ran out of time. I don't think there's any convention; the way I do them developed over a period of time & it's really just the way I found best/my preference. & in this case we are citing the website, not the hard copy (where the page Nos. are very different). As an aside, there seems to be a bot going around changing 'journal' (which is used for academic publications) to 'magazine' which seems to be quite a new thing, and also displays the small 'p' in front of the page Nos. The MS refs can can be changed back if you wish :) Eagleash (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes it's Winkelmann, without the 'C'. That's what I meant to remove... the 'l..e..' was a typo... Eagleash (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Eagleash: You're right! Thanks :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

edit

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day Quality Title Content Headings Images Links Sources Tagged with…
67   Rear mid-engine, rear-wheel-drive layout (talk)       Add sources
88   Dragon Ball Z: Bojack Unbound (talk)       Add sources
16   Red Bull RB2 (talk)       Add sources
535   Carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (talk)   Add sources
18   Red Bull RB1 (talk)       Add sources
8   Sauber C7 (talk)         Add sources
38   Algarve International Circuit (talk)       Cleanup
28   Rays Engineering (talk)         Cleanup
609   Wookiee (talk)       Cleanup
47   McLaren MP4/13 (talk)       Expand
169   Romain Grosjean (talk) Expand
120   History of Formula One (talk)   Expand
169   Austin Metro (talk)   Unencyclopaedic
125   Ronnie Peterson (talk)   Unencyclopaedic
161   Chicken Dance (talk)         Unencyclopaedic
47   Peaceful Revolution (talk)     Merge
151   Team Lotus (talk)   Merge
39   Team Lotus (2010–11) (talk) Merge
1,801   Chewbacca (talk)     Wikify
695   West Berlin (talk)   Wikify
222   Busy beaver (talk)       Wikify
11   Siege of Mytilene (talk)           Orphan
8   Jürgen Luh (talk)         Orphan
1   Abhinav Kamal (talk)           Orphan
38   Dani Hatakka (talk)           Stub
41   Frédéric Antonetti (talk)         Stub
21   Peter Prodromou (talk)       Stub
11   Mutua Madrileña (talk)           Stub
12   Franz Tost (talk)         Stub
625   Ramiro Funes Mori (talk)         Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

DYK nomination of Jochen Rindt

edit

  Hello! Your submission of Jochen Rindt at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Lukas, I have added source rows to F1, Le Mans & Indy per post at DYK. Non champ has thrown up some anomalies per the Henry book. There is no mention in the book of '65 Med GP. Also has him down as 7th not 6th at Oulton Park GC in '67. Eagleash (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
Re: the points at DYK; I read somewhere recently that tables are supposed to have source rows now. Don't ask me where...it might have been something DH wrote...somewhere... Some tables had them previously and when I uprated the '58 Morocco GP article I added rows & have done so since. Eagleash (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Eagleash: Alright, I am fine with that. I always found that a little strange in the F1 articles. I guess we should look at our featured and good content first and add sources where needed. I should really get one of those F1 stats books somewhere as well... Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
The Steve Small book is generally regarded as pretty good I think. I have only the 1994 edition, there's a later one which my local library holds but doesn't lend out. You can get either on Amazon here and I imagine there wouldn't be too many problems posting to your location. I only paid UK postage for a hardback book from US in December.Eagleash (talk) 09:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Eagleash: That is actually not too bad, about 5€ for EU shipping. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

FPC

edit

If you could find a really sharp F1 pic, I think it would fly. Sca (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Sca: It looks bleak at least for the 2015 pictures I gathered. Most of them are even more out of focus, unfortunately. For amateur or semi-pro photopraphers, taking a picture of a car at up to 200 mph is obviously not an easy task... Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, the photo wonks at FPC should cut you some slack on that. But maybe you could find one taken at a slower (car) speed? Sca (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
PS: Your next car? Sca (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Sca: I just realized that I have 54€ left for the rest of the month. So maybe better next month ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
You should stop squandering it all on women and, uh, entertainment. Sca (talk)
As far as that Lambo is concerned, such cars are just silly toys. Sca (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Adriano Malori

edit

Hi! No idea who to trust about his crash: Movistar Team discredit reports that brain defect caused Italian to crash Mattsnow81 (Talk) 09:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Based on the article I sent you above, do you agree with my edit? Mattsnow81 (Talk) 19:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Mattsnow81: Yeah, looks good, thank you :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

2016 GA Cup

edit
 

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

06 Hybrid

edit

Hi; I thought the 'new' infobox image wasn't too bad (though not as good as the previous one) so I didn't change it. The cropped version of the pic in the body was pretty bad though. Eagleash (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I switched the infobox image because there was the same photo in the article twice. But I'm open to another infobox photo. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
OK no probs.: I hadn't actually registered that they were in fact completely identical. Regards. Eagleash (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

DYK for 2015 United States Grand Prix

edit

Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 2015 Russian Grand Prix

edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2015 Russian Grand Prix 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 Z105space -- Z105space (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Berlin

edit

Cya thursday! Polentarion Talk 18:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Jochen Rindt

edit

Hi, I have had a look on wich cars Jochen Rindt drove during the 1970 season. According to these sources Rindt only drove the 72 at the Spanish Grand Prix and the 72C from the Dutch Grand Prix onwards. chicanef1.com silhouet.com statsf1.com So I guess he only drove the 72 at the Spanish GP. But then again I'm only relying on these sources. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Jahn1234567890: I looked into the source given below the table, the Grand Prix Who's Who, which is usually considered very reliable. Once home I'll take a look at the archive of Motor Sport Magazine, who usually offer the official starting list, that should clear up the matter. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Jahn1234567890: Looking at the starting list in Motor Sport Magazine, it appears that he indeed raced the 72C. Thanks for being so observant! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
no problem mate, I accidentally caught my eye on it. Cheers, Jahn1234567890 (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

DYK for 2015 Singapore Grand Prix

edit

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

nice to meet you :)

edit

here the link we talked about: WP:PAQ und auf Deutsch de:WP:PB. :) --.jsWP: [democracy needed] 20:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@.js: Vielen Dank! :) Dann peile ich das doch mal nach meinem nächsten Besuch an! Sehr cool, dass Ihr diese Treffs auf die Beine stellt! Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Sagichdoch. Polentarion Talk 13:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

2016 GA Cup-Round 1

edit
 

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

WikiCup 2016 March newsletter (update)

edit

Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that   Cas Liber (submissions) claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

My block

edit

Hi Zwerg,

I noticed a couple of months ago, you were discussing my most recent block with someone. I just want to clear something up: although I was blocked for edit-warring, I was also blocked because I disagreed with an admin. He offered me the opportunity to retain full editing privileges on the condition that I left the 2016 season article alone. I disagreed with this because I did not think that it would fix the problems that I wanted to address, and while I wanted to have that discussion, I didn't get the chance.

I get the feeling that you share similar sentiments as I do with regards to the current state of the WikiProject - that it's generally pretty good, but weighed down by endless bureaucracy. I think that there is a subset of editors who are far too concerned with what the season articles in particular will look like when the edits gradually taper off (ie a year from now), and are especially concerned with apparently contradicting the FIA.

Look at the Renault situation: we had multiple reliable sources where Carlos Ghosn stated Renault's intention to take over Lotus. We had multiple sources from within Lotus stating their intention to sell. And we had a High Court judgement which recognised that Renault were the legal owners of the team (and following the Flavio Briatore ban being overturned, we know civilian courts can supersede the FIA). But because the FIA hadn't made any comment on it, this subset of editors refused to include it in the article.

I have also noticed that there is a growing trend for editors to show up five minutes after Autosport run a headline and make decisions about the state of the article without any consideration to the state of the article or the direction other editors have been going. We saw that in the MP4-30 article; I worked on that for months, addressing the technical development of the car and choosing images to compliment it. But then someone showed up and decided that the images should focus on the livery change and formed a consensus off it. I don't OWN the article, but it would be nice if the people who put in the most work on them are consulted on the future direction rather than overruled because of an Autosport headline.

It's these attitudes that I want to try and change, because I think that the project has suffered because of them. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) Seriously? It's been three months and you're still not over it? It's disappointing that you still haven't realized what the discussion was all about. Nobody ever disputed that Renault had become the new owners of the Lotus team. In fact that information was included in the article through a footnote. The discussion was over the fact that at the point of your edit-warring we actually had no idea whether they would rebrand the team and constructor with their own name and nationality. After-all they kept the Benetton name and nationality for a full two seasons when they became owners of the team back in 2000. We had no way to know whether they were no intending to so again. Additionally, they could have renamed the team to any other of their brands as well. Remember that the American Ford Motor Company owned and ran a British Jaguar Racing Team with Cosworth engines for five years. It strikes me that an editor that is so seasoned with this subject remains so oblivious to the workings of an ownership change of a F1 constructor. Your edits were premature and ultimately partially wrong. The team did not get the name you were edit warring into the article. We should always remember that we are never in a rush to publish information. Tvx1 21:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

"European migrant crisis" under discussion at WP:ITNC

edit

The removal of "European migrant crisis" from Main Page is re-proposed at WP:ITNC. Because you were involved in the previous discussion several months back, I invite you to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 08:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

GA Cup reviews

edit

Hey Zwerg, I didn't know if you saw the email/the judges talk page but I guess I'll say it again just in case. Do you mind just using three tildes instead of 4 when checking reviews? Some contestants review a lot of articles, and the "date stamp" can clutter up. Thanks! 02:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@MrWooHoo: Oh, sorry, I wasn't aware of that. I'll do so in the future! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Who's my supervisor now?

edit

And what personal attacks?

@84.161.247.158: The community supervises the community and you have been notified of disruptive behavior by as many as four of your fellow Wikipedians. Your talk page speaks for itself. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

GA Cup

edit

Greetings. Since the GA cup scoring is manual and I just saw you update my scores I want to make sure that I have 3 more GAs listed as completed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GA Cup/Submissions/MPJ-DK. For Mary Isenhour, 2015 Tour of Flanders and Ernest Deane. I know there is a lot going on and stuff gets overlooked so I figured I would just call your attention to it. Thank you for all the work you and others have done on the GA Cup pages.  MPJ-US  12:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@MPJ-DK: I'll look at the others shortly! Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

edit

GA Cup

edit

No worries about the points, I even offered that option to negate the conversation of different rulings, we're all good.  MPJ-US  19:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Westerwelle

edit

Schuldigung, Zwerg, but do you think the Westerwelle article should include his official coming-out? I leave it to you....

Sein öffentliches Coming-out hatte Westerwelle jedoch erst im Sommer 2004 durch eine Schlagzeile am 21 July in der Bild, nachdem er gemeinsam mit seinem Partner erstmals öffentlich bei einer Feier zum 50. Geburtstag von Kanzlerin Merkel auftrat.

Sca (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Sca: I'll include it. Thanks! Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Minor CX made.
Hey, while I'm here, what's the diff between meiden and vermeiden? Sca (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Sca: Meiden is used when you stay clear of someone or something. Vermeiden is when you avoid doing something. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
So. Danke. Sca (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

edit

2015 Tour of California

edit

Hi! How are you? I really won't have time to work on it, I think it is better we forget that project. Sorry. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 23:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Mattsnow81: Alright, I'll close the review. I believe though that with some re-writing this article can become GA, so if you get some time, it can be worth it! Also, if you have the time, maybe you can chip in in my ITN nomination of Milan-San Remo? Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

edit

2016 GA Cup-Round 2

edit
 

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

GA

edit

Hi, since the GA Cup Round 1 ended on 29 March and the next round starts on 1 April, so if I start a review between these days, will it be counted? RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Royroydeb: Sure, that works. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

DYK for 2016 Milan–San Remo

edit

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Michael Schumacher

edit

What image is "more interesting" is a matter of opinion. What is not, is that the current picture, that you re-instated, is completely blurry. That is why I replaced it. I would like to go ahead and do that again, but I do not want to start an edit war about it. So I am open to hear your argument why the current picture is "more interesting"... Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello Zwerg Nase, thanks for the non-war opportunity, I agree that this is a matter of opinion. Over 5,000 people read the page every day including many very experienced editors, half a million already this year. The motion blur is redolent of speed and drama, and Iwao appears to be a skilled photographer - the air box is focussed. There are 25 pictures on the page, just one that represents drama and speed is surely not overkill. The picture that you used appears to include circa 80 square metres of tarmac, so, in my opinion, needs cropping. But, I won't revert whatever you do. Regards Chienlit (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Chienlit: I agree that motion blur can be a sign of speed and drama. In this case however, the blurring is more vertical than horizontal, leading me to believe it is more caused by a shaky camera than speed. I believe that a photo of a race car can capture the feeling of speed, but the car itself should be kept in focus, like here. But I also agree that the other photo is not cropped enough. I will do so when I am back home and then replace again. I also want to expand the article a little bit, since I feel that some parts are not really comprehensive enough to warrant the GA status it holds now. That would also allow me to position all the photos in the article better. Right now, it looks pretty dull with everything lined up on the right side... Maybe then we also have enough space for both photos. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. Good luck. Chienlit (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

edit

Genscher

edit

Are we supposed to individually 'document' all 15 entries in Other activities and 21 entries in Recognition? Seems pretty silly for such a well-known figure. (Could they all be attributed to some official German biographical source?) Sca (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Sca: I'm on it. Whatever I cannot find, will simply be cut from the article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
Good work. I'd mark it ready myself but certain people seem reluctant to accept my readies. Sca (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Sca: Are you an admin there? Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
Nope. Sca (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
I wonder why it took 7 1/2 hours after you finished adding cites & asked for 're-evaluation' for it to be posted? Sca (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Sca: Hmm, I guess there aren't too many ITN admins, and the time it was posted might have been the time at which people in the US came back from work and had time for Wikipedia? I don't know. It didn't really bother me, since the time it took was the time I was in bed sleeping anyway ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

F1 Attendance

edit

See: [5] thank you. User:Willy2000 (talk 11:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Willy2000: Thanks, I'll add the sources later. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

ITN recognition for Hans-Dietrich Genscher

edit

On 2 April 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Hans-Dietrich Genscher, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Böhmermann

edit

I wonder why Bing Translator translates the name Böhmermann as bacon man – ? (Would that be Bohemian bacon?) Komisch. Sca (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Sca: Strange indeed. I would also guess that the name derives from Böhmen. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
Personal history: My first high school German class featured "team teachers" – one of whom was Mr. Boehme. Learning to pronounce his name correctly was one of our first lessons. Most people outside of German class called him "Mr. Bay-mee." Ha. Sca (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Sca: That is a tough one indeed. I would give every American a free beer who can pronounce my name correctly in three attempts :D Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
You mean Dwarf-nose, or your real name?
I once knew a German guy whose first name was Udo. Too bad your parents didn't name you that. Wudda made a great newspaper byline. Or you could've put on blackface and masqueraded as the ambassador from Kwaziland. Sca (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Sca: Oh jeez, that would have been horrible... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
But think of the euphony! (Wohlklang?) Sca (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Sca: It would sound like I'm coming straight outta Duckburg... (movie idea!) Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
Or Ouagadougou. Sca (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

edit

Rousseff

edit

Do you think I should point out that the German for impeachment is das Amtsenthebungsverfahren? (23 letters!) Sca (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Sca: You mean at ITN? Sorry, I haven't been active those past few days. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
Never mind. Just a lame joke attempt. Sca (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

edit

2015 Formula One season

edit

Hi, Zwerg Nase. During the |GA review of 2015 Formula One season, some major issues have come up. As you have more experience with GA's than me, I was wondering what your take on this is? Also, any help is greatly appreciated. Tvx1 20:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I didn't really intend to solicit your comments, but I was hoping you would to fix the issues because you have more experience with GA's. Any chance you could help? Tvx1 17:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

(Season's Greetings)

edit
 
Viggo Johansen: Happy Christmas (1891)
X
Merry Christmas & Happy New Year
X
Frohe Weihnachten und
alles Gute zum neuen Jahr!
Wesołych Świąt i
Szczęśliwego nowego roku!
Linksmų Kalėdų ir
laimingų Naujųjų Metų!


sca

Sca (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mercedes F1 W06 Hybrid GA nomination

edit

I don't know whether you still remember the bizarre GA nomination of Mercedes F1 W06 Hybrid article a while ago. I'm actually very suspicious that the IP who nominated it and the user who wrote the review (F1foreverF1) are one and the same person. The IP stems from Singapore and if you look at F1foreverF1's contributions, you'll see that they edited a Singapore related article with the rest of their edits being Mercedes F1 related. They clearly have little experience with writing wikipedia articles and obviously the contested GA review was their first ever and it appeared within 24 hours of its nomination. And I found another user of whom I'm convinced that they are related to the other two. The exact same set of articles has been edited by them. The IP has also been overloading F1 car infoboxes (mainly Mercedes ones) with technical details. Tvx1 21:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Tvx1: I thought about that possibility as well... Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016

edit
 
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) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit

Why do you think this picture is a copyright violation? It has been reviewed at commons and has been confirmed to have suitable licensing. Tvx1 22:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Tvx1: I removed another image that was clearly a copyright violation. The one you linked here was actually uploaded by me, so everything is all right there :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

edit

2016 GA Cup-Round 3

edit
 

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 [6]; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months.[7] 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

WikiCup 2016 May newsletter

edit
 
FP of Christ Church Cathedral, Falkland Islands by Godot13

Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.

