User talk:Crisco 1492/Archive 63

X

Frohe Weinachten und

alles gute zur neuen Jahr!

X

Sca (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2015‎ (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've added all FA romotions up to William Sterndale Bennett to the notepad and other working lists. Brianboulton (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Brian. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Personally I think there's been too much FA romoting recently. EEng 20:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Chris, the DYK queues are currently all empty with five hours to go until the next promotion to the main page. Fortunately, all six prep areas are full. If the queues are still empty when you see this, please promote at least one of the preps. Many thanks. (I've left the same note for Cas Liber, just in case he logs back on before you do, and of course the bot will leave a message at WT:DYK in about three hours.) BlueMoonset (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Please keep an I on my #1, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm in template hell. Infoboxes look so innocent on the surface, until you try and create the template for a new one... This is my "creation", with some testing going on here. I initially loaded the usage and attributes into the template but quickly realized that wasn't going to work. Now I understand why template editing is a permission of its own... If this is not your area, I would gladly take a referral elsewhere.--Godot13 (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• It lives!!!! *thunder* ... Actually, no, I'm completely useless when it comes to actually coding templates like infoboxes. Sorry. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • It's actually on life support. Funny part is that it's not even fully working yet, and already there is a discussion about merging it...--Godot13 (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Another reason I don't do templates much anymore. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

For templates, I would recommend Alakzi. Only ... - Ask RexxS, perhaps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Bang, kok jurnal Indonesia terbitan 2011-kini tak dapat diakses ya? Hanamanteo (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ya, kan itu masih cukup baru, jadi secara finansial mereka bakal rugi kalau langsung open access. Banyak jurnal sudah seperti itu (Archipel, misalnya) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you a moment to look at the licencing for File:A half-demolished Nelsons Pillar on OConnell Street, Dublin.jpg? I am very dubious about this being in the public domain. It is an important image for the article (Nelson's Pillar) in which I want to use it - would a fair use rationale be appropriate here? Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Based on this, I'd assume that they've already vetted it (perhaps purchased the copyright). Don't know how it could be out of copyright otherwise. Might be worth an inquiry if you're interested in following up on this. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, this looks more promising. I'll shortly be taking the article to FAC, so perhaps I'll wait to see if the image is questioned there. Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Chris, can you please take a look at the image for this nomination to see whether it is properly licensed for the front page? There is a license explaining that it is public domain in China, but not one for the U.S.; I don't know the rules for such images. If it isn't, then please do whatever's necessary. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Replied there. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks. I take it from your comment, then, that the other image in the article, from the 1934 publication, might be okay as it would have expired in 1984, before the 1996 URAA kicked in. Unless, of course, it isn't covered by the image rules at all because it's a page from a publication that it illustrates, and might then be under rules for books, manuals, magazines, etc., in which case we may be talking life of author plus 70. If so, there's going to be a long wait; according to a book I just found, Zhao Zhuguang was still active in Chinese bodybuilding in 1988, at the age of 81. Even if it's life of author plus 50, that's still 2038 at the very earliest. (This info from an academic press book published in 1995.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• To the best of my understanding, the photograph would have attracted its own copyright. A 1934 publication would be fine. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Bang, kok saya perhatikan, tidak ada yang menyadari ada vandalisme di artikel tersebut di mana pengguna anonim memasang tag AB tahun lalu? Sekarang, saya sudah menghapusnya. Hanamanteo (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

It feels like most of my nominations have been failing with scarcely a vote on them, which is unusual, to say the least. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've noticed it myself. A lot of the regulars have dropped out in the past few months, and I've been really busy myself (not able to seek out new nominations, generally). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Per your comment at DIFF, could you please schedule Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/From The Doctor to my son Thomas for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 6, 2016, so it doesn't accidentally get lost in the shuffle ?

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• The other two TFA coordinators have historically had issues with "parking" articles like that. I do it for POTD, but we have agreed to not do it for TFA. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Don't we always have lots of media articles? I'm just concerned it might get put off a 2nd time. What else can be done? — Cirt (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    • The nominated article still fell within the "media" section of FA. There were four others in the month before your proposed date – Aquaman (April 7), Tank Girl (March 31), Uncle David (March 25), and Eraserhead (March 19). Last year the allocated number of TFAs for "Media" was 33; we're heading towards that number rather quickly right now. I'm expecting to not schedule another one until the very end of this month.

As for what happens in November: at this rate, comes November we'll only be scheduling media articles when nominated. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I hope I'm still healthy and around Wikipedia and remember at that point in time. In the meantime, it seems like there's multiple war-related and battle-type articles for April, and also Cricket types of articles in April. It seems like we haven't had an Internet-culture related articles in a while, and actually there's a relative dearth of those among Featured Articles on Wikipedia. It's a shame there wasn't an allowance for discussion with more than two (2) users on Wikipedia before it was marked as unsuccessful. I wish there was more that can be done so that your comment about 6 November 2016 can come to fruition ? — Cirt (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Remember, there are numerous warfare articles that haven't run, and last year milhist articles were allocated 67 (or 5 1/2 a month). Cricket is the most represented sports subject, hence why there have been four articles on this subject this year. TFA has to be proportional. We have three FAs on insects, for instance; we shouldn't schedule them all in a month or two. Other media articles have been affected as well; I've been wanting to schedule Quatermass and the Pit, the oldest FA to not yet run on the main page, for a while, but owing to the numerous media articles that have already run I've kept pushing it back.

As for the limited time for discussion: I was actually planning on scheduling up to April 16th last night (I generally schedule four articles at a time, every three or four days), but didn't have the time. In general, nominating something for a date which will be scheduled in the next batch (i.e. 4 or 5 days from the earliest date listed in "Currently accepting requests from...") allows very little time for discussion. Especially when, like in this situation, the articles are scheduled less than an hour after a nomination is made. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah okay, thank you for that elucidating explanation ! Just curious, do you have a link to the discussion with the other two TFA coordinators about longer-term scheduling, and the reasons why it would be contraindicated pros versus cons ? — Cirt (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• I think it was by email, but you can ask User:Brianboulton and User:Dank yourself — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm just wondering if we can add it there as a placeholder in this case, as it was unsuccessful in the first nomination, and it's high quality. I'm scratching my head trying to see the harm that would be done in this case by doing so ? — Cirt (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ah, there it is. It wasn't an in-depth discussion, but sufficient for me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ah I see, yeah not really an in-depth discussion. Especially since you yourself suggested this one for 6 November, I'm wondering what's the harm in placing it there now? — Cirt (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• As I said, there was sufficient discussion there for the TFA coordinators to agree to not schedule things too far ahead. The main difference between POTD and TFA is TFA has a formal process for nominating articles, whereas POTD lets anyone add an image (so long as it meets the criteria). Since TFA has a formal process like that, it's entirely possible that someone may want to nominate the same article for an earlier date, or have another article that they might want to nominate/run on a date already booked far in advance. Thus, not scheduling too far ahead helps avoid conflicts. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ah I guess it was just a bit disappointing after I'd added it to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending back in 25 February 2016. I suppose perhaps I should have just nominated it then at that time. Of course it's a tad bit frustrating but I hope your recommendation for 6 November 2016 will indeed get borne out in the end. :) — Cirt (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Although I don't think it's right to accept bookings for TFA dates months in advance (for the various reasons Chris has described) I would have no objection to a "date requested" note being inserted into the date in question. This would not automatically give precedence to this request, but it should ensure that it is not overlooked, as unfortunately does happen with the "pending" page. Brianboulton (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright, Brianboulton, that sounds reasonable, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Although I await the NLI's reply, after informal discussions with a copyright lawyer this weekend I am pretty certain that NLI will not go further than their "no known restrictions" disclaimer. If the image is to be retained, fair use seems a better prospect. I'm getting a little concerned about time; 24 April is the target TFA date but you will want to schedule well before then. The FAC is well supported (7 supports, 0 opposes), but promotion could be withheld if there is prolonged delay/discussion over the status of this image. The choices seem to be (a) withdraw the image temporarily with a view to restoring it when its copyright status is clear, or (b) go for a fair use justification without waiting for the NLI. What would you advise? Brianboulton (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Fair use, definitely. That strikes me as an important image. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've uploaded a fair use version to Wikipedia, and that's what's in the article now. Perhaps you'd comment at the FAC? Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps I'll catch the next one. I suspect you're at the point where fewer comments means quicker promotion (and quicker scheduling). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have been a part of the previous discussion. Join this one.--MaranoFan (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chris; I just had a look at Poesaka Terpendam and it reminded me of something I came across a few weeks ago while reviewing Hetty Reckless: it seems that {{sfn}} supports italics. This probably means that, per the MOS, we should be italicising when appropriate (newspaper names, for example). Do you know of any reason I'm wrong, here? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• No, you're right. It used to be that we had to add .21.21 for double single quotes (i.e. italics), but that's changed. I haven't had much of a chance to do that in older articles. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

You going, perchance? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Nope, sadly. Doctorate program's got me busy enough — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Alas! First year I get to go for a few years. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, have fun. It does sound like a nice enough location, though I'm still not sure how well it'll handle the throngs of people... — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Crisco, Thank you once again for all your image review on the Senghenydd colliery disaster PR. This is now at FAC, should you wish to comment further. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'll see what I can do, but crunch time has been upon me for a while. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Not to worry - I'll ask Nikkimaria if she can chip in on this too - you've got too much on your plate as it is, without me adding more! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

From the Featured Picture criteria page: "If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis." My poor ol' limpet had votes of support from you, a comment followed by no vote either way by user:Mattximus (after I responded hopefully to his comment at some length), a support vote from Adam, a comment from an IP user which I also addressed at length and changed the image accordingly but in the end got no support from (not that IPs are supposed to count for this purpose, but anyway...), and a support vote from user:Jobas. Since the nominator's support gets included in the two-thirds majority necessary for establishing "consensus" on the image, I assume that same vote gets counted in establishing the five votes needed to qualify as an FP. The image had no oppose votes at all. If either Mattximus or the IP user has made it back around to vote in support, the image would have passed. I get the feeling that people hesitate to votie on diagrams, which then put the image a handicap— and now I am here "wikilawyering" a reason for my image to have actually, technically, maybe made the cut. I do not think it is less complex or aesthetic than any other image I've ever submitted, and having it fail has really thrown on the cold water. Not that I think I am so great that nothing I submit for FP consideration should ever fail to pass, and not that all of the others I've made haven't qualified on their own terms. Maybe I should just get used to not having my work qualify. But my God, if I could only tell the world how much time I invested in this picture! It's kind of embarrassing, really. My guess is a couple hundred hours of work. But if people don't understand that, then they... just move on... to things they DO understand (like composition, focus, saturation, contrast, and exposure— things which don't count on SVGs). I assume there is no court of appeals here. Also, I hate the thought of being granted an exception on what others must have decided wasn't "qualifying" work. But here I am anyway. I was about to return to working on my scaphopod diagram and get it up here for consideration, but mustering the chutzpa to do so has faded almost entirely. Please let me know your thoughts, Chris. Okay? Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 07:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• I think you're overthinking this. FPC is quite slow right now (Adam's complained about it as well, a bit higher up). Try nominating, without any further revisions, in a couple weeks. If FPC has picked up a bit, it should pass without a hitch. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Agreed. A lot of things were failing in March that almost certainly wouldn't have in any active period. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I know you're insanely busy, there is no rush on this at all...

I wondered if you could have a quick look at Cecil Brown (Hawaii politician), my first GA, to see if you think it could be developed into a FA (never done one). I think the sources I used are fairly comprehensive (not much else out there). There are one or two areas that could be further developed. Not asking for a formal PR, just your initial thoughts on a single read-through...--Godot13 (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• A quick lookover: there's the potential for development, but the organization still needs work (FAs generally don't have that many single-paragraph sections) and the referencing has issues (a lot of refs are not used in-text, and the Hawaiian constitution citation doesn't point anywhere) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Chris. I'll slowly start working on it to see where it leads (making the changes you indicated in the process)...--Godot13 (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Crisco. This contest is going well, see the entries at the bottom. Do you know who is in control of placing central notices up on wikipedia? I think we requested something on metawiki but obviously they didn't do it. Can you try to publicize this by seeing to it that this is visible to more people? It would be good to see some fresh new editors arriving on this and joining it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• To the best of my knowledge, you did it the way this page recommends. I don't know anything else. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yummy! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Chris, I was wondering whether you could chime in on the deletion nomination from this page. Jolly Janner makes a proposal that seems to me, logically, to be not feasible given the legalities, but I don't know that it isn't. Many thanks, and apologies if this is considered "canvassing". BlueMoonset (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Replied there. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a note: I did previously mention that the photograph would have attracted its own copyright (rather than be covered by the same copyright as the text of the book). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Very sorry: I missed that. I'm glad we're set now, with a cropped image that isn't a page from the book, but is just the photo. Now the other photo needs to be dealt with one way or the other, so the DYK nomination can escape the limbo it's currently mired in. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Chris, I don't know anyone suitable to notify for this one. The nominator hasn't edited since 2010. The writing quality in the lead is good. - Dank (push to talk) 02:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe Laser brain, among the FC coords and music aficionados, might be interested in giving a squiz... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Not really familiar with the more minor bands of the 70s myself, nor do I know someone who'd be familiar with the subject matter. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take a look at it. --Laser brain (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Gents, I think it's in pretty good shape now. It does suffer a bit from the "stuff continuing to happen" problem which turns the late narrative into a series of "In date, the band did this" statements. But, it's a smooth read overall. --Laser brain (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 16:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you mind translating {{welcomeen-en}} into Indonesian? I run into articles written in Indonesian sometimes, and think this might be useful. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 01:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Sure I dream of horses

Salam {{<includeonly>SUBST:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}}, dan [[Wikipedia:Welcoming_committee/Welcome_to_Wikipedia|selamat datang di Wikipedia]]! Meski semua usaha untuk meningkatkan kualitas Wikipedia dihargai, kontribusi Anda tidak ditulis dalam bahasa Inggris yang memadai. Sepertinya Anda lebih lancar berbahasa Indonesia. Tahkukah Anda bahwa ada [[:id:Halaman Utama|Wikipedia bahasa Indonesia? Mungkin Anda lebih tertarik berkontribusi di sana. Bagaimanapun juga, selamat datang di Wikipedia, dan terima kasih untuk kontribusi Anda! ~~<includeonly>~~</includeonly><noinclude>~~</noinclude> <noinclude>

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

If I were to copy that to {{welcomeen-id}}, it would create the template, right? -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 03:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• I dream of horses, it gives this:

Salam Crisco 1492, dan selamat datang di Wikipedia! Meski semua usaha untuk meningkatkan kualitas Wikipedia dihargai, kontribusi Anda tidak ditulis dalam bahasa Inggris yang memadai. Sepertinya Anda lebih lancar berbahasa Indonesia. Tahkukah Anda bahwa ada Wikipedia bahasa Indonesia? Mungkin Anda lebih tertarik berkontribusi di sana. Bagaimanapun juga, selamat datang di Wikipedia, dan terima kasih untuk kontribusi Anda!  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I removed the functionality of choosing a language, because if you're posting this in Indonesian, there's little point in specifying another language and another language Wikipedia. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Tuesday's featured article is Mantis, so I suggest replacing the featured picture (a butterfly photograph) with something non-insect-related. (Swapping it with next week's duck photograph would place it five days after the mantis article's appearance and five days before your grasshopper photograph's appearance, with the overall distribution of animal-related images unchanged.) —David Levy 02:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Doable. I'll handle it when I get home. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks! I updated the protected versions accordingly. —David Levy 15:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Chris, I was wondering whether you could confirm that the image is indeed free on this one, and if you would be able to check the ALT2 hook and possible see whether the article could be approved, so much the better. Thanks for anything you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, would you mind taking a look at the ALT on this DYK nomination that you reviewed? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like Zanhe got it. Sorry, was asleep. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I have recently been working on Walt Disney, which is now up for PR. Would you have time to take a spin over the images? No problems is you're too busy with all the other stuff,on your plate. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'll try when I've got the time. Have you asked Curly Turkey to have a look? Animation is usually right up his field. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I've actually been doing some copyediting on the article already. I don't know if I'd have much to say about the images, but I'll be leaving some comments about extra context I'd like to see. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    • That's what I was thinking as well, for you. You know much more about early animation than any other editor here, so if context is missing I'm sure you'll know it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review Chris. I'll make a start on these today. It always surprises me just how many images sourced from Commons shouldn't actually be there at the ened of the day! Thanks for the tweaks CT, and I'll be happy to see your comments over the context. I've tried to focus entirely on the individual with little else, but I appreciate that there needs to be a very small amount of background in there too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Since you're one of the TFA coordinators I figured I'd ask. I just got Gudovac massacre promoted to FA and was originally hoping I could get it to TFA for the 75th anniversary of the event. Unfortunately, the article was only promoted the day after, so I missed the anniversary. However, there is another important anniversary coming up — May 8th, the 71st anniversary of the anti-fascist victory in Europe. I believe the massacre article would be a fitting nod to this very important anniversary. The only problem is that the May 8th spot is currently taken by Music for a Time of War (which is a beautiful article and I'm sure the person who wrote it spent a lot of time and energy to get it to where it is). I was hoping Music for a Time of War could be pushed back to May 7th (since this would coincide with the 5th anniversary that it is marking) and Gudovac massacre put up for May 8th. I apologize for notifying you on such short notice, but unfortunately the FAC process was not moving along as speedily as I had hoped. I'm aware this can potentially mess up part of the schedule, but I'm hoping the TFA coordinators can be flexible and figure something out if that is the case. Best, 23 editor (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• User:Brianboulton is presently in charge of scheduling for May. He may be willing to schedule, though I would not get my hopes up: we do our best to have the schedule fixed at least two weeks ahead of time, so that the articles' main contributors have time to clean up the articles in case they have deteriorated since promotion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• I sympathise with the fact that the timing of the promotion scuppered the plan for TFA on 28 April. But I don't think that May 8, VE Day, would be suitably marked by an article recording a massacre by a group of Croation fascists; the choice of Music for a Time of War for this date was deliberate, and is surely more appropriate. So regretfully, I don't think I can help. Brianboulton (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Brianboulton No worries, there will be other anniversaries. Cheers, 23 editor (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kawan Bergeloet 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 J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Crisco 1492, thanks for reporting me. Yes I'm new to Wikipedia and you are so much longer to stay here, but I'm just trying to be a good contributor in Wikipedia. If you don't like me, don't threat me like a 10 years old child. Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks, Wikipedia:WikiBullying, Wikipedia:Harassment. Your talk contributions have been added to my Archive page, User_talk:Rachman227/archive, because I just learned how to do so. See Personal talk page cleanup; moved to talk/archive. I'm not deleting your comments, since everything in Wikipedia is archived cannot be deleted. Rachman227 (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The article Kawan Bergeloet you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Kawan Bergeloet 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 J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, its been a while as I'm not on much these days, but I've a favour to ask. I came across an article and began editing in a fit of disgust! I'm pretty sure that File:Abdevillierspressconference.png is a screen capture from a TV broadcast and therefore blatantly not free. But its from Commons, and I haven't the patience to try and navigate that place. I presume you are still the image guy, so I wondered if you could do something appropriate? (It can't be the uploader's picture as he/she would have had to be in front of the TV cameras taking it from the playing field) Thanks. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Have nominated for deletion. Appears to have been lifted from a video titled "Downtime for AB De Villiers", but I can't actually open the video file. Keep getting redirected. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for your input at the recent PR for Walt Disney. The article is now at FAC should you wish to comment further. Thanks again – SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Crisco, kenapa link ini jadi "internal server error": http://stats.grok.se/en/201605/User%20talk:Crisco%201492 --Erik Fastman (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Softwarenya sudah diganti yang ini. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Kalo di WBI kok masih menampilkan link stats.grok.ne tersebut: https://id.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pembicaraan_Pengguna:Crisco_1492&action=history --Erik Fastman (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Itu berarti admin di WBI harus mengganti pranalanya. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Kalau boleh tau, Anda tau nggak cara mengganti pranala-nya ? Kalau tau bagaimana caranya, soalnya (maaf, bukannya congkak) saya bisa secara saya sudah admin --Erik Fastman (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Coba tanya Mas Benny. Kalau sudah berkaitan dengan software seperti ini, saya agaknya kurang PD. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Crisco 1492. I am preparing the Olivia de Havilland article for WP:FAC nomination and would appreciate any feedback if you have the time. You can add your comments to the peer review page. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Bede735, the article looks impressive at a glance but I can tell you right away that length concerns will probably be raised. Sadly I don't think I have enough time for a full review; I'll try and take a look at the images when I can. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, at 12,191 words of readable prose, it exceeds the guidance limit of ten thousand. I'm planning to trim off sections of some of the lesser films, and I'm sure the PR will produce other suggestions. Thanks for responding, Chris. A review of some of the images would be welcome. Bede735 (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• Including in the lede, I hope? I know some users swear by semi-extensive filmographies in the lede, but I much prefer keeping the number lower. The lede at Terry-Thomas, which has 10 films, strikes me as reasonable for an article of 8k words or more. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• — Maile, do you know what happened here? Did someone reuse the templates? Hardi already ran yesterday. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• I think there must be a hiccup on the bot that delivers this. The time on this is the exact time the bot loaded the new set for the main page, and the old set went to archive. But this would have been two sets back, so it should not have sent you this. I'm going to post on WT:DYK about this, because I see the same thing happened on Gerda's talk page. Thanks for mentioning this. — Maile (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• Makes sense. I'll add what I can to WT:DYK. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, now that I look at Gerda's talk page, she got the correct one because the current set has one of her music hooks in it. Anyway, just as well I posted on WT Talk, because APerson needs to look into this. — Maile (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you possibly get the high-res version from http://art.alvin-portal.org/alvin/view.jsf?file=9695 ? Cheers!

• Adam, done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I'm helpign out witht he Women in Red editathon for this month. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Awesome. I'll see if I can do an article on Sedap Malam, the first Indonesian film directed by a woman (Ratna Asmara, in this case), done. I've got the flyer too, but the non-photographic designs appear too complicated to upload it as a free file. Might have time to write during the weekend. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Below discussion is related to the following post: Is there a policy/consensus that you can show me which indicates "globally notable" is the criterion for inclusion, and not "The births and deaths listed on this page are only for people for whom there is a Wikipedia article (no red links and no redirects). Please do not add yourself (unless there is a Wikipedia article about you), or anyone without a Wikipedia article. Any entry added for anyone without an article will be deleted." as listed in the edit window? If there is such a criterion, it strikes me as entirely subjective. What metric could be used for saying, for instance, that an Indonesian actor with over seventy film credits and a forty-year career is less "globally notable" than a Filipina actress with a ten-year career and barely a dozen film and television appearances, especially when both of them were/have been only active in their home countries? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

See this page. You are, of course, free to restore anything you deem to to have been unjustifiably removed. Subjectivity and error are unavoidable given the construct within which we are working, although I always try to edit rationally, reasonably and fairly. Yours, Quis separabit? 15:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, that is a non-answer. My question was regarding your revert and its basis in policy, or at least consensus. Do you, or do you not, have any policy or consensus that you can link to for reverts such as this, this, this, this? It's a simple question, with simple follow-up: If yes, please provide the link(s) to the policy or consensus in question. If no, please revert yourself in these edits and in all others where you implement your own standards, rather than follow those established by consensus.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Christopher: That is the only answer I can provide. I have been following, to the best of my ability, the examples set by Deb and others, which I wonder if you have reviewed, who have been working on the globalism project. I am not going to revert innumerable past edits on this point which were made in good faith. Which edits are "those established by consensus", by the way? The main rule of thumb is whether the article has 10 pages in the languages link, which is the criterion I use. Please show me which article deletions from the DOTY I made which have/had 10 pages in the languages link. Quis separabit? 15:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Dengan amal dan kehati-hatian -- don't try to intimidate me. I am not Hester Prynne. Quis separabit? 15:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• "The main rule of thumb" - Is that based on a consensus, or is that your rule of thumb? Last I checked, Wikipedia:Days of the year does not say "10 pages in the languages link", and the (stalled) discussion at the talk page was never able to reach a consensus regarding how to limit entries. When Deb did mention it, User:Kendrick7 immediately came back with his concerns that such a standard would disadvantage non-Europeans.

What's worse, a person with a particularly inventive agent could easily spam ten Wikipedias with articles. Spanish, English, Simple English, and Tagalog would be within reach for a Filipino editor. If quality were sacrificed, anyone with Google translate has access to thirty-odd languages (you make my point with your use of Indonesian). Interlanguage links are no measure of notability.

What edits established by consensus? "Those" clearly referred to "standards" established by consensus, i.e. Wikipedia:Days of the year.

The edit you mention was self-reverted as soon as I saw that the terms of probation had an explicit expiry date. If I'd been planning to intimidate you, why would I revert?

Do you or do you not have any policy or consensus that you can link to for reverts like those listed? Please stop sidestepping the question. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

As for the question "Please show me which article deletions from the DOTY I made which have/had 10 pages in the languages link,": interlanguage links do not preserve in the history now that we use Wikidata, and so what I see will not reflect what you saw. Interlanguage articles may have been deleted in the intervening time, or they may have been written in the intervening time. I do note with interest that one of your additions, Rahul Verma (social activist), has no interwiki links at the present time. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

And as I must have missed your point in (re)reading the Counter systemic bias project page, please quote whichever passage you consider relevant to my original concerns. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Christopher -- just got back onwiki. Was out of the house. I am positive I did not add Rahul Verma (social activist) to any list -- do you mean I didn't remove him from a particular DOTY list? Maybe I corrected a mistake or misalphabetisation but I am positive I did not add him as I have never heard of him. Anyway I have nothing more to say. I've said all I can say. You do what you want. If @Deb deems that I should desist I will, of course, comply. Quis separabit? 01:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• I have stricken the part about Rahul; after double checking again, while not sleep deprived, it was added by another editor in between three of your edits. My apologies.

I directly asked you several questions, and you have avoided answering them. I fail to see how you can say "I've said all I can say" when my request for you to "quote whichever passage (of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias) you consider relevant to my original concerns" has not even been acknowledge. If you can't provide a passage, or at least indicate it, say so. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Let's not get all crotchety over this. Chris, assuming you want the same as Quis separabit? and I want, which is to improve the year articles by making the births and deaths more representative (as the events already are), then maybe you could help us by coming up with some better criteria. You'll see that I was concerned, right from the start, about the possibilities of spamming. But at the moment we have a number of individuals who are keen to fill up every year article with people from their own country or who represent their personal interests - for example, every rugby league player they can think of. Alternative approaches have been suggested, but all have their drawbacks. That doesn't mean we have to just accept the present situation, does it? Deb (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Deb, I'm generally not the kind to support "special notability criteria" for certain areas or processes (I've just recently argued against it at FPC) but if there is a consensus that something needs to be done about DOTY, I think it needs to be a bit more refined than "ten interwiki links". Owing to specific biases among Wikipedia editors of different countries, a Korean singer who is a member of a relatively successful band (but has no solo career to speak of) may have more interwiki links than, say, a singer-songwriter with a career spanning six decades and numerous national hits. The inclusion of redlinks in an article should likewise not be a consideration. Owing to systemic bias, a lot of significant topics from various countries are still lacking articles. For Indonesian cinema, for instance, Tiga Dara, Titian Serambut Dibelah Tujuh, and Kejarlah Daku Kau Kutangkap are still redlinks, despite their cultural impact within Indonesia, commercial success, and/or their numerous awards and nominations.

If I were to write criteria to "narrow the field", so to speak, I would definitely find something more refined. Specific criteria for people in specific fields. For actor or actresses, it could be something like (and yes, this is still rough):

1. Has won one or more national or international awards for acting (with examples, if necessary)
2. Has appeared in more than X feature films and/or played a recurring character in more than Y television series
3. Has had a career which spanned more than X years, with more than Y film appearances

Obviously these ideas are a bit less strict than some would like, but that's deliberate; it's a lot easier to cast our net wide, but with objective criteria, then to limit ourselves to X many individuals and then have to choose between (say) Linda McCartney and Doris Roberts.

It might also useful to revisit having articles on specific dates in specific years (i.e. April 26, 1993, or May 11, 2016) for more recent years, to avoid overwhelming the main DOTY pages. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• Another criteria could be "had a direct and significant involvement in the production of a film recognized by multiple reliable sources as having a significant impact on national or international cinema" — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

These are all good suggestions as far as I'm concerned and I would certainly support them.Deb (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'll try and see if we can reignite the discussion on the DOTY talk page. Not right now, though. Hopefully this weekend, after I get back from Surakarta. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow, have a nice time! Deb (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Christopher, I also second that emotion. Bersenang-senang di Surakarta. Apakah Anda tinggal di Indonesia? Quis separabit? 00:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, just FYI if you and @Deb read this entire section of a thread at the DOTY talk page and the following comment right here perhaps this will qualify as a "passage" or at least a guide: note that I am not a "Johnny Come Lately" making edits willy nilly. I made a list last month (FOOs) of articles that IMO could be trimmed from the DPTY and no one dissented and everyone seemed to agree, at least in large part and principle. That is probably not official consensus in your eyes but it does show good will and an apparent general synchronicity among those who elected to contribute to the discussion. Quis separabit? 00:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm based out of Yogyakarta, which is why I'm able to get a wide variety of sources on Indonesia that are otherwise difficult (or impossible) to find. The Apa Siapa books, for instance, only had localised distribution, yet they are some of the most useful sources we can find for pre-internet Indonesian film figures. I've got a few magazines contemporaneous to the people I write about, but coverage is spotty (the same holds true for the collection at Sinematek Indonesia).

The link to the discussion at WT:DOTY would have been a much better initial link than the one to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, yes. That page makes it clear that there is a consensus to enforce the nebulous "specific criteria" mentioned at WP:DOTY, and that there have been multiple suggestions as to how these criteria can be formulated (though everyone can agree "we need to concretise these specific criteria"). We can hopefully hammer out a solution after restarting discussion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. Have a good time and be careful. I know you are in Java but I just had to recount that when I was really young I would see Sumatra on the map and think it was the biggest island in the world. It's not, of course, even Papua/New Guinea is bigger but doesn't look like it. Yours. Quis separabit? 03:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• I've been to Bengkulu and Lampung. Rural Sumatra is quite beautiful, if you get the chance to visit. Not nearly as built-up as Java. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Crisco, kok artikel ini kosong tapi nggak dihapus-hapus dari tahun 2007 ? --Erik Fastman (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Bukan kosong, tapi ada inter-wiki redirect. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello there. I didn't realize until recently how much work you do on Featured Pic and POTD, in addition to DYK -- wow. Your opinion please... If an appropriately high-res version of File:Phineas_Gage_Cased_Daguerreotype_WilgusPhoto2008-12-19_Unretouched_Color.jpg were uploaded, what do you think its prospects are for becoming a Featured Pic (maybe with adjustment, as in File:Phineas_Gage_Cased_Daguerreotype_WilgusPhoto2008-12-19_Unretouched_Color_ToneCorrected.jpg)?

Assuming that seems feasible, what's the latest the nom could be made in order for it to appear as POTD on June 22, to synchronize with an event still being planned (or a little before, if that date is taken when the time comes)? Any guidance, and help shepherding the nom when the time comes, will be appreciated. EEng 11:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• Hi User:EEng, I think (with a bit more space around the frame, and maybe with some touch-up like what Adam Cuerden does) it would be okay. A FPC nomination takes ten days, and I generally schedule POTD at least two weeks before the image runs (but POTD's much more flexible). I'd probably want the image to be done at FPC by 15 or 16 June, to schedule it for 22 June (leave a bit of time for people to check the blurb, if need be). So you'd want to nominate by 5 June. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Great! That gives more time than I expected, but I'll try to light a fire under the source to get it sooner -- and it might not even happen. As far as composition, I think the key is to have a more neutral background behind the frame (technically called a "mat" for this kind of artifact -- a daguerreotype) so it doesn't have to be cropped so close to avoid that unsightly black background. EEng 13:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

As I said, very flexible :). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• Continuing in the "very flexible" vein... reviewing the Featured Pic criteria I see now the emphasis on 1500 px being the minimum, with larger sizes "generally preferred". The owner is new to free licensing and so on. When I first suggested this whole thing I simply said 1500 px wide x whatever tall (it being portrait-oriented), and I'd rather not now say that we need to go bigger. Do you think if it's just 1500 wide that will be a problem? EEng 12:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • That depends on the voters. I couldn't guess either way. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, is there a more usual size? Since this is an historic image I'm not sure a larger size makes any difference anyway. EEng 09:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• Double checking: 1500 wide would be about 1700 tall. That would meet the minimum criteria. For a restoration, however... a bit small. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I should have been clearer I meant 1500 in the smaller dimension, thus as you say more in the bigger dimension. Personally I'm not sanguine about retouching historic images (except perhaps tone correction etc.) but anyway that's downstream after we get the original. Thanks again for your help. EEng 16:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chris, does this [3] have a chance at FPC, used here [4]. I can remove the scratches. Meta data says jpeg quality is 85. FYI, source link [5]. Bammesk (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• From a purely technical quality, there's not much against the file. A few from this source have been successful at FPC (Mochtar Lubis, Abdul Haris Nasution, etc.). It would need some flyspecking (the dust spots and whatnot cleaned up), of course. Now, from a photographic perspective... the lighting is rather harsh, and the pose somewhat twisted. Not sure that'll fly at FPC. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• I see what you mean, thanks, I might give it a shot (it's easy to clean)..... an unposed snap shot... I prefer the uncropped original [6]. Bammesk (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Chris, the oldest DYK nomination, Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Avarice (which dates back to February 17), is currently hung up on a merger discussion that has been open for two months, with the most recent comment posted on April 19. I was hoping that you could take a look at the discussion and then close it, so the nomination can proceed one way or the other; it would be very helpful. Based on the response I just got from a request for help from an admin (which took eight days), this could be hanging for many weeks to come unless someone's willing to take on the closure. Thank you very much for your consideration. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Done to 31 May. By agreement with the nominator I scheduled Half-Life 2: Episode One for 31 May, to leave 1 June free for Marilyn Monroe 90th anniversary. The Marilyn article hasn't been nominated but I believe we should run it. So, happy scheduling; we're still light on Media, and Lit/Theatre should be avoided if possible. Otherwise we're pretty well balanced. Good luck! Brianboulton (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you! Enjoy your break. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks. Not a complete break, I'll still be around for consultation where necesssary, and will be doing odd maintenance chores. I just won't be reviewing or adding content for a bit. Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I have nominated the above article for FAC, a biographical article about a late Cambodian monarch and Cold War figure. I have received feedback from the FAC which I need help on the prose. I have done several rounds of proofreading and CE on my part, and right now I think a second pair of eyes would be helpful for this. I welcome you to take a look at the article, and feel free to give any comments on the prose, content etc - on any areas that may need improvement from your perspective. (The FAC page is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norodom Sihanouk/archive1) Pleased do not feel obliged if you are unable to do so, though it would be great if I can hear from you soon about this. Cheers! Mr Tan (talk) 07:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I didn't realise when you were inspecting that image that the article was going to be scheduled for TFA. This isn't one that I'd particularity like to go with, I have others listed here that I think would be more appropriate, for various reasons (Pentland or Phillips especially as we're in the middle of the centenary of WWI) -- would you consider one of them instead? I was also curious about the date chosen since it's only a couple of weeks after another RAAF pilot (today's TFA in fact, Bill Brill) but not so fussed about that if you aren't. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Ian Rose, I was thinking of having it tied in with his birthday. I didn't mind the relatively short gap, as we still have a fairly large number of featured articles on RAAF pilots. We can do Pentland in August, if you want. I don't find the article itself problematic, definitely nothing like the two album articles I had my eye on for June 2nd. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chris! Pinging you here, just in case you missed it. Cheers, Rehman 14:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Chris. I've listed the article for PR here as I wish to take it to FA. Feel free to leave comments. Thanks.    — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 04:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• I've been quite busy recently (a few surprise pieces of paperwork popped up) so I don't think I'll be able to get to it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

for Sedap Malam Victuallers (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Great! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello. How do you make an article talk page automatically archive itself? I'm trying to do it for Talk:Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• KAVEBEAR, I basically copy and paste the template from another page if I need archiving. If you were to copy the following code

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | age=720 | archiveprefix=Talk:Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman/Archive | numberstart=1 | maxarchsize=100000 | header={{Automatic archive navigator}} | minkeepthreads=4 | minarchthreads=1 | format= %%i }}

onto the talk page, it should work. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey Crisco. Thanks for putting the Starved Vietnamese Man pic as POTD for the 29th. Always like that one. GamerPro64 00:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Cheers. It was a long while in waiting, but it's ready for the main page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Chris, since you're one of the folks who run FLC, I figured you'd know a list when you saw one.

At the moment, Talk:International recognition of Kosovo/GA1 is an ongoing (and very delayed) Good Article nomination. When I took a good look at the article, it struck me that although it has more non-lead material than a typical list, the vast majority of its material is in lists/tables, and it should perhaps be considered to be a list rather than an article, in which case it should probably be at FLC rather than GAN.

Can you please let me know what you think? Since the GAN seems to be stalled for no particularly good reason, before I try to get it moving again, I'd like to get a knowledgeable opinion as to what it is, since "moving" might involve a closure of the GAN and the opening of an FLC, rather than an ultimate listing as a GA. Thank you for your help. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• BlueMoonset, I'd classify it as a list. It sort of resembles Description of the Western Isles of Scotland in terms of article construction. I'd recommend that the author work on better summaries of those countries with "main" templates, however. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the advice. I've just linked to it from the review page, which (because it is a list) I've recommended be closed, with a suggestion to check here for what would need to be done before any follow-up nomination for FLC. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Pilgrim Tercentenary half dollar. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Wehwalt, done here. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you please have a look at this... thing and weigh in? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

An IP has added {{clarify span}} to the caption. Any idea what should happen with it? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• Gone. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Great. BTW, could you unproctect User:Armbrust/Status? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Chris, I just noticed the bottom went missing from this when the larger version was uploaded. Could you please have another go? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• You're right. Fixed, Adam Cuerden — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Sorry to be a pain! =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
    • No worries! I should have caught that. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Chris, prep 6 needs to be promoted to queue 6 right away, if you get online in the next few minutes. (Maile has done promotions into Queues 1 and 2, but had been the one to build prep 6 initially.) Thanks for anything you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, just as I was writing that, Maile ended up taking care of it: we're all set there. So, as long as I have you here, can I ask you to please take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Sam Pepper? Both Gatoclass and Vanamonde93 have expressed reservations as to whether this article should ever be featured on the main page. If you concur, perhaps it's time to close it. (It's the second oldest incomplete DYK nom.) Thanks for anything you can do here. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chris, sorry I didn't follow up sooner on your initial response but the last week or two have been pretty busy. To explain further why I think we should defer Evans, some new info has come my way that I think is pretty important but I want to verify it from another source, as there may be BLP issues around it, and I doubt that I'll get that sorted out before 3 June. If it's to be on the main page I think it should be as comprehensive as possible and I'm not necessarily happy with that side of it as is. Also, not that it's as important of course, deferring might permit me to source a decent free image as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• Alright Ian Rose, I can see why you've been wanting to hold back on this particular article. Do you have another flyer to recommend for the date? Or another Australia-related war article? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Tks Chris -- how would you feel about No. 77 Squadron RAAF? Recent promotion and up-to-date info as of April this year... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Sure. I'll just have to remember to not schedule any more materiel for June. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Many thanks, Chris -- I've checked/updated all links in the article and will work with Dan on the blurb this w/e. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Crisco, kok disini nggak ada gambar Sukarno sama Marilyn Monroe sih. Padahal di situs-situs Indonesia banyak tersebar lho gambar itu. Selain itu juga, gambar Sukarno disuguhi tari striptease juga kok nggak ada disini. --Erik Fastman (talk) 05:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Kan, kategori itu khusus untuk gambar dari buku Presiden Soekarno di Amerika Serikat. Makanya ditulis "Presiden Soekarno di Amerika Serikat is a 1956 book released by the United States Information Service. It covers Soekarno's state visit to the United States." Buku tersebut tidak ada gambar Bung Karno dengan Marilyn Monroe. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I did this not seeing the bookmark....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Right, it's just a placeholder, reminding me that "You know, this article might work really well on this day." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Mau nanya nih, kalo laman ini kan berisi urutan artikel yang paling banyak dilihat berdasarkan pada bahasa Wikipedia-nya. Nah, kalo urutan artikel yang paling banyak dilihat berdasarkan pada pengguna yang buat ada nggak ? --Erik Fastman (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Setahu saya tidak ada. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Kalau laman yang berisi artikel dengan interwiki yang banyak tapi belum ada di WBI ada nggak. Kan lumayan bisa buat rujukan biar Wikipediawan di WBI bisa bikin artikel dengan interwiki yang banyak tanpa perlu ngecek sana-sini. Lagipula malu juga, ada artikel yang jumlah interwikinya udah banyak tapi WBI belum punya. --Erik Fastman (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Saya belum pernah lihat. Mungkin dengan kategori-kategori atau... — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Got another one for DYK, Alabama Centennial half dollar. I would focus the DYK on Thomas Kilby being the first living person to be depicted on a U.S. coin.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Sure, done at Template:Did you know nominations/Alabama Centennial half dollar. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

And another. Mr. Dooley.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey, do you know how to get these? [7][8][9] Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• I saw this, but I forgot all about it. I'll try and remember tonight. If I don't, bug me until I do. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Curly Turkey, I got #1 and #3, but Ichikawa is not loading for me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Merci. Yeah, there's something funny about it. It loaded the first time I opened the page, but never has since. I see only one of them on Commons, though. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

•  
  Nakamura Nakazō II
•  
  Ichikawa
•  
  Nakamura Noshio II

• • • • Curly Turkey, was still uploading. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Beautiful. The guy's got only seven prints. I hope I don't have to resort to scanning. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Soeman Hs 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 J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The article Soeman Hs you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Soeman Hs 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 J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Chris -- If you have time, could you take a look at the Bangladesh article? What do you think of the placement of images? I see some that are on the same level with the text squeezed in between. I thought I had heard once that it was inadvisable to have a section begin with an image on the left. Is that correct? I know you're an expert on this, so I thought I'd ask you.  – Corinne (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Sandwiching is an issue, as you point out. Too many fair-use images for a country-level article. Too many images. The left formatting is minor compared to the other things. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chris, Would you have time for a quick image review? I've got Dr. No (novel) at FAC, and it only has two images: one non-free of the book cover in the IB, and one Commons one (looks OK, but you know how bad I am at licences). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Crisco, terjemahan dari paragraf ini apa sih:

during our stay, two small steamers under German flag, ostensibly coming from Labuan, ran in; also third, of about the same size, with a flag of all yellow, the property and flag, as I was told of the Datu Alum. Judging from the stores in the settlement, cotton goods, arms and especially firearms, appears to be the articles of trade with the natives of Sulu.

--Erik Fastman (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, on my phone, fat fingers. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• No worries. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I was going to leave you a birthday present, but there wasn't a single book source in English. Hey, remember User_talk:Drmies/Archive_48#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FLSU_Journal_of_Energy_Law_and_Resources.E2.80.8E.E2.80.8E? A nice blast from the past. This is why we're running out of server space. Drmies (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Finally, after twenty pages of Google hits (books, news, and all): [10]. Bacon? Drmies (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • LOL. Yeah, the dry version does kinda look like bacon. It's a banana snack. My wife is addicted to the wet version (like the one I have up there). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hiya Chris! I'm so stoked about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Liberty_Island#.5B.5B%3AFile%3ALiberty_Island_photo_D_Ramey_Logan.jpg.5D.5D_to_appear_as_POTD_soon ... when Don first uploaded that image, I nommed it for featured image (or something) because I loved it so much... I'm so very happy to see it would be POTD. I have one question/request if at all possible. Over at Commons WPPilot is one of our most valued contributors, but I see that he's blocked on en:Wiki until 2017 despite having formerly been extremely active. Since his photo is about to be POTD'd, it might be nice if someone could put a message on his en:Wiki talk page referring them to his Commons talk page for any congrats or correspondence? In a perfect world, I'd hope he could be unblocked in time for his feature - I really think he's learned whatever lesson was being taught - and he's an incredible resource to us at Commons with his boats, planes and drones. Whatever works, it would just be so sad if he couldn't correspond with people giving him congrats! Thank you for all your hard work for the project! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• The link with his name on it goes directly to his Commons user page, per his request on Facebook; unless someone searches for "User:WPPilot" in the search box, they aren't going to end up on his English Wikipedia page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Excellent, thank you. I don't have Facebook and so didn't see it. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

•  
  John Biddle (nominated)
•  
  Atractomorpha crenulata (nominated)
•  
  Pahit-Pahit Manis (nominated)
•  
  Chrysopa perla (nominated)
•  
  Two Lovers, by and at Reza Abbasi (nominated)
•  
  Jean Augustin Daiwaille (nominated)
•  
  Thomas Willing (nominated)
•  
  A591 road (nominated)
•  
  Cape ground squirrel (nominated)
•  
  Scissors (nominated)
• A Trip Down Market Street (nominated by Yann (talk · contribs))
•  
  James Francis Edward Stuart (nominated)
•  
  Xbox One (nominated)
•  
  Gonepteryx rhamni (nominated by Charlesjsharp)
•  
  Landscape near Arles (nominated)
•  
  Gulian Verplanck (nominated)
• Fear and Desire (nominated)
•  
  Supir Istimewa (nominated)
•  
  Greater kudu (nominated)
•  
  Singapore National Day Parade, 2011 (nominated)
•  
  Japanese pygmy woodpecker (nominated)
•  
  Alphonse Bertillon (nominated)
•  
  Poesaka Terpendam (nominated)
•  
  Ratna Moetoe Manikam (nominated)

•  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tiga Dara 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 J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Chris, it may have been taken care of by the time you log on, but at the moment the DYK queues are empty, the next promotion to the main page is in about 35 minutes, and only Prep 3 is ready to go. (I just had to replace its quirky hook after that was removed from prep.) Thanks as always for your help. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey Crisco! I have not quite understood the system of POTD. So you will simply add a featured picture to the queue for POTD? It does not need to get nominated again? Who writes the caption for the Main Page then? Where can I volunteer to do so for a specific FP? I'm talking specifically about this picture, which I nominated. When will new FPs added to the queue? Where would I go to propose a specific picture for a specific date?

Generally speaking, the WP:POTD site could use some more explaining... It says anybody can contribute but does not specify where. I am guessing the talk page, but not much is going on there?

Regards, Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)