User talk:Damien Linnane/Archive 4

Welcome back!
I hope  you are well. Your work here is important and you do it better than anyone else.Paul, in Saudi (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Paul, I am doing well. It's very good to be back, and also to be appreciated. :) Freikorp (talk)

Hello? Ryan Pikachu (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!
Thanks. =D Freikorp (talk) 11:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ... and on the article reaching featured status. (Note that the barnstar comes in shades of purple.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha I got a good kick out of your observations of the barnstar's colour. :) Freikorp (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Dark Angel (TV Series)
Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Dark Angel (TV Series) has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: Thanks
Thank you for the barnstar.

Actually four articles, Blackrock (film), The Fifth Element, Murder of Leigh Leigh & Tank Girl (film), they're all featured articles in Chinese Wikipedia, so thank you for those wonderful writing, I also agree with "Murder of Leigh Leigh" is your masterpiece.--Jarodalien (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey thanks for letting me know that Tank Girl has been translated as well. Cheers! Freikorp (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Max Guevara
Materialscientist (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Dark Angel (video game)
Materialscientist (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Big Room
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Big Room 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 DannyMusicEditor -- DannyMusicEditor (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

4th Annual GA Cup - Round 1
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup December newsletter: WikiCup 2017
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, , and.

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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Big Room
The article The Big Room you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Big Room 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 DannyMusicEditor -- DannyMusicEditor (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
All the best festive cheer to you and all your loved ones from me, Mrs Cliftonian and the two little Cliftonians. :) A Happy New Year too. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  08:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Merry Christmas and best wishes to you and your family too. :) Freikorp (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

2014 White House fence jumper
Given your work on 2011 White House shooting and 2014 White House intrusion, I wonder if you have an opinion about the appropriateness of 2014 White House fence jumper (see this diff before the article was redirected) and/or have any interest in expanding to GA status, too. There are many more links on the article's talk page. Sorry if I've asked before -- it's been a while since working on the aforementioned articles. Best! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, I see now that you commented at Articles for deletion/2014 White House fence jumper, so you at least knew about this article before. I still think the article could be expanded and promoted, but maybe I'm facing an uphill battle. Keep up the great work here at Wikipedia. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Well to be fair I do think this incident is less notable than the other two, and considering the amount of opposition it has already faced (and is liable to face again in the future) I don't really relish the idea of starting what looks like it would be a rather difficult (and whether you like it or not, probably unsuccessful) campaign. Its not something I want to put my energy into, considering I have so many other (uncontested) things I want to work on. If I were you I wouldn't start trying unless you can find some ongoing coverage or something that will help address all the concerns that this falls under ONEVENT, otherwise I think any efforts to turn it back into a stand alone article will have the same result as the AfD. Freikorp (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
(Sorry, I know I just posted above, but I enjoy reading some of your work year-round, so just wanted to send some thanks and well wishes. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Hope you have a great holiday season as well :). Freikorp (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - Round 2
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Isabelle Eberhardt (film)
The article Isabelle Eberhardt (film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Isabelle Eberhardt (film) 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 SuperMarioMan -- SuperMarioMan (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shades of Purple
The article Shades of Purple you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Shades of Purple 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 Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

List of drug-related deaths
an autopsy report had shown that Carpenter died from overdosing on ipecac, a drug used to make her vomit, and when taken in large quantities, this is proof that it could be drug related (Unsigned comment by User:Forrest Lesak (talk) 02:14, January 7, 2017)


 * Your edits are being reverted for two reasons:
 * Firstly you keep adding Matthew Ansara to the article, when the criteria for being included on the list is that the individual be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. We are not going to accept this edit until Ansara has a Wikipedia article. If he meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, you are welcome to create his article, at which point he can be added to the list, assuming the sources used meet wikipedia's reliability guidelines.
 * Secondly you keep adding Karen carpenter to the article when you are completely aware that there is no consensus to do this. Whether or not you are correct is irrelevant; the fact is you insisting on adding contested material without making any attempts on the article's talk page to obtain consensus for it. Instead of contacting me directly, please start a conversation on the talk page at List of drug-related deaths. Freikorp (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The Day You Went Away
Are you sure The Day You Went Away was not released as a single? It appears in the discography. (NB: Pretty Boy ) Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . After quickly reverting that last night I actually decided I was going to search for sources for this again today. As those Discogs links suggest, I'm fairly sure both Pretty Boy and The Day You Went Away were released as at least a promo single somewhere, however, my extensive searching has found no reliable sources for these releases. The closest I came was finding a source that a music video was filmed for The Day You Went Away, which accordingly is what appears in the article. I can assure you the singles were definitely not released in the western world. The fact that no independent coverage of their release seems to exist originally made me think they shouldn't be mentioned at all, but perhaps I can just add that they exist citing the singles themselves using information found at Discogs and similar sources. Freikorp (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So I added to the article that The Day You Went Away was released as a a promo single in Mexico. Even though a music video for Pretty Boy is readily available on YouTube, this double Madonna/M2M promo CD seems to be the only audio release, at least currently according to Discogs, Amazon and Ebay, though interestingly enough there is currently a promo Video CD on Ebay for Pretty Boy (Warner Music Taiwan 7567929722). Do you know much about Discogs identifying codes? The single for The Day You Went Away had a barcode number which I added to the reference so that it can easily be identified. The double single for Pretty Boy does not, though I note the code 'PR 402' appears next to the title, and Discogs seems to assign it the code "[r2028851]", though I'm not sure if that's just the code to identify it in the Discogs collection. Do you think this joint promo CD is too trivial to mention in the article? If we do mention it and use it itself as a source I really think it needs an identifying code of some sort. Freikorp (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's worth mentioning that the 'News' section of M2M's official website, via the Wayback Machine, mentions nothing about these singles. Though this reliable source from the Phillipines refers to "Pretty Boy" as one of the duos "hits" (though no mention of "The Day You Went Away"). Freikorp (talk) 05:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for The Big Room
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Shades of Purple
 Schwede 66  12:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

M2M (band)
I would review the article, but at least not now since it could be bad blood if I fail the nomination or something like "You passed mine, so I will pass yours". I ran into some trouble a couple of months ago with that and I don't feel like having the same trouble again. Hopefully, you are ok with it. If nobody it picks up your nomination in a couple of months, just leave a message in my talk page.

