Jump to content

User talk:Wizardman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NihartouJason (talk | contribs) at 04:40, 14 January 2016 (→Completely False Article Frederick Achom: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Request

Hello, I'm running a Wikipedia editathon next week, and was hoping to be given account creator permission to register new users at the event. Please help me with this process, thank you Jjfloyd (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help with histmerge for Aubrey McClendon?

Hi Wizardman, it's been a while since I've reached out, but you were very helpful last year in reviewing and moving live a new draft I was proposing for Tucker Eskew's article. I'm hoping you might be able to help with a current project of mine, seeking to update and improve the article for Aubrey McClendon. Similar to Eskew, I'm working as a paid consultant to Mr. McClendon and will not make any edits to the live article myself, instead offering a new draft for review. Two editors (User:Wilipino and User:Bruin2) have already reviewed the draft, finding it to be an improvement on the current article version. After some discussion with Bruin2 and edits by both of us to my proposed draft—unfortunately Wilipino has not been online since his initial favorable response—I believe the draft is ready to go. Bruin2 wasn't sure how best to take the draft live, and I think what he had in mind is a histmerge. Knowing you've helped move my drafts into live article space before, including a histmerge on my behalf for Gary Loveman, I thought to ask you.

If you're able to help, my draft is here and the original request on the Talk page is here. Let me know if you have any feedback or if you're able to move the draft live in place of the existing version. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look sometime next week. Wizardman 13:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

Potential new issues with an established CCI; requesting feedback

Hello, Wizardman. I know you're very busy, so sorry for bugging you, but if you could give feedback on whether you believe the CCI for User:Epeefleche should be expanded to include recent edits in light of concerns expressed at User_talk:Epeefleche#Ongoing_close_paraphrasing_concerns, it would be appreciated. I do not know if these issues are widespread; I've seen plenty of valid paraphrase in his work, but did verify that the concerns have some merit, unfortunately. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: bureaucrat discussion opened

Message to most bureaucrats

A bureaucrat chat has been opened by Maxim at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough 2/Bureaucrat discussion.

Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion suggests notifying bureaucrats on their talk page as well as BN, hence this courtesy note. –xenotalk 16:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services


Sign up now


Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrat discussion notification

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678/Bureaucrat discussion

I would welcome input from other bureaucrats in relation to the outcome of this RfA.
Many thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) for WJBscribe (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

Tyrone Garland FAN

Hello. I have nominated the Tyrone Garland article for featured article review. It may not be long enough, but I am ready to make whatever changes you say are necessary. If you are interested in reviewing it, please initiate the nomination. TempleM (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes - Issue 12

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Taylor & Francis, Science, and three new French-language resources
  • Expansion into new languages, including French, Finnish, Turkish, and Farsi
  • Spotlight: New partners for the Visiting Scholar program
  • American Library Association Annual meeting in San Francisco

Read the full newsletter

The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

CCI update

--Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Just giving you a cold one in recognition of your work here. Always appreciated. GamerPro64 01:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

Moultrie, GA µSA

I stumbled upon the RfD discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 27#Abbeville, LA μSA while creating an article, and noticed that you deleted Moultrie, GA µSA without a deletion rationale after the discussion closed as "Keep". Could you explain why this page was deleted? If the rationale was "implausible redirect", I'd like to request that you restore the page, given that there was consensus at the linked RfD discussion to keep the page despite those concerns. Thanks for taking a look, and sorry for bringing up an admin action from 2013. It just struck me as odd. ~ RobTalk 02:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wizardman and Rob – this redirect has been recreated as the result of a page rename. See User:Paine Ellsworth/mu to micron for more info. – Paine  10:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Thank you for approving to add name of Jasveer Jatia in April 11 page of wikipedia jasveerjatia (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tunisian Arabic

Dear User,

Tunisian Arabic has been nominated for Wikipedia GA Status. However, no one has reviewed it. So, please review it soon.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Community & Bureaucrat based desysoping proposal

A discussion is taking place regarding a proposal to create a community and bureaucrat based desysoping committee. The proposal would modify the position of bureaucrat. Your input is encouraged. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

2015 GA Cup - Round 2

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 2

Greetings, GA Cup competitors!

Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. The Rambling Man, who was eliminated during the first round in our last competition, earned an impressive 513 points, reviewed twice as many articles (26) as any other competitor. It was a tight race for second for first-time competitors BenLinus1214 and Tomandjerry211, who finished second and third with 243 and 224 points, respectively. Close behind was Wugapodes, who earned 205 points.

The change in our points system had an impact on scoring. It was easier to earn higher points, although the key to success didn't change from last time, which was choosing articles with older nomination dates. For example, most of the articles The Rambling Man reviewed were worth 18 points in the nomination date category, and he benefited from it. BenLinus1214 reviewed the longest article, A Simple Plan (at 26,536 characters, or 4,477 words), the 1994 film starring Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, and Bridget Fonda and directed by Sam Raimi, and earned all possible 5 points in that category.

