![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
On the Rhodes Scholar rename proposal.
Do you know anything about Johnpacklambert's comment, though?
Upmerge all To Category:Alumni of the University of Oxford, but subdivide out by specific college where possible. This is basically an award category, which we discourage, ad has the added disadvantage of putting many people in two categories for attending one edutational institution, which just leads to category clutter. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
As a proposed course of action, there seems to be something about Johnpacklambert's comment that that incenses me so.
I looked into Wikipedia:Overcategorization, the relevant policy, but it seems absolutely absurd to suggest that a Rhodes Scholarship is not, in fact, a defining feature of a recipient. What would your thoughts on this be, and would you care to share them? Cheers.
Also, wow, another Oxonian! --Qwerty Binary ( talk) 06:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, much appreciated, — Cirt ( talk) 16:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi there,
I thought we didn't protect featured articles - so that "anybody could edit"? Chaheel Riens ( talk) 18:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
This is not a case of opening the choice of a different image. I, as in ME, Amandajm ( talk) was asked to present n option. It is my case that is being argued. If you want to start a discussion of an open choice for another object, then do it, but don't confuse the issues. I have only one purpose, as a museum professional, and that is getting a museum replica removed from the lead, because it makes Wikipedia look unprofessional and unreliable. This is my case that is being presented. Please don't interfere with the way that I chose to do it. Amandajm ( talk) 23:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Just taking a second to say thanks for your level-headed, common sense management of TFAR. It's a thankless job - although I guess I just changed that by thanking you! - and you do it well, from what I can see. I don't contribute as much as I used to, but it's nice to know that, when I have something actually main-page-worthy at some point, TFAR will still be there, humming right along thanks to your efforts. Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 13:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC) |
It might be possible that someone will want to fix the article, even if nobody did earlier. Please relist. (I'm not sure I personally do, but I want a few days to think about it. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for your suggestion at the FLC here. I've had a go at sorting the sorting. It is OK now? -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 08:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
You did not provide a valid reason for closing this. I would therefore ask that you reopen the discussion. Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 20:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
(comments moved to Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/September 28#2013 notes)-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Have replied. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
"A work consisting of two painted or carved panels ->that are hinged together<-." That's why I changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pusancairo ( talk • contribs) 10:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
As one of a highly select international group, you are hereby invited to join me in celebrating my 666! (Let the games begin!) Pdfpdf ( talk) 11:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
.... for the advice. Check out the alternatives, and chose your fave! I think it's time to sign out and have make coffee! Amandajm ( talk) 14:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
For a reason the bot went crazy so Sigma disallowed it until it ready again. I have no problem doing this, though, before the bot I used to do it and it is kinda fun. Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Who lives in or near Oshawa, Ontario, I wonder? Nice try but no luck there, 216.154.93.180 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). Bencherlite Talk 23:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I want to "thank you" for pushing out one of the better editors we had here, that being User:PumpkinSky. Of course, last time he was forced out was because of a featured article and that was lead by Raul654. Now with Raul gone (I wasn't aware he had left), the same article and the TFA coordinator shove PumpkinSky back out the door.
PumpkinSky has shown that the Grace Sherwood article was not featured on TFA, so how can you say it won't be featured again when it wasn't featured in the first place? You should know that the Grace Sherwood article was a major sore spot for PumpkinSky and should have approached the subject with a lot more grace (and some research) than you did. That lack of grace and research cost Wikipedia yet another good editor.
I was surprised when PumpkinSky came back, but I don't think he is going to this time. To be honest, I don't blame him. If I were him, I wouldn't have come back the first time after the BS plagiarism accusations and an actual witchhunt (which was very ironic considering the article).
