This is an archive of past discussions with User:Yngvadottir. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Just a quick thank you for your copy-edit of Soft & Cuddly, I'm embarassed that I'd left those two repeated words in. Must have been half-asleep when typing and then forgot to double-check the article. Thanks! Someoneanother16:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Look at the top, someone summoned ClueBot while I was asleep; it just hasn't run yet :-) I was just on the way to thank him. I was not aware of the issue until recently but it's becoming apparent that a lot of people do share the concern and that thematic archiving getting the DYK templates off this page hasn't been enough. Sorry about that. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually: no! It was a proposal, nobody posted the code (should be at the top at "section 0") and thus no bot will archiving it. mabdul16:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
"posting the code" means: copy the code with the "grey" background and paste it to the top and remove the first whitespaces (and thus the grey box). mabdul16:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I thought Josh Parris did that with this edit (using ClueBot rather than MiszaBot as suggested by the others)?
BTW not that it matters because I added the hook quote into the main body of the article, but you said
"The hook is great. However, it's only actually mentioned in a picture caption. It needs to appear in the text"
When going through the rules it only says "The Did you know? fact must be mentioned in the article" (emphasis added), it doesn't disambiguate between the text vs caption. I take "article" to mean anywhere in the article. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The Tea Leaf - Issue Two
Hi! Welcome to the second edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
Teahouse celebrates one month of being open! This first month has drawn a lot of community interest to the Teahouse. Hosts & community members have been working with the project team to improve the project in many ways including creating scripts to make inviting easier, exploring mediation processes for troubling guests, and best practices regarding mentoring for new editors who visit the Teahouse.
Springtime means fresh tea leaves...
First month metrics report an average of 30 new editors visiting the Teahouse each week. Approximately 30 new editors participate in the Teahouse each week, by way of asking questions and making guest profiles. An average of six new questions and four new profiles are made each day. We'd love to hear your ideas about how we can spread the word about the Teahouse to more new editors.
Teahouse has many regulars. Like any great teahouse, our Teahouse has a 61% return rate of guests, who come back to ask additional questions and to also help answer others' questions. Return guests cite the speedy response rate of hosts and the friendly, easy to understand responses by the hosts and other participants as the main reasons for coming back for another cup o' tea!
Early metrics on retention. It's still too early to draw conclusions about the Teahouse's impact on new editor retention, but, early data shows that 38% of new editors who participate at the Teahouse are still actively editing Wikipedia 2-4 weeks later, this is compared with 7% from a control group of uninvited new editors who showed similar first day editing activity. Additional metrics can be found on the Teahouse metrics page.
Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is a really nice way to make new editors feel welcome.
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. -- Sarah (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Soedjatmoko
About your copyedit of Soedjatmoko... just a quick request. If the name of a city is involved, it's probably best not to change it (Yogyakarta and Jakarta are quite different, and about 600 kilometres (370 mi) apart). Also, my articles on Indonesia tend to be in BrE, but that's easily fixable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sorry about changing the city; that was genuine confusion based on looking at the list of universities in Indonesia. But I believe the change to honorary was correct under British English also? Extremely sorry if it wasn't! Yngvadottir (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
RfA
Dear Yngvadottir, if you want your RfA to succeed, lay back and don't feel obligated to answer every question. Less is more. Good luck; I'm rooting for you. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes I saw :-) Thanks! People have said some amazingly nice things about me. I think the 'crats may be drawing straws on IRC for who gets to close this one ... Yngvadottir (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Thoughts
Well, I opposed and though I still don't know if that was the right !vote, now that you've passed I wish you the best of luck and hope that you prove all the O's wrong. I'm sure you'll be a breath of fresh air to the admin corps. :) NoleloverTalk·Contribs00:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
This is what I expected to happen during both your RFAs Opps.... Actually I copied this whale from Scottywong's archives when he became an admin. I did just copy and paste so forgot to remove both as Scotty's 1st RfA was a big flop show: [1]...
Smash!
You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.
Piling on the congrats. I'm sure the tools will be quite useful... just try and not get corrupted by the smelly janitor's closet to which they gave you the keys -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Congrats, now don't go testing the theory that admins can't delete the mainpage anymore, and try not to block yourself as so many new admins have done in the past. When you've discovered what a faff it is looking for the right block message you might appreciate a bit of code some kind soul added to my Monobook.js - feel free to copy. And once again, congrats. ϢereSpielChequers15:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, there's a helpful notice, fortunately, when you click the wrong button: "You are about to block yourself! Are you sure you want to do that?" Drmies (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Not having made that mistake myself I can't help but wonder when that warning was added. Presumably after accidental self block became the most common reason for our most active editors to have anything in their blocklog. I wonder what will replace it as the most common mistake for new admins to make? ϢereSpielChequers10:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I have the utmost confidence that you're going to be a fine admin and am so pleased you got the tools. Congrats! :-) ~dee(talk?)
He's forbidden to edit but I don't see that as any reason not to thank him. It's not as if I expect a "you're welcome". Sorry. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks that could've waited, surely? It's not just him who can't edit the page, it's all non-admins. As such I think your using your new admin powers to post past protection was unwise at best, and an abuse misuse of powers at worst. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I hope not. I suppose I could have e-mailed him. I thought of the protection as imposed to keep him from editing unwisely there, and since I wasn't taunting him ... I thought it better to thank him along with everyone else. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Me too. Strange Passerby is making a big issue out of something really innocent imo. ~dee(talk?)
Agreed. It's not hurting anyone or causing problems. The real problem is that KW's talk page shouldn't have been protected, he should have just been re-blocked without talk page access. But in any case, there is no rule (nor a reason for one) which prevents admins from leaving harmless messages on the protected talk page of a blocked user. If there is a message that you're dying to get onto KW's talk page that can't wait 2 more days, I can unprotect it for you and re-block KW with talk page access revoked. Calling this abuse of admin privileges is a bit ridiculous. ‑Scottywong| express _17:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The protection was lifted about two hours later anyway. I can't see any problem, myself, as the protection seems to have been aimed at KW not others. Peridon (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
There are two types of admins - those who edit protected pages (except when they don't) and those who don't edit protected pages (except when they do). You'll fall into one category over time, based on your personality. There's a lot to be said for people in the former category - no one says anything about it, unless, of course, you get dragged into an arbcomm case, in which case every instance will be presented as proof you are a bad person. On the other hand, if you choose to be an admin who doesn't edit protected pages, you'll get accused of abusing the tools every time you fix a malformed protection template on a protected page. But no one will care in an arbcomm case or on ANI. Guettarda (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
hmmmmmm we have been having a lot of power outages too, but that is not why I am here. I'm here to remind our new admin that with her name there is more than just her reputation at stake. Carptrash (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Whoooops. This was supposed to be one box up. Carptrash (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!! I promise, if you go for RfA RfB, I'll surely vandalize it (seems weird, doesnt it? Well, your 'Nooooooooooooooooo' is also weird) Yasht10114:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Also available in blue.
You scratched your way through the RfA and managed to pull it off successfully. You are now an admin. I initially voted neutral because I couldn't decide whether to support or oppose you.—cyberpowerHappy EasterOnline19:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
Congrulations on becoming an sysop. Remember three things, be patiant, assume good faith and have tolarance. If you keep your cool you will earn a lot of respect. –BuickCenturyDriver10:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
My overall contributions so far (Important)
Hello Yngvadottir, hope you are doing good :). I need to ask about a frank view/opinion on my contributions so far from all experienced users (all other users are also most welcome to comment). As i want to improve more and more day by day and help the project become more successful which i am proudly a part of. I am always truthful, i also intend to become an administrator in the future to help and serve the project better than ever and for that i need more help and support from all other users on every aspect. I had started my Wikipedia editor review Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser almost a month ago, but only one user till now have given me feedback about my contributions. Looking forward to hearing for suggestions from you and all members of the community :). Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:
Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
Hey Yngvadottir! I've just now noticed that you've gained adminship and I'm glad to hear it. We need more of your sort in these ranks. It's always a pleasure working on articles with you. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
boaderThis was sitting on your door step, so I thought I'd better bring it in This was strange I had the new message banner so I thought OK I'll check that real quick then I need to check on that RfA that just closed. Congrats.... You'll do fine, have fun Mlpearc (powwow) 20:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but I am not bold! Also it should be a community decision, for a good foundation. (I don't know whether you read the RfA, but I do not expect to block or unblock people.) Yngvadottir (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
You misunderstood me completely, sorry! (Makes me smile, though.) I didn't mean YOU to tackle that most complicated special situation which the blocking admin commented like this: "... there are a thousand other admins to overturn the block if it's unwarranted". I wanted to point out some general standards ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Not having interacted with you before, I stalkedscanned your contributions, was impressed, and was going to Support your RfA, and then, BAM, a power outage which lasted for Four long and hot hours. Anyway, I thought I'd congratulate you on passing the field full of daisies gauntlet, though it isn't a big deal after all! Lynch717:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah its great to see a decent editor who has been here longer than a mere couple of months made an admin for a change! Sorry I missed your RFA, you would have had my support.♦ Dr. Blofeld11:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The eggs are now in Q4, you know that they are a symbol of peace ;) Do you think you could swap "my" Bach cantata hook (BWV 67) mentioning peace from Q3 to there? It's fine as it is but would be even more significant together (+ I would sleep during Q3 time), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for your kind message on my talk page. I’m impressed with your content contributions, and I love your approach to adminship. The fact that you got elected makes me feel slightly more hopeful about this project. Best wishes – DracoE20:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
RfA
Congratulations on passing your RfA. Some useful pages to visit are the how-to guide and the new admins' school. Some words of caution can be found here (I should know, they've made an example out of me there). Good luck with your new responsibilities. Maxim(talk)19:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Many congratulations on your success! Let me know if you ever need any help or advice from an old stager. Enjoy the tools. --John (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, you didn't manage to wriggle out. I'm probably not the best person to turn to for advice or assistance, but I'm available for what I can do. 8-) Peridon (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Well congratulations and good luck with your new job! Be sure to take note of what the opposers said and feel free to ask another experienced user if you have questions. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted your change, giving my rationale in the edit summary. Documentation of Techno Viking at Know Your Meme is part of the internet phenomenon; it's being mentioned for its own sake. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
With respect, I believe this falls into the area of permitted use of a primary source. The fact that Techno Viking is covered there, including the "obey" picture, is what is being asserted. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
It's not being used as an external link - it's being used to document the spread of the meme. (Hence: primary source. I hope I'm correct in that terminology.) I am not citing its opinion, merely noting that it features Techno Viking and documents visual re-use of a motif from the video. Know Your Meme is the best reference for that claim, and reliability doesn't come into it - it either features Techno Viking and has such pics, or it doesn't. As such, removing the ref would be counterproductive. I appreciate your concern, but you appear to be confusing different types of references. The alternative would be to put it in External links, but that would be giving an unaffiliated site too much prominence. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The content you want to add needs to be reliable, kymm is not. It is a user-editable site, it would be like saying there's a youtube video of him dubbed with 'obey' then referencing that video. Or quoting his entry on Urban Dictionary. There's no significance with any of them.--Otterathome (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary, there is a distinction between reliable and notable that comes into play here. You appear to be confusing the two. It is not verboten to mention Know Your Meme; they are not a reliable source for things outside Know Your Meme, but in this instance the article points out that they list TechnoViking, and include a certain kind of spin-off content. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
What makes this obey picture notable than the other pictures? What makes this website about him more notable than other websites? So what if they list him? There's no reason for it to be mentioned. And it is 'verboten' to mention it, as it violates WP:V.--Otterathome (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
You prove my point - you are confusing notability with verifiability. The overarching story is that Techno Viking is an internet phenomenon. The video itself was just the starting point. To encyclopedically cover the topic, therefore, it is necessary to note major points on the internet where it has been featured - including Know Your Meme and Encyclopedia Dramatica, both of which are sufficiently notable to have articles. Therefore it is not only not verboten to mention them in the article; it's part of covering the topic. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Except for the ED mention, which was simply implied in a note (someone removed mention of the Techno Viking page there when ED was taken down), the article does mention teh extent of the internet coverage. Thanks for the reminder to add back ED in past tense; I don't think it's necessary to reference that using the Wayback Machine. I'm now copying this conversation over to the Techno Viking talkpage, except for your template, which I'll make plain text, so that the points we have both raised are available to other editors of the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Yngvadottir. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know. Message added 04:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Really not many editors (especially admins) are good at content creation. Now you are a serious admin and still find your way for DYKs along with vandal fighting. Thats great my friend! Keep it up... Yasht10117:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's Grapple X (submissions) remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's Casliber (submissions) was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's Muboshgu (submissions) coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.