Round 2 saw three FAs (two by   Cas Liber (submissions) and one by   Montanabw (submissions)), four Featured Lists (with three by   Calvin999 (submissions)), and 53 Good Articles (six by   Worm That Turned (submissions) and five each by   Hurricanehink (submissions),   Cwmhiraeth (submissions), and   MPJ-DK (submissions)). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six by   Adam Cuerden (submissions) and five by   Godot13 (submissions)). One Featured Portal, Featured Topic and Good Topic were also promoted. The DYK base point total was 1,135.   Cwmhiraeth (submissions) scored 265 base points, while   The C of E (submissions) and   MPJ-DK (submissions) each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted with   MPJ-DK (submissions) completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants,   Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and   Cas Liber (submissions), broke the 700 point mark for Round 2.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

GA Cup-Round 3 Clarification

edit
 

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) 01:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

ITN recognition for Walther Leisler Kiep

edit

On 11 May 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Walther Leisler Kiep, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

edit

ITN recognition for 2016 Spanish Grand Prix

edit

On 17 May 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2016 Spanish Grand Prix, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Fritz Stern

edit

How about a blurb? Especially in light of the 'trial.' Maybe something like: "German-Jewish-American historian Fritz Stern, author of books and articles on recent German history, dies at 90." Sca (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Added some personal history from German WP. Sca (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Sca: Thanks for your work! As for a blurb, I am critical of the inflation of RDs turned blurb. I also do not consider Stern important enough... Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
Well, maybe my view is colored by having read a number of his books. Recommended: Einstein's German World and Dreams and Delusions. (But I found the Bleichröder book pretty dry.) Sca (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 2016 Russian Grand Prix

edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2016 Russian Grand Prix 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 Disc Wheel -- Disc Wheel (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

^Guy beat me to it. Disc Wheel (T + C) 05:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 2016 Russian Grand Prix

edit

The article 2016 Russian Grand Prix 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:2016 Russian Grand Prix for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Disc Wheel -- Disc Wheel (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

edit

A kitten for you!

edit
 

Hello from canadia! Wanna ride a polar bear and eat bacon?

Metro man 27 (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Metro man 27: Ehm, what? Thank you, I guess! :D Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

2016 GA Cup-Finals

edit
 

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 [8]; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months [9]—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

Don't forget to transclude the nom onto WP:FPC, or no-one can see it to vote on it. I've done it for you. Note it probably won't qualify for Wikicup points, as it doesn't appear you've worked on the image. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Adam Cuerden: That's weird, as the revision history shows, we both transcluded it, but it only appears once... Anyway, thanks for your message! WikiCup is not a problem, I was just so happy to find those amazing photos from the Grand Prix. I hope it makes the cut to FP :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I see what happened: You put it at the bottom of the list instead of at the top where it's meant to be, so it was buried around the middle of the page. It's a pretty strong image, though there's a fix that can be done to it that needs filters I don't have, so I've requested it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Adam Cuerden: Oh, I see. I am pretty new to this Featured Picture thing, so any help is much appreciated! Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
No worries! Always glad to help out! If you can find good pictures, it's a great way to promote your interests on the main page. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
My one suggestion: Participate, get an idea of what kind of pictures are out there and what people are looking for, vote a bit, and so on. The criteria are basically encyclopedic value and image quality (relative to age of image, mind). Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Adam Cuerden: I'll try my best. I am not sure about my ability to rate image quality though. As for the noise reduction you mentioned, I do not even have a clue on what you mean at what to look for there... Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
At full resolution, do you see the little purple and green speckles? That's chromatic noise. I believe there's some simple tricks for removing it in Photoshop, but I use GIMP, so... Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Adam Cuerden: Ah, I see! I use GIMP at home as well. I might have Photoshop at work, I am not quite sure, but even with it, I wouldn't be sure what to do, but maybe there might be a tutorial about how to do it somewhere... Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 2016 Russian Grand Prix

edit

The article 2016 Russian Grand Prix you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:2016 Russian Grand Prix 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 Disc Wheel -- Disc Wheel (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Neudeck

edit

Zwerg, it's not F1, but you might be interested in the Israel, etc. section here. Sca (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

edit

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016

edit
 
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) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 2016 Spanish Grand Prix

edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2016 Spanish Grand Prix 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 Z105space -- Z105space (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

 
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Hamilton - 2016 Monaco GP 02.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 2016 Spanish Grand Prix

edit

The article 2016 Spanish Grand Prix 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:2016 Spanish Grand Prix for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Z105space -- Z105space (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

edit

Your GA nomination of 2016 Spanish Grand Prix

edit

The article 2016 Spanish Grand Prix you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:2016 Spanish Grand Prix 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 Z105space -- Z105space (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

2016 GA Cup-Wrap Up

edit
 

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 [10]; in the July 1, 2016 list, the average wait length is just four months [11]. 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

The Signpost: 04 July 2016

edit

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016

edit
 
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) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 2016 Bahrain Grand Prix

edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2016 Bahrain Grand Prix 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 FunkyCanute -- FunkyCanute (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

edit

Review request

edit

Can you help review this film article for GA. It is an Indian film.--Charles Turing (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Charles Turing: Hey! Unfortunately, I really do not have much time at the moment for Wikipedia at all... :( Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

edit

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016

edit
 
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

Lotus 49

edit

Hi Lukas,

I know you keep an eye on the '49' page. There is a long-standing inaccuracy there which I had been aware of for some time (after copy-editing a Motor Sport article). Lotus were not the first F1 team to use wings (it's a common misconception), Ferrari were. See Nigel Roebuck's 'Legends' MS column. Regards. Eagleash (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Eagleash: Interesting, I did not know that. Would you like to rewrite the article accordingly? I have added the article as a source into 1968 Belgian Grand Prix. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
I'll get around to it eventually...Wiki burnout willing! BTW Amon holds the lap record for the old Spa 8 mile circuit see here. Maybe a DYK? Eagleash (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Eagleash: It would be, however, Amon's article is in a really bad shape and his death did not change that unfortunately, preventing it from appearing at ITN. So, it would need a lot of work to apply for DYK. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 2016 Austrian Grand Prix

edit

The article 2016 Austrian Grand Prix 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:2016 Austrian Grand Prix for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

edit

Scheel

edit

FYI:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#RD:_Walter_Scheel

Sca (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Sca: Thanks for the notification, I didn't even know this until I saw your post since I was travelling back home today. Sad news. I do not know if I can find time to work on the article though... Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Sad? He was 97. I must admit the article was (is?) pretty thin.
Aber auf jeden Fall willkommen zu Hause. Sca (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Sca: Well, a person dying is always a sad thing. Also, he's the third (!) liberal German former foreign minister to die this year. Klaus Kinkel should be worried... Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
My Mom died three years ago at 97. Although she was still 'alert,' as they say, she couldn't do much of anything for herself anymore and led an extremely circumscribed life in the inevitable care center. So, while her passing affected us deeply on an emotional level, my sisters and I didn't feel it was exactly a sad event. It was time. Sca (talk)
So, tell me about Budapest. Never been there. When I lived in Warsaw in the mid-'90s, a couple co-workers went to Budapest on a holiday, and got beat up & robbed. Sca (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 2016 Austrian Grand Prix

edit

The article 2016 Austrian Grand Prix you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:2016 Austrian Grand Prix 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Good Article backlog elimination drive barnstar

edit
  The Invisible Barnstar
Thank you for your participation in the August 2016 GAN backlog drive! JAGUAR  13:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Reviews

edit

Hey. Saw you tagged Relentlessly's GANs for a review a month ago but haven't touched them; were you getting to them soon? If it's an issue of someone fixing I could step in, his usually only has minor fixes so I'd be able to handle it. Wizardman 00:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Wizardman: Hey, thanks for keeping an eye out. I have reviewed those on printouts weeks ago and so far struggled to find time to make the necessary changes myself (he is not on WP anymore unfortunately). I will get to it today or tomorrow though, finally. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 06 September 2016

edit

The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016

edit
 
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

Schon gewusst?

edit

Für ihren Film Zwerg Nase fertigte Edeltraud Engelhardt 32.000 Scherenschnitte an.

I really think you owe it to English Wiki to translate this one. Sca (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Sca: Maybe someday :D Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

GA Cup Announcement

edit
 

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

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016

edit
 
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

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

edit

Kirchhoff

edit

Have you read anything by Bodo Kirchhoff? Opinion? Sca (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Sca: Nope, sorry, don't know him. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2016 November newsletter: Final results

edit

The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

  • Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
  • Good Article – MPJ-DK had 14 GAs promoted in R3.
  • Featured List –   Calvin999 (submissions) produced 2 FLs in R2
  • Featured Pictures – Adam Cuerden restored 18 images to FP status in R4.
  • Featured Portal –   SSTflyer (submissions) produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
  • Featured Topic –   Cyclonebiskit (submissions) and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
  • Good Topic – MPJ-DK created a GT with 9 GAs in R5.
  • Did You Know – MPJ-DK put 53 DYKs on the main page in R4.
  • In The News –   Dharmadhyaksha (submissions) and   Muboshgu (submissions), each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
  • Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

edit
 

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

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

edit
 

Greetings, all!

We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time.

The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring.

Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!

If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges.

Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out.

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

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

edit

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016

edit
 
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

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. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

POTD notification

edit
 
POTD

Hi Zwerg,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Hamilton - 2016 Monaco GP 02.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on November 27, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-11-27. Thank you for all of your contributions!Crisco 1492 mobile (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Heinrich Class/Claß

edit

  Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Heinrich Class a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Heinrich Claß. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. I have reverted that cut/paste. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Michael Bednarek: God, I'm a dumbass... two years of Wikipedia and still I screw up page moves. Sorry about that. I'll follow it up with the right steps. Thanks for the notification! Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

edit

Hello, Zwerg Nase. 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

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

edit

4th Annual GA Cup - Round 1

edit
 

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
 
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

WikiCup December newsletter: WikiCup 2017

edit

On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.

For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):

  • First place – $200
  • Second & Third place – $50 each
  • Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.

Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address.

After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.

The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email).

Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here.

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

edit

Newsletter draft

edit

I have a draft of the newsletter that I'm working on in my User:3family6/sandbox. Feel free to add more to it. Thanks, --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

4th GA Cup - Round 2

edit
 

Greetings, GA Cup competitors!

December 29th marked the end of the first round, after it was extended from its previously scheduled conclusion at the end of November. Because of the smaller pool of contestants this year, it was decided to keep sign-ups open throughout the month of December.

This extension proved to be very helpful as we saw that more users signed up and completed many reviews. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an impressive 402 points, followed by Cartoon network freak with a close 338 points. Shearonink who signed up after our extension was in third with 170 points.

We had a rule clarification in Round 1 which was that many articles were being passed with blatant copyright violations and plagarism occurring in the articles. Thus, the judges have concluded that if an article is passed even if it has a copyright violation/plagarism, we will not provide points for that article as it wouldn't be considered a "complete review" under the scoring rules.

In the end, 94 articles were reviewed by 14 users who will all advance to Round 2. The judges had planned on having 16 contestants advance but since only 14 did, we are changing the pools in this round. We will be having 2 pools of 3 and 2 pools of 4 in Round 2, with the top 2 in each pool advancing to Round 3 as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 will begin on January 1 at 00:00:00 UTC and will end on January 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here.

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

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

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

IP vandalism

edit

Hi Zwerg. Just a quick FYI concerning a recent vandalism warning you left (here). This is part of a pattern of very similar edits that are all being made from IP addresses in and around Kuala Lumpur. I see that you have reverted another couple of times (here and here) as well. I'm pretty sure this is all one person, but stopping them might be tricky as they IP hop all the time so as soon as you warn and block one address another pops up. I'm sure that half the time what they are after is the reaction from us, so I've decided on a policy of silent reversion (one click rollback isn't exactly a chore) and then logging the new occurrence so that action can be taken later if it doesn't peter out. I have a list in my user space, here, so if you do see any more instances like this and the other two you've foiled can you add the IP to the roll? Thanks. Pyrope 22:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Pyrope: Will do! Thanks for your efforts :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Codename: Gordon/1

edit

Zwerg Nase, just a friendly reminder that when you open a GAR, whether an individual or community reassessment, you are supposed to notify the related WikiProjects. It's part of the instructions on the WP:GAR page, which also gives a template to use on the WikiProject talk pages. If there are any recent active editors on the article (there may not be), then notifying them as well might be helpful. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

@BlueMoonset: Thank you for the reminder, that completely slipped through. Have added the template to the WikiProject talk page now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017

edit
 
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) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Re: Cycling team template

edit

I had requested TNE to be moved into BOH, so although your fix is correct in essence, it will be deleted if/when the RM is undertaken. The technical move was contested and hence, in limbo at present. Hence why the bots took it to Portugal. Craig(talk) 19:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Cs-wolves: Jeez, that sounds more complicated than it needs to be. But well, as long as all works out in the end. It is however not a good situation to go through a period in which wrong links appear in articles, GAs and FAs no less... Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

edit

Jochen Rindt scheduled for TFA

edit

This is to let you know that the Jochen Rindt article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 23 January 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 23, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Precious

edit

Grand Prix

Thank you for quality articles such as Jochen Rindt and 2012 Brazilian Grand Prix, for prolific GA reviewing, for serving at ease in Deutsch and English, for the detailed infobox about yourself and the deutsche Musik vs. gute Musik comment ;) - Lukas, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you so much for those kind words. They mean a lot, especially coming from someone who writes fantastic content like you do :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 2016 European Grand Prix

edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2016 European Grand Prix 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 Tisquesusa -- Tisquesusa (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

4th GA Cup - Round 3

edit
 

Hello, GA Cup competitors!

