User talk:Figureskatingfan/Archive 16

Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20


A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
You technically deserve 5,125,839 more barnstars but that would take way to long on my end! :P

If it wasn't for you the GA Cup would of never have happened and the backlog would probably be 600+ right now! Dom497 (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Woman climbing

I nominated "yours" for TFA: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fanny Bullock Workman, in women's history month, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

But @Gerda Arendt: it's not "mine"; it's User:Wadewitz's. Very nice thought, since she deserves that one of her articles is TFA during March. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Falcon's Fury

Hey,

Do you review FAC's? If so, would you mind reviewing Falcon's Fury for me please? If not, no worries! It's on its fourth nomination (the other three were closed because not enough people responded) so even if you know someone else who might be interested, it would help a lot! :) --Dom497 (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey to you! Yah, I review FACs and am happy to assist. I can't tell you how many times I've gone through the exact thing. I've resorted to building a posse of folks who I know that I can count on to review my FACs. That's not canvassing; it's just ensuring that articles are reviewed and no one wastes their time. I have some time tomorrow, so I'll go take a look then. I have an FLC currently, but they're better at reviewing lists over there and they're making me do some sorely needed stuff to improve it. BTW, I have next week off, and starting a discussion about the next GA Cup is on my to-do list! I also want to go through the feedback. Cheers, mate! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Regarding the GA Cup, I'm on vacation from the 14th to 22nd so I won't be able to be part of any discussions until after next week.--Dom497 (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Good to know. No worries, there's no hurry. I was thinking we'd start up again late summer (Aug?), so I'm good with postponing discussion. Have a great time, whatever you're doing! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm ready to start when you are! :) --Dom497 (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@Dom497: now it's my turn to be busy! I'll try and look at the feedback tomorrow and contact you through email in the next couple of days. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I know I've been pretty inactive lately but I'm ready to get started (given that it might take a while with how many other things I have on my plate for the next 2 months).--Dom497 (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I've been pretty busy as well, but am looking at my time of summer unemployment, so I'll have more time to devote to our next round as well. I'm spending some time this afternoon, and plan on more tomorrow. I'm working on an email to send out to you guys by the end of tomorrow afternoon, so expect that from me. Thanks for the nudge. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Videos as citation sources

I have a question regarding the use of videos as sources. In the performers section of 84th Academy Awards list, some users (including 'Atomic Meltdown) want to put the songs (or actually singing about the Best Picture nominees in tune with popular songs) that host Billy Crystal performed in his opening monologue. Atomic Meltdown uses this article from The Hollywood Reporter as a source. The article contains a video of Billy Crystal performing the songs, but the article itself does not say or indicate word for word in the text what he is actually singing (i.e. singing about Midnight in Paris to the tune of "The Last Time I Saw Paris"). I know what Crystal sang is true, but for the sake of Wikipedia standards, is this acceptable?

--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
@Birdienest81: I looked at the nature of the controversy, and I fall on your side. When you cite a source, it has to support the statements you make in the article. If the Hollywood Reporter article doesn't report on what Crystal sang (or did), you can't use it to support content about the song. It's my understanding that we can't use a YouTube clip as a source. You can, however, use the broadcast itself as a source. I suggest that you include the information as a note, and support it with the broadcast. I warn you, though, that it might not fly at FAC, but it won't hurt to try. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


Fanny Bullock Workman

Hello Figureskatingfan,

Very well done. I imagine that Wadewitz would be proud. If you have any interest in improving other articles about women mountaineers, let me know. I have worked on a few. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah thanks, you're so nice, but it wasn't just me. User:Adam Cuerden also helped. But I'm honored to have a small part in the promotion of Workman's article, and agree that Adrienne would have been pleased. Please let me know how I can assist with your women mountaineer articles. I want to help promote some of Adrienne's other articles, but things have been way busy this spring. I hope to get to it this summer, so I'll ask for you help if and/or when I need it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
It was almost all you. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
What?!! Humility in Wikipedia?! I'm not sure I recognize what it looks like, having never seen it before! ;) Oh, you guys! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for "raising it up in her memory", precious again, see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
When you have time, take a look at Miriam O'Brien Underhill and Arlene Blum. The second one has some issues with promotionalism. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a little thank-you note...

The Barnstar of Good Humor
For your recent kindness, and more generally your unfailing ability to combine good sense with good fun... a rare and deeply appreciated trait, not only on Wiki but the Internet at large. Shoebox2 talk 03:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Shoebox2: what a good egg you are. I appreciate the kind words. I'm glad that my sillynes has inspired you to contribute to our project more. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikicup points

Forgot to record my wikicup submission of Bazy Tankersley for FAC until today; it passed about a week ago. Montanabw(talk) 01:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: the bot hasn't come by yet; I'm sure that it will soon, unless it's programmed to stop after the end of this round. If so, I'll add it by hand, since I checked and you indeed worked on the FA during the round. Make sure that you're more expeditious the next round, please. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Heh, I had wikidrama (see Talk:Mustang... ;-P ), forgot about wikicup, thought the round had ended in March and I was out, only realized yesterday that it ran two months, not one! May be out anyway, but at least not without a fight! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 15:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Just checked, and ya made it, pal! Whoot! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Wow! I actually can't believe I pulled it off! I washed out in round 3 last year, but we shall see, I guess! Montanabw(talk) 06:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello from the team at Featured article review!

We are preparing to take a closer look at Featured articles promoted in 2004–2010 that may need a review. We started with a script-compiled list of older FAs that have not had a recent formal review. The next step is to prune the list by removing articles that are still actively maintained, up-to-date, and believed to meet current standards. We know that many of you personally maintain articles that you nominated, so we'd appreciate your help in winnowing the list where appropriate.

Please take a look at the sandbox list, check over the FAs listed by your name, and indicate on the sandbox talk page your assessment of their current status. Likewise, if you have taken on the maintenance of any listed FAs that were originally nominated by a departed editor, please indicate their status. BLPs should be given especially careful consideration.

Thanks for your help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Please respond at Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/sandbox#Pinging next round; thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Another one

Hi again, Another GA question and this one I sincerely think is in a real gray area so if you want me to post at the wikicup scoring talk page, I can, but figured hitting you up directly would be quicker. Talk:Jackalope/GA1 just passed. I did work on it prior to this year, babysat it from (tons of) vandals over the year and helped some with the GA push, but I think Finetooth did a lot more of the heavy lifting. see history. I am not sure if I can claim wikicup points for my efforts (18 edits since January 1 to the article plus participation in the GAN). It's important to me that I not "game the system" so thought I'd ask. (If you say no, I can live with that, my wikicup goal this year is to make it to round four, one more round than last year, LOL!). Montanabw(talk) 22:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Just jumping in here as you haven't had a response - I've taken a look and I don't think that it's even close to qualifying. Typically to gain the points you'd expect to see a large chunk of expansion to an article but in this case I've taken a look at your edits in 2015 and they appear to be either rearrangements or copyedits/tweaks. Sorry! Miyagawa (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yah, sorry I spaced the question. My answer was gonna be, "I dunno, I'll go ask Miyagawa." His answer sounds reasonable to me, and how I suspected it'd go. I'm such a girl, I was afraid of disappointing you, Montanabw, so I avoided answering. ;) Actually, no I really spaced finding out the answer, so I appreciate M stepping in and answering it for me. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
No worries, that's why I asked! I don't ever want to claim points for something that's not claimable! Hugs all and thanks for all you do! Montanabw(talk) 23:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Sesame Street response

This time for the Sesame Street part, all I did was sort the roles of the Two-Headed Monster by who did each head, mentioned about Alan being Japanese with his actor Alan Muraoka's Facebook account mentioning about Jennifer Barnhart performing Zoe by next season as well as an Instagram photo of her performing Zoe, correcting the link to Goldilocks and the Three Bears following a redirect from The Story of the Three Bears, and mentioning how Abby Cadabby has pink fur. Was there anything else that I left out? --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rtkat3: you're missing my point, something I've tried to convey to you over and over again. The redirect is fine, which is why it remains. Your other additions, however, don't have reliable sources. Instagram and Twitter are not reliable and don't belong as sources in an encyclopedia, and I will continue to revert them unless you find reliable sources. Yes Abby has pink fur (which you misspelled, btw), but that information is not contained in the source used. Every assertion in this list (and every Wikipedia article, actually) needs to be supported by a reliable source. This is especially true for this list because it's so prone to editors (hmm, like you) adding bits of trivia and info they remember from watching The Show as children. This list is also a FL, and additions like the ones you tend to make will cause it to be delisted. So I ask you again, although I suspect you'll continue to not listen, to please refrain from making them. If your changes aren't supported by reliable sources, I will continue to revert you. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Christine. A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. I had to squeeze the summary down to around 1200 characters; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? Also ... I wasn't sure if there were more than 9 Emmy nominations from the text, can you check on that? - Dank (push to talk) 19:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice to have an image run with the TFA column ... File:Steve Burns of Blue's Clues.jpg is one possibility, though he's quite a bit older there. Is there an image you prefer? - Dank (push to talk) 21:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Dank: Wow, how cool is that; Blue's Clues as TFA. Thanks! The summary looks fine. The Emmy awards count is as correct as it could be, since the source cited is the only one I could find that supports any number. The picture is also okay, but just. One of the challenges with this article (as it seems to be for most children's TV programs) is finding good and free images. Burns' picture isn't great and it shows him at a later time than when he was on BC, but it's the only one that's at least somewhat usable. The other option is to use the logo in the userbox, if that's possible. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Dank - I considered the Burns image, but a) it's too small to be cropped properly and b) it strikes me as too dark to show up well on the MP. Sadly, Christine, we can't use the logo, as non-free images aren't allowed on the MP. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
In that case, the best choice, alas, is no image. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Good to know, Chris ... small as in not enough pixels? Christine, yeah, I'm happy to see Blue's Clues at TFA too. Judging from IMDB (which we can't use), the Emmy count isn't very helpful, so I'm going to pull it (from TFA, not from the article). If you find a source that covers through 2005, I can put it back in. - Dank (push to talk) 00:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't even know about it. @Dank: what do you think? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Chris? - Dank (push to talk) 22:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for giving us the clues to your "son's favorite thing in the universe"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, Gerda, and thank you! In some ways, George has inspired all that I do on Wikipedia. I always say, "You wanna change the world? Edit for WP!" That kid, despite his significant limitations, has done so. Such an inspiration, that kid! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Christine. I'm just posting to let you know that List of Sesame Street Muppets – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for June 29. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Season 46 of Sesame Street

Figureskatingfan, I was wondering if you are looking forward to Season 46 of Sesame Street. Upon the photos that Sesame Street's Facebook page unleashed, the set has been redesigned where Big Bird's nest is nestled near a tree, Elmo's apartment has been transferred to 123 Sesame Street, Cookie Monster is now living in an apartment above the redesigned Hooper's Store, and there is a community center. Now that would be a big update for the page about this show's location once Season 46 debuts. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rtkat3: that's very cool, but could you provide some sources? Because remember that we can't add anything to any article without a reliable source. Also remember that press releases aren't enough. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Your Op-Ed

I am sorry that your op-ed did not run this week. It is 100% my fault, and again, I apologize for the delay. It is cued up and will definitely run this coming week. Thank you again for the submission. Go Phightins! 19:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we need to add more

@Figureskatingfan: So after reading the discussion that was brought up on the GA talk page, I'm thinking that we may/should add some info about how the verification process will work (since almost everyone associates competition with cheating). Adding this info would be more just to earn the trust of potential participants and prove the legitimacy of the competition.--Dom497 (talk) 02:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dom497: Yah, I think that would be okay to add to the rules or to the general info page. I guess I didn't realize that it was needed, since I'd think that it'd be self-evident that judges check all entries. The WikiCup doesn't even bother with it. But it won't hurt, so go ahead. BTW, did you mean to ask this here? If not, I'll move it over to my talk page. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@Figureskatingfan: I meant it to be here but I guess it would have been more easy to put it on your talk page. I'll add some stuff tomorrow and ping you to take a look at it. :) --Dom497 (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
@Dom497: I went ahead and moved this here, if only because I wouldn't have seen your response if you hadn't pinged me. I pinged you because I'm not sure if you have my talk page watchlisted like I have yours. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I just realized that it is already mentioned that all reviewers are looked over! (epic fail)--Dom497 (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Ha ha, that's what we both get for trusting in your conscientiousness. You'll do well in university; you even make sure you do what you've already done! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: Signpost

Great writeup in The Signpost this week! Thank you for all that you do. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you're welcome, AB! Right back at ya! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Figureskatingfan. You have new messages at Quadell's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GA Cup

Wrote up a quick draft for a newsletter to go out a few days before the competition starts. It's pretty much the same as the one we sent out last year.--Dom497 (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Duh, I forgot that we need to do that. Thanks for thinking of it, and for writing something. It looks good; I have no criticisms. Perhaps you could publish it by tomorrow morning? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Greetings

Hello, Figureskatingfan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

GA Cup Reminder

Remember to provide your user signature when you review a submission. :) --Dom497 (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Just one more thing. What are we doing in the case of this. Obviously under 1000 characters but does mention things that need to be fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm of two minds about this. The rules state that no review under 1000 characters will be allowed; however, they also state that exceptions should be made at the discretion of the judge. I'm thinking that perhaps we should be strict about the 1000 characters, especially in the early rounds. OTOH, I think that it's clear that the reviewer submitted the entry on good faith. The other review he's submitted thus far is way over the character limit, and the review in question seems to be complete in that the article fulfills the GA criteria. Of course, what complicates things is that Jonas was the article's nominator, and if we allow it, he can accuse us with favoritism. However, it proves our point that there's a difference between short and complete reviews and Jonas' attempts to game the system. I may need to sleep on this, but what's your opinion? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Did you read my email? I say we just use our judgment. If we believe that the review is complete but under 1000 characters, so be it, we still give the points. Who cares what Jonas thinks anyways?--Dom497 (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Forgot to sign the submission!!! :D --Dom497 (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, do you happen to know specifics about Harry Potter by any chance? If you do, what is this house called: youtu.be/-oeHJmwD-sQ?t=5m15s. I remember watching it in the films but have no idea how to describe it!--Dom497 (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Tyrone Garland FAN

Hello. I have nominated the Tyrone Garland article for featured article review. It may not be long enough, but I am ready to make whatever changes you say are necessary. If you are interested in reviewing it, please initiate the review. TempleM (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Just an FYI

Hi, FSF! Just an FYI. Given your work on Sesame Street-related articles, I thought I would bring Word Party to your attention. Also, I redirect Henson Digital Puppetry Studio to The Jim Henson Company, but I am not sure whether or not the studio is notable enough for its own article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Very cool, will definitely check it out with the kiddos. I think that re-direct was a good idea. What I'm really excited about, though, is the new Muppet series. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 September newsletter

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

 All-Around Amazing Barnstar
For all you've done over the years. :) Sorry I had to ditch the GA Cup half way through. --Dom497 (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks pal. You're the best. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Would this RfC ...

... be up your alley? —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 20:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015: The results

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

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

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

A full list of our award winners are:

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

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

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Season 46 of Sesame Street #2

Christine, I was wondering if you heard the news that Season 46 of Sesame Street will air in January of 2016. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure, but it's something that can be easily looked up, even with a reliable source. The article is currently up-to-date, with info about the move to HBO. Is there a problem? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello Figureskatingfan: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 20:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

@Northamerica1000: thanks so much! Merry Christmas to you, too. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 is just around the corner...

Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.

After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine (User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason (User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew (User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.

We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.

The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Figureskatingfan (talk), and Godot13 (talk).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings!

Hello Figureskatingfan: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Esquivalience t 23:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Season's Greetings

 Wishing you a Charlie Brown
Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄
Best wishes for your Christmas
Is all you get from me
'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus
Don't own no Christmas tree.
But if wishes was health and money
I'd fill your buck-skin poke
Your doctor would go hungry
An' you never would be broke."
—C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914.
Montanabw(talk)

User:Montanabw: Thanks, pal! Same to you and more of it! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Caged bird2.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Caged bird2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Track and field/GA2 review for WikiCup needs to be addressed

Figureskatingfan, it's always a bit of a crapshoot when inexperienced people review Good Article nominations, as you know from the GA Cup, and it's important to make sure that those who don't do an adequate job are informed of the issues. As it turns out, 333-blue passed this article with only minimal comments, and without reference to the specific GA criteria. I see that 333-blue has done one previous GA review, back in October, which was similarly brief and also without apparent reference to the criteria.

It seems a shame that the oldest unreviewed GA nomination should get caught up in this situation. Ideally, the review should be reversed; it certainly doesn't meet WikiCup guidelines, and doesn't meet GA review guidelines. In any event, it is clearly ineligible for WikiCup credit. I hope you and the other judges will be keeping a close eye on early WikiCup GA reviews to ensure proper quality. Thank you for your consideration, and I hope to see action on this matter soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I took a harder look at the article, found issues that no GA should be listed with. This is serious enough that I reverted the results of the review (and closed it, putting the nomination back in the pool with its seniority intact). The so-called review isn't, and the (clearly inexperienced) reviewer should not be allowed to continue on such a long, complex article, so I added a closing comment to the review page. (You might want to note that this edit added a brief section to the review 19 minutes after I posted the above to your page, even though the article had already been added to the GA list, as if to make the review more robust. If the reviewer is to continue submitting GA reviews for the WikiCup, I'd like to request that a mentor be required to sign off on the review before it is finalized, so we don't have to reverse further GAs: it's not fair to the nominator to have to hear that the article isn't a GA after all, or to have to be dragged through the GA reassessment process. At this point, I should probably ping Sturmvogel 66 and Godot13, your fellow WikiCup judges, so they're aware of this issue. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Bluemoonset, thanks for spotting this. I've deleted his submission and posted to his talkpage my reasoning for doing so with a link to the GAN instructions on how to review. Thankfully you caught this before he'd closed the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Sturmvogel 66, I didn't catch it before he closed the review—I undid the close on the article talk page and removed the listing from the GA page. (No icon had been added to the article itself.) We've done that at GAN on occasion when reviews have been done by someone who clearly didn't understand the process or apply the criteria, so I was bold and did so again this time. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't check the history to see if it had closed. Anyways, I concur with your bold action to undo the close.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Everyone obviously has done the right thing in this situation. Thanks for bringing it to our attention, so that it was dealt with quickly. As you may or may not know, I'm also a judge (and co-creator) in the GA Cup. In both competitions we've had thus far, we had a problematic editor that tried to game the system and reviews GACs with minimum feedback and issues the nominator had to address. He was almost disqualified the first time, and he quit before getting too far the second. And all because he wanted to win the GA Cup. I'm not saying that 333-blue is doing the same here, but it's something to look out for, since there's precedence. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, Christine. I did know you were a GA Cup judge as well, which is why I originally referred to that competition and chose your talk page. I am a bit dismayed that despite suggestions by Sturmvogel 66 and me about GA reviewing on the editor's talk page yesterday, 333-blue has started a new GA review in much the format as last time, found a couple of issues (possible paragraph move and does the article stay on topic, though the latter is more a question) and missed some prose/grammar issues I found in a quick skim-through. Again, the article looks like an appropriate candidate for GA, but it will need some work (perhaps not much) to get there. And again, the new review has already been claimed for WikiCup credit, this time without having concluded. Oddly, there have been a couple of comments added to an ongoing review, Talk:Grodziskie/GA1, which is winding down and scheduled to be closed within the day due to lack of nominator response. I'm not quite sure what to make of them. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
He does seem to be a bit obtuse on the concept on how to review. I've deleted his submission and let him know again on his talk page. I'm wondering how much of this is the result of the language barrier as he's either Chinese or Taiwanese, IIRC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I tend to be a little paranoid about folks trying to game the system, mostly due to past experience in the GA Cup, but looking at things, it seems he's genuinely confused about GA criteria. I think that the way to handle it is the way we'd handle any submission: check if they fulfill the criteria, and if they don't, remove them. Also as judges, it's not our responsibility to mentor him and ensure that he understands how to review articles, although if anyone has the time, they can certainly try. I have some extra time early this week, so if I can, I will. So far, we're doing everything right. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
It has always struck me as a weakness in the GA and DYK review space that people who are not proficient in English nevertheless are welcome, if not urged or required, to review. How can someone who cannot write good prose or has problems with punctuation and grammar be expected to identify such problems in the articles they're checking? Anyone with a language barrier is going to produce reviews that miss not only prose and grammar issues, but will likely also miss more significant issues, such as close paraphrasing or even copyvios. In this case, we have someone who is not only confused by criteria, but who I don't think has the language skills to be an effective and accurate reviewer. I don't have the time to be a mentor myself, but I will keep an eye out to make sure no more premature review closures are done. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I just looked over 333-Blue's review of O Street Market and it appears pretty cursory. Happily, the article is actually in very good shape and would only need a few changes in the prose before I'd pass it. Weakness in English competency could be a real problem if we had more reviewers, but I don't know that we actually can solve it other than by monitoring all of the reviews, like you've been doing, Blue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Not only was it cursory, Sturmvogel 66, but 333-blue passed the nomination earlier today, and has no inclination to reverse himself or herself although acknowledging that problems remained with the article. The nominator had asked for help or a new reviewer at WT:DYK, and 333-blue was not really responsive. (I've noticed how questions and suggestions are frequently ignored; there's been no response to the mentor suggestion, or that someone do a confirmation check before a nomination is passed.) So my question is this: the review was open much longer this time, even if little business was done on the review page itself. Has it gone far enough that a reversal is not feasible? If so, I'll be opening a GAR, since the article isn't GA quality yet: there's that phrase I'd pointed out on 333-blue's talk page, but other issues as well, such as a Design section that's pretty impenetrable, too much detail (not summary style) in places, and at least one place where the cited source does not support the preceding sentence. I'll be pressed to find the time for a GAR, but I don't see how it can be avoided if the approval stands. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Just a note, Sturmvogel 66, since you've been most active in this thread: unless I hear otherwise here in the next few hours, I will be opening a Good Article Reassessment for O Street Market. And I've started adding a significant number of comments to the Talk:Hyōgo-ku, Kobe/GA1 review since the initial set was inadequately sparse and mostly incorrect, but 333-blue seems hellbent on closing it in the next 24 hours. I trust that, if that happens, no WikiCup credit will be forthcoming. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
And it looks like there's a new WikiCup reviewer who is quickfailing nominations with a two-line explanation: three so far. Christine, Sturmvogel 66, and Godot13—one of you might want to break the news on acceptable reviews to this participant before more damage is done. One of the nominators has already put the nomination back in the reviewing pool (with no loss of seniority); I'll let you check and do any necessary unwinding if the other two warrant similar treatment. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
There are really two issues here. The first is regarding the WikiCup and something the judges need to handle. These reviews shouldn't (and won't) be counted for points in the competition, for the simple reason that they don't fulfill the rules, which clearly state that GA reviews must be longer than 1000 bytes [1]. (Cursory to that, we judges need to ascertain whether or not these competitors are using GA reviews to game the system, which doesn't seem to be case thus far because we don't have evidence for it yet.) The second issue has to do with the integrity of GA reviews, something that everyone who cares about high-quality articles in WP should value. That's why we're discussing mentoring these competitors, and why we've come up with the solution of reversing the reviews and placing the articles back into the GAN queue without the nominators losing seniority. It's also why it's a good idea for this discussion to occur on a talk page, and since I know that the other WikiCup judges are watching this discussion, we've been able to agree and deal with the problem, as it relates to the competition. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Christine, I'm almost done with this one, how does it look so far? - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dank:, looks good. I added an image, the standard Angelou image for almost all of her articles. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if you had time to see the latest episodes of Sesame Street on HBO. I have seen the credits and Steve Whitmire (who is currently working on The Muppets) is no longer on the cast and Billy Barkhurst (who was credited in the last season) is now doing Ernie according to Sesame Workshop's official website just like how it is mentioning that Stephanie D'Abruzzo is the current performer of Prairie Dawn and Jennifer Barnhart (who was uncredited) is the current performer of Zoe. If you don't believe me, go to the official website of Sesame Workshop and look at the puppeteer bios under behind the scenes. Just making a suggestion. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/The Heart of a Woman --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Tried again ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Spirit Animal

Sure. I understand. Please tell me what to improve as soon as possible. Horsegeek(talk) 04:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)horsegeek

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Misty Copeland/archive1

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Misty Copeland/archive1 could use some attentive eyes. I haven't called on you in a while, but when I have in the past, you have generally been a very important discussant. I am hoping that you might be interested this nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Possibly interesting...

Tangentially related to the image at the top of your user page, possibly interesting (not knowing if you have a connection to the place)...--Godot13 (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Godot13: very cool. Wonder what he bought with that money... ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

One of Adam Cuerden’s several quality restorations during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.

Twenty-two Good Articles were submitted, including three by Connecticut Cyclonebiskit (submissions), and two each by Denmark MPJ-DK (submissions), Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), Florida 12george1 (submissions), and New South Wales Cas Liber (submissions). Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by There's always time for skeletons Adam Cuerden (submissions) (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with Lancashire J Milburn (submissions) completing nine.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 March newsletter (update)

Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that New South Wales Cas Liber (submissions) claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Maya Angelou

It was a heartbreaking discovery all round, I think. No-one wanted to delete the image, but my attempts to get a featured picture of her backfired spectacularly, I think you'll agree, when I actually found evidence our best picture of her was in copyright. I have sent a FoI to the Clinton Library (no response); perhaps it'd be less likely to hit the circular file coming from an American resident. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Thanks for the sympathy. Could you answer my question, though, about the images at the National Archives? Are they usable? I'll make a request of the Clinton library myself. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm a little hesitant after the last issue; I think - so long as it's from a different angle - it's safe to presume it's PD-USGov, but if it's exactly the same angle as the other image, I would presume it's a second photo by the same photographer a few moments later. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Lawrence Lessing

This article was in the pink box on the GAN page when I started the review. I generally pick reviews out of that box, or for WikiCup participants. It should be 20 points, not 12. Thanks.  MPJ-US  16:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for catching my error, and sorry for it. I've already made the corrections. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, sorry me again, Michael Laucke was also in the pink box when I started the review. It's only 2 points but with the group I am in that may be the difference make.  MPJ-US  19:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't see it in the pink box when I looked, but I'll AGF, give you the benefit of the doubt, and award you the two points. I get it; you're in a very competitive pool. Wow, you earned a lot of points with that one! ;) And good luck going forward. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

"Women are everywhere"

Hi Figureskatingfan. I'm an editor (not very active till now) of the Italian Wikipedia, where the gender gap is a real issue. I'm trying to participate to an IEG with the project "Women are everywhere". You will find the draft at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere It would be great if you could have a look at it. I need any kind of suggestion or advice to improve it. Support or endorsement would be fantastic. Many thanks, --Kenzia (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup

Hey, so first off, thanks for adding my points to the GA Cup. Secondly, (I may be wrong), but I don't think I received the points for two of my three reviews. Again, I could be wrong, but I believe Testaroli is 13,768 characters according to the website mentioned in the DYK tool (including the removal of templates, infoboxes, and images), and You'll See is easily over 25,000 characters using the tool. Please let me know if you could take a look at this; thank you very much! Cheers, Carbrera (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Another use looked at my concerns and fixed them appropriately. Thank you anyway! Carbrera (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Glad it got taken care of. Sorry I wasn't able to; it's been a busy weekend. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

DRN help needed and volunteer roll call

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive4

You were involved in one of the prior WP:FAC or WP:PR discussions about Emily Ratajkowski. The current discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive4 needs more discussants. In my prior successful FACs, success has been largely based on guidance at FAC in reshaping the content that I have nominated. I would appreciate discussants interested in giving guidance such guidance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup finals

Christine, I noticed you were working on finishing up the stats on Round 3 and marking the finalists. In Pool A, though, there's a bit more work to do with Carbrera, who has 9 rather than 6 completed reviews, and also with Sturmvogel 66, who has 11 rather than 9 (and who has not marked the tenth, Aretusa, and eleventh, Caprera, as passed even though they were passed on May 29). I thought you'd want to know this before you completed the Round 3 page and started to prepare the Submissions pages for the next round. In Pool C, Wugapodes has not been updated to reflect the review added prior to the end of the round. I know you'll want to update these. Thanks for your work on the GA Cup! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: And thanks to you for bringing this to my attention. Carbrera's reviews weren't added to his points in the pool, which I missed, so thanks for making sure they got counted towards his final score. Sturmvogel failed to mark his reviews as passed, so they won't be counted; I've informed him of this on his talk page. And I noticed the error in Pool C and took care of it earlier. Fortunately, none of these errors impacted the final score very much, and the finalists moving forward are unchanged. I appreciate your assistance in ensuring that we remain accurate. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive5

I pinged you at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive5 because the current nomination is at an impasse with a discussant who states that the writing is not up to snuff for an FA. I think if I can get the article past that discussant, I can get it promoted. Since you have been one of the editors who has helped me to copy edit articles that have gotten promoted at FAC, I am wondering if you might be interested in copyediting Emily Ratajkowski, even though it is far afield from your interests.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Christine. The TFA text mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 21:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that's cool. Thanks, looks fine, @Dank: Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

GA cup history

Hi Christine, I'm drafting a special report on the GA Cup for the Signpost and wanted to ask you about the history of the cup, particularly the development of the idea. I read your previous Op-Ed and it gave me some great insight, but there's only so much I can glean from talk page archives. My main interest is a more narrative perspective on what led up to the creation of the GA cup from your perspective: what was the impetus behind the idea, why was it chosen over another backlog drive, what were the expectations of it. You touched on all of these in your op-ed, but I was hoping you would be willing to expand on it. Also, feel free to ask other people who were involved if you think they might have interesting perspectives. Anyway, thanks for all your hard work with the GA cup, and hopefully you have some time to write back! Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 21:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: thanks for taking that on; I've been crazy busy IRL these days, so I barely have time to check-in with my watchlist every two days. I'd be happy to write up a narrative history, at least from my perspective. Please be patient, though; I'll do my best to get it to you via email by tomorrow evening (Thursday 7/7). Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup#Should_I_claim....?

Sorry to be a bother, just need a judgement call here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

No bother at all. Sorry it took me a few days; the every two days mentioned above has become a once-a-week check. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
No worries! Just since we have a rule about prompt claiming of points, I figure it's more in the spirit of the rules to try and sort things as quickly as possible. By the way,a re we getting a Round 4 newsletter? Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Probably not. Mostly because I'm busy as heck these days, and the other judges haven't stepped up. We'll make sure there's one for Round 5, though, and that we'll summarize the previous two rounds. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review for Chad Harris-Crane

Hello. I really admire and respect the work you have done to make Todd Manning an FAC. I am hoping to improve an article about a different soap opera character (Chad Harris-Crane) to FAC sometime in the future. I was wondering if you could provide some feedback or suggestions to the peer review for the article (located here Wikipedia:Peer_review/Chad_Harris-Crane/archive1), since you are experienced working with articles related to soap operas and fictional characters.

I understand that you are busy so it is completely okay if you are unable to do this or would not like to do this. I apologize for any inconvenience. I hope you have a wonderful day. Aoba47 (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

FAC voluntary mentoring scheme

During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Wikipedia: Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.

Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Chad Harris-Crane - featured article candidate

Hello, I've nominated the article about the episode Chad Harris-Crane for Featured Article consideration. I would really appreciate any comments or feedback on this nomination, especially since you are one of the main editors to help promote Todd Manning to featured article status, and I would like to get more characters from American soap operas to featured article status (and more characters from soap operas in general as Pauline Fowler and Poppy Meadow are the only other soap opera characters that reached FA status). I understand that you must be busy with your own projects on here as well as in real life so I completely understand if you do not have the time or would not like to do this. I want to apologize for any inconvenience for posting on here, as we have never worked together in the past on here, but I always would appreciate support from a more experienced user/editor.

The link is here if you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chad Harris-Crane/archive1. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Blues Clues video games

Hi Figureskatingfan, I greatly admire the work you did on the Blues Clues TV series, and I have recently been working on various articles in the Blues Clues educational video game series. I was wondering if you'd like to pop round to Blue's 123 Time Activities, Blue's ABC Time Activities, Blue's Reading Time Activities, and see if there's any way you could help?--Coin945 (talk) 08:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup archive

Hey! The GA Cup still needs the 2016 edition to be added to the archive. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yup, that's what I'm going to do now. I wanted to finish it before we made a general announcement with the newsletter I wrote this weekend. Been a busy day, doncha know. Watch your email later this evening. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 November newsletter: Final results

The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

  • Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
  • Good Article – MPJ-DK had 14 GAs promoted in R3.
  • Featured List – England Calvin999 (submissions) produced 2 FLs in R2
  • Featured Pictures – Adam Cuerden restored 18 images to FP status in R4.
  • Featured Portal – Yakutsk SSTflyer (submissions) produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
  • Featured Topic – Connecticut Cyclonebiskit (submissions) and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
  • Good Topic – MPJ-DK created a GT with 9 GAs in R5.
  • Did You Know – MPJ-DK put 53 DYKs on the main page in R4.
  • In The News – India Dharmadhyaksha (submissions) and New York City Muboshgu (submissions), each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
  • Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

Greetings, all!

We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time.

The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring.

Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!

If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges.

Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out.

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

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Figureskatingfan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Themes in Maya Angelou's autobiographies for TFA

Lovely to see that today, thank you! (Christmas card will appear on my talk later today.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup December newsletter: WikiCup 2017

On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.

For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):

  • First place – $200
  • Second & Third place – $50 each
  • Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.

Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address.

After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.

The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email).

Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here.

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Wishing you a very happy holiday season and a fulfilling 2017. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Holiday card

Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas,
Figureskatingfan!
"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you
That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end
And sickness nor sorrow don't find you."
—C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926.
Montanabw(talk) 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you skate?

I feel like Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating's articles could use a lot of improvement. In the past few years I've also become a figure skating fan as well, but have found very few other Wikimedians who follow the discipline.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Jasper Deng: no I don't skate, but yes I follow figure skating. Actually, I'm going to the U.S. Nationals in Kansas City with a friend next month. I've always wanted to work on figure skating articles, but other topics have attracted my attention through the years. Currently, I'm so busy, I'm lucky to check my watchlist once a week, which is a regret for me because I love researching, editing, and improving articles. I hope to someday return, but my bucket list of articles I want to work on will have to wait and depend upon others to improve. You have my support, so if you have any questions, ask but know that it may take a while for me to respond here. Happy New Year, and best of luck. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Newsletter draft

I have a draft of the newsletter that I'm working on in my User:3family6/sandbox. Feel free to add more to it. Thanks, --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Figureskatingfan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sesame Street international co-productions scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Sesame Street international co-productions article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 18 January 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 18, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, CHristine! "This article happens to be one of my favs, and is near and dear to my heart." I know the feeling. "peace and joy"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

==TFL List of Maya Angelou works

Hi, Christine. I'm just posting to let you know that List of Maya Angelou works – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for March 3. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 01:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for serving on GA Cup judging team. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Shearonink submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I would like to nominate the entire Judging Team of the present GA Cup. In the course of a competition - from the First Round through the Finals, they had to score and judge an untold number of GA Reviews - and MrWooHoo has less than 4000 edits! What these editors do is pretty darn amazing. All 5 editors take the time for a friendly competition that gets folks to plow through the GA backlog and make a difference around here! I don't really know if this Gang of Five - MrWooHoo, Jaguar, ZwergNase, 3family6, Figureskatingfan - are all well-known or not. Some of them have toiled on the GA Cup since its inception. All I know is that whenever I have a question or a concern, they answer it quickly and that the Judging/Points-scoring seems very fair. I don't know how they can keep up with the blizzard of Reviews and the points and the judging and answering posts and so on and so on. Editor Figureskatingfan has won Editor of the Week before but I hope is eligible to receive a second. I sure as heck think they all deserve it as a group.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: 

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Lepricavark (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017 WikiCup newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:

  • Scotland Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
  • European Union Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
  • Japan 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
  • South Australia Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The Heart of a Woman scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the The Heart of a Woman article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 4 April 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 4, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

May 2017 WikiCup newsletter

The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:

  • Scotland Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
  • Japan 1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
  • South Australia Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
  • Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 July newsletter

The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 September newsletter

Round 4 of the WikiCup has ended and we move forward into the final round. In round 4, a total of 12 FAs, 3 FLs, 44 GAs, 3 FLs, 79 DYKs, 1 ITN and 42 GARs was achieved, with no FPs or FTs this time. Congratulations to Peacemaker67 on the Royal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic of 36 items, and the 12 featured articles achieved by Cas Liber (5), Vanamonde93 (3), Peacemaker67 (2), Adityavagarwal (1) and 12george1 (1). With a FA scoring 200 points, and bonus points available on top of this, FAs are likely to feature heavily in the final round. Meanwhile Yellow Evan, a typhoon specialist, was contributing 12 DYKs and 10 GAs, while Adityavagarwal and Freikorp topped the GAR list with 8 reviews each. As we enter the final round, we are down to eight contestants, and we would like to thank those of you who have been eliminated for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. The lowest score needed to reach round 5 was 305, and I think we can expect a highly competitive final round.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best man (or woman) win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 06:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

 

Index: pl ar de en es fr it arz nl ja pt ceb sv uk vi war zh ru af ast az bg zh-min-nan bn be ca cs cy da et el eo eu fa gl ko hi hr id he ka la lv lt hu mk ms min no nn ce uz kk ro simple sk sl sr sh fi ta tt th tg azb tr ur zh-yue hy my ace als am an hyw ban bjn map-bms ba be-tarask bcl bpy bar bs br cv nv eml hif fo fy ga gd gu hak ha hsb io ig ilo ia ie os is jv kn ht ku ckb ky mrj lb lij li lmo mai mg ml zh-classical mr xmf mzn cdo mn nap new ne frr oc mhr or as pa pnb ps pms nds crh qu sa sah sco sq scn si sd szl su sw tl shn te bug vec vo wa wuu yi yo diq bat-smg zu lad kbd ang smn ab roa-rup frp arc gn av ay bh bi bo bxr cbk-zam co za dag ary se pdc dv dsb myv ext fur gv gag inh ki glk gan guw xal haw rw kbp pam csb kw km kv koi kg gom ks gcr lo lbe ltg lez nia ln jbo lg mt mi tw mwl mdf mnw nqo fj nah na nds-nl nrm nov om pi pag pap pfl pcd krc kaa ksh rm rue sm sat sc trv stq nso sn cu so srn kab roa-tara tet tpi to chr tum tk tyv udm ug vep fiu-vro vls wo xh zea ty ak bm ch ny ee ff got iu ik kl mad cr pih ami pwn pnt dz rmy rn sg st tn ss ti din chy ts kcg ve
Prefix: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia

Portal : Agama
Agama
Portal : Bahasa
Bahasa
Portal : Biografi
Biografi
Portal : Budaya
Budaya
Portal : Ekonomi
Ekonomi
Portal : Elektronika
Elektronika
Portal : Film
Film
Portal : Filsafat
Filsafat
Portal : Geografi
Geografi
Portal : Indonesia
Indonesia
Portal : Ilmu
Ilmu
Portal : Lingkungan
Lingkungan
Portal : Masyarakat
Masyarakat
Portal : Matematika
Matematika
Portal : Militer
Militer
Portal : Mitologi
Mitologi
Portal : Musik
Musik
Portal : Olahraga
Olahraga
Portal : Pendidikan
Pendidikan
Portal : Politik
Politik
Portal : Sastra
Sastra
Portal : Sejarah
Sejarah
Portal : Seni
Seni
Portal : Teknologi
Teknologi