Thank you. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No worries, I understand. I'm sorry you had that experience. I think its horrible for an editor to say something like "I passed yours now you should pass mine", so I wouldn't be like that. But as I said from the beginning, don't feel obligated to review mine. Obviously its always nice when someone reviews one of my GAs in return but there's absolutely no pressure for you to do so. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It wasn't the editor it was another user saying that, "you only passed his because he passed yours", but the amount of people who nominate music articles is quite narrow so its hard to find anyone who you haven't review articles from. But its all gone now. Good luck for the rest of the GA Cup. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - Round 3
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Archiving
Hey, that was a nifty new site you just showed me! Thank you so much! Never knew that one existed.  danny music editor  Speak up! 00:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You're welcome; someone showed me it a while back. It often has archived shots of pages that the Wayback Machine does not. I generally only use it if what I'm looking for isn't at the Wayback Machine, which was the case today :) Freikorp (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

TheWikiCup
As you anticipated, the GA review of Prey (1977 film) was ineligible for scoring in the WikiCup because the bulk of the work was done in 2016. It was also ineligible because you need to submit the claim within 10 days. I have removed the 4 points claimed. The other two GARs are fine. On behalf of the WikiCup judges. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks so much Emir, and thanks again for your review. :) Freikorp (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Resident Evil 5 FAC
Hello Freikorp, I just wanted to let you know that I have Resi 5 FAC on my watchlist and I have been watching it for suggestions and comments. Please let me know if you need any help. Keep up the good work. Thanks. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  06:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know that . I don't specifically need any help right now but it's good to know it is available. :) Freikorp (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi again . As you may have noticed the FAC has three supports, a support on sources, and a support on prose. Unfortunately though, according to the co-ordinator it still needs another in-depth review on content. I feel like i've exhausted trade offers and requests for comment. If you know anyone who you think would be willing to provide the final review of it, I'd appreciate it if you could ask them. You can tell them I'd be willing to comment on any nomination of theres in return if you like. Let me know how you go. Freikorp (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Freikorp, unfortunately, I am not as heavily involved in Videogame projects as I used to be. I reached out to a fellow VG editor, Hounder4 who I know is good editor with a strong understanding of Wikipedia's policies. He might be busy, but he has yet to reply to my quest. I will also try to see if I can get an editor from a non-VG project. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  01:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Another editor has actually just completed the review required, so no need to contact anyone else now. Now I just have to reply to the new reviewers concerns. Hopefully I can get that done in the next day or two. :) Freikorp (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of M2M (band)
The article M2M (band) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:M2M (band) 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 Cartoon network freak -- Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The WikiCup
Because the GA review for Chris Redfield was completed on 27 February, it is not eligible for inclusion in round 1 of the WikiCup which closed at midnight UTC on 26 February. However, you still have enough points to progress to round 2, and when that starts on March 1st you can resubmit this GAR, thus getting off to a flying start in round 2! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017 WikiCup newsletter
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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Chris Redfield
I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to review Chris' article, I really appreciate it. And congratulations on passing Round 1 of the WikiCup. :D PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks . It's nice to see the article improved and promoted, especially since I spent a lot of time working on Resident Evil 5 and Jill Valentine. Thanks for starting a review at the FAC for RE5. If you could finalise the review I'd really appreciate it. Unfortunately I haven't had as many people comment on the nomination as I would have liked, and the nomination is reaching the end of its life cycle. Freikorp (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't found any further problems in the "Development" and "Marketing and release" sections. The last two are the only ones left. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good to hear; thanks for letting me know. Looking forward to your last part of your review :). Freikorp (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks so much Erick, I really appreciate it! :) Freikorp (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

FL query
Hi, Freikorp. Sorry for the late response, but I've been up to my neck with real-life work and haven't been able to do much of anything here over the last few weeks. It will be difficult but not impossible to get the list to FL; the FL criteria says that lists should have a complete set of items "where practical", and a complete list is arguably impractical in this scenario. Therefore, it's not an automatic disqualifier if some non-notable deaths aren't included, although reviewers can question comprehensiveness if they note a bunch of missing drug deaths of notable people that can be reliably sourced. You already have the dynamic list notice at the beginning, which I'd expect to see in a list such as this. I don't have the time for any kind of close review at the moment, but there are a couple of things I noticed while looking at the list. First, I saw at least one dead link; to be an FL, any dead links should be repaired or replaced. There's a link-checker tool in the toolbox at WP:FLC that is very helpful. Second, bold "This is a list of" openings are discouraged at FLC level as a bland read. The start of the second paragraph is more like how most FLs start these days; the info about the list could be moved to the end of the lead. Anyway, best of luck in improving the list to FL standards. I always like seeing new topics at FLC, and I can imagine that this will draw interest from reviewers in the future. Giants2008 ( Talk ) 03:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your advice. I'm still in the process or fixing all the references but I've now fixed the tagged dead ones at least. I've also attempted to address the concerns about the lead. I'm looking forward to taking this one to FLC once I've finished improving it, if for nothing else to see what advice the other editors can give me. :) Freikorp (talk) 13:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Since tobacco could certainly be considered a drug, I do think you need to narrow the scope in some way. The proposed name change is a good way of doing that; also, you might consider adding tobacco to the last sentence of your current lead to specifically exclude such deaths. As reviewers might still question why tobacco-related deaths were being specifically excluded, I'd go with the article move as the best option. That provides a tighter definition in general, which will help with proving that the list is comprehensive. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 15:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. Freikorp (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - The Final
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for M2M (band)
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Margaret (singer) GA nomination
Hi, I have noticed your recent involvement in reviewing the Alexandra Stan article, and would like to ask if you would have an interest in reviewing this article as well when you're free to do so? Regards. ArturSik (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . Thanks for contacting me. I'm a bit overstretched with Wiki commitments at the moment. I do, however, have my own nomination; Isabelle Eberhardt nominated for peer review (see here). If you are able to provide some comments there I'd be happy to make time to do your GA review in return. :) Freikorp (talk) 02:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, unfortunately I don't think I am experienced enough to review any articles at the moment, especially the ones which are non-music related, so I don't think I'd be much of a help. I probably wouldn't even know where to start. Sorry. ArturSik (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * No worries; I understand. Well if your review is still open once I've finished the projects I'm working on at the moment I'll probably start it myself anyway. :) Freikorp (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I appreciate it. Hope yours gets reviewed soon too. ArturSik (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Got some free time now, so I'm happy to do this. :) Freikorp (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks:) I've made the changes, only few of them I've skipped or questioned you about but I guess we're nearly done. ArturSik (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you again:) I owe you one. I hope in few months time I'll be able to review myself and we'll work together again. It was a pleasure. Take care. ArturSik (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) Freikorp (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Isabelle Eberhardt
I just started started a peer review of the article. But I think it would benefit from c/e first. Would you mind if I just did a c/e first? Then did a full review. &mdash;አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . I've actually listed this article in the queue for a copy edit at the guild of copyeditors, and I see you do reviews there, so I would be thrilled if you'd be willing to copyedit it. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good, I will do both. &mdash;አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy notice
You may be interested in this CSD I just tagged. I want to move Marquis de Mores to Marquis de Morès. &mdash;አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good move to me. Thanks for letting me know. :) Freikorp (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I have a question about some recent edits
I noticed that you removed a Category from Death of Tom Simpson and Tom Simpson with the edit summary of →‎See also: article moved, limited relevance now and I was just wondering why you removed List of drug-related deaths. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . The 'List of drug-related deaths' no longer exists. It has been moved to the List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication, and re-organised to meet its new title as per the discussion on the talk page. Tom Simpson does not meet the criteria for inclusion on the new list, therefore I see no reason why this outdated list should remain on pages related to him. I do note that Simpson was still on the list as of you posting the above message, however, this was just an oversight. I thought I had already removed all the non overdose and non acute intoxication deaths. Freikorp (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah - no longer exists, ok....that makes sense-ish. Heh, I was just thinking that doping deaths & drug-related deaths were almost/sort of the same thing. Thanks for the explanation, greatly appreciated. Shearonink (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017 WikiCup newsletter
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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

R. V. C. Bodley scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the R. V. C. Bodley article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 2 June 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/June 2, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. :) Freikorp (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Crime in Philadelphia
Can you help me create new lines for the table I am working on? A simple "!" does not help and I am afraid I am just messing around. Little good will come of that. Never mind, someone else helped me. Thank you. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

My peer review
Greetings, I see you've had some Featured Articles under your belt, nice work. I was wondering if I could ask for your comments in an article I plan to push for the coveted FA status, Drive (2011 film). It has gotten a comment from another editor which I've essentially fixed. But since my GOCE request is still pending, maybe you could give your perspective on how can the article become FA quality. In case you're interested, here's the peer review page. All the best. Blue sphere  14:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . Thanks for your message. My internet access at home is down right now so unfortunately I'm not currently editing anything until it gets fixed, and I don't have any time frame on when that will occur yet. I'm only really logging in once a day at work to check for new comments at the moment. I'd be happy to take a look at your peer review if it's still open when I am editing again. I'm always quite keen to trade reviews. If you're interested in helping me out with something I currently have an article nominated for FAC, see here. It already has complete support so far and I'm confident it meets all FAC requirements so if you haven't done a FAC review before it should be an easy place to start. If you could weigh in there I would appreciate it but no worries if you can't for whatever reason. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. I'll provide a review of your FA nomination. You may respond to my peer review request anytime, no pressure. Btw, I hope you get your Internet connection fixed soon and get back to editing more frequently here. Thanks.  Blue  sphere  04:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm really grateful you provided those comments, Freikorp. However, I made the mistake of closing the PR discussion early so I thought of speaking to  you on this section I created. About this sentence, Producer Marc E. Platt contacted actor Ryan Gosling regarding Drive early on. pointing "early on" as vague, I couldn't find that press kit reference on the web to address this concern.  Blue  sphere  04:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome for the comments. Regarding your concern, if you can't clarify something that's no problem, I was just trying to say that if more specific information regarding timing was readily available it would be worth mentioning. No worries if you can't find it. Freikorp (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Jil Valentine
Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Jill Valentine has been completed.

If I could make one suggestion before you submit this for FAR - in my opinion the Acclaim section is unnecessarily long and repetitive. I think it needs only a few of the most notable examples for each "category" of acclaim. This would improve the article significantly. This sort of "growth" appears to be unavoidable as every fan/reader seems to find a new quote and wants to include it whether it adds anything to the article or not.

Good luck with the review.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your copyedits and advice, I really appreciate it. I'll definitely trim that section down about before I take it to FAC. :) Freikorp (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for FAC
Hey mate, I'm willing to trade reviews with you again. That is, of course, if you have a FAC nomination at the moments. Here's mine, a film article about a classic heist movie. What do you say, interested? Blue sphere  07:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . Very happy to exchange reviews again. My new FAC can be found here. I'll get to yours soon. :) Freikorp (talk) 12:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also will probably be interested in commenting on your review if you comment on their FAC nomination here. Give them a bell if you're interested or you can both reply here if that suits. :) Freikorp (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be more than happy to get in on this, if you have the time. Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 July newsletter
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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Disneyland Railroad featured article nomination
The Disneyland Railroad article is currently being nominated to become a featured article here: Featured article candidates/Disneyland Railroad/archive1. I see that you are one of the more active reviewers for featured article candidates, so I eagerly invite you to weigh in on this one. It has passed specialized reviews for its images and sources, and one review for its prose, but it still needs a few people to chime and say they support the nomination on the review page to wrap things up. Your input on that page will be very helpful.  Jackdude 101  ( Talk )  19:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't really get a chance to look at this till now, and it looks like you've gotten enough support in the meantime. Good luck. Freikorp (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 21 grams experiment
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 21 grams experiment 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 Bluesphere -- Bluesphere (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 21 grams experiment
The article 21 grams experiment you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:21 grams experiment 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 Bluesphere -- Bluesphere (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

21 grams experiment
Hi Freikorp, thanks for the article. I just added a link from 21 Grams but you might prefer it at See Also? I'm not sure of when/why yet. JennyOz (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Jenny. Thanks for adding the link. Duncan MacDougall, which was also wikilinked in that section, redirected to '21 grams experiment', so I've just reworded it so it's not linked twice, but I do prefer it now that the actual article title is linked into there. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking good, happy weekend! JennyOz (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for 21 grams experiment
Alex ShihTalk 12:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you!