Sunday saw the end of Round 2. Shearonink took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 499. In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an astounding 236 points, and in third place, Cartoon network freak received 136 points. Originally, we had plans for one wild card for 9th place, however it appears that both Chris troutman and J Milburn were tied for 9th place. Therefore, we have decided to have both advance to Round 3.

In Round 2, 91 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased to a little over 6 months. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 3 so we can keep decreasing the backlog.

To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 has already started and will end on February 26 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.

Also, we'd like to announce the departure of judge Zwerg Nase. We thank him for all his hardwork and hope to see him back in the future.

Good luck and have fun!

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

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

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

edit

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017

edit
 
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) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Editor of the Week

edit
  Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for serving on GA Cup judging team. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Shearonink submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I would like to nominate the entire Judging Team of the present GA Cup. In the course of a competition - from the First Round through the Finals, they had to score and judge an untold number of GA Reviews - and MrWooHoo has less than 4000 edits! What these editors do is pretty darn amazing. All 5 editors take the time for a friendly competition that gets folks to plow through the GA backlog and make a difference around here! I don't really know if this Gang of Five - MrWooHoo, Jaguar, ZwergNase, 3family6, Figureskatingfan - are all well-known or not. Some of them have toiled on the GA Cup since its inception. All I know is that whenever I have a question or a concern, they answer it quickly and that the Judging/Points-scoring seems very fair. I don't know how they can keep up with the blizzard of Reviews and the points and the judging and answering posts and so on and so on. Editor Figureskatingfan has won Editor of the Week before but I hope is eligible to receive a second. I sure as heck think they all deserve it as a group.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Lepricavark (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Shearonink and Lepricavark: Wow, this is unexpected, especially considering I just had to retire from the GA Cup team due to personal time limitations. I hope that I can live up to this honor with my future work on Wikipedia. Thank you! Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Buster7: Thank you! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 2016 European Grand Prix

edit

The article 2016 European Grand Prix you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:2016 European Grand Prix 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 Tisquesusa -- Tisquesusa (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

edit

March 2017 WikiCup newsletter

edit

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:

  •   Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
  •   Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
  •   1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
  •   Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

4th GA Cup - The Final

edit
 

Hello, GA Cup competitors!

Sunday, February 26 saw the end of Round 3. Shearonink finished in first with 616 points, which is more than the point totals for all the other competitors combined! In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an impressive 152 points, followed by Sturmvogel_66 in third with 111 points. Chris troutman and Kees08 each received a wild-card and were able to advance to the Final Round. There was a major error on the part of the judges, and initially, 8 users were advanced instead of 5. This has been corrected, and we sincerely apologize for this confusion.

In Round 3, 71 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait is still holding steady at a little over 6 months, the same as for the previous round. By the end of all three Rounds, the total number of nominations increased slightly - this suggests that users are more willing to nominate, knowing that their articles will be reviewed. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Final so we can keep tackling the backlog.

In the Final Round, the user with the highest score will be the winner. The Final has already started and will end on March 31st at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Finals and the pools can be found here.

Good luck and have fun!

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

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

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017

edit
 
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) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017

edit
 
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) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikiproject Spoken Wikipedia Revival

edit

  Hello, I'm Jamesjpk. I wanted to let you know that the Wikiproject Spoken Wikipedia, has been tagged with a semi-active tag. I am messaging you about this because you are listed under the wiki-project's list of active participants. Please contribute to the WikiProject if you want to keep it alive! I hope that it becomes active again! Jamesjpk (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Tour GARs

edit

Hi there, hope all is good. Not sure if you are aware, but the 2011 Tour de France has been up for GAN for nearly four months now. I've also just nominated 2014 Tour de France. I think people are daunted by them and I think you're possibly the only one that will (has) take one on. I would greatly appreciate if you could consider reviewing them. They are both in tip-top shape as I've followed the 2012 Tour de France FA. I can honestly say I can't see the causing you much trouble. Thanks, BaldBoris 00:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@BaldBoris: Sure, will do! Hopefully, I can get them done over the Easter weekend. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

May 2017 WikiCup newsletter

edit

The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:

  •   Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
  •   1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
  •   Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
  • Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017

edit
 
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) 03:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIV, June 2017

edit
 
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) 12:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 9 June 2017

edit

The Signpost: 23 June 2017

edit

WikiCup 2017 July newsletter

edit

The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 2017

edit
 
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) 07:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 15 July 2017

edit

The Signpost: 5 August 2017

edit

WikiCup 2017 September newsletter

edit

Round 4 of the WikiCup has ended and we move forward into the final round. In round 4, a total of 12 FAs, 3 FLs, 44 GAs, 3 FLs, 79 DYKs, 1 ITN and 42 GARs was achieved, with no FPs or FTs this time. Congratulations to Peacemaker67 on the Royal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic of 36 items, and the 12 featured articles achieved by Cas Liber (5), Vanamonde93 (3), Peacemaker67 (2), Adityavagarwal (1) and 12george1 (1). With a FA scoring 200 points, and bonus points available on top of this, FAs are likely to feature heavily in the final round. Meanwhile Yellow Evan, a typhoon specialist, was contributing 12 DYKs and 10 GAs, while Adityavagarwal and Freikorp topped the GAR list with 8 reviews each. As we enter the final round, we are down to eight contestants, and we would like to thank those of you who have been eliminated for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. The lowest score needed to reach round 5 was 305, and I think we can expect a highly competitive final round.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best man (or woman) win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 06:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 6 September 2017

edit

The Signpost: 25 September 2017

edit
edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1991 Vuelta a España, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ivan Ivanov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

1977 article

edit

Honestly, I don't think your example of the 1977 article is a good example of presenting clear, easily understandable information to our readers. Forgive me, but I think it's a sorrow mess. Don't forget we write these articles for a general audience an not only for die-hard F1 fans. In the article you mention the constructors' standings has an explanation that only a select number of results counted towards the championship. Yet that table lists every sort of result that followed an entry even the many of them that had no importance whatsoever to the constructors' championship. This leaves our lay reader without any way to see which results counted and which ones didn't. I think that the 1958 article gives a much much better example on how to deal with those championships in that era. That table simply lists the outcome the championship with the results that actually counted towards is. That way our reader can very easily understand who won the championship and how they did it. Individual drivers' results belong in the drivers' table and not in the constructors' table. Note that even in the 1977 article's constructors' standings the split isn't done based on the drivers but solely on the numbers. For instance #10 March car was driven by three different drivers that season but it still only gets one row in the constructors' standings.Tvx1 10:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

edit

WikiCup 2017 November newsletter: Final results

edit

The final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

  • Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a two-way tie with themselves for an astonishing five FAs in R2 and R4).
  • Good Article – Adityavagarwal had 14 GAs promoted in R5.
  • Featured List –   Bloom6132 (submissions) and   1989 (submissions) both produced 2 FLs in R2
  • Featured Pictures –   SounderBruce (submissions) improved an image to FP status in R5, the only FP this year.
  • Featured Topic –   MPJ-DK (submissions) has the only FT of the Cup in R3.
  • Good Topic – Four different editors created a GT in R2, R3 and R4.
  • Did You Know – Adityavagarwal had 22 DYKs on the main page in R5.
  • In The News –   MBlaze Lightning (submissions) had 14 ITN on the main page in R2.
  • Good Article Review –   Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (submissions) completed 31 GARs in R1.

Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.

Regarding the prize vouchers - @Adityavagarwal, Vanamonde93, Casliber, Bloom6132, 1989, and SounderBruce: please send Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

F1 2017 Toro Rosso Drivers

edit

You were involved in the discussion about the order of the Toro Rosso drivers on the page: 2017_FIA_Formula_One_World_Championship. Unfortunately we have been unable to resolve this issue and I have decided to take this to DRN. Given your involvement in this discussion, I have included yourself on the list of involved users. You can find the information of the dispute below. Thanks.

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

edit
 

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:2017 FIA Formula One World Championship. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Wikipediaeditperson (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Wikipediaeditperson: Thanks for the notification. I'll try to look into it this weekend. However, the discussion on the talk page did quite a lot to demotivate me to get further into it. It's sad how that often happens on Wikipedia... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2018

edit

So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 24 November 2017

edit

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

edit

Hello, Zwerg Nase. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Talk:1996 Giro d'Italia/GA2

edit

Zwerg Nase, you posted apologies on November 8 for forgetting about opening this review and promising to get to it right away; it's now December 5 and you still haven't started the actual review. Please give this your priority when you return to editing this month. If you feel you can't, I can arrange to have the nomination put back into the pool of ones awaiting a reviewer. Thank you for your attention to this. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@BlueMoonset: Thanks for your message. The review is on my table, done on paper, I only need to find the time to transcribe it here. Will do tonight or tomorrow. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
@BlueMoonset: Review is posted now. However, I get the feeling that I might get into the same problem as before, meaning that the main contributor has been inactive on Wikipedia since October... Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for getting it done. If Disc Wheel doesn't return to address the issues you've raised, you'll have to close it—though I'd allow more than the usual time because of the delay. One thing you could do is to post a note on Disc Wheel's talk page, saying that you've finally done the review, and hope that they return to work on it in the next couple of weeks or so. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
I've pinged them in the review, so a notification should come up. If they don't reply within a week, I'll try to find someone to step in with the Cycling WikiProject. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 18 December 2017

edit

The Signpost: 16 January 2018

edit
edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1982 FIA Formula One World Championship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alan Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 11:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Precious anniversary

edit
A year ago ...
 
Grand Prix
... you were recipient
no. 1559 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you once again :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Guten Abend Zwerg Nase

edit

Guten Abend Zwerg Nase,mein Ziel ist es, jeden Artikel, den ich schreibe, auch für die englische Wikipedia zu übersetzen bzw. in diese zu übertragen. Meinen Artikel über Otto Kelmer, der am 7. November 2016 in der deutschen Wikipedia erschienen ist, habe ich nun endlich, mit Unterstützung einer englischen Bekannten (native speaker und ehemalige Englisch-Lehrerin), etwas gekürzt, ins Englische übertragen. Mein deutscher Mentor Artregor hat mir diesbezüglich empfohlen,mir in der englischen Wikipedia einen Adopter zu suchen. Da bin ich nun und würde mich freuen, wenn Du mich als Adoptee übernimmst und mich unterstützt. Deine Artikel lesen sich wirklich richtig gut und SEHR englisch! Viele Grüße,--Sonfi (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Sonfi: Hey! Gerne helfe ich aus, kenne aber das Adoptee-Prinzip nicht. Was wäre denn meine Aufgabe? PS: Vielen Dank für die Blumen :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Sonfi: Oder meinst Du direkt meine Tätigkeit bei Adopt-a-user? Oder meinst Du ein spezielles Programm für Übersetzungen? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hallo, freue mich riesig über Deine freundliche Antwort! Sehr gern geschehen! Ja, genau die Tätigkeit bei Adopt-a-user meine ich, denn auf dieser Seite habe ich Dich gefunden! Habe über die Sandbox einen Anfang gemacht und begonnen den Text einzupflegen, aber noch nichts gespeichert, da ich erstmal Deine Antwort abwarten wollte und mir auch nicht sicher war, ob die Einrichtung der Sandbox in dieser Form richtig ist! Außerdem klappt es mit der Formatierung an einigen Stellen noch nicht so richtig! Aber bevor ich hier anfange weiter auszuschweifen, sollte ich Dir vielleicht erstmal Luft lassen, Dir das anzusehen ;)! Klasse, der Anfang ist gemacht, darüber freue ich mich , bis bald, viele Grüße,--Sonfi (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Sonfi: Wie ist denn der Link zu der Sandbox? In Deiner Sandbox finde ich bisher nichts? Aber klar, gerne kann ich Dich "adoptieren". Wir können etwaige Fragen, die Du hast entweder hier auf meiner Talkseite besprechen oder auf Deiner, dann würde ich die auf meine Watchlist setzen, ganz wie Du magst. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hallo, jetzt habe ich wieder etwas mehr Ruhe! Danke Dir, das sind gute Nachrichten! Ich befinde mich auf User:Sonfi/sandbox. Ferner steht hier Preview This is only a preview; your changes have not been saved! -> Go to editing area dann noch Template:User/Sonfi/sandbox in rot und https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sonfi/sandbox&action=submit kann ich Dir noch anbieten.

Muss ich jetzt "go to editing area" anklicken, damit Du mich sehen kannst? Im Augenblick kann ich noch nicht nachvollziehen, welchen Anwendungsfehler ich gemacht habe! Es wäre klasse, wenn Du mich auf meiner Talkseite betreuen würdest und Du mich auf Deine Watchlist setzt, glaube, dass ist für mich als Anfängerin etwas übersichtlicher! Viele Grüße,--Sonfi (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh, nein,tut mir leid, habe das Creating vor User:Sonfi/sandbox übersehen! Also komplett: Creating User:Sonfi/sandbox, da findest Du mich!--Sonfi (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Adopt-a-user - your availability

edit

Hello. Could I ask you to check and, if necessary, update your availability details at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters, please?

I've been updating that page, plus the list of over 100 people seeking adoption (which I've now stripped down to around 20 active editors genuinely seeking help.

I've been working to identify those Adopters who are currently available, and those who haven't been active on Wikipedia for a while. But I don't think the bot has been updating correctly, so a manual check from you would be really helpful. I've also made some suggestions and a few edits to make life easier for newcomers. I've put some of my observations down in answer to a recent post about inactivity of some Adopt-a-User Project contributors. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Nick Moyes: All still accurate. I've never had someone interested though... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thank you - that's interesting. I wonder: did you prepare any 'plan' in advance of anyone approaching you, or would you have done it all 'on the fly', so to speak? And what prompted you to sign up in the first place? Do you think it would help newcomers if each person's entry said something like this at the bottom, and, if so, could I add it to your entry?:
  • Offer to adopt reaffirmed: January 2018
  • No. of previous adoptees: nil
Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Nick Moyes: I don't really mind putting that on the page, I don't think it will help though as long as new users are not guided towards this programme more. I have not set up a plan, since I think newcomers will have many different problems and questions when starting to edit. Some might be good with template but understand little about sources and vice versa. So I would try to help with the needs of the person in question in mind. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I'll do that for you. Yes, working rather freely is my view too. (I'm currently helping a young US editor on geography topics and realise he needs detailed support, not general stuff about how to create a references, or the five pillars.) I think if the project is to move forward and not be just a moribund help desk, then it needs to require adoptees to show their genuine interests by making a clear statement of their vision of why they want adopting/long-term support, and then it needs adopters to check these adoptees out from time to time to find a good match for them. But I'm not sure how pro-active anyone wants to be in this area. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Delighted to read your post below. Ausgezeichnet! (and that's almost as far as my German goes). Once you've confirmed you're going ahead, would you modify the adoption templates, as per the guidance at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adopter's Area? It's so darn complicated! I've spent 2 days just clearing out old adoption templates from inactive editors - the scheme seems to have got itself into quite a mess. Really chuffed you've been approached, though. Must have been total fluke, I guess. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 5 February 2018

edit

The Signpost: 20 February 2018

edit
edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1982 FIA Formula One World Championship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Watson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2018 March newsletter

edit

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:

  •   Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
  •   FrB.TG , a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
  •   Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
  •   Ceranthor,   Numerounovedant,   Carbrera,   Farang Rak Tham and   Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. 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.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

West Germany

edit

Hi Can you get West Germany page protected? Our IP friend keeps changing the infobox from "the FRG in 1990" to "the FRG in 1989". This is a common error that the Fall of the Berlin Wall was the legal end of East/West Berlin/Germany. It wasn't. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Paul Benjamin Austin: Have given warnings to both IPs for now. Let's see if they continue. If so, we can request a protection. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018

edit

DYK nomination of Marcel Wüst

edit

  Hello! Your submission of Marcel Wüst 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! MB 02:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Senatus consultum ultimum

edit

Hi there. Let me know when you are ready to amend this article as you suggest. It should be pretty easy - basically Livy says these two events were examples of the SCU. Modern literature queries whether that was so, given the gap in time between those two events and the later (and more common) usage from the time of the Gracchi into the first century BC.--Urg writer (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Urg writer: Will do. If you can point me to the modern literature that you mention, that would be very helpful. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
You can access this one on Google Books: "Commanders and Command in the Roman Republic and Early Empire", by Fred K. Drogula, p124 fn258. Some sources can't be accessed freely online. There are some other sources which go too far in attacking Livy's account. --Urg writer (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Urg writer: I will have a look at it next week, thank you! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 2018 Milan–San Remo

edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2018 Milan–San Remo 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 Dr.robin -- Dr.robin (talk) 09:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

You've got mail!

edit
 
Hello, Zwerg Nase. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

4th GA Cup - Wrap Up

edit
 

Hello, GA Cup competitors!

