User talk:Eisfbnore/Archive 2

WT:Norway dispute

Hello Eisfbnore. An SPI could be tried, but I need to know why this is trolling. What is the background of the dispute? You link to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sju hav/Archive. Is this someone who is constantly re-adding the name of the same person to articles? How does this relate to the new addition by Kollibris at WT:Norway, where he is asking if there are articles about Knut Braa? Is this connected to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bjørn Sagvolden? Is the sockmaster trying to promote Sagvolden's case? I have looked at no:Kategori:Mistenkte sokkedukker for Sju hav. Is there a sockpuppet investigation in the no.wiki that we could link to ? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As stated by 3s in the SPI, the individual behind these socks is either Bjørn Sagvolden or just a random person supporting him in his lawsuits agains the Norwegian government. Please take a look at the last section of their posting at WT:NORWAY ("Winning a lawsuit against Norway"). Also note that the user is considering WT:Norway a free port for POV-pushing of people suing the State of Norway, which they have been blocked from doing at no.wiki. --Eisfbnore talk 16:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How did you immediately know that this was him, when you saw him post at WT:Norway. Was it the fact he was posting about a claim against the government? I'm thinking ahead to how we will deal with such things in the future. Even a block of Kollibris wouldn't stop the creation of new socks, so there should be a consensus about what to do to protect WT:Norway. Kollibris was auto-confirmed, so semiprotection of the page wouldn't help. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was because of the government thing, the style of posting and the "[I] fear of being blocked if I ask the question on the Norwegian website" claim. I haven't been too involved in this case at no.wiki, (KEN (talk · contribs) and 3s (talk · contribs) have) I just reverted the posting to keep WT:Norway free of battlegrounding. But I honestly don't know how WT:Norway ought to be protected. Any ideas? --Eisfbnore talk 17:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sju hav which I have reopened with Corner benchmark and Kollibris. I linked to the discussion here on your talk page. You may add your own comment in the SPI if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time and effort. Best, Eisfbnore talk 18:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Einar Hoffstad

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Page needed

Are you going to go all around the place with "page needed" tags? It will be a hell of a job, hundreds or thousands of instances. I often leave it out when it comes to Aftenposten. The reason is that for some years, Aftenposten has been published in three parts with their own pagination. Instead of using page numbers like "2/part 3", which looks strange to most readers, it's better to omit it. The articles have not been found in a paper search anyway, but in a web search (retriever.no). In yet other cases, the page numbers are not mentioned at all. (this goes for many papers, I remember Journalisten and Økonomisk Rapport off the top of my head). Of course, I use Aftenposten page numbers when they obviously give a legit page number belonging to "part 1". Geschichte (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you're probably right. It just stroke me that newspaper articles are sorted by page numbers, not titles when in print. :) P.S: Would you mind to share your thoughts here? --Eisfbnore talk 16:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irlo O. Bronson, Sr.

Added a cite. Connormah (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. Eisfbnore talk 19:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Friedman

Howdy, when you say "unfree image", could you be more specific? The license at the file's page does indeed seem free and compatible, and it has not been tagged for deletion. Do you feel it was copied from elsewhere? Do we need to delete it and warn the uploader? Would appriciate something more to go on. Kuru (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also appreciate to have a free photo of him, but the license at File:Friedman.jpg is too thin, I believe (with my limited knowledge of copyright). How do we now that the University of Chigaco has given permission to use this file? I think it needs way more information before it can be classified as free. Cheers, Eisfbnore talk 16:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I've left the uploader a note to explain the permission he is indicating on the image page. If there is not a real release of copyright or a strong fair use claim, then this needs to be deleted. Will take care of the details. Kuru (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Transport (Ghana) DYK

Thanks for your review. I have changed the hook. Could you re-ok it for me. Thanks. A friend called - -- CrossTempleJay  → talk 13:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Very grateful.-- CrossTempleJay  → talk 17:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Eisfbnore talk 17:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Merkantilt biografisk leksikon

Hello! Your submission of Merkantilt biografisk leksikon at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 13:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC) ==[reply]

Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 13:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

WikiCup 2011 May newsletter

We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Scotland Casliber (submissions), of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by Texas Racepacket (submissions), Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions) and Saskatchewan Canada Hky (submissions) respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.

A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you, Eisfbnore, for your kind comments about the quality of my work on the new page, Dan Savage bibliography. It is most appreciated. ;) You really think it is of a quality to be considered at WP:Featured list candidates? -- Cirt (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. --Eisfbnore talk 17:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it has a shot at going straight to WP:Featured list candidates, or does it make sense to go for a Peer Review, first? -- Cirt (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a PR is needed. The only things I can put my finger on are the redundant linking of bibliography in the lead, the boldface link to Dan Savage and the incomplete citations 40–47, which also need dashes rather than hyphens. Otherwise it's good to go. Eisfbnore talk 17:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the bolding I got from the model at George Orwell bibliography. Thank you for the suggestions, I will work on the other stuff. -- Cirt (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all that formatting stuff is done. :) Any other suggestions before proceeding to FLC? -- Cirt (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too experienced with FLC (I have in fact no FLs under my belt), but I think it's ready now. --Eisfbnore talk 18:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to do Peer Review first, now at Wikipedia:Peer review/Dan Savage bibliography/archive1. Feel free to comment. -- Cirt (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Removing references. The discussion at WP:CITE may indicate there is no consensus at enforcing one-ref-per-sentence, but it also shows there is certainly no consensus for removal of such references while they are added. I appreciate your other helpful edits, but please stop removing references. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't removed references, only redundant ref tags. There is absolutely no need for citing each sentence, especially when the content is un-controversial and not likely to be challenged. --Eisfbnore talk 21:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How can you be sure that it won't be challenged? WP:V allows for removal of any uncited sentence. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:BLUE. For instance, how likely is the line "In the 1943/1944 the University opened its first branches outside Warsaw, in Częstochowa and Kielce" to be challenged? I had a look at both WT:CITE and the hist of the University of the Western Lands article, and it does seem that somebody else would agree with me, that[1] it[2] is[3] difficult[4] to[5] read[6] a[7] sentence[8] with[9] many[10] citations[11] in[12] it[13]. --Eisfbnore talk 16:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No straw men, please. We are not talking about referencing each word, but each sentence. If there are refs within a sentence, I am open to reconsidering your edit. Was this the case? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jens Bache-Wiig

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Olaf Alfred Hoffstad

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

Commented out

Re: [1]. Unsourced ones are commented out until someone inserts a source. The two in question were lifted from no:wiki.. Geschichte (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the clarification. --Eisfbnore talk 16:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Finn Wischmann

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hjalmar Pettersen, Bibliotheca Norvegica

I have reviewed your nomination at Template talk:Did you know#Hjalmar Pettersen, Bibliotheca Norvegica and just have a quick suggestion before I approve it. Could you respond at the suggestions page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crisco 1492 (talk • contribs)

Merkantilt biografisk leksikon

Hi Eisfbnore, I threw up a flag on Merkantilt biografisk leksikon at DYK as lacking secondary sources. Sorry to do this to you two months in a row! Let me know if you find some and I'll be glad to change my vote. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I couldn't find any. :( --Eisfbnore talk 16:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dang. Well, let's just go straight to the "trial by fire" and take it to AfD. Maybe someone can suggest a criterion by which this passes, and then we can reinsert it in the DYK queue if it does. Khazar (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news on that one. I'm a big fan of your work. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Selskabet for Oslo Byes Vel

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent change to Moors murders

Please do not change the citation style of an article without discussion on the article's talk page, especially when that article is an FA. I consider your edit to have been deliberate vandalism and I have rolled it back accordingly. Malleus Fatuorum 13:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Titles of web pages should be displayed with quote marks, not in italics. You are abusing the rollback button when using it to revert good faith edits that are obviously not vandalism. Also, please have a look at WP:OWN and WP:EW before continuing in the same vein as before. --Eisfbnore talk 13:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a rollback button to abuse. I suggest that you get off your high horse and go do something useful instead of vandalising FAs. If you don't like the way the {{citation}} template works then discuss that at the appropriate place, the template's talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 13:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have in fact done something useful; corrected citations with wrong formatting. Of course, discussing it at the template talk is a good idea, but, in the meantime, I see no reason to not use a template that does its job appropriately. I'd also recommend you to review WP:CIVIL and stop harassing me at my user talk. Thank you. --Eisfbnore talk 13:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are vandalising a featured article and I am asking you to stop. If you consider that to be harassment then so be it, but stop you will. Malleus Fatuorum 14:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you are WP:OWNing an article, editwarring on it and harassing a user acting in good faith. I was actually only one click away from taking this to WP:AN/I, but since I've seen that you have taken care of it and restored the quote marks around the web citations, will I now drop the issue and do something else. Cheers. --Eisfbnore talk 18:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am doing no such thing, no matter how many half-understood blue links you pull from your rather tired looking hat. Are you familiar with this one? Malleus Fatuorum 03:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And a word of advice; the next time you try to "fix" an FA make sure that you understand what you're doing, else you'll be the one hauled up at AN/I. Oops, sorry I forgot the blue link. Malleus Fatuorum 03:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hjalmar Pettersen

Materialscientist (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Bibliotheca Norvegica

Materialscientist (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

Jenny Lind tour

Hi. I noticed that you made some changes (thank you!) to move commas in refs from inside the bracket to outside the bracket. Can you show me where a WP guideline indicates to do this? I used to do it but encountered a lot of resistance from others. Thanks for any advice. Also, why should "vol" have an initial cap? What about "no." for number? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't find any guideline on that; I simply moved the commas and capitalised "Vol." with the aim of increased consistency in the refs. I did actually think that it would be more reasonable to have a lowercase v – as it came after a comma, not a full stop – but since the majority of the refs had "Vol." in them, I decided to standardise upon that. Hope this answers your question, Eisfbnore talk 15:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

Perhaps you would be willing to take a look in this

Hello, Eisfbnore! I have nominated Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil to FAC. I know you enjoy working more on references and similar (or at least, it's what I noticed), but if you have the interest, could you review the article and share your thoughts about it? If there is something to improve, please say it. If not, give your support. I'm only inviting you because I know you have been keeping an eye on Pedro II of Brazil and Empire of Brazil. However, don't feel obliged to do it, if you don't want to. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Såner Station

Hello! Your submission of Såner Station at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! OCNative (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vidkun Quisling/archive1

Hey Eisfbnore. I'm going away for a week from tomorrow, and I would appreciate any help you could give in keeping the FAC moving forward. Regards, - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 10:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll see what I can do. Hope it will be promoted before the current CUP round closes! :D P.S: I did not understand Sp33dyphil's comment about not participating in a Cup mate's FAC. Is there a rule on that? And, if so, am I with my comments in the wrong there? --Eisfbnore talk 17:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think he was just being ultra-cautious. Also, thanks for your help (see below). - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 17:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, good reason to be ultra-cautious when the FAC people obviously hate us. :) Sorry to hear that it was promoted after the previous round closed, though. --Eisfbnore talk 17:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

Reviewing a lit-related article for GAN/FAC

Was wondering if you could come give some literary insight for Olegkagan on Winesburg, Ohio (novel). Also, the literature WikiProject really needs to set up a talk page, I've never seen a project with >100 participants and no talk page! Cheers, ResMar 02:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Nils Collett Vogt

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Såner Station

Materialscientist (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2011 June newsletter

We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was Scotland Casliber (submissions) who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by Ohio Wizardman (submissions), claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by Norway Eisfbnore (submissions), who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.

No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.

We would again like to thank United Kingdom Jarry1250 (submissions) and Bavaria Stone (submissions) for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.

Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Nils Vogt (journalist)

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Norsk Spisevognselskap

Just wanted to let you know that the article you requested has been copyedited. It's very good; I especially like the vintage photos, and the layout is pleasing to the eye. Good luck!--Miniapolis (talk) 02:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey, that was great! I do not agree with all your changes though. For instance, the first heading should be titled, in my humble o, "Background" and not "History", since it deals with how dining was done aboard trains before the NSS was established. Also, I think MOS:PERCENT recommends against using % in prose. Anyway, the ce was awesome, and I am now considering to take it to FAC. --Eisfbnore talk 11:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

WL underscores

Please teach me something: what's the difference, the significance, in omitting or including them? Tony (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. I noticed that the month in the wl was wrong, and corrected it. Didn't bother to remove the underscore from the link I had copied from the adress bar. --Eisfbnore talk 17:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I got it all wrong. Relieved to know I haven't been doing something technically inferior all this time. Tony (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help

With Vidkun Quisling. Obviously there is no connection between Quisling and kittens, but how can anyone dislike receiving a kitten! :)

- Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 17:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Funny coincidence that the majority of WP:NORWAY FA articles are written by Brits! :P --Eisfbnore talk 17:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Bjørn Bjørnsen

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Kaegi

Hi. Thanks a lot for reviewing the Werner Kaegi article. I amended it according to your comments. I'm not familiar with citation templates yet, but I tried my best to comply. Let me know what you think. Cheers. (PS: I'm a French-speaking Wikipedia contributor from France.)
Tellus archivist (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now; I've passed it. Well done! --Eisfbnore talk 12:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much!!! --Tellus archivist (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Spoerri

Thanks for the additional c/e on the Werner Kaegi article. Just out of curiosity: are you going to make a lot of modifications in the near future? Mostly, I reckon your c/e does improve the article as a whole, but I can't say I feel too comfortable with your English Bruno Spoerri mini-article, because it doesn't mention electronic music at all, as opposed to the German article. This is a small problem because my point is that Kaegi predates Spoerri and Boesch in the field of Swiss electronic music. So, do you possibly plan to expand your Spoerri article at a later date so as to include his electronic forays? Is there a rule that says an en.wiki article isn't supposed to link to a de.wiki article?
One last thing: do you think the Kaegi article could survive a Featured Article process and would you support it if necessary? Regards,--Tellus archivist (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just created the Spoerri article as a start; please expand it if you want to. Articles at en.wiki should not have links to de.wiki in the body, it is better to leave it as a Red link and hope somebody will create the article. And no, I do think the Kaegi article is to short to fulfill the FA criteria, sorry. Best wishes, Eisfbnore talk 20:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ellef Ringnes

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Amund Ringnes (brewery owner, 1840)

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Apr–Jun 2011

 Military history reviewers' award 
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period April-June 2011, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Far too kind; did I really get that one only for my support in Anna of East Anglia's FAC and my unhelpful comment in Quisling's ACR? But thanks anyway. --Eisfbnore talk 16:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

Dawson GAN

Hi - sorry, I've been mega busy with a summer course....could you extend the review perhaps another week or two and harass me on my talk if I do forget it? Thanks. Connormah (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback at my talk. Connormah (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter

We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are New Zealand Adabow (submissions) (Pool A, 189 points) and Russia PresN (submissions) (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from Scotland Casliber (submissions)) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from Another Believer (submissions)). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!

There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 11:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

Katyn FAR

What Flickr source?Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bad; must have seen before but now it's delightfully gone. Also, much good work has been done, but I'm still (like fifel) worried about the cherrypicking of sources. I'd recommend using some of the FR book sources; pop a request over at WP:REX if you haven't got access to them. Eisfbnore • talk 06:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

FLC List of National Treasures of Japan (writings: Japanese books)

A while ago you reviewed List of National Treasures of Japan (writings: Japanese books) for featured list. I think, I replied to all of your comments/questions/suggestions. If you still have any comments on the list, please leave them on the nomination page. If not, I'd be happy if you could leave a vote ("support" or "oppose") on the nomination page. Thanks. bamse (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Not trying to be a jerk, but I reverted you. Seriously: please let me know if there's something that I've missed here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are not a jerk, and you're probably right, so I will drop the issue. G'day to you. --Eisfbnore • talk 18:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

Any further comments?

Thanks for the changes to Background of the Spanish Civil War. I just wondered whether you had any further comments on its ACR (here), since it's close to the provisional 28-day period. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sao Paulo

Thanks for helping me out with this article – I really appreciate it. I've been rather busy with moving back up to college, seeing old friends, and shifting my circadian rhythm from 4pm->1am to 7am->3:30pm shifts, so my on-wiki time has basically disappeared. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thanks for writing it. --Eisfbnore • talk 10:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Re Sju hav, thanks for showing the template to use, that proved more efficient than my attempt. :) I'll remember that the next time the sailor appears Paaln (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. This is getting lame though - I' wondering when Sagvolden will cease thinking that he can do a clean start on Wikipedia through socking. --Eisfbnore • talk 06:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Offenbach references

Thank you for your recent tweaks to these references. I shall try to follow the same format in future articles. Can you kindly point me in the direction of the relevant WP page from which to get these encyclopaedia template refs? Tim riley (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for the thanks. See WP:CITET#Examples or {{cite encyclopedia}}. --Eisfbnore • talk 13:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter

The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:

  • Scotland Casliber (submissions), Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
  • Russia PresN (submissions), Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
  • Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
  • Ohio Wizardman (submissions), Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
  • Principality of Sealand Miyagawa (submissions), the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
  • Canada Resolute (submissions), the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
  • Greece Yellow Evan (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
  • Australia Sp33dyphil (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.

We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists, Another Believer (submissions), Poland Piotrus (submissions), United Kingdom Grandiose (submissions), Bavaria Stone (submissions), Norway Eisfbnore (submissions), Saskatchewan Canada Hky (submissions) and Wisconsin MuZemike (submissions). Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.

In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate Ucucha (talk · contribs). The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.

A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Major Schirmer

We seem to have photos of all the Schirmers but this one--though we have one made by him: File:Arkitektstudine på Bjølstad, Heidal.png. I saw that it was used in the German article, but didn't want to just stick it in 'your' article. Thanks, BTW, for improving our Nordic coverage. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

Gee whiz

You're on a roll! Thanks very much for catching all of these errors, not only on Moreno. :-) 19:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

:) Eisfbnore • talk 20:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paraná

Hi, Eisfbnore. There is quite sometime since we talked for the last time. I know that second paragrahy is way too large and I did it on purpose. I was unsure if I would be able to explain the historian's idea with my own words. So I transcribed them and Astynax will read it and simplify it. See here. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lecen and congrats with your new FA (the two year old)! Thanks for the clarification, but please keep in mind that quotes should be as short as possible. --Eisfbnore • talk 23:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on stations

The Railways Barnstar
For your excellent work on Norway railway stations. – Lionel (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged, Sir. Eisfbnore • talk 10:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Adventist University

Hi Eisfbnore! A WPConservatism article, Southern Adventist University, was nominated for GA but seems to be dying on the vine. I noticed you have experience at GAR, and was wondering is there any way to expedite the process? Thanks! – Lionel (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Eisfbnore • talk 10:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've had a peep, but I don't think I'll review it for GA, as the topic is too controversial and the article too long. Apart from Rædwald of East Anglia, I've never reviewed really long articles, as my command of written English is too poor for the copyediting that is required at GAN. I can give you my general expression of the article though: It looks very comprehensive, and the prose seems good, though the section 'Student life' is a bit peacocky. The prose of the 'School of Nursing' sect. has some hiccups, with stubby paragraphs and information tossed somewhat randomly together. Also check the formatting of the citations; should be consistent with templates in all or none cases. Cheers. --Eisfbnore • talk 11:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your decision and really appreciate your valuable feedback! TTFN – Lionel (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ernst G. Mortensen

Materialscientist (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Right Stuff: September 2011

The Right Stuff
September 2011
FROM THE EDITOR
An Historic Milestone

By Lionelt

 Welcome to the inaugural issue of The Right Stuff, the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. The Project has developed at a breakneck speed since it was created on February 12, 2011 with the edit summary, "Let's roll!" With over 50 members the need for a project newsletter is enormous. With over 3000 articles to watch, an active talk page and numerous critical discussions spread over various noticeboards, it has become increasingly difficult to manage the information overload. The goal of The Right Stuff is to help you keep up with the changing landscape.

The Right Stuff is a newsletter consisting of original reporting. Writers will use a byline to "sign" their contributions. Just as with The Signpost, "guidelines such as 'no ownership of articles', and particularly 'no original research', will not necessarily apply."

WikiProject Conservatism has a bright future ahead: this newsletter will allow us tell the story. All that's left to say is: "Let's roll!"

PROJECT NEWS
New Style Guide Unveiled

By Lionelt

 A new style guide to help standardize editing was rolled out. It focuses on concepts, people and organizations from a conservatism perspective. The guide features detailed article layouts for several types of articles. You can help improve it here. The Project's Article Collaboration currently has two nominations, but they don't appear to be generating much interest. You can get involved with the Collaboration here.

I am pleased to report that we have two new members: Rjensen and Soonersfan168. Rjensen is a professional historian and has access to JSTOR. Soonersfan168 says he is a "young conservative who desires to improve Wikipedia!" Unfortunately we will be seeing less of Geofferybard, as he has announced his semi-retirement. We wish him well. Be sure to stop by their talk pages and drop off some Wikilove.

ARTICLE REPORT
3,000th Article Tagged

By Lionelt

 On August 3rd Peter Oborne, a British journalist, became the Project's 3,000th tagged article. It is a tribute to the membership that we have come this far this quickly. The latest Featured Article is Richard Nixon. Our congratulations to Wehwalt for a job well done. The article with the most page views was Rick Perry with 887,389 views, not surprising considering he announced he was running for president on August 11th. Follwing Perry were Michele Bachmann and Tea Party movement. The Project was ranked 75th based on total edits, which is up from 105th in July. The article with the most edits was Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 with 374 edits. An RFC regarding candidate inclusion criteria generated much interest on the talk page.


WikiCup 2011 September newsletter

We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by Principality of Sealand Miyagawa (submissions), Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions) and Australia Sp33dyphil (submissions), all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.

If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 12:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jul-Sep 2011

 The WikiChevrons 
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period Jul-Sept 2011, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. Cheers, Buggie111 (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Eisfbnore/Archive 2! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Background of the Spanish Civil War FAC

As a commenter on the ACR for this article, and with the FAC in need of further input, I would welcome you to comment there. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Grandiose. It grieves me to say it, but I don't think I have anything to add to that FAC. As a non-native English reader, I believe that my copyediting the article will be of little or no value. I might also add that my knowledge of the topic is primarily based on what I've read in secondary school textbooks, and thus not very helpful for a review. I could do a source review (which is one of the very few things I'm good at), but methinks Nikkimaria already has done a very good one. I wish you good luck with it though; it looks very comprehensive. Best, Eisfbnore • talk 14:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Common Tunnel

Looks like we have an edit conflict for the Common Tunnel, as I was working on it when you did the improvements. I've tried to incorporate your changes, left out one sentence which was a bit awkward, and my apologies if I left out anything else you did to the article. Arsenikk (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just one comment: the Ministry of Transport and Communications did not exist until after the war. Before then, transport issues were in the portfolio of the Ministry of Labour (Norway 1885–1946). Arsenikk (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; I could agree that the grammar was a bit awkward. The prose reads much better now. --Eisfbnore • talk 09:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2011 October newsletter

The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009) and Sturmvogel_66 (2010). The final standings were as follows:

  1. Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions)
  2. Australia Sp33dyphil (submissions)
  3. Greece Yellow Evan (submissions)
  4. Principality of Sealand Miyagawa (submissions)
  5. Ohio Wizardman (submissions)
  6. Scotland Casliber (submissions)
  7. Canada Resolute (submissions)
  8. Russia PresN (submissions)

Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.

No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.

Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Right Stuff: October 2011

The Right Stuff
October 2011
INTERVIEW
An Interview with Dank

By Lionelt

The Right Stuff caught up with Dank, the recently elected Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Military History. MILHIST is considered by many to be one of the most successful projects in the English Wikipedia.

Q: Tell us a little about yourself.
A: I'm Dan, a Wikipedian since 2007, from North Carolina. I started out with an interest in history, robotics, style guidelines, and copyediting. These days, I'm the lead coordinator for the Military History Project and a reviewer of Featured Article Candidates. I've been an administrator and maintained WP:Update, a summary of policy changes, since 2008.

Q: What is your experience with WikiProjects?
A: I guess I'm most familiar with WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS, and I'm trying to get up to speed at WP:AVIATION. I've probably talked with members of most of the wikiprojects at one time or another.

Q: What makes a WikiProject successful?
A: A lot of occasional contributors who think of the project as fun rather than work, a fair number of people willing to write or review articles, a small core of like-minded people who are dedicated to building and maintaining the project, and access to at least a few people who are familiar with reviewing standards and with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Q: Do you have any tips for increasing membership?
A: Aim for a consistent, helpful and professional image. Let people know what the project is doing and what they could be doing, but don't push.





If you've got a core group interested in building a wikiproject, it helps if they do more listening than talking at first ... find out what people are trying to do, and offer them help with whatever it is. Some wikiprojects build membership by helping people get articles through the review processes.

DISCUSSION REPORT
Abortion Case Plods Along

By Lionelt

The arbitration request submitted by Steven Zhang moved into its second month. The case, which evaluates user conduct, arose from contentious discussions regarding the naming of the Pro-life and Pro-choice articles, and a related issue pertaining to the inclusion of "death" in the lede of Abortion. A number of members are involved. On the Evidence page ArtifexMahem posted a table indicating that DMSBel made the most edits to the Abortion article. DMSBel has announced their semi-retirement. Fact finding regarding individual editor behavior has begun in earnest on theWorkshop page.

Last month it was decided that due to the success of the new Dispute Resolution Noticeboard the Content Noticeboard would be shut down. Wikiquette Assistance will remain active. The DRN is primarily intended to resolve content disputes.

PROJECT NEWS
Article Incubator Launched

By Lionelt

Was your article deleted in spite of your best efforts to save it? You should consider having a copy restored to the Incubator where project members can help improve it. Upon meeting content criteria, articles are graduated to mainspace. The Incubator is also ideal for collaborating on new article drafts. Star Parker is the first addition to the incubator. The article was deleted per WP:POLITICIAN.

WikiProject Conservatism is expanding. We now have a satellite on Commons. Any help in categorizing images or in getting the fledgling project off the ground is appreciated.

We have a few new members who joined the project in September. Please give a hearty welcome to Conservative Philosopher, Screwball23 and Regushee by showing them some Wikilove. Screwball23 has been on WikiPedia for five years and has made major improvements to Linda McMahon. Regushee is not one for idle chit chat: an amazing 93% of their edits are in article space.


2011 WikiCup participation

Awarded to Eisfbnore, who reached round 4, the semi-finals, in the 2011 WikiCup.

It was good to have you on board this time around- we hope you enjoyed the competition! In case you are interested, signups for next year are open. Thanks, J Milburn and The ed17 21:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Right Stuff: November 2011

The Right Stuff
August 2018
PROJECT NEWS
WikiProject Conservatism faces the ultimate test

By Lionelt

On October 7, WikiProject Conservatism was nominated for deletion by member Binksternet. He based his rationale on what he described as an undefinable scope, stating that the project is "at its root undesirable". Of the 40 participants in the discussion, some agreed that the scope was problematic; however, they felt it did not justify deletion of the project. A number of participants suggested moving the project to "WikiProject American conservatism". The overwhelming sentiment was expressed by Guerillero who wrote: "A project is a group of people. This particular group does great work in their topic area[,] why prevent them from doing this[?]" In the end there was negligible opposition to the project and the result of the discussion was "Keep". The proceedings of the deletion discussion were picked up by The Signpost, calling the unfolding drama "the first MfD of its kind". The Signpost observed that attempting to delete an active project was unprecedented. The story itself became a source of controversy which played out at the Discuss This Story section, and also at the author's talk page.

Two days after the project was nominated, the Conservatism Portal was also nominated for deletion as "too US-biased". There was no support for deletion amongst the 10 participants, with one suggestion to rename the portal.

In other news, a new portal focusing on conservatism has been created at WikiSource. Wikisource is an online library of free content publications with 254,051 accessible texts. One highlight of the portal's content is Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke.

October saw a 6.4% increase in new members, bringing the total membership to 58. Seven of the eight new members joined after October 12; the deletion discussions may have played a role in the membership spike. Mwhite148 is a member of the UK Conservative Party. Stating that he is not a conservative, Kleinzach noted his "lifetime interest in British, European and international politics." Let's all make an effort to welcome the new members with an outpouring of Wikilove.


Click here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.

DISCUSSION REPORT
Timeline of conservatism is moved

By Lionelt

Timeline of conservatism, a Top-importance list, was nominated for deletion on October 3. The nominator stated that since conservatism in an "ambiguous concept", the timeline suffers from original research. There were a number of "Delete", as well as "Keep" votes. The closing administrator reasoned that consensus dictated that the list be renamed. The current title is Timeline of modern American conservatism.


Reply

Hello, Eisfbnore. You have new messages at WilliamH's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

What do you think?

Do you think EUR-pallet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the recurring contributor (the one who always spams WT:NORWAY)? Based on his contributions? Geschichte (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am no longer in doubt after seeing that 85.196.118.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has edited many of the same articles. The 85 IP was blocked this night, for one month. Geschichte (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Not unlikely, methinks, though Sju hav seems to use IPs to avoid being caught in his SPI. He seems to use either a public library or a mobile connection, which regrettably means that we're going to have to combat this unremitting spamming for some uncertain period. A semi-protection of WT:NORWAY could perhaps do? --Eisfbnore talk 12:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Would you mind blocking 83.241.234.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as well? --Eisfbnore talk 12:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about Toriland (talk · contribs)? Geschichte (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so; she seems to merely edit (relatively) uncontroversial articles on Berit Ås and the Women's University. The fact that Sju hav's sock farm has occasionally vandalised some of these articles does in my opinion not justify a link between these accounts. --Eisfbnore talk 17:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record I blocked an IP editing both the Women's University and Berit Ås today. The person now also spams Meco's user talk. Geschichte (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about Riambrid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Geschichte (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can smell Sju hav's odour in his contributions, though I think I'll wait and see if he does any harm. --Eisfbnore talk 16:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into the Sørensen thing. In the meantime, what about Chadburrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? See for instance at Satellittkrigen where the name is translated, much in the style of Sju hav. Geschichte (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly – take your time. Indeed, I do think that the above user is a sock, not only because of the title translations, but also because of the erroneous use of em-dashes in place of en-dashes. --Eisfbnore talk 21:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about 24 moto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Same style of talk page and project talk page edits. Geschichte (talk) 08:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems likely, but his trolling seems rather sweet and harmless for the moment. Let's wait and see. Eisfbnore talk 08:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Template on Richard Nixon and edit summary civility

Your removal of the "long lead" template without discussing it was inappropriate and has been reverted. If you had looked at the Talk page first, you would have noticed there was not only a discussion on whether or not the template should stay, it had evolved into a very productive discussion where three editors reached compromise and consensus on improving the lead. Also, your edit summary "Rubbish" was uncivil. As the civility guideline states:

Be careful with edit summaries. Edit summaries are relatively short comments, and thus potentially subject to misinterpretation or oversimplification. They cannot be changed after pressing "Save", and are often written in haste, particularly in stressful situations. Remember to explain your edit, especially when things are getting heated; to avoid personal comments about any editors you have disputes with; and to use the talk page to further explain your view of the situation.

Future uncivil edit summaries will result in a Wikiquette Alert discussion being opened about your actions. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eisfbnore's edit summary was directed at a template, and you cannot be uncivil to templates, only editors. This is not even remotely an issue for WP:WQA. May I suggest that you calm down and assume good faith.– Lionel (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi & sorry for the uncivil comment in the edit summary. I only considered it a bit frivolous to add a such cleanup template at the top of an article that had already gone through FAC. --Eisfbnore talk 11:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lionel, calling someone's edit, including adding a template "rubbish" is uncivil, no two ways about it, as is telling someone to "calm down" and throwing WP:AGF (which actually states "be careful about citing this principle too aggressively") around. Eisfbnore, I appreciate the apology. Regarding the edit, as I cited in the article's talk page, even Wikipedia policies state that FA's may still have room from improvement, and editors should still be bold in making edits where they see fit. There was nothing drastic that needed to be changed, but I do believe the new lead the three of us worked on there is more readable and improves the article, so it's a win all around. Cheers! Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Broder Knudtzon

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Broder Knudtzon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for the review. Responses left at the review page. --Eisfbnore talk 17:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2012 WikiCup

Hi! As you've previously expressed interest in the competition, I'm just letting you know that the 2012 WikiCup is due to start in less than 24 hours. Signups are open, and will remain so for a few weeks after the beginning of the competition. The competition itself will follow basically the same format as last year, with a few small tweaks to point costs to reflect the opinions of the community. If you're interested in taking part, you're more than welcome, and if you know anyone who might be, please let them know too- the more the merrier! To join, simply add your name to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2012 signups, and we will be in touch. Please feel free to direct any questions to me, or leave a note on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! You are receiving this note as you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Please feel free to add or remove yourself. J Milburn (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your question at Template:Did you know nominations/Silvio (horse), Blair Athol (horse)

In regards to your question at Template:Did you know nominations/Silvio (horse), Blair Athol (horse), traditionally DYK has not required all articles to fully support a hook fact. I can even remember cases where none of the articles fully supported the hook fact but required the reviewer to pull factoids from multiple articles (e.g. a set of biology articles about plants where the hook mentions all the listed plants share a common trait and the individual articles only mentioning the trait for the plant described by said article, thus requiring the reviewer to confirm the trait for each plant one article at a time). --Allen3 talk 10:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Good to know for future reference. Happy new year. --Eisfbnore talk 14:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shoddy?

Hei Eisfbnore. I came to apologise for the sarcastic point I made at DYK, but I was surprised to find you summarised another editors article as "shoddy". If this is someone's 2nd go at DYK then do you think they will try a 3rd? DYK is intended to be a collaborative project with a pleasant atmosphere. Actually the whole of Wikipedia is meant to be like that. Please reconsider whether you could help this editor or maybe leave it for a few days to see if someone who wants to help comes along. I'nm not going to threaten as someone did above. Please have a think. Victuallers (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hei to you too. I'm sorry about the 'shoddy' comment - the article wasn't that bad. OTOH, I've heard far worse things been said about my DYK nominations, but I'm still nominating. I think most people are able to absorb criticism as long as its legitimate, and I maintain that I've seen better writing than in the article. But as an ESL, who am I to talk? --Eisfbnore talk 19:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jørgen von Cappelen Knudtzon

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Niels Wulfsberg, Tiden (newspaper)

Hello! Your submission of Niels Wulfsberg, Tiden (newspaper) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mikenorton (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Niels Wulfsberg

The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Tiden (newspaper)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct-Dec 2011

The Content Review Medal of Merit
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period October–December 2011, I am delighted to award you the Content Review Medal. Buggie111 (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

due to / owing to

Hi, Noticed your change from due to to owing to on Dreyfus affair. I'm a bit of a language maven like you are (do you insert periods inadvertently left off the end of sentences in printed books, like I do?) but you're beating a dead horse here.

There's certainly no reason to change it back, as they're basically equivalent now, but the time for this distinction is past, just like, say, the stricture of not ending a sentence with a preposition. Plenty of stuff all over the web about due/owing to, here's one for your amusement. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I've also been told that the due to/owing to distinction is actually not a matter of grammar, but a matter of difference between Br. and Am. Eng! I think that also begs the question if there is any real difference between attributable to and on account of. Anyway, I'm delighted that there are more grammar nazis out there; we seem certainly to be a dwindling band! Best wishes. Eisfbnore talk 09:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Christian Friele

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Conservative Press Association

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stian Heimlund Skjæveland

Hi, I reverted your revert on Stian Heimlund Skjæveland, the problem is not weasel words, but lack of references, if the content is backed up by reliable references from good sources in Norway it can of course be added. The problem is that there seems to be very little such content about this artist, thus there is not much to write about, from our point of view. Best regards, Ulflarsen (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My preference is to tag the content as unreferenced, and then wait until someone comes up with a reference. If nothing happens, we of course can remove the uncited content. Best, --Eisfbnore talk 13:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been without references for years, same goes for the similar article on Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål and Nynorsk, both have been reduced to what can be referenced. There are no references, most probably because they can not be provided. It would be good if you also commented on your changes/revert on the article's discussion page. Best regagards, Ulflarsen (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter

WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is Conradh na Gaeilge Grapple X (submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by Minnesota Ruby2010 (submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is Mauritius Jivesh boodhun (submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.

  • Florida 12george1 (submissions) was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
  • Florida 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
  • Russia Sp33dyphil (submissions) was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
  • Russia Sp33dyphil (submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
  • Byzantine Empire Speciate (submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
  • Mauritius Jivesh boodhun (submissions) was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Right Stuff: January 2012

The Right Stuff
January 2012
ARTICLE REPORT
Wikipedia's Newest Featured Portal: Conservatism

By Lionelt

On January 21, The Conservatism Portal was promoted to Featured Portal (FP) due largely to the contributions of Lionelt. This is the first Featured content produced by WikiProject Conservatism. The road to Featured class was rocky. An earlier nomination for FP failed, and in October the portal was "Kept" after being nominated for deletion.

Member Eisfbnore significantly contributed to the successful Good Article nomination of Norwegian journalist and newspaper editor Nils Vogt in December. Eisfbnore also created the article. In January another Project article was promoted to Featured Article. Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, a president of Brazil, attained Featured class with significant effort by Lecen. The Article Incubator saw its first graduation in November. A collaboration spearheaded by Mzk1 and Trackerseal successfully developed Star Parker to pass the notability guideline.

PROJECT NEWS
Project Scope Debated

By Lionelt

Another discussion addressing the project scope began in December. Nine alternatives were presented in the contentious, sometimes heated discussion. Support was divided between keeping the exitsing scope, or adopting a scope with more specificity. Some opponents of the specific scope were concerned that it was too limiting and would adversely affect project size. About twenty editors participated in the discussion.

Inclusion of the article Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was debated. Supporters for inclusion cited sources describing the KKK as "conservative." The article was excluded with more than 10 editors participating.

Project membership continues to grow. There are currently 73 members. Member Goldblooded (pictured) volunteers for the UK Conservative Party and JohnChrysostom is a Christian Democrat. North8000 is interested in libertarianism. We won't tell WikiProject Libertarianism he's slumming. Let's stop by their talkpages and share some Wikilove.

Click here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.

DISCUSSION REPORT
Why is Everyone Talking About Rick Santorum?

By Lionelt

Articles about the GOP presidential candidate and staunch traditional marriage supporter have seen an explosion of discussion. On January 8 an RFC was opened (here) to determine if Dan Savage's website link should be included in Campaign for "santorum" neologism. The next day the Rick Santorum article itself was the subject of an RFC (here) to determine if including the Savage neologism was a violation of the BLP policy. Soon after a third was opened (here) at Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. This RFC proposes merging the neologism article into the controversy article.

The Abortion case closed in November after 15 weeks of contentious arbitration. The remedies include semi-protection of all abortion articles (numbering 1,500), sanctions for some editors including members of this Project, and a provision for a discussion to determine the names of what are colloquially known as the pro-life and pro-choice articles. The Committee endorsed the "1 revert rule" for abortion articles.


Whatever

...they all knew what I meant. ;-) Thank you! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, not a problem. BTW, there's something odd about the 2nd para of the "Response: Argentina and Chile's dreadnought orders" section. What's up with the lowercase "to"? --Eisfbnore talk 20:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, that's from me dividing the paragraph after finding a new source and completely forgetting to fix the beginning of the new paragraph. Or put simply, this. Thanks for catching that. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Russell Burnham

see User talk:Ctatkinson‎‎ where the primary author has thanked me for my help. Alarbus (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'll guess he wants to thank you when he wants to edit the page, with 97 load time-expensive templates looming in the horizon. --Eisfbnore talk 11:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
a) I didn't add the templates, b) I actually know quite a lot about how to avoid poor load times without forgoing the use of useful templates. Honestly, you shouldn't be surprised to find references in the references section. The practise of embedding them in the prose is an artefact of an early version of MediaWiki that could not handle them any other way. This has since been fixed. Alarbus (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Due to and Owing to

I noticed your comment on the Washington Quarter FAC page. I believe I am right in thinking that there is a difference in British usage and American usage. In British usage "He was late due to snow" is wrong and should be "...owing to". But, I am pretty sure, in American usage "He was late due to snow" is OK. Tim riley (talk) 07:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, as you see, I've been told that maintaining the difference between the two is virtually beating a dead prescriptivist horse! :) Too bad that our own article on English grammar doesn't give us any decent advice... --Eisfbnore 07:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]