User talk:czar

I am obsessed by the plain facts:

writing them literally down

is all the poetry I can.

Know that I esteem my editorial independence. Even as

an editor professionally connected to Kickstarter

I reject payment to edit or advocate on anyone's behalf.

Declarations

· Assisted edits done as user:helsabot
· My original contribs are dedicated to the public domain.
· Selected articles

Encyclopedia article request

Hello czar, here I concluded that you might be able to supply individual articles from the Encyclopedia of the Arctic, edited by Mark Nuttall. May I ask you for the article Melville Bay, Vol. II, pp. 1274 - 1276. Please send by E-Mail attachment to Ratzer.Wikipedia<at>gmail.com. Thank you, and greeetings from the de-WP,--Ratzer (talk) 09:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratzer, an update—I requested this encyclopedia from elsewhere in the state, but they didn't let me request the volume so I'll either (1) get all three volumes and be fine, or (2) have the request canceled. Just a heads up. czar 21:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, & greetings, --Ratzer (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratzer,

sent czar 20:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Czar, well received, and saved to disk. Greetings,--Ratzer (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dionne Warwick – A House Is Not a Home (song).jpg

Can you undo the closure at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 June 5? You commented and then closed the discussion. If not, can you say no prejudice to replacing it boldly with another image? --George Ho (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could undo it but if it's to say that there is no prejudice in changing the image, that's implied and why I left the comment (in lieu of putting it in the closure statement) czar 21:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Killer (film) and Draft:Life (2017 film)

Hello! Please move Draft:Hunter Killer (film) → Hunter Killer (film) and Draft:Life (2017 film) → Life (2017 film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 18:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Real Housewives cast photos

@Marchjuly, best option would be to find free-use replacements so that no one has any qualms about removing them. WP:NFCC#1 doesn't make a lot of sense to editors unfamiliar with the encyclopedia's free use mission, mostly because they expect every page to have an infobox and every infobox to have an image. I'd say the season seven case is slightly different because NFCC#1 provides that we want to actually encourage someone to create a free use alternative while they still can. I don't know enough about the previous seasons to know whether those images are actually irreplaceable. This is all to say that sometimes it's better to find the most amicable solution than to follow the policy to the letter. Perhaps the editors adding these images need some help finding free use alternatives or don't even know what that means. Now, if the solution is to delete this group (I haven't looked at all of them), I'd recommend a batch deletion discussion (put them all in the same nomination) instead of speedies, just in case any one file does need the room for discussion. (Speedies are supposed to be completely uncontroversial.) czar 06:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look and for the advice. Just for reference, none of the cast photos are being used in the main infoboxes of the articles, so NFCC#8 may also be an issue. Anyway, I will see there's anything on Commons which might be used. If I bring them up for discussion at FFD, I will do so as a group per your suggestion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly, if they're not used to illustrate the subject (in the infobox) then they definitely need context/necessity in the text (NFCC#8) but there's likely no context anyone can provide that could convince that no free use alternative exists (NFCC#1). But if some don't qualify in that group, might need separate nominations czar 07:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:United States

FYI. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review request

Hello Czar, I am working on the bio of modern architect / artist Neri Oxman, and wonder if you would take a look and give me some feedback. Their work spans a wide range from engineering and design to biology and software, and I'm not sure how best to summarize/approach it. I've appreciated your work in the past and saw you listed interest in modern art on the PR pages :)

Regards, – SJ + 07:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of Natalie Jeremijenko. Left some quick thoughts czar 07:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Nadia Kaabi-Linke/GA1

Left some feedback for you there. Overall, in excellent shape and a worthy GA nom. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advice needed

Some months ago, I started working in the article Allen Walker and managed to make it GA thanks to work with other users. I was wondering whether it could become a FA considering how many aspects of the character the reception covered, but the Anime and Manga project doesn't have a single FA character article. Do you recommend me to use a FA from the video game project as example to follow (like Lightning (Final Fantasy)? Anyways, if you have any ideas, I'm all ears. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tintor2, eh, I wish we had more positive precedent. The featured video game characters are here (separated articles from lists), but the 2009-era Halo ones are... no longer FA quality—overemphasis on in-universe plot and really weak Reception sections (regurgitated listicles). I haven't read them closely recently but Lightning and Ellie are good models, though I'll add that Lightning gets a bit dry at times and has a listicle paragraph that shouldn't fly. Ellie is the best example of a balanced, warranted character article that I've seen, though it is much shorter than Lightning's. (Again, haven't read both closely, but brevity is a better trait than verbosity, especially for FAC's prose requirements.) As for needing models in the first place, the major difference between GA and FA is source and prose quality so your sources should be scrutinized for quality and the prose should be clear and "brilliant" (per FACR "1a"). In that regard, you don't really need a precedent. Niche articles also tend to get away somewhat under the radar at FAC too since their usual reviewers are more active in the topic than the review area, so the Lightning article can get away with the aforementioned paragraph while an article on a public figure would never include such a thing. That's more a fault of our community, though. You might also be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters/Quality content but upon a spot-check of its entries, they're on par with the Halo character articles, so in need of cleanup to contemporary standards. czar 00:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for the talk. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on a second note reading Ellie (The Last of Us), I wonder if Allen's first paragraph in appearances could be turned into an attributes section.Tintor2 (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't split out that paragraph unless it's warranted by secondary sources. Also note the concision of the Ellie paragraphs on plot/primary sources. Allen's plot summary could be feasibly halved (or more—it should follow the weight of coverage in secondary sources). czar 02:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made one in my sandbox.Tintor2 (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made a peer review for the same article here. Thankfully, a user who appeared to be skilled with FAs gave a lot of commentary. After doing some things the user commented, I requested the article to be copyedited whereas another user archived all urls. If you could provide criticism, I'm all ears. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Histmerge

@G S Palmer, no problem: ✓ done czar 02:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed redirect?

Hi. I noticed that you have made Mohammad Alavi (game developer) a redirect to No Russian. Have you discussed this major change anywhere, or was this your own idea? The articles was considered to be notable enough. Pahlevun (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Little to none of the coverage was actually about him. You can merge to the parent article as necessary, per that AfD. If it were to be restored, it would go to AfD again and the consensus would be to merge or delete, unless there exists some hidden cache of sources that the article was missing... czar 17:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you did it without any discussion. The discussion result was to "Keep" with "No prejudice towards a merge discussion" and Wikipedia is not a crystall ball to act based on predicting "it would go to AfD again and the consensus would be to merge or delete". I restore the article per discussion and you are free to open a AfD discussion. Pahlevun (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there's been no new coverage since 2013 and it's a person known for a single event, one which has its own article now. If you feel strongly, feel free to revert per BRD but know that I don't think it can withstand the deletion discussion that comes next. That has nothing to do with WP not being a "crystal ball" (read: that we don't write about things as if they'll be notable without proof) but my experience with notability on Wikipedia. czar 22:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not link this when I said about "crystal ball" and I did not mean it. Anyway, it seems that we simply disagree with eachother and it's natural. Pahlevun (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Alavi (game developer) (2nd nomination) czar 17:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CFDcloser

Hi Czar, can you add User:Evad37/CFDcloser.js to User:Czar/closexfd.js. Thanks, Evad37 [talk] 03:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Evad37, thanks and ✓ done czar 06:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection request

This may seem somewhat random, but I went to recent changes hoping to find an admin who is currently on the site and you are the first one I saw. Could you please protect Lilly King? I put in an RFPP request nearly an hour ago and the vandalism still continues. This is probably a fairly heavily trafficked article at the moment, too. Lepricavark (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lepricavark, ✓ done. A shame—I saw some good edits in there, but far outweighed by the IP vandalism. czar 03:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you! Maybe a barnstar is an overreaction, but I'm glad to be done with that ordeal. (Although it will make for a great story to tell my friends). Thanks for responding quickly. I was starting to get desperate. Lepricavark (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. You did the right thing. Thanks for your service as well! czar 03:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki issue- ask for help

Hi Czar Hope this finds you well. I see you're a high level experience wiki editor, would like to ask you if it's not too much trouble, Can you please help take a look at this wiki I created, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selena_Y._Du all references are from reliable sources with links to the sources provided as references, all info on the wiki are relevant from the sources. I don't know what's the reason it has been marked for deletion.I did not understand the tag. Prior to the wiki marked for deletion, I've received messages from wiki editors, they asked me to pay them in order to get the wiki page kept on and they suggested they'll maintain the page, I ignored them and I see now that they've been "contributing" in getting the wiki page deleted. I don't think that's how wiki should work. would be great if you can help with this issue. many thanks. Audreylomberg (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Audreylomberg, I'm sorry that you had to go through all that. There are many more pleasant parts of the encyclopedia than the one with which you're currently engaged. It looks like the other admins you've contacted have already responded with advice so I'll just reiterate that (1) no one should be holding any article hostage, nevertheless for money. I would report those details to Michig's email right away, as he requested. (2) If you have more reliable, independent source for the article, now would be the time to add them. (3) Since this is the second time you've worked on this article, without much work on other articles, I would like to remind of our Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines, which ask that you declare any affiliations with the subject on the article's talk page. If there's anything else I can offer, please let me know. czar 18:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czar, thank you very much for your advice. Audreylomberg (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in GLAM: July 2016

This Month in GLAM – Volume VI, Issue VII, July 2016
Headlines
Argentina report: Edit-a-thon in a historic building in Buenos Aires Basque Country report: Basque spring-summer blooming Belgium report: Wiki Loves Art halfway Brazil report: Cultural Mapping: knowing better the Brazilian museums scenario France report: Bons baisers de France Macedonia report: 290 photos by Manaki brothers Mexico report: Wikipedia in Mayan; GLAM in Aldea Digital Spain report: Attending the Peace Treaties in Art Edit-a-thon Sweden report: Connected Open Heritage; Critiquing social norms with free images Switzerland report: Open Cultural Data Hackathon UK report: Engaging the experts & training the trainers USA report: Engaging the experts & training the trainers Open Access report: Wikimedian in Residence opening; Ancestral reconstruction; A swimming centipede Wikidata report: Pokémon and more WMF GLAM report: Grants; New Content Donation Evaluation Report; WMF Updates Calendar: August's GLAM events
Read this edition in full • Single-page
To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 02:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zotero translator

Could you help me fix the issues mentioned for this translator? It is my first attemt at writing a translaor, and I've gotten stuck due to these issues. (t) Josve05a (c) 12:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Josve05a, looks like Philipp is helping you but let me know if you need anything specific. And remember that you can detect the "tv.*" portion of the URL if you need to write special if/then conditions to pull specific attributes. Nice work on your first translator! czar 18:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfD's

Hey Czar,

Today's my last day of vacation, I'll try to join in some AfD's tomorrow. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CfD backlog

Just as a note, see Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Recruiting_more_closers. I noticed that you expressed some interest in a script for working at CfD on the talk page. If that is indicative of an interest in closing discussions and you need any help whatsoever in getting started, please let me know. You're an old hat and know more than me in most areas, and I'm certain you have nothing to learn from me on assessing consensus. But if you're unfamiliar with category-specific stuff, I'm happy to help get you started.

I haven't reviewed your contributions, so please don't be insulted if you're an old-time CfD closer that's been on a break for a short time - I just haven't seen you around those parts recently. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Article deletion issue

Hi, Czar I see you are a high level expert on wiki, can I ask for your help on editing an article I created, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selena_Y._Du the article is marked for deletion, but it's in the right category, written from a neutral point with relevant information from reliable sources, links of references are provided and cited, and are from acknowledged well recognized news sources, such as China Daily https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Daily

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2014-08/18/content_18435219.htm

Sinovision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SinoVision

http://video.sinovision.net/?id=23755&cid=121

All information on the wiki article were pulled from the news sources cited. Would be great if you can advice or edit to improve the article. thanks. Audreylomberg (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Audreylomberg, did you see my response to your similar request above? czar 19:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Kaabi-Linke

Looks like the two photos in question just got deleted off of commons. Can you work to get those back in the article, following up with someone in OTRS to get and document the appropriate permissions. Not going to take away the GA sticker for it, but those were magnificent depictions of her artwork and our article is significantly lessened without them. Jclemens (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens, yep, already on it (if you're curious, the permission holders didn't respond to follow-up questions, so I sent reminders) czar 19:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Races of The Elder Scrolls

Hey Czar,

What do you think of Races of The Elder Scrolls? Would you agree that a nicely trimmed section could easily be part of The Elder Scrolls? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Soetermans, it's a mess of primary and unreliable sources. I opted for the redirect to the main section. czar 08:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. I'll AFD it. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Soetermans, it's a pretty stark case for redirection (was previously deleted), so I'd only AfD it if the redirect is contested czar 08:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, nevermind, I see what you did :) Good call. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Shape of Water

Hello Czar! Can you please move Draft:The Shape of Water (film) → The Shape of Water (film) — Thanks! --Tammydemo 15:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tammydemo, ✓ done czar 15:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're a hero Czar! --Tammydemo 15:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tammydemo, no hero, just your friendly neighborhood admin czar 15:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 17: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

Wednesday Auugust 17, 7pm: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly "WikiWednesday" evening salon (7-9pm) and knowledge-sharing workshop at Babycastles gallery by 14th Street / Union Square in Manhattan.

Featuring special guest presentations on WikiVerse and Bringing Wikipedia to the Last Mile.

We will include a look at the organization and planning for our chapter, and expanding volunteer roles for both regular Wikipedia editors and new participants.

We will also follow up on plans for recent (UN Women!) and upcoming edit-a-thons, and other outreach activities.

We welcome the participation of our friends from the Free Culture movement and from all educational and cultural institutions interested in developing free knowledge projects.

After the main meeting, pizza/chicken/vegetables and refreshments and video games in the gallery!

Wednesday August 17 WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (RSVP on-wiki or at meetup.com).

7:00pm - 9:00 pm at Babycastles gallery, 137 West 14th Street

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Prep for our chapter elections next month in September (and add your candidacy!): Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Elections

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Draft:The Little Mermaid (upcoming film)

Hello czar! Will you please merge Draft:The Little Mermaid (2018 film) → Draft:The Little Mermaid (upcoming film)? The other draft's editor's submissions declines several times, and I think there should be only one draft we both be working on. Please merge those and keep the title with "(upcoming film)." Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 12:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Captain Assassin!, ✓ done, but I had to remove two of your overlapping edits (they were small style fixes) czar 15:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks man. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Mermaid

Dear Czar,

you have no authority to edit my draft article The Little Mermaid (2018 film). i suggest you redo those edits or else i will complain to wikipedia about your disrespectful behaviour Imran Mazhar 22:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immu 01 (talk • contribs)

Hi @Immu 01, welcome to Wikipedia. Articles belong to the community, not to individuals, and an existing draft was already in progress. I suggest that you collaborate a single draft or else work on a copy in your userspace, but in any event, there will be one final version from the common draft. czar 22:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its night here and i wanted to continue to edit it in the morning! please dont make edits as i am still wirking on it! and as far as i know the draft is of an indivisual user not the community. its not the final draft Imran Mazhar 23:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immu 01 (talk • contribs)

August Twentysixteen

Friendly greetings; fair greetings; fond greetings from a man on the web to You . I noticed your talk page redirects to your user talk page; which you may have put in unintentionally; in that case youd like to fix things up; and you should think it awfully nice of me to tell you what ails you according to every rule of etiquette; or which your e-friends going to your page may consider an irrelevancy so to speak; probably the word is a redundancy . BatmobileFire (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on a WP:ANI message. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that took way longer than I thought it would. In case you've missed the pings, here is the ANI discussion. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Soetermans, ah, I think a shorter message would have been sufficient, but looks like this has been brought to its natural conclusion czar 17:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that escalated quickly. Too bad it had to come to that though. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback requested

Hey czar, I recently created Fallout 4: Nuka-World. I was wondering whether I should take the same approach with the gameplay section on this article as I did on Far Harbor (as in it talks about V.A.T.S, S.P.E.C.I.A.L., etc). It's going to be released in just over a week so there's no coverage on how the gameplay works, so maybe I should just leave it until then. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte, I would, yep, using sources from the base game until you can replace them with newer sources. But might be worth even merging these expansion articles unless they have sufficient reviews and coverage to warrant the split from the base game. Most of what the article currently has is routine coverage. czar 17:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that many of the expansions don't warrant their own article, and so I've also started Fallout 4 downloadable content as a main article. The only expansions so far that I've seen have significant coverage are Far Harbor and Nuka-World. I will probably end up merging Automatron sometime soon. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ark: Survival Evolved

Hi czar, I just wanted to seek your opinion regarding something. On the Ark: Survival Evolved article, there was previously a reference to a video interview with the creative director placed at the bottom of the article, with in-line references linking to the main link using the {{harvnb}} template; this was done in order to avoid confusion, as each reference referred to a specific part of a 49-minute video. However, this was recently removed in favour of one single reference, with no referral to any part of the video. Similar occurrences of this have been brought to my attention in the past (Ellie, Undertale), so I'd just to see what you thought about it. Perhaps using seven {{Cite interview}} templates in the references, linking to each time-stamp, would work better than one? – Rhain ☔ 21:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhain, it's much, much better to include the video timecode (for obvious verifiability reasons...) so I don't know what that editor was thinking. Two ways of going about this: (1) As you had it, use bolded pseudoheaders (which are fine) even if it's just for a single ref, and then use {{sfn}} (short Harvard refs) to add timecodes for individual instances. Or (2), replace the first {{sfn}} instance with the full citation, though this will attach that first sfn's timecode to that full citation. So the drawbacks of each are straightforward: in the latter, the timecode on the full ref appears to describe the generalized reference, while in the former, the single-entry subsection can look strange. (Neither is wrong and I'd stick with whatever was used first until there is consensus otherwise.) The third alternative would be to create a mega footnote entry that includes the generalized source and subsequent subentries with timecodes (like Drakengard 3#Game_quotes but in a single footnote rather than in a separate section). This isn't a standard by any means, but it should be. You're also dealing with editors who can be overzealous with their application of "rules"—remember that IAR and third opinions are options if they get obnoxious. And looking at the old refs, if you do use sfn, remember to add final punctuation even when the footnote is a fragment. czar 04:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. I decided to go with what was there previously (I also couldn't get {{sfn}} to work, and lacked the motivation to find a solution). Hopefully I'll have no opposition. – Rhain ☔ 07:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit—I think it certainly looks neater that way, but having the timecode on the full reference is a little inconvenient, and I think it could be confusing to readers. Hopefully we'll get some more sources to attribute the lonely interview sometime soon. – Rhain ☔ 23:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All Ghillied Up article

Hi there,

Having put a decent amount of time into the No Russian article, I noticed that there were a couple of other articles dedicated solely to All Ghillied Up, a rather iconic level in COD4. Since video game level articles are a rarity, and should only exist if they can establish notability, would an article for All Ghillied Up work? Here are the sources I've gotten so far:

1) http://www.pcgamer.com/from-all-ghillied-up-to-no-russian-the-making-of-call-of-dutys-most-famous-levels/ (Interview with the developer about the creation of All Ghillied Up)

2) https://web.archive.org/web/20130212213345/http://www.edge-online.com/features/no-russian-the-modder-who-went-on-to-made-modern-call-of-dutys-most-controversial-set-piece/ (Pretty much the same thing with more info)

3) http://kotaku.com/what-modern-warfares-all-ghillied-up-got-right-1649797510 (Very lengthy article from Kotaku about the level)

4) http://www.ign.com/top/video-game-moments/13 (Listed by IGN as one of the greatest video game moments]

5) http://www.gamesradar.com/10-best-call-duty-moments-history-series/ (Listed by GamesRadar as the greatest Call of Duty moment)

6) Several reviews, including GameSpot, GamesRadar, Eurogamer, and Destructoid said that the level was the highlight from the campaign, with Destructoid calling it "an experience that anyone with even a passing fetish for military ops absolutely must experience".

While it doesn't have as many refs as No Russian has, I still think I can squeeze out a decent article from these refs. So what do you think, would it be viable? Famous Hobo (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo, I'd start it as a section within COD4—try to flesh out the point of these sources without going into extraneous detail. I could see it going either way—if the section gets too large, there could be cause for splitting (summary style). Ping me then and I'll take another look? czar 20:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FAC voluntary mentoring scheme

During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Wikipedia: Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.

Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alt.ed

Noting your comment on the Wikipedia Library: "Working on a project with mid-20th century British alternative schools". It is certainly an area that is lacking in persisting material, but I am thinking that a serious rummage in my attic may retrieve material on White Lion St and Barrowfield in particular, if these are within your area of interest? AllyD (talk) 08:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AllyD, that would be great! Would you have secondary sources? czar 04:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes - Issue 18

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads

New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Month in Education: [September 2016]

Wikimedia Education Newsletter – Volume 5, Issue 3, September 2016

Headlines · Highlights · Single page · Newsroom · Archives · Unsubscribe

If this message is not on your home wiki's talk page, update your subscription.

We hope you enjoy the newest issue of the Education Newsletter.-- Sailesh Patnaik using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poppybud.jpg

Hello. I'm confused. What's the issue with File:Poppybud.jpg ? The talk page has been deleted, so I have no idea. Looks like some kind of licensing issue? Thanks! --Jp07 (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]