65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of bothMatthewedwards (submissions) andGrandiose (submissions), the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, Ealdgyth (submissions) earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article, Dana Boomer (submissions) earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by Stone (submissions) to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. Jarry1250 (submissions) managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.
An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions), for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Simrock
Thanks for adding! (I have only little time this week, can't do it myself.) To my understanding, Dvorak and Brahms were Fritz's "thing". If you follow the link to the scores, there is plenty of additional material. N. Simrock is known for 80 works of Brahms, I would prefer a separate hook around that, rather than those premature Beethovens ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The thing is, it's the same company. That long sentence can be unpacked - and your suggested alt places the emphasis on Nikolaus - but the company published everybody. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't get it - it's late here. We have a person, Nikolaus, and a company, N. - I would prefer to keep them separate, the person knew Beethoven, the company published Brahms, yes? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you prefer to keep them separate, because one of his accomplishments was starting the company - which, under him, published Haydn and Beethoven. Maybe best to let others decide. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
TB
Hello, Yngvadottir. You have new messages at Soman's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Now I see something very rare and superb in you. And it is that inspite of getting admin rights, you haven't stopped editing articles or expanding them. This ability is mostly lost by editors once they get admin rights so far as I have seen. You are one of a kind and for this quality, you are one of the better admins out here. I really appreciate your efforts! :) →TheSpecialUserTalkContributions*17:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh wow, thank you! [blushes horribly]. But I did mean what I said at the RfA. . . . including about being sure to muck things up horribly sometimes . . . Yngvadottir (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Apologies for the delay in getting back to you, I've gone ahead and done that history merge for you. Welcome to the admin team, if you ever have any questions about adminship or how to use the tools, please do not hesitate to ask. If you get a minute, have a read of Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves, although it's quite lengthy, there's some useful information there about history merges (doing a history merge is relatively easy, undoing one is much more of a nightmare!). Best, TheHelpfulOne00:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your help re: the Fulcrum magazine page, I am trying to get it up to standard, and have added several sources and categories and revised the text - do you have any advice? Many thanks again, and best wishes. --Jackself87 (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 May newsletter
We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is Cwmhiraeth (submissions), whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader, Grapple X (submissions), is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. Miyagawa (submissions) leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by Casliber (submissions), our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.
This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user, Muboshgu (submissions), claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
On DYK
Don't be so hard on yourself. The latest issue (with the bot not recognizing the {{DYKbotdo}}) is more my fault than yours. (Having said that, I'll keep the code as-is since it's the lesser of two evils.) You're doing a great job! Feel free to add yourself to the DYK admins list :) Shubinator (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Yngvadottir, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours. No need to be hard on yourself; agree with Shub there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Welcome to the fourth issue of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter for the Teahouse!
Teahouse pilot wraps up after 13 weeks After being piloted on English Wikipedia starting in February, the Teahouse wrapped up its pilot period on May 27, 2012. We expect this is just the beginning for the Teahouse and hope the project will continue to grow in the months to come!
Thank you and congratulations to all of the community members who participated - and continue to participate!
What you've all been waiting for: Teahouse Pilot Report is released! We look forward to your feedback on the methodology and outcomes of this pilot project.
....and if a pilot report wasn't enough, the Teahouse Pilot Metrics Report is out too! Dive into the numbers and survey results to learn about the impact the Teahouse has made on English Wikipedia.
Teahouse shows positive impact on new editor retention and engagement
409 new editors participated during the entire pilot period, with about 40 new editors participating in the Teahouse per week.
Two weeks after participating, 33% of Teahouse guests are still active on Wikipedia, as opposed to 11% of a similar control group.
New editors who participated in the Teahouse edit 10x the number of articles, make 7x more global edits, and 2x as much of their content survives on Wikipedia compared to the control group.
Women participate in the Teahouse 28% of Teahouse participants were women, up from 9% of editors on Wikipedia in general, good news for this project which aimed to have impact on the gender gap too - but still lots to be done here!
New opportunities await for the Teahouse in phase two as the Teahouse team and Wikipedia community examine ways to improve, scale, and sustain the project. Opportunities for future work include:
Automating or semi-automating systems such as invites, metrics and archiving
Experimenting with more ways for new editors to discover the Teahouse
Building out the social and peer-to-peer aspects further, including exploring ways to make answering questions easier, creating more ways for new editors to help each other and for all participants to acknowledge each other's efforts
Growing volunteer capacity, continuing to transfer Teahouse administration tasks to volunteers whenever possible, and looking for new ways to make maintenance and participation easier for everyone.
Want to know how you can lend a hand at the Teahouse? Become a host! Learn more about what makes the Teahouse different than other help spaces on Wikipedia and see how you can help new editors by visiting here.
Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is really encouraging to new Wikipedians.
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome :-) I don't really understand why people start on the individual buildings and neglect the institution - I had to do Vienna Museum too. But there was simply oodles of info on the Berlin National Gallery. Someone really ought to write up the Crown Prince's Palace. Decent article there on de.wikipedia . . . --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Yngvadottir. Thanks for letting me know about the issues with my review of this article, and sorry for missing them. I responded at the nom review page, placed a note on the nominator's page, and did another QPQ review. Cheers, --Rosiestep (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Writer's Barnstar
Hi Yngvadottir! I feel very proud and happy to award you the Writer's Barnstar :) You my friend have done an Incredible and Amazing work of writing a large number of articles and have also made many different types valuable contributions to Wikipedia! There are only a handful of other Wikipedians who have done such an awesome work and contributed so much like you have! :) Keep up the great work ;) Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
This is the best award i could find just for your great article creation and content contributions only By considering your overall edits across the project you surely deserve much more respect and recognition! TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Any chance to improve this article, Yngvadottir? It seems that he's an important personality for Norwegian music ... but I can't read Norwegian. Maybe this could help(?) Thanks for any help/answer :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll put it on my list if none of the actual Norwegians fixes it up :-) So far I see good evidence of notability presented at the AfD - not just the Store norske Leksikon and the book about him and his wife, but 2 modern English-language dictionaries of musicians. The Norwegian article says he also held a national post of music inspector - assuming that pans out, I'll add it and that should help the article. Thanks for the headsup - I've just got online on break at work and I'm sure the Norway-related deletion discussion listing is there in my watchlist but I might have missed it among all the other things I'm watching these days. --Yngvadottir (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Back to the general: three lines were marked as needing citation. I dropped one (comment), referenced one from his nephew's article, and made the ext link a (week) ref for the last, surrender of the Stadtschloss Berlin. Even my dad knew about that. Would you find a better ref? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, pity such a high level of documentation is being asked for. A lot of those things relate to what different army units did rather than what he did. As to the Stadtschloß, I find this, which seems to say he did it on orders. Page 293 here seems to suggest he was deciding independently, but is only a snippet, and confusing. Not clear enough for me to feel good about putting either into the article, but hopefully you can find something else to slot in, perhaps with them. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I have a Bach cantata in prep3 and would prefer it in prep 4. If you need reasons, prep 3 will show when Europe sleeps, and it has 2 music related hooks ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Now both queues, but switch made. I think the frog that spawns under flower pots also makes a better quirky than what was in that position in Queue 3. Hopefully everybody will agree with me, since only admins can change it. (Pesky nuisance, that.) --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
different topic: I removed newsletters from retired user Calmer Waters, - is there a way to "unsubscribe" for someone else? - back to the general: how did you like 8,999 hits? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Wow, I had no idea .... I suspect you could just remove their name on the relevant pages with an edit summary explaining that they have retired. I think there's always a subscribe/unsubscribe link on the newsletter templates. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Happy that he wrote a bit himself, now! Happy that you helped to write today's good story (hidden message: "open mind")! I started to translate the precious article to de without any knowledge of the topic, perhaps you could look over there? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
That made a fine front-page article :-D I did just look at the German and make a couple of small changes. Hopefully I didn't make anything worse - see this history for why I don't dare do much on de.wikipedia any more. You underestimate your ability to interpret English :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 June newsletter
Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's igordebraga (submissions), who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's Grapple X (submissions), whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's Muboshgu (submissions), with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.