 * Thanks so much. You're very welcome for the help. It's one of my favourite albums and I'm very happy to see it promoted. :) Freikorp (talk) 05:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've not been at FAC for a few weeks, but... goddamn. How ridiculous your candidate review has gotten! One user comes along basically venting about the general sexism in video games and manages to throw the whole damn thing down the toilet? She had no business raising that issue in one FAC review in the first place—she should've taken her gripe to the WP:Videogames. And on what planet does "What makes Bloody Disgusting a high quality reliable source?" and "Why is the opinion of Sarah Warn important enough to feature on the article?" constitute a source review? For one, three seconds of Googling would've demonstrated their notability, and secondly, it's just pernickety. You're doing a good job countering their nonsense. Hoping things turn around for the article soon. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks . It's been frustrating not to have anyone else weigh in on the issue. I don't disagree that some of the original sources could have been better, or that the character reception of Jill was a bit over-detailed, but I do think both of these reviews have taken the article too far in the other direction now. If you'd like to mention at the source review that you think the Sarah Warn and Bloody Digusting sources are fine (also if you could have a look at the Collider interview, which is also contested, and give your opinion on that) that would be appreciated. But no worries if you don't want to get dragged into this. Please keep things civil if you do weigh in though. Freikorp (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I always keep things civil (although I do tend to get a bit lawyer-ish sounding). Thankfully, your nomination is still active, so there's no risk of it being dismissed yet. I'd like to take the time to read everything that both SlimVirgin/SarahSV and Ealdgyth wrote there, because I only ever really just glanced at what they wrote. I'd like to conclusively discern what both of them are really looking for with the article, because it seems to me like Sarah's complaints stem more from sexism in video gaming and not the actual article. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah that's my thoughts exactly. As I said in my rebuttal to her, her problem seems to be less with the article and more with how women are perceived in general. She wants the article to be a reflection of how women should be percieved, rather than how they actually are. Anyway take your time and read through everything, but if you still have that opinion when you've finished reading it, saying so in Sarah's section would be a big help to me. Freikorp (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for offering to do the article's source review next time and to keep an eye on the review; I'm looking forward to a hopefully less frustrating second nomination. As I stated at the review, I'll renominate the article after I receive and finish harvesting from the offline sources I've ordered. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Homeostasis - the reason I was asked to do a source review was because the coordinators felt that the previous source review was not well done. You're welcome to do a source review, but if the coordinators feel that there is a problem with the review, they'll ask someone else to do one, so bear that in mind. It is entirely possible for there to be more than one source review on an article. Believe it or not, I am NOT out to make the article fail, but I am here to make sure article candidates meet the FA criteria, which you seem to continue to not understand do not have anything to do with the notability of a source, but everything to do with its quality. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is hardly helpful. You're already assuming that my next source review won't be up to par, and still fail to grasp the actual point I was attempting to address in the first place: what would be helpful is if you type out here the exact contents of your personal requirements on the FAC criteria—because they appeared in the first FAC to be perpetually branching off into areas not covered by the listed criteria, and ever-expanding and practically impossible to address in nature. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please show me where I assumed that any source review you did would not be up to par. I said "You're welcome to do a source review, but if the coordinators feel that there is a problem with the review, they'll ask someone else to do one, so bear that in mind." That does not say anything about knowing that your review would not be up to par. I'm pointing out that if the coordinators think ANY source review is not up to par, they reserve the right to ask someone else to do another one. As for "you type out here the exact contents of your personal requirements on the FAC criteria" ... you might want to check the section below where I went through the steps I take on a source review and what elements go towards making a source of "high quality". So, I've already done that. Can we stop personalizing things and concentrate on the purpose of an FAC, which is to improve an article. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it's pretty hard not to continue to personalise things when you accused me of "dragging [you] away from [your] husband on his birthday". But I've forgiven you, and will move on to greener pastures now. I hope you can find closure sometime soon. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything constructive coming from the conversation between you two continuing, so I'd prefer if it didn't happen here at least. I'll keep working on improving the article and will let you both know when it has been renominated. :) Freikorp (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Thanks so much. When I first started working on it I never thought it would end up where it is now. It was a long haul but naturally I'm very happy with how it turned out, and I'm also glad it can be of use to Wikipedia in more ways than one. :) Freikorp (talk) 11:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Jill Valentine ...
I strongly strongly suggest double checking all the sources against what they are sourcing. This is not me assuming bad faith of any editor at the article, but just pure experience in how easy it is for information to drift from the sources that supposedly support it. I uncovered one with the conventionscene source - I'll repeat it here "Okay, two problems. One... the new source is sourcing "Kari Wahlgren assumed the role in Marvel vs. Capcom 3; Michelle Ruff lent her voice to the character in Resident Evil: Revelations." but the new source does not mention Kari Wahlgren at all. So that needs to have a source.".... obviously somewhere along the line a source got removed/replaced/moved from the Kari Wahlgren information but now it is being sourced to a source that does not support it. Since much of the content predates you, I do strongly suggest that you audit every single statement and source to make sure it is supported by the sources. Yes, it's a pain. Yes, I do it with any article I start revising. Be glad this is a relatively short article with lots of online sources. I've been working on revising The Holocaust for almost four months now and am STILL buying sources and getting them in through ILL. I'm not asking you to do anything I wouldn't do myself. I'll also point out that Homeostasis' posts aren't really helping matters. If you could drop him a note to lay off a bit, that'd probably make things a lot easier. I'm happy to help if you want to see about replacement sources, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . I'll definitely check all the sources before renominating. I do believe that you weren't out to fail the nomination. That being said, your standards for sources were higher than what I have previously seen at source reviews for video-game related articles, but we don't have to get into that now. I appreciate the offer of help, and may ping you back here at a later date. Likewise if you have an article that needs reviewing on prose feel free to drop me a line. :) Freikorp (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I've been going through and checking every source thoroughly. I'm two-thirds of the way through and so far they've been three issues; one I actually recognised as my own mistake when I moved a citation early on in the FAC. Anyway I've also been going through and replacing sources you've challenged while I'm at it. I'm not sure about this one though: would you consider this Digital Trends source more reliable than the original Bloody Disgusting one that you challenged ? They both back up the same statement in the article, I just didn't see the point in replacing the Bloody Disgusting source if the new one is no better. Freikorp (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * So let's run through what happens when I look at a source for an FAC source review. So, Bloody Disgusting. First I look at the actual page of the source - which is here. I look for a byline - yep it's got one. That helps establish reliablity. Then since the link for the author is clickable - I look at the author's page which is here. Hm... reads like a facebook profile, not a mention of the guy having any journalism credentials. So, then I go looking for the "about us" page for the site. Hm... problem. Can't find one. Their "contact us" page isn't it either. So.. that's why I challenged it, as we don't know easily who is behind the site. It very well may meet the plain RS standard, but the FA criteria specifies "high quality". I'm not seeing that this is up to the standards of IGN - which is backed by ZiffDavis, has a wonderful content team page which lets people know who the various editors are, and even has a standards and policies page to let us know how they handle product reviews and such. IGN would definitely meet the "high quality" for a videogame source.
 * So let's look at Digital Trends. The exact source is this page. It's got a byline... cool. Plus for it. The author page is here, where he says he's a journalist. So ... while I'd prefer to see where he got his degree, it's at least a bit of help to know he's at least been employed as a journalist. Then we go to the main page of the site here and under the top menu they have a "more" tab which has at the top of the "Who we are" section an "about us" page. The bottom of all the pages are copyrighted by "Designtechnica corporation" which means at least someone bothered to incorporate to produce the content. There's a page for sending in corrections, which is a plus and shows that they at least recognize they need corrections and welcome them. Shows responsiblity. And then we have the about us page - there is a bit of a blurb about when they were founded and what they do. As well as a listing of the management members AND the editorial team. They mention how they do tests for their various merchandise reviews, also a plus. Their editorial team listing isn't quite as long as IGN's but they have them broken down into various responsibilities. All in all, it's probably not the highest possible quality, but meets the "high quality" standard for FA. If someone was to challenge it, and they wanted more reasoning besides what I just pointed out above, I'd dig around and see if I could find where some other high quality source (usually a newspaper, but sometimes something like IGN or Prima/Brady Games or others) used them as a source or praises them or something. Winning awards from a BIG industry group would also help - say if the biggest videogame trade association gives out awards for journalism (along with say "game of the year") then if a site has won that award for professional journalism (not for "best fansite", but for their journalism) that would help show how something was not just reliable, but of high quality.
 * Does that help? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That's extremely helpful, thanks for not only answering my direct question but explaining the reasoning behind it. I'd always just taken a commonsense approach to sources, as in I would use a source if it met RS and there was also no reason to doubt what it stated was accurate, but it's nice to understand exactly what makes a source high-quality. Freikorp (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The above is pretty tailored to videogames/etc that rely on webpages for sourcing. I dropped a big spiel on Finetooth's page with more generalized points that would apply to the sorts of sources that are more "traditional" - books, etc. Just remember that anything that is crowd-sourced/wiki/user-generated is very unlikely to be useable at FAC. So yeah, that means most of Gamepedia is not useful. Feel free to ask about other sources/etc. If you want me to look it over before you renom, I'll be happy to. I will be out of town until the 28th-29th, so I couldn't do anything in depth until after that. And with that.. I'm off to ARK: Survival Evolved for the night.... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I note you said you're out of town till the 29th, however, that's the day I'll be eligible to renominate this article for FAC. At this stage I intend to do that, so I figured I should ask for your feedback now on the off chance you'll have the time to look at the article before then. Don't feel pressured to though as you've already gone beyond what I was expecting regarding providing feedback after the nomination was closed.
 * I've now replaced every source you challenged at the first nomination, following your recommendations for finding high-quality sources. I'm confident the article would survive a source review from anybody now in its current format, so while having you look over the sources now would of course be appreciated, I don't consider that to be a priority. I also went through each source with a fine tooth comb and ended up having to make about half a dozen changes on the issue of inline citations being moved or being placed inaccurately. Quite frankly I was a bit embarrassed about that. This is only the second FAC nomination I'd made on an article where I did not write at least the overwhelming majority of the content; if nothing else I've learned to be a lot more thorough in reviewing other peoples sources, even if from a glance there's no reason to suspect something is wrong.
 * At this stage the only thing I intend to do prior to renominating the article is wait for the two offline sources I ordered to turn up, check the article sources them accurately, and possibly expand the article slightly if they have any further information that I think is relevant. You'll note I added a [citation needed] tag to the article; this is because the citation previously in place there did not, in fact, back up the claim. I'm hoping the claim is backed up by one of the offline sources I've ordered. If it is, I'll add an inline citation. If not, I'll delete it.
 * The main thing I wanted to ask you is if you see any outstanding issues on comprehensiveness. I have the distinct feeling Sarah is going to complain about comprehensiveness again at the next nomination, though I'm not seeing any problems myself. Sarah's main concern seemed to be that the article lacked a 'character evolution' section (though she ignored my comment asking her to show me an example of a section like that elsewhere; she ignored most of my comments seeking clarification on her requests). There are only three featured article on human-ish video game characters: Cortana (Halo), Lightning (Final Fantasy) and Tidus. Cortana is nowhere near as comprehensive as Jill Valentine and should probably be listed for featured article review (it was promoted in 2008). The only thing I'm seeing at Lightning and Tidus that isn't at Jill Valentine is the 'personality' section. However at those articles the section is mostly the opinions of the voice actors, and I couldn't find a single source of Jill's voice actors opinions that would be considered high-quality. And trust me, I looked. I think this article is just as comprehensive as both of those two, and they seem to form the accepted standard. As I mentioned to Finetooth at the first nomination, I went through the academic sources you listed and harvested everything I could from them. I found, for example, the opinion of another feminist reviewer commenting on Jill's sexuality in a negative manner. The article already had similar opinions from three other sources, so while I did add the source, I don't think the article wasn't already comprehensive on the issue of feminist and academic reaction to the character's portrayal. I don't doubt that if I keep digging I can find another similar opinion from someone else, my argument is the article already has enough coverage in that area, and in the area of why she is a popular character, and regarding people who think she's 'sexy' etc etc. To put things in perspective, I literally have two dozen sources I could use to say she's sexy/hot/a vixen etc, but I've been repeatedly told two sources on this is more than enough. By comparison, I see no reason why I need to find more sources on any other issue; I think the article has good coverage on all its topics, though I'm interested to hear your opinion on the matter, if you have the time. :) Freikorp (talk) 06:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I'm still waiting for one of the offline sources I ordered to turn up in the mail, so I just thought I'd ping you once more for comments in the meantime. No worries if you're busy. If I don't hear back from you I'll still let you know when the article does get renominated. Freikorp (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * No worries. I'm busy today with moving my computers/office to a different room in the house, but hoping to do a quick check on the article tomorrow. Do you want any comments here or on the talk page of the article? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Here would be preffered, thanks. Freikorp (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Just letting you know the Jill Valentine article has been renominated. See here. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Good luck. I'm still getting my desktop back into working order... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to say I'm sorry you got dragged into this. I really am. It looks like this experience has also been painful for you as well. While things have gotten a bit out of hand I can assure you I always respond positively to constructive criticism and yours was exactly that; it was very helpful. Would you believe I actually made a resolution to not edit any controversial articles a few years ago on the grounds I was getting too worked up over disputes and I didn't need the stress? I honestly never would have guessed these nominations would have ended up causing controversy on any level. Anyway I hope your having a good day and if you give the nomination a wide berth from here on I will completely understand. Let me know the next time you have a review that needs commenting on. Freikorp (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * All part of the fun of reviewing. Not a big worry. And I hear you about non-controversial... I try to avoid modern politics for the same reason but you never know when/where things will turn controversial. Would you believe there was a huge discussion about the lead image for the Middle Ages article that threatened to turn nastier than the JV FACs? (That's leaving aside the Bulgarian POV-pusher who plagued the article for a while with his sockpuppets...) You'd think medieval history would be safe enough.... Ealdgyth - Talk 11:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Freikorp. Was currently in the middle of a copy-edit but can see that you're also copy-editing at the same time, so I won't publish yet to avoid edit conflicts. Let me know when you're done so I can finish my edit (was editing an old revision of the page, so I'll need to move my changes across to the current diff—not your fault, and not a big issue). Won't be back online till tonight. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 04:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . I'm done reorganising the reception section for now. I'm about to head to work so won't be back online till tonight myself. I need to take a break from this so it might actually be a good idea for me to not edit the article until your copy edit is finished. Just let me know when you're done or just mention that in your final edit summary. At this stage I'm not really planning on rewording anything in the reception section, just moving it around so it flows better, so copy-editing it now should be just fine. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just as well I'd only just finished Design and portrayal and was about to make my way into Reception before I noted that you were editing. ;) CR 4 ZE  (t &bull; c) 05:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . I've been holding off making changes to the prose as I've been waiting for your copyedit (not criticising how long it is taking; you are doing me a solid favour by doing the copy-edit at all) however, SlimVirgin has started making some bold changes to the article, which defeats the purpose of me waiting to make any changes, and also, I've been asked to make several changes which I really don't want to delay any longer. I'm heading to work now, and just letting you know I intend to start making edits to the article again late tonight. Hope this doesn't screw up your copy-edit too much. Freikorp (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Let me see if I can help you with the citations that SV is mentioning. So... you have journal article citations and you have book citations and then you have the weird mish-mash of the two called an anthology/conference/festschrift/etc. The anthology/conference/festschrift/etc is a collection of articles, usually on a specific subject, written by different authors and edited by some poor schmuck of an academic. When you do a citation for a journal ... you use (usually) Template:Cite journal for the full bibliography. You've got that down. For books, you use Template:Cite book in the full bibliography and you're using Template:Sfn to generate the short citations in the main article. You've got that down. Now the problem comes with Platz's work, as it's in an anthology. Rather than use Template:cite book, I find it easier to use Template:Cite conference or Template:Cite encyclopedia as these prompt you better for adding in the information that's needed for a conference/etc. You NEED the page numbers in the full citation because Platz's contribution isn't the full work ... it's just one part, so you're really only listing the one part of the work in the bibliography, just as you would do for a journal. A good way to change this would be :. Does that make sense? Academic referencing is one of the weirdest things ever sometimes, but it does have some rules for it. Yes, you can use chapter instead with cite book, but it really isn't quite right and can lead to some confusion, espcially if you've not got an academic background that uses citations a lot. With cite book and the chapter parameter, its very easy to leave off the page numbers and not really think about it (and it's a bit misleading because chapter really should be reserved for usage for things that don't have page numbers (some math books don't...don't ask me why, I'm a historian, not a mathemetician). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much. Has anyone ever told you you do a really do a good job of explaining things? :) Freikorp (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Heh. I do get it occasionally, but not terribly often, so thank you. I used to teach beginners how to ride horses. That'll teach you how to break things down into managable chunks... teaching something you just "know" how to do... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Help?
Hi, Freikorp. You passed On the Job (2013 film) to GA and it's now at the FAR queue awaiting comments. I was wondering if I could ask for your thoughts on whether it's FA worthy? Btw, really sorry the Jill Valentine article did not make the cut despite its multitude of support from editors; it really must be frustrating in your part. Slightlymad (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'd be happy to take a look at your FAC sometime soon. The frustrating thing about the Jill Valentine nomination was that I had complete support from everyone who finished their review. It was almost entirely held back by the oppose of one person who didn't even have the common decency to finish their review, and this was compounded by a second person who left comments on initial concerns and then abandoned the review, ignoring the fact I addressed all their issues. I'll renominate Jill Valentine in a couple weeks and will send you and everyone else who finished their reviews a message when that happens. :) Freikorp (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * On that note, Freikorp: I'm sure you noticed my source review for On the Job. Jill Valentine can expect similar at her next FA nomination. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I did notice that. :) Thanks for the offer. I ended up finding higher quality sources for everything that was challenged at the first nomination, so I'm confident it will pass a source review from anyone now, but a thorough review would of course be appreciated as the coordinators will need one in order to be satiated. Freikorp (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . Just letting you know the Jill Valentine article has been renominated. See here. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Possible help with "Barge of the Dead" FAC
Hello again! I am sorry to see what happened with the Jill Valentine FAC as I could tell that you have put a lot of work in that particular article. Fortunately, you have received a lot of feedback so hopefully it will one day become an FA in the future. I will wondering if you could possible provide some feedback on my current FAC? I understand if you do not have the time or if it falls outside of your interests. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day, and good luck with your current and future projects. Aoba47 (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . I'd be happy to comment on your nomination. The Jill Valentine nomination was frustrating as the people opposing didn't even finish their reviews, but I've already addressed all the concerns about sourcing, and most of the concerns about comprehensiveness; some I ignored as I believe they were unfounded. Anyway at this stage I'm just waiting for an offline source I ordered to turn up so I can verify it and perhaps expand the article a little with it. I'll contact everyone who completed a review when it gets renominated, which will probably be in a week or so. :) Freikorp (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for adding comments to my nomination, and I am glad that you are having a positive and proactive attitude about it. I would be more than happy to help out with the Jill Valentine nomination when you put it up again. Have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . Just letting you know the Jill Valentine article has been renominated. See here. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the message. I will put up comments sometime by the end of the week. Aoba47 (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 September newsletter
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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 06:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't Say You Love Me (M2M song) TFA nomination
FYI, I supported your nomination for this article, in spite of skepticism from another editor. That same editor outright opposed a nomination I made in the same month, partly because it was also related to Disney. This suggests that, for whatever reason, this editor has an irrational disdain for anything related to Disney, so, I would keep the Disney references in your nomination. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it, and we need not let one troublemaking naysayer dictate to us what we can and cannot include in our TFA nominations. Jackdude 101 talk cont 02:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your support, I really appreciate it. I thought that editors complaints about my nomination simply mentioning Disney were particularly petty, but I'm generally a person who avoids arguments so at the time I would have removed it just to keep the peace. I'm starting to think you're right though, there is nothing wrong with it. I've supported your nomination because I personally don't have an issue with it, however, if I were you I would at least consider shifting the date a week to keep the peace on account of the two-month guideline. Freikorp (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Forktail
Since you were kind enough to provide a review for Slaty-backed forktail, I wonder: may I trouble you to do the same for White-crowned forktail? Similar depth, similar or same sources. Absolutely no pressure. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . I've reviewed your nomination. If you'd be happy to comment of one of my two open nominations I'd be extremely grateful. I currently have an FLC and an FAC open. The FAC looks like it has a lot of support but I'm actually most concerned about that one as even though I had seven votes of support on the article last time it was nominated, one editor pretty much single-handedly derailed the entire nomination, so the more comments I can get on it the better this time as I'm expected the nomination to be attacked again any day now. If you were to comment on both nominations I'd be happy to review another GAN of your choice, but completely up to you. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Freikorp. My knowledge of both those issues is limited, but I will take a look. Vanamonde (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * Thanks, your message made me smile. :) Freikorp (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Always there with you, Freikorp! I find that article really great, and written very well. I hope it would get through the FAC process this time for sure. Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I was wondering if you would enjoy reviewing the Glover's pika or anything for GAN? However, if you would be unable to due to any reason, that would be cool too! :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to take a look at it. :) Freikorp (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a ton! :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was wondering if you would like to give a go to the Ethiopian hare GAN too (won't ask for another one, promise :P). Although, if you are unable to for any reason, that would be fine too! Thank you very much, and have a wonderful rest of the day! Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'll take a look at it. I'm going to renominate Jill Valentine after I've finished working on a couple other projects. While the FAC didn't pass the article did received quite a thorough review so I'm much more confident it will pass next time round. I'll give you a yell when it is renominated. :) Freikorp (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you so very much for reviewing it for a GAN. I just checked the article on its FAC status, and saw that it was missing from the nominations page. It is so unfortunate, yet you are diligently going for its FAC. Give me not one but more yells for any of your nominations to either FAC or GAN! Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Valentine FAC
Just to keep you up-to-date, I've done a bit of tidying up on the FAC page to make it more navigable for an newcomers who may wonder in. As I think you have said, the article is realistically unlikely to pass this time as there are three opposes outstanding. But stranger things have happened. I'm in no rush to close it as there is still a lot of work ongoing, and all this will help a lot if/when it comes to FAC3. Additionally, even if everyone reaches agreement, we would have to ping prior supporters to check they still support after all the changes. But I think that is still some way down the line.

This has, effectively, become a PR now; while I should say that you may have been better going to PR first, I suspect that there would not have been this level of review. While it may be mildly stressful from your viewpoint, and others have commented on the difficulty of the FAC, I would look at it slightly differently; there have been few recent FACs (and none that I can remember from longer ago) and certainly no video game articles which have had such a depth or high quality of review. You may not agree (and possibly never will) with some, many or all of the reviews you are getting, but whatever happens with this FAC, the article is undoubtedly improving. By the end of it, this will probably be the best article available on Jill Valentine anywhere . It is raising the bar for video game articles at FAC, which can only be a good thing. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your message. I actually agree wholeheartedly with everything you have said. In my experience when you list an article for peer review you are lucky to get a single reviewer, and it's rarely an in-depth review. People have accused me of laziness and bringing an unprepared article to FAC nomination. As I was going to say in my closing remarks, these accusations are unfair; I compared the Jill Valentine article to other featured article on video game characters, and only nominated it because I thought it was of the same quality. I even nominated it for peer review prior to the first nomination just to see if anyone impartial would have anything different to say on the matter. Fact: If Sarah hadn't of commented on the first nomination, it almost certainly would have passed. Fact: The article is better because she did (though I still maintain my opinion that half her concerns were not being judged against the FA criteria, but rather by her own set of personal standards). The real debate going on her is whether FACs for video games have lower standards, and even though I hate to admit it, they probably do. Here's another fact: if the people who are opposing my nomination had of commented on other recent video game character FACs, it's highly likely they would have ended up in the same position as mine. Freikorp (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't Say You Love Me (M2M song) scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Don't Say You Love Me (M2M song) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 26, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/October 26, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  08:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I've had a look over both the article and the blurb for the main page. I made a couple minor edits to both but I'm satisfied neither needs any further amendments. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for "the debut single by M2M, which was also the lead single from the Pokémon: The First Movie soundtrack"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome as always. :) Freikorp (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Re:Ermac
Didn't know about usage of "movie" in articles; guess that word sounds a little too informal. Also, is Lazygamer.net (now "criticalhit.net") not considered a reputable source? sixty nine  • speak up •  00:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Project video games contains a pretty handy checklist for whether certain gaming websites are considered reliable or not. See here. LazyGamer is currently considered unreliable. Hope this helps. :) Freikorp (talk) 01:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? I appreciate your guidance through this process. :') Thanks for the PVG link; the problem I've faced with sourcing the article is that Ermac is not nearly as famous as Liu Kang, Sub-Zero or Scorpion, which has made finding good citations that go into depth about the character considerably more difficult. sixty nine   • speak up •  01:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * After I get off work tomorrow, I'll continue fixing up the reception section. I also found a couple things I might be able to fit in. sixty nine   • speak up •  03:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I can empathise with not being able to find as many good citations going into detail about this character, however, at the end of the day if that is the case, as much as I hate to say it, that's probably a good indication that this article should not be as detailed as the ones for the more famous characters. I note you've recently made some big reductions to the article; this looks like a big improvement. I'll start reviewing sources later today. Freikorp (talk) 07:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Good morning (out here, anyway). I have off today so I'll have a chunk of time to continue fixing up the article; yesterday I ended up being out of the house for over twelve hours but got some editing in. I saw how Niemti/Snaake edited his VG articles in the past (such as Mileena) and thought detail was the way to go, but what you said makes a lot of sense. I've collaborated with plenty of esteemed VG editors and each of them have their own unique methods of article improvement. I'll focus on editing the first half of the article and ongoing source fixes. This is a daunting challenge but a much-needed learning process as it's important for me to know what constitutes a GA. I'll definitely let you know if time constraints wind up becoming an issue. On a side note, I'd called him "enigmatic", since removed, because that's how Midway kept describing him for some time. sixty nine   • speak up •  12:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know exactly what you mean. I never worked with him personally but after reading a lot of his work after he was banned I was thoroughly impressed with the amount of detail he collected and thought that was the way to go as well. I quickly discovered when I first stated nominating articles of his that I adopted for GA that while he was fantastic at collecting information, he either did not understand what constituted a reliable source or just didn't care. JV was one of his articles; this is what it looked like before I touched it: . I think it's much better now haha. You can see a clear change in the quality of just how the references are presented. Note also in particular the original version has a two paragraph sub-section on merchandise and a two-paragraph sub-section on memes. These have now been condensed into one paragraph each within the legacy section. Less is more sometimes. What constitutes a GA varies a bit from editor to editor. While a competent GA review should make sure sources are reliable, opinions will vary considerably on what constitutes the level of good writing that is desired. Some GA reviewers may not have asked you to reduce the merchandise section at all, as there wasn't anything terrible with the writing itself per se, but I do think the overwhelming majority of reviewers would consider it to be better now than it was. Good luck with the improvements. :) Freikorp (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Knock, knock. :) The cleanup is going well so far; it's amazing what a fresh set of eyes can pick up that I paid no heed to for so long. I finally got around to posting notes and a few more strikes on the review page. I might return the "cultural" section (or part of it) if I can find a way to reword the content. I have a feeling the Jill Valentine ship might end up sailing without me but I'm focused on (hopefully) getting my first GA. Take care. sixty nine   • speak up •  05:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . The changes look very good so far. Just thought I'd mention that rather than getting rid of the literature section entirely, you could just mention the character appears in the comics etc without actually mentioning what happens in the comic itself. The literature coverage at JV consists of two sentences (located in the 'In other media' section). You could do somethign similar if you wanted to. Just an option. :) Freikorp (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I put it back tonight. :) (Edit: For whatever reason, someone archived many of the URLs in the article with the since-removed link to The Red Herb.) sixty nine   • speak up •  05:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Jill Valentine Lauds
Great work with your Jill Valentine FAC so far. I know that it can be difficult addressing different viewpoints and pieces of feedback on an article, and I think you are doing wonderfully with it. You actually inspire me to work on an article about a fictional video game in the future (as a majority of the articles on fictional characters that I have worked on were either from film or television). Good luck with the FAC, and either way it goes at the end, you have done very wonderful and inspiring work there. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for your message . It has been a difficult process, though I do believe the article is much better as a result. And thanks again for commenting on the nomination. Freikorp (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Anytime! Aoba47 (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

DJ AM
Hello:

A quick question as I work on your GOCE request, does this - "disclosed that the man he thought was his father was not biologically so" - refer to Herbert? If so, I'll clarify. The reference is a video so I can't check myself. I'll continue the c/e later. Thanks. Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for starting the copyedit. In regards to your question, yes, it is referring to Herbert. :) Freikorp (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

DJ AM
Hello Freikorp:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article DJ AM has been completed.

One additional piece of information would be useful to include in the "Early Life" section. Do you know if it was it his mother who sent him to Straight, Incorporated? That is a question many readers would ask.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much . I've clarified that he actually approached his mother about his drug problems, and she arranged for him to be sent there. Very happy with your work as always. :) Freikorp (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome! The clarification looks good. All the best. Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You're very welcome. I know how daunting it can be at first. I'm very glad you've found it helpful. :) Freikorp (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Jill Valentine
I finally got off my rear and poked around the Jill V. FAC talk page tonight, and the discussion about the two blanked-out academic sources caught my attention. I voted against them after much thought but I'll leave it up to you whether you yourself want to give them the ax, and hopefully I didn't come off like I was taking sides. On a side note, I think the design and analysis sections are well-written and I don't see anything remotely sexist about them. I'm seeing actual analyses of the character rather than the requisite groan-inducing "best boobs in gaming" listings. Keep up the good work. sixty nine  • speak up •  04:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for your input. I actually prefer getting rid of those sources anyway; I only added them in the first place because one editor complained that I didn't have enough coverage from academic sources. Freikorp (talk) 10:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed that while thumbing through the thread. He/she seems like a tough customer but academic essays aren't automatically gospel. :) sixty nine   • speak up •  01:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Another forktail
...at GAN, here. Are you interested? No obligations. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . I'd be happy to take a look at that later today. I have a (considerably less controversial than the last) article nominated for FAC at the moment: Featured article candidates/DJ AM/archive1. Any comments would be welcome. I'm planning on renominating Jill Valentine for FAC in several weeks. The coordinator advised to me notify everyone who commented on the last nomination when it is renominated. Just a heads up that that is going to happen eventually I guess. I believe I've already addressed all the concerns at the last nomination, basically I'm just waiting for my current nomination to be closed or promoted before renominating it. :) Freikorp (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the nomination. Well done on another outstanding article. Freikorp (talk) 09:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

TFL notification
Hi, Freikorp. I'm just posting to let you know that List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for November 13. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For a list like this, I understand that there may be notable people who can be added if more sourcing is found; that's why we indicate at the top that it's a dynamic list. That's the nature of such a list, and shouldn't disqualify it from TFL. From my vantage point, my concerns for this list are that it is very well-sourced and not glorifying the deaths of celebrities, as problems in those areas could bring deserved criticism to the FL process. The level of sourcing here, and the way the lead is written, allay those concerns, and the page is very topical since drug issues are a problem in many areas, particularly here in the U.S. In short, I'm not concerned about the list appearing on TFL in its current condition, although I thank you for striving to improve it further. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 17:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!


Happy Halloween!

Hello Freikorp: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –  Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.


 * You are simply boo-tiful. :'D sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  02:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Haha, I love it. :) Freikorp (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sheva Alomar
The article Sheva Alomar you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sheva Alomar 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 TarkusAB -- TarkusAB (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 November newsletter: Final results
The final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:
 * First Place -
 * Second Place -
 * Third Place -

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 – and  both produced 2 FLs in R2
 * Featured Pictures – improved an image to FP status in R5, the only FP this year.
 * Featured Topic – 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 – had 14 ITN on the main page in R2.
 * Good Article Review – 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 - please send  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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. ,, and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Isabelle Eberhardt
Thanks so much. I'm very happy with your edits. Freikorp (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome, and I'm glad to hear it. Fascinating woman! – Corinne (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks so much. It was a really interesting journey writing about him. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Bananas, Beaches and Bases
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018
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? , and. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Sheva Alomar
Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Smash Mouth
The user you reverted here appeared to be acting in good faith, especially considering that pretty substantial (if still arguably insufficient) edit summary. How come you didn't add an explanation? I took a guess but that shouldn't have been necessary. City O f Silver  18:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Of all the articles I watch on Wikipedia, Smash Mouth is the most frequently vandalised. IP's are constantly trying to add fake names into the band members list. It's gotten to the stage where if people don't bother to explain their edits OR source them I just assume it is vandalism. Yes I didn't explain my reversion either but in my experience IP editors who don't explain themselves don't read the summaries of others anyway. That being said, after nine years of reverting heavy vandalism to this article, I've decided I've had enough. I'm taking it off my watclist. Somebody else can watch over it. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Review Trade?
I'm looking for a new reviewer for The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. I've revised the GAN template on the talk page so clicking "start review" creates GA2. If you're not too busy, I'd owe you one. Cognissonance (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'll take it. I don't have anything that needs reviewing at the moments but i'll get back to you when I do. :) Freikorp (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey mate, I've recently overhauled Resident Evil: Apocalypse and i'd like to eventually take it to featured status. If you could comment at the peer review (see here) I would appreciate it. No rush though; I'm not in any hurry to nominate it. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Will do it as soon as possible, most likely today, as I'll be going out of town for a few days. Cognissonance (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Freikorp, I've got a new project. It may not be as care intensive as others, as it has the appearance of a good article, but I still need to know what needs to be done before the GAN. If you'd peer review Interstellar (film) for me, just shoot me a message when you need something. Cognissonance (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Peer review/Interstellar (film)/archive1


 * Hi . I'd be happy to take a look at this peer review sometime in the next day or two. I don't plan to work on any big projects any time soon but if you could just simply comment on both of my current WP:TFA nominations in return (see here and here) I'd be happy with that. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, both have already been promoted. What good would my comments do? Cognissonance (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, so they've been promoted to FA but they still have to go through an additional process of being nominated for TFA. So if you go to Today's featured article/requests you can see all the articles that are currently nominated for TFA, along with everyone who is supporting, oppossing or has comments about the nominations. Among them are my two current nominations. :) Freikorp (talk) 11:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Tank Girl
Thanks for the correction on adding the cast list on "Tank Girl" Damiantgordon (talk) 09:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. :) You're very welcome for the reviews. Freikorp (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for Help with Current FAC
Hello again! I hope that you are having a wonderful week so far. I was wondering if you could possibly help me with my current FAC? Either way, good luck with your current work and your future projects. Aoba47 (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Done. :) Freikorp (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I've now nominated Resident Evil: Apocalypse for FAC. See here. If you could comment on the nomination I would really appreciate it, but no rush. I'm actually going away for a few days for Xmas myself so won't be checking the nomination till the 27th anyway. Cheers. :) Freikorp (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I can definitely check it when I get the chance. Good luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Precious three years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. :) Freikorp (talk) 11:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Resident Evil: Apocalypse
Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Resident Evil: Apocalypse has been completed.

I have not seen the film so I can't resolve this issue in the Plot section:


 * "Major Cain kills Dr. Ashford and forces Alice to fight Nemesis. Alice battles and gains the upper hand over Nemesis, though refuses to kill him after realizing that he is Matt Addison, following a genetic mutation.


 * Nemesis turns on Major Cain and attacks the Umbrella troops, but is killed protecting Alice. The rest of the survivors seize the helicopter; they eject Major Cain from it and he is eaten by zombies including the recently turned Dr. Ashford."

If Cain kills Ashford how is he still around to eat Cain? This needs clarification, I think.

Good luck with the FAC.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . Thanks so much for your copy edits, which I am very happy with as always. In regards to the confusion, Dr. Ashford is shot in the torso and killed though like everyone killed in the film he returns as a zombie, hence why he is able to eat Cain. I've decided it isn't overly important to mention that he is one of the many zombies that eats Cain thought so I've just cut it out entirely. :) Freikorp (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Ooops...shows you what I know about zombies movies! :) Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

 * A belated Merry Xmas to you too. :) Freikorp (talk) 11:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all!
Allow me to sneak in here and wish you a very Merry Christmas and thanks for being so darn awesome in 2017! *mwah* sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  18:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you both very much for the Xmas wishes, and you're very welcome . Hope you have a fantastic new year. :) Freikorp (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Delta Dawn (murder victim)
Hi. Have you looked at the Delta Dawn (murder victim) article? The bit about the deputy mistaking DD for his daughter was removed as "trivia" but i can only imagine the man's fear and terror at thinking it was his daughter's body in the river. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't feel particularly strongly for or against the inclusion of that material to be honest. It's an interesting article though and I'd never seen it before. I've added it to my watchlist and will keep an eye on it. Freikorp (talk) 10:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Amarte Es un Placer (album) FAC
Hey Freikorp! I was wondering if you could leave feeback for my FAC for Amarte Es un Placer (album). Thanks! Erick (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . I'd be happy to take a look at your FAC tomorrow. I have my own nomination at FAC if you'd like to trade. Best wishes. :) Freikorp (talk) 10:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

GA review
Hi, do you have time for a GA review ? I have this Indian article Oppam, it's a Malayalam film, only four films have reached GA status so far from this language. If time favors, could you please consider it ? Feel free to turn down, just asking. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there, and thank you for the Wikilink fixes you made to Resident Evil: Apocalypse. I'm a little busy at the moment but if you took the time to comment on my FAC (see here) I'd be happy to make the time to review your GAN asap. Otherwise I'll have a look at it after I finish working on my current university assignment next week and see what I can do. :) Freikorp (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I had thought about reviewing it first, but had a double mind since I have no previous experience in reviewing FA/FL/GA. But now you have asked, so I have dropped some comments, not much of a review, its some minor suggestions. Correct me if I am wrong. Regards. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your review . I know it's very daunting to do your first one. I'm very happy with the review and you've made some good points that I completely missed, so thanks. I've attempted to address everything. I've initiated reviewing your GAN and will make some time to work on it this evening after I finish work. Freikorp (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Anbe Sivam/archive1
Hello, Freikorp. I have nominated my first solo FAC. Do let me know if you wish to leave comments at the FAC by pinging me. Thanks. — Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 15:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I'm a bit busy at the moment but will try and take a look at it in a week or so. Freikorp (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Finally have the time to look at this but you seem to have more than enough support now. Congrats. Freikorp (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

FAC
Hi. I was wondering if you could provide some comments on my FAC Margaret (singer) which you reviewed for GA last year. Best. ArturSik (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No worries; will do. :) Freikorp (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments and the support:) ArturSik (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Resident Evil: Apocalypse
Congratulations on your FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks . As you may have guessed, I decided to work on this as I bought several sources regarding the film for use on the Jill Valentine article, and figured I could salvage something from that whole mess by working on the article for the film itself instead. :) Freikorp (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is always good to make something good out of a bad situation so I am glad to hear it! Aoba47 (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Congratulations Freikorp, and I wish you best for your future endeavors. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Isabelle Eberhardt scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that Isabelle Eberhardt has been scheduled as today's featured article for 17 February 2018. 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 Today's featured article/February 17, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. :) Freikorp (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)