Saturday, April 1 concluded the 2016-2017 GA Cup. 64 reviews were completed by our finalists. Although the backlog increased by 42 over the reviewing period instead of declining, the increase suggests that the contest is encouraging editors to nominate articles for review.

Congratulations to Shearonink, who is the winner of the Cup, finishing with 672 points! Once again, just as in last round, this is more than the point totals for all the other competitors combined! It was a close race for second place between Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, who achieved 164 points, and Sturmvogel_66, who earned 150. Though Sturmvogel_66 reviewed one more article than Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga managed to earn 14 points more due to reviewing older articles. Our two wildcard competitors, Kees08 and Chris troutman, came in fourth and fifth, respectively.

There were some bumps in the competition this time: The sign-up deadline and the first round were both extended due to fewer competitors signing up then was planned for. And there were delays in tallying points and getting out the newsletter. The judges apologize for this latter difficulty. Lastly, mid-way through the competition we bid farewell to Zwerg Nase, who stepped down from their position as judge due to other commitments. Information about the Final can be found here.

Thank you to all of our competitors, and congrats to our winners!

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

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

The Signpost: 26 April 2018

edit

WikiCup 2018 May newsletter

edit

The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:

  •   Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
  •   Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
  •   Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
  •   SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
  •   Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
  •   Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
  •   Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

A barnstar for you!

edit
  The Special Barnstar
For your many fine articles & other contributions. Iselilja (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
I saw you were a bit unlucky with a user not finishing the GA review of one of your articles during Wikicup. I would guess the article meets the GA criteria, so you were simply unfortunate. It's a bit regrettable there aren't a good procedure for getting the articles timely reviewed during a contest, but I guess not so easy to do something about it. Iselilja (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Oh, thank you very much, this comes quite unexpected :) Yes, it was a shame that my reviews did not go through in time, since I felt I had good chances to proceed far this year... Oh well, there is always next year and and abundance of things to do on Wikipedia. Good luck to you in the rest of the competition! Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Ah, it was max unfortunate for you that someone started a review and did not finish. (I saw someone had started it, so I thought you were on the way to get it passed and qualify). If you participate next year, and I am around at Wikipedia, feel free to ask for a review if there is a similar situation then. But, of course, what matters is the content we produce, not really these "competitions". Iselilja (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

DYK for Marcel Wüst

edit

On 3 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marcel Wüst, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that professional cyclist Marcel Wüst had to end his road bicycle racing career after an accident left him blind in one eye? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marcel Wüst. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Marcel Wüst), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 2018 Milan–San Remo

edit

The article 2018 Milan–San Remo you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:2018 Milan–San Remo 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 Dr.robin -- Dr.robin (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 1982 Formula One World Championship

edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1982 Formula One World Championship 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 [[User:{{subst:Kpgjhpjm}}|{{subst:Kpgjhpjm}}]] -- [[User:{{subst:Kpgjhpjm}}|{{subst:Kpgjhpjm}}]] ([[User talk:{{subst:Kpgjhpjm}}|talk]]) 08:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am very sorry , my son accidentaly started it, I cannot review it. Kpgjhpjm (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Kpgjhpjm: Alright, I'll see how I can get that fixed. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Zwerg Nase: - have you found a way how to fix that. Kpgjhpjm (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Kpgjhpjm: Well, according to the GA talk page, you might have to fail the review. But there might be another way. See here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Zwerg Nase: - Should I fail it? I would do as you like , if your answer is yes ,then please renominate. I promise this will not happen again. Kpgjhpjm (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Kpgjhpjm, please don't do anything. The review page has been put up for speedy deletion, which will solve the problem. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

edit

The Signpost: 29 June 2018

edit

WikiCup 2018 July newsletter

edit

The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

  •   Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
  •   Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
  •   SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington

Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk), Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1989 Tour de France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ITV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 31 July 2018

edit
edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bernard Hinault, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doping (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 1982 Formula One World Championship

edit

The article 1982 Formula One World Championship you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:1982 Formula One World Championship 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 Matt294069 -- Matt294069 (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Vuelta a España

edit

Hello. I've been pragmatic, and setup the Grand Tour sections for all riders in the Vuelta, now the "final" startlist has been released. I do this for each and every Grand Tour race, and have done for a number of years now. I know it's a couple of days before it actually starts, but usually this work doesn't get done, and becomes a pain to check the biographies where it has been updated, against those which it hasn't. If anyone drops out between now and the start, then feel free to change those (I'll be checking them myself, of course). Hope that's OK. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lugnuts: Sure, it just felt a little too early for me. But I only keep an eye on a couple of articles, so I could update Buchmann's article myself. I am very excited to see how he will do by the way. The limited amount of time trial kilometres could actually see him challenge for a top ten position... Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Lugnuts: Buchmann is looking really strong indeed. I am quite excited to see what he can pull off! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Ahh, didn't see that first ping - sorry! I've enjoyed the last few days of this years' race. Pretty tough course all the way to the end, esp. for the sprinters. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Lugnuts: Indeed, though a little better for sprinters than last year (where there were pretty much none at the start line anyway...). I can still not make out a real favourite for overall victory. Yates looked good, but I am not convinced he can hold his own for a full three weeks. Same goes for Kwiatkowski (and Sky is certainly not up to dominating the race, as we saw yesterday). Quintana still seems passive and not on his best form... pretty much the hardest Grand Tour to predict for years, kind of like the awesome 2015 edition. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

edit

WikiCup 2018 September newsletter

edit

The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:

  •   Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
  •   Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
  •   Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
  • Other contestants who qualified for the final round were   Nova Crystallis,   Iazyges,   SounderBruce,   Kosack and   Ceranthor.

During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best editor win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

AfroCine: Join us for the Months of African Cinema in October!

edit
 
 

Greetings!

You are receiving this message because your username or portal was listed as a participant of a WikiProject that is related to Africa, the Carribean, Cinema or theatre.

This is to introduce you to a new Wikiproject called AfroCine. This new project is dedicated to improving the Wikipedia coverage of the history, works, people, places, events, etc, that are associated with the cinema, theatre and arts of Africa, African countries, the carribbean, and the diaspora. If you would love to be part of this or you're already contributing in this area, kindly list your name as a participant on the project page here.

Furthermore, In the months of October and November, the WikiProject is organizing a global on-wiki contest and edit-a-thon tagged: The Months of African Cinema. If you would love to join us for this exciting event, also list your username as a participant for this event here. In preparation for the contest, please do suggest relevant articles that need to be created or expanded in different countries, during this event!

If you have any questions, complaints, suggestions, etc., please reach out to me personally on my talkpage! Cheers!--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 1989 Tour de France

edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1989 Tour de France 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 Sportsfan77777 -- Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 1989 Tour de France

edit

The article 1989 Tour de France 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:1989 Tour de France for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sportsfan77777 -- Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

edit

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema!

edit
 
 

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which has been dedicated to improving contents that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

This is a global online edit-a-thon, which is happening in at least 5 language editions of Wikipedia, including the English Wikipedia! Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section, if you haven't done so already.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing Users who are able to achieve the following:

  • Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
  • Country Winners
  • Diversity winner
  • High quality contributors
  • Gender-gap fillers
  • Page improvers
  • Wikidata Translators

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:50, 03 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

ANI

edit

{{subst: ANI Notice}} RhinosF1 (talk) 05:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@RhinosF1: ?? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
(talk page stalker) Lukas, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP: Battleground Accusation by IP. Relates to the 2019 Red Bull Honda issue. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

2019 F1

edit

Hi, Thanks for reverting the unsourced edit to the 2019 F1 page today. Can I ask why you didn't leave the user a warning on his talk page? RhinosF1 (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@RhinosF1: I didn't feel that the edit was made in bad faith, so I decided against it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks. I left a note at the last user to do commit that offences page. Would even be best to leave a polite reminder to them. After a previous incident, I left a warning in the source code and put a message on the talk page, could anything else be done to advise users? RhinosF1 (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@RhinosF1: Hopefully, the note in the source code is enough... Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the help RhinosF1 (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 28 October 2018

edit

Your GA nomination of 1989 Tour de France

edit

The article 1989 Tour de France you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:1989 Tour de France 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 Sportsfan77777 -- Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

edit

Hello, Zwerg Nase. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

edit

Adoption Papers for your review

edit

Hi Zwerg Nase, I would like to become your mentee. I am interested in getting familiar with Wikipedia and its intricacies. Please let me know what I should do. Thanks Barcerrano (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 24 December 2018

edit

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup!

edit

Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bernard Hinault, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basque Country (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Some baklava for you!

edit
  Just random! Thanks for contributing. Talk to me :) ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
@ImmortalWizard: Cheers, mate! Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Precious anniversary

edit
Precious
 
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

edit

WikiCup 2019 Reminder

edit

Hi. I'm DannyS712 (talk), and I just wanted to remind you that you have signed up to compete in this year's WikiCup! There are about 2 weeks left before the first round ends – if you haven't yet made your first submission, there is still time to start; if you have already started, keep up the good work. See your submissions page: here. Good luck!

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

ITN recognition for Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde

edit

On 26 February 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

ITN

edit

Du bearbeitest noch? Schon lange nicht von dir gehört.
I have to ask whether Böckenförde is known, or considered a significant person, outside the German Sprachbereich. – Sca (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Sca: I wasn't active for a while on ITN, since it became too much work. But Böckernförde caught my eye so I thought I'd nominate him. I am not sure if others will consider him significant enough... Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Neither am I, so I'll wait & see if others comment. (I see he does have a fairly detailed article on German Wiki.) Mach's gut. Sca (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
PS: Re "This user is capable of reading and writing Kurrent" — But can he read and write like Kant – or kan't he? Sca (talk)
He kan't! ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
We can ;) - I received ITN recognition, but did almost nothing, an ill-link here, an infobox there, - thanks to you two for the real work! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

edit

Your GA nomination of Bernard Hinault

edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bernard Hinault 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of Bernard Hinault

edit

The article Bernard Hinault 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:Bernard Hinault for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

OK Computer OKNOTOK 1997 2017

edit

Hey there Zwerg Nase! I noticed that you GA reviewed Radiohead's most recent album, A Moon Shaped Pool, a couple of years back. I've nominated OK Computer reissue album OKNOTOK 1997 2017, would you like to review it? Musicfan122 (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Musicfan122: Hey! I am quite busy at the moment, but I'll try to squeeze it in. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thank you so much! Musicfan122 (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of Bernard Hinault

edit

The article Bernard Hinault you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Bernard Hinault 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Christa Wolf

edit

Leading German author Christa Wolf would have been 90 [12]Sca (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Tours

edit

Thanks for taking on the 2018 GA. Are you aware that there are unanswered comments on the 1989 FAC? I would take care of them ASAP if I was you as it's right at the bottom of the list of FAC candidates and it might get closed without them contacting you. I can help out if you need it. If it passes I won't take any credit by the way, as you've done the bulk of the prose. Also, I'll work do the 1998 Tour with you. I've started to get it shipshape already. Where would the best place be to talk about it, here or on the article's talk? BaldBoris 16:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

@BaldBoris: Hey! Thanks for your message. I'll address the comments for the 1989 FAC today, was on holiday last week, so I couldn't do anything. For 1998, I'd say the talk page there for transparency. I will also tackle Jacques Anquetil in the very near future, which I think is an article that is all over the place... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
@BaldBoris: Thank you for the work on the 1989 article, very good job in finding appropriate sources! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
@BaldBoris: I noticed that for the 1998 article, you have the footnotes and references in one big section, split up into subsections, while for 1989 I did two bigger headers. We should probably bring consistency into this and do it the same way in every Tour article. I don't have a particular preference for one or the other, I guess both ways of doing it is fine. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
No worries about 89, I would've broken my heart for it to get closed as I read "I would hate to have to do a second round with this article" from you. I do enjoy researching. At the time I looked at all recent FAs and that seemed to be the most used system to use for the notes and refs, but have since thought it looks a little odd. I prefer your way to be honest, so I'll change them all to match. Also, what do you thin about the use of {{Refbegin}}, alot of FAs use it? All the headings should match as well, so do you think "Classification leadership" is actually "Classification leadership, awards and prizes" to be correct? Oh yea, Anquetil needs to an FA for sure, Coppi also. I've already got all the books on them. BaldBoris 13:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
@BaldBoris:
  • Concerning the template: I am actually not overly familiar with how these work. What are the differences between using "Refbegin" and "Reflist"?
It matches the font size with the text in {{Reflist}}. BaldBoris 15:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Anquetil: I have "Anquetil, Alone" and "Sex, Lies and Handlebartape" (I think the latter is more helpful), which is my current evening lecture.
  • Coppi: Have bought only one biography on him, my library is still growing, so if you'd like to do that article, that would be fantastic!
  • My current projects for the future would be Anquetil, the Tours of 1976, 85, 86, and 98. Also Greg LeMond to FA quality, which should not be too hard. Will get the new biography on him as soon as it's released on paperback this summer. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
    100% on Anquetil, as I've want to do that for years. So many Tours to be done... I think getting those to at least GA is definitely a realistic goal. I've got the book Tour de France: The 75th Anniversary Cycle Race about 78, so will be doing that also. I recently found an archive of Sporting Cyclist, which was a "posh" monthly magazine. They only have 1955–60, but could upload up to 1968. All the current ones have been Waybacked. Did you buy the physical version or an ebook of Tour de France Rules and Statistics: 1903-2018? The author Pieter van den Akker is amazing, he's researched like mad. I only just found his website tourdefrancestatistieken.nl, which allowed me to complete (not entirely) all the classification tables. Need to try and complete the top tens of all classification results. The Tour work is endless! BaldBoris 15:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
    I actually opposed in the LeMond FAC, lol, although I did help out with it. I have apologised to Joep01 since, as my comment was a bit rude (but honest). I'm sure he and Gunbirddriver would love you want to get it to FA. BaldBoris 15:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
@BaldBoris: Yup, I bought van den Akker's book, great source and amazing research. I guess he will keep updating the book as well, bringing out new editions every year. That magazine looks really good too, though I think we should probably not link to that source, for copyright reasons? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I did think that too, but the Veteran-Cycle Club is scanning and uploading them in partnership with the British National Cycle Archive. BaldBoris 22:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
@BaldBoris: Oh wow, even better! Couple of books just arrived at my house, got "Corsa Rosa" about the history of the Giro, the "Fallen Angel" biography of Coppi and Friebe's biography on Merckx. So much sill to do, looking forward to it :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

edit

Downfall

edit

Hey, so I'm going to re-submit the article for another GA review later, but if you could tell me how it looks, that'd be fine. -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 14:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@NowIsntItTime: Hey! Sorry for the delay, I've been incredibly busy. Will try to have another look at it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Zwerg Nase: No problem bro. -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 14:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Format of F1 grand prix articles

edit

Hi, I noticed that you recently reordered 2019 Bahrain Grand Prix, I was just wondering why? I implemented the new format ahead of the Australian Grand prix per WP:CYCLE after mentioning it on WT:F1, where no one was opposed. My thinking being that the report for quail followed by the classification before the race report allows for more linear reading (my full argument can be found on WT:F1). It just wondered why you were opposed to it, you appear to be the first. Perhaps you could take your comments to the discussion on WT:F1. SSSB (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@SSSB: Sorry, that seems to have slipped by me. Feel free to revert. I would however, add that if you choose to change the format of the GP articles, it should be done so consistently in all articles. I do not have the time to do so. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2019 Reminder

edit

Hi. I'm DannyS712 (talk), and I just wanted to remind you that you are a current participant in round 2 of this year's WikiCup! There are only a few days until the second round ends – if you haven't made you first submission for this round yet, there is still time to start; if you have already started, keep up the good work. See your submissions page: here. Good luck!

