User talk:Wugapodes/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Wugapodes. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 1 Greetings, all. The 3rd Annual GA Cup has officially begun, and you can start reviewing your articles/reassessments now! However, sign-ups will not close til March 15th if anybody (who wishes to sign up) has not signed up yet. We currently have 1 group of 33 contestants in Round 1, and we will have 16 Wikipedians left in Round 2. Please be sure to review this information and the FAQ if you haven't already, If you have any questions, please ask us here where all of the judges (including our newest one, Zwerg Nase!) will be answering any questions you may have. You can also feel free to ask us on our talk pages/send an email to us (information is here). Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, 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) 03:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Wugapodes, it occurred to me that you might have some expertise on the heart of the content dispute in the political correctness article. On the talk page I wrote:

To clarify: There are oodles of sources talking about people using the term pejoratively. If we could assume that the number of sources talking about people using the term pejoratively vs. number of sources talking about people using the term literally is an accurate reflection of actual usage, the word "primarily" would indeed be correct. This is the heart of the problem, IMO. It's not that no one is using the term nonpejoratively. It's that when they do, no one comments; it's not newsworthy when a word is used in its literal meaning. So without doing OR, how are we to express what we keep hearing from new-to-this-article editors who keep coming in here and saying, "Wait, what? That's not correct; I hear it used nonpejoratively often." My argument to Pincrete is that we need to do a reality check. His to me is that a reality check is OR. And there is where we get stuck.

Then after I wrote that, I was thinking, "I wonder if a linguist would have any idea where and how we might find that someone actually has done research on actual usage?" And I realized I'd just seen a linguist somewhere. :) I know you've been involved both at the article and the ANI, but as the dispute involves a HUGE wall of text at both places, much of it extraneous and dense, I wasn't sure whether you'd drilled down enough to know what the actual root of the issue was. valereee (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Always happy to try and help. My thoughts upon reading your question would be to search "linguistic perception of 'political correctness'" on Google Scholar which seemed to yield a few promising results. Burridge 1996 seems to analyse it as a euphemism and should have some information on how it's used, and Andrews 1996 seems to look at it from a language and thought perspective which might have some info as well. Both these are from about 20 years ago, which if I recall the arguments I've seen, is part of the problem. I filtered out results from before 2012, and a few results caught my eye like Goncalo, et al. 2014, Formanowicz 2015, and Chatman 2012.

I'm out of town for a funeral at the moment, so don't have ready access to the papers I linked, but someone at Resource Requests might be able to get you a copy faster than I can. If not, I can give them a read this weekend maybe and try and give some additional comments. Hope that helps! Wugapodes (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Very cool, thank you so much!  :) valereee (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wuga, I noticed you brought up the Goncalo study. As it happens, it's freely available and I have recently brought it up as a source on the talk page. It specifically states "often derogatory". I'm hoping that this might possibly sway your mind in terms of picking a side in the argument? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

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 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) 16:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Santosky v. Kramer 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 Notecardforfree -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Santosky v. Kramer, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fourteenth Amendment and Fifth Amendment. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Santosky v. Kramer page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing and helping to improve thyroid ima artery :) This cookie is on me! :D Yash! 07:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Star Alliance. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

On 16 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Linguistic Society of America, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1997 the Linguistic Society of America passed a resolution supporting the Oakland Unified School District board's decision to teach some students using African American Vernacular English? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Linguistic Society of America. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1 metre. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

On 21 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Santosky v. Kramer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the US Supreme Court ruled in Santosky v. Kramer that the state must demonstrate at least clear and convincing evidence before terminating parental rights? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Santosky v. Kramer. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Santosky v. Kramer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Social Security. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The article Santosky v. Kramer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Santosky v. Kramer for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Notecardforfree -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of people who have opened the Olympic Games. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You are invited...
	Women Writers worldwide online edit-a-thon Hosts: Women in Red, Women writers April 2016 #wikiwomeninred

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Sent by Rosiestep (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC) via WP:MassMessage

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Lockhart v. United States (2005) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 1 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)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lockhart v. United States (2005), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Justice O'Connor. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Wugapodes! Aoba47 dropped out of Round 2, so you are the 17th. I have added you in the pools in Round 2. Just wanted to let you know. Cheers! MrWooHoo (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paisley. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

On 6 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lockhart v. United States (2005), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government can withhold Social Security payments to collect on student loans that have been delinquent for over 10 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lockhart v. United States (2005). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You are invited...
	Women in Espionage worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red Supporting: University of Edinburgh - Women in Espionage and Spy Fiction 13-20 April 2016

--Rosiestep (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Hi there,

Thanks for taking the time to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of baroque pop artists.

However, as the rationale you provided makes clear, the result isn't so obvious (i.e. it falls into "close calls and controversial decisions"), such that I'd like to request you revert and leave it to an admin. In fact the only keep !vote that made the case for notability based the argument on a flawed premise (that allmusic sidebars are acceptable sources such that the article shouldn't have been "purged"). As I see it, this is an obvious merge. As you've closed it as keep rather than no consensus, despite saying a merge discussion can take place elsewhere that close will stymie attempts to merge. Regardless of my own explanations, however, the fact remains that consensus is not sufficiently clear for a NAC in my opinion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. I still think there is clear consensus to keep as it stands, but I don't see a problem with allowing someone else to close or relist it. If my reading was wrong, reopening is for the best, and if my reading was right, it will get closed the same way. So I don't see a downside to reopening. Thanks for bringing this up! Wugapodes (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I shouldn't have gone into my own rationale as I'm not trying to persuade you to close a different way -- just that I don't think it's so clear cut. Appreciated. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You are invited...
	Women in Photography worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red May 2016 #wikiwomeninred

--Rosiestep (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Thank you for the review and passing it. Hopefully I'll see you at FAC.--WillC 16:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of films considered the best. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Monir Portrait-exh ph021.jpg You are invited...
	Women artists of Middle East / North Africa worldwide online edit-a-thon Hosts: Women in Red and Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum May 2016 #wikiwomeninred #guggathon

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

WikiProject Good Articles's 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)

Your message was: A tag has been placed on File:Cyber Ethnography Graduate Students.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it................................

My Response: Very well. I have uploaded a free version of the file here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cyber_Ethnography_Graduate_Students.jpg please replace it in the articel with the non-free one. Regards. --Have a great day :) , Sanjev Rajaram (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.

Round 2 saw three FAs (two by Cas Liber (submissions) and one by Montanabw (submissions)), four Featured Lists (with three by Calvin999 (submissions)), and 53 Good Articles (six by Worm That Turned (submissions) and five each by Hurricanehink (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), and MPJ-DK (submissions)). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six by Adam Cuerden (submissions) and five by Godot13 (submissions)). One Featured Portal, Featured Topic and Good Topic were also promoted. The DYK base point total was 1,135. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) scored 265 base points, while The C of E (submissions) and MPJ-DK (submissions) each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted with MPJ-DK (submissions) completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants, Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Cas Liber (submissions), broke the 700 point mark for Round 2.

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) 03:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:World Open (snooker). Legobot (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Heffernan v. City of Paterson 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 Notecardforfree -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wugapodes -- thanks again for your awesome hard work on SCOTUS articles! I noticed that you have been using the {{ussc}} template when citing to SCOTUS cases. Unfortunately, the template doesn't format citations correctly if you are citing to the slip opinion rather than the opinion that is published in the United States Reports (it usually takes 3-4 years before an opinion is published in the United States Reports). The proper parameters for a citation to a slip opinion are (1) Case name in italics, (2) docket number, (3) citation to the volume of the U.S. Reports in which the case will be published (with the page number represented as "___"), (4) "slip op. at" page number or page range, (5) year of publication in parentheses. For example, a citation to pages 1-2 of the slip opinion of OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs looks like this: OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs, No. 13–1067, 577 U.S. ___, slip op. at 1–2 (2015). After you provide the first full citation, you can then provide short citations, which look like this: OBB Personenverkehr, slip op. at 1-2. If you want to cite to a dissenting opinion or concurring opinion, you add an explanatory parenthetical that looks like this: Reed, slip op. at 1 (Breyer, J., concurring in judgment).

I thought I should let you know in case you were interested. In any event, I hope you are enjoying a nice weekend! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and all your kind words. I added that functionality to {{ussc}} itself since it's probably something I (and others) will run into in the future. Your examples have been really valuable, and I really do appreciate them. Coding a template is made so much easier when there's a clear outline, so your breakdowns of the style are as much a part of all this template editing as my coding. Wugapodes (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for making those changes to the template; it really will make life easier for editors in the future. Do let me know if there is anything else I can do to help. All the best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Widr (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! It has been brought to our attention that we made a mistake in the last newsletter. In the last newsletter, we said that the "4th place" overall would make the Final along with the top user from each pool. However, the users who will advance will be the top user from each pool along with "4th and 5th place" overall. We apologize for any inconvenience or confusion that we caused. 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) 01:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wuga. You reviewed this IP edit in Brent Burns, and accepted it. I have reverted, it would need sources per WP:V. For years the article has been saying "Barrie Icemen" and "North York Canadiens". A change into "Barrie Colts" and "North York Rangers" is an attempt to be sneaky. Catch you around, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out and for maintaining the article. I accepted the revision because it didn't seem to obviously violate any of the general criteria for not accepting, so I accepted and hoped someone with more knowledge would revert if it was incorrect. So thanks for keeping an eye on the article, and for getting in touch! Wugapodes (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to let you know, once again, a user dropped out, so you have been added into Round 3. Cheers! MrWooHoo (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Sunni Islam. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The article Heffernan v. City of Paterson you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Heffernan v. City of Paterson for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Notecardforfree -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, you may want to participate and help publicize the voting for Hovercards preferences here. Thanks!--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Melamrawy (WMF): I participated in the discussion and posted a note at WP:VPP so hopefully there will be more discussion there. Thanks for giving me a heads up on the discussion! Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 20:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

You are invited...
	Women in Entertainment worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red June 2016 #wikiwomeninred

--Rosiestep (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage (To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heffernan v. City of Paterson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fourteenth Amendment. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not ready! I was hoping i'd get a longer wait so I could work on it DURING nomination! I just nom'd that an hour ago! Still appreciate a review but I just wanted to let you know that it might fail '^^ dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 19:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I can hold off then, let me know when you're ready. If you'd rather I put it back in the queue, I can also do that. Sorry for the added stress! Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 19:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

You know what, put what you've got in there. But I may need extended time if you do decide to put it on hold. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 19:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, it still will be a few days so take your time, and if I do put it on hold (which is likely, I've only ever quick failed four articles) I'll be sure to give you extra time. Good luck on the improvements! Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 19:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Page mover. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heffernan v. City of Paterson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fourteenth Amendment. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! Tuesday saw the end of Round 3. Sainsf, for the third time, won with a sizable 487 points and a shocking 29 articles reviewed. In second, MPJ-DK had 168 points and 7 reviewed articles. In second place, MPJ-DK earned 168 points with just 7 articles, and in third place, Carbrera received 137 points with just 9 articles. Our two wildcard slots went to J Milburn with 122 points and Sturmvogel 66 with 101 points. In Round 3, 65 reviews were completed! At the beginning of the GA Cup, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 3, there were 394. 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 the GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [3]; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months [4]—nothing before 2016. 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 the Finals for the GA Cup so that are successes continue. To qualify for the Finals, contestants had to earn the highest scores in each of the three pools in Round 3; plus, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users in all of the pools. For the Finals, users were placed in one pool of the remaining five users. To win the GA Cup, you must have the most points. The Finals started on June 1 at 0:00:01 UTC' and end on June 30 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about the Finals and the pools can be found here. A clarification: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round. We wish all the contestants the best of luck! 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) 00:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox Canadian leadership election. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

As a side note, please take a look at MOS:LISTGAP. Leaving a comment with :* instead of ** poses accessibility issues for visually-impaired individuals using screen readers to access and edit Wikipedia. This little-known issue is widespread, so no worries that you didn't know about it, but it would be helpful to if you used ** instead of :*. The output is the same, but it preserves the list structure. ~ Rob^Talk 15:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

You are invited...
	LGBTQ worldwide online edit-a-thon Hosts: Women in Red, Wiki Loves Pride 2016 16 to 30 June 2016 #wikiwomeninred

Delivered by Rosiestep (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage. (To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Hello! Your submission of McGruff the Crime Dog at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Maile (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and thank you for taking on the volume of work, it is appreciated. I am trying to make sure that the Espanto I/II/III articles get updated to be consistent with changes, so hopefully I can weed out some of the issues when you get to the next articles.  MPJ-US  02:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Courtesy vanishing. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Captain Marvel (DC Comics). Legobot (talk) 04:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

You are invited...
	Women in Halls of Fame worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red July 2016 #wikiwomeninred

--Rosiestep (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage (To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

(gentle nudge with hopes that you have not forgotten Jean Bartik, and gratitude for your willingness to review) Keilana (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Death of Gloria D. Davis. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Final/Wrap-Up Hello to our truly awesome GA Cup competitors! Thursday, June 30 saw the end of the 2016 GA Cup. It was a huge success. In the final, our five competitors reviewed an astonishing 207 articles, the most in any GA Cup final thus far. We continue to reach our goals and make a substantial impact in how quickly articles are reviewed for GA status. On March 1, the start of this competition, the article longest in the queue had languished there since June 26, 2015 [5]; in the July 1, 2016 list, the average wait length is just four months [6]. 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 their enthusiasm, and for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success. Remember that most articles can't even be considered for FA status unless it's been passed to GA first, so our efforts have created hundreds of potentials FAs. That is, as they say, a big deal. The final this time represented a real horse race between our 1st and 2nd place winners. First-time competitor (who had won all previous rounds) Sainsf earned an impressive 1456 points with 91 articles reviewed during the final. Close behind, in second place was Carbrera, also a first-time competitor, reviewed the most articles (94). Their enthusiasm was a treat to witness. Congrats to you both! The competition went relatively smoothly, with very little drama this time. We had to clarify one rule: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round. We were strict about adhering to this clarification, especially at the end of the final. We intend on stressing it in the stated rules for our next competition, which will be announced soon, so watch out for it. We also intend on applying for a grant through Wikimedia to include gift certificates for our winners, to further incentivize the GA Cup. MrWooHoo should receive special recognition for acting as our main judge, and for stepping in for the rest of the judges when real-life busyness took over. He reviewed the majority of the submissions during our final round. Thanks for your hard work, and for the hard work of all our judges. We look forward to the next competition. Again, thanks to all our competitors, and congrats to our winners. 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) 02:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

...so much for your appreciative note. Getting the article into some kind of useful shape has been something of an uphill ride. But it's easier by the day; always a good sign! Haploidavey (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, and for your hard work doing GA reviews! I'm not a great reviewer so I'm always grateful to work with someone who is. :) Keilana (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)