A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 11:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Arent you Icelandic? Based on the name. Been editing the prez election page. Was thinking CHurch of Iceland needs a good clean up and he new female head needs an article. (notability should not be in doubt as the first female)Lihaas (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm not, actually, and it's outside my religious ambit, but there are very few editors who can read Icelandic, and I agree about the first female head! Thanks for the pointer, I'll have a look if someone else doesn't get there first. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Death of R. W. V. Elliot
Hi Yngvadottir, I remember that you were very helpful when R. I. Page died in March. It appears from edits by Rozazor that runologist Ralph Warren Victor Elliott may have died yesterday. Perhaps you could keep an eye open for confirmation of his death, but in the meantime I have reverted the mention of his death. BabelStone (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I did indeed completely miss that and only saw the same article I had added from that newspaper. My apologies. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:
It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.
At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).
Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.
If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasit | c17:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
You have breached WP:3RR on this article in your edit-war over the "death dagger". As an admin, you should know better than to behave like this. I will block your account if I see you return to edit-warring on the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
No, I saw that. You need to better familiarize yourself with 3RR - take another look at the blue box in the section. Any edit that changes the contested material (in this case, the "death dagger") is considered a revert; it doesn't have to be the exact same change to count. Parsecboy (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Several years ago, the policy was a bit looser, but it's since been tightened to prevent people from playing games (i.e., making other changes along with the revert to mask it as a "new" edit). The point is, you shouldn't have been edit-warring while discussing the issue on the talk page to begin with - a revert or two is fine, but seven over less than 48 hours is a little too much. Parsecboy (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
That's stuck, I'm afraid. See also the discussion on the article's talkpage, which I am presuming the article creator is aware of. I've stuck the red bendy arrow on it. What it really needs is a reviewer who with the background/library access to judge whether the article unreasonably singles out that particular country. Also, obviously, in such a contentious matter the references should be checked to assess whether they are fairly represented; I added GoogleBooks URLs for those I could find before in order to facilitate this, but the article writer has added a few refs since. I never actually reviewed it, by the way; I worked on it to try to help it along. (Also Kiefer had a pronounced opinion on this one but is still serving out a block of his own.) Yngvadottir (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I think we'd reached an impasse regarding close paraphrasing, and although I'm happy to see issues of medical reliability/undue weight being considered, since they rejected my offer to cut it right back to a report of what Reich's theory was, I think at this point it needs fresh eyes, preferably from someone with relevant background. I'll go put the red arrow on it. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi. As an active participant in DYK discussion, if you have a minute, can you drop by Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Number of Olympic hooks per day? and offer an opinion on how to address this? I'd rather get it dealt with sooner rather than later as I feel like the sheer volume will require a discussion as all people involved in building prep areas will need to be aware of whatever decision is reached. Thanks. --LauraHale (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Soil Article Edits
Thumbs up
Thanks much for the improvements to the Soil article. I've been working that over for some time and have a way more to go before it might be considered a good article. I guess I need to learn to punctuate. Zedshort (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Greetings,
thank you for the reply. I just have a few hurdles that I wanted to pass through...and was wondering if you can help me. From your reply you said to state why i must explain why i nominated it late...where do i do that? Plus is it required to have 8 different hooks on a page? or less than that? What is an ellipsis?
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guptakhy (talk • contribs) 04:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I will! Thank you for your help! Is there anything else I am leaving out of my request for now?
Guptakhy 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}}!
I did, didn't look far enough though to see who wrote it. You didn't look far enough to see that I (of course) created the redirect from the simple Stadthaus to the unspeakable "Old City Administration Building, Berlin" ;) - Sorry, I have no idea what needs referencing, that wasn't my concern ;) - Back to translating titles: it was not easy to find something German for Yogo sapphire, the German Sprachpfleger (the one's username!) came up with Yogo-Saphir, which would be the equivalent of Berlin-Stadthaus, - now we have Saphir (Yogo), for two days without a move, almost stable, see the article discussion if you want entertainment ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I did see that you moved Altes Stadthaus to specify Berlin - for some reason when I moved the article from Old City Hall (Berlin) and checked for redirects I didn't see that. (I suspect the database problems we were having at that time.) I should have created or moved it immediately myself, but frankly this article was such a mess it stressed me out. Incredible amount of work, and I felt I needed to do it as quickly as possible because I had stopped the DYK process after it had already been checkmarked ... and it had also been nominated for GA! It was apparent that nobody had noticed the references were all wrong, to put it simply, and they were in that format that requires using 2 templates each time .... gah. Poor building and poor Hoffmann, they both deserve a nice article. (I've been intending to do the Märkisches Museum for some time; now I think I'll do Hoffmann at the same time, I found a nice reference that I can use for both.) Also the German became a FA in 2006 and has obviously had a lot of love and local knowledge put into it.
I think we have a problem with editors producing poor translations with heavy reliance on automatic translation programs (the translating of titles of books and articles and even of proper names of people and publishers indicates machine translation) and including the same references without - apparently - actually having seen them. But I am not sure what to do about it without shaming and discouraging them. I notice that others in addition to you and I have been fixing up these translations in the case of at least one such editor. But the problem is not getting caught at Did You Know review - as demonstrated by these articles. That would be the best place, because it's a good location for working with the editor on all sorts of problems in a particular article, and it's established that the goal is to get the article ready. I'm not sure what to do except keep jumping in with help where I can, but we've both just had exhausting and time-consuming experiences trying to fix up translations, and there's obviously a limit in a volunteer environment.
I'll look again at the discussion over there on de. I was amused to see someone confident of the gender to assign to Gulch :-D Yngvadottir (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the time you took here and on the Berlin Stadthaus talk, I enjoy your writing, it helps my understanding so much. Yes, sure, gulch must be masculine ;) - Back to the Berlin case, here because you said you unwatch it, and only the aspect of the title (translation and referencing is bottomless.) There are topics where an English title is known all over the world, accepted, "Bayreuth Festival" is one (a lousy translation of Bayreuther Festspiele, missing the "games" aspect), "Town Hall" is one (a lousy translation, should be "Council House"), "St Matthew Passion" is one. Accepted. There are other topics where the original name is known all over the world, "Thomanerchor" is one (was a long discussion you may be interested in). "Altes Stadthaus" seems to belong in the latter category. In any case: we - Wikipedia - should not (and I said so fighting "Yogo-Saphir") invent a term. (To invent a term and then say it is known by it, is almost funny.) - I made a suggestion on the article talk. - Finally, a Berlin pic for good cheer, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed your latest edit summary on User:Yngvadottir, and was wondering whether {{User DYK helper}} might be what you're looking for. It's not one that I use, but it looks like this:
Hey I just checked the DYK nomination page. Wow. It took a life of its own. We have one last wikipedia project to do. And I still don't think I will get a chance to sit down and read all the things on the nominations page. So after this final project for wikipedia is done, I will take the time to go through every single comment and additions made on Job Attitude article. I might lag really badly due to more projects in our wikipedia class. I really wish I could get it on DYK before my Wiki course ends, I guess I couldnt. Thanks for all of your help, by the way. Greatly appreciated. Khyati Gupta (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 July newsletter
We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees Cwmhiraeth (submissions) as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees Grapple X (submissions) in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees Muboshgu (submissions) in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's Ruby2010 (submissions) follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.
Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the note! I hadn't known about her at all. (And as you may have noted, I've been busy the last couple of weeks fixing up bad translations from both German and Icelandic; I was finally naughty and started Märkisches Museum at work; that was the one that got the short end of my over-commitment :-)). I'll take a look ... umm ... tonight if things get quiet at work '-) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The Tea Leaf - Issue Five
Stop by for a tasty glass of wiki-iced tea at the Teahouse, today!
Hi! Welcome to the fifth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
Guest activity increased in July. Questions are up from an average of 36 per week in June to 43 per week in July, and guest profile creation has also increased. This is likely a result of the automatic invite experiments we started near the end of month, which seeks to lessen the burden on hosts and other volunteers who manually invite editors. During the last week of July, questions doubled in the Teahouse! (But don't let that deter you from inviting editors to the Teahouse, please, there are still lots of new editors who haven't found Teahouse yet.)
More Teahouse hosts than ever. We had 12 new hosts sign up to participate at the Teahouse! We now have 35 hosts volunteering at the Teahouse. Feel free to stop by and see them all here.
Phase two update: Host sprint. In August, the Teahouse team plans to improve the host experience by developing a simpler new-host creation process, a better way of surfacing active hosts, and a host lounge renovation. Take a look at the plan and weigh in here.
New Teahouse guest barnstar is awarded to first recipient: Charlie Inks. Using the Teahouse barnstar designed by Heatherawalls, hosts hajatvrc and Ryan Vesey created the new Teahouse Guest Barnstar. The first recipient is Charlie Inks, for her boldness in asking questions at the Teahouse. Check out the award in action here.
Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania! The Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania this past month, where editor retention and interface design was heavily discussed. Sarah and Jonathan presented the Teahouse during the Wikimedia Fellowships panel. Slides can be viewed here. A lunch was also held at Wikimania for Teahouse hosts.
As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey! Thanks for all your help! I used your "this user loves pizza" template from your about me section into my user page. Hope that is OK with you. Khyati Gupta (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Neato! I am actually involved in a wikipedia project on my campus to improve psychology related articles. So yea, that article is a part of the school project which I really wish to be in the limelight. Therefore, I was seeking help to get it as the DYK status someday. Yes, someday. Your help is really appreciated. Khyati Gupta (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Ooooh! Om nom nom nom, thank you :-) I will look at the other 2 articles if I get time at work tonight. But no promises of useful help, I know nothing about this material. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Smiles for you!