After feedback from our participants, the judges slightly changed the rule about review length this time out. Shorter reviews are now allowed, as long as reviewers give nominators an opportunity to address their feedback. Shorter reviews are subject to the judges' discretion; the judges will continue their diligence as we continue the competition.

Despite having fewer contestants at the beginning of Round 1 than last time, 132 articles were reviewed, far more than the 117 articles that were reviewed in Round 1 of the inaugural GA Cup. All of us involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished thus far. The judges are certain that Round 2 will be just as successful.

16 contestants have moved onto Round 2 and have been randomly placed in 4 groups of 4, with the top 2 in each pool progressing to Round 3, as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 has already begun and will end on August 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here.

Good luck and remember to have fun!

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

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

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

Bureaucrat discussion notification (Liz)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Liz/Bureaucrat discussion

I would welcome input from other bureaucrats in relation to the outcome of this RfA.
Many thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) for WJBscribe (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't presume that your conclusions are academic. We're pretty evenly split at the moment, with Xeno still to comment, and other bureaucrats might chime in. If for one would appreciate hearing further from you, whichever side of the fence you fall. WJBscribe (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

Well done

The Bureaucrat's Barnstar
Time and time again, the bureaucrats of en-wiki demonstrate their levelheadedness and expertise. Like an anesthesiologist in an operating room, you spend most of your time screwing around reading a magazine, but stand ready to spring into action when needed, only to fade into the background once your important work is done.

Or perhaps that's more like Batman? Whatever your preferred metaphor, I am consistently impressed by the bureaucrat corps. Thank you for your service. HiDrNick! 12:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Moultrie, GA µSA

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Moultrie, GA µSA. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Tavix (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tavix – this deletion review has been procedurally closed, because the redirect was recreated as the result of a page rename. See User:Paine Ellsworth/mu to micron for more info. – Paine  10:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA Crat Chat

Hello, Wizardman,

I just wanted to thank you and all of the bureaucrats who participated in the bureaucrat chat after my RfA was closed. There were a lot of votes and comments to go through along with the enormous amount of content on the crat chat talk page. I appreciate the time and care the bureaucrats took to consider all of the arguments and come to a consensus.

I never imagined that my RfA would be at all contentious or have such a big turnout. Although I hope you don't have many close call RfAs in the future, I know if you do, that Wikipedia's bureaucrats will find their way to a decision. Thank you again for your work in bringing this RfA to a close. Liz Read! Talk! 18:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

Implementation of Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Bureaucrat activity requirements

Following a community discussion ending August 2015, consensus was reached to remove the bureaucrat permissions of users who have not participated in bureaucrat activity for three years.


To assist with the implementation of this requirement, please see Wikipedia:Bureaucrat activity. Modeled after Wikipedia:Inactive administrators and similar to that process, the log page will be created on 1 September 2015. Bureaucrats who have not met the activity requirements as of that date will be notified by email (where possible) and on their talk page to advise of the pending removal.

If the notified user does not return to bureaucrat activity and the permissions are removed, they will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFB. Removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon the affected user in any way.

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

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 Scotland Casliber (submissions) 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 Philadelphia Coemgenus (submissions) 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:

  1. Belarus Cas Liber (submissions), 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.
  2. Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
  3. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 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.
  4. Somerset Harrias (submissions), 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.
  5. Washington, D.C. West Virginian (submissions), 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.
  6. Somerset Rodw (submissions), 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.
  7. United States Rationalobserver (submissions), 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.
  8. England Calvin999 (submissions), 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!

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 3

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 3

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

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

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

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

Good luck to the remaining contestants, and have fun!

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

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

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

Nevin Ashley

Nevin Ashley was just promoted to the majors. Can you please restore?--Yankees10 01:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Yankees10 01:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

Books and Bytes - Issue 13

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 13, August-September 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
  • Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
  • Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
  • Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Annual GA Cup - Round 4

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

Hi....

I guess I'm back, god dammit this project is too addicting. This is pretty much a clean start for me though, make my past disappear. Secret (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2015

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 8, No. 3 — 3nd Quarter, 2015
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2015, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

2015 GA Cup Wrap-Up

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Finals/Wrap-Up


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

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

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

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

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

Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo.

A barnstar for you!

The Minor Barnstar
Although you did not make the top 16 of Round 1, you did participate and you still deserve a barnstar. Thank you so much for being a part of the 2nd Annual GA Cup and we hope to see you next year! MrWooHoo (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allegra Versace

..is this weeks TAFI article. Take a look.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

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 Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points). 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. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) 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. Belarus Cas Liber (submissions), 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 United States Rationalobserver (submissions). 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:

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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · logs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · logs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

Re-adding article on PC Muñoz

Just FYI, I am re-adding an article on PC Muñoz that was deleted on 15 August 2008. In my estimation the subject meets notability requirements. Feel free to patrol, thank you. -Jordgette [talk] 22:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

João Sousa GA nomination

Hi Wizardman!

Earlier this year, you reviewed the GA nomination for João Sousa article. I took in consideration all your concerns while improving the article. I would like to thank you for them, as they were extremely insightful. I am nominating it again and I am hopeful that this time it meets the GA quality standards.

Best regards, SOAD KoRn (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

Biographies

Hi Wizardman, I'm very new here, I've been mainly adding new biographies (primarily WW2 era) including a new series on the men who participated in the "Great Escape" and also done a lot of improvements to "Stub-Class" such as Victor Beamish. Is there anyway that I can identify biographical stubs for British WW2 era personnel so that I can see which stubs I need to target next, currently I've just stumbled across them by chance, such as Hugh Verity. Thanks R44Researcher1944 (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

Books and Bytes - Issue 14

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 14, October-November 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

  • New donations - Gale, Brill, plus Finnish and Farsi resources
  • Open Access Week recap, and DOIs, Wikipedia, and scholarly citations
  • Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref - a citation drive for librarians

Read the full newsletter

The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

Talk:Taxonomy of Liliaceae/GA1

Wizardman, given your long experience at GAN, I thought there was a chance you would have an answer to this very specific second opinion request: "2nd opinion sought on whether general evolution and biogeography are out of focus for a "taxonomy of" article (GA criterion 3b)". I have no idea whether you do or don't, but if you did it would probably allow a nearly five-month-old review to reach a conclusion. (In the unlikely event you're interested, there are two other second opinion requests for articles that have been under review for over 100 days.) Thanks for your consideration, especially as I know you're mostly inactive at GAN these days. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for going through the Report page and taking care of the oldest holds and reviews, and also two of the second opinions. After all that wonderful progress is seems almost churlish to bump this section, but Taxonomy of Liliaceae is a very old second opinion (one of two such ancients remaining): if you could answer the query, or if you know someone who might be well qualified to do so, it would be great if we could get the query addressed. Thanks also for anything you can do on these. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barnes Compton

It looks as if I screwed up there or misread the situation or something – thanks for sorting it out. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Self-requested biography articles

Hey there Wizardman. I'm looking to write biography articles on entertainers where the entertainer themselves requested that the article be written, such as at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Biography/By_profession#Entertainers doesn't indicate whether the subject themselves requested the article. Any idea where I can find such self requests? -- Jreferee (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

Please consider changing the page protection on Bigg Boss to either semi-protection or pending-changes-level-1. The vandalism seems to have died down, one of the vandals is now a blocked sock, and unless the documentation pages are wrong, pending-changes-level-2 has not been approved by the community for general use (it is used for office actions and other extraordinary situations). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Figureskatingfan (talk), and Godot13 (talk).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you all the best . . .

Merry Christmas, Wizardman, and may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:StatisticianBot

Wizardman, I was wondering if you could do me an incredible favor and email Dvandersluis that StatisticianBot has stopped producing the daily GAN Report (last successfully run on December 18) per the instructions on the bot's talk page. I don't do email on Wikipedia, so I can't send it myself. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After four days of successful runs (24th through 27th), it missed today's GAN Report. If you can send Daniel that email, I think it would be a good idea; otherwise, I suspect the problem will keep recurring until he takes a look at what's been going wrong. Thanks for offering! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It missed again today. I'll leave it in your hands. Thanks again! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, went ahead and sent the email. Wizardman 00:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Art Shires, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington Senators (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for your work in fighting vandalism that covered hundreds of professional baseball players pages over the past few weeks! Cubbie15fan (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q4 2015

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 8, No. 4 — 4th Quarter, 2015
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2015, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Completely False Article Frederick Achom

Hello,

I would like to draw your attention to this wikipedia article Frederick Achom, at first look it looks like a good article, but it hides most of the real information. If you see article's history you will see that it has been under several editing wars. Almost all claims made in the article are supported in the article are made using own links or PR releases. Also the links which seem genuine like London's 1000 most influential people 2010: Night OwlsLondon's 1000 most influential people 2011: Night Owls have many things wrong in them- they claim to be 1000 but not more than 6 are present; they have no author. They are off the website but somehow have crept into the website. There are many such cases in this wiki article.

Frederick Achom is using his wiki article to show potential investors how great he is by supplying all false information and duping them of money. He has been previously convicted and jailed which was earlier in the article but now has somehow disappeared. [1] [2]

[3] [4]

I hope you will understand the gravity of the situation and help in rectifying by either getting the page deleted or corrected.

Thank You. NihartouJason (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wizardman&oldid=699740594"