Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
Your welcome! I do vary things from person to person, but this is basically the standard version I've been using for people from Rlevse's list of Awesome Wikipedians lately. Anyhow, if you have any suggestions for other editors who might be interested, let me know. Cheers--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome - I got that paper from another Wikipedian in the first place, sharing resources like this is rewarding, for us and Wikipedia. I trust Din has made sure you have Etchinghams paper on the "insular zone" as well? Duffys paper is good, but those two together gives an even better picture. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 08:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, he sent me that one a while back. The more you give the more you get back, I suppose. :) Some of the detailed-bibliographies in certain articles have opened my eyes to some really good sources and interesting things that I would never have known of if it wasn't for Wikipedia. Learning as I go along, that's why it's so much fun.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John O'Hart
Finn, we're done. Twice or more now you have lectured me and effectively defended your older friend, when you should have kept quiet.
I'm sorry you feel that way Din. I did not speak up as a favour to Deacon, but to you. In my book a friend is someone who offers advice, even when the advice is unwanted. But fair enough, it's your call. You know where my talk page is should you change your mind. Thanks for those links, all the best, Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back on your page, Finn. I think I had some reason to be upset with you for that, but I do have a lot of problems and don't do disputes well. Maybe I need some classes in that. So I'm sorry too and hope we can work together again. Nora lives (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you back here. I hope we'll work together again - tight now I'm on a wikibreak (due to real life holiday++) - guess I'll be back late August or so. Best wishes, Finn Rindahl (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry
Hi Finn, I am sorry about terror acts that hit Norway today, I am sorry that children were murdered. I know you too work wit children sometimes, and this ought to be very hard on you. I hope you and yours are safe. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your message Mila, I appreciate it. I've been on vacation and thus offline, that's why I haven't responded before. Me and my family are safe and well, noone I know was involved in the tragic events of July 22nd. While the acts of that madman and all the dead and wounded are utterly tragic and meaningless, it does give some comfort and inspiration to see how people have responded in Norway - instead of hatred and revenge people have been concerned about love and supporting each other. Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome :) After a couple of reverts I realised it would be better to just wait until some admin responded to the request - you must have gotten quite a few "new messages" while we were edit-warring that ip :P Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When someone tells you their not interested in what you have to say, and removes that "discussion" from their talk - insisting on putting it back is counter-productive and will lead to this ip being blocked as well. Finn Rindahl (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No offence finnrind , but he accused me of making threats , I asked for an apology he refused . Mabuska and I have different views on one or two subjects which I am showing him proof about , which he refuse to ingage in yet show ambiguaty in his responses that he catigates in others . Now I cant think of why it would get banned , its not vandilism , the constant removal of talk could be .
That is removed again , now explain why .
Thanks from me as well for fixing up my userpage. Some people really do think that getting their vandalism reverted is something that ought to be revenged. Sjakkalle(Check!)17:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't see it either, not really sure how unfortunate that is... Not much up wikipediawise for me these days, haven't made an edit in ages. Hope I get some inspiration to participate again :) All the best, Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw your comment and agree. If you didn't know in the case of a auto-locking move you can put in a quick technical request at WP:RM to restore article status. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your message. Not sure I understand the tech side of this, one more historical Irish article under a later Anglicized name isn't going to ruin my sleep anymway :). Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-inserted a reference to the genealogical sources that list Murchad as the son of Gormflaith. The variant spellings may not be worth mentioning, but I think it is worth mentioning that there are alternate mothers identified for Murchad. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That could indeed be a valid point, though the name O Brian instead of Mac Brian makes me wonder. I commented on the article talk page, best to keep discussion there for the benefit of others. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ketill Flatnose may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
In more recent scholarly debate, Claire Downham has endorsed Ó Corráins view.<ref>[Downham (2008) p. 18 n44</ref> The connection is described by [[Alex Woolf|Woolf]] (2007) as "
I was just reading the article on Runes and came across a word that I didn't know. I didn't see it in the article on staveless runes, either. The word is "stavesyle", and it's toward the end of the fourth paragraph in the lead. Is this a word, or is it a typographical error? If it's a word, what does it mean? CorinneSD (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say for certain but I don't believe this is a word in the English language. I can see nothing in JSTOR. I am guessing from the context that it means 'staveless' possibly in a Nordic language. BenMacDui18:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They're called stavlösa runor ("staveless runes") or hälsingerunor (from Hälsingland) in sv:futhark. This is not my area of expertise, but it looks like a misplaced word or typo to me.
Hello, Finnrind. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
Hello, Finnrind. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
