User talk:MarB4/Archive 1

Greta Garbo

Hi. Looks like you've added a lot of good sources to this article. I ran a tool on it and it found multiple page references to books in some of the cites, and it removed the first instances and kept the subsequent ones. This has not changed what the cite templates were displaying, but you might want to review it all and adjust things. Feel free to revert it, as such tools can always be run again. See here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment and for your corrections, Jack. I am not a very skilled Wikipedian so assume my mistakes are made in good faith. I now know that the cquote template should be used sparingly. As for the dashes, I am sorry to say that my keyboard and codepage doesn't sport any of them (directly at least), hopefully you can live with hyphens. I am sure that you know what you do, when you run those tools, the only thing I notice is, that the |pages ID seems to have been zapped from the cite books. Not that I think it matters a whole lot. MarB4 (talk) 02:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You're most welcome. You seem to be doing pretty well. For things like proper dashes, you can use the tool that's just below the 'save' button; see the control that's marked 'insert'? Just click one of the dashes to the right of it and a dash gets inserted into your edit box. You can click the control to select alternate things to insert; lots of symbols and stuff available.

The page numbers were not all removed; here's an example from that diff:

before

• <ref>{{cite book|title=Notable American women: a biographical dictionary completing the twentieth century|year=2004|publisher=Harvard University Press|isbn=9780674014886|page=729|accessdate=|page=227}}</ref>

after

• <ref>{{cite book|title=Notable American women: a biographical dictionary completing the twentieth century|year=2004|publisher=Harvard University Press|isbn=9780674014886|page=227|accessdate=}}</ref>

The Citation bot saw the there were two page numbers given: 729 and 227. It removed the 729 and moved the 227 to that spot. it did this to a bunch of the cites (and I'm not sure they're ones you added or one that were already there). The template can't handle two copies of the 'page' parameter, so it was just using the second one. I've no idea which is really correct, but hope you do. It is best to cite proper page numbers, of course.

If' you'd like help with stuff, feel free to drop by my talk page and ask. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip re dashes, WP surely can keep me occupied in regard to How-tos, and likely still make me unintentionally violate Dos and Don'ts just the same, the amount of info being über-believable.

Not wanting to in any way be a smartass here, the example you give above is from diff=373545036&oldid=373544947, and yes, the cite book does have two page IDs, but go back one revision to diff=373544676&oldid=373543946. To me it looks like Reflinks have removed the plural-s in the pages ID and in cases were the page ID is an interval has added a plural-s to the page ID making it a pages ID. If you can confirm that assumption, is a bug report on User_talk:Dispenser/Reflinks then the next step? I will have a look and see, if any of the cite books now points to wrong page numbers. MarB4 (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit: sorry, have been reading on Cite book, it is I who do not understand that the pages ID is not for the total number of pages in the book. Disregard the above BS. MarB4 (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I think I see most of has happened, here. Ya, 'pages' is not for the total number of pages, rather it is for multiple pages. 'page' is for a single page. This distinction is about "p." vs. "pp." in the reference section. In the example above, 729 was the number of pages in the book, not a page reference. What the tool did is see a single number after 'pages' instead of a range or list ("123–125" or "17, 37–42") and so it changed it to 'page'. But you also *had* single 'page' refs, too, and the other tool cut the now-duplicate parameters. If these were all in the order 'pages', 'page' it will have gotten it right. But here you cut some you say are wrong. If you would like, I can backup to before any of this, and reapply the other changes and manually cut the pages as number-of-pages in the book so that everything is back to being correct. To do this, I'd have to be sure about just what happened, specifically that the 'pages' just the number of pages in the book, and not anything else. I'd also have to know if the 'wrong' pages numbers are real wrong. I'd have to do this soon, before too many more edits get made to the page. Let me know what you think, and I'll take a crack at it. If you think you've got it properly sorted, just say so, and will move forward from here. I've been here a long time and am very, very good at this sort of fix-up. Don't worry about breaking any "Dos and Don'ts"; as long as your intention is good, you're fine. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Re p. and pp.: I looked it over, and I believe that the page or pages IDs now present are correct as per my original citations. If you notice anything suspect or find anything missing, let me know.

I have had a short read on Help:Footnotes#List-defined_references and I will try to implement such guidelines if needed and to the best of my abilities.

Your long and detailed answers are appreciated, thank you, but I can see from your talk page that you must be busy, so should you want to limit yourself when answering me to e.g. "Hi, try read WP:blah_blah Cheers" I'll be the first person to understand and the last person to get upset. :) Thanks. MarB4 (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Having read a bit more on List-defined references I notice that WP:CITE#List-defined_references says "As with other citation formats, these should not be added to articles that already have a stable referencing system, unless there is consensus to do so." Until I hear from you, I won't change the reference structure we now have. MarB4 (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

As I continue to read about the subject and work on the article I sense that List-defined references would be a positive revision. I'll leave you a msg on your talk page asking for your opinion. MarB4 (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about changing the style, as long as you're moving things forward. You've done a lot of work on Garbo, so just go for it per WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. I'll look, and give things a shove. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I did some of these. This is a goof diff to review; reading from the bottom, I added a single cite template to the bibliography, added three named refs in the reference section that refer to the citation in the bibliography using {{harvnb}} and include a quotation, and I then replaced the three full invocations of mostly duplicate template instances (ex the quotes) with three brief invocations of the named refs. This is about getting clutter out of inline in the prose and paring-back the duplication of the cite parameters. I'd suggest you review the other diffs and take a stab at the process. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A Day at the Beach

Hello. Two days ago you added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. [4]). I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. I'm removing a lot of similar references as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Despite giving an appearance of reliability, the name "Webster's" has been public domain since the late 19th century. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences&Windows 16:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ditto The Enforcer (1951 film). Fences&Windows 16:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit and for making me aware of the fact, which was not known to me before. MarB4 (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Victor Borge

Hello MarB4. Just a note to say thank you for all your work adding sources and new info on Mr Borge's article. You have improved it a good deal. He was one of my favorite entertainers and I was lucky enough to see him perform live several times over the years. Even if I had seen one of his skits before his timing was so impeccable that I would find myself laughing as much as the first time I had seen it. Thanks again for your efforts and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 04:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Lars Von Trier

Brilliant! Tremendous contribution (particularly to the filmography section as i had requested in the discussion)Utopial (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! -129.49.72.78 (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Swami Janakananda

Hello MarB4,

Apologies that I didn't communicate properly to justify my changes.

I propose removing Swami Janakananda's Christian name as a respectful gesture towards his wishes. Normally, once they have received a spiritual name, sannyasins give up using or even alluding to their birth names. I know that Swamiji is very particular about this matter, going as far as trying to change his birth certificate. Can we agree to not show this piece of data? It anyway doesn't add anything practical to the article.

Regarding the infobox template, I suggest that Hindu Leader is more appropriate to Swami Janakananda's article, as it contains fields that are more suitable to a Swami (e.g. Guru/Teacher, Philosophy, etc.). The current infobox is far too general, being simply for a person. Could we use the Hindu Leader infobox, which is the most commonly used for Swamis? You will find it in use in many similar articles (for Swamis Vivekananda, Sivananda, Dayananda, Nigamananda, among others).

Kind regards Pedroaybar (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pedro,

I have moved this talk to the article talk page as per good practice.

VBR,

MarB4 (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Mrporkystudios

Hello MarB4. I am just letting you know that I deleted Mrporkystudios, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Thank you for correcting the criterion. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 17:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Enlightenment Productions

Hello MarB4. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Enlightenment Productions, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Grazie, Salvio, I'm always ready to be corrected and become wiser. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 13:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That's the correct approach to Wikipedia! And you seem to be doing a very good job: I know from experience that new page patrolling can be a tricky area.

In this case, I'd say a WP:PROD or an WP:AFD would be better choices, because there are indications of importance (granted they are probably not enough to warrant an article). A7 is only for the uncontroversial deletion of articles about unremarkable people, bands and so on. Usually, if an article has been kept for a year or longer, its deletion is probably not uncontroversial per WP:SILENCE; there are excepetions, of course, but they are rare, from what I've seen during my time as patroller... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

As the clever veteran you are, you saw the need for my further Wikiducation and anticipated my craving for WP-links into the deeper, finer layer of consensus lifting my veil of ignorance. I will study the links you gave me and continue to, time permitting, either welcome editing editors warmly or nip problems before they bloom. Thanks. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 21:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Accademia Italiana

Hello MarB4. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Accademia Italiana, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It makes a claim of importance (it awards degrees from the Univ. of Wales). If you feel this should be deleted, either propose it for deletion or take it to Articles for deletion. Thank you. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar, and some userrights

Messages like these [1] [2] [3] really show you care. On behalf of all these users, I award you this Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar for your helpfulness.
Prodego ^talk 00:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm very impressed with your anti-vandalism work, your helpfulness and attitude remind of when I first started editing, and all the great users who helped me navigate the confusing land of Wikipedia. Have this barnstar. Additionally, I've given you the rollback ability, which I believe you will find helpful. It will allow you to use huggle, as well as remove vandalism a bit more easily. I've also thrown in the reviewer right, which isn't so useful at the moment, but can't hurt. Make sure to read the informational pages about these rights before using your new abilities. Cheers, and keep up the great work! Prodego ^talk 00:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Jennifer Warnes Wikipedia page

Hello MarB4: I am just figuring out the editing process for Wikipedia. It took me several minutes to figure out how to contact you. It seems the corrections and editions I made in the last few days have been reverted back to the incorrect information. My only interest is in making the page Jennifer Warnes accurate. I work for and with Ms Warnes and she has personally asked me to correct some incorrect information contained in this wiki bio. I don't know if you have a personal interest in this particular page, but would love to find out. And any assistance you might be able to provide in making sure that only accurate information is contained here, would be greatly appreciated. Thank you Lookupjen (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lookupjen, and thanks for your message. To answer your question regarding me and Warnes: I have no special interest in the article. While I do, upon having a little read, remember those two mega-hit duets mentioned in the lead, I did not know that Warnes was one of the artists. In general it is a good idea to try and leave both love and hate and any feeling in between at the doorstep when entering the land of Wikipedia.

I appreciate that you declare your Conflict of interest regarding the article. That makes it so much more important to read and maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies. Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy and use reliable sources. And do have a read on what WP is not.

I have had a look at the edits I reverted. I might have done you wrong! Sorry. And here I am mainly thinking about the info regarding Warnes vs. Warren. Having a paragraph saying

"Early in her career, industry advisers suggested her surname, "Warren," should be changed to avoid confusion with Broadway and film actress Jennifer Warren, so she performed for a short time under the single name "Jennifer," later changing her last name to "Warnes."

IMO implies that she was born Warren and changed her name to Warnes. I suggest you go ahead and make edits that will clear up the confusion. If you can quote sources other than her own website, that would be great. Google Books often is a good place to search for such info. Why don't you just go ahead, I will keep the article on my watchlist and try to help you the best I can if needed. Do leave me a message, if there is anything you want to ask or discuss. And (maybe) most importantly of all: stay WP:NPOV! :-) MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 09:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Meenakshi Amman Temple

Hi

The paragraph I inserted was already present in the article. It was removed by someone recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meenakshirao (talk • contribs) 10:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Please see this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sangeetavidwan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meenakshirao (talk • contribs) 10:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

And as you can see from here it has been removed before with the reason Deleted an uncorroborated inflammatory paragraph. Please always cite a source for what you write. Thanks. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 10:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

BPX

Dear MarB4 I wanted to add the term BPX Edition because it is not only about SAP or the book from Bill Pfleging and Minda Zetlin. (it is not about SEM) We are publishing for more then 10 years books concerning the brigde between IT and Business. Furthermore we are working at IT faires to address managers to support the understanding of new topics like cloud computing, social media etc. Therefore I would be happy, if you could undo the removement. Kind regards Martina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdv-basel (talk • contribs) 19:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Martina - Thank you for your message. I appreciate that you declare your Conflict of interest regarding the BPX article. That makes it so much more important to read about and maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies. The external link you added to the article here points to the front page of your German language only Swizz business website. IMO this is in clear violation of both External link spamming and Links normally to be avoided. May I suggest you also have a read on What Wikipedia is not. In case you still disagree with my reversal of your edit, I think that placing {{adminhelp}} would be the way to proceed. I will very likely ask for a second opinion just to make sure that I have acted according to good policy in this matter. Let me know, if I can be of any further assistance to you. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 10:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:TW

Hi MarB4. You beat me with a few secs on User talk:Kostabiel this time, we seem even now ;) Tashif (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, looks like you mean User talk:Kraemer-banks, but then again: I'm not counting. Important thing is that we beat ClueBot most of time. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 13:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul Dickson - Crystal Ball

Saw your note - from the Wiki link that you attached I'm assuming you are referring to the insertion on Dickson's page that he died of a "blood infection" (if this is not what you are referring to, I'd appreciate at least a hint). Considering the article that is referenced states that this is the cause of his death, I think that the text is correct and therefore not guilty of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. If I've missed the point, which is certainly possible, please let me know. Ckruschke (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Hi Ckruschke. From the amount of changed and added text in the edit quoted I should have been more precise. We are talking about the line "(including future NFL Hall of Fame defensive lineman Jim Marshall)" that today by a new user was changed to "(including defensive lineman Jim Marshall)" as JM does not seem to have been inducted into the List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees. Have a look at it. Thanks. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 19:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, Yep - I guess I was thinking of another Purple People Eater. My mistake. Ckruschke (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Same-Sex Marriage In New York

Could you please monitor that page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_York There is a dispute going on on whether or not gay marriage can be performed there. Israell (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look although I have no knowledge about the subject. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 23:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I added a comment (seen in edit view) regarding the word "cannot" which has been changed to "can now" and reverted back. The ref clearly supports "cannot". AFAICT legislation might be passed June, 17 changing the situation, and in that case the article needs some updating. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 00:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Les Merton

