Contents
Precious anniversary
Hammond organ | |
---|---|
...you were recipient no. 1138 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- enjpy! and... 40 years ago... narrated by Raymond Baxter!! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC) By jove! "tunes!!" ... and check out this bad boy... ouch!!!
- "Ars longa, vita brevis", etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Vita brevis, death's bonds, Wikipedia:Main Page history/2016 March 27, with thanks for your ARCA statement, Ritchie! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- DYK that death's bonds went to FAR? - ... that the restricted is free? - Looking forward: I would like a fast GA review for eternal fire, source of love ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- ... found a lover of eternal fire, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Happy Easter, Threesie!!
Some Easter Lead Belly for you! | |
"Pasg Hapus! ... Happy Easter to you!" Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC) |
Circus Drive-In
I've now bumped this article up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circus Drive-In. Do you have any comments to add to the deletion proposal? Although I am an inclusionist by nature – WP appears to be be turning into the Yellow Pages but I want to be fair about it – so would appreciate your comments. --Aspro (talk) 11:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Personal attacks by an editor
Hi, so an IP editor, 68.194.58.163 (talk), in addition to making good faith but ultimately nonconstructive edits, keeps cussing at me and other editors, and just left an immature "attack" on my talk page. The IP seems to be a repeat offender that you have dealt with in the past, as have my fellow WP:NYPT editors. Is there any protocol? Thank you. Tdorante10 (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Update. The IP is now blocked. Kudos to you Tdorante10 for keeping your cool under those ridiculous and vile attacks. Best regards to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 20:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
2016 GA Cup-Round 2
Greetings, GA Cup competitors! Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. Sainsf took out Round 1 with an amazing score of 765. In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 742 points, and in third place, FunkMonk received 610 points. In Round 1, 206 reviews were completed, more than any other year! At the beginning of March, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 490. We continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 2 so we can lower the backlog as much as possible. To qualify for the second round, you needed to make it into the top 16 of participants. Users were placed in 4 random pools of 4. To qualify for Round 3, the top 2 in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 9th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 2 will start on April 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on April 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here Also, remember that a major rule change will go into effect starting on April 1, which marks the beginning of Round Two. Round 1 had an issue brought up in the rules, which we are correcting with this clarification. We believe that this change will make the competition more inherently fair. The new rule is: All reviews must give the nominator (or anyone else willing to improve the article) time to address the issues at hand, even if the article would qualify for what is usually called a "quick fail" in GA terms. To avoid further confusion, we have updated the scoring page, replacing the term "quick fail" with the term "fail without granting time for improvements". We expect all reviewers to put a review on hold for seven days in cases such as these as well, in order to apply the same standards to every competitor. The judges will strictly enforce this new rule. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, 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) 02:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Weronika Rosati
Hi, I am in the process of expanding this article and I desperately need your help. I started to write about a legal case and I find it really difficult to write about this matter, becuase English is not my first language and when it comes to use specialist terminology I struggle, so I hope that you can help me. I have written everything and all I need you to do for me is to read it through and simply correct my mistakes, grammar, punctuation etc., I'll be grateful. Thanks in advance.
"In 2010, Andrzej Żuławski, with whom Rosati was in a relationship, released a journal called Nocnik. One of the characters included in the book, a girl named Esther, was allegedly based on the actress. In 2010, Rosati filed a lawsuit against Żuławski and the book's publisher and claimed 200 000 PLN, public apology for the invasion of her privacy and the deprivation of her dignity as a woman, and to stop the violation of her personal rights by removing parts of the book on her person from its further releases or completely withdrawing the book from sale. In February 2014, Żuławski and the book's publisher have been ordered by the district court in Warsaw, to pay 100 000 PLN to Rosati and release a public apology for the possibility of associating the actress with the book's fictional character and therefore assigning her abusive and false features. However, the judge believed that because the book has already been sold out before the prohibiton orders have been issued, the offence has already taken place, so withdrawing the book from sale wouldn't have made any difference. After being charged, the defendants launched an appeal. However, in May 2015 they lost the appeal and the verdict from February 2014 has been upheld by the appeal court in Warsaw."
ArturSik (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Re: GA nomination for Inside Out (2015 film)
Hi, due to offline commitments -- & some concerns about the article's language not being stable -- I've let this review slide. (Although I feel these edits are improving the article, in general.) Since you've had a good look at this article, do you have any serious objections if I promote this to GA? Since I've taken it on, I'd like to resolve it quickly before something else from my offline life delays me further. Thanks in advance -- llywrch (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Editor of the Week : nominations needed!
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.
The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?
Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!
Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
GA queries
Hi Ritchie333. As a novice reviewer, I still have incessant doubts about reviewing GAs. Considering you seem to be well-experienced, would you kindly answer some questions here I have regarding them in general? I am writing an essay where your answers will be summarised. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
2016 GA Cup-Round 3
Hello, GA Cup competitors! Thursday saw the end of Round 2. Sainsf once again took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 996 (a higher score then he received in Round 1!). In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 541 points, and in third place, Carbrera received 419 points. In Round 2, 142 reviews were completed! At the beginning of April, there were 486 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 384. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [1]; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months.[2] It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 3 so we can keep lowering the backlog as much as possible. To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. We had an unusual occurrence happen in Round 2: because only one contestant submitted reviews in one pool, we selected the contestant with the next highest score to move forward to Round 3. (There will be a rule change for future competitions in case something like this happens again.) For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 will start on May 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on May 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, 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) 02:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)