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 05:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)Reply

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

edit

WikiCup 2019 May newsletter

edit

The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

  •   Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
  •   Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
  •   Adam Cuerden (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
  •   Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

Other notable performances were put in by   Barkeep49 with six GAs,   Ceranthor,   Lee Vilenski, and   Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and   MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

DYK nomination of Le Groupement (cycling team)

edit

  Hello! Your submission of Le Groupement (cycling team) 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! SounderBruce 04:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1998 Tour de France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrea Tafi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

New message from Narutolovehinata5

edit
 
Hello, Zwerg Nase. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Le Groupement (cycling team).
Message added 02:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please respond as soon as possible if you still wish to pursue the nomination. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

edit

Do you want to nominate "1989 Tour de France" for a July TFA?

edit

Hello Zwerg! I was just messaging you since you were one of the primary editors and FA nominators of "Henry W. Sawyer". I was wondering if you'd want to nominate this page of yours for TFA for a day July 2019, as you suggested at WP:TFARP. 1989 Tour de France is a great featured article, and it would be a cool TFA on any day in July (the 20th anniversary of the event, and coinciding with the upcoming 2019 race) - would you want formally nominate that page at WP:TFA/R? Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2019 Reminder

edit

Hi. I'm DannyS712 (talk), and I just wanted to remind you that you are a current participant in round 3 of this year's WikiCup! There are just over 2 weeks until the third round ends – if you haven't made you first submission for this round yet, there is still time to start; if you have already started, keep up the good work. See your submissions page: here. Good luck!

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 19:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)Reply

Adoption Comment

edit

Hello! Would you be willing to adopt me? Regards, Will — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willbb234 (talkcontribs) 06:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Willbb234: Sure, I can do that! First suggestion: Don't forget to sign all your posts on talk pages with ~~~~. Let me know what you want to know :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
That's great. Would you mind watching Arnold Thackray, I have had some troubles with this page in the past with another user, so if I were to have an experienced user watching this, any issues can be resolved quickly and easily. Apart from that, there isn't currently anything I need help with, but I will be sure to ask if you there is. Thanks for being my mentor, Willbb234 (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Willbb234: No problem! Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
When are you normally helping out on Wikipedia (in UTC) just so I know when I cannot expect a reply as you are sleeping/working etc? Just so you know, I am one hour ahead of UTC. Willbb234 (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Willbb234: I am also in Central Europe. When I edit really depends, I might be online briefly during work hours, often during evenings hours, but not every day. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Emanuel Buchmann, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adam Yates (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Greg LeMond status discussion late reply

edit

@BaldBoris: Re. this archived discussion, seeing Greg Lemond worked-up to FA-status would be cool! Cheers! joepaT 16:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Joep01: We'll get it done, in time. Funnily enough, I have been working on 1998 Tour de France recently, and I just finished reading the VeloPress book about it. It has Frankie Andreu's interesting daily diary included, who I just read you know quite well. Am I correct? Don't worry, I'm not after a scoop. BaldBoris 23:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Disruptive editing Comment

edit

Hello, I hope your are well. The User:Mermaid Rebel has been editing disruptively and I’m not sure what to think if their user page. Please could you review and make a decision about how to act. Best wishes, Willbb234 (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Willbb234: From first glance, that seems to be a troll. The first course of action would be to leave a warning about their behaviour on their talk page. When you are on the talk page, in the right hand upper corner, there is "TW", under which you can choose "Warn". It will open a form, where you can enter what they did, on which article and leave a message. Since this will be their second warning, if they engage in disruptive behaviour again after that, the case can be brought to the admins and they can block the account (and the IP if necessary). Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Abe Bluestein

edit

Hello, I came across the page specified above and I have found a source that was written well before the article was published that matches most of the article word for word. The source is here, archived in 2002 when the page was written in 2005. I am not sure what to do. Willbb234 (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) (Sorry Lukas!) @Willbb234: Instructions on handling a copy-vio can be found at WP:CV101 and template doc at Template:Copyvio-revdel. 'Earwig' can be used to establish extent of copy-vio. The copy-vio 'guru' is Diannaa, if you get into difficulty. Eagleash (talk) Eagleash (talk) 02:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Eagleash: Thanks for swooping in so quickly! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

1998 Tour

edit

I'm done with the race overview, apart from the doping. Do you think an aftermath section is needed? It'll most likely need a going copy-editing, but all that facts are straight and it's all correctly cited as it stands. I won't be reading Fotheringham's book in full. The Conquests and Crisis book was a really perfect for this, it was like they took all the reports and polished them up. There can't be many more concise book on a single cycling race out there. It's a shame VeloPress didn't make any more. I doubt these types sell well then. The award-winning books are beautifully written and enjoyable to read, but they can be difficult to translate to Wikipedia, which I found with William Fotheringham's Put Me Back on My Bike when doing Tom Simpson. BaldBoris 00:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@BaldBoris: I agree, the "well written" books are sadly often not the most useful in Wikipedia terms. I think the race overview is now pretty good, thank you for all your hard work! I might be able to start working on the Doping section tomorrow, or maybe even later today. But it is going to take a while. I will also try to do the separate article about Doping at the 1998 Tour de France at the same time, since this seems reasonable. Maybe we can get the race to Featured Topic, if we also work on the List of teams and cyclists in the 1998 Tour de France? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Yes, there's enough doping to keep us busy. I'll let you do your thing, and then add whatever I can. I was actually going to start to sort out the teams list yesterday (I'll do it soon). At the same time, I also saw that you'd started the stages articles, with a summary for each, which I believe I remember noticing back when you did it in 2013. There's more than enough sources to expand those (the book I used, CN, and archived LeTour.com), so it's definitely possible to do a FT. What's the reason for your interest in this edition? BaldBoris 13:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@BaldBoris: Oh right, the stages articles. Yeah, I started the first of the two back in 2013, when I was a complete Wikipedia newbie, so the quality is pretty crap... In terms of my interest, well, the 1998 Tour was the first one I watched. But mainly, I focus on this article now since I have a lot of sources for it and it is so pivotal with the Festina Affair. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
I saw 1994 Tour in Portsmouth for real when I was teeny, but I only started getting into cycling properly in my early 20s as I was footy mad growing up. The first Tour I watched in full must have been 2008, when Cav burst through. Were you a fan of Ullrich? For the 1998 teams list, we ideally need a source that has all the info together, which are: name, birth date, nationality, team, starting number, dropout stage, final GC. The latter two will probably need to come from a separate source. Conquests and Crisis has it, but online source is preferable. We're lucky 1998 was around the time the news websites began. CN and LeTour.com started in 1995, but not much reporting though. BaldBoris 16:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@BaldBoris: I was kind of an Ullrich fan, but frequently disappointed. 2003 was really the Tour I enjoyed the most (at least in the Ullrich years), but then again, that is the best of the Armstrong era by a long shot. As for the sources: Does Procyclingstats have most of the infos on that? But then we would also need to give multiple pages as sources. But maybe this can be done at the bottom of the table for all riders instead of a source for every individual rider? Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
When I say in full, I mean pretty much every stage live, within reason. I did watch the now-dark ages to a degree, but my memory seems to have blanked it out. It's only natural. PCS has a startlist with dropouts, but that doesn't have their DOB. The recent Tour lists have the DOB in the official team pages, the ones I've edited anyway. The two most recent use the PCS profile of each rider, which I think is ridiculous, and I would only do that at the very last resort. If I were to make them a featured lists, I'd replace them all for the team pages. They also use data-sort-value="Froome, Chris", when we have {{sortname|Chris|Froome}}. BaldBoris 21:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@BaldBoris: On a trivial note: What's your football club of choice? Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Liverpool! BaldBoris 21:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@BaldBoris: Sweet! That fits my favourite club quite well! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

1989 Tour de France scheduled for TFA

edit

This is to let you know that the 1989 Tour de France article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 28, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 28, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I thought you went for 23 July, the 30th anniversary? BaldBoris 16:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@BaldBoris: I did 28 July, because it's the last day of this year's Tour, where I thought it would fit quite well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Beamhurst

edit

Hello! I came across this article and I wasn't sure of whether to propose a merge, a delete under WP:N or just leave the article alone. I am looking for your opinion on the matter. Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Willbb234: What would you merge it with? Generally, I'd say a village can have its own article, there's just not a lot there at the moment... Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Croxden? The article even directs to Croxden for information in regards to the population. I did a search on Beamhurst and nothing apart from the small and private museum came up. Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Willbb234: But is Beamhurst a part of Croxden? Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
I don't know because there are no sources on Beamhurst. I'm presuming it is due to the content of the Wikipedia page, which is why I believe there should be a merge. If it doesn't meet the criteria for a merge then maybe it should be deleted? Willbb234 (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Tricky case... if they are not the same village, then a merger makes no sense. Then again, both articles are dismal in terms of information... it's hard to argue to delete one and leave the other. I'd post the issue to WT:N and see what happens. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) Populated places, however small, are generally considered notable. The problem seems to be that it falls within another area for census purposes so establishing the pop. level is quite difficult. There is some limited history and some links here. Eagleash (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

edit

WikiCup 2019 July newsletter

edit

The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

  •   Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
  •   Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
  •   SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
  •   Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics

Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

TFA

edit

Thank you for 1989 Tour de France, about the 76th edition of the Tour de France, a three-week stage cycle race through France. The 1989 edition is known as one of the closest fought and more memorable in the history of the event."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

edit

I am looking to be Adopted on Wikipedia

edit

Zwerg Nase I left a bio about why I am asking on my user pageJack90s15 (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Jack90s15: Sorry for the late reply! If you are still interested, I can adopt you. However, I do not see the bio you speak of? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Reply


@Zwerg: I was Adopted already but thanks though!

Enivak

edit

Dear user, I would like to be adopted (on-wiki) by you (see the bottom of my user page) I would be very pleased if you accept me! I will add this page to my watchlist, but I would prefer you to talk to me in my talk page. I await your reply, Eni vak (speak) 19:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Enivak: Sure, that is possible :) What specific questions do you have? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! I am here a month and a half here, I know the very basics, but I would like to learn further. Eni vak (speak) 10:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Enivak: What are your next projects? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
1) Finish my second draft, 2) create pages from the wikiproject classical music's to-do list OR for formula Renault (or something like that) championships (some are missing) 3) expand articles about Chinese and Greek automotive companies. Eni vak (speak) 10:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Also I would like to do some maintenance tasks. Eni vak (speak) 11:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Enivak: What are the things that you have found the most challenging so far? What has given you trouble? Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Mostly finding good sources in google and wikicode. I am mostly editing in visual editor, so the later is not something challenging. I also get stuck when I see a promotional article. Eni vak (speak) 10:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Enivak: Do you have any specific question for me at this point? Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
For now, nothing. I just want to learn further. Surely I will have something later. Eni vak (speak) 13:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Enivak: Ok! Feel free to ping me anytime! Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Ok! So, am I adopted now? Eni vak (speak) 13:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Enivak: Sure, as I said, I am open to that! Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
In m user page, the icon is not <<user offered adoption>>, it is still <<user seeking adoption>> (and sorry if I am a little bothering) Eni vak (speak) 14:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Enivak: You can just delete that section. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Ok, thanks for adopting me! :-) Eni vak (speak) 14:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

1903 Tour

edit

You asked how did this (1903 TdF article) even pass GA?: Well, the GA nomination of the 1903 TdF article was in 2010, and the curly braces were introduced in April 2019. Don't blame the GA reviewer for tiny mistakes that were introduced nine years after the review! ;) Thanks for correcting it. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

@EdgeNavidad: Yeah, I didn't check when what happened, I was basically just mumbling into my imaginary beard ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Asking for help

edit

Dear user, as I am adopted by you, I would like to request you help me a little on these two drafts: Draft:Huasong (brand) and Draft:Jinbei (marque). I have a third also, but I mast finish these two soon because the first was from a split from the second and the second was draftified, so I imagineer that I am expected to finish them as soon as possible. I happily await your help if you agree! (footnote: sort for asking the same trivia, but on Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters, on your section, it mentions only Sonfi as adopted by you, why it doesn't mention me or others?) Again, I happily await your help, Eni vak (speak) 21:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Enivak: Some thoughts: What is the difference here between brand and marque? There should probably be an article on "Renault Brilliance Jinbei Automotive", and maybe the information on the Jinbei brand can be part of that arcticle? The Huasong article obviously needs a lot of work, you'll need an infobox, sources etc. Concerning the Jinbei article: Try to replace all sources with ones using the Cite Template help tool, that way, they all have the same format. Also, I prefer the date format of "12 August 2019", since it looks more professional. It would also be good if you found more sources that are from a third-party and not from the companies themselves. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Good thoughts! About the difference, I thought that they meant the same thing (the brand of the automobiles). I think the article you say was deleted, I will create it with some others when I finish this. The Jinbei article was draftified, It is nearly exactly how it as when on mainspace. I have noted these issues, I will try to do something for them. Best regards, Eni vak (speak) 07:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Enivak: I would use the same term, either brand or marque. Not sure which of the two is the convention in this case. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
I don't know, is there any impact on the difference? Eni vak (speak) 12:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Enivak: It should at least be consistent. Maybe you can find other examples of similar cases? Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
I am mainly browsing automobile articles, so I have saw enough articles with Brand or Marque, but I cannot name them because I do not remember which they were. Eni vak (speak) 16:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Invitation to project revival

edit
Hi again! In my draft i had told you before, can you help me a little by helping me editing them? I am still busy with learning the Pending changes reviewer tool, so i whould like a little asistanse (especially in jinbei). Best regards, Eni vak (speak) 18:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

ITN recognition for Felice Gimondi

edit

On 20 August 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Felice Gimondi, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

edit

WikiCup 2019 September newsletter

edit

The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

happy birthday

edit
 
Wishing Zwerg Nase a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Chris troutman: Thank you, that is very kind :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Luigi Colani

edit

RD nom? – Sca (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Sca: I am sure he is worthy of a RD, but today was the first time I've heard about him, so I am probably not the right person for the job :D Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
PS: Besten Glückwünsche zum deiner letzten Geburtstag. (So happens my birthday was Sept. 8.) – Sca (talk)
@Sca: Oh, happy birthday to you too then! Hope you had a good one :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Content needing help with

edit

Hi there, I hope you are well. I have been expanding Mark Cavendish and I tried to write a sentence but wasn't quite sure how to word it. Please could you just check it sounds good, if you think it should be changed, please reply with your version. Preferably, I don't think the sentence should be split in to two, but if you feel like it should, please do so. Here it is:

Cavendish crashed out on stage 1 of the Tour de Pologne - a video shows a Deceuninck–Quick-Step rider losing control round a corner before making contact with Cavendish[1] - but was able to finish sixth on stage 3.

Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Tour de Pologne 2019 - Mark Cavendish Crash. 3 August 2019. Retrieved 6 September 2019.
@Willbb234: Hey! I think it needs to be rephrased a bit, since "crashed out" means that he was unable to continue, but he did. Also, YouTube should not be used as a source, maybe try this one? Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
From what I’ve seen Youtube is an RS? I will get around to changing it when I get home. Oh and happy birthday! Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Willbb234: I am afraid, with the video at hand not being any sort of edited content, using it to cite a claim constitutes WP:OR. And thank you! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for all the help. Do you think the article is ready to nominate for GA? Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Willbb234: I've done some minor copyediting, but couldn't get through the entire article yet. Some sentences I felt needed clarification, some also still need sources, but overall, it looks pretty good. Some that should be kept in mind though, is that with articles that feature somebody who still has an active career, quite a bit of maintenance is needed to keep it at GA level. That's why I usually only cover retired riders and past events, but I think it's great that you tackled Cavendish's article, thank you! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! To be perfectly honest, I can’t see Cav riding another Grand Tour, never mind the Tour de France. But I do see your concern, and I will definitely bare that in mind. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, hope you are well. A quick question - should stages be written in word or number eg. stage 4 or stage four? From what I have seen, numbers less than ten are written in word but above ten are written in numbers. This is what I have been going with, but I would like to ask for confirmation. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Willbb234: Most article reviewers seem to prefer to keep it one or the other consistently throughout the article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the response. That's a bit annoying as Mark Cavendish seems to have a mix. I'll have to go through, or maybe include as part of a copyedit. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

ITN recognition for Sigmund Jähn

edit

On 25 September 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Sigmund Jähn, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

--- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

AfroCine: Join the Months of African Cinema this October!

edit
 

Greetings!

After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:

  • Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
  • Diversity winner
  • Gender-gap fillers

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

edit

Bernard Hinault scheduled for TFA

edit

This is to let you know that Bernard Hinault has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 14 November 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 14, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

edit

The upper limit on character count (including "Full article...") is 1025. This tool can count characters. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I didn't mean to discourage you ... give it another shot, just keep it under 1025. - Dank (push to talk) 02:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Dank: Thanks for the info! I have changed the text, it now fits into the limit. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Okay, the Main Page folks (among others) won't allow "greatest results", "impressive racing style" and "notable results". (The fact that we're listing a race on the Main Page means we think it's notable.) Give it another shot. - Dank (push to talk) 10:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

edit

WikiCup 2019 November newsletter

edit

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is   Adam Cuerden (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 91 featured pictures, including 32 in the final round. Our finalists this year were:

  1.   Adam Cuerden (submissions) with 964 points
  2.   Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 899 points
  3.   Casliber (submissions) with 817 points
  4.   Kosack (submissions) with 691 points
  5.   SounderBruce (submissions) with 388 points
  6.   Enwebb (submissions) with 146 points
  7.   Usernameunique (submissions) with 145 points
  8.   HaEr48 (submissions) with 74 points

All those who reached the final will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field. Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

We have opened a scoring discussion on whether the rules and scoring need adjustment. Please have your say. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2020 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth 14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Regarding Hinault: Why would you source an easily verifiable statement

edit

The reason I made that edit atop Hinault's page is as follows.

  1. 1 He wore the leaders jersey in every Grand Tour he ever entered
  1. 2 I was unable to find any other time trial/prologue specialist or Grand Tour winning rider, including Bartali, Coppi, Anquetil, Binda, Merckx, Bobet, Thevenet, Gimondi, Visentini, Fignon, Indurain, Delgado, (armstrong), Zoetemelk, Heras, Contador, Nibali, Froome etc.... Who did wear the Leaders Jersey in every grand tour they ever entered
  1. 3 if Bernard Hinault is the only rider in the entire history of the sport to do this, it is significant in the sense that it never happened before and will probably never happen again because nobody comes in and dominates the Tour/Vuelta/Giro on their first entry like Merckx, Hinault or Fignon did, not even Egan Bernal.... Of course it could happen that someone will come along and dominate every grand tour they enter, but it hasn't in 40 years.
  1. 4 how did nobody else notice this (or) is this not a big deal because who cares if Bernard Hinault had the lead after the prologue in 1984 and then got destroyed by Fignon
  1. 5 I'm just saying if only one rider in the entire history of the sport has accomplished something that nobody else.... In the entire history of the sport has ever accomplished.... It becomes significant.... He wore the leaders jersey in 13 grand tours.... More so, considering it's unlikely to happen again in the foreseeable future as the only other riders who could potentially make this claim have yet to ride a Grand Tour.
  1. 6 why/how would you source something that is very easy to look up as there are very few other riders to investigate aside from time trial specialists who could have wore yellow early in every Tour, (which Boardman, Dennis, Marie, Knetemann and Tony Martin did not) and dominant GC riders who were good enough to win every Tour, of which Hinault.... Is the only rider in the history of cycling to wear the leaders Jersey in every Grand tour he ever entered Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Raleigh80Z90Faema69: I am not saying it is not significant. But it needs a source. This is scheduled to be Featured Article of the Day in nine days(!), meaning there cannot be any unsourced statements on that article when it goes up on the Main Page. If you find a source, feel free to add the information again, but not just in the lead, the statement needs to be included in the article body as well, sourced there, then it can go into the lead without a source. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Nine days eh.... Hmmm I'll do some hunting but I have a feeling this is going to be tough to cite because.... Well who the hell would care which rider wore the leaders jersey for a day or two in a Grand Tour the most times.... It just so happens Hinault wore it in every Tour he entered and none of the other greats did because they either rode past their prime or started their career before they were dominant whereas Hinault came in on top and went out damn close to the top.... Plus this isn't the sort of thing that would really be noticed by anyone, even if it is so rare it becomes significant.... Lol I think someone from velo news or cycling weekly or bikeraceinfo or some reputable news source would have to be talked into mentioning it in a future article in order to have a valid source for it, but will do, I'll look around and see if I can find any source that may have mentioned it Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Raleigh80Z90Faema69: Would be great if you can find one. I tried but couldn't... But in the end, I think the information is not really vital. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

True.... I stumbled across it by accident when I noticed he won the prologue in 84... I was like wait a minute he wore yellow in 80 & 86 did he wear yellow in every tour??? Which then lead to every grand tour... Which then lead to has anyone else ever done this?? I looked briefly for a citation but not in depth... It's just one of those intriguing statistical quirks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talkcontribs) 17:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

other riders who did this:
And that is why you source such statements, and don't just assume that it is a unique achievement because you could not find a counterexample. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 18:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply


I mentioned this over on my talk page... That there might have been some ppl very early in cycling history who did this back in the 1910s or 1920s... Or only rode in one Tour and either won the Tour outright or lead it for a day or two.... That's awesome you investigated it, though I couldn't check that Rossi guy cuz the link goes to pages for 2 catholic Bishop's and a painter.... Those examples are kind of like the punter in the NFL who threw 4 fake punt passes and completed them all for touchdowns.... Sure he has a perfect rating of 158.3 but he's definitely not counted in the highest rating of all time category..... Pretty cool though... Hinault really is the only elite rider to pull this off Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Oh.... While looking around I did not find any cite for this... But I did find some nutcase website that as of 2016 has Lance Armstrong as 3rd on their list of yellow jerseys with 83, which obviously I ignored everything else in that article.... And then found a really cool article from Forbes about how the Tour de France can make your workplace better every July.... In any case it was worth at least taking a look into... But as you say, it's not all that vital.... Plus if it was actually significant it would've been mentioned/noticed years ago Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Anyway, you added a false statement to the article. You should fix your mistake, and learn to give sources for additions. It is good that you want to add things to articles, but you (unintentially) add false things. This can be improved by giving sources, and if you can't find sources: don't add it! EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
And to fix my own mistake: I meant Giovanni Rossi. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 20:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

In fairness to me I've only added false things while editing Tour de France/cycling articles... In fairness to you I've done it multiple times if you count George Hincapie, Desire Letort, the 1979 tour de France and multiple others ... Of course it's unintentional and I think it's accurate at the time but it's like wtf... How can the Race Overview for the 1976 Giro only include that someone got killed on the first stage.... Someone has to write something, so I interpret the numbers from each stage from bikeraceinfo and type what most likely happened....

But will do... It does suck when you post something like it's Jan Raas with Zoetemelk at the finish line of the 1980 Tour and then 2 months later you realize Raas actually abandoned on Stage 11 Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Raleigh80Z90Faema69 and EdgeNavidad: I think we don't need so much harshness on my talk page. I take Raleigh80Z90Faema69's edit as good faith, but reverted them because of a lacking source. It led to some interesting insights for me. I am sure Raleigh80Z90Faema69 is going to be more careful with adding information on pages in the future! Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
For the record: for me, Raleigh80Z90Faema69's comments here were not harsh. If my comments were harsh, I apologize, and blame it on the fact that I edited on my phone. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 07:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have the same problem... I think every edit I've ever made has been on my phone.... But I'm curious about this upcoming Hinault article.... I scrolled ahead and read his preview and while it's not really a big deal there was something I noticed that I think should be changed, even if again it's not really a big deal because it is pretty much true.....

But regarding Hinault's primary rivals.... In reality he only went head to head with Fignon one time which was in 1984... And he only went head to head with LeMond one time in 1986 (although the argument can be made that they went head to head both zero times and two times) but in reality he went head to head with Zoetemelk 3 years in a row as though they were the only 2 riders in the entire race and everybody else fought for 3rd place.... In 1978 it came down to Hinault winning on the final ITT, in 1979 the two of them fought on the Champs Elysees and finished 26+ minutes ahead of everybody else excluding the nonsense 10 minute penalty most likely assessed for attacking in Paris..... Then again in 1980 it was really a battle between just the 2 of them and i'd be willing to bet that had Zoetemelk crashed out on stage 7-8 or 9 that Hinault would have pushed through the injury and handily beaten Kuiper and Martin..... Then yet again completely by accident in 1982 Zoetemelk ended up being his only competition even though he admitted that he had no intention of challenging Hinault it was technically the 4th time the Tour came down to Zoetemelk or Hinault with Hinault obviously winning three of the four.... In any case nbd, but the argument could be made that Zoetemelk challenged Hinault more than LeMond and Fignon combined Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Raleigh80Z90Faema69: I actually thought about that yesterday as well. Will try to find another way to phrase it later. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Zwerg Nase:

Will do! Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Raleigh80Z90Faema69: I've made an edit to that effect. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's a good intro! I learned about a LBL being raced in a snowstorm because of it.... Lolol with only 21 guys finishing the race!!! Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

TFA

edit

Thank you today for Bernard Hinault, "five-time winner of the Tour de France and one of the most prolific athletes in the history of his discipline"! - Sorry about not reviewing, I meant to but ... - I have a FAC open (but admittedly am still writing). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you for your kind words :) I'll try to have a look at the FAC later! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

edit
 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

edit

Twists of fate

edit

Lukas, you might be interested in this story about the Reimann heirs, headlined "Wealthy German family gives millions to Holocaust survivors." – Sca (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Sca: Oh wow, I wasn't even aware that those chains belonged to a German family. Pret A Manger does not even exist here... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
I don't even know what Pret A Manger is. But the world belongs to Krispy Kreme, unfortunately. Yucchh.
Oddly enough, I haven't seen this story anywhere else. You'd think the German media would have jumped on it. Vielleicht zu kompliziert? Ha. – Sca (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Sca: My guess would be that it is not that interesting in Germany, considering that those chains do not operate over here. I only know Pret a Manger from my latest trip to London... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

edit

Welcome to the 2020 WikiCup!

edit

Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Weihnachtsgrüße................................................................................................................

edit
 
Viggo Johansen: Happy Christmas (1891)


X
Merry Christmas & Happy New Year
X
Frohe Weihnachten und
alles Gute zum neuen Jahr!
Wesołych Świąt i
Szczęśliwego nowego roku!
Linksmų Kalėdų ir
laimingų Naujųjų Metų!


sca

Sca (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Sca: Thank you very much, I hope you had a lovely Christmas! Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately, today I'm suffering from a severe case of Trumpregierungsschlamasselschmerz. Leider gibts offensichtlich keine Heilung dafür. – Sca (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

DW fracas

edit

You might be interested in this Guardian piece. – Sca (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

ITN recognition for Hans Tilkowski

edit

On 6 January 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Hans Tilkowski, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Precious anniversary

edit
Precious
 
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

edit

Fat Thursday

edit

Happy Schmotzige Dunnschdig or Schmutzige Donnerstag or whatever it is. – Sca (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Sca: I don't follow...? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Apparently there are different ways to spell it in various dialects, depending on where you live. – Sca (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Sca: To be honest, I had never heard of that day before in my life before you left this message :D Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Unvorstrellbar. Wohnst du in einer Höhle? – Sca (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Sca: In terms of carneval, yes. I come from Nordhessen and then moved to Berlin, both areas where carneval is not a thing. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Aha, norddeutsche Nüchternheit. Years ago we hosted an exchange student from Marburg (an der Lahn) – a delightful town, BTW.
We're still in touch with him, tho he's in his early 50s and his parents, who still live in the same house in Marburg, are in their 80s. Delightful people. – Sca (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Sca: I love Marburg, one of the most beautiful cities in Germany! Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes, and one of the larger German cities that wasn't incinerated by often disproportionate Allied bombing in WWII. – Sca (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

PS: Here's some lowbrow Fasnacht entertainment for you. – Sca (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2020 March newsletter

edit

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

  •   Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
  •   Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
  •   Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
  •   Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
  •   CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.
  • The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included   L293D,   Kingsif,   Enwebb,   Lee Vilenski and   CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. 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.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

edit

WikiCup newsletter correction

edit

There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter;   L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead,   Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

ITN recognition for Nicolas Portal

edit

On 4 March 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Nicolas Portal, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 20:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 1998 Tour de France

edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1998 Tour de France 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 1998 Tour de France

edit

The article 1998 Tour de France 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:1998 Tour de France for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 1998 Tour de France

edit

The article 1998 Tour de France you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:1998 Tour de France 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

edit
edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1990 Tour de France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pau (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

