This is an archive of past discussions with User:Royroydeb. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Badshahi Mosque you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ugog Nizdast -- Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shahada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ramzan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Badshahi Mosque, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Idgah. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
On 4 May 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cypress Tomb, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Cypress Tomb(pictured) in Lahore, Pakistan, is so named because of the cypress tree motif on its exterior walls? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cypress Tomb. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cillian Sheridan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hansi667 -- Hansi667 (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.
Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.
Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk·contribs·email), Miyagawa (talk·contribs·email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk·contribs·email) 16:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Honours
Hello. The only answer is "it depends". Assuming we're defining honours as whether the player got a medal or not, it depends on the rules of the competition, whether they give out extra medals or not. If they do, are there set criteria for who gets them or is it at the club's discretion? If the former, did the player meet the criteria? if the latter, did the club give him one? Scott Dann was injured in the semifinal of the 2011 League Cup and missed the rest of the season, but here's a photo of him with his winners' medal on. And the club might allocate their extra medals well after the event: have a look at the last couple of paragraphs of the section Jerry Gill#Birmingham City. Dare say this doesn't help much. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Hugo Moutinho
On 6 May 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hugo Moutinho, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Hugo Moutinho became the first Portuguese footballer to score a hat-trick in Romania? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hugo Moutinho. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi, I put a reference for the honours of Santiago Mina. I've written to you here as another user told me that pinging sometimes does not work on DYK templates. Carry on with your fine work. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Lahore Fort that you recently nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.
The article Lahore Fort you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Lahore Fort for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Samee -- Samee (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Royroydeb. 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.
Thanks for the review. It was a hasty nomination after I returned without working on the article. Anyway, your work on Indian articles is great. So take some time out and enjoy this lovely falafel :) — Yash!(Y)08:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
First of all Roy, I don't understand the aggressive tone in this message. Second, it was not even me who added the MANAGERIAL STATISTICS section, so you are wrong in telling ME to stop publishing original research works, but the section stays out like you want, I don't care anymore. I do admit that it was unsourced, I tried SOCCERWAY.com but his page there does not show any stats.
Please, do not remove sections just because it's unreferenced. It's way better to add a reference instead of removing it. And instead of acting aggressively with others (without the need of it), do a bit of research and find out who was the one who added the content to the page. Thank you, MYS77✉18:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Qila-i-Kuhna Mosque you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Samee -- Samee (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
We would like to announce the start of the 2nd GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Our inaugural competition, which ran from October 2014 to April 2015, was such a resounding success that we'd like to do it again. Currently, there are over 500 GANs ready to be reviewed; competitors in the previous GA Cup reviewed about 570 GAs, so we can again make a huge impact in helping editors improve articles in Wikipedia and decrease the traditionally long queue at GAN.
The 2nd GA Cup will begin on July 1, 2015. As last time, five rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on November 28, 2015), but this may change based on participant numbers. The judges learned a lot during the 1st GA Cup which exposed weaknesses in its system. Using both the feedback from last year's participants and the weaknesses discovered, we've revised the scoring system to make it more fair. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same.
We also are introducing three new judges: 3family6, Jaguar and MrWooHoo. So in total, there will be six judges. We hope this will allow the competition to run more smoothly.
Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on July 15, 2015. 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.
It's been over a week since you opened this review. In the previous review, you simply closed the nomination as unsuccessful. While failing a nomination, you should say why the article doesn't meet the criteria. You cannot simply take up reviews and close them without giving an explanation. —Vensatry(ping)17:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to remind you that I have posted the response to your review of the Bhimsen Thapa article. I would like some clarifications on a questions, which I found difficult to understand. Also, if you have any further issue, then please do comment. Manoguru (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@Manoguru: Yes, I have noticed all of them, the page is also in my watchlist. I am already reviewing it, and putting the comments in my computer's notepad. Once I finish the review, (I hope I can complete by tomorrow or the day after), I will post them once. No need to worry. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. I myself took quite long to notice that you had posted a preliminary review of the article since I was very busy in real life. Anyway, thank you for your time and effort. Regards, Manoguru (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Royroydeb. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The Herald (submissions) during the second round.
