User talk:Wugapodes/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Hello, Wugapodes. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israel. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Same Love. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Wugapodes, next time you're around, please return to your review here. The nominator asked you a question back on October 31 that still needs answering; I don't know whether the rest of your review has been addressed in the article itself yet. Thank you very much, and hope to see you around here soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I've passed it, and I hope to be around more as well! Thank you for the reminder. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 22:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Austrian People's Party. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Swastika. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how easy this would be to do, but the numbers at the bottom of the GA list subsections are very often off by one or two since editors sometimes forget to increment the number when they add (or remove) a GA. Could a daily or weekly pass count the total in each section and update it? And perhaps put a section in the GA/R report that shows any sections that it was unable to parse successfully and hence could not update? Pinging BlueMoonset to see if they can think of any reasons why this would not be a good idea. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Beauty and the Beast (2017 film). Legobot (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Unite the Right rally. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carolina Nairne. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Miley Cyrus & Her Dead Petz. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Wugapodes, the /Report page hasn't been updated for the past two nights. Can you please take a look and try to get it running again? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

On it. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 03:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I've solved it. It was a problem with Talk:Counter-illumination/GA1. An editor used find and replace to change all colons to asterisks followed by a space. This included the part above the comment that isn't supposed to be changed. So when Legobot came to read the page, it couldn't properly parse it because it wasn't int he format it expected. This resulted in the GAN entry being changed to just "Unknown" with no time stamp. Because this was in a format WugBot wasn't expecting, it choked too, but way less gracefully. I put a bandaid fix on GAN so WugBot would run, and I've since fixed Counter-Illumination so that hopefully LegoBot can read it again. I'm going to work on having WugBot handle this more gracefully for when it happens again knowing that Legobot does this. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Glad you solved it. That "Unknown" thing happens when people mess with the GA review pages, just like "Example" happens when people add "onreview" to a GA nominee template even though it isn't really being reviewed yet. WugBot will indeed need to know how to deal with these sorts of bad format issues, although I'm guessing it does know how to deal with the "Example" thing, or bad times in the nomination part on the GAN page? (By the way, if you try to edit the GAN page to correct it, the bot will just undo your edit the next time it runs, since it builds the page based on the GA nominee template (for the nomination part) and the GA review page (for the review part).) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it turns out that whatever you did couldn't handle the same situation on February 20. I did take care of the Unknowns involved (it can happen when a GA review page is deleted, such as when a review page is opened accidentally or by an ineligible reviewer such as a major contributor to the article, a new editor, or an IP, if the deletion has happened but the article talk page hasn't been fixed to remove the "onreview" status), but we missed an update that time. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Doctor Who. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:

• Aoba47
  led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
• FrB.TG , a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
• Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
• Ceranthor, Numerounovedant, Carbrera, Farang Rak Tham and Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Wugapodes, this nomination has been approved, yet WugBot hasn't moved it to the /Approved page. Rather than move it myself, I thought I'd leave it there for a day or two for you to take a look and see why it's staying put. I did try replacing the tick (it had been later in the line rather than at the beginning where it's supposed to go), but that didn't help. Thanks for whatever you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I couldn't hold it for you any longer. It wasn't fair to the nominator, who has been waiting. With any luck you'll have this logged and be able to figure it out, but I've just now moved it to the Approved page, where it belongs. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Apologies, I've been incredibly busy in real life and this slipped by. It's completely fine that you moved it to the Accepted page, and don't hesitate to do so in the future. I wrote the bot so that it can be tested on old revisions, so as long as whatever's causing the error is in the revision histories, I can still figure out what the problem is. So there's no need to hold up nominations for the bot's sake. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 20:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks for getting back to me. Next time I'll move it sooner if it stays behind. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

By the way, whatever kept this transclusion from being moved from Nominations to Approved also kept it from being deleted from Approved by the bot. I've just manually done so; it was under January 26. When you get the chance, I'd appreciate knowing what kept the bot from dealing with it, in case it's something I can fix. I'm wondering whether it might be something in one of the sigs... BlueMoonset (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Korean fried chicken. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James Toback. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bill Shorten. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dawenkou culture. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Wugapodes, it looks like the temporary fix you made to keep WugBot from overwriting the top of the Approved page has instead prevented it from running at DYK at all. There hasn't been a single WugBot edits on the Nominations or the Approved page since then, which of course means that nothing is getting moved from Nominations to Approved, and none of the promoted hooks have been removed from the Approved page.