The loss of PumpkinSky is on you and any future lack of TFAs is also on you. The community expected a change from Raul, instead your decision showed you are just Raul II. That's not something I would want to be responsible for or a title I would want. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The list of articles pulled during their appearance as TFA is very short - just one other apart from Grace Sherwood - see WP:TFA oddities. I don't see the point in repeating myself on the other points. I appreciate your position but we simply disagree and I don't think either of us restating our positions will change the other's view or be terribly helpful. Bencherlite Talk 19:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you have code sitting around to randomize a blurb (similar to the Middle Ages image?). This December I want to run some of a 20-picture set in POTD for Kipling's birthday, but with that many pictures I'll never be able to get them all into one image.. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, this edit doesn't seem to have gone as planned: I am guessing that the template is for Wikimedia Commons only? I'm also (a little) concerned that had the template shown up correctly on the page, it would have given the appearance to a casual reader that the FlickreviewR bot had reviewed and tagged the file, which it hasn't. Blackberry Sorbet 09:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC) I should clarify that I'm not pointing a finger at you, just pointing out the uploader's error to you as an administrator: I don't want to start changing the page as I'm not completely au fait with how these things work. Blackberry Sorbet 09:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I see you've gone with a George Week this month.
Curly Turkey (
gobble)
00:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
The TFA requests page seems a little inactive at the moment, with no open-date requests showing at present. I do have a few non-musical FAs which I can nominate, if that would be helpful; on the other hand, I have had quite a share of the main page recently, and still with Bizet, possibly A Child of Our Time and possibly Britten to come in the next few weeks, so if you think enough is enough, that's fine. Brianboulton ( talk) 10:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
There were a couple of claims in the Bart King article (Saturday's TFA) that I think are dubious, and I've taken them out. I changed the TFA blurb slightly, and thought you may want to have a look. I've explained (in unfortunately long-winded and slightly incoherent fashion) on the article talk page. Even by my standards, it's a fairly obscure cricketing point, and not a huge matter, but I wanted to raise it before TFA day and wanted to keep you up-to-date. I've not been too active recently, so apologies for leaving it relatively late. Sarastro1 ( talk) 19:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Chuckle ... one for today ... typifies what worries me: [1] Still working, and the DSM5 changes affect every sub-article, so lots to do before I even turn my attention to the main article! Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I've done as you suggested.
I removed Lisa the Skeptic from 23 November in the pending queue.
I nominated it for 24 November at TFAR.
Hopefully my nomination will not be futile.
Cheers,
— Cirt ( talk) 21:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate you saying that, Bencherlite.
A lot.
Very much.
Because as this is now the third (3rd) date I will be attempting for Lisa the Skeptic, things are becoming quite interesting.
Hopefully this 3rd attempt will be more fruitful.
I hope you are doing well,
— Cirt ( talk) 21:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
What about a different, later date, still in November, and yet late enough to avoid the penalty? — Cirt ( talk) 21:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Let's try this a fourth (4th) time.
6 November.
Hopefully to avoid some of those pesky penalties.
Please feel free to redo your comments, I have no ideas as to what you want to say about it.
Though of course I'd appreciate a kind word about my repeated attempts at good faith over this! :)
— Cirt ( talk) 21:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd just leave it now and wait for some comments to come in, then you and I can judge the mood. I know you're trying to do the best to get it as the TFA and not tread on toes for Doctor Who but if you keep moving it around, there's a risk of confusing people - not just me! Bencherlite Talk 22:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Bencherlite, Before I nominate it, could you provide some informal feedback on the suitability of John Treloar (museum administrator) as the TFA for 11 November? Treloar's career was mainly focused on World War I, but I'm not sure if this really comes through in the article. The topic is also a bit obscure (the article averages around 7 page views a day!). Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 00:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Something like this, perhaps, Nick-D? Don't worry about obscurity - neither the TFAR formulas nor my own personal preferences take into account whether an article has high page views (just as well, otherwise none of my FAs would ever had made it to TFA!) I think the angle of the AWM is an interesting one, so others might think it would work well for 11.11. Stick it up at WP:TFAR (feel free to use or change this blurb, of course) and see what happens! Bencherlite Talk 16:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I'm glad it good be worked out to everyone's satisfaction of all involved. Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 15:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Sir!
This is User talk:Sankararamank talk I Request you to Please Remove the Speedy deletion tag of Ayan II. Because When I see that article i feel guilty. So I Request you to Remove that tag
Thankyou Sir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sankararamank ( talk • contribs) 11:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013
by The Interior ( talk · contribs), Ocaasi ( talk · contribs)
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. -- The Interior 21:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
By George, I got it! ;-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Just as a thought, since you seem to like running themed TFAs in sequence (The recent Georges, and I recall the Eagles too), I had a flick through FANMP and had the idea of running a group of royal-but-not-royal articles. Just searching for King, Queen etc. on that page we can get an animal, a musical, a video game (or 3), a court case, a battlecruiser (well, several naval ships really), a famous scientist, an Australian soldier, a Ska Punk album... this is all just by article title, I'm sure there are more by description. I'm willing to go through these and look for some date relevance if it'd help at all. Just random ideas from a reader. :) Organics LRO 11:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
With regard to the use of the word presbytery, nobody has been able to demonstrate what exactly is meant by the existing sources, but since it appears to have no demonstrable link with GFN anyway, current consensus seems to be to remove the offending section completely. Bear in mind that last 5 November, GFN got almost 420,000 page views. Parrot of Doom 10:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not sure what your connection is to this entrenched user, but I'm not sure how people can look the other way at comments like this by him: [2] and [3]. This isn't helpful to anyone. :bloodofox: ( talk) 18:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words - I see you've scheduled the article already (which is fine, btw). I just hope it doesn't prompt some nutter to start complaining about Wikipedia being used to boost Moroccan tourism! Prioryman ( talk) 21:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I know this sounds stupid but see this Cluebot edit summary here...it says reverted to last version by you but clearly it meant an anonymous IP. Is this some sort of bug? It happened again a few times for some other article revisions like this one and a few others. - Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 17:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
On the Rhodes Scholar rename proposal.
Do you know anything about Johnpacklambert's comment, though?
Upmerge all To Category:Alumni of the University of Oxford, but subdivide out by specific college where possible. This is basically an award category, which we discourage, ad has the added disadvantage of putting many people in two categories for attending one edutational institution, which just leads to category clutter. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
As a proposed course of action, there seems to be something about Johnpacklambert's comment that that incenses me so.
I looked into Wikipedia:Overcategorization, the relevant policy, but it seems absolutely absurd to suggest that a Rhodes Scholarship is not, in fact, a defining feature of a recipient. What would your thoughts on this be, and would you care to share them? Cheers.
Also, wow, another Oxonian! --Qwerty Binary ( talk) 06:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, much appreciated, — Cirt ( talk) 16:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi there,
I thought we didn't protect featured articles - so that "anybody could edit"? Chaheel Riens ( talk) 18:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
This is not a case of opening the choice of a different image. I, as in ME, Amandajm ( talk) was asked to present n option. It is my case that is being argued. If you want to start a discussion of an open choice for another object, then do it, but don't confuse the issues. I have only one purpose, as a museum professional, and that is getting a museum replica removed from the lead, because it makes Wikipedia look unprofessional and unreliable. This is my case that is being presented. Please don't interfere with the way that I chose to do it. Amandajm ( talk) 23:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Just taking a second to say thanks for your level-headed, common sense management of TFAR. It's a thankless job - although I guess I just changed that by thanking you! - and you do it well, from what I can see. I don't contribute as much as I used to, but it's nice to know that, when I have something actually main-page-worthy at some point, TFAR will still be there, humming right along thanks to your efforts. Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 13:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC) |
It might be possible that someone will want to fix the article, even if nobody did earlier. Please relist. (I'm not sure I personally do, but I want a few days to think about it. DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for your suggestion at the FLC here. I've had a go at sorting the sorting. It is OK now? -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 08:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
You did not provide a valid reason for closing this. I would therefore ask that you reopen the discussion. Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 20:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
(comments moved to Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/September 28#2013 notes)-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Have replied. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
"A work consisting of two painted or carved panels ->that are hinged together<-." That's why I changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pusancairo ( talk • contribs) 10:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
As one of a highly select international group, you are hereby invited to join me in celebrating my 666! (Let the games begin!) Pdfpdf ( talk) 11:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
.... for the advice. Check out the alternatives, and chose your fave! I think it's time to sign out and have make coffee! Amandajm ( talk) 14:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
For a reason the bot went crazy so Sigma disallowed it until it ready again. I have no problem doing this, though, before the bot I used to do it and it is kinda fun. Tbhotch. ™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Who lives in or near Oshawa, Ontario, I wonder? Nice try but no luck there, 216.154.93.180 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). Bencherlite Talk 23:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I want to "thank you" for pushing out one of the better editors we had here, that being User:PumpkinSky. Of course, last time he was forced out was because of a featured article and that was lead by Raul654. Now with Raul gone (I wasn't aware he had left), the same article and the TFA coordinator shove PumpkinSky back out the door.
PumpkinSky has shown that the Grace Sherwood article was not featured on TFA, so how can you say it won't be featured again when it wasn't featured in the first place? You should know that the Grace Sherwood article was a major sore spot for PumpkinSky and should have approached the subject with a lot more grace (and some research) than you did. That lack of grace and research cost Wikipedia yet another good editor.
I was surprised when PumpkinSky came back, but I don't think he is going to this time. To be honest, I don't blame him. If I were him, I wouldn't have come back the first time after the BS plagiarism accusations and an actual witchhunt (which was very ironic considering the article).
The loss of PumpkinSky is on you and any future lack of TFAs is also on you. The community expected a change from Raul, instead your decision showed you are just Raul II. That's not something I would want to be responsible for or a title I would want. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
The list of articles pulled during their appearance as TFA is very short - just one other apart from Grace Sherwood - see WP:TFA oddities. I don't see the point in repeating myself on the other points. I appreciate your position but we simply disagree and I don't think either of us restating our positions will change the other's view or be terribly helpful. Bencherlite Talk 19:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you have code sitting around to randomize a blurb (similar to the Middle Ages image?). This December I want to run some of a 20-picture set in POTD for Kipling's birthday, but with that many pictures I'll never be able to get them all into one image.. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, this edit doesn't seem to have gone as planned: I am guessing that the template is for Wikimedia Commons only? I'm also (a little) concerned that had the template shown up correctly on the page, it would have given the appearance to a casual reader that the FlickreviewR bot had reviewed and tagged the file, which it hasn't. Blackberry Sorbet 09:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC) I should clarify that I'm not pointing a finger at you, just pointing out the uploader's error to you as an administrator: I don't want to start changing the page as I'm not completely au fait with how these things work. Blackberry Sorbet 09:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I see you've gone with a George Week this month.
Curly Turkey (
gobble)
00:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
The TFA requests page seems a little inactive at the moment, with no open-date requests showing at present. I do have a few non-musical FAs which I can nominate, if that would be helpful; on the other hand, I have had quite a share of the main page recently, and still with Bizet, possibly A Child of Our Time and possibly Britten to come in the next few weeks, so if you think enough is enough, that's fine. Brianboulton ( talk) 10:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
There were a couple of claims in the Bart King article (Saturday's TFA) that I think are dubious, and I've taken them out. I changed the TFA blurb slightly, and thought you may want to have a look. I've explained (in unfortunately long-winded and slightly incoherent fashion) on the article talk page. Even by my standards, it's a fairly obscure cricketing point, and not a huge matter, but I wanted to raise it before TFA day and wanted to keep you up-to-date. I've not been too active recently, so apologies for leaving it relatively late. Sarastro1 ( talk) 19:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Chuckle ... one for today ... typifies what worries me: [1] Still working, and the DSM5 changes affect every sub-article, so lots to do before I even turn my attention to the main article! Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I've done as you suggested.
I removed Lisa the Skeptic from 23 November in the pending queue.
I nominated it for 24 November at TFAR.
Hopefully my nomination will not be futile.
Cheers,
— Cirt ( talk) 21:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate you saying that, Bencherlite.
A lot.
Very much.
Because as this is now the third (3rd) date I will be attempting for Lisa the Skeptic, things are becoming quite interesting.
Hopefully this 3rd attempt will be more fruitful.
I hope you are doing well,
— Cirt ( talk) 21:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
What about a different, later date, still in November, and yet late enough to avoid the penalty? — Cirt ( talk) 21:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Let's try this a fourth (4th) time.
6 November.
Hopefully to avoid some of those pesky penalties.
Please feel free to redo your comments, I have no ideas as to what you want to say about it.
Though of course I'd appreciate a kind word about my repeated attempts at good faith over this! :)
— Cirt ( talk) 21:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd just leave it now and wait for some comments to come in, then you and I can judge the mood. I know you're trying to do the best to get it as the TFA and not tread on toes for Doctor Who but if you keep moving it around, there's a risk of confusing people - not just me! Bencherlite Talk 22:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Bencherlite, Before I nominate it, could you provide some informal feedback on the suitability of John Treloar (museum administrator) as the TFA for 11 November? Treloar's career was mainly focused on World War I, but I'm not sure if this really comes through in the article. The topic is also a bit obscure (the article averages around 7 page views a day!). Regards, Nick-D ( talk) 00:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Something like this, perhaps, Nick-D? Don't worry about obscurity - neither the TFAR formulas nor my own personal preferences take into account whether an article has high page views (just as well, otherwise none of my FAs would ever had made it to TFA!) I think the angle of the AWM is an interesting one, so others might think it would work well for 11.11. Stick it up at WP:TFAR (feel free to use or change this blurb, of course) and see what happens! Bencherlite Talk 16:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I'm glad it good be worked out to everyone's satisfaction of all involved. Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 15:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Sir!
This is User talk:Sankararamank talk I Request you to Please Remove the Speedy deletion tag of Ayan II. Because When I see that article i feel guilty. So I Request you to Remove that tag
Thankyou Sir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sankararamank ( talk • contribs) 11:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013
by The Interior ( talk · contribs), Ocaasi ( talk · contribs)
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. -- The Interior 21:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
By George, I got it! ;-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Just as a thought, since you seem to like running themed TFAs in sequence (The recent Georges, and I recall the Eagles too), I had a flick through FANMP and had the idea of running a group of royal-but-not-royal articles. Just searching for King, Queen etc. on that page we can get an animal, a musical, a video game (or 3), a court case, a battlecruiser (well, several naval ships really), a famous scientist, an Australian soldier, a Ska Punk album... this is all just by article title, I'm sure there are more by description. I'm willing to go through these and look for some date relevance if it'd help at all. Just random ideas from a reader. :) Organics LRO 11:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
With regard to the use of the word presbytery, nobody has been able to demonstrate what exactly is meant by the existing sources, but since it appears to have no demonstrable link with GFN anyway, current consensus seems to be to remove the offending section completely. Bear in mind that last 5 November, GFN got almost 420,000 page views. Parrot of Doom 10:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not sure what your connection is to this entrenched user, but I'm not sure how people can look the other way at comments like this by him: [2] and [3]. This isn't helpful to anyone. :bloodofox: ( talk) 18:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words - I see you've scheduled the article already (which is fine, btw). I just hope it doesn't prompt some nutter to start complaining about Wikipedia being used to boost Moroccan tourism! Prioryman ( talk) 21:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I know this sounds stupid but see this Cluebot edit summary here...it says reverted to last version by you but clearly it meant an anonymous IP. Is this some sort of bug? It happened again a few times for some other article revisions like this one and a few others. - Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 17:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)