TheGeneralUser (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:User:Cowman109/Smile2}} or {{subst:User:Cowman109/Smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
Hi Yngvadottir! Hope you're doing good. I wanted your help on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anarchopedia. It is a draft article which i had started almost three months ago but haven't completed it till now. You are a perfect article creator and content writer :) so i needed your help on this as you are a very experienced and a great editor! I just want to make sure that the draft article is able to meet all the minimum requirements of a stub or anything else or also if you can improve it much more than that so that there is high chance that the article reviewer accepts and approves it to move it to article mainspace. I started this article originally after seeing it on Simple English Wikipedia and some part is based on it, but i have just learned that unfortunately it has been deleted there, (see simple:Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2012/Anarchopedia). I am not sure what needs to be done now, should i continue with your help to create the article or just get it deleted ? Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll see what sources I can find; that's the problem, finding major independent coverage, and unfortunately that is often hard for online things. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Cognitive vulnerability
Hey
Thought I reply you here. I am being completely honest, I have not copied anything. I didn't know how to reply to all the things written on the nominations page, I just don't hold suck thick skin. The article that you would like to track down, its here
Yes. Alot of key points are cited from this article. However, I did not copy anything. I used the word "scheme" because i was trying to write the original article's facts into my own words. Yes, it is an article rather than a book.
All in honesty, I thank you for your help. Your reply on my talk page gave me a bit of hope. :)
Khyati Gupta (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey
Sorry that the link didnt work. I tried making another link. You can try viewing it here. I am trying to search back again the article and I am hitting no luck. Can't find this article anywhere after i saved its copy...
I found it! Its: Cognitive Vulnerability by John Riskind and David Black. 2005, Encyclopedia of Cognitive Behavior Therapy, Part 3, Pages 122-126. ISBN030648580X. DOI: 10.1007/0-306-48581-8_37 Another link here. If that link doesn't work either, sorry. :(
I just fixed the citation! Thanks! I really appreciate your help! Take your time! If you need anything from my side, I am here. :D Khyati Gupta (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Greetings.
I made changes to the article. Also, i just realized after viewing talk page of User:LauraHale and saw that she currently has limited access to the internet. So I was wondering if someone else can jump in to push this DYK? Thanks!
Khyati Gupta (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, she has a lot of irons in the fire anyway :-) I've just explained at the nomination template - by putting the red bendy arrow symbol on the article, with an explanation that it's been further changed since the last review, I'm asking for someone (either her or someone else) to give it a new review. That's how we'll find out what needs to be done. Hopefully they'll either pass it or come up with a clear next step. SilverSeren and I are both too involved in it to review it ourselves and as I've said, I don't know the field nearly well enough, but there are always lots of people looking for something to review. Thanks for continuing to work on it and I'm sorry, wiki process and all, I'm afraid DYK is sometimes like this :-) --Yngvadottir (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! Here is the list of all the contributed articles from my side which are waiting on DYK:
Hi Yngvadottir :). I recently came across these two articles, The Scissor Fits and The Oregon Song and have found them to barely meet the Wikipedia stub requirements, although not fully. Both the articles have been on Wikipedia for almost 4 years since the end of 2008, but hardly any major article development or improvement has been done in both the articles. Also both the articles do not have any reliable sources and references, none so far. I am not sure if theses articles should be tagged for deletion. As you are an experienced editor, i have requested your help for article building, development and improvement if it is possible. I have also posted about this issue on Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard. Regards! TheGeneralUser (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I see one has already been deleted while I was tying up the loose ends on a fiddly bit of Norse mythology; I'll have a look and see what I can ferret out about the other. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey Yngvadottir! Thanks for your quick reply :). Looks like these articles can't be improved anyways will eventually get deleted as one already has. Doesn't look like any major improvement can be done on the other article, so that also may just get deleted. Thank you for your help anyways! TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I just researched the other pretty thoroughly and dumped what I found on the talkpage; I don't know whether you saw. Pity, really. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. When you recently edited Orgastic potency, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trauma (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.
Next: Kronprinzenpalais, beautiful. I would like to see the pics a bit larger in he article, to be able to compare architectural details, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kronprinzenpalais, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rodin (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.
Hey Yngvadottir! Thanks for your recent fixes and additions to some articles I was the primary author of some time ago. Quality work as always! :bloodofox: (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Heh, thanks, glad you didn't feel put upon, especially when I just messed with a GA :-) I was actually berated by a friend about the defects of our coverage in a few areas related to goddesses, and have started to fix up what he put his finger on. There is a mess with the Lóriði thing; those names in the genealogy between Thor and Odin in the Snorra Edda Prologue need to be flagged as actually being names of Thor. I note that our article on the Prologue is poor, I've found 2 good discussions of it, but all I've found so far on the fact those names are really Thor-names is ... de Vries in Dutch. So if you can lay hands on a better ref, please feel free :-) It will then need to also be fixed in Sif and likely a few other places too, but I think I need to improve the Prologue article first so that readers get a complete explanation if they click through. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Issues with goddesses articles? That's no good! I've written most of the article goddesses on Wikipedia (the most prominent exception being the very sad Frigg article). I would certainly be grateful for the correction of any issues that may be found in their coverage! Our article on the Prose Edda prologue has long needed a rewrite as well, I agree. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
He's talking mostly about the so-called "Handmaidens of Frigg," where the underlying problem is the preponderance of sources do treat them as aspects of Frigg, but as you see, he found a problem with Sif, and earlier with Nótt. He also tells me we describe Friðþjófs saga as 13th-century? I haven't yet looked .... I'll also add for myself that I believe Völsa þáttr is still pretty bad, but I admit I haven't looked at it in a while so maybe you or someone else got to it :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, as you know, the "aspects of Frigg" thing is a complex and problematic issue that bleeds very easily into Great Goddess theory, so I've tried to keep things pretty straightforward. Unfortunately I haven't really had a chance to sit down and do any heavy editing here in a while due to other commitments. I started an Odin article rewrite some time ago that I'd like to get on the mainspace, for example. :/ I presume you've asked your friend about starting an account of his or her own? It sounds like they would be helpful. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I should know :-) And I've tried to get him to edit here, but he will only patronize the Nynorsk Wikipedia. However, second best is he tells me what he turns up that needs fixing. So I can fit it in between reconstructing pre-1945 Berlin and saving articles at AfD '-) Thanks for the e-mail :-) Now I must go back to work .....--Yngvadottir (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 August newsletter
The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:
Grapple X (submissions) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
Miyagawa (submissions) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
Ruby2010 (submissions) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
Casliber (submissions) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
Muboshgu (submissions) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
Dana Boomer (submissions) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
Sasata (submissions) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.
On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Yngvadottir :). Hope you're doing good! I recently came around this article Bagatayam Waterfall and i think it currently does not meet the basic minimum requirements for a Wikipedia:Stub. The article only has a external link to flicker website of a picture and a external map link. There are no other reliable sources and references. If possible can you have a look at it and see what can be eventually done ? I believe your help will be invaluable . Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I've redirected it to Bagatayam, Sogod (Cebu), which I was able to clean up a bit and add 2 sources to. One of those mentioned the waterfall briefly, but that was all I could find. I left a note on the target page's talkpage suggesting that anyone who can find reliable sources on the waterfall should revert my redirect edit. Both were created by the same editor a short time apart, but they haven't edited since 2011 and a number of their creations were problematic. Hopefully they or someone else who can find and read Filipino sources will come and improve the barangay article or revive the waterfall one in better form. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Please be advised of my initiative to overrule the recent rejection of the article's DYK nomination at Talk:Orgastic potency#Premature DYK rejection where I have made substantive reference to you and your efforts to prepare the article (and I made a similar reference at the closer's user talk page). I hope you have interest, and perhaps even a bit of calling, to assist in getting this article through its final lap. __meco (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
TheGeneralUser has given you a puppy! Puppies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your puppy must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a puppy, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of puppies by adding {{subst:Puppy}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited MT Vulcanus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Pacific (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.
Hi Yngvadottir ! I have started my second editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2). I will be greatly delighted, thankful and valued to have your review for me regarding my editing and possible candidate for Adminship. As you are a experienced and long term Wikipedian so i have asked for your kind review. Take your time to review my editing and give the best review that you can :). Feel free to ask me any questions you would like to on the review page itself. It will be a great honor to have you review me for which I will truly feel appreciated and helpful! I always work to improve Wikipedia and make it a more better place to be for Everyone :). Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The Tea Leaf - Issue Six
Hi! Welcome to the sixth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!
Teahouse serves over 700 new editors in six months on Wikipedia! Since February 27, 741 new editors have participated at the Teahouse. The Q&A board and the guest intro pages are more active than ever.
Automatic invites are doing the trick: 50% more new editors visiting each week. Ever since HostBot's automated invite trial phase began we've seen a boost in new editor participation. Automating a baseline set of invitations also allows Teahouse hosts to focus on serving hot cups of help to guests, instead of spending countless hours inviting.
Guests to the Teahouse continue to edit more & interact more with other community members than non-Teahouse guests according to six month metrics. Teahouse guests make more than twice the article edits and edit more talk pages than other new editors.
New host process implemented which encourages anyone to get started as a Teahouse host in a few easy steps. Stop by the hosts page and become a Teahouse host today!
Host lounge renovations nearing completion. Working closely with Teahouse hosts, we've made some major renovations to the Teahouse Host Lounge - the main hangout and resource space for hosts. Learn more about the improvements here.
As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. EdwardsBot (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Yngvadottir! I nominated it long ago and it was too soon as it's music video wasn't even released. Though a GA, I feel that it needs few c/es (I'm not one of the better editors at it..). "Music video" section can be expanded at least twice or thrice to what it is currently and I'll be doing it but I needed some input for the rest of the article. Cheers! TheSpecialUserTSU22:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for improving the singer. Bach's oratorios, however, is a very vague term. There are only 3, 5 if the Passions are included, whereas he wrote 200 cantatas. What do you think of a more general "music by JSB"? Or should we get specific and say that he is known for the part of the Evangelist (Bach)? Mention academic teacher and musicologist? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
No problem, it's a lot easier to nip and tuck in one's native language than it is to research and write such articles '-) Regarding the lede, looking at the source, which is after all focused on Bach and which only singles out the oratorios (I would include the Passions under that header, but you could add "and Passions" to be clear), I'm inclined to leave it as is. As you said at the DYK nomination, classical singer bios tend to have short intros. I find the folksong work interesting as well as the editing (and would welcome specifics), but I don't think there's enough in the sources you've found, and hence in the article, to justify putting those in the lede. The teaching is worth saying, but not so extraordinary that it needs to be signaled in the lede - in my opinion. Can you track down for certain which Midsummer Night's Dream it was? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
After reading once more, I added Thomanerchor to the lead, the "Roter Faden", where he started, performed and edited the 800 years history. I will ask Project Opera about the Sommernachtstraum. May be some GDR 20th century composer ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me! I've added the Paralympic results to the article. Shame he didn't win the gold really, as I didn't realise when I started on the article that he lives locally to me - would have been nice to have a gold post box down the high street! :) Miyagawa(talk)12:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
A plea for your support
I have today presented three additional suggestions for a DYK hook for the article orgastic potency (see Talk:Orgastic potency#Premature DYK rejection). As you are well aware its DYK nomination was rejected on September 3 due to the apparent impasse in the perception of the administrator in question. I am now pleading with you and Slimvirgin to support the initiative to reopen the nomination, and in so doing express your would-be accession of my assertion that there are no major issues with the article that should be seen as obstacles to the article being featured at DYK. __meco (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Template:Did you know/Queue/3
I have to question your choice of an image for this queue; is my rather dreary photo really the best image? Couldn't you go with something like File:Jordan Early.jpg instead? I proposed the image for inclusion, but basically I didn't expect it to be used unless nothing else had a useful image. Nyttend (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I just moved the prep set into a queue after verifying the image licence, I didn't assemble the prep :-) I've raised the question at WT:DYK of what should be swapped with it - Gerda had previously pointed out there that the image doesn't show much. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Oops, I completely forgot to account for movement from prep areas :-) Thanks for bringing this up there; I've chimed in as well. Nyttend (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the copyedit. Please change the hook: ... that an elephant-headed goddess, often referred to as a "female Ganesha", exists in the Hindu pantheon? OR ... that an elephant-headed goddess, often referred to as a the female Ganesha, exists in the Hindu pantheon? --RedtigerxyzTalk17:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!
Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).
If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
Hi there. When doing the manual update earlier tonight, you did not give out the DYK credits. Was it intentional or did you forget it? I guess I could have given out those credits, but I think it would look strange if I credited myself. :) Mentoz86 (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! There is just a simple reason for not adding the url to few news citation as there are no such links available. I don't know if I've missed any but most of the things are not available online. (How did I add the details then?) There was a book which described all this things who used the news articles as ref which I added to the article. I also searched online but didn't got sources for many and where I got, I added the link. I'll still go for another ride on the google to see if I haven't missed anything. About usage of LPGs, I'll have a look at few books and will see if there is any inaccuracy or not. Cheers! TheSpecialUserTSU22:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I got the use of "cited in" but how should I actually do that? Its okay to re later, Good night madam (it is 4 am here so I'm too off to bed) TheSpecialUserTSU22:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Template:Did you know/Queue/
I've noticed that a lot of the articles are now going through quicker, like at least 4 times quicker than they were. 5-7 days I think is perfect and it makes DYK such more worthwhile while the articles are still "fresh" and new, a month tends to kill it a bit and by which time I'd forgotten it had been created. I think if they can assessed and then approved quickly like this it makes DYK far better. It invigorates DYK and also encourages editors to produce more new content. If this was yours or the intention of others I thankyou for it.♦ Dr. Blofeld08:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
A link to a dab page is not wrong! Some of them may be, but not all. If there is a link to a dab page, like in regional airline you need to look at the dab page and see if one of the articles there is correct. In the case here, there was a specific article that should have been linked, aircraft lavatory. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, see my later edits linking to that at other articles. But in this instance, the sentence goes on to link to aircraft lavatory in explanation, so it's silly to have them both link to it. (At least that was my reasoning; I've reverted, feel free to rephrase it if you see a better way to achieve the explanation for those not familiar with the word "lavatory" in this meaning :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Confessions (radio), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Mirror (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 seems it was the product of misleading marketing: the series was promoted everywhere as the return of Mirtha Legrand after her decades of absense. It seems that nobody cares about theater, as if it was a minor and uninteresting thing. I have fixed it by adding that those 46 years she was not acting in television. Cambalachero (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
/* Brow Monument and Brow Monument Trail */
hi. thanks for cleaning up the article. and just an answer for you
regarding a url for the NRHP pdf. they told me that it's on their in-house server and
not accessible other than by emailing them and requesting they send the
pdf. it took about 4 days to get it. there was a significant discussion
in wikicommons as to whether i could upload the pdf to commons to have it accessible there
but there was too much concern that parts of it were not in the public
domain so it was decided to just reference the NRHP people. again. thank
you and everyone else who has guided me on the project.bill polkAbearfellow (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I thought it might be something like that, where you had it in a Google doc or something. No worries, and you're welcome. Now what's your next article going to be about? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
it will take me a while to recover from this one! Most of the stuff that I do wouldn't qualify on wiki because tracing down permissions and copyrights would be a real bear (photos of every single piece of the stained glass in family crypts in Pere Lachaise cemetary in Paris and high contrast black and white photos of architectural details of the London Underground (every station of course - i'm compulsive). I'm content to put these out in self publishing - Lulu.com - for small audiences. again. so many people deserve so many thanks. bill polk seattleAbearfellow (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 September newsletter
We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. Grapple X (submissions) currently leads, followed by Sasata (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.
It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!
Thank you for the belated welcome to wikipedia and the tips, I know citation is needed for things which is why I ended up deleting the whole section on Ian Watkins (Lostprophets) page because not only did I realise it was irrelevant, and the bit about him injuring his ribs too, but also I saw the malicious and offensive untrue text being added that was insultive and damaging to Ian's girlfriend and child and I know that they have already had to have comments disabled on their pages on the website whosdatedwho because of internet bullying from jealous fans Desirrred (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled why we're including a modern book's title and author up front in a caption to a mediaeval image. I can see we might possibly wish to name the original source by such-and-such a monastery, but I can't for the life of me see why we're naming one of any number of modern sources that may happen to use the old image. Especially at the top of an article, it looks like spam, which at least it isn't, I guess.
Your extensive contribution to DYK and vastly improving the efficiency between nom and feature/credit in recent times has not gone unnoticed. It greatly improves the attractiveness of DYK and encourages editors to produce more content. Keep up the great job you do. ♦ Dr. Blofeld14:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Blue, overwhelmingly. Maile-whatsit. Crisco was moving more preps to queues than me until his Master's programme started socking it to him. Casliber swoops in and saves the day every so often :-) And although she's stepped back recently, Orlady's a treasure. It's a good project, in fact. It also has a lot of fruitful collaborative editing going on, like the teams you participate in. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
... that when the reservoir is filled to capacity, the newly constructed Dikgatlhong Dam will supplant Gaborone Dam as the largest in Botswana?
PFHLai did the nomination, so is to blame for that hook. :~) But I checked it. :-( Now I think about it, it is definitely inaccurate. The Dikgatlhong reservoir has much more capacity than the Gaborone reservoir, and the source says that, although it will take two or three years to fill with water. At 41 metres high by 4.6 kilometres long the dam is much larger than the Gaborone dam which is 25 metres by 3.6 kilometres, but the source does not make that comparison. Maybe:
... that the newly built Dikgatlhong Dam can store almost three times more water than the Gaborone Dam, the next largest in Botswana?
... that the newly built Dikgatlhong Dam has far more capacity than the Gaborone Dam, formerly the largest in Botswana?
Hello, Yngvadottir. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Disambiguation link notification for October 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
I'm at work, so I can't concentrate enough to finish the job, but I did the quote and checked and corrected what precedes it. When I get home I'll look at the rest of the German article and see if I can add any refs. If you know a better word than "bollard" for the short column on a dock to which a ship is made fast, please go ahead and substitute it; too much going on here. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I think I've probably done all I can at this point. I omitted the dialect humour about the guy being naked. I added a Further reading item that I can't access, added back a skipped ref., and added one additional ref I was able to find. One ref that was in the article did not support what it was used for but did add an interesting modern point. Another source made an interesting comparison. Several books viewable only in snippet view make the point that this is an early departure from idealisation of rulers and generals in monumental sculpture to idealisation of a worker; that should probably be added, but I'll leave it to the primary author(s) to track down a good specific statement. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned that the Gibraltar DYK holding area on Template talk:Did you know is not working as anticipated. The problem is that the special occasion holding area is not intended for new articles; as the instructions at the top of the section say, it should not be used to nominate new articles. Editors are not used to going there to look for articles to review (I know I certainly don't) and as a consequence, the Gibraltar-related articles penned up there are not getting reviewed. I don't think it's serving any useful purpose to put Gibralter-related articles in there. I'm thinking of suggesting amending the options that you proposed in Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options to eliminate the holding area requirement and post such nominations in the normal date sections where they are less likely to be overlooked. The other requirements (two reviewers, COI/promotional issues considered, etc) would remain for now. As the proposer of the agreed options, would you support this? Prioryman (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I think having lists appear on WT:DYK is helping it to work as well as could be expected; we should view slowness in reviewing/rereviewing Gibraltar noms in at least 2 contexts. For one thing, we're asking the second reviewer to be quite brave (there's still resistance to having Gibraltar hooks run at all) and extra-careful and strict (and QPQ is still a task performed with reluctance by most and we've been getting backsliding towards bare ticks/checkmarks). --And whether desirable or not, the second review has the expectation that it will be done by either a DYK long-timer or someone else whom the community can trust to look hard at issues like undue weight; sadly, the agreement we were able to reach in order to break the logjam does rule out a newbie for those second reviews, so to a certain extent, if the person doesn't think to look at the bottom of the page, they maybe shouldn't be reviewing the politically problematic Gibraltar nominations anyhow.-- For another, the GA proposal and to a lesser extent the 10-day proposal have been absorbing people's attention and raised a lot of hackles and I wouldn't be surprised at all if they weren't making people less likely to put forth extra effort at DYK and/or causing some people to avoid the project till the dust dies down. We were already seeing a fall-off in nominations and in reviewing for a number of reasons, including the bitterness of the Gibraltar discussion, and now there's another reason people might be turned off. In addition, that discussion about what to do with Gibraltar noms was pretty fraught, and look at how discussion continued about whether to accept the result, let alone how often the hooks should run. (The opening salvos in what became the GA in DYK proposal didn't help calm continuing disagreement in that respect; and I note that someone again raised the point of view that we should stop running Gibraltar hooks at all, between your query here and my waking up and making this response.) So I'd say it's better to continue as we have been doing, with periodic lists of them at WT:DYK, rather than mixing them in with the nominations that don't have the special requirements of double reviewing and extra scrutiny. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Just to be clear, as I said above, I'm not looking at ending the second reviewer requirement yet. I'm concerned, though, that you don't seem to be addressing my point that the holding area isn't for new nominations - it doesn't matter whether the reviewer is a newbie or a long-timer, neither group would normally have an expectation that the holding area needs to be checked for new nominations. Could you possibly answer two questions for me:
1) What do you see as being the purpose of putting Gibraltar-related articles in the holding area in the first place?
2) If you feel they should continue being listed in the holding area, would you consent to also listing them by date so that they can be discovered more easily by reviewers? Prioryman (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
It's the only place on the nominations page where we hold articles separately; the alternatives would be to put them on a separate page as we do for April Fools (which would be even more of a purdah and probably lead to accusations that we were hiding them away to be reviewed only by a coterie of those in the know) or to stick some symbol on them, which would either be hard to see in the morass of that huge page or be seen as a badge of shame. I believe separating them out--putting them in purdah--serves the purpose of demonstrating that we continue to take people's concerns about Gibraltarpedia seriously (it was the status quo during the discussion, and mixing them in with the other nominations again was not much discussed there if at all), and makes it clear that they require special handling (best way to avoid their being accidentally promoted to prep before they get the second review). As I said above - I appear to have jumped a step in my initial response to you - I also don't see it as bad that by being at the foot of the page, they may well escape the notice of relatively hasty DYK reviewers. The second review needs to be extra careful, but I think we run risks of people getting angry again if the first review is one of those bare ticks/checkmarks, and IMO the periodic listing at WT:DYK is adequate to offset the risk that they will have to wait horribly long for a review - unless we start getting a flood of them, or unless more people start avoiding that page or DYK as a whole because of all the contentiousness. But also listing them by date is a good idea, I just have no idea whether it's feasible now that the page is made up of transcluded templates? Are you envisaging adding simple links under the appropriate dates? If so, I'd say go ahead and try that, but add "Gibraltar-related nomination, requires 2 reviews" or some such formula after each; and also make another of those list posts at the bottom of WT:DYK. (I can't be the only person who is currently only looking at the bottom of it.) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that explanation. Yes, it's certainly feasible. You can transclude a template as many times as you like so there's no difficulty there. The formula you mention is already in the nominations (I've been scrupulous about adding it to fresh ones, and also putting it into older ones). Out of interest, how long do you anticipate the current reviewing regime lasting? I think we should certainly review it after a reasonable period has passed - say the start of December, by which time it'll have been in operation for a couple months and there's unlikely to be any lingering controversy. Prioryman (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see, ok :-) No idea really - it's up to those who are still angry when they decide it's no longer so bad, and as I say we just had a fresh demonstration that feelings are still running high in some quarters. Also if either of the current proposals is adopted, DYK will become quite different and that will affect decision-making on such issues. There could even be a formal proposal to limit DYKs on related topics; I posted my off-the-top-of-my-head list to remind people that this is normal in the project, but as you saw, it didn't accomplish the intended purpose of reducing objections. Frankly I'm personally considering no longer being involved in DYK if the GA proposal passes, so I may be a poor person to ask anyway, but I think it's better to hold off for several months even mentally considering what-ifs. So much could change. December might be a good place to mark the calendar, although people get so busy with holiday preparations, and on-wiki we're likely to have a group of Yule-related DYK nominations to husband, that I might advocate the end of that month rather than the start. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The end of December isn't a great time due to it being in the middle of the holiday period, which is why I was thinking of the start of the month; it would be two months pretty much to the day since the options discussion closed. I think it's important that we shouldn't underestimate "feelings running high" though. There was next to no support for a moratorium when that was discussed a few weeks ago, there is no ongoing controversy and the only discontent at the moment seems to be from a handful of noisy people with no real support in the community. Prioryman (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I take it you mean we shouldn't overestimate? It's hard to predict though. Who knows how many new Gibraltar nominations will get made now that the pipeline is beginning to clear. And as I say, DYK itself may be about to change radically. Mark your calendar and see what things look like then. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Krinos Foods, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pepper (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.
Hello Yngvadottir! I want to make a proposal. Since this upcoming sequel to the Thor film is coming out, a few of our worst articles in the Germanic mythology sphere will be getting far more hits than usual; namely Odin, Frigg, and Tyr. I propose that we work together to try to rewrite these three articles to Good Article specifications. Maybe we could divide the articles up? What do you think? :bloodofox: (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Ugh, I had been ignoring that. I saw the discussion earlier today at Talk:Thor and it reminded me that I need to dig out at least one summary of his coverage in the sagas. (Note: the reviewer appears to be conflating Prose Edda and Poetic Edda and that may have affected their judgement of the article's situation, but as we both know, that section is lacking.) I know you've also been working on rewriting the Óðinn article in userspace - I suggest that with this upcoming it might be better just to upgrade it piecemeal so that what can be improved fast gets improved fast. I know both of us agree both that and Frigg are pretty bad right now. I haven't even looked at Týr that I recall, to tell the truth. The thing is I still have a conflict of interest regarding Thor and Óðinn that makes me reluctant to make big changes to either - if I do, there's a risk it will represent my personal scholarly point of view with cherry-picked sources, and while that would be encyclopedically instructive, it wouldn't be NPOV. I think the Thor article is in pretty good shape except for sparse coverage of the sagas and the placenames, and that it would be counterproductive for me to give it a thorough looking at. In fact I think one of us should remedy the saga coverage defect and then you withdraw your objection to its being pronounced a good article; it's a lot better than a couple that I've seen given that tag recently. I'll have a look at the Óðinn article and see if I can make a small contribution (beginning with digging up a couple of accounts of the etymology as you suggested - if you've done that in the meantime, there are still doubtless German refs to be added '-) ). On Frigg there's the added problem of the Frigg-Freyja hypothesis article ... but I'll see what I can improve in the actual Frigg article. Similarly Týr, although I may be out of date on scholarly views regarding the tívar connection. Anyway, thanks for the heads-up - short answer, I'll try, particularly with the two I'm not massively involved with. When does this thing open anyway? - Apologies for incoherent response, by the way, I'm both at wit's end over wiki-politics and elbow-deep in translating a poem that is probably making me unusually delphic. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello Yngvadottir. I don't think you should restrict your contributions on any specific articles; I really don't think there's any "conflict of interest" that could be a problem with said articles. If anything is missing, someone—perhaps me—can just go behind and add whatever it may be. Neutral reporting is the order of the day and all. The Frigg-Freyja hypothesis article is an easy rewrite with the right sources, particularly Näsström. At the moment I'm quite booked, but we have plenty of time: the release date is apparently scheduled for November 2013. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 October newsletter
The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to Cwmhiraeth (submissions), our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009), Sturmvogel 66 (2010) and Hurricanehink (2011). Our final standings were as follows:
Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.
The featured article award goes to Grapple X (submissions), for four featured articles in the final round.
The good article award also goes to Grapple X (submissions), for 19 good articles in the second round.
The list award goes to Muboshgu (submissions), for three featured lists in the final round.
The topic award goes to Grapple X (submissions), for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
The did you know award goes to Cwmhiraeth (submissions), for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
The news award goes to ThaddeusB (submissions), for 10 in the news items in round 3.
The picture award goes to Grandiose (submissions), for two featured pictures in round 2.
Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to Cwmhiraeth (submissions).
Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.
Hi Yngvadottir! Thanks a lot indeed for your detailed copyediting. Everything you changed is correct. I appreciate very much your useful explainations in the talk page. For your information, I added the year of state medal award as requested. Cheers. CeeGee 14:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome, and I'm glad I guessed right! I made a couple of further changes and have asked for a re-review at the DYK nomination template. People are so busy with this Request for Comment mess that they may not have noticed otherwise. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Raley's Supermarkets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Safeway (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.
Hey Yngvadottir. Read your latest comment down there, and I'm with you on the discussion burnout. Between the Gibraltar thing, all of these RfCs, and general downhill direction many discussions seem to to go in, I can't participate anymore. I really enjoy the whole DYK scene, so it bothers me to disengage from it.
I guess I'm posting here just to vent a bit. Why do you figure DYK is such a whipping boy, the red-headed stepchild of Wikipedia? Are us participants truly blind, and it really is just a "steaming pile of crap" (quoting someone somewhere recently, forget who. It will be repeated shortly, I'm sure) that we've mistook for something worthwhile? I can defend it til I'm blue in the face, but the fact that participants are required to do so, so often, makes me wonder. No other group of editors that I know of (save perhaps WikiProject Conservatism, but that's a little different) are subjected to this much condescension and drama.
Anyway, you wanted to take a break from it, and here I am ranting at you. I'll go to bed now. Best to you, :) The Interior(Talk)06:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Heh, I should have been in bed hours ago, or else done other things, but look at me mulling over DYK :-) Thanks for the expression of sympathy. I re-read some of the discussions from mid-2011 (depressing) and found my last impassioned defence of it a month or so ago, which I wanted to consult to see if it needed re-thinking. In response to your question, I have some ideas and even expressed some of them in 2011, when pre-GibraltarpediA we were less defensive. But I think it boils down to differing assumptions: about whether something must have only a single purpose, about whether everyone is competitive at heart, about whether people can agree on what's interesting (or what's important), about whether new content and improving the standards of articles are mutually exclusive (I know there are a whole set of -ism terms for the wiki-philosophies that enable one to define positions in such areas more precisely, but they make my head spin). Plus something on which I think most people would see me as in the wrong: whether there are objective standards for superior web design. (I'd be quite happy for the Main Page to look exactly as it does - which presumably differs a bit depending on browser and settings anyway - but gain another little section. Apparently there is a general feeling that it's hideous and cluttered, and my computer go-to person tells me web pages should be redesigned every few years anyway.) Some would also say that Featured Article went through a war a while back, but from what I know of that I'd say it's apples and oranges. Anyway, must take the trash out. Hopefully things will look more hopeful tomorrow - or I'll be able to look away long enough to focus on writing about something else. Courage :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 08:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
That is one problem with DYk, that its purpose can't be summed up in a single neat phrase. It serves different purposes for different people. I put an article up for the first time because I was tired working in a vacuum; there are few editors up here in BC, and we rarely cross paths. I discovered it was a good way to get more eyes on my articles, get those pesky typos that you can read eight times without noticing, a stodgy sentence rephrased. That's an aspect that people might not see when they look at the project. A couple years ago, anyway, it was also a pleasant, collaborative environment.
In terms of main page design, I don't think we need to follow the aesthetic trends of the wider internet. Our readers are seeking information, not a clean, spiffy interface. A clutter of info to an information junkie is gold. The main page we have seems fine to me also, but I'm no design major. As for things looking better today at WT:DYK, I must admit I peeked over after dewatchlisting yesterday. Yipes! Not so much. Knives out for Ms. Hale. Jeebus.
I do wonder about the chances of things getting better with the current dynamic. There have been some viable proposals for reforms, but personalities always seem to take over. Old animosities steal the limelight. Maybe that's just Wikipedia these days in general. I really do wish that some of the editors asking for reforms would avoid the some of the negativity and browbeating, though. You can't influence a group of volunteers to change direction or try something new while in the same breath denigrating their work. You're just going to get defensive reactions, and increasing factionalism. (I understand that criticism is necessary, and helpful, and by definition involves pointing out flaws, but it's a bit of an art) Personally, I go for flattery as a persuasive tool. Add a dash to a critical comment, and you can have great progress. Works so much better. But it's not for everybody I guess. Okay, daily DYK venting performed, time to check up on the election. (it's sad how much more excited we Canadians get over US elections than our own. But I blame it on our overabundance of unremarkable politicians up here.) Thanks for being a friendly ear. The Interior(Talk)05:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Yng, why are you quitting DYK? Unlees I have missed something, the GA/DYK "merge" is still under discussion, nothing is set in stone yet, if that's what your concern is. Gatoclass (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The closure has been left standing, though. I hope we can have a rational RfC; for one thing, I feel for all the people who were trying to say GA deserves Main Page exposure, including those who expressed that at the other RfC that was simply ignored. But right now we have GA included in DYK, and I don't mess with GA, so until that decision is vacated or superseded, I can't be involved, it's against my principles. I'm extremely upset about this, but that's the way the RfC was closed. Fortunately when I've looked at the queues it's been apparent that other admins are keeping the process going, so that I'm not letting people down. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Heh, thanks :-) But may I suggest "the" exhibition of Degenerate Art rather than "an" exhibition? There were one or two local ones first, but the national one that opened in Munich and then moved to Berlin has gone down to history as The Degenerate Art Exhibition. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lavatorium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whetstone (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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
Thank you for this very worthwhile effort regarding a great work of art. I read the above posts on DYK and can only smile. The world revolves around neither DYK nor Wikipedia, a refreshing thought indeed. Marrante (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome, and no, I don't plan to do The Yellow Cow :-) I'm still upset about DYK, and sorry to have had to pull Stukas; I wanted to share the Wagner cure for shellshock. Gods grant there will be a resolution giving GAs some other place on the Main Page and letting me go back to helping out there, but in the meantime I am keeping busy with articles on monastic plumbing and other fairly peculiar topics. Thinking of doing the Nazi autobahns if I can come up with the appropriate title. I was tickled that this one got nominated - and passed - but I wasn't in DYK for the glory or even to display my erudition '-) I think "More horses at DYK, yay!" is about the right spirit :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The page is stuck at the same point it was months ago, and user "ThorLives" has done nothing else than continuing the removal of any source or sentence which does not fit his point of view. This situation must finish, and the article has to be rewritten. Reliable sources have been found and listed in the talkpage. Please take a look. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I took a quick look and it seems to be basically the same Gordian knot as it was when I stuck my head in there about a year ago. Unfortunately there will always be both a sourcing problem, since the majority of scholars writing about paganism are not that well versed in the particularities of heathenry, and an intractable problem of differing views within heathenry. I'll see what I can do, but no promises. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Unaccredited institutions
Hi. Thanks for contributing to List of unaccredited institutions of higher education. There's no indication that California South Bay is accredited, but negative evidence isn't sufficient for inclusion there, so I removed the entry. For inclusion in that list it's been agreed that there needs to be a reliably sourced statement that the institution lacks accreditation. If you can find and cite such a source, please re-add the entry! --Orlady (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I did wonder, and will continue to look for one. Unfortunately the place keeps a very low profile, in English-language media at least, and the local papers do a poor job of covering such matters and the San Jose Mercury News, the primary one, is paywalled. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Egon Scheibe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luger (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.
I went back to the Lee Hollander stub I'd started in order to flesh it out, only to find you'd got there first! Dsp13 (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I've decided that I should go ahead and launch what I've put together so far in the Norse mythology rewrite. As I believe we've discussed, the previous article was just a largely unreferenced mess. With the attention the article is likely seeing due to coverage of the recent adaptation of The Hobbit and the fact that it's December, I figured now is as good a time as any. However, I would like to ask for your assistance in getting it to an outstanding article. For one, we could really use a nice paragraph or two on heroes. Secondly, we badly need a brief history of scholarship in a "scholarship" section as well as a "modern influence" section discussing the influence it has on modern popular culture. Any help is welcome! I'm sure it also badly needs some copyediting. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do, although I cannot promise clarity :-) Note that both de Vries and at least one modern have pointed out that the traditional term since Grimm is often a misnomer for religion .... Yngvadottir (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Great! And there's some discussion of "mythology" verses "religion" on the talk page, as I recall. That may be useful to expound upon. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
You're welcome; Ipigott got to the translation fix-up before I did, though—I came home from work to chaos followed by bouncing internet. Next time add me to the list you tip off, if it involves weird Germanic languages '-) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll have to give a maddeningly discursive and uninformative answer to that one, partly because the talk-page stalkers may also be interested. I have the second most important characteristic of a teacher of freshman composition: a mind like a midden. That's to say, I can read about a way huge variety of topics with interest. I tend to fix articles at Pages Needing Translation and develop articles out of AfDs, out of a link I followed, out of the weird selection of books I get out of the library to read at work ... that's where the whole Nazi cinema thing came from ... and I also have an excellent education, except, unfortunately, in science. (I gave Kobnach an immense list of sources to write up Nuffield science curriculum, but they haven't yet, and I cannot do it neutrally.) I do try to avoid Christian subjects (though I did a bad boy Archbishop of Cologne), and it's probably pretty easy to guess what field of study my PhD was in (although I avoid the actual dissertation focus because it doesn't do to cite oneself.) Like everyone, I also have a mental list of areas where our coverage is shamefully bad. But I actually like the variety. The lists on my userpage probably demonstrate that (and I don't think many people notice I was the one who was able to make Techno Viking stick) :-) So, pitch it to me, what else I have going on on- and off-wiki is at least as likely to be a concern providing it doesn't require scientific literacy. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Glad you like it, hopefully someone can find that missing source I noted on the talkpage. Working on an initial reshaping of Mühlmann now, about to wrap up for the moment (supermarket trip impending). Yngvadottir (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Stabbed at him. The de.wikipedia text is heavily dependent on the Wilkinson source; all that's not taken from there appears to be the transliterations, and I can't help with those (don't know the different systems). Hopefully I avoided copyvio in using that source to make the translation more accurate. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
A bit Christian for during Yule ... though I see from the de., especially the list of work there, that that's not all he did. Bau 15 in Jena looks interesting. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
I dont need your unsolicited help. ClueBot NG must go!!!
Listen up git, Well I have bone to pick with this so called 'bot'. This automated piece of rubbish is ruining Wikipedia by blocking legitimate edits. I am currently leading the petitions to get rid of ClueBot NG for which, by the way, support is mounting fast. I love helping Wikipedia out by sharing my wealth of knowledge on the lower leagues of British football (or 'soccer' to you yanks), however I am now absolutely fuming at the way in which I have treated by this ridiculously strict 'bot', which will block any (and I mean any) perfectly legitimate information I so kindly donate to Wikipedia. I have a wealth of knowledge on the field of lower league footballers and lesser known teams, information which, if allowed to share, would significantly improve the current appalling state of Wikipedia's pages on lower league English football.
I do, indeed, have a source for "he is known for his hard working attitude". I support QPR (Queens Park Rangers) football club who Jamie Mackie plays for and I see Jamie Mackie week in, week out and he is famous for his hard working mentality. You see, I thought a source would not be needed and I did not realise that sources are needed for every edit on Wikipedia and thank you for telling me this. However, ClueBot NG must go. It is making false blocking on legitimate edits all the time and is ruining Wikipedia, I have spoken to some other people editing and they have the same problem, hence why I am getting massive support in getting rid of this automated piece of rubbish. Anyway, I don't think you and ClueBot NG really know much about Jamie Mackie and what he plays like whereas I do, I didn't think I would need a source to prove, as to me (and maybe other followers of football) it is such an obvious trait about Jamie Mackie. But thank you for telling me I need a source because of was not aware of that and will indeed get one.
Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn19:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tiene, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Schinkel (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.
TheGeneralUser(talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks, and to you too! So far I have spent the year sneezing, coughing, and trying to speak through laryngitis. Hence expanding an easy article or two rather than doing the hard stuff I should be doing either on- or off-wiki :-) Hope the remainder of the year is better for all of us. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I noticed in the edit history of Linda Backlund that you were having trouble with a link that wouldn't display properly, so this is to let you know that I've figured out what the problem was (the link title had a line break in it). — Paul A (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Here's a toast to the host
Of those who edit wiki near and far,
To a friend we send a message, "keep the data up to par".
We drink to those who wrote a lot of prose,
And then they whacked a vandal several dozen blows.
A toast to the host of those who boast, the Wikipedians!
- From {{subst:TheGeneralUser}}
~TheGeneralUser(talk) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at ~~~~~
~TheGeneralUser(talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Palazzo Ghini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crusader (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.
The in my view ill-judged but nonetheless theoretically binding consensus that was declared in the RfC on GAs being included in DYK. I don't participate in either GA or FA - processes designed to rate articles and reward editors for meeting criteria of excellence are not my thing. And I cannot endorse the placement of a cuckoo's egg in the DYK nest. But I have to respect consensus (even though as I told the closer, I believe they made a mistake). So sad though it makes me - I care a lot about DYK and I enjoyed helping out there; also, less importantly, I would have liked to share articles such as Stukas (film) (which I actually pulled after it had been accepted) - I'm out until that decision is formally reversed (and I recognise that it may never be; clearly I'm in the minority as seeing the two projects as having incompatible aims). That's life in a big, complicated project; consensus is important here, even when in my opinion it was wrongly declared. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beverley Square East, Brooklyn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Holy Cross Cemetery (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.