1998 Tour latest

edit

Hi Zwerg, hope all is well. Great stuff with the GAR. What's next with the article? I reckon it's more than ready for FAC, especially with that amazing review. BaldBoris 20:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC) Oh yeah, I take it I'm okay to add it to my "recognised work"? Haven't forgotten those long summer nights... BaldBoris 20:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@BaldBoris: Absolutely, please do! Your work in finding those newspaper sources in particular is invaluable! I think I will nominate it for FA shortly. Do you think there is more left to do than adding alt descriptions to the images? Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for the delayed response. I've just been reading Talk:Remco Evenepoel#Merckx comparison ;)... I think I'll nom 2019 as it's a good example to follow and has already had a thorough GA. It's funny because the 1962 and 1989 GARs were both also done by the same person this time last year. What do think about putting them up as FACs together again? BaldBoris 17:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
To be clear, I meant nominated them together but separately. I think that's fine isn't it? BaldBoris 14:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
@BaldBoris: Yes, why not :) I'd nominate later today? Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'm ready when you are! BaldBoris 17:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Who would you say is the publisher of Sportschau, ARD or WDR? BaldBoris 18:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
@BaldBoris: I've nominated for FA :) Feel free to follow suit! As for Sportschau, WDR would be my choice, they are definitely the ones responsible for the website. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
@BaldBoris: Also, I am currently working on the 1990 article. I have trouble finding sources for the pre-race favourites though. Obviously there are plenty of sources discussing LeMond and Fignon before the race started, but I have so far failed to find an article which just lists a couple of names. The books by Abt and Nicholson also never clearly state favourites, they only discuss some riders in detail, but never actually use the term or explicitly state that they are expected to feature high on GC. Maybe you have more luck than I do? I am hoping to find a little more time to edit than I did in the last couple of months, where I have been pretty inactive apart from some minor edits and some ITN stuff (like Nicolas Portal, may he rest in peace). Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Unlike other Tours from that era I haven't got any CW mags on 1990. I've dug out the UK Winning guide, which should suffice for the favourites, and for the rest I have Tour 90, The Cycling Year 90 and the The Incredible Comeback by Abt. So I'll be able to help out if you want? Good job on Portal. I feel his death has gone under the radar for some reason, well, apart from the obvious. BaldBoris 17:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
@BaldBoris: It would be great if you could chip in a bit :) Home office allows me to get ahead a little bit at the moment ;) Stay healthy! Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
I will if needs be, but you're the main guy and I should let you led, especially as I'm doing 2019. You've got your 'baby', and I've got mine... I just converted the points scale table to prose in 2019, as I've now realised it's not really of importance, not enough over a nice photo. I also explained the mountains further and saw that 1998 goes against "Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure" at MOS:NUMNOTES. I'll let you sort it before it comes up in the FAC. BaldBoris 11:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
@BaldBoris: Oh, thanks for the info! Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Any reason you couldn't wait, and nominated '90? I take by you removing the sources you don't want them used... BaldBoris 17:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
@BaldBoris: I nominated because I thought it was ready. But there is no reason why you cannot still add information with the sources you have added. I only wanted to tidy it up until these sources are used. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Right. I wasn't aware of the nom when I began and then added them (it took a while...), which is exactly what you seem to do. I don't intend to do as much work as I did with 98', just use what I've got to help improve it. BTW, {{refbegin}} is used with long lists as an alternative to the much worse column styling. BaldBoris 18:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
@BaldBoris: Is there any way to use {{refbegin}} without it changing the font? Or does that just happen on my computer? It looks really weird... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Well it should look the same as the text within {{reflist}}, 90% smaller than the default. So does that look "weird" too? Assuming your operating system is common and up-to-date it shouldn't be. The list currently may not be long enough to require it so lets leave it. I just use to stop someone putting them in to columns, although matching the other reference text is easier on the eye. There doesn't seem to be a consensus on when it should be used. It's recommended at Help:Shortened footnotes, Help:Explanatory notes and Help:References and page numbers. BaldBoris 11:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
@BaldBoris: Well then, we should use it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 1990 Tour de France

edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1990 Tour de France 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 09:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 1990 Tour de France

edit

The article 1990 Tour de France 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:1990 Tour de France for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 1990 Tour de France

edit

The article 1990 Tour de France you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:1990 Tour de France 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

edit

WikiCup 2020 May newsletter

edit

The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

  •   Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
  •   Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
  •   The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews
  •   Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
  •   Lee Vilenski with 869 points,   Hog Farm with 801,   Kingsif with 719,   SounderBruce with 710,   Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and   MX with 515.

The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Catch up

edit

Hope all is good. Just catching up to ask if you've seen the awaiting comments in the 1998 FAC. I know you included me in the nom, but I'd feel uncomfortable do it at the same time as 2019. I would get them sorted ASAP as you might be stopping others from adding theirs, possibly contributing to it not passing. If there's anything that you can't do because I added it then let just me let know here and I'll step in, or whatever is best. BaldBoris 17:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@BaldBoris: Yeah, I have not gotten around to them yet, but I'll do so tomorrow! Thanks for keeping an eye on things :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Invite to Join WikiProject for Spoken Wikipedia

edit
  Hi Zwerg Nase! I am Galendalia and I have revived the WikiProject for Spoken Wikipedia. I noticed that you signed up at some point to be a participant and as I am reviving this project, one of my tasks is to get the participant list in order. Would you please go to the Participants List and add your name and language(s) you speak? If you are already there and do not want to be, please move yourself to the inactive list at the bottom of the page. If you want to remain, please put remain next to your name (this way you are not moved). If I do not see anything from you by May 30, 2020, I will move you to the inactive participant list. It would also be great if you would be willing to join the task force for Pronunciation that would be awesome, as there are troublesome words we run into.

Thank you for considering joining us. If you decide to leave, I will be sad   to see you leave as so many people have done a great job on the recordings and any work you have done makes a significant difference.
Galendalia (talk · contribs) (sent via Mass Message. This is a message that is one time, so no unsubscribe link is provided.)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia at 11:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC).Reply

Your GA nomination of 1985 Tour de France

edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1985 Tour de France 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 MonkeyStolen234 -- MonkeyStolen234 (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 1985 Tour de France

edit

The article 1985 Tour de France you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:1985 Tour de France 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 MonkeyStolen234 -- MonkeyStolen234 (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Updates to Spoken Wikipedia

edit

  Hello Zwerg Nase! I hope this message finds you well and healthy! I am working this weekend on the Spoken Wikipedia project pages to get them in line with other projects. I just wanted to inform you in advance that some pages may be created. deleted, moved, or otherwise. If you have any questions, please feel free to post them on my talk page.
Thanks, Galendalia (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC) WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia CoordinatorReply

edit

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Evgeni Berzin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Doping
Russian National Time Trial Championships (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Vladimir Gusev

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of Evgeni Berzin

edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Evgeni Berzin 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of Evgeni Berzin

edit

The article Evgeni Berzin 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:Evgeni Berzin for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of Evgeni Berzin

edit

The article Evgeni Berzin you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Evgeni Berzin 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 MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

edit

Jacobite Succession

edit

Apologies for not responding to your GAN review. For some reason I took it off my watchlist and I lost track. I will tackle your comments - but obviously no obligation on you to do anything with that. Thanks again for spending the time on it. DeCausa (talk) 08:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@DeCausa: No problem! Feel free to enter it as GA candidate again. I'll see if I find the time to pick up the nomination again. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

A Dobos torte for you!

edit
  7&6=thirteen () has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen () 18:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
You're welcome. I hear it is virtually enjoyable! 7&6=thirteen () 19:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2020 July newsletter

edit

The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

  •   Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
  •   The Rambling Man , with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
  •   Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.

Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally,   MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

German empire

edit

Greetings, I just wanted to inform you the territories I displayed were actually conquered by Germany after the Russian empire collapsed, thus it makes it appropriate for the page. Thank you for reading WilhelmsCamel (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@WilhelmsCamel: Which can easily be added further down the article when WW1 is dealt with. The infobox should show the borders of the actual state. The territories were never officially annexed and therefore do not constitute a part of the German Empire at any given time. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

There’s a similar map of the French empire showing its client states as well. The German empire sent military forces into these territories and secured them. Since historical nations are often displayed in their height, it seems appropriate to use my map for the German Empire WilhelmsCamel (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Happy...

edit
  Hey, Zwerg Nase. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
CommanderWaterford (talk) 06:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
 
@CommanderWaterford: Thank you very much! Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Happy First Edit Day!

edit
@CAPTAIN RAJU: Thank you!! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm being attacked by editor Kevin mce is there anything i can do???

edit

The editor KevinMce is going through all of my contributions and deleting all of them is there anything I can do about this? Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Raleigh80Z90Faema69: The best course of action is to discuss the matter directly with Kevin McE first. He seems to make some fair points, which I have pointed out to you in the past as well, concerning your writing style. It also does not appear like he is erasing everything, but taking out bits that are not written in an encyclopedic way. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

He went through my page and erased pretty much every edit I made in the past two months.... Edits that are valid contributions, that are relevant and either are cited directly, or are cited in the links to other articles I'm mentioning and it seems to be a very petty thing to do to go seek vengeance because he's mad about something. Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

And I understand what you're saying Zwerg.... If there's something that is questionable or is not relevant to the topic being discussed in the article then ok.... Sometimes mistakes get made but to just go delete the biography of Georg Totschnig when there was nothing there before or to mention how Davis Phinney was the only American to ever come close to the Green Jersey or to erase all of the career placing's of Henry Anglade these are all relevant things that I had to research and work hard on and he's just going through every contribution and deleting them.... All because he's mad about something and wants revenge it's like the mindset of an irresponsible twelve year old Raleigh80Z90Faema69 (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

thank you

edit

dear Zwerg Nase, i was visiting the project germany talk page and was lead to "Commons:Deletion requests/File:NSDAP Barnstar.png". I came to the battleground post festum, and i was glad so read your contribution and the final delete decision. I think few Americans know about the western European laws against nazi propaganda. Is it known in the U.S. that Gary Lauck (better see german wikipedia) was sentenced to 4 years in germany, and do the people who know it also know about the philosophy of these laws? I suppose You have a hard piece of work to explain it. Thank You.--Himbeerbläuling (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2020 September newsletter

edit

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

  •   Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
  •  HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
  •   Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.

Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Happy Birthday!

edit
 
Wishing Zwerg Nase a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Chris troutman: Thank you! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Happy Birthday!

edit
@CAPTAIN RAJU: Thank you kindly! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 1986 Tour de France

edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1986 Tour de France 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 HawkAussie -- HawkAussie (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

A barnstar for you!

edit
  The Writer's Barnstar
Congratulations on having 1982 Formula One World Championship promoted to Featured article status! And thank you for the work!
SSSB (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@SSSB: Thank you kindly! It was a long road, but it the end it was worth it :) Might be done with F1 articles for a while though... Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2020 November newsletter

edit

The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is   Lee Vilenski (submissions), the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by   Gog the Mild (submissions). In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points.   The Rambling Man (submissions) was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with   Epicgenius (submissions) close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.

The other finalists were   Hog Farm (submissions),   HaEr48 (submissions),   Harrias (submissions) and   Bloom6132 (submissions). The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!

edit
 

Greetings,

Thank you very much for participating in the Months of African Cinema global contest/edit-a-thon, and thank you for your contributions so far.

It is already the middle of the contest and a lot have been achieved already! We have been able to get over 1,500 articles created in over fifteen (15) languages! This would not have been possible without your support and we want to thank you. If you have not yet listed your name as a participant in the contest page please do so.

Please make sure to list the articles you have created or improved in the article achievements' section of the contest page, so that they can be easily tracked. To be able to claim prizes, please also ensure to list your articles on the users by articles page. We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

  • Overall winner
    • 1st - $500
    • 2nd - $200
    • 3rd - $100
  • Diversity winner - $100
  • Gender-gap filler - $100
  • Language Winners - up to $100*

We are very excited about what has been achieved so far, but your contributions are still needed to further exceed all expectations! Let’s create more articles before the end of this contest, which is this November!!!

Thank you once again for being part of this global event! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 10:30, 06 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

1982 Formula One World Championship

edit

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 13, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 13, 2020. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

edit
 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

You've got mail

edit
 
Hello, Zwerg Nase. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. BunbunYU (talk) 07:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
edit

Hi Zwerg. I use this page to keep track of character count; it has to be between 925 and 1025, including the "Full article" bit. Edits and comments are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 18:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Dank: Hey! Thanks, and sorry. But I still need to rephrase it, this blurb makes absolutely no sense... Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for 1982 Formula One World Championship, "about the 36th running of the Formula One World Championship during the 1982 season!" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Gerda Arendt: Thank you for always acknowledging the work of Wikipedians. You are awesome! <3 It's my fourth TFA, let's hope there are many more to come! Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!

edit

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 1986 Tour de France

edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1986 Tour de France 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 Stedil -- Stedil (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Precious anniversary

edit
Precious
 
Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Catch-up

edit

Hi Zwerg, hope things are going okay for you! Just letting know that I'm super busy at the moment, but I promise to get on the '71 GA. I'll get out books ready for the overview :) BaldBoris 23:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@BaldBoris: No worries, as you see I am far too slow as well. I guess you saw my ping on the 1986 GA review? Just wanted to let you know that something funky seems to be going on with ProCyclingStats... Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
How do you mean? I've never felt 100% trustful with them but it's seen as the best on here for current stats... BaldBoris 16:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 1986 Tour de France

edit

The article 1986 Tour de France 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:1986 Tour de France for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Stedil -- Stedil (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2021 March newsletter

edit

Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

  •   Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
  •   Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
  •   ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
  •   Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
  •   Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
  •   The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
  •   Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
  •   Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
  •   Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
  •   Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or something else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Promotion of 1985 Tour de France

edit
Congratulations, Zwerg Nase! The article you nominated, 1985 Tour de France, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2021 May newsletter

edit

The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in Round 2 were:

  •   The Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
  •   Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
  •   Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
  •   Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
  •   Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
  •   Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
  •   Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.
  •   Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.

Please remember that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of Round 2 but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in Round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 1986 Tour de France

edit

The article 1986 Tour de France you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:1986 Tour de France for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Stedil -- Stedil (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021

edit
Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
 
July 2021 Backlog Drive:
  • This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.

Click here to opt out of any future messages.

--Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2021 July newsletter

edit

The third round of the 2021 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 294 points, and our top six scorers all had over 600 points. They were:

  •   The Rambling Man, with 1825 points from 3 featured articles, 44 featured article reviews, 14 good articles, 30 good article reviews and 10 DYKs. In addition, he completed a 34-article good topic on the EFL Championship play-offs.
  •   Epicgenius, a New York specialist, with 1083 points from 2 featured article reviews, 18 good articles, 30 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
  •   Bloom6132, with 869 points from 11 DYKs, all with bonus points, and 54 "In the news" items, mostly covering people who had recently died.
  •   Gog the Mild, with 817 points from 3 featured articles on historic battles in Europe, 5 featured article reviews and 3 good articles.
  •   Hog Farm, with 659 points from 2 featured articles and 2 good articles on American Civil War battles, 18 featured article reviews, 2 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 4 DYKs.
  •   BennyOnTheLoose, a snooker specialist and new to the Cup, with 647 points from a featured article, 2 featured article reviews, 6 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 3 DYKs.