Les Merton is notable since he had made significant efforts to re-popularise the Cornish Dialect, notably by authoring "Oall Rite Me Ansum"", which follows in a tradition of books about the dialect, which include Ken Phillipps 1993 volume "A Glossary of the Cornish Dialect" and earlier works dating back to the foundation of the Old Cornwall Society in the 1920s by Robert Morton Nance and earlier works in the 19th century (e.g. Jago - http://www.scribd.com/doc/3980618/The-ancient-language-and-the-dialect-of-Cornwall) Govynn (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I suggest you contest the speedy. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 20:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have left a message on the talk page of Les Merton also. Govynn (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for withdrawing the nomination, I do think though that you acted far too quickly, Wikipedia:DEMOLISH Govynn (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for you frank opinion and your added references to Les Merton. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 08:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

split: a divided america

hello - saw that the updates to the split: a divided america wikipedia page were reverted. as the film's director, i am updating the wikipedia page for the documentary's re-release this fall - hence the 2011 date change. thank you. sincerely - kelly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfpictures (talk • contribs) 21:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

George Demos page

Please reach out and speak to other users before inserting the Vandalism tag. The, so-called, "Whistleblower Section" of the George Demos page does not cite Reliable Sources and must remain off the page until you, or someone, find proper sources. Citing an internal court document is Original Research, and therefore a violation of wikipedia's policy against original research. Please find Reliable Sources for this information, and refrain from the vandalism tag. Sdavi410 (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. First of all try to understand that during patrolling you do sometimes unintentionally tag wrong, and the George Demos article might be one such case. I take that you should be the first person to understand such a mistake given the fact that you have been writing recently on another users page. I have no personal interest whatsoever in the article or its subject. Looking at the warring going on I suggest you request for comment or seek dispute resolution. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 03:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Further to the above notice Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sdavi410
MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 01:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

{{|Wb|your obsteve}}

replied to your message, thanks Obsteve (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

colour of pots, kettles, etc

The instructions at the top of this page ask other users not to template msg you. So why don't you follow your own guidelines and not template experienced editors, especially with accusations of vandalism like you did at User talk:Jenks24? His edit gave a reason for removing the notability tag, so you are free to disagree with his opinion, but it is not ok to call it vandalism. WP:AGF please. The-Pope (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion which I assume is in regards to the article Amy Knight. An experienced user should be welcome to add RS instead of removing the notability tag summarizing "rm notability tag; check gbooks, gscholar, etc.". Please read WP:BLP and let me know if you need any help. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 00:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no interest in the article or it's notability, only that you shouldn't throw accusations of vandalism around so lightly -WP:DTTR. The BLP policy refers to content, not tagging nor incivility/AGF. The existence or lack of a tag doesn't really change anything. We are all tying to improve this place in our own ways. The-Pope (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Pope. I'll only add a few things: first, I'm hoping this edit was just a misclick with Twinkle. If not, you probably need to have a re-read of WP:VAND. Second, it's generally good practice to have at least a quick google search before PRODing/BLPPRODing/AfDing an article. In this case the first result from a google news search (this article) proved the notability and verified a decent chunk of the article. Only a little further on in the google search we see publications like The New York Times and TIME calling Knight an expert on Russian and Soviet history. It's better to take a few minutes to do these searches than just tag and move on. Thirdly, the reason I removed the notability tag is because it was BITE-y to tag an article of a clearly notable author which had been created by an inexperienced user. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Jenks. I am happy to see that you added references to the article. I'll keep your remark about the notability tag being BITE-y in mind, you might be absolutely right and if it can still the waters regarding my revert using vandalism instead of AGF I have no problems saying to you: Sorry, mate, didn't mean to neither do wrong nor hurt. The article looks fine, lets move on. Thanks. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 10:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, I appreciate it. Yep, let's move on and I hope we can work together one day. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Article "Tweaks"

Mar -- What principle is guiding you to add more parentheses to the species authorities in the Buprestidae genus articles? The source material I'm using doesn't have them, and the author of the website is the current subject matter expert on jewel beetles. They actually have a meaning and a purpose when used in taxonomic naming. Granted, I had to learn this lesson, too (I was actaully dismissing them entirely until someone chided me). While I understand it's probably a good faith edit, I would like to ask you to please refer back to the references in the article and correct your "additions." Thanks. NielsenGW (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Nielsen. Seeing your many beetle stubs - how do you manage to create one every 5 min? Impressive! - I thought to myself "He missed parentheses here and there, I'll add them." I had no idea it made a difference, only trying to help. I have reverted my edits in those four or five beetle articles. Thanks. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 12:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. Like I said, I had a bumpy learning curve on these types of articles, too. As for my speed, I don't use any of the Wiki-software (AWB, etc.), but rather have two monitors and "copy-and-paste" templates for both polytypic and monotypic genera, as well as a formatting macro in Excel to take the website data and turn it into wiki-code. It's a lot of fun--I've done about 4,000 article this way. Adios! NielsenGW (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Westmoor Mot centre

Hi. Thanks for doing New Page Patrol, without which Wikipedia would very soon become unusable. A comment about your tag here: where A7 would apply, I think it's preferable to use that rather than G11, because G11 tends to make the author either protest that it wasn't meant as advertising, or take out a few adjectives and try again, where the real issue is that the company just isn't notable. Of course, G11 is still fine for the real "our highly skilled staff provide world-class... " spam. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

I sincerely apologize for posting on your user page rather than your talk page. This is because am quite green at wikipedia editting.I shall read through the links you just posted on my talk and be rest assured that it will not happen again.Very Truly Stephen wanjau (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Stephen. Thanks for your apology, totally accepted, shit happens. And yes, there is a lot to figure out on Wikipedia. I think it is a very good idea you have: do a bit of reading, do some minor edits on articles that have your interest, and then make a strategy for launching your first page again. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 22:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jhoomo Re

Hello MarB4. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jhoomo Re, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Would likely vote delete at AFD, but as the band's article exists, this isn't an A9. Thank you. Courcelles 00:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Courcelles. Thanks for letting me know. Please obs that the article at the time of tagging for speedy deletion did not contain any artist info. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 00:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed :) When you're thinking of certain criteria, a quick check of the what links here feature can reveal some hints as to what is going on. Courcelles 00:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I could, the creator did redlink the album on the artist page a few minutes before, and I also acknowledge that "check the "what links here" link to see [...]" is mentioned in WP:GTD. And that would also be the only hint as to what is going on. A much less resource consuming solution would be to create a decent stub before publishing it. Don't you think so? MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 10:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Amen. If people took more care with their new articles, CAT:SD wouldn't be the near constant backlog she is. Courcelles 11:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Kailasa (album)

Hello MarB4. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kailasa (album), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The band has an existing article, invalidating the A9. Thank you. Courcelles 00:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi C. Same as above and in this case the article still does not include artist info and like above links to nothing. The smallest little effort from new page creators would be nice, would save my time as well as yours. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 00:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Restoring the article on Shalini Bahl

The article on Shalini Bahl have been deleted, citing notability deficiency. Request you to undelete the page as the Subject person has done extensive and authentic research on Mindfulness approach towards every aspect of life, be it business, personal lifestyle or general work environment. She has written 100s of article on various subjects ranging from management, spirituality and social media besides other. The above writings can be accessed at <redacted>. The page been edited and her achievement were being included. She is already a famous personality in Amherst, MA. Her articles on subjects of management, social media, spirituality being widely published in respectable Journals like Journal of Consumer Research (forthcoming), Journal of Advertising, and Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. She is also a well known speaker appearing in TED, AWEtv and being invited in various national and international forums. The page has not been created to advertise the product and services but Ms Bahl has evolved an unique approach iAM approach - which stands for the Innovative, Authentic, and Mindful approach to business. This approach been used to help individuals, whether they are self-employed or employees, to become acquainted with what is unique about them and channel that for maximum productivity, engagement, and enjoyment in their work. Her original work of research on various subject, alliance (1), authentic (16), authentic branding (3), authentic business (2), authentic differentiation (1), authentic mission, statement (1), authentic personal brand (2), authentic women entrepreneurs (1), awetv (1), balance (1), blogging (3), blogging frequency (4), brain (2), branding (1), breathing (2), business (1), challenges (1), cluster analysis (1), community (1), conscious capitalism (1), consumer research (1), covert marketing (0), customer well being (1), effective communication (1), efforts (1) environment (1), environmental scan (1), ethical marketing (1), finding purpose (2), freedom (1), good questions (1), happiness (1) hidden beliefs (5), hidden fears (1), highest potential (2), how to do viral marketing (1), iAM Business Consulting (1), iAM person of the month (1), iAM Tip (2), increase productivity (2), inner conflict (1), inner critic (1), inner purpose (7), innovation (5), innovative (3), insights (1), inspiring (2), integral business (1), integrated (1), Life's lessons (2), LinkedIn (1), local business (1), market research (1), marketing (2), marketing with integrity (0), Measuring success (1), mind (2), mindful (3), mindful approach (4), mindful business (2), mindful marketing (6), mindful practice (1), mindful pricing (1), mindfulness (7), mindfulness practice (2) mission statement (1), move with ease (1), New marketing paradigm (3), new mindset (3), non profit (1), old thinking patterns (2), online id (1), paradoxes (1), passion (1), perfect business name (2), Personal branding (6), Pranayama (1), present moment (1), pricing (3), processes defining authentic business (1), product (1), professionl identities (1), profits (1), purpose (2), quotes at work (3), self awareness (5), sex sells (1), sharing online presentations (1), slideboom (1), slideshare (1), small budget marketing (1), social identities (1), social media (10), social media sites (1), Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (1), storytelling (1), stress (2), Sudarshan Kriya (2), sustainable (1), sustainable business (1), TCR (1), tools for digital identity (2), Transformative Consumer Research (1), transparency in business (1), truth (2), twitter (2), Uncategorized (1), unemployment (3), viral campaign (1), viral marketing (1), volunteering (1), win win situations (1), word cloud (1) can be accessed at <redacted>. Request you to reinstate the page. -Szolan (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szolan (talk • contribs) 05:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Szolan. I can see that you already raised the question on WP:UND and it was turned down on the grounds "this article has not been restored because it does not appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion of articles concerning people. In general, Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself. Articles concerning people will be deleted on sight if they are considered to be unambiguous advertising or promotion, or if they do not contain a credible assertion of the significance of the subject." If you took your time and read a little on WP:UND you would see that it says "Note that requests for undeletion is not a replacement for deletion review. If you feel an administrator has erred in closing a deletion discussion or in applying a speedy deletion criterion, please contact them directly. If you are unable to resolve the issue on their talk page, it should be raised at Wikipedia:Deletion review, rather than here." You could try that. But my unqualified opinion is, that the article would stand a much better chance if you started creating it in your own sandbox and did a decent job on it. That would involve a lot of reading in the policies and guidelines you find if you follow the links given to you in the welcome message on your talk page. Good luck! MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 09:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thnx. where do i request a copy of the deleted page, so that i can edit and upload for review. it can also be sent in my authenticated mail. regards Szolan (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you can get a copy of the deleted page. You could try and ask the admin that handled your request for undeletion. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 09:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Should I Feel That It's Over

Hello, I was wondering why the linkrot tag was added to this article as all references are not bare URLS. Ajsmith141 (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Smith. Have a look at WP:BURLS and tell me if you still think the linkrot tag is unfairly placed. Do you know the Reference Generator for making citations? MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 16:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Reference Generator. I see from WP:BURLS about adding the citations but I'm not familiar with using it. Ajsmith141 (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You'll find it's a fine tool for generating proper citations instead of the bare URLs now in the article. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 16:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I'll have a look now. Ajsmith141 (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Harrietfield References

Dear MarB4,

Thank for drawing my attention to the problem with the references on the Harrietfield page. I have had a go at corrected them but as I am a but new to this I wondering if you could let me if they are correct and if I can remove the banner form the page now. In addition I 'm not sure if I should have posted this here or on the Harrietfield talk page and am sorry if I have caused any inconvenience.

Many Thanks, EditMonky. EditMonkey (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear EditMonkey, Have a look at the article now, I made a proper citation for the first reference using this tool. I could not see Gitting B., which I assume would be the author/editor name, anywhere, so I left it out. You can add the fields, if you want to. Have a go at it. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 16:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Hi MarB4. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for IMAST, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 21:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Antony Powell

Hi. I'm just letting you know that I deleted this article as a very nasty personal attack against a genuine living person. There is a vast difference between hoax and attack pages. Pease be sure to fully read pages before tagging them and if you need any help; do read WP:NPP, or leave a message on my talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Kostabiel

Hi. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but please don't place welcome templates on the pages of users who haven't made an edit yet. We need a lot of good new page patrollers - I think you could be far more helpful there, but do read up on WP:DELETION first. Happy editing! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. My usual practice when welcoming people is to open the New user log and go down and find one of the oldest of the 500 with contribs, check out what they have done and greet them accordingly. If I have welcomed a user that had zero contribs - I actually think I did that one single time a couple of hours ago, that is a rare case, the exception from the natural rule (and likely based on something rather silly as the sound of the username!), as this could be done much faster and better by a bot, should it be done. You are mistaken when it comes to Kostabiel, s/he made an edit which prompted my rollback.

I am sorry to see you use conditional mood in regards to my current efforts on the new page patrolling. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 00:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The text of Those welcome templates have to be manually fixed after pressing save. The main reason we have just passed a major new rule to prevent new users from creating articles is because NPP is in such a mess because it is not done accurately. We need all the help we can get to get it right. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

And what exactly do you mean by those statements when you write them to me? MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 05:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Due to the research work we are doing, I and a couple of other editors patrol the work of the patrollers. It is not aimed at any particular individual. Experience has shown that an unacceptably high proportion of patrolling is error prone, hence the reason why consensus was reached recently to prevent new accounts from immediately publishing new articles. Attempts to improve the standard of NPP over the last nine months have failed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit to J.I. Packer page...

I believe it is an improvement to the J.I. Packer entry to post a picture which depicts Dr. Packer alone. (No offense to Mark Driscoll.)

There are plenty of portrait pictures out there of Dr. Packer, and as soon as I have the rights to post a picture myself I will submit one. That is, unless you'd like to improve the page by posting one yourself that does NOT have another person with him? I can send you one if you like.

dcharris1

PS: Since I removed the other picture in good faith, with every intention of posting a better one, it does not constitute vandalism. As for the Mark Driscoll page, I should not have removed that one, and will not attempt to in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcharris1 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Harris. Thanks for your unsigned message. Your POV in regards to what would be an appropriate picture for the article should be posted on the article talk page. That you remove an image without discussing it first and without having a substitute yet IMO is not very logical.

Yes, creating an account and within minutes removing the same image from two articles without at least an edit summary and then repeating your removal three times after a rollback that is vandalism. Arguing now that it was good faith edits ... sorry, it's a little late to plea innocent, if you ask me.

If you do get a better photo of Packer that can be used, why not upload it, suggest it's use on the article talk page and see if there is agreement on substituting the current. Who knows, your opinion might be shared by others. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 01:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Davis Gym edits

The sourcing for the edits I made is old Bucknell basketball media guides. They are not available online. Hooptime (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hooptime. Thanks for letting me know. Maybe you can generate a citation with this little tool based on the books on your shelf? Happy editing! MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 22:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, books on my shelf and 20+ years of covering Bucknell basketball as a sportswriter Hooptime (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"Good to have you on the team" never sounded more appropriate. Welcome once again. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 23:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

CSD rationale

I'm uncomfortable deleting George Gombossy as an A10. While it is a duplicate of User:Ggombossy, that is a user page, not an article. I don't think the criteria extends to material in user pages. In addition, it is likely that the user page will be deleted, as an improper use of a user page. (As an aside, please note I have blocked the editor). --SPhilbrickT 14:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 23:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tulāsana

I've listed the deletion discussion under a few categories to encourage some more people to join in. Let me know if there are any other places you would like this to be listed. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 08:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Jeth, that was thoughtful. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 08:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

messing with the steve lerner page

Moved to Talk:Steve Lerner

 – as per good practice. Section is closed on this talk page. --MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 09:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

he is a noted authority in his field, stop vandalizing the page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorCool777 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your unsigned comment. You have been notified several times on your talk page about not removing maintenance templates from the Steve Lerner article until the issues are solved, which they are far from. Removing them 4 times as you have done going as far as shouting in your edit summary "DO NOT BACK THESE CHANGES OUT" and claiming that the "Issues are solved" when they are not, constitutes ownership.

The Steve Lerner article was unfortunately autobiographic from the start, which is strongly discouraged, leaving an essay like, vanity ridden article behind that is far from the strict standards in WP:BLP. You are a new user, or are using a new account, and have only made edits to the Steve Lerner article. Do you have a relation to the article subject you wish to disclose?

I made a Google Books search for "Steve Lerner" and there appears to be several by that name, but among the first 50 hits I could find nothing that was regarding the Steve Lerner in question. I will try to find 5 minutes and do some basic copy editing on the article to get you going. Please carefully read WP:BLP.

I would like to advise you not again post messages like the above on talk pages of your fellow Wikipedians. It will in many cases not be taken lightly. At best it will be taken as a sign that you care very little for how Wikipedia works, at worst as lack of civility. Flat out: (A) you are the one messing, (B) as the article stands now without inline citations focusing on high quality secondary sources establishing notability, the article has only a claim to notability (which I hope you can correct), and (C) do not call people vandals unless you have a solid reason, you are not creating a foundation for co-operation in what is a collaborative project. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 23:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

They are resolved on the talk page. You keep backing out the long list of articles, public speaking, etc that constitutes notability, and then claiming lack of notability. And you have vandalized the page by adding 'joke' comments on it. Since this is a 'mutual policed state' on Wikpedia, you are now the one being policed, leave the list of notable articles and press about the subject intact, leave the list of speaking engagements intact, and feel free to police on grammar and style etc. Notable people are notable not just because of googling something- they are notable because of acheivements, which are not measured by Wikipedia editing standards, but by real world existence. •777• —Preceding undated comment added 17:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC).

So you are still messing with the Steve Lerner page, adding your own personal (and mostly unresearched) desires and dreams... I'm reverting back... facts are facts whether you personally are able to know their truth or not. Should you continue to do this, you may be BANNED from Wikipedia editing. •777• 20 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorCool777 (talk • contribs)

Adw notifications

what are these?Curb Chain (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

max beesley

Hi You reverted an edit I made to Max Beesley's page saying he had a step brother, gary. You say this is 'unverifiable'. I AM Gary and I can promise you, we are brothers. Im afraid much of the information is not verifiable but it has not been removed. On the other hand, I think I am verifiable (I look in the mirror and thats me alright!) Please revert the edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.92.141 (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Gary, thanks for your message. My reversion of your unsourced edit in Max Beesley came as part of welcoming you as a new user and was justified by WP:BLP. More specifically it says

The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.^WP:BLPNAME

The fact that the Max Beesley article is currently only sourced with one reference does not in itself justify adding new unsourced info, but I notice that the German version has five references, and I will try to find time and see, if they can be added here. Maybe you could help with adding further references to your step brother's article?

If you still think you should appear in your step brother's article, why not log in with your account, Airshlok (talk · contribs), and use the template {{adminhelp}} on your talk page, and an admin will come and guide you. Apart from reading WP:BLP and WP:BLP/H first it might also be of some value to give Wikipedia:Conflict of interest a read, since you are trying to add info about yourself to Wikipedia. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 05:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding a ref

If you can find a reference in five minutes, find it first, then undo and add it. Calvin Grant (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

According to? MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 10:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

According to everything on Wikipedia is supposed to be sourced and unsourced information can be removed at any time. BTW, the "sources" you added don't establish the notability of the episode. Proving who directed it and one guest star doesn't make the episode notable on its own. Calvin Grant (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me start by telling you that I haven't had a TV set for half a decade, and neither know these episodes nor have I any special feelings towards them, including weather or not they are notable for their own article. Hope this remark helps! I just happened to see the edit war going on, and often find it a good exercise to try and find a Gbook ref for something for me entirely new.

Sorry, friend, you are making a couple of common mistakes. Everything on WP is not supposed to be sourced; just think about the consequences! We would either have very short articles or articles where 90% was found between ref tags. Everything should be verifiable, but in practice we do not need to attribute everything. Have a read on WP:V.

I would not be surprised if you are absolutely right concerning the refs I added and notability. Maybe you can find some sources yourself to add, this has always been good practice.^WP:PRESERVE In all cases, try to have fun while you are here. Listening to other people and talking politely is an almost sure way to achieve this. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 11:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, I'm Maxers. What's up? I'm new to Wikipedia, and I was wondering how to get to talk to other people on here. How old are you anyway? Maxers (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Maxers. Well, if you "like to do basketball, football, wrestling, skateboarding, soccer, paintball, archery, and dirt-biking" then I could with all certainty be either your father or your mother! It is not that we never talk private stuff here on Wikipedia, but most of the time we concentrate on writing the encyclopedia. Have you had a look around, do you often read articles here? MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 21:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Before I created an account, I never really read Wikipedia. But, I did create an account a month ago, but either I forgot my password or my username. Maxers (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is great you have an account on WP, just don't you go around forgetting that password now, son! Why don't you hang out a bit and read about stuff you like. Stupid question maybe: do you like your homework as well? Maybe you can find articles here on WP, that could put you ahead of the rest of the class! Let me know, what you think. Don't be afraid to ask about anything, there are always someone here to lend a hand. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 21:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Psycodelic Festival

It's not patent nonsense because the sentences are understandable. --Σ ^talk_contribs 21:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 22:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Linden Cameron

Hi - I was surprised myself about the orphan criteria; I looked it up to see how many there had to be, and it had changed! As for the onesource tag, I admit I have a personal bias against these because I think they're vague and not always necessary, but here's the rationale: according to Template:Onesource, "a single source is not automatically a problem". I've always understood the template to be intended for longish articles relying entirely on something like Quadrant or Green Left Weekly, rather than short articles relying on the Australian Dictionary of Biography. I mean, ideally multiple sources are better, of course, but for what that article is the single one is fine, especially considering its veracity. The template page suggests that when applying the tag a rationale for the problem with the source be provided (this is why I hate the fact that it's part of Twinkle!). Anyway, hope this covers it! Frickeg (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Please Examine Edits

[5]

I have not removed any meaningful content in this edit.Curb Chain (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Curb. Just left you a msg a few secs ago. Will be back online later, lets chat then. Cheers. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 09:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I certainly don't need to take a break from editing asana articles. Per our protocol, and yes, since I've worked on them yesterday, the articles do not seem to be notable after reading most of the articles. They maybe adequate on list of yoga postures, but they don't seem notable for their own articles. You can read WP:N for further information. I also participate in articles, templates, and categories for deletion, so I know the ways around them (our standards).Curb Chain (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to sleep. I will give you the courtesy of assuming good faith and will give you time to digest this possibly new information. I have to work tomorrow so I'm going to give both of us a break (some time).Curb Chain (talk) 09:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If irc is more convenient for you, I am back from work and online, so if there are some problems please don't hesitate to discuss.Curb Chain (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

IPA

It is not enough to include citations to pronunciations such as this. I highly doubt the pronunciations in that book is a good transliteration of sanskrit. That's why we ALWAYS need IPA transliteration and yes, {{converipa}}{{convertipa}} is a necessary template on the articles which don't use IPA.Curb Chain (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Curb, hope this find you well. Avoid shouting on talk pages, many editors here do not like that; the essay Wikipedia:Please don't shout expands on the subject.

Talk page discussions are based mainly on policies, guidelines, and RS, not mere opinion as you here present. I am open for the idea of adding IPA to asana articles, so I'll try to answer you anyway, and I find it a fine opportunity to work positively together after the closing of your AfD nomination of the 58 asana articles.

Starting with your last sentence saying "we ALWAYS need IPA transliteration" I assume you did mean "IPA transcription" as there is quite a difference between graphemic and phonemic conversion. Next, would you please give me a link back to the page saying we always need IPA? I am sure you are right when you say it, but I can't seem to find it.

Let's have a look at what we have in regards to pronunciation of asanas, what we want, what we need, and what we can.

We have ~58 articles (3 redirects included), leaving us, if I can count, with 30 articles without any information on pronunciation, and 25 articles with pronunciation info.

Current pronunciation info: I am surprised to see that you consider it a transliteration of Sanskrit. Using Paschimottanasana as an example it currently reads

• Paschimottanasana (POSH-ee-moh-tan-AHS-anna) (Sanskrit: पश्चिमोत्तानासन; IAST: paścimottānāsana)

and following WP:PRON which tells us that "When a foreign name has a set English pronunciation (or pronunciations), include both the English and foreign-language pronunciations; the English transcription must always be first." it should be clear that "(POSH-ee-moh-tan-AHS-anna)" therefor is the English transcription and not as you assume reflecting Sanskrit pronunciation. Were that the case the correct placement would be after Devanagari.

Next, which transliteration method do you propose have been used? I use Paschimottanasana as an example again and we have

Harvard-Kyoto: pazcimottAnAsana

ITRANS: pashchimottaanaasana

IAST: paścimottānāsana

Velthuis: pa"scimottaanaasana

and IPA transcription: pɐɕcimoːt̪t̪ɑːn̪ɑːs̪ɐn̪ɐ

Compare that to POSH-ee-moh-tan-AHS-anna. This is not a transliteration as suggested, but a pronunciation respelling. And that is a transcription. (Please have a read on transliteration and transcription.) Pronunciation respelling has its strength in accessibility - no need for next-door Joe to know IPA - but is at best a "pan-dialectal" English approximation and has its obvious drawbacks. That is why we ideally want IPA transcriptions on as much as possible and the narrower the better. If we can source or produce them reliably. With the above info available we can have a lead starting

Paschimottanasana (POSH-eemohtan-AHS-anna) (Sanskrit: पश्चिमोत्तानासन; Sanskrit pronunciation: [pɐɕcimoːt̪t̪ɑːn̪ɑːs̪ɐn̪ɐ]; IAST: paścimottānāsana), Seated Forward Bend"

I have looked at all asana talk pages and unless I am in err there are no other requests for pronunciation, meaning the prior community consensus was no need. That should not stop an innovative editor like yourself to raise awareness of the possibility and need, in fact I choose to regard your tagging with the rare {{convertipa}} template and your AfD nomination of the asana articles as a welcome drive towards better articles in the Yoga arena. As I am focusing my limited time on WP the next months on broader contents matters I will leave a detail like pronunciation in the asana articles to you and will suggest you to this end deploy a 3-step strategy (which of course you can expand with your own ideas):

1. Source IPA. I have looked around specifically and found nothing, but you might do a better job. For inline citations from gbooks Reftag is at your disposal, and for everything else Reference Generator is available.
2. Produce IPA. That would take Sanskrit knowledge far beyond my own, but if you think you have what it takes, go for it. We can always get a second opinion from RD/L before adding to the articles.
3. Request IPA. If you have no results with step one and two above, express your need under a new section heading on the article talk pages, that's what they are there for. This needn't be more than a line or two specifying your request including the appropriate template if needed, which at the same time would accomplish getting {{convertipa}} off the article page where it never belonged in the first place.

Hoping you will take heed of the above and trying to inspire you with a little Ahimsa in your future editing I send you

Ok, thanks for the beer. I can say that everything you have said is correct, but only one thing is in err: The tag actually does not belong on any talk page, it belongs on the article page (main page). You can verify this yourself by checking the articles who use this template. Also, this would be the only template that belongs on the talk page, if that was the case, and this would useful to editors. Some of the pronunciations are sourced. I can point out that theY cite sources that don't use IPA. We can convert them to IPA. Also, there is no problem to include the respelling, which is what is on the article pages, in addition to IPA. As you know, IPA is perfered. Do you want me to go ahead and implement your suggestion?Curb Chain (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Curb said: "we ALWAYS need IPA transliteration" Please give me a link back to the page saying we always need IPA?

Curb said: "It is not enough to include citations to pronunciations such as this." According to?

A suggestion of converting sourced pronunciations to IPA is set fourth, but the only sourced pronunciations in the articles in question are pronunciation respelling, and these can obviously not be converted to IPA. This suggestion in itself shows little if any understanding of the subject I have expounded above and lends no credibility to the statement "I can say that everything you have said is correct", and it also further repeats the basic lack of understanding already demonstrated by writing "I highly doubt the pronunciations in that book is a good transliteration of sanskrit" between what is the present English pronunciation respelling and the wanted Sanskrit pronunciation.

Regarding the convertIPA template it belongs on the talk page, and it is advised always to read the docs and guidelines. Especially when here the adding of the template to 25 articles easily could be construed tag bombing in order to push the subsequent AfD nomination.

Please either act according to my very friendly intended instructions and suggestions above or remove the convertipa template from the article pages. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 21:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It does not say in {{convertipa}} documentation that the template should be on the talk page. IPA transcription/translation is the preferred form of phonetic spelling on Wikipedia/Wikimedia projects. Respelling is done after the IPA has been established. Such pronunciations, even though they are sourced, should not be included if you insist that they are the pronunciations of these yoga positions. IPA is an unambiguous phonetic spelling; we should be using IPA to transcribe the pronunciation of the sanskrit, then use Respelling, to supplement, and even this is not necessary. The sources that use this "respelling" has many drawbacks because the phonemes they represent are ambiguous. This is not sufficient for Wikipedia. I suggest removal of these non-IPA pronunciations, or the tag should stay. The adding of the template to 25 articles could not be easily construed as tag bombing, because the my nomination of the articles was wholly different issue. You are not new to {{convertipa}}, so it links explicitly to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation). In it, it outlines the myriad of reasons we do not use IPA instead of other transcriptions. Obviously, I may not have presented my arguments as eloquently as this guideline, but the concept is that respelling is an ambiguous transcription. This is what I mean by "I highly doubt the pronunciations in that book is a good transliteration of sanskrit".Curb Chain (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

{{convertipa}} is still present on those articles. Yes, it does clearly say that the {{convertipa}} template should be on the talk page, not the article page, cf. here and here. Again: Please follow friendly advice given above or simply remove the template from the article pages. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 15:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Although it seems that consensus and it's actual use is on the article page. If you have an issue with this, i suggestingsuggest bringing it up on the template's talk page or Wikipedia:Template_messages/Maintenance's talk page asking all of those templates to go on the article page. In any case, those pronunciations are not IPA, they are not preferred over IPA so they should be removed until IPA pronunciations are present.Curb Chain (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Concensus is reflected by the instructions here and the prior discussion here, not by the fact that this technically difficult and therefor rarely used template might have been applied incorrectly on other articles. Further, there is no rule that says, that a pronunciation respelling should be removed if IPA is not present. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 16:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. SoWhy 11:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I will gladly give you my point of view. The user Red Rover112 (talk · contribs) made within 7 minutes between 10.06 and 10.13 five very identical edits, [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10], all of them being hiding entire articles by adding the markup <!-- to the very beginning of each. This piece of code is not something you would expect the average Joe/Jenny-new user had any knowledge about, H:MARKUP refers to it as uncommon, but on occasion acceptable for notes to other editors, and as it is not here used as a legit editorial comment, cf. WP:HIDDEN, it is disruptive. Had the user used preview and had good faith, he would have seen the consequences. I was the one welcoming the user and had seen his edit in Least frequently used, a Computer science stub, which he described typos in the edit summary. So you have:

• a new user who calls himself a robber (rover having the same etymology as e.g. dk/no:røver or (als ich siehe dass Sie Deutsch sind) de:Räuber), who
• within 2 minutes from account creation starts
• making edits using rare markup, and
• within 7 minutes
• in 5 very different articles,
• one of them, the one I caught, being a Computer science stub (raising a red flag that he was well aware of what he was doing),
• with no or misleading edit summaries, and with
• all edits marked as minor
• and being clearly disruptive in nature, compromising the integrity of Wikipedia,

then he has established an editing pattern that looks like a very clear vandalizing agenda and makes AGF impossible, cf. WP:VAND: "Circumstances may warrant no assumption of good faith, or indicate bad faith; respond accordingly." and IMHO thus fully justifying an immediate report on AIV, which I filed before he made his first good edit.

I appreciate critique when useful and corrections when I fu make mistakes, and I do not mind being simply templated. Templating me with a note saying "there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith" does IMO not display an understanding of the situation, but I hope my explanation may give you at least my perspective, and your comments, and corrections, if you find I am wrong, are very welcome. Best/MfG —MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 13:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

At the time of your report at 10:17 UTC, his last edit like the one's your mentioned was at 10:13 UTC,. All the warnings were made afterwards (10:13, 10:14, 10:15, 10:16), so at the time of your report, he had not edited a single time after being warned. Even with someone suspected as a vandal-only account, at least one warning should be left on their talk page, unless the intent is crystal clear. While invisible-text-vandalism is indeed rare but sneaky, I do not think it constitutes the kind of vandalism that needs to be sanctioned by a block without a single warning. Of course, other admins might disagree with me on this but I think it's not that problematic to yell "stop!" first before "shooting" them. Hope that explains it. FWIW, I used the template only to notify you of my response at AIV. Regards SoWhy 13:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate what you write, but it does not explain it, and while I value your opinion I see nothing in what you write that speaks against WP:VAND: "Circumstances may warrant no assumption of good faith, or indicate bad faith; respond accordingly.", but you are of course welcome to substantiate your opinion. When using the analogy yell "stop!" first before "shooting" them I must say, no way. You might want to give my explanation a second read. When a user, to continue your analogy, commits five quick killings, as essentially this addition of markup to the articles were, no honest intentions can be seen and consequently no hope for conversion is likely or granting of further bona fide resonably expectable. Nothing in this case gave the forecast, that the user would say "Ooops, sorry" as he did let alone turn 180 dgr. and start reverting vandalism. You make no indication of understanding how the situation looks from an NPP point of view, and this approach is not beneficial. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 14:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Although it might seem a long time ago, I, like many admins, did start with NPP myself and I admit that I made some mistakes as well. So I know the point of view (although I admit that it was three years ago). Nevertheless, I think even back then I would have left a warning (for example {{uw-vand4im}}) before reporting them. Once you have spotted such behavior, you can easily revert it if it continues and as such, there is much less need to act immediately than there would be if the behavior was not as easy to track. Continuing my analogy of deadly force above, it would be as if you had a rifle already aimed at the person's head. If they vandalized again after yelling "stop!", then you can still "shoot" them just the same, so the only difference of warning them is that you might have to revert another edit. I do think your application of the analogy is flawed though. Vandalizing five articles, even in a sneaky way, is nothing like killing five people, more like plastering five billboards with easy-to-remove paint. Blocking without warnings is allowed so that admins can exercise their discretion to bypass the warning-requirement in exceptional cases where bad faith is evident, for example for defamatory edits, attack pages, etc. The part of WP:VAND you cite is in the section "Warnings", so the "respond accordingly" part refers to the question of what kind of warning to use (for example 4im instead of 1), not the administrative reaction to this user's actions. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:BLOCK#Education and warnings which also includes a sentence about the possibility to block without a warning but which also explicitly states that this is only a "may", so we can e contrario reason that blocking without warnings was never intended to be the rule, just an exception. That's why most of the section talks about warning first and blocking later. Phew, that was a long answer, sorry. Hope it at least makes sense. Regards SoWhy 18:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"Easy-to-remove-paint" ... I don't think we benefit from introducing new analogies. I did not especially welcome the initial violent analogy, may I suggest abandoning metaphorical Ersatz and get back to a fact-based Ansatz? You now bring blocking and WP:BLOCK into the discussion. Thanks for the pointing me to the last, I have never read it before, mainly because it does not concern my user level directly. The specific section you mention says: "Everyone was new once, and most of us made mistakes.", but as I have argued, there is nothing in this case that suggests the actions were mistakes. Blocking or not blocking is however not the subject. The subject is what motivation the editing pattern of the user gave me for filing the AIV and the subsequent need (from your POV) or lack of need (from my POV) to issue a uw-aiv with its patronizing correction regardless of an editing pattern pointing in the direction of a vandalism only. Please be aware that this approach, as were Kudpung's previous false acquisition have no positive effect on recruitment and dedication on NPP or RCP, and the time spend on having to discuss formalities could have been put to far better use. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 18:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, I do not dispute that your opinion on this is one that can be validly held. I just disagree that it's correct to block in this case without a single warning. As I also said in my first reply, the use of {{uw-aiv}} was only to point you to AIV so you can see my reply in time. I apologize if you thought it "patronizing" but I think you are overreacting. The language is clearly designed to cover all possible scenarios in which {{uw-aiv}} might be used and as such of course contains sections such as the "correction" you mention that are obviously not designed to apply in all scenarios (since it makes absolutely no sense when it's used to point out insufficient warnings). Regards SoWhy 18:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I have given your message good thought. You are now retorting to non-apologetic apology "I apologize if you thought it "patronizing" but I think you are overreacting.", and you bring back into discussion the issue of blocking, which is not to debate. Focus, please. I do not give a dime about if he was blocked, the thing that matters is that the integrity of WP is preserved. I have read what you say about the uw-aiv and also read an interesting exchange of opinions here (including the subsequent section "Warning?"). Uw-aiv does not work, IMO, to a good effect in a case like this. Yes, if you want to stick to a formalistic reading of the guidelines, then I reported him too early. And if you feel a great need to issue an uw-aiv on that basis, by all means, bring them on. That does not change the facts that I have already given: my AIV filing was well intended after having noted 5 vandalizing edits. The problem for me here is, that the bona fide goes to the user, and the furthest you seem to be able to stretch your good faith towards me is "I do not dispute that your opinion on this is one that can be validly held" which again is in no way agreeing. If you had taken a look at his further behavior, you would have seen that he actually manages in his only subsequent edit that is not an undo, to further delete content, and while he was able to make 5 disruptive edits in 7 minutes, it takes him 10 minutes to post a reply to warnings, after having made 3 good, angelic edits. No newbie uses the term "mainspace" with such nonchalance as we see here, and no newbie goes on to make such a signature, let alone on its own subpage. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 20:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Until your reaction, I never actually thought that anyone could consider the use of this template "patronizing" as you put it. I stand corrected now and that's what I apologized for. That does not mean that I am not allowed to point out that I think you overreacted. To quote the essay you linked (WP:SORRY): "in accepting an apology one should "assume good faith" where it is at all possible." Back to the subject at hand though. I have not, will not and do not dispute that your report was made in good faith based on a valid interpretation of the policy in question. Period. There is no use of further discussing the user's behavior after the report since it is not relevant for this issue. Whether they are a sock, an old user returning under a new name, a user of another project starting to edit here, etc. is completely irrelevant to the question, whether you should have brought them to AIV directly without issuing a single warning. Again, I fully understand why you did it and I know that a sizeable number of admins will agree on your interpretation but again, there was no dispute over that in the first place. My reply only served to outline what I think is the correct approach and I based that on the policies I would have to follow to block someone. So of course, I do not agree with you. Good faith does not mean that you agree with someone's opinion, it just means that you assume that they hold it and act upon it because they have the best interests of the project at heart (see Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith). And I do assume that. I just think the project's interests are better served following my interpretation of the rules in question. Regards SoWhy 21:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Let us now move on. By foot, I am afraid. I just did a double-check and that horse is stone dead. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 21:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

2083 - A European Declaration of Independence

As you originally nominated 2083 - A European Declaration of Independence for deletion, your input would be appreciated at User_talk:Fastily#Request_to_undo_deletion_of_:2083_-_A_European_Declaration_of_Independence. Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 05:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the warm welcome, nice to feel welcome here on Wikipedia!! :D --NewKidzsterFun2011 (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

 Great! Enjoy your stay! MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 07:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Taye Taiwo

There was only 34 league rounds in 2004, so tell me how Tawio could play in 37?--Oleola (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right. I was reverting another editor's less than helpful attempts, but overlooked that you had fixed the image. Everything is fine. Thank you for being alert! MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 10:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You did say you didn't mind questions... Re: Last Supper

Was adding some references to Anachronism article and came up with questionable stuff that was already there; whether or not Leonardo da Vinci's Last Supper included oranges in the picture. Ended up discussing briefly w/Nihil novi (whom I've invited to comment here if desired; hope you don't mind) and further investigation indicates that, in fact, there are oranges in the painting; but, referencing this extra info (if I add it to Anachronism or Last Supper or whatever) raises questions. Do you have any answers/suggestions and where would you go next if not?

• Ultra-High-Resolution (16 Giga-pixel) scans of da Vinci's Last Supper do show oranges. I have cut & pasted sectionals of the image of what are clearly oranges; but, since this was a super-high-tech special scanning, undertaken under authority of the Italian superintendent of Museums..., the images appear to be proprietary (they actually ghost the name of this works of art scanning company HALTA definizione throughout the image).
  • I've temporarily saved copies of these segment images to a subdir on my private web area; but I can't create links to them (since this is one of those free web-hosting sites and it's blacklisted for spam reasons) but you can view the images segments via these url's if desired:
    • http:// then canadacheque.freewebpage.org/LastSupper/Leonardo_da_Vinci's_Last_Supper-ImageSegmentsMontage1.jpg
    • http:// then canadacheque.freewebpage.org/LastSupper/Leonardo_da_Vinci's_Last_Supper-ImageSegmentsMontage2.jpg
  • I assume that I can't upload these cut & pastes to Commons as I'm guessing the images themselves are copyrighted, even through the Last Supper obviously isn't.
  • If I contact the scanning company HALTA definizione and they agreed to release these minor segments of the entire image (assuming they agreed to make these small segments public-domain in accordance with GNU/CC-BY-SA 3.0 yada-yada, and they did it in writing, etc):
    • Would images that still contained ghosted private corporation name (that free advertising likely being the only reason the company would agree to public domain them), would they comply with WikiMedia rules? (Where should I ask that question?)
    • Similarly, if they made a higher than any existing resolution image of the entire artwork available, again assuming public-domain/GNU/C3.0 with their company name ghosted into the image, would that be acceptable for WikiCommons?
  • If they made these segments (that show oranges talk about stupid, but anyways) of images available, clearly available as public domain (again still assuming ghosted company name), on their own web-sites, could those be added to wiki-article? (I'd expect that whatever the answer is, it's the same policy of Commons & in article.)
• There is also a reference source to statements that the meal, shown being eaten by Jesus and his disciples in the Last Supper, is eel served with orange. Should work just fine as a reference source, except:
  • Does the opinion of a Professor Emeritus of Art History (i.e. retired) from Mount Holyoke College never heard of before liberal arts women's college in Massachusetts, (listed as now employed at The Institute of Classical Architecture, NY, NY), John Varriano, who wrote an article about this for a never heard of it Gastonomica, a quarterly magazine from Williams College, MA, published by University of California Press, where the only still existing reference to the article is its title, history's table - At Supper with Leonardo, listed in the table of contents of the Winter 2008 edition, constitute a reliable source.
  • What about the reference to this magazine article as published in the British on-line tabloid Daily Mail.
  • Or does this on-line article (at the unlinkable/blacklisted address www.squidoo.com/Last-Supper), citing Art Historian Varriano's same magazine article, at Squidoo.com, constitute a reliable reference source.
• And any ideas on how the heck (other than dumb luck), one finds a reference that confirms that oranges weren't available in Jerusalem until they were introduced by Portuguese traders centuries after Jesus' crucifixion?

With these as the only apparently available reference sources, notwithstanding the fact that I actually do think that their are oranges in da Vinci's work, do I leave what's at anachronism alone, remove it, cite these dubious sources, or put all this in anachronism's discussion page and let someone else decide? Thx -- Who R you? (talk) 08:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Who R U?, how are you? Sorry, couldn't help it. Thanks for your message and the flattering confidence you show me by asking. I had a great time becoming wiser in order to answer you, and I will gladly give you my seven cents, but fear that my words won't have that high a value. You basically ask two kinds of questions here, one of then being in regards to images and their copyright status, and how to best handle that task, the other kind regards sourcing and source reliability.

Images and copyright - Simply: I have no clue. Take the question to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. You might also want to consider asking if other editors here have negotiation experience from similar prior cases that could be useful for you. A strategy for how to make the most of it. Say the company says yes (assuming licensing and ghosting and what do we have is all sorted) but limits you to 3 segments, what should be chosen? Would you cherry pick them? Or open a discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts with a {{Please see}} note on Talk:The Last Supper (Leonardo da Vinci) to maximize attention and participation?

I had a look at both pictures on canadachecque, and had you not told me what they were, I would have said that the right image in montage no.2 two clearly looks like half slices of oranges. But let's remember: it is not what you and I think, that counts, it is what the sources say, that counts.

Sources - You ask several different things here. First I notice that you say except and then in order the "values" retired, never heard of and never heard of. Retired: Contra argument: Is it necessarily a bad thing? Could be his great academic swan song. We'll find out. Never heard of Mount Holyoke College? Neither had I, but now I have. From just looking at the institution per se wouldn't you expect quality output from one of their professors? Green flag to me. Before passing any judgments let us try to find the best source we can. The Daily Mail "article" looks more like a Reuters news flash to me. Sure we can find something better. When you say Gastronomica I at first went "Hmmm, cooking and art history in the same pot?" But wait, look at Gastronomica and see how judgmental my ignorance made me! This is not just some monthly cooking mag, it is a quarterly academic publication from University of California Press (oh, you already said that). Big green flag. Gbooks then. Here we have it

• Varriano, John (1 November 2009). Tastes and Temptations: Food and Art in Renaissance Italy. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520259041. Retrieved 25 July 2011.

Again UCP is publisher. Green flag again. Gbooks only gives us snippets, but from p. 105 we can get a little glimpse:

... In overseeing the menu for the Last Supper, Leonardo evidently thought a roasted eel was more palatable than the flesh of a lamb, even if he might himself have preferred a salad of arugula and chicory. Garnishing fish with orange...

The book is quoted in e.g.

• Kim, David Young (2011). "Thinking with the Senses". Oxford Art J. 34 (1): 132-135. doi:10.1093/oxartj/kcr007. Retrieved 2011-07-25.

Based upon this I would say that the source qualifies as reliable. (Be aware that there can easily be cases where peers will disregard or try to belittle research, but I do not know if that is the case here.) As we only have snippet view, I would be reluctant to use it as a source before I had a copy of the book in my hands. But when I obtained a copy, I would be WP:BOLD and add the source and update article contents accordingly. If ever in doubt, you can go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and ask for advice on whether or not a source meets reliability standards for a particular use. The oranges & eel story from Varriano is quoted a million times online, try Gbooks first, there:

• Hartt, Frederick; Wilkins, David G. (1 January 2010). History of Italian Renaissance Art: Painting, Sculpture, Architecture. Prentice Hall. p. 461. ISBN 9780205705818. Retrieved 25 July 2011.

... surprisingly, not the Paschal lamb that would be expected at Passover, but whole fish and sliced grilled eel served with orange slices.

Now we qualify for Wikipedia:Verifiability. (Again the second source is only snippet view, so having the book would be preferred, although snippet views are often accepted if enough context can be read.)

Eels and oranges seems to have been a popular dish in parts of Renaissance Italy:

• Redon, Odile; Sabban, Françoise; Serventi, Silvano (15 April 2000). The Medieval Kitchen: Recipes from France and Italy. University of Chicago Press. pp. 119–21. ISBN 9780226706856. Retrieved 25 July 2011.

The painting is full of anachronisms, isn't it? Glassware? Metal plates? Leavened bread? Table cloth? Table? The whole interior of the room? Garments? European faces? If you should add a webcite to the above books it could be this one, which looks serious:

• Landi, Ann (2010). "Food for Thought - ARTnews". Retrieved 2011-07-25.

where Varriano is quoted:

Varriano adds that biblical texts provide very little detail about what was consumed at the Last Supper. "And that's ideal for Renaissance artists. They love minimal descriptions, because then they can use their imaginations and basically do whatever they like."

And from this paper - a fine little conference paper that could very well be used as a supporting source - we know that Leonardo "wrote and designed the menu" for a big banquet for his patron Ludovico Sforza, who also had commissioned The Last Supper. So instead of historic realism, he puts Jesus and the disciples into a setting, with which Ludovico can easily identify, "The Savior looks like me, lives like me, he even eats eels like me" we can almost hear Ludovico think, a key selling point we might say, in order to secure further work for good ol' Lenny. (Oh, by the way, a rant like this is called original research. Never put it into articles! )

Or is it as this articles says

• Parchin, Stan (2010). "Leonardo's Last Supper: Eel Meal the Real Deal?". Art Museum Journal. Retrieved 2011-07-25.

If indeed Leonardo incorporated eel into his fresco, perhaps they were a subtle pictorial reference to Beatrice d’Este (1475-1497), the bride of Duke Ludovico Sforza (Leonardo’s ruthless Milanese patron) and a native of Ferrara, the region from where the serpentine fish was acquired for court consumption.

And did this creative genius intend another more subtle layer when adding eels to The Last Supper? After all, eels are non-kosher to a Jew.

You ask: "...finds a reference that confirms that oranges weren't available in Jerusalem until they were introduced by Portuguese traders". Well, it is often difficult to prove a negative, it would be easier to find out, when we first hear about oranges in the Levant. I do not think you will be asked to cite a source for when oranges came to Palestine. I have not looked much into this, and can not help you with an answer. If you after searching in vain still would like to know, why not try posting the question on either Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities or maybe Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous.

But why should it have been the Portuguese? They brought the orange to Europe, true, but did they bring it to the Middle East? Looks more like it could have been by Arab trading routes:

• Applewood Books (1 July 2008). History of Vegetable Substances. Applewood Books. pp. 333–41. ISBN 9781429012195. Retrieved 25 July 2011.

Hope this helps, for the little it is worth. Happy editing! MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 23:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Okay, it's pretty obvious that you've been doing this for quite some time and are dang good at it. Thanks for all the great suggestions, direction, and next steps, and for all the great reference material; I'll start working through all your suggestions piece-by-piece to come up with the appropriate article mods and follow up on the other suggestions re:images, etc. I see I picked the right place to start w/the questions. Thx+ Regards, -- Who R you? (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No prob. I guess you know, that you can take the cites, e.g.

{{cite book|last=Varriano|first=John|title=Tastes and Temptations: Food and Art in Renaissance Italy|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=2f7rAAAAMAAJ|accessdate=25 July 2011|date=1 November 2009|publisher=University of California Press|isbn=9780520259041}}

and put them into ref tags like this:

<ref>{{cite book|last=Varriano|first=John|title=Tastes and Temptations: Food and Art in Renaissance Italy|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=2f7rAAAAMAAJ|accessdate=25 July 2011|date=1 November 2009|publisher=University of California Press|isbn=9780520259041}}</ref>

and have a references ready for inline citation. The rest of them, as needed, grab them from edit view here. I'll post a tool or two on your talk page. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 01:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi its me MegaVergan You said I needed a source for the article I edited Alison Barrington. I think I put a reference but I dont know what to do now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MegaVergan (talk • contribs) 15:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi MegaVergan, thanks for your message. Have a look at Alison Barrington now. Your link was dead, but I added another ref. I discovered, that we have an article named Rafe Kovich and Alison Barrington. This article is much better sourced than the two individual character articles. In my opinion they could easily be merged into the Rafe Kovich and Alison Barrington article. What are your thoughts on this matter? MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 00:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: His Excellency Supreme King Danyal Ahmad

Hello MarB4. I am just letting you know that I deleted His Excellency Supreme King Danyal Ahmad, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Courcelles 19:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, hoax I presume? MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 19:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, hoax or pure vandalism, either way, it was a G3. Courcelles 19:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Attack pages

Please consider reviewing the speedy deletion criteria and the WP:BLP policy before patrolling more pages. In particular, it is vital to be able to recognize biographies of living persons that are entirely negative in tone and unsourced. When you see personal attacks, please make sure to place the G10 CSD and blank the page as a courtesy to the subject of the article. If you have questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 09:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Which page are you talking about? MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 09:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Found it. Thank you anyway, always good to get corrections. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 09:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: The New Hampshire Women's Caucus

Hello MarB4. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of The New Hampshire Women's Caucus, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguous advertising. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. If you look at the article at the time of tagging for speedy would your opinion be, that the nomination was in haste? Thanks. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 05:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• At three minutes, it's rather quick. Don't beat yourself up over it though. Generally speaking, we are encouraged to wait at least ten to 15 minutes before placing an A1 or A3. I personally try to wait that amount of time after the article creator's last edit before jumping in with any cleanup work. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 09:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Not understood. Are you replying in the right section? MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 09:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I was responding to your question about hastiness. On another note, I took another look at the The New Hampshire Women's Caucus to determine feasibility and attempt sourcing. The article is a clear copyright violation of the http://www.colby-sawyer.edu/nhwomenscaucus/ website. I removed everything outside of mere facts, which didn't leave much to the article. I placed a PROD in lieu of AFD at this point. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 09:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at it earlier and was not sure if WP:SOAP/WP:NOTDIR would apply, as WP:BALL might leave an open door. Your opinion? (Apart from the the copyright violation.) Should this section stay? MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 10:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I would simply remove it as a copyvio of http://www.colby-sawyer.edu/nhwomenscaucus/. In my opinion, it's clearly an attempt to promote a future event on campus. It can be rather subjective with other editors providing a little more leeway. I don't consider it crystal, since the speaker, venue, and plenary has been established. Hope this helps. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 10:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Will remove. Re WP:BALL the first paragraph talks about "scheduled or expected future events", this was what I meant when I talked about leaving a door open for inclusion. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 10:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi MarB4. In answer to your original question, at the time you nominated the article for speedy deletion, it was promotional and I would have deleted it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Archbishop Stepinac page

I am questioning the location and prominence of the headline -- "1.1 Incidents of sexual misconduct by priests"

These are allegations of things that happened in the 1970s and 1980s. Making that a headline that appears in the second line of the Contents is not appropriate -- considering all the good things going on at Stepinac and its rich history. I'd like to get your feedback on this to see how we might be able to resolve.

Thanks Wsmeditor (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wsmeditor, and once again welcome. I had to do a rollback to a previous version, as some big ugly chunks of text had been added a couple of days ago. I have no knowledge about the subject, so I can't give my opinion, but if you have reasons to believe, that some 30-40 year old stories need to be put further down in the article, be bold and do it. I will keep the article on my watchlist. Let me know, if I can be to any help. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 14:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: I had a look at the article. The stories re sexual misconduct seems to be supported by reliable sources. Please respect that on Wikipedia we are expected to have a neutral point of view. Other editors could say that you do not when you write "Contents is not appropriate". Also "considering all the good things going on at Stepinac and its rich history" could be interpreted as a conflict of interest. Again, let me stress that I have no interest in the article subject as such. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 14:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where I am supposed to respond, so advice would be appreciated.

I can remain objective -- I understand your point. It seems to me that to have the one and only descriptive headline for an institution to be about allegations of things that reportedly happened in the 1970s and 1980s is less than objective. That is why I feel the headline should be removed. I suppose, alternately other headlines could be added. Do you disagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsmeditor (talk • contribs) 15:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I notice that another editor in the meantime changed the heading to a higher level (same level as History) so it looks less bolded. The best I can do for you is to say: if this is a content dispute, open a new section on the article talk page and discuss the matter with other editors involved in the article. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 16:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism warnings

Regarding this, it is hugely important to be sure that an edit is vandalism before giving vandalism warnings. It is extremely offputting to be accused of vandalism when you are acting in good faith, as this user was. Please be more careful about this. Although you only bear a small fraction of the blame, this particular episode was rather tragic. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

• News and notes: Wikimania; why Board of Trustees elections attract few votes; brief news

• In the news: Consensus of Wikipedia authors questioned about Shakespeare authorship; 10 biggest edit wars on Wikipedia; brief news

• Research interview: The Huggle Experiment: interview with the research team

• WikiProject report: Little Project, Big Heart — WikiProject Croatia

• Featured content: Featured pictures is back in town

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision submitted for one case

• Technology report: Developers descend on Haifa; wikitech-l discussions; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sanjay Chandra

Please block the page of Sanjay Chandra as there are a few people who keep deleting external references and adding lines like "Sanjay Chandra is often regarded as a visionary among the young industrialists from India. He is credited with bringing about some fundamental changes in the business strategy of the Unitech. At the time of his joining in 2001, Unitech Ltd. was a real estate player with a lot of unutilized potential. Sanjay Chandra’s policies and programmes catapulted it into the big league within the short span of a few years. Currently, Unitech Ltd is the second-largest real estate player in India after DLF Limited. The promoters of the Company, i.e., the Chandras, hold 48.57 percent stake in it. Boldness of vision and action has been the hallmark of his career" turning in into a free Public relations site. Also the references are that are being give are from sites that let you upload press release http://www.free-press-release.com/news-sanjay-chandra-the-managing-director-of-unitech-group-the-visionary-among-the-young-industrialists-from-india-1312375558.html .... this has been uploaded on 3rd august and the same day it was linked to the wikipage. 121.245.131.152 (talk) 10:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

• Wikimania: Seventh annual Wikimedia conference concluded in Haifa, Israel

• News and notes: Wikimania a success; board letter controversial; and evidence showing bitten newbies don't stay

• In the news: Israeli news focuses on Wikimania; worldwide coverage of contributor decline and gender gap; brief news

• WikiProject report: Shooting the breeze with WikiProject Firearms

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Manipulation of BLPs case opened; one case comes to a close

• Technology report: Wikimania technology roundup; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

• Women and Wikipedia: New Research, WikiChix

• News and notes: Chapter funding and what skeptics and Latter Day Saints have in common

• In the news: Wikipedia a "sausage fest", Chicago Wikipedians ("the people you've probably plagiarized"), and other silly season stories

• WikiProject report: The Oregonians

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Abortion case opened, two more still in progress

• Technology report: Forks, upload slowness and mobile redirection

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

• News and notes: Girl Geeks edit while they dine, candidates needed for forthcoming steward elections, image referendum opens

• In the news: Journalist regrets not checking citation, PR firms issue advice on how to "survive" Wikipedia (but U.S. Congressman caught red-handed)

• WikiProject report: Images in Motion – WikiProject Animation

• Featured content: JJ Harrison on avian photography

• Arbitration report: After eleven moves, name for islands now under arbitration

• Technology report: Engineering report, sprint, and more testers needed

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

• News and notes: Abuse filter on all Wikimedia sites; Foundation's report for July; editor survey results

• In the news: Wikipedia praised for disaster news coverage, scolded for left-wing bias; brief news

• Recent research: Article promotion by collaboration; deleted revisions; Wikipedia's use of open access; readers unimpressed by FAs; swine flu anxiety

• Opinion essay: How an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Tennis

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Four existing cases

• Technology report: The bugosphere, new mobile site and MediaWiki 1.18 close in on deployment

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

• News and notes: 24,000 votes later and community position on image filter still unclear; first index of editor satisfaction appears positive

• In the news: Britannica and Wikipedia like "apples and chairs"; should anyone who's anyone get an article?; and why fighting and barriers to editing may be useful after all

• WikiProject report: Riding with WikiProject London Transport

• Sister projects: Wiki Loves Monuments 2011

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Opinion essay: The copyright crisis, and why we should care

• Arbitration report: BLP case closed; Cirt-Jayen466 nearly there; AUSC reshuffle

• Technology report: Pencils down in Google Summer of Code, August analysed and integrated HTTPS support in action

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

• News and notes: Foundation reports on research, Kenya trip, Mumbai Wikiconference; Canada, Hungary and Estonia; English Wikinews forked

• In the news: 9/11 coverage, Wikimedia hypothetically rebranded and Wikipedia golf 2.0

• WikiProject report: Politics in the Pacific: WikiProject Australian Politics

• Featured content: Wikipedians explain two new featured pictures

• Arbitration report: Ohconfucius sanctions removed, Cirt desysopped 6:5 and a call for CU/OS applications

• Technology report: What is: agile development? and new mobile site goes live

• Opinion essay: The Walrus and the Carpenter

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

• From the editor: Changes to The Signpost

• News and notes: Ushahidi research tool announced, Citizendium five years on: success or failure?, and Wikimedia DC officially recognised

• In the news: Wikipedia: yesterday's news? Calls for women, doctors, and scholars of humanities; Wales makes Wikimedia work "look easy"

• Sister projects: On the Wikinews fork

• WikiProject report: Back to school

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: ArbCom narrowly rejects application to open new case

• Technology report: MediaWiki 1.18 deployment begins, the alleged "injustice" of WMF engineering policy, and Wikimedians warned of imminent fix to magic word

• Popular pages: Article stats for the English Wikipedia in the last year

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011

• Opinion essay: The global mission, the image filter and the "German question"

• Recent research: Top female Wikipedians, reverted newbies, link spam, social influence on admin votes, Wikipedians' weekends, WikiSym previews

• News and notes: WMF strikes down enwiki consensus, academic journal partnerships, and eyebrows raised over minors editing porn-related content

• In the news: Sockpuppeting journalist recants, search dominance threatened, new novels replete with Wikipedia references

• WikiProject report: A project in overdrive: WikiProject Automobiles

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: "Broadly construed" explained, voting begins on Senkaku Islands case, invitation to comment on CU/OS candidates

• Technology report: 1.18 deployment on track, "mythical" Git migration scheduled, editor decline statistics improved

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

• News and notes: Italian Wikipedia shuts down over new privacy law; Wikimedia Sverige produce short Wikipedia films, Sue Gardner calls for empathy

• In the news: QRpedia launches to acclaim, Jimbo talks social media, Wikipedia attracts fungi, terriers and Greeks bearing gifts

• WikiProject report: Kia ora WikiProject New Zealand

• Featured content: Reviewers praise new featured topic: National treasures of Japan

• Arbitration report: Last call for comments on CheckUser and Oversight teams

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

• Opinion essay: The conservatism of Wikimedians

• News and notes: Largest ever donation to WMF, final findings of editor survey released, 'Terms of use' heavily revised

• In the news: Uproar over Italian shutdown, the varying reception of BLP mischief, and Wikipedia's doctor-evangelist

• WikiProject report: The World's Oldest People

• Featured content: The weird and the disgusting

• Arbitration report: Senkaku Islands closes; administrators authorized to place articles on discretionary sanctions

• Technology report: 1.18 deployment and HTTPS switchover completed, but developer help now needed with new projects

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

• News and notes: Arabic Wikipedia gets video intros, Smithsonian gifts images, and WikiProject Conservatism scrutinized

• In the news: Why Wikipedia survives while others haven't; Wikipedia as an emerging social model; Jimbo speaks out

• WikiProject report: History in your neighborhood: WikiProject NRHP

• Featured content: Brazil's boom-time dreams of naval power: The ed17 explains the background to a new featured topic

• Arbitration report: Case requests on ethnic strife and a WikiProject declined, Abortion case stalls but topic bans look to be lightened on amendment

• Technology report: WMDE renew investment in Toolserver, first offsite backup programme of Wikimedia begun

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

• From the editors: A call for contributors

• Opinion essay: There is a deadline

• Interview: Contracting for the Foundation

• In the news: Are Wikipedians reluctant journalists?; Wikipedia:The Musical

• WikiProject report: Great WikiProject Logos

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Abortion; request for amendment on Climate Change case

• Technology report: WMF launches coding challenge, WMDE starts hiring for major new project

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

• Opinion essay: The monster under the rug

• Recent research: WikiSym; predicting editor survival; drug information found lacking; RfAs and trust; Wikipedia's search engine ranking justified

• News and notes: German Wikipedia continues image filter protest

• In the news: Citizendium on the rocks, Shankbone celebrated, and the week in vandalism

• Discussion report: Proposal to return this section from hiatus is successful

• WikiProject report: 'In touch' with WikiProject Rugby union

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Abortion case stalls, request for clarification on Δ, discretionary sanctions streamlined

• Technology report: Wikipedia Zero announced; New Orleans successfully hacked

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

• Special report: A post-mortem on the Indian Education Program pilot

• News and notes: Wikimedia Norway awarded, Halloween on the Main Page, Wikimedia UK recognised

• In the news: The Economist assays the encyclopaedia's challenges, Jimbo speaks on net future, and an inclusionist alternative emerges.

• Discussion report: Special report on the ArbCom Elections steering RfC

• WikiProject report: Booting up with WikiProject Computer Science

• Featured content: Slow week for Featured content

• Arbitration report: Δ saga returns to arbitration, while the Abortion case stalls for another week

• Technology report: Full steam ahead on Visual Editor, the avoidance of lock-breaking and 1.18b1 release

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

• News and notes: ArbCom nominations open, participation grants finalized, survey results on perceptions on Wikipedia released

• In the news: Fundraising vs ads redux, WikiConference India nigh, a world lit up with articles

• WikiProject report: Having a Conference with WikiProject India

• Featured content: Writing featured content: Advice from Sturmvogel 66; Sports, sports, sports!

• Arbitration report: Abortion and Betacommand 3 in evidence phase, three case requests outstanding

• Technology report: Coding Challenge results; Wikimedians to wait and see if Athena really does represent "wisdom, courage and inspiration"

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

• News and notes: Last-minute candidates for ArbCom, the Sue Gardner European Tour hits London

• In the news: Indian wikiconference heralds expansion, fundraiser in Silicon Valley major donor coup, import of Wikipedia reconsidered

• Discussion report: Much ado about censorship

• WikiProject report: Working on a term paper with WikiProject Academic Journals

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: End in sight for Abortion case, nominations in 2011 elections

• Technology report: Mumbai and Brighton hacked; horizontal lists have got class

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

• News and notes: Arb's resignation sparks lightning RfC, Fundraiser 2011 off to a strong start, GLAM in Qatar

• In the news: The closed, unfriendly world of Wikipedia, fundraiser fun and games, and chemists vs pornstars

• Recent research: Quantifying quality collaboration patterns, systemic bias, POV pushing, the impact of news events, and editors' reputation

• WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Bugle

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Voting underway in the elections, finally a final decision on Abortion, scant movement on requests

• Technology report: Foundation appears correct to back improved smartphone support; and how a Reddit slip meant no-one could read anything for thirty minutes

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

• News and notes: Amsterdam gets the GLAM treatment, fundraising marches on, and a flourish of new admins

• In the news: A Wikistream of real time edits, a call for COI reform, and cracks in the ivory tower of knowledge

• Discussion report: Trial proposed for tool apprenticeship

• WikiProject report: This article is about WikiProject Disambiguation. For other uses...

• Featured content: This week's Signpost is for the birds!

• Arbitration report: Elections due to finish this week, little activity on Betacommand 3, Abortion case amended

• Technology report: Incremental dumps help mirrors, full screen search helps mobile visitors, and two MediaWiki releases help external sites

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

• Opinion essay: Wikipedia in Academe – and vice versa

• News and notes: Research project banner ads run afoul of community

• In the news: Bell Pottinger investigation, Gardner on gender gap, and another plagiarist caught red-handed

• WikiProject report: Spanning Nine Time Zones with WikiProject Russia

• Featured content: Wehwalt gives his fifty cents; spies, ambushes, sieges, and Entombment

• Arbitration report: Betacommand 3 workshop revived, two cases set for acceptance and the ArbCom elections finish on a whimper

• Technology report: Trials and tribulations of image rotation, Article Feedback version 5, and new diff colours

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

• News and notes: Anti-piracy act has Wikimedians on the defensive, WMF annual report released, and Indic language dynamics

• In the news: To save the wiki: strike first, then makeover?

• Discussion report: Polls, templates, and other December discussions

• WikiProject report: A dalliance with the dismal scientists of WikiProject Economics

• Featured content: Panoramas with Farwestern and a good week for featured content

• Arbitration report: The community elects eight arbitrators

• Technology report: Visual editor demo launched, hailed as "most important change to our user experience ... ever"; but elsewhere over-hasty deployments criticised

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

• Opinion essay: Openness versus quality: why we're doing it wrong, and how to fix it

• Recent research: Psychiatrists: Wikipedia better than Britannica; spell-checking Wikipedia; Wikipedians smart but fun; structured biological data

• News and notes: Fundraiser passes 2010 watermark, brief news

• WikiProject report: The Tree of Life

• Featured content: Going through the roster with Killervogel5 and a plethora of featured content

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, one set for acceptance, arbitrators formally appointed by Jimmy Wales

• Technology report: Wikimedia in Go Daddy boycott, and why you should 'Join the Swarm'

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

• Interview: The Gardner interview

• News and notes: Things bubbling along as Wikimedians enjoy their holidays

• WikiProject report: Where are they now? Part III

• Featured content: Ghosts of featured content past, present, and future

• Arbitration report: New case accepted, four open cases, terms begin for new arbitrators

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

• Technological roadmap: 2011's technological achievements in review, and what 2012 may hold

• News and notes: Fundraiser 2011 ends with a bang

• In the news: Wikipedia ends annual fundraising drive; Monmouthpedia launches

• WikiProject report: From Traditional to Experimental: WikiProject Jazz

• Featured content: Contentious FAC debate: a week in review

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Betacommand 3

• Technology report: December in more detail; and why the MediaWiki codebase was "slushed" this week

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

• Special report: English Wikipedia to go dark on January 18

• Sister projects: What are our sisters up to now?

• News and notes: WMF on the looming SOPA blackout, Wikipedia turns 11, and Commons passes 12 million files

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Beer

• Featured content: Lecen on systemic bias in featured content

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, Betacommand case deadlocked, Muhammad images close near

• Technology report: ArticleFeedback moves into new trial phase; and how MediaWiki integrates with Facebook, IPv6, and PostgreSQL explored

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

• News and notes: SOPA blackout, Orange partnership

• In the news: World watched as Wikipedia shut down for SOPA blackout

• WikiProject report: The Golden Horseshoe: WikiProject Toronto

• Featured content: Interview with Muhammad Mahdi Karim and the best of the week

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Muhammad images, AUSC call for applications

• Technology report: Looking ahead to MediaWiki 1.19 and related issues

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

• News and notes: Update on Global Development, Wikipedia Day NYC is a success, JFK audio on Commons

• In the news: Zambian wiki-assassins, Foundation über alles, editor engagement and the innovation plateau

• Recent research: Language analyses examine power structure and political slant; Wikipedia compared to commercial databases

• WikiProject report: Digging Up WikiProject Palaeontology

• Featured content: Featured content soaring this week

• Arbitration report: Five open cases, voting on proposed decisions in two cases

• Technology report: Why "Lua" is on everybody's lips, and when to expect MediaWiki 1.19

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

• News and notes: The Foundation visits Tunisia, analyzes donors

• In the news: Leading scholar hails Wikipedia, historians urged to contribute while PR pros remain shunned

• Discussion report: Discussion swarms around Templates for deletion and returning editors of colourful pasts

• WikiProject report: The Eye of the Storm: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones

• Featured content: Talking architecture with MrPanyGoff

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, final decision in Muhammad images, Betacommand 3 near closure

• Technology report: October's coding challenge: results now in; progress on 1.19 steady; and why for a while interwiki links were no more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

• Special report: Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters

• News and notes: Foundation launches Legal and Community Advocacy department

• In the news: Scholars and spindoctors contend with the emergent wikiorder

• In focus: Skirmishes in the 'great sectarian war of the Internet'

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Stub Sorting

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Betacommand 3 closed, proposed decision in Civility enforcement, AUSC candidates announced

• Technology report: January sees prototype new geodata API; but February looks to be a testing time for top developers

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

• Special report: The plight of the new page patrollers

• News and notes: Fundraiser row continues, new director of engineering

• Discussion report: Discussion on copyrighted files from non-US relation states

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Poland

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Civility enforcement closed, proposed decision in TimidGuy, two cases remain open

• Technology report: Major strands of development cycle coalesce as 1.19 is deployed to first wikis

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

• News and notes: Finance meeting fallout, Gardner recommendations forthcoming

• Recent research: Gender gap and conflict aversion; collaboration on breaking news; effects of leadership on participation; legacy of Public Policy Initiative

• Discussion report: Focus on admin conduct and editor retention

• WikiProject report: Just don't call it "sci-fi": WikiProject Science Fiction

• Featured content: By plane, by ship, and by stagecoach: Featured content goes trekking this week

• Arbitration report: Final decision in TimidGuy ban appeal, one case remains open

• Technology report: 1.19 deployment stress, Meta debates whether to enforce SUL

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 01:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Need-IPA

I've found this template which I am appending and unhiding the pronunciations. You are a valuable contributor. I hope you can come back to improve the project and let's put the pronunciation issue behind us.Curb Chain (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

• News and notes: Chapter-selected Board seats, an invite to the Teahouse, patrol becomes triage, and this week in history

• In the news: Heights reached in search rankings, privacy and mental health info; clouds remain over content policing

• Discussion report: COI and NOTCENSORED: policies under discussion

• WikiProject report: We don't bite: WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles

• Featured content: Best of the week

• Arbitration report: AUSC appointments announced, one case remains open

• Technology report: With the 1.19 deployment now (mostly) complete, developers consider possible "mini" deployment later in the month

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

• Interview: Liaising with the Education Program

• Women and Wikipedia: Women's history, what we're missing, and why it matters

• Arbitration analysis: A look at new arbitrators

• News and notes: Sue Gardner tackles the funds, and the terms of use update nears implementation

• In the news: Britannica runs out of print as Jimmy Wales anointed UK transparency tsar

• Discussion report: Nothing changes as long discussions continue

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Women's History

• Featured content: Extinct humans, birds, and Birdman

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision in 'Article titles', only one open case

• Education report: Diverse approaches to Wikipedia in Education

• Technology report: Git learning curve steep but not insurmountable, plus a diff style we can all agree on?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

• News and notes: Chapters Council proposals take form as research applications invited for Wikipedia Academy and HighBeam accounts

• Discussion report: Article Rescue Squadron in need of rescue yet again

• WikiProject report: Lessons from another Wikipedia: Czech WikiProject Protected Areas

• Featured content: Featured content on the upswing!

• Arbitration report: Race and intelligence 'review' opened, Article titles at voting

• Technology report: Bugmeister to leave at end of May, but developers keen to "chart" a path ahead

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

• News and notes: Controversial content saga continues, while the Foundation tries to engage editors with merchandising and restructuring

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Rock Music

• Featured content: Malfunctioning sharks, toothcombs and a famous mother: featured content for the week

• Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review at evidence, article titles closed

• Recent research: Predicting admin elections; studying flagged revision debates; classifying editor interactions; and collecting the Wikipedia literature

• Education report: Universities unite for GLAM; and High Schools get their due.

• Technology report: A busy week: Git switchover, mobile site upgraded, and still time for three security releases

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

• Interview: An introduction to movement roles

• Arbitration analysis: Case review: TimidGuy ban appeal

• News and notes: Berlin reforms to movement structures, Wikidata launches with fanfare, and Wikipedia's day of mischief

• WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Signpost

• Featured content: Snakes, misnamed chapels, and emptiness: featured content this week

• Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review in third week, one open case

• Technology report: Somewhere amongst the endless discussions about Gerrit lie details of hackathons, performance blips explained and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

• Wikidata: The next big thing? An interview with Wikidata

• Interview: Funds, fiduciaries, and the Foundation: the complex dynamics of scaling

• News and notes: Projects launched in Brazil and the Middle East as advisors sought for funds committee

• WikiProject report: The Land of Steady Habits: WikiProject Connecticut

• Featured content: Assassination, genocide, internment, murder, and crucifixion: the bloodiest of the week

• Arbitration report: Arbitration evidence-limit motions, two open cases

• Technology report: Next Wikimedia deployment already in the pipeline and details of recent performance improvements

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

• Arbitration analysis: Inside the Arbitration Committee Mailing List

• Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Facilitator: Silver seren

• News and notes: French language outreach, WikiTravel debate, and HighBeam reloaded

• Discussion report: The future of pending changes

• WikiProject report: The Butterflies and Moths of WikiProject Lepidoptera

• Featured content: A few good sports: association football, rugby league, and the Olympics vie for medals

• Arbitration report: Evidence submissions begin in Rich Farmbrough case, proposed decision in R&I Review

• Technology report: MediaWiki 1.20wmf01 hits first WMF wiki, understanding 20% time, and why this report cannot yet be a draft

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

• Investigative report: Spin doctors spin Jimmy's "bright line"

• News and notes: Help-space revamp, WikiTravel RfC, and Justin Knapp scores a million edits

• WikiProject report: Skeptics and Believers: WikiProject The X-Files

• Featured content: A mirror (or seventeen) on this week's featured content

• Arbitration report: Evidence submissions close in Rich Farmbrough case, vote on proposed decision in R&I Review

• Technology report: Wikimedia Labs: soon to be at the cutting edge of MediaWiki development?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

• Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Consultant: Pete Forsyth

• News and notes: Showdown as featured article writer openly solicits commercial opportunities

• Recent research: Barnstars work; Wiktionary assessed; cleanup tags counted; finding expert admins; discussion peaks; Wikipedia citations in academic publications; and more

• Discussion report: 'ReferenceTooltips' by default

• WikiProject report: The Cartographers of WikiProject Maps

• Featured content: Featured content spreads its wings

• Arbitration report: R&I Review remains in voting, two open cases

• Technology report: What Git means for end users, design controversies and pertinent poll results

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

• Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Communicator: Phil Gomes

• News and notes: Hong Kong to host Wikimania 2013

• In the news: What does Wikipedia call an expert; and untruths in biographies ... again.

• WikiProject report: Say What?: WikiProject Languages

• Featured content: This week at featured content: How much wood would a Wood Duck chuck if a Wood Duck could chuck wood?

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision in Rich Farmbrough, two open cases

• Technology report: Search gets faster, GSoC gets more detail and 1.20wmf2 gets deployed

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

• Special report: Wikimedia and the "seismic shift" towards open-access research publication

• News and notes: Finance debate drags on as editor survey finds Wikipedia too bureaucratic

• WikiProject report: Welcome to Wikipedia with a cup of tea and all your questions answered - at the Teahouse

• Featured content: Featured content is red hot this week

• Arbitration report: R&I Review closed, Rich Farmbrough near closure

• Technology report: Cross-wiki watchlist controversy; and is "go file a bug" really a useful response?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yoga

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yoga#Incorrect tags. Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

• From the editor: New editor-in-chief

• News and notes: Two new Wikimedia fellows to boost strategies for tackling major issues

• WikiProject report: Trouble in a Galaxy Far, Far Away....

• Featured content: Lemurbaby moves it with Madagascar: Featured content for the week

• Arbitration report: No open arbitration cases pending

• Technology report: On the indestructibility of Wikimedia content

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation endorses open-access petition to the White House; pending changes RfC ends

• Recent research: Supporting interlanguage collaboration; detecting reverts; Wikipedia's discourse, semantic and leadership networks, and Google's Knowledge Graph

• WikiProject report: Experts and enthusiasts at WikiProject Geology

• Featured content: Featured content cuts the cheese

• Arbitration report: Fæ and GoodDay requests for arbitration, changes to evidence word limits

• Technology report: Developer divide wrangles; plus Wikimedia Zero, MediaWiki 1.20wmf4, and IPv6

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of {{CURRENTCALENDAR}}

{{CURRENTCALENDAR}} is up for deletion. {{ISOCALENDAR}} now does its job by default. I was going to replace {{CURRENTCALENDAR}} for you but I see you prefer not to have people edit your page which is understandable. JIMp _talk·cont 02:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

• Special report: WikiWomenCamp: From women, for women

• News and notes: Editors want most funding for technical areas, while widespread ignorance of WMF board elections and chapters persists; voting still live on Commons best picture

• Discussion report: Watching Wikipedia change

• WikiProject report: Views of WikiProject Visual Arts

• Featured content: On the lochs

• Arbitration report: Two motions for procedural reform, three open cases, Rich Farmbrough risks block and ban

• Technology report: Report from the Berlin Hackathon

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

• Special report: Springer's misappropriation of Wikimedia content "the tip of the iceberg"

• News and notes: Foundation finance reformers wrestle with CoI

• WikiProject report: Counter-Vandalism Unit

• Featured content: The cake is a pi

• Arbitration report: Procedural reform enacted, Rich Farmbrough blocked, three open cases

• Technology report: To support or not to support IPv6, and why knowing when this report was last updated might be getting easier

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

• Investigative report: Is the requests for adminship process 'broken'?

• News and notes: Ground shifts while chapters dither over new Association

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

• WikiProject report: The Punks of Wikipedia

• Featured content: Taken with a pinch of "salt"

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, GoodDay case closed

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

• Op-ed: A call for editorial input in developing new Creative Commons licensing

• News and notes: "Mystical" Picture of the Year; run-up to Wikimania DC; RfA reform 2012

• In the news: Wales enters extradition battle; Wikipedia's political bias

• Recent research: Edit war patterns, deleters vs. the 1%, never used cleanup tags, authorship inequality, higher quality from central users, and mapping the wikimediasphere

• WikiProject report: Summer Sports Series: WikiProject Athletics

• Featured content: A good week for the Williams

• Arbitration report: Three open cases

• Technology report: Second Visual Editor prototype launches

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

• Analysis: Uncovering scientific plagiarism

• Op-ed: Representing knowledge – metadata, data and linked data

• News and notes: RfC on joining lobby group; JSTOR accounts for Wikipedians and the article feedback tool

• In the news: Public relations on Wikipedia: friend or foe?

• Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: Burning rubber with WikiProject Motorsport

• Featured content: Heads up

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, motion for the removal of Carnildo's administrative tools

• Technology report: Initialisms abound: QA and HTML5

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar

I was going through my archives of my talk page and I stumbled upon your message which was a polite warning after I accidentally posted a message on your userpage rather than your talk page. Since then I have worked through thick and thin to understand Wikipedia and be rest assured am a mature editor now who knows the Wikipedia principles. Thank you for not 'biting' me at that time :) SUwanja Talk to Me. Email Me. 14:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

• Special report: Reforming the education programs: lessons from Cairo

• News and notes: Russian Wikipedia blackout; WMF tools; Wikitravel proposal revisited

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Football

• Featured content: Keeps on chuggin'

• Arbitration report: Three requests for arbitration

• Technology report: Optimism over LastModified and MoodBar, but change in clock time causes downtime

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

• Special report: Chapters Association mired in controversy over new chair

• News and notes: WMF enacts reforms at Wikimania; main page redesign; 4 millionth article milestone

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: French WikiProject Cycling

• Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations

• Wikimania: Young chapter shows experience beyond its years

• Featured content: Taking flight

• Technology report: Tech talks at Wikimania amid news of a mixed June

• Arbitration report: Fæ faces site-ban, proposed decisions posted

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

• Paid editing: Does Wikipedia pay? The skeptic: Orange Mike

• From the editor: Signpost developments

• News and notes: Chapter head speaks about the aftermath of Russian Wikipedia shutdown

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Olympics

• Arbitration report: Fæ and Michaeldsuarez banned; Kwamikagami desysopped; Falun Gong closes with mandated external reviews and topic bans

• Op-ed: The future of PR on Wikipedia

• Featured content: When is an island not an island?

• Technology report: Translating SVGs and making history bugs history

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

• Recent research: Conflict dynamics, collaboration and emotions; digitization vs. copyright; WikiProject field notes; quality of medical articles; role of readers; Best Wiki Paper Award

• News and notes: Wikimedians and London 2012; WMF budget – staffing, engineering, editor retention effort, and the global South; Telegraph's cheap shot at WP

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Horse Racing

• Featured content: One of a kind

• Technology report: Talking performance with CT Woo and Green Semantic MediaWiki with Nischay Nahata

• Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

• Op-ed: The Athena Project: being bold

• News and notes: FDC portal launched

• Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases

• Featured content: Casliber's words take root

• Technology report: Wikidata nears first deployment but wikis go down in fibre cut calamity

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Martial Arts

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

• Op-ed: Small Wikipedias' burden

• News and notes: Bangla-language survey suggests the challenges for small Wikipedias

• Arbitration report: You really can request for arbitration

• Featured content: On the road again

• Technology report: "Phabricating" a serious alternative to Gerrit

• WikiProject report: Dispute Resolution

• Discussion report: Image placeholders, machine translations, Mediation Committee, de-adminship

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

• Op-ed: Wikimedians are rightfully wary

• News and notes: Core content competition in full swing; Wikinews fork taken offline

• In the news: American judges on citing Wikipedia

• Featured content: Enough for a week – but I'm damned if I see how the helican.

• Technology report: Lua onto test2wiki and news of a convention-al extension

• WikiProject report: Land of Calm and Contrast: Korea

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

• News and notes: Tough journey for new travel guide

• Recent research: New influence graph visualizations; NPOV and history; 'low-hanging fruit'

• Technology report: Just how bad is the code review backlog?

• Featured content: Wikipedia rivals The New Yorker: Mark Arsten

• WikiProject report: From sonic screwdrivers to jelly babies: Doctor Who

• Discussion report: Sidebar and main page alterations; Recent Deaths; Education Program extension

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

• News and notes: World's largest photo competition kicks off; WMF legal fees proposal

• Technology report: Time for a MediaWiki Foundation?

• Featured content: Wikipedia's Seven Days of Terror

• Op-ed: Dispute resolution – where we're at, what we're doing well, and what needs fixing

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

• From the editor: Signpost adapts as news consumption changes

• Op-ed: Fixing Wikipedia's help pages one key to editor retention

• In the media: Author criticizes Wikipedia article; Wales attacks UK government proposal

• Featured content: Not a "Gangsta's Paradise", but still rappin'

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Fungi

• Special report: Two Wikipedians set to face jury trial

• News and notes: Researchers find that Simple English Wikipedia has "lost its focus"

• Technology report: Mmmm, milkshake...

• Discussion report: Closing Wikiquette; Image Filter; Education Program and Momento extensions

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

• From the editor: Signpost expands to Facebook

• WikiProject report: Action! — The Indian Cinema Task Force

• Featured content: Go into the light

• News and notes: Tens of thousands of monuments loved; members of new funding body announced

• Technology report: Future-proofing: HTML5 and IPv6

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

• In the media: Editor's response to Roth draws internet attention

• Recent research: "Rise and decline" of Wikipedia participation, new literature overviews, a look back at WikiSym 2012

• WikiProject report: 01010010 01101111 01100010 01101111 01110100 01101001 01100011 01110011

• News and notes: UK chapter rocked by Gibraltar scandal

• Technology report: Signpost investigation: code review times

• Featured content: Dead as...

• Discussion report: Image filter; HotCat; Syntax highlighting; and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

• Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Founder: Jimmy Wales

• News and notes: Independent review of UK chapter governance; editor files motion against Wikitravel owners

• Featured content: Mooned

• Technology report: WMF and the German chapter face up to Toolserver uncertainty

• WikiProject report: The Name's Bond... WikiProject James Bond

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

• News and notes: Education Program faces community resistance

• WikiProject report: Ten years and one million articles: WikiProject Biography

• Featured content: A dash of Arsenikk

• Technology report: The ups and downs of September and October, plus extension code review analysis

• Discussion report: Closing RfAs: Stewards or Bureaucrats?; Redesign of Help:Contents

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

• Op-ed: AdminCom: A proposal for changing the way we select admins

• In the media: Wikipedia's language nerds hit the front page

• Featured content: Second star to the left

• News and notes: Chapters ask for big bucks

• Technology report: Wikidata is a go: well, almost

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemicals

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

• Special report: Examining adminship from the German perspective

• Arbitration report: Malleus Fatuorum accused of circumventing topic ban; motion to change "net four votes" rule

• Technology report: Wikivoyage migration: technical strategy announced

• Discussion report: Good articles on the main page?; reforming dispute resolution

• News and notes: Wikimedians get serious about women in science

• WikiProject report: Where in the world is Wikipedia?

• Featured content: Is RfA Kafkaesque?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

• News and notes: First chickens come home to roost for FDC funding applicants; WMF board discusses governance issues and scope of programs

• WikiProject report: In recognition of... WikiProject Military History

• Technology report: Improved video support imminent and Wikidata.org live

• Featured content: On the road again

• Recent research: WP governance informal; community as social network; efficiency of recruitment and content production; Rorschach news

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

• Op-ed: 2012 WikiCup comes to an end

• News and notes: Wikimedian photographic talent on display in national submissions to Wiki Loves Monuments

• In the media: Was climate change a factor in Hurricane Sandy?

• Discussion report: Protected Page Editor right; Gibraltar hooks

• Featured content: Jack-O'-Lanterns and Toads

• Technology report: Hue, Sqoop, Oozie, Zookeeper, Hive, Pig and Kafka

• WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Songs

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

• News and notes: Court ruling complicates the paid-editing debate

• Featured content: The table has turned

• Technology report: MediaWiki 1.20 and the prospects for getting 1.21 code reviewed promptly

• WikiProject report: Land of parrots, palm trees, and the Holy Cross: WikiProject Brazil

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

• News and notes: FDC's financial muscle kicks in

• WikiProject report: No teenagers, mutants, or ninjas: WikiProject Turtles

• Technology report: Structural reorganisation "not a done deal"

• Featured content: Wikipedia hit by the Streisand effect

• Discussion report: GOOG, MSFT, WMT: the ticker symbol placement question

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

New Page Missing?

Ciao, I created my first new page a few months ago, and I'm not sure if it's waiting to be approved, was disapproved, etc. It was on agent/editor Lori Perkins. After I created it, I saw it go into a cue for approval, and when I remembered to check it's not showing up on my Contributions page, or anywhere. Mainly want to make sure I didn't do something wrong in the creation process since it took a long time to link to other pages, sources, etc.

Thank you!

(Gracie Faith (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC))

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

• News and notes: Toolserver finance remains uncertain

• Recent research: Movie success predictions, readability, credentials and authority, geographical comparisons

• Featured content: Panoramic views, history, and a celestial constellation

• Technology report: Wikidata reaches 100,000 entries

• WikiProject report: Directing Discussion: WikiProject Deletion Sorting

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

• News and notes: Wiki Loves Monuments announces 2012 winner

• Featured content: The play's the thing

• Discussion report: Concise Wikipedia; standardize version history tables

• Technology report: MediaWiki problems but good news for Toolserver stability

• WikiProject report: The White Rose: WikiProject Yorkshire

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

• News and notes: Wobbly start to ArbCom election, but turnout beats last year's

• Featured content: Wikipedia goes to Hell

• Technology report: The new Visual Editor gets a bit more visual

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Human Rights

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

• News and notes: Arbitrator election: stewards release the results

• WikiProject report: WikiProjekt Computerspiel: Covering Computer Games in Germany

• Discussion report: Concise Wikipedia; section headings for navboxes

• Op-ed: Finding truth in Sandy Hook

• Featured content: Wikipedia's cute ass

• Technology report: MediaWiki groups and why you might want to start snuggling newbie editors

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

• News and notes: Debates on Meta sparking along—grants, new entities, and conflicts of interest

• WikiProject report: A Song of Ice and Fire

• Featured content: Battlecruiser operational

• Technology report: Efforts to "normalise" Toolserver relations stepped up

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

• From the editor: Wikipedia, our Colosseum

• In the media: Is the Wikimedia movement too 'cash rich'?

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser a success; Czech parliament releases photographs to chapter

• Technology report: Looking back on a year of incremental changes

• Discussion report: Image policy and guidelines; resysopping policy

• Interview: Interview with Brion Vibber, the WMF's first employee

• Featured content: Whoa Nelly! Featured content in review

• WikiProject report: New Year, New York

• Recent research: Wikipedia and Sandy Hook; SOPA blackout reexamined

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

• Op-ed: Meta, where innovative ideas die

• WikiProject report: Where Are They Now? Episode IV: A New Year

• News and notes: 2012—the big year

• Featured content: Featured content in review

• Technology report: Looking ahead to 2013

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

• Investigative report: Ship ahoy! New travel site finally afloat

• News and notes: Launch of annual picture competition, new grant scheme

• WikiProject report: Reach for the Stars: WikiProject Astronomy

• Discussion report: Flag Manual of Style; accessibility and equality

• Special report: Loss of an Internet genius

• Featured content: Featured articles: Quality of reviews, quality of writing in 2012

• Arbitration report: First arbitration case in almost six months

• Technology report: Intermittent outages planned, first Wikidata client deployment

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

• News and notes: Requests for adminship reform moves forward

• WikiProject report: Say What? — WikiProject Linguistics

• Featured content: Wazzup, G? Delegates and featured topics in review

• Arbitration report: Doncram case continues

• Technology report: Data centre switchover a tentative success

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

• In the media: Hoaxes draw media attention

• Recent research: Lessons from the research literature on open collaboration; clicks on featured articles; credibility heuristics

• WikiProject report: Checkmate! — WikiProject Chess

• Discussion report: Administrator conduct and requests

• News and notes: Khan Academy's Smarthistory and Wikipedia collaborate

• Featured content: Listing off progress from 2012

• Arbitration report: Doncram continues

• Technology report: Developers get ready for FOSDEM amid caching problems

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

• Special report: Examining the popularity of Wikipedia articles

• News and notes: Article Feedback Tool faces community resistance

• WikiProject report: Land of the Midnight Sun

• Featured content: Portal people on potent potables and portable potholes

• In the media: Star Trek Into Pedantry

• Technology report: Wikidata team targets English Wikipedia deployment

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

• Op-ed: An article is a construct – hoaxes and Wikipedia

• Featured content: A lousy week

• WikiProject report: Just the Facts

• In the media: Wikipedia mirroring life in island ownership dispute

• News and notes: UK chapter governance review marks the end of a controversial year

• Discussion report: WebCite proposal

• Technology report: Wikidata client rollout stutters

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

• WikiProject report: Thank you for flying WikiProject Airlines

• Technology report: Better templates and 3D buildings

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation declares 'victory' in Wikivoyage lawsuit

• In the media: Sue Gardner interviewed by the Australian press

• Featured content: Featured content gets schooled

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

• In the media: Ex-WMF trustee creates "Wikipedia Corporate Index" for PR agency

• Recent research: Wikipedia not so novel after all, except to UK university lecturers

• News and notes: "Very lucky" Picture of the Year

• Discussion report: Wikivoyage links; overcategorization

• Featured content: Blue birds be bouncin'

• WikiProject report: How to measure a WikiProject's workload

• Technology report: Wikidata development to be continued indefinitely

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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:

1. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
2. Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
3. 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.
• Sasata (submissions), whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
• Muboshgu (submissions) and Wizardman (submissions), who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
• Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

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) 00:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

• Op-ed: We must do more to turn readers into editors

• News and notes: Outing of editor causes firestorm

• Featured content: Slow week for featured content

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Television Stations

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

• From the editor: Signpost–Wikizine merger

• News and notes: Finance committee updates

• Featured content: Batman, three birds and a Mercedes

• Arbitration report: Doncram case closes; arbitrator resigns

• WikiProject report: Setting a precedent

• Technology report: Article Feedback reversal

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

• News and notes: Resigning arbitrator slams Committee

• WikiProject report: Making music

• Interview: Meeting in the middle: Wikipedia and libraries

• Featured content: Wikipedia stays warm

• Arbitration report: Richard case closes

• Technology report: Visual Editor "on schedule"

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

• WikiProject report: The 'Burgh: WikiProject Pittsburgh

• Featured content: One and a half soursops

• Arbitration report: Two open cases

• News and notes: Sue Gardner to leave WMF; German Wikipedians spearhead another effort to close Wikinews

• Technology report: The Visual Editor: Where are we now, and where are we headed?

• Recent research: "Ignore all rules" in deletions; anonymity and groupthink; how readers react when shown talk pages

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

• Special report: Who reads which Wikipedia?

• WikiProject report: Special: FAQs

• Featured content: What the ?

• News and notes: Grants given for Wikipedia Library, six others; April Fool's Day ructions

• Arbitration report: Three open cases

• Technology report: Wikidata phase 2 deployment timetable in doubt

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

• Wikizine: WMF scales back feature after outcry

• WikiProject report: Earthshattering WikiProject Earthquakes

• News and notes: French intelligence agents threaten Wikimedia volunteer

• Arbitration report: Subject experts needed for Argentine History

• Featured content: Wikipedia loves poetry

• Technology report: Testing week

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

• Op-ed: How do we fix RfA inactivity?

• WikiProject report: Unity in Diversity: South Africa

• News and notes: Another admin reform attempt flops

• Featured content: The featured process swings into high gear

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

• In the media: Wikipedia inaccurate, says Florence; New Wikipedia app for breaking news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Editor Retention

• News and notes: Milan conference a mixed bag

• Featured content: Batfish in the Red Sea

• Arbitration report: Sexology case nears closure after stalling over topic ban

• Technology report: A flurry of deployments

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

• News and notes: Chapter furore over FDC knockbacks; First DC GLAM boot-camp

• In the media: Wikipedia's sexism; Yuri Gadyukin hoax

• Featured content: Wiki loves video games

• WikiProject report: Japanese WikiProject Baseball

• Traffic report: Most popular Wikipedia articles

• Arbitration report: Sexology closed; two open cases

• Recent research: Sentiment monitoring; UNESCO and systemic bias; and more

• Technology report: New notifications system deployed across Wikipedia

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 05:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

• News and notes: Candidates nominating for Foundation elections; Looking ahead to Wikimania 2014

• Technology report: Foundation successful in bid for larger Google subsidy

• Featured content: WikiCup update: full speed ahead!

• In the media: New Wikipedia for Schools edition; Anders Behring Breivik's Wikipedia contributions

• WikiProject report: Earn $100 in cash... and a button!

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

• News and notes: WMF–community ruckus on Wikimedia mailing list

• WikiProject report: Knock Out: WikiProject Mixed Martial Arts

• Featured content: A mushroom, a motorway, a Munich gallery, and a map

• In the media: PR firm accused of editing Wikipedia for government clients; can Wikipedia predict the stock market?

• Arbitration report: Race and politics opened; three open cases

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

• Foundation elections: Trustee candidates speak about Board structure, China, gender, global south, endowment

• WikiProject report: Classical Greece and Rome

• News and notes: Spanish Wikipedia leaps past one million articles

• In the media: Qworty incident continues

• Featured content: Up in the air

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

• News and notes: First-ever community election for FDC positions

• In the media: Pagans complain about Qworty's anti-Pagan editing

• Foundation elections: Candidates talk about the Meta problem, the nation-based chapter model, world languages, and value for money

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Geographical Coordinates

• Featured content: Life of 2π

• Recent research: Motivations on the Persian Wikipedia; is science eight times more popular on the Spanish Wikipedia than the English Wikipedia?

• Technology report: Amsterdam hackathon: continuity, change, and stroopwafels

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

• From the editor: Signpost developments

• Featured content: A week of portraits

• Discussion report: Return of the Discussion report

• News and notes: "Cease and desist", World Trade Organization says to Wikivoyage; Could WikiLang be the next WMF project?

• In the media: China blocks secure version of Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: Operation Normandy

• Technology report: Developers accused of making Toolserver fight 'pointless'

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

• News and notes: How Wikimedia affiliates are spending $8.4 million; PRISM scandal

• Featured content: Mixing Bowl Interchange

• In the media: VisualEditor will "change world history"

• Op-ed: The tragedy of Wikipedia's commons

• Discussion report: VisualEditor, elections, bots, and more

• Traffic report: Who holds the throne?

• Arbitration report: Two cases suspended; proposed decision posted in Argentine History

• WikiProject report: Processing WikiProject Computing

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am'#Consensus check

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am'#Consensus check. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)