Dear Yngvadottir, I need some advice and guidance on how to effectively create new articles, expand/add new well sourced content and hopefully promote well written article's to good article and featured article status. I see you have a vast amount of experience in writing articles and creating new ones. Therefore I needed someone who I can trust and is well experienced in this area like you. Majority of your edits are in the article namespace and I would like to learn the good article editing skills that you have :) Your help in this regard will be very useful! ~TheGeneralUser(talk)12:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, Firefox momentarily stopped slowing to a crawl on me and then crashing, so I looked at your contributions to try to see why you think you need help :-) I must be clear that I can't help with anything related to GA. I don't do GA or FA - see above - but there are plenty of people who do. But I'm still a bit puzzled. You haven't opted in to the bar graphs yet, but you continue to be very active at noticeboards and performing other cleanup and clerking functions; what's been stopping you from doing more content? Is it that you can't see where you could be useful, or think of topics for new articles? I could easily point you to places to find redlinks or other obvious gaps, and there are lots of listings of articles that need expansion and/or cleanup, but I presume you can find those too. Is it that you doubt you can find info? If you have access to a good university library, you actually have a leg up on me in that respect; I'm using Google Books and a limited interlibrary loan consortium very heavily because the college library I have access to is not very good on most topics. If you think your interests are too narrow and/or can only read English-language sources, don't worry - look at the last successful RfA for someone who works primarily in a limited and non-traditional content field. But I'm an outlier in that respect - except for science, business, and political and philosophical theory, I can usually manage to make sense of the sources. If that's why you're thinking of me, fine - but how can I help? If it's evaluation of sources or copyediting, I can advise you, but there are others who are more expert and/or better regarded in both fields. Have you joined or lurked at the pages of any wikiprojects in fields that interest you? Have you made a list anywhere of articles you'd like to write or improve? Have you seen any AfD articles that you thought you could fix up and save? (I have several AfD categories on my watchlist - do you?) Have you read the GA reviews of any articles, to see what the issues were that the reviewers picked out as needing improvement, and how they were fixed? Maybe that's enough questions. Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree as to what you think you need help with. If I'm not, lemme finish what I am currently fixing and I can have you look at the diff to see the kind of changes I think you could be making that would help the encyclopedia and give you confidence. Oh, and thanks for the confidence in me :-D Yngvadottir (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. (Blushes). Here's that diff, in case it's useful. It illustrates what I often do - I noticed copyediting was needed (stray "the", "grocer's apostrophe" on "Albert's"), that the movies weren't wikilinked, and that there was a dead link in the refs. I decided that since the place had closed, I had better check all the refs, and I found things including incomplete referencing - omission of authors, dates, and in some cases, such as the USA Today, where the ref came from - and another couple of dead links. Anybody with a computer can fix up that kind of stuff, and with older articles using news sources, it tends to be needed. However, I also found one of the sources was a mine of information that hadn't been much used, so I added some info. Also, I had come to this article as follows: I checked Drmies' user talk for Uncle G commenting on new stuff that needed articles (! - but his suggestions tend to be pretty erudite, at least there, Drmies being a professor) and for possible responses to a bit of steam-venting I had done there a day or two ago. I found there was an ongoing issue with a new editor who has created deleted articles, and checking his talkpage, I saw that one on an amusement park ride had not been deleted. So I looked at it out of interest and wound up clicking on gyro tower because there was no picture and I was unclear what kind of ride it was. That included a list of examples, which included one at this defunct park in Coney Island, which led me to look at the article in hopes of finding a pic to jog my memory from when I was at Coney Island. And there we are :-) Now .... a significant number of Wikipedia editors don't do this; they stick to a few areas in which they are interested and feel they have useful expertise. But if you want ideas and/or want to be useful, this kind of sticking your nose in things and following links till you find something that strikes you as a project works well. And I'd hate to be typecast '-) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
FYI
I'm not trying to drag you back into one of the most unpleasant mud fights in the world, but I Commented here about how the DYK proposal got started, and your draft is mentioned. Comment, or not, I don't care. I thought it fair to tell you I did that. — Maile (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me. I also came up with the 2-review suggestion that wound up being adopted. However, I can't comment there since I'm out of DYK for the foreseeable future (see above). It's all a damned pity. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I've known for a while you're been out of it. And I understand completely. I just think it's common courtesy to notify you. — Maile (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Gary Lineker
Hi Yngvadottir, just as a courtesy flagging that I re-added (albeit slightly differently) the Twitter deletion stuff that you removed from the Gary Lineker article. I hadn't seen your edit prior to adding it in, but I've provided 3 refs and with (as it turns out) 1.3m followers I think it is probably worth adding. FWIW, I've also appropriated your "This user is a mammal" userbox, so ta! danno_uk02:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited XXL (club), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page QX (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.
Hello, Yngvadottir. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 12:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader (Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:
Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.
This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:
Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.
Also, a quick mention of The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Se og Hør, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexa (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.
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here
I am a bad person to ask; I am an inclusionist, I tend to want articles to stay. Better to submit it at Articles for Creation as previously suggested; I think that was part of Kudpung's original conditions for you staying unblocked. Or alternatively ask on your own talkpage, there are clearly people looking there who are qualified to judge whether it's ready. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mendel Art Gallery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBC (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.
help with translations
Thank you for helping us Germanic contributors to fluent idiomatic articles, with your detailed explanations and admirable patience in copy-editing dedicated to precision, and thanks for covering a broad range of German topics, DYK? - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
Thanks for letting me know :-) I've largely stopped looking there. I did look at the previous discussion on the topic, and I do think the temporary solution that I helped to broker is no longer needed, but I am still out of DYK so it would be improper for me to comment there. Letting you know where I stand on the issue here where talkpage stalkers can see it just in case it makes an iota of difference. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I could copy your comment over if you don't wish to post there, or do you want to stay out of it completely? As the person who brokered the original restrictions your input would certainly be valuable. Prioryman (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I think out is out :-) Having to leave DYK has hurt a lot, and I'd love to return one day, but it's no longer my business. And this is here for anyone interested in my current assessment of the Gibraltar situation. I did take a look, and good work on the graphs! Yngvadottir (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. It seems to me that anybody who knows anything recognizes that BGT judge McIntyre is considered to be considerably less funny than Bernard Manning is by Welsh people with a sense of humour. As such, it seems not to be that encyclopediac a move to remove sourced information from articles concerning alleged 'comic' Michael McIntyre. 222.155.201.232 (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
See the talk page, where I just raised the issue; however, your opinion is just that, an opinion. The article needs to be neutral. And that is how he earns his living. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid it is the opinion of those with a sense of humour. I am aware it is not Wikipedia policy to base articles on alleged 'comedians' on the opinions of those with senses of humour- instead it is to give said articles the same balance, with reliably sourced articles, as any other biographical matter. 222.155.201.232 (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Looking at your edits to Gro Harlem Brundtland, I note you have written in a non-neutral manner there, too. Please note that neutrality is a policy here. Otherwise articles will be tugs of war between competing likes and dislikes. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
You read my mind on the theatre, I was about to approach you! Looks a nice theatre. Mop table I think does make sense, where they keep the mops and cleaning stuff.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld13:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Palais Leuchtenberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Privy (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.
1 year statistics for Teahouse visitors compared to invited non-visitors from the pilot:
Metric
Control group
Teahouse group
Contrast
Average retention (weeks with at least 1 edit)
5.02 weeks
8.57 weeks
1.7x retention
Average number of articles edited
58.7 articles
116.9 edits
2.0x articles edited
Average talk page edits
36.5 edits
85.6 edits
2.4x talk page edits
Average article space edits
129.6 edits
360.4 edits
2.8x article edits
Average total edits (all namespaces)
182.1 edits
532.4 edits
2.9x total edits
Over the past year almost 2000 questions have been asked and answered, 669 editors have introduced themselves, 1670 guests have been served, 867 experienced Wikipedians have participated in the project, and 137 have served as hosts. Read more project analysis in our CSCW 2013 paper
Last month January was our most active month so far! 78 profiles were created, 46 active hosts answered 263 questions, and 11 new hosts joined the project.
Come by the Teahouse to share a cup of tea and enjoy a Birthday Cupcake! Happy Birthday to the Teahouse and thank you for a year's worth of interest and support :-)
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To add or remove yourself for receiving future newsletters, please update the list here
WikiCup 2013 February newsletter
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.
Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.
Other contributors of note include:
Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...
March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!
A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tevje Torp, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Viborg (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.
...
Hello. You have a new message at yasht101's talk page. Yasht101 03:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Techno Viking. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.--Otterathome (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Grapple X (submissions) remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's 
Casliber (submissions) was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's 
Muboshgu (submissions) coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.
Matthewedwards (submissions) and 
Grandiose (submissions), the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, 
Ealdgyth (submissions) earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article, 
Dana Boomer (submissions) earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by 
Stone (submissions) to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. 
Cwmhiraeth (submissions), whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader, 
Miyagawa (submissions) leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by 
By considering your overall edits across the project you surely deserve much more respect and recognition! 
TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
igordebraga (submissions), who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's 
Ruby2010 (submissions) follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.
Grapple X (submissions) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
Miyagawa (submissions) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
Ruby2010 (submissions) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
Casliber (submissions) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
Muboshgu (submissions) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
Dana Boomer (submissions) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
Sasata (submissions) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.
GreatOrangePumpkin (submissions), 
Piotrus (submissions), 
Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), 
12george1 (submissions), 
The Bushranger (submissions) and 
1111tomica (submissions). We hope to see you all next year.
. Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
! I have started my second editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2). I will be greatly delighted, thankful and valued to have your review for me regarding my editing and possible candidate for Adminship. As you are a experienced and long term Wikipedian so i have asked for your kind review. Take your time to review my editing and give the best review that you can :). Feel free to ask me any questions you would like to on the review page itself. It will be a great honor to have you review me for which I will truly feel appreciated and helpful! I always work to improve Wikipedia and make it a more better place to be for Everyone :). Regards and Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Sasata (submissions), 
ThaddeusB (submissions), for 10 in the news items in round 3.
Grandiose (submissions), for two featured pictures in round 2.
.jpg)
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader (
Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. 
12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
Buggie111 (submissions) was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
Spencer (submissions) was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
Status (submissions) was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.
Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with 
Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.
Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
Muboshgu (submissions) and 
.svg){kind=link}