In round three, contestants achieved 19 featured articles, 7 featured lists, 106 featured article reviews, 72 good articles, 1 good topic, 62 good article reviews, 165 DYKs and 96 ITN items. We enter the fourth round with scores reset to zero; any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (one contestant in round 3 lost out because of this). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

edit
 

Hello Zwerg Nase:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1300 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.Reply

Happy First Edit Day!

edit

Mentoring

edit

Hello, I'm hoping to publish an article and am interested in being taken on as a mentee or adoptee. Are you adopting this year? Thanks! Nellas Galadhon (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Nellas Galadhon: Sorry for getting back to you so late. I am currently quite busy with the election campaign over here in Germany, so I am afraid I won't really be free until October... Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Zwerg Nase: Ok thanks and good luck with the election. I found someone in the meantime.

WikiCup 2021 September newsletter

edit

The fourth round of the competition has finished with over 500 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants,   The Rambling Man and   Epicgenius, each scoring over 3000 points, and six contestants scoring over 1000. All but one of the finalists achieved one or more FAs during the round, the exception being   Bloom6132 who demonstrated that 61 "in the news" items produces an impressive number of points. Other contestants who made it to the final are   Gog the Mild,   Lee Vilenski,   BennyOnTheLoose,   Amakuru and   Hog Farm. However, all their points are now swept away and everyone starts afresh in the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 18 featured articles and 157 good articles.   Bilorv scored for a 25-article good topic on Black Mirror but narrowly missed out on qualifying for the final round. There was enthusiasm for FARs, with 89 being performed, and there were 63 GARs and around 100 DYKs during the round. As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it to the final round; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For other contestants, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Happy Birthday!

edit
@CAPTAIN RAJU: Thank you!! Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2021 November newsletter

edit

The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is   The Rambling Man (submissions), who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:

  1.   The Rambling Man (submissions) with 5072 points
  2.   Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 3276 points
  3.   Amakuru (submissions) with 3197 points
  4.   Epicgenius (submissions) with 1611 points
  5.   Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1571 points
  6.   BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 1420 points
  7.   Hog Farm (submissions) with 1043 points
  8.   Bloom6132 (submissions) with 528 points

All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2022 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!

edit
 

Greetings,

It is already past the middle of the contest and we are really excited about the Months of African Contest 2021 achievements so far! We want to extend our sincere gratitude for the time and energy you have invested. If you have not yet participated in the contest, it is not too late to do it. Please list your username as a participant on the contest’s main page.

Please remember to list the articles you have improved or created on the article achievements' section of the contest page so they can be tracked. In order to win prizes, be sure to also list your article in the users by articles. Please note that your articles must be present in both the article achievement section on the main contest page, as well as on the Users By Articles page for you to qualify for a prize.

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

  • Overall winner
    • 1st - $500
    • 2nd - $200
    • 3rd - $100
  • Diversity winner - $100
  • Gender-gap filler - $100
  • Language Winners - up to $100*

Thank you once again for your valued participation! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

edit
 Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022

edit
Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
 
January 2022 Backlog Drive:
  • On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.

Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages.

--Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).Reply

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!

edit

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!

edit

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Precious anniversary

edit
Precious
 
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

WP:AFC Helper News

edit

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

  • AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
  • The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2022 May newsletter

edit

The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

  1.   Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
  2.   AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
  3.   Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
  4.   Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
  5.   Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
  6.   Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
  7.   Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.

The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter

edit

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

  •   Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
  •   AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
  •   Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
  •   GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
  •   Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
  •   SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
  •   Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. 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 Needed.

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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter

edit

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

  •   Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
  •   AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
  •   Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
  •   GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
  •   Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
  •   SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
  •   Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. 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 Needed.

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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

edit
Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive
 
  • On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives.
Click here to opt out of any future messages.

(t · c) buidhe 04:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2022 July newsletter

edit

The third round of the 2022 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 180 points, which is a lower figure than last year when 294 points were needed to progress to round 4. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

  •   BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.
  •   Bloom6132, with 683 points, garnered mostly from "In the news" items and related DYKs.
  •   Sammi Brie, with 527, from a variety of submissions related to radio and television stations.

Between them contestants achieved 5 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 51 good articles, 149 DYK entries, 68 ITN entries, and 109 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article nomination, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. WikiCup judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ninth anniversary on Wikipedia

edit
  Hey, Zwerg Nase. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
Chris Troutman (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
 

WikiCup 2022 September newsletter

edit

The fourth round of the WikiCup has now finished. 383 points were required to reach the final, and the new round has got off to a flying start with all finalists already scoring. In round 4, Bloom6132 with 939 points was the highest points-scorer, with a combination of DYKs and In the news items, followed by BennyOnTheLoose, Sammi Brie and Lee Vilenski. The points of all contestants are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

At this stage, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For the remaining competitors, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and importantly, before the deadline on October 31st!

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. The judges are Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Happy Birthday!

edit
 
Wishing Zwerg Nase a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee!   Chris Troutman (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Adopt

edit

Hi! I am Wikiwow1102 and i joined less than a month ago and i am wondering if you are interested in adopting me. Wikiwow:) Wikiwow:) (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2022 November newsletter

edit

The 2022 WikiCup has drawn to a close with the final round going down to the wire. The 2022 champion is

  •   Lee Vilenski (1752 points), who won in 2020 and was runner up in both 2019 and last year. In the final round he achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on cue sports. He was closely followed by
  •   Bloom6132 (1732), who specialised in "In the news" items and DYKs, and who has reached the final round of the Cup for the past three years. Next was
  •   BennyOnTheLoose (1238), another cue sports enthusiast, also interested in songs, followed by
  •   Muboshgu (1082), an "In the news" contributor, a seasoned contestant who first took part in the Cup ten years ago. Other finalists were
  •   Sammi Brie (930), who scored with a featured article, good articles and DYKs on TV and radio stations,
  •   Kavyansh.Singh (370), who created various articles on famous Americans, including an FA on Louis H. Bean, famed for his prediction of election outcomes. Next was
  •   PCN02WPS (292), who scored with good articles and DYKs on sporting and other topics and
  •   Z1720 (25) who had DYKs on various topics including historic Canadians.

During the WikiCup, contestants achieved 37 featured articles, 349 good articles, 360 featured article reviews, 683 good article reviews and 480 In the news items, so Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors. Well done everyone! All those who reached the final round will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or the overall leader in this field.

  •   Lee Vilenski wins the featured article prize, for a total of 6 FAs during the course of the competition and 3 in the final round.
  •   Kavyansh.Singh wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 2.
  •   Adam Cuerden wins the featured picture prize, for 39 FPs during the competition.
  •   Z1720 wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 35 FARs in round 4.
  •   Epicgenius wins the good article prize, for 32 GAs in round 1.
  •   SounderBruce wins the featured topic prize, for 4 FT articles in round 1.
  •   Lee Vilenski wins the good topic prize, for 34 GT articles in round 5.
  •   Sammi Brie wins the good article reviewer prize, for 71 GARs overall.
  •   Sammi Brie wins the Did you know prize, for 30 DYKs in round 3 and 106 overall.
  •   Bloom6132 wins the In the news prize, for 106 ITNs in round 5 and 289 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January and possible changes to the rules and scoring are being discussed on the discussion page. You are invited to sign up to take part in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to have a good turnout for the 2023 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners and finalists, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

edit

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Pantani

edit

I think the question we need answers to is; did he leave of his own accord or did the race organisers ‘kick’ him out. This article shows he was kicked. [13] Therefore saying he was disqualified is more correct then he did not finish. Yes you are correct it wasn’t against the rules but the race organisers still disqualified him from competing. 16:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC) Paulpat99 (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Paulpat99: Maybe "excluded" is the right term to use. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to the 2023 WikiCup!

edit

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2023 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Precious anniversary

edit
Precious
 
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2023 March newsletter

edit

So ends the first round of the 2023 WikiCup. Everyone with a positive score moved on to Round 2, with 54 contestants qualifying. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

  •   Unlimitedlead with 1205 points, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with two featured articles on historical figures and several featured article candidate reviews.
  •   Epicgenius was in second place with 789 points; a seasoned WikiCup competitor he specialises in buildings and locations in New York.
  •   FrB.TG was in third place with 625 points, garnered from a featured article on a filmmaker which qualified for an impressive number of bonus points.
  •   TheJoebro64, another WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points gained from two featured articles on video games.
  •   Iazyges was in fifth place with 532 points, from two featured articles on classical history.

The top sixteen contestants at the end of Round 1 had all scored over 300 points; these included   LunaEatsTuna,   Thebiguglyalien,   Sammi Brie,   Trainsandotherthings,   Lee Vilenski,   Juxlos,   Unexpectedlydian,   SounderBruce,   Kosack,   BennyOnTheLoose and   PCN02WPS. It was a high-scoring start to the competition.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. The first round finished on February 26. Remember that any content promoted after that date but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. 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 Needed.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

1985 Tour de France

edit

1985 Tour de France This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 28 June 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/June 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2023 May newsletter

edit

The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:

Other notable performances were put in by   Sammi Brie,   Thebiguglyalien,   MyCatIsAChonk,   PCN02WPS, and   AirshipJungleman29.

So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

TFA

edit
June songs
 
my story today

Thank you today for 1985 Tour de France, "about the 72nd running of the Tour de France, the most prestigious cycle race in the world"! - I summarised my latest vacation in images (click on songs), and my recent musical adventures can be found here. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2023 July newsletter

edit

The third round of the 2023 WikiCup has come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 175 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

Contestants achieved 11 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 47 good articles, 72 featured or good article reviews, over 100 DYKs and 40 ITN appearances. As always, any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of Operation Aderlass

edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Aderlass 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Mujinga -- Mujinga (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of Operation Aderlass

edit

The article Operation Aderlass 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:Operation Aderlass and Talk:Operation Aderlass/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mujinga -- Mujinga (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of Operation Aderlass

edit

The article Operation Aderlass you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Operation Aderlass for comments about the article, and Talk:Operation Aderlass/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mujinga -- Mujinga (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 1971 Tour de France

edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1971 Tour de France 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 1971 Tour de France

edit

The article 1971 Tour de France 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:1971 Tour de France and Talk:1971 Tour de France/GA2 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

August 2023 Good Article Nominations Backlog Drive reminder

edit

The August 2023 Good Article Nominations Backlog Drive is at the halfway mark, and has seen incredible progress, dropping the backlog from 638 to 359 unreviewed articles -- a 43.7% reduction in only fifteen days! But we still have over two weeks to go, and there are plenty of articles left to review:

  • We've gone from 14 nominations 270+ days old and 65 nominations 180+ days old to 2 and 0 respectively. No more articles will reach 270+ status during the drive, and only three more will reach 180+ if unreviewed, so this is your last chance to get the higher age bonuses!
  • We still have plenty of articles in the 90+ range, but the list is shrinking fast.
  • Some articles need new reviewers, either because they're officially on second opinion or because the original reviews were deleted or invalidated. You can help prevent these articles from waiting longer!
  • While there are starting to be clear favourites for the Content Review Medal of Merit, the field is still very open. A late entrant can still pull an upset to get the most reviews in the drive!

And remember: if you've done reviews, you should log them at the backlog drive page for points, so they can be tracked towards your awards at the end.

Thanks for signing up for the drive, and I hope to see you reviewing! Vaticidalprophet 02:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

You have received this message as a participant in the August 2023 Good Article Nominations Backlog Drive who has logged one or no reviews. This is a one-off massmessage. If you wish to opt out of all massmessages, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michel Hessmann, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doping.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Your GA nomination of 1971 Tour de France

edit

The article 1971 Tour de France you nominated as a good article has failed  ; see Talk:1971 Tour de France 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2023 November newsletter

edit

The WikiCup is a marathon rather than a sprint and all those reaching the final round have been involved in the competition for the last ten months, improving Wikipedia vastly during the process. After all this hard work,   BeanieFan11 has emerged as the 2023 winner and the WikiCup Champion. The finalists this year were:-

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the competition, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

  •   Unlimitedlead wins the featured article prize, for 7 FAs in total including 3 in round 2.
  •   MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in total.
  •   Lee Vilenski wins the featured topic prize, for a 6-article featured topic in round 4.
  •   MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured picture prize, for 6 FPs in total.
  •   BeanieFan11 wins the good article prize, for 75 GAs in total, including 61 in the final round.
  •   Epicgenius wins the good topic prize, for a 41-article good topic in the final round.
  •   LunaEatsTuna wins the GA reviewer prize, for 70 GA reviews in round 1.
  •   MyCatIsAChonk wins the FA reviewer prize, for 66 FA reviews in the final round.
  •   Epicgenius wins the DYK prize, for 49 did you know articles in total.
  •   Muboshgu wins the ITN prize, for 46 in the news articles in total.

The WikiCup has run every year since 2007. With the 2023 contest now concluded, I will be standing down as a judge due to real life commitments, so I hope that another editor will take over running the competition. Please get in touch if you are interested. Next year's competition will hopefully begin on 1 January 2024. You are invited to sign up to participate in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors. It only remains to congratulate our worthy winners once again and thank all participants for their involvement! (If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.) Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

edit

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to the 2024 WikiCup!

edit

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2024 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close on 31 January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), and Frostly (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Precious anniversary

edit
Precious
 
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2024 February newsletter

edit

The 2024 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with 135 participants. This is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2017.

Our current leader is newcomer   Generalissima (submissions), who has one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher) and 10 GAs and 12 DYKs mostly on New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

As a reminder, competitors may submit work for the first round until 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February, and the second round starts 1 March. Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round; currently, competitors need at least 15 points to progress. 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 (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2024 March newsletter

edit

The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.

The following scorers in Round 1 all scored more than 300 points:

In this newsletter, the judges would like to pay a special tribute to   Vami_IV (submissions), who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five A-class articles, eight other good articles, and two Four Awards. Vami also wrote an essay on completionism, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his to-do list.

Remember that any content promoted after 27 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. 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 Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2024 April newsletter

edit

We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. 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. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2024 May newsletter

edit

The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.

The following scorers in Round 2 all scored more than 500 points:

The full scores for Round 2 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 in the news credits and at least 200 did you know credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. 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 Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2024 July newsletter

edit

The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.

The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Happy First Edit Day!

edit

WikiCup 2024 August newsletter

edit

The fourth round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 29 August. Each of the 8 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 472 points, and the following contestants scored more than 700 points:

Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated. Contestants put in extraordinary amounts of effort during this round, and their scores can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 36 featured articles, 55 featured lists, 15 good articles, 93 in the news credits, and at least 333 did you know credits. They have conducted 357 featured content reviews, as well as 553 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 30 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed during Round 5, which starts on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Remember to claim your points within 14 days of earning them, and importantly, before the deadline on 31 October.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

WikiCup 2024 November newsletter

edit

The 2024 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round being a very tight race. Our new champion is   AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who scored 2,283 points mainly through 3 high-multiplier FAs and 3 GAs on military history topics. By a 1% margin, Airship beat out last year's champion,   BeanieFan11 (submissions), who scored second with 2,264 points, mainly from an impressive 58 GAs about athletes. In third place,   Generalissima (submissions) scored 1,528 points, primarily from two FAs on U.S. Librarians of Congress and 20 GAs about various historical topics. Our other finalists are:   Sammi Brie (submissions) with 879 points,   Hey man im josh (submissions) with 533 points,   BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 432 points,   Arconning (submissions) with 244 points, and   AryKun (submissions) with 15 points. Congratulations to our finalists and all who participated!

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 7 FAs, 9 FLs, 94 GAs, 73 FAC reviews, and 79 GAN reviews and peer reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2025 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

ITN recognition for Jamshid Sharmahd

edit

On 2 November 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Jamshid Sharmahd, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 04:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply