- 1 Fake bio on user page
- 2 Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Canada
- 3 Opinion
- 4 Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Canada
- 5 Counter-Vandalism Academy
- 6 A barnstar for you!
- 7 Undoing of edit to WP:AWARDS
- 8 Request for checking
- 9 The Signpost: 29 April 2015
- 10 WikiCup 2015 May newsletter
- 11 Request
Fake bio on user page
Hi, at my RfA you asked an interesting question about WP:FAKEARTICLE.
I recently added the user page template to User:Vineetgupta22 and explained the reason on his talk page, but he reverted it. Please take a look and consider whether he needs further advice on the point. – Fayenatic London 19:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Canada
Any updates on Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Canada ? — Cirt (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I have interest in enrolling in the Counter-Vandalism Academy, however after several attempts very few of the trainers are active. Not responding or no contributions in a while are common, as well as people who just don't have time anymore. However all of these people are still listed on the active page. I realize you're inactive, and while it would be great if you would take me on I completely understand if that's not possible but as the former coordinator I wondered if you could put me in touch with somebody who may be more active, or at least try to cleanup the instructor section as I've had no luck with any of them. Thanks for your time!
- I've taken a look at your contributions, and it seems like you're doing a great job at the first 3 (of 4) steps that we used to teach in the CVUA (Identify, Restore, Inform). Now, I can say that I haven't been involved in the CVUA for two and a half years, so I may not be as up-to-date in their current policies as someone else (have you tried posting at WT:CVUA?) but a cursory check of your reverts seem to all be on-the-level and your user warnings are all fine. I would take a look at the relevant guidelines at WP:AIV on when and how to report vandalism to the admins. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to look into any issues that come up, but I don't think you honestly need the help of a one-on-one tutor. Let me know if there's anything else you need. Achowat (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Special Barnstar|
|Thanks for the advice and support getting the Games Barnstar sorted out. I'm really happy with the result. Mattwheatley (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)|
Hi, I noticed you undid my edit to the WP:AWARDS article, commenting that "literally know one [sic] is coming here looking for that essay." I couldn't agree with you more, which was why the edit was in the section before the lead in which other forms of the idea of "awards" are located, in order to disambiguate them from each other and to distinguish them from the actual WP:AWARDS article which follows. It feels a little presumptuous to say that you know what people are looking for in this respect, as I myself was looking for just such an essay when I typed in "WP:AWARDS" in the search box and got the result that I did, which is why I made the edit that I did, so that others like me might be able to find the essay covering the topic of awards and notability quickly and easily-- in the same way that WP:FOOTBALL points to the notability criteria of football players and WP:ACADEMIC describes the notability criteria for academics. Can I ask you to reconsider the change you made in light of this? Thanks! KDS4444Talk 15:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for the message. I'd highly suggest checking out WP:Hatnote for the current policies concerning the proper use of Hatnotes. Generally, they're used for A. Articles with similar titles, B. Disambiguation pages, and C. Redirection of ambiguous titles. Generally, a Hatnote is proper iff someone may have come to a page by mistake. Any other use is likely inappropriate. Specifically WP:RELATED explicitly states that topics that are just related to, but couldn't be confused with, each other is not appropriate. If you have any other questions, feel free to let me know. Achowat (talk) 05:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Request for checking
I recently worked upon several Barnstars and I suppose you are the right guy who adds them to the table list. The following Barnstars are-
I have added this to Talk page too but since no one came I thought to tell you directly.
- Hey, selfishly I'd like to thank you for the personalized update, but broadly I'd remind you that everyone can update the page, not just me. I'm going to respond over at WT:WPWPA. Achowat (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well as you have told me, could you also tell me how could I have updated the table my own because I have no idea and I should have not because the page said discuss it in the talk page first. I even asked for help in help desk and they told me to ask someone who is active in the list. So, first asked User:Piotrus and respond was weird(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Komchi) then I came to you and you helped me out :). Komchi✉☆ 12:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 April 2015
- Recent research: Military history, cricket, and Australia targeted in Wikipedia articles' popularity vs. quality; how copyright damages economy
- Traffic report: Bruce, Nessie, and genocide
- Technology report: VisualEditor and MediaWiki updates
The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.
Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.
- Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
- Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
- LeftAire (submissions) worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.
The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey hopefully you remember me, I once came for help related to Wikiproject Awards Barnstars I made.I wanted to request you that if you got any Barnstars to be made, feel free to ask me, I am free for some work as I am on a vacation. Thanks Komchi✉☆ 15:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)