User talk:Wizardman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



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

Help with histmerge for Aubrey McClendon?[edit]

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

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

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

The Signpost: 01 July 2015[edit]

Potential new issues with an established CCI; requesting feedback[edit]

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

FYI: bureaucrat discussion opened[edit]

Message to most bureaucrats

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

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

The Wikipedia Library needs you![edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg

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

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

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

Sign up now

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

Bureaucrat discussion notification[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678/Bureaucrat discussion

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

The Signpost: 08 July 2015[edit]

Tyrone Garland FAN[edit]

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

Books and Bytes - Issue 12[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


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

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

Read the full newsletter

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

The Signpost: 15 July 2015[edit]

CCI update[edit]

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

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Just giving you a cold one in recognition of your work here. Always appreciated. GamerPro64 01:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2015[edit]

Moultrie, GA µSA[edit]

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

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

A barnstar for you![edit]

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

Tunisian Arabic[edit]

Dear User,

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

Yours Sincerely,

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

Community & Bureaucrat based desysoping proposal[edit]

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

The Signpost: 29 July 2015[edit]

2015 GA Cup - Round 2[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 2
Symbol support vote.svg

Greetings, GA Cup competitors!

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck and remember to have fun!

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

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

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

Bureaucrat discussion notification (Liz)[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Liz/Bureaucrat discussion

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

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

The Signpost: 05 August 2015[edit]

Well done[edit]

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

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

Deletion review for Moultrie, GA µSA[edit]

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

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

My RfA Crat Chat[edit]

Hello, Wizardman,

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

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

The Signpost: 12 August 2015[edit]

Implementation of Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Bureaucrat activity requirements[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

The Signpost: 19 August 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 26 August 2015[edit]

WikiCup 2015 September newsletter[edit]

The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Scotland Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Philadelphia Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

  1. Belarus Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
  2. Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
  3. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
  4. Somerset Harrias (submissions), second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
  5. Washington, D.C. West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
  6. Somerset Rodw (submissions), from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
  7. United States Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
  8. England Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

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

The Signpost: 02 September 2015[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 3[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 3
Symbol support vote.svg

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

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

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

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

Good luck to the remaining contestants, and have fun!

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

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

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

Nevin Ashley[edit]

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

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

The Signpost: 09 September 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 16 September 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 23 September 2015[edit]

Books and Bytes - Issue 13[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


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

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

Read the full newsletter

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

2nd Annual GA Cup - Round 4[edit]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 4
Symbol support vote.svg

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Signpost: 30 September 2015[edit]


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

The Signpost: 07 October 2015[edit]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2015[edit]


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

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


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

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

The Signpost: 14 October 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 21 October 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 28 October 2015[edit]

2015 GA Cup Wrap-Up[edit]

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

Symbol support vote.svg

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo.

A barnstar for you![edit]

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

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

The Signpost: 04 November 2015[edit]

WikiCup 2015: The results[edit]

Flag of the Smithsonian Institution.svg
Flag of Wales.svg
Flag of Belarus (1918, 1991-1995).svg

WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.

This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. Belarus Cas Liber (submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.

Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to United States Rationalobserver (submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.

A full list of our award winners are:

We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

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

The Signpost: 11 November 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 18 November 2015[edit]

Re-adding article on PC Muñoz[edit]

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

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

João Sousa GA nomination[edit]

Hi Wizardman!

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

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

The Signpost: 25 November 2015[edit]


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