Please fix this as soon as you can. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Fixed Thanks for the heads up. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 17:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't know if this is related, but there seem to be quite a few noms that haven't been moved to the approved page. (See e.g. Muehlenbeckia astonii, Joe Mayo, Royal Bangkok Sports Club, Aphelinus mali, Syracosphaera azureaplaneta, Turkey at the 2014 Winter Paralympics, Don the Talking Dog.) --Paul_012 (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks BlueMoonset for sorting this out. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Oddly, Template:Did you know nominations/Muehlenbeckia astonii‎ was not fixed by this. I've tried substituting the tick anew, but I'm doubtful that it will solve matters. Wugapodes, I'm going to leave it under Nominations for a day or two, in case you're around tomorrow and can take a look at why (assuming the new substitution doesn't do the trick; it'll be nearly two hours before the bot runs again, and I'll be long asleep by then). BlueMoonset (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, I've been very busy this week. I hope to get to it this weekend but it may be a bit longer depending on how work goes. Feel free to move it when you please, I have the problematic diff and can test the bot on that. I've also added case-insensitivity to my to-do list. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Apologies myself; I didn't think to check to see whether that old problem, asterisks before the transcluded templates, were preventing the moves. I just noticed a whole bunch of noms, all with ticks, just sitting there under April 13. I expect that they'll all be moving, including Template:Did you know nominations/Muehlenbeckia astonii‎, in about half an hour, when Wugbot runs again. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
• Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
• Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
• Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
• Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
• Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

Hey, it looks like WugBot has stopped updating Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report. Just wanted to bring this to your attention. :) --Dom497 (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dom497: Fixed This edit caused a nom to be marked as on review by an IP, but the review was later deleted and resulted in a format the bot couldn't handle. I fixed it on the GAN page, and hopefully Legobot doesn't undo the edit (I don't think it will but I'll keep an eye out for a bit). Thanks for the heads up, and glad to see you're still around! Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 16:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. I'm going to go leave a note on Legobot's talk page to see why it's marking a non-existant page as existing. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 16:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It was most likely this. I think Legobot should revert on its next update. Thanks for helping out!--Dom497 (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like that was the issue.--Dom497 (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The

Hi. Would it be possible to add a report that shows the longest time since a comment at a review page. I know a few editors run through the report (very useful by the way) to look for reviews that are abandoned or need a little reminder. If that is too much work or not possible it is not a big deal as it just involves a few extra clicks through the oldest nominations. Thought I would ask in case it was an easy fix. Thanks anyway. AIRcorn (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:WUPV. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Junípero Serra. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The

I appreciate your comment over there. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

I am E. Whittaker, an intern at Wikimedia with the Scoring Team to create a labeled dataset, and potentially a tool, to help editors deal with incivility when they encounter it on talk pages. A full write-up of the study can be found here: m:Research:Civil_Behavior_Interviews. We are currently recruiting editors to be interviewed about their experiences with incivility on talk pages. Would you be interested in being interviewed? I am contacting you because of your involvement in Wikipedia’s Women in Red project. The interviews should take ~1 hour, and will be conducted over BlueJeans (which does allow interviews to be recorded). If, so, please email me at [email protected] in order to schedule an interview.

Thank you Ewitch51 (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating David Lightfoot (linguist), Wugapodes!

Wikipedia editor Ajpolino just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please add additional information to make this page more useful for readers. If you need a hand, feel free to ask!

To reply, leave a comment on Ajpolino's talk page.

Learn more about

Ajpolino (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kombucha. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington

Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jimmy Savile. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Khalistan movement. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trypophobia. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Wugapodes, there hasn't been a new GA Reports page since August 1; I can't find any obvious reason on the

@BlueMoonset: