User talk:Wugapodes/Archive 3

Please comment on Talk:Doctor Who (series 9)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Doctor Who (series 9). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Karen Stollznow
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Karen Stollznow. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia and United Nations Women Project
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) Delivered by Rosiestep (talk) via MassMessage 04:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mary Lou McDonald
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mary Lou McDonald. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

your ipa in sig?
kantʃɻɪbz that first vowel is ah like in "confidence" and... post alveolar fricative "sh" in there, and... I dunno, it's been a decade since I was studying that at my alma mater, but it looks all wrong to me... maybe kənˈtrɪbz  Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I'm glad someone's at least reading what I wrote, haha. The post alveolar fricative is actually part of the digraph Voiceless palato-alveolar affricate which is "tʃ". It's nominally tied in IPA but ties are complex, don't always work, and I wanted to limit the strange characters in my signature, so I didn't tie them. Looking at your transcription, it's not how I would say it, but seems reasonable enough. It's very possible we just pronounce "contribs" differently. I actually have primary stress on the first syllable (hence the unreduced [a] rather than [ə]), and I participate in the Northern Cities Vowel Shift so what is phonologically /ɒ/ (which is probably what you say/were expecting) for me is pronounced further forward like [a]. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 17:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well then. I still don't see how you could squeeze a "ch" in there, but you know, whatever flavor you prefer. :-) I would pronounce "contribs" very differently than "contributions". I'd stress the second syllable for "contribs" as you suggested, and use /ɒ/ for "contributions", as you also suggested. I grew up on a phonological border b/w Midwest and Southern accents; I got the former and my relatives all got the latter (I tease my mother mercilessly. I have no shame.)... I don't think FAC regulars will buy into the sorts of reward-based incentives that other forums will. That perspective is very deeply engrained in FAC culture. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Indigenous women & Polar women editathons
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Gadget/proposals
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Gadget/proposals. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Consideration (song)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Consideration (song). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Upcoming editathons: Women in Nursing & Women Labor Activists
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mock the Week
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mock the Week. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Protect user pages by default
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Protect user pages by default. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to 	 Women in Architecture & Women in Archaeology editathons
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Please comment on Talk:AlMaghrib Institute
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:AlMaghrib Institute. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup Announcement
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Elvis Presley
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Elvis Presley. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:European Open (snooker)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:European Open (snooker). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

An invitation to November's events
(To subscribe: Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Please comment on Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 November newsletter: Final results
The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 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 three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
 * Good Article – MPJ-DK had 14 GAs promoted in R3.
 * Featured List – produced 2 FLs in R2
 * Featured Pictures – Adam Cuerden restored 18 images to FP status in R4.
 * Featured Portal – produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
 * Featured Topic – and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
 * Good Topic – MPJ-DK created a GT with 9 GAs in R5.
 * Did You Know – MPJ-DK put 53 DYKs on the main page in R4.
 * In The News – and, each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
 * Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

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

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I really hate to ask this, but...
What pronouns do you prefer used for yourself? Your Wikipedia username doesn't really give any indication, and I really hate misgendering people. It's for Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Wikicup - I'm using singular they in the meantime. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking! I'd rather you ask, so don't worry about it. I prefer singular they, so just keep doing what you're doing! Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 09:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Given it's been published in the interim, that's a bit of a relief. Cheers! Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:South West Trains
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:South West Trains. Legobot (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/November 18, 2016
Hi Wugapodes, this Featured Article you nominated has been selected for the Main Page for the 18th. Please check it for things like dead links or recent sketchy edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016 at Women in Red
(To subscribe: Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Please comment on Template talk:Marriage
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Marriage. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Signpost
Delighted to have your piece finally in the Signpost! Thanks again for the excellent submission. (It might be interesting to submit to a journal for peer review...I'll follow up if you're interested.) By the way, I deleted the pre-publication commentary...linked there in case there's something you want to hang onto. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Edits to your article
Hi, I just noticed this edit to your article. It seems generally good to me, but it's kind of substantial, and I didn't see any preceding discussion or request -- what do you think? I'm happy to step in as editor and defend your published version if you prefer! -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I think it's an improvement; it clarifies a lot of the jargon I didn't realize might be unfamiliar to people. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 03:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Your BRFA
Your BRFA, Bots/Requests for approval/WugBot has been approved for trial. Please see the BRFA for limits. Please post the results of your trial on the BRFA when complete. — xaosflux  Talk 03:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

GA article
I'm a little late to comment on the Signpost article, so I just wanted to drop a note and say I found it very interesting. I don't have a solution, but I'm still thinking about it. It's good to see the problem and the associated data laid out so clearly. I should also take the opportunity to say that I've always liked your username; I grin every time I see it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request WugBot
Someone has marked Bots/Requests for approval/WugBot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place  anywhere on this page.

Please comment on Talk:North Korea
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:North Korea. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 10 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) 20:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Bots/Requests for approval/WugBot
Your BRFA was approved, please see Bots/Requests for approval/WugBot. — xaosflux  Talk 21:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on File talk:Conscription map of the world.svg
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on File talk:Conscription map of the world.svg. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

TFAR
Today's featured article/requests/Heffernan v. City of Paterson --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

WugBot output
Wugapodes, it's fantastic to have updated information on the Reports page. Thank you so much for taking on this bot. A very minor thing on the bot output in the Old reviews section of the Exception report: there's a stray apostrophe at the end of the line right under the header; if you could fix that, it would be great.

Are you making any progress on including the links to the GAN page? It's a helpful feature that I find I'm missing; I hope it will prove to be feasible. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out! I am making some progress, yes, but unfortunately I took this on right as the finals period rolled in so I don't have as much free time as I would have hoped. I'd put an ETA of Dec 17 on that feature, once things slow down. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 19:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So making the bot category aware is going to talk a bit of reworking of the code, so in the mean time I set it up to link to the review page (if there is one) or to the talk page (if it's just a nom). Personally, I think this is a better solution as you can go directly from the report to the problem nomination/review. Still, I plan to make it count the number of reviews and give the summary at the bottom of the page as well so I'll need to rewrite it anyway, so if you think the previous method is better I can switch back at any point. Let me know. You can see how the links work at the test page or on the report page in about 30 minutes. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 00:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Each nomination entry on the GAN page offers "(edit | talk | history | protect | links | watch | logs | page views (90d))" links, which is why it's desirable to link there: more potential information is immediately available. (In addition, the nomination and review initiation dates are immediately visible on the GAN page, while only one is visible on the other pages.) In addition, failing to use the links as they had been makes WugBot useless for another StatisticanBot task I had hoped it could soon be tasked to do, which is to update the pink "The oldest unreviewed good article nominations are" box near the top of the GAN page. These use the same links as had been in the Report page's "Oldest nominations" section: as you can see on Good article nominations/backlog/items, the first five of the ten oldest are the ones that are visible, and the next five are placed in a commented-out reserve. Without those links, however, it's far better to manually maintain that page, since clicking on the link in the pink GAN backlog box takes you directly to an entry on that very same page. I strongly recommend that you go to the WT:GAN discussion page and see how people use the report and whether they'd prefer your innovations. I personally don't, but I'm only one of the people who actively use the Reports page, and thus a single data point. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, you make a good point. I'll ask at WT:GAN. Like I said, I do plan to do the leg work to make the change trivial, so in a few days time changing it to how StatisticianBot formatted them should be easy. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No immediate rush: your final exams are far more important! I'm looking forward to seeing the results when they're ready. Thanks again! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * One odd thing in your new output: the article name "Rodrigo Duterte presidential campaign, 2016" is being shortened to leave out the ", 2016" part of the name (and the same happens with the London mayoral campaign, 2016"; I haven't done a full check to see if other articles are being affected, but this happens in both places these articles are listed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No one ever taught me to procrastinate by doing fun things, so I kept working on it in my off time. Turned out to not be as big of a rewrite as I expected so that's always good. Anyway,, you may want to check out the test page now; the links there point to the GAN page (so whatever the preference is at WT:GAN can be easily implemented) and the summary report at the bottom can also be updated now. I'm almost concerned at how well this is going. And the weird bug you mentioned seems to be fixed. Not quite sure what happened there. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 12:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The new links look good; I haven't checked them all, but the Oldest nominations section has identical links to what was there as of the last StatisticianBot run, and random checks of links in the Holds, Reviews, and Second opinion sections took me to the correct section of the GAN page. However, these last three sections now have the wrong number of days: you had correctly been giving the number of days since the review started, and you're now showing the number of days since the original nomination. It's important that these three sections resume giving the number of days since the review started, while the Oldest nominations and Old nominations section continue to date back to the creation of the nomination (as they are doing now). I don't have time to look at the new Summary section update at the bottom just now; I'll try to get to it before tonight's official run, but no guarantees. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Wugapodes, I just noticed that the version of the bot that is running nightly and updating the Report page has that odd bug I mentioned above that doesn't show the ", 2016" in those two article names. I thought you'd want to know. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure why that is happening, but the most recent version of the bot, which will run for the first time tonight, doesn't seem to have the problem based on the test output. I'll wait for that run and hopefully it will have resolved itself. If not I'll take another look
 * Wugapodes, while the output on December 17 appears to be have been fine, there's something seriously wrong with the December 18 output. The entire Oldest nominations section is wrong, and the Old nominations section goes back and forth between correct numbers and very small numbers, though I think the entries are in the right order. Please fix it as soon as you can. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wugapodes, the Old nominations section of the Report continues to be problematic: it is supposed to give how many days since the nomination was created, but if the nomination is under review it instead gives how many days since the review was created instead. Please give this your earliest attention; it's been a problem for five days running. (Note that the Oldest nominations section at the top has been fixed; this is the Old nominations section further down the page, which includes all nominations at least 30 days old, regardless of review status.) Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Will do! Thought that was fixed, I'll get right on it. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * check out User:Wugapodes/GANReportBotTest. It looks correct, but since this has been a problem I've missed, another set of eyes would be a good check. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wugapodes, the test page's Old nominations section looks fine. Thanks. I took a look at the Nominators with multiple nominations section—which isn't one I work much with—and thought that you might want to only go down to 3 nominations, which had been the minimum multiple for Statistician bot. The list of people with two nominations is really quite long.
 * There is one typo in the description for the Oldest nominations section: after "List of the oldest ten nominations that have had no activity", there needs to be a space before the "(" character. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, wonderful, I thought the minimum it used was 3 but didn't have the source code s I just interpreted multiple as > 1, but I agree, 3 is better. I'll fix those and then make the changes. Also, you may want to look at some of the older revisions of the test page; I've been toying around with Graph:Chart to see if a chart of the last 90 days of stats could be included in the report. It's not very polished (and has a huge gap in November...), but you might find it interesting. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 05:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

== Please comment on Talk:United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote ==

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote. Legobot (talk) 04:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017 at Women in Red
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

McGrath
Sorry - I'm not at all sure how to use this talk page. The thing is our organisation just changed its logo and updated some key messages - so we're really the only ones who CAN update this info. I'll change the user name - unfortunately the previous person in my position didn't leave any log in details. So how do you propose making the changes necessary if we shouldn't make them ourselves?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by McGrath Foundation (talk • contribs) 10:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the long winded response. Just trying to be thorough so you don't get in trouble.
 * For help using talk pages, you'll want to see Help:Using talk pages, but you're on the right track! All content on Wikipedia must be verifiable meaning that it must be published somewhere first. For most pages it must be independent sources, but since this would be information about your organization, primary sources, like the foundation website or press release, can be used. If the content you added is not published anywhere, it cannot be added so if you are really the only ones who can update it, it cannot be added until someone publishes it. If it is published and verifiable, it can be added by others, and you can use this template--Request edit--on the article's talk page to suggest the changes you want. If another editor thinks they are an improvement, they will make them.
 * Another thing to mention is that edits not only have to be verifiable, they also have to be neutral. Your edits were reverted by another editor because they were overly promotional. There are a lot of policies that Wikipedia has about what can go into article, but as long as you make sure the edits you suggest are verifiable and neutral they should be accepted relatively easily. If you are interested in editing other articles, there's a good tutorial page: A primer for newcomers.
 * I'd highly recommend you read WP:COI which outlines the dos and don'ts of being paid to edit Wikipedia.
 * With regards to changing the name, if you do not know the credentials for this account, you can simply abandon it and create a new one as long as it complies with the username policy. One naming convention that the Wikimedia Foundation uses is the employee's first name followed by the foundation acronym so something like: John (WMF). If you want to edit as a volunteer (I think you should but obviously I'm biased), it may be best to create a personal account as well to keep contributions you were paid for and contributions you volunteered for separate.
 * I hope that helps, and feel free to ask any more questions you have! Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 11:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! That's so helpful and all of this is on our website and there have been articles in the Australian media about it. I will review the pages you mention, change my user name and update accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McGrath Foundation (talk • contribs) 12:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Please comment on Talk:Betsy DeVos
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Betsy DeVos. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

WugBot 2 output
Wugapodes, I hope you're having a happy New Year. I just took a look at the move software, and noticed that it's moving nominations to the approval page that are not actually approved. So far as I can tell, if a tick occurs anywhere on the review, you move it, while only articles that have a tick as their most recent icon are currently approved and eligible to be moved. (Any of the four other icons—,, , and —supersede a tick.) A couple of examples from User:Wugapodes/DYKTest/0, the 01:02 run on January 2: Looking ahead on the page, I don't think any further examples will be helpful. All three October instances have hooks that aren't approved (though they were once upon a time), and five of the November hooks aren't approved (ditto). Once you refine the algorithm, I imagine these all will disappear from the page. Please let me know when you'd like me to make another check. Thanks again for your hard work on this! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * October 14: the Ariel Awards have a Symbol possible vote.svg as the last listed icon in the template, which is what determines whether it is approved or not (in this case, very much not). So it shouldn't have been moved here at any point.
 * October 25: Angola at the Lusophony Games may have had an early tick icon, but by the time you started testing this is was long superseded by other icons, and the most recent one is a "review again". This shouldn't be listed on the page.
 * Thanks for so diligently checking the outputs of the bot, the more eyes the better! Moving nominations whose approval was superseded is based on my interpretation of the RfC (which may well be wrong). The suggestion was: The nomination page stays but only includes those which have received no approval whatsoever. My reading is that "no approval whatsoever" means that only nominations that any hook that was ever approved, even if superseded, would be moved so that the nomination page would only have unreviewed or unapproved nominations. What are your thoughts? Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Wugapodes, I have to disagree with that interpretation and that suggestion. The Approved page is only useful if the lion's share of nominations there are ready for promotion, with an active tick. The people building preps made that point. The initial load should only be those nominations that are approved at that moment, and whenever the bot moves a nomination from the main page to the Approved page after that initial load, it also needs to have a tick as its latest icon (why move it if it was approved and then disapproved between bot runs?). It is inevitable that some nominations on the Approved page will be discovered to have issues and have their ticks superseded. However, I imagine most reviewers will naturally concentrate on the nominations page, rather than search amongst the approved noms for the few that have been sent back for another round, so my guess is that there will be a reassessment at some point as to whether nominations should only go one way (to Approved), or should perhaps be allowed to travel both ways. For the moment, though, this seems to be a one-way trip, but it should only be made when the tick is active. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No need to be sorry, cordial disagreement is fine and I think you have many good points. I think the best solution for the moment is to proceed with your implementation as a bare minimum and further discussion can be had on ways to improve it once the nomination page is functional. I think that gives us the best of both worlds--a working nom page--and allows us to have a good discussion about how to improve DYK without the looming specter of a broken nom page. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 05:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, PS, if you wouldn't mind keeping an eye on the test pages the next couple days I would be very appreciative; I'm not sure how it will handle the year change. It seems to be doing well so far, which is confusing because I have no clue why. Its emergent quirks like these that keep me scripting, honestly. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 05:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

WugBot down?
Wugapodes, the GA Reports page was last updated at 01:00 1 January 2017 (UTC); it has missed the last two 01:00 outings. Can you please check it and see what's gone amiss, and get it going again? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Gah! I'm busy for the rest of the evening so can't get it fixed by 1am UTC, but when I get home it will be the first thing I tackle. I've read the logs and have a good idea how to fix it so it should be ready quickly. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Whenever you can get to it is soon enough; thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It was a problem with a particular signature being in an unexpected format. Easy fix. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 06:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, sigs can be in almost any format, and some of them cause real problems when they're poorly constructed. Glad it was an easy fix.
 * I just noticed that the Backlog report is down to nine entries; there are supposed to be ten on the page. Also, there's a minor formatting issue with the line at the bottom of the section: there needs to be a space after "the" and before the link to the backlog archive. It isn't urgent; whenever you can get to it is fine. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well that's an odd number, I looked through the code and it doesn't seem to be an issue with the current bot. I added the 10th entry and it should be fine from now on. The bot is set up to handle an arbitrary number of backlog report entries, it returns as many as it's given, so it seems that at some point a bug caused it to go down to 9, that bug was accidentally fixed and the bot just kept doing what it was told, never knowing it wasn't working right. I made the formatting fix though since I was already messing with the source code. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 05:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Bot just ran and it has 10 entries. Yup, definitely fixed. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Generation Snowflake
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Generation Snowflake. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi


Kayau has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for the cat! :) Other suggestions/additions to the template will be apprecaited. Glad to see other active linguistics nerds on WP! I'm not much of a socio/applied person (I bet you were excited about the 2016 Language award!) but I hope I might be able to cooperate with you on articles of common interest in the future. Good luck with the sociophonetics article - a very notable topic with rapidly growing interest! (I think it's a 'gap' on WP - WP's linguistics coverage has so many such gaps.) Kayau (talk · contribs) 15:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to ignore you, small tasks like thanks for a talk message often fall by the wayside. It's a wonderful template that you should be proud of, and I think a wonderful addition to the project! I would help but I know very little about Syntax unfortunately. I mostly just smile and make jokes about Chomsky and government whenever I walk in on the syntax working group. But thank you for the cookie, and especially for your work on the template. It really is appreciated! Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 05:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Indus Valley Civilisation
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Indus Valley Civilisation. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017 at Women in Red
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

BAGBot: Your bot request WugBot 2
Someone has marked Bots/Requests for approval/WugBot 2 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place  anywhere on this page.