User talk:Squeamish Ossifrage/Archive 3

Psst
I filled the red links on your St. Elmo, but I cannot do much more without the books on Vitagraph's organization and operation. I've run into a problem... I have 50 good article nominations and I've tried to polish up some other films and found a still for Thanhouser's St. Elmo and others in the process... I've even been busying myself with identifying film stills, but I am starting to worry about the number of articles I have up at once. I've compiled a list of several thousand films by release date and I think I should try and get some featured lists for Wikipedia's silent film section. I just do not know what to do next since I am going to crush the process if I keep working like I am now... I even have complete articles ready to drop at a moment's notice. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I hear you there. I'm not nearly so backlogged at GAC as you are, but I've been trying to push the articles I have through their various review processes before dumping out more. I've got new articles or major rewrites for most of J. Gordon Edwards's directorial credits nearly ready to at least see daylight. I've been trying to pace myself on these, just because I know silent film is a tough topic to get people interested in, which does not help review speed! In the meantime, I've been distracting myself by attempting a Core Contest revision (of Land, specifically, because wow that is an awful excuse for content). That said, your work on Thanhouser has been nothing but amazing. And thanks for bluelinking Balboa; I've been meaning to get around to that for months, but kept putting it off... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't suppose you'd take some of the reviews? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course! I've got a couple other things I've promised to look in on, but I'll make sure to find time to hit up the GA backlog soon. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I need to do some featured lists... since the silent era has almost no lists. I've made three recently, but the List of Thanhouser films released in 1910 is the most important. I could really use some suggestions and formatting tips from you on getting this to FA-level. All the dates and the status are covered in two easy cites, but the "notes" is probably going to be difficult. As is the leading prose. Could you advise on this? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Peer review
You clearly have a keen eye for detail, so I wanted to invite you to comment at Peer review/Irataba/archive1. I'll understand if you are too busy or disinterested. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we were planning on taking Irataba to FAC in the near future, it would certainly be a good idea if you could give it a grilling before the FAC.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ooh, biographies are rough. I've got one I've been putting off even starting for over a year now. But I'll see what I can do in the next couple days, instead of just surprising you at FAC. Again. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There's not a terrible amount of detail written about him biographically. I think it's nearing as comprehensive as it's going to get. I suppose in a way that makes the scale of the task an easier one, but it just needs "several pairs of fresh eyes" as Indopug would say looking at it and giving the prose and content a degree of scrutiny.♦ Dr. Blofeld  23:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me have at this one before FAC. Odds are pretty good that I wouldn't have reviewed it there because I mostly avoid biographies. But there's a lot to be done, and if I had, I probably would have outright opposed on the state of the references. The good news is, should be an easy run to the bronze star once this peer review is done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You've been extremely helpful there, so thanks a million not just for the suggestions but also for doing so much of the work! If there is ever anything I can help you with please don't hesitate to ask. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was going to close the PR, but I noticed that your prose comments do not span the entire article. Are you done making suggestions there, or do you have some more for us? Rationalobserver (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Inconvenient Truth Featured Article Review
Hey there, I made several of the changes you had suggested. Please review my changes and let me know what else you think needs to be done.--The lorax (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Irataba
Thankyou for your input at the peer review. Irataba is now at FAC. Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Enthiran PR
Hi, I am Ssven2. I had recently taken this film article starring Rajinikanth and Aishwarya Rai to GA status and nominated it for FAC, but it was withdrwan due to WP:PUNC and MOS:LQ issues, most of which have been resolved. Do let me know if you are interested in leaving additional comments at the article's 2nd PR. Thanks. — Ssven2  Speak 2 me '' 12:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Castell Coch
Hi. I'd be very grateful if you could give Castell Coch a read and comment at Peer review/Castell Coch/archive1. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter
The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus. Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.
 * was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
 * took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
 * worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! , and  16:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fringe theory
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fringe theory 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 Adam (Wiki Ed) -- Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fringe theory
The article Fringe theory you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Fringe theory for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adam (Wiki Ed) -- Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fringe theory
The article Fringe theory you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Fringe theory for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adam (Wiki Ed) -- Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Life's Shop Window
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Life's Shop Window 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 Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Life's Shop Window
The article Life's Shop Window you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Life's Shop Window 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 Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you interested in providing a source review?
Glad to see you've returned! If you're looking for a project, I need a source review at Featured article candidates/Chetro Ketl/archive1. If you're willing, just let me know ASAP, as I've also asked Laser brain, and I'd hate to see both of you complete the same review. If this is too much to ask so soon after your return, I completely understand. Either way, welcome back! RO (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's great to be here again! I don't think I have time available to provide what I'd consider a formal source review. I'll be packing this weekend for a business trip with dubious wi-fi. That said, Chaco Canyon is amazing, and I'm all about helping this to get the bronze star. So the least I can do is provide a FAC review. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, Chaco is one of my favorite places. I tried to apply everything you taught me at the Irataba PR about source formatting at Chetro Ketl, so hopefully they are much tighter than they were at Irataba before your review, but there are also more than 50 sources cited in the article, so I can see how that might be too time consuming for you right now. RO (talk)  19:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Offered a quick review, with a couple things you missed and some quibbles over reference formatting (since what would one of my FAC reviews be without quibbles over reference formatting?). Overall, nicely done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited J. Gordon Edwards filmography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rex Ingram. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for your FAC comments and/or edits to Chetro Ketl, which is now a featured article. It was a long and interesting process, but thanks to a wealth of insights and suggestions the article is now among our best. Thanks for taking time out of your busy editing schedule to help me. RO (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well-deserved. I'm glad that I could play a part, however small, in getting it there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It wasn't that small; I used all the great advice you shared at the Irataba PR, so the sourcing was tighter than it would have been had you not also helped with that article, which is also an FA now! Thanks for all you do around here to help and educate! RO (talk)  16:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Glyptothorax kurdistanicus
Gatoclass (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Request source review
If you are free and interested, I'd really appreciate one of your famous source reviews at Featured article candidates/Perovskia atriplicifolia/archive1. I'll understand if you're too busy. RO (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for sources of theory of the sun and the moon
As you maybe aware that page maybe deleted can you kindly point/provide me with any references you may have regarding "theory of the sun and the moon".I would be most grateful.Richardlord50 (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

From Population Control to Reproductive Health
I've now chopped out 90% of the From pupulation control to reproductive health article to keep only the very basics, and cited the first and last of the sources you gave in the AfD. The second appears to be behind a paywall, so I don't have access to it. Even now, there is still uncited material in the article: could you possibly help by  improving this further? -- The Anome (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Perovskia atriplicifolia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Calyx and Corolla. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 September newsletter
The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:


 * , who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy.  A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
 * , second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
 * , first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany.  Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
 * , second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
 * , from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
 * , from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
 * , from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
 * , also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

, and  11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Perovskia atriplicifolia
You've really done some fantastic work at Perovskia atriplicifolia. Very impressive and informative. I can see why you opposed, and I agree with that decision now. Let me know when you think you've finished, and I'll give it another copyedit. There's no rush of course, as we can't re-nom until September 9 anyway, and it doesn't even have to be then if that timeline doesn't work for you. Just let me know. I'm still trying to get a shot of it that's worthy of FP status, so maybe by the time FAC2 concludes we'll have a featured article and a featured picture! RO (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! For such a widely-planted species, it's been surprisingly tough to find native ecology information. I've still got a bit of work left to do, especially with the description. Some of that is just migrating hard-science information to "better" references than gardening resources. We'll have to rebuild the lead, of course, but there's really no sense doing that until everything else is done (and I hate leads, so...). I think we'll have a pretty solid FA candidate for FAC2, and I'm glad I could help. I would never have touched this topic without the solid framework you already built. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Mammillaria spinosissima
I know you're busy at P. atriplicifolia, but if you get a chance would you please take a look for a good source or two on Mammillaria spinosissima? I'm trying to expand that article now, but I can't seem to dig much up in the way of reliable sources. RO (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That one's sort of challenging, isn't it? There are a bunch of journal articles in the late 60s and 70s, and a few into the 80s, fiddling over details. Presumably that's why there are a million synomyms for this species. I don't have immediate access to a lot of these, but if you want to go diving, I can try to assemble a list, at least. After that, the scholarly record is silent until a pair of papers in 2004 and 2006 (in part because cacti were unsuitable for early gene sequencing techniques). Happily, though, both are freely available:
 * Butterworth, Charles A., and Robert S. Wallace. "Phylogenetic studies of Mammillaria (Cactaceae)—insights from chloroplast sequence variation and hypothesis testing using the parametric bootstrap." American Journal of Botany 91.7 (2004): 1086-1098.
 * Mattagajasingh, Ilwola, Arup Kumar Mukherjee, and Premananda Das. "Genomic relations among 31 species of Mammillaria Haworth (Cactaceae) using random amplified polymorphic DNA." Zeitschrift für Naturforschung C 61.7-8 (2006): 583-591.
 * Those both have relevant cladograms and the first one especially has a lot of information about the subgenus level shenanigans that will likely effect Mammillaria at some point. There's also handful of Google Books-locatable sources that discuss its use as a house plant, although nothing strikes me as particularly profound there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's more than I could find. Thanks, Squeamish! RO (talk)  21:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I know you're super busy at P. atriplicifolia, but before you log off for the day would you please take a quick look at Mammillaria spinosissima, and let me know if I messed it up as badly as I fear I might have? RO (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ceramic ash binding
Thanks for your feedback on the Rocky Flats article; sorry if it was a waste of your time. One of your comments was very specific regarding coverage of waste stabilization in ceramics. Could you explain in more detail what you were referring to in that particular comment? Thanks again! VQuakr (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize; I contribute at FAC because I believe strongly in the goal of high-quality curated content. Regardless of the outcome, it's never a waste of my time! As for the ceramic stabilization, there's a lot of literature on the topic, but a reasonably accessible, highly-cited paper that would be a good starting point is:
 * The pre-press version of that article is here, although note that the pagination is wrong for citing the actual article. You'll eventually want to get access via ScienceDirect here (I actually don't have ScienceDirect access from my current location or I'd save you the trouble), but any local public or community college library should have that available for you. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The pre-press version of that article is here, although note that the pagination is wrong for citing the actual article. You'll eventually want to get access via ScienceDirect here (I actually don't have ScienceDirect access from my current location or I'd save you the trouble), but any local public or community college library should have that available for you. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Source review
Hello, is there any chance that you are able to conduct a source review for the Banded sugar ant article? While I have requested a source a review sometime ago, no one has willingly done so yet. If you are unable or do not wish to, that's fine. Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Whale
Thank you for reviewing Whale for FA status.

Your current comments have been, as far as I know, fixed. If I could just bother you to come and finish your review of the article, or perhaps alert me of any of your comments I might have overlooked, that would be great.

Thanks. Dunkleosteus77  (push to talk)  22:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Updated. Although, unfortunately, probably not in the manner you were hoping. I really don't believe the article is currently ready for FA promotion, although it's entirely possible that sufficient others will think likewise. I'd urge you not to give up, however. There's no shame in an article (or editor!) failing its first candidacy, and the FA criteria can be tough to aspire to. Just ask some of the others hanging around my talk page! That goes double, if not more so, for big, broad, top-tier articles. Like, for example, whale. But I know it's especially tough when you've come off a peer review that didn't really dig into the meat of the article with an eye to the FA criteria. I don't... have a very good opinion of the current Wikipedia peer review process, but I understand that explicitly stating you're going for a FA push helps. Somewhat. In any case, I'm sorry my news isn't better. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Perovskia FAC2
I hate to bother you, but it's been nearly a week since your last edit at Perovskia atriplicifolia, and I was planning to use this for Wikicup points, so that's an FAC deadline of October 31. If you don't think we can make it please let me know so I can go with a plan B. RO (talk)  16:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't find much to fix at all, as your prose is quite excellent. I really love the work you put in there, and thanks again for being interested in a co-nom, as I think lots of what you added was well above my paygrade. If you think it's ready, lets nom it! Do you want to do the honors (I feel you deserve to more than me), or would you rather I did? RO (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. And, absolutely, feel free to be the lead on the FAC2 creation. All I did was punch up some research and verbiage to fill in the holes; I'd never have touched this article were it not for the effort you put into it. I'm more than pleased to be its conominator though! This is what collaboration is for. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Your work there has been just fantastic! Thank you so much! RO (talk)  21:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I wanted to let you know that I'll be out of town this weekend, and I might not be able to check-in on the FAC until next Monday or Tuesday. RO (talk)  20:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. I will be off and on (I project light on weekends myself). But FAC isn't a speedy process anyway; we'll still be there in a couple weeks. Hopefully your weekend plans are enjoyable ones! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes they are! I'm taking a trip to the Rocky Mountains to try and capture the fall colors during their peak brilliance. Should be fun and challenging, as I've only recently taken up photography, and I still don't know what I'm doing. RO (talk)  20:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, in that case, definitely have fun! Don't worry about this silly place for awhile. Enjoy the mountains and get some awesome photos! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, aren't they grand? I'm torn though, because if I go to Rocky Mountain National Park, which is the plan, I won't get to see any Ancestral Puebloan ruins, and if I go to Mesa Verde National Park I won't get to stay in Estes Park, or visit the Alpine Visitor Center at RMNP, which is one of my favorite places ever in that region. I guess you call these 1st World Problems. What a tough life! RO (talk)  21:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Having been to both, there is no wrong answer there. RMNP is my preferred destination for when I feel I need to be a big more vigorous about my hiking goals. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for fielding all the FAC comments. Sorry I haven't been much help. My internet access will be spotty today, but if there's anything I can do to help please let me know. I don't want you to feel like I left all the work for you. I guess with 6 supports we can start planning for that source review now. RO (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You were busy having a vacation! Which park did you end up visiting? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I spent a couple of days at RMNP. Saturday was public lands day (free admission), so I think they might have broken a record, as it was about as busy as Yosemite! The weather was great until this morning, when it turned gray and cloudy. RO <sup style="color:blue;">(talk)  16:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine what free admission at RMNP must have done to the crowd density! The easily accessible areas get pretty packed even on normal days when the weather is nice. Glad you had a good time! In any case, I think our article's in pretty good shape at FAC. I'm going to hit up the sources on the one gardening/landscaping section to try to provide better context, since the project doesn't have anything on landscaping terminology for me to link to. Otherwise, I know there have been partial source checks done by a few folks; we'll doubtless be fine there, too, by the time this gets far enough down the FAC list for the coordinators to consider closure. Until then, it's mostly sit back and wait unless something else comes up. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Metropolis (1927 film)
As I mentioned on Dr. Blofeld's page. You can place any online sources you found right here. :-) —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 14:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 1 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/R U Professional/archive1 page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=683627271 your edit] caused an empty citation error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F683627271%7CWikipedia:Featured article candidates/R U Professional/archive1%5D%5D Ask for help])

Reply
I've replied to your helpful feedback, at Featured article candidates/R U Professional/archive1.

Thanks very much for your recommendations, after responding to them I think the article is much better for it !

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Replied again at FAC page. Thanks again very much, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Were you going to change your conditional Support to just a Support? And would it be alright if I move the addressed comments to the talk page, or we collapse them like the "Comments from West Virginian", above on the FAC page? Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, RO! Don't underplay your part in that article's development, either. It was a pleasure working with you! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Squeamish! RO <sup style="color:blue;">(talk)  15:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you say to a Perovskia atriplicifolia TFA? RO <sup style="color:blue;">(talk)  16:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, sure! I've actually never pushed for a TFA (mostly having written about stuff people won't care about enough to TFA!). But I think this is a good candidate. Let's do it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I set up the page here: Today's featured article/requests/Perovskia atriplicifolia. Please feel free to tweak the blurb, but it should be less than 1,200 characters. RO <sup style="color:blue;">(talk)  19:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Supported. I may go back and look at the blurb, but as it's just a further condensed version of the lead, I'm inclined to call it good unless someone else objects. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The nom's been blocked now by an arbitrary obstacle, so I guess we'll have to wait until November, when Brian is coordinator. I won't be here though, as I've reached my limit on this kind of crap. So I hope you nom it then. Thanks again for working with me. That was the least stressful FA for me, so that's a good one to end on. RO <sup style="color:blue;">(talk)  16:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope that you decide not to depart the project. I'll agree that Wikipedia is sometimes a frustrating place. We say it's not a bureaucracy, but for better or worse, in many ways it really is. I've learned that one of the most important survival techniques for working here is the realization that processes are all either much slower (GAC, I look at you!) or much faster (most anything involving direct administrator action) than they would be in an ideal world. I try to take a Zen approach to things; eventually, stuff gets done, and in the meantime, I have other articles to research and write and copyedit and line up for their turn at various curation processes. Regardless, though, it was a pleasure working with you on that FA push. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, same to you, Squeamish. I'm sure you're right about this place, and I'm not knocking it in general. I just think I've put in a little too much effort during the last six months, and I need a long break to reevaluate my priorities. I usually get pretty involved in the race for POTUS, so I'll probably reallocate my Wikipedia time to volunteer for my favorite candidate. RO <sup style="color:blue;">(talk)  15:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, in the spirit of American politics (and snark), I hope that your preferred candidate succeeds. Unless, of course, it's someone different than my preferred candidate, in which case may they be condemned to the dustbin of history as surely as the southward leavings of a northbound yak! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * At the risk of damaging our friendship (not really), let's just say I'm not a fan of Donald Trump! RO <sup style="color:blue;">(talk)  16:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Silent Command, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Latin lover. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe
Hi, any chance you could give this a review at Peer review/Marilyn Monroe/archive1? A core article if ever there was one which really needs a good review.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Murder of Dwayne Jones/archive3
I'm trying to figure out where to spend time at FAC so that it will do the most good. I see the nom attempted to respond to your request; were you going to follow up there? - Dank (push to talk) 16:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for It Is the Law
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015: The results
WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.

This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is. All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. , a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.

Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to. Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.

A full list of our award winners are:


 * wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 330 featured pictures in the final round.
 * wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 160 did you knows in the final round (310 in all rounds).
 * wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for 26 featured articles in all rounds.
 * wins the prize for fourth place
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins a final 8 prize and the FL prize for 11 featured lists.
 * wins the most prizes: a final 8 prize, the GA prize for 41 good articles, and the topic prize for a 13-article good topic and an 8-article featured topic, both in round 3.
 * wins the news prize for the most news articles in round 3.

We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

, and  18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for The Silent Command
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Temperatures Rising
Hello. Back in February the article that I re-wrote on the TV sitcom Temperatures Rising was promoted to GA status. Since then the article has had some further refining, including a"once-over" by the Guild of Copy Editors. I have now submitted it as an FAC. Care to take a look? Jimknut (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 is just around the corner...
Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.

After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine (User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason (User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew (User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.

We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.

The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Figureskatingfan (talk), and Godot13 (talk).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Jacob van Ruisdael
I hope you had a fine Christmas. Two months ago you helped me with my FAC for the Jacob van Ruisdael article. I just put it up again. Hopefully this time around it does get some votes. I made some more changes as well, hopefully for the better. Please have a look. Thank you. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!
We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!
We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

FAC Baron Munchausen
Hi Squeamish Ossifrage. I was wondering if you could have a look at an FAC's formatting. When I did my first FAC (Jacob van Ruisdael) you helped me tremendously with the formatting of the sources. I have given some guidance, but still feel a pupil of you the Master :) Would you mind taking a look at the FAC and Baron Munchausen article? Thanks Edwininlondon (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter


That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.

Twenty-two Good Articles were submitted, including three by, and two each by , , , and. Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by. Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with completing nine.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. ,, and --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 March newsletter (update)
Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. ,, and .--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/April 8, 2016
A summary of a Featured Article you nominated will appear on the Main Page soon. The TFA text mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/May 3, 2016
Working on this one now. - Dank (push to talk) 01:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

‌‍ listed at Redirects for discussion
I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect ‌‍ to Zero-width joiner. Since you created the ‌‍ redirect, you may want to participate in the redirect discussion. Gorobay (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Precious
Forgot to sign this 7 November 2015, - like your TFA today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

... and today, The Carpet from Bagdad --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 May newsletter


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

Round 2 saw three FAs (two by and one by ), four Featured Lists (with three by ), and 53 Good Articles (six by  and five each by, , and ). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six by and five by ). One Featured Portal, Featured Topic and Good Topic were also promoted. The DYK base point total was 1,135. scored 265 base points, while and  each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted with completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants, and, broke the 700 point mark for Round 2.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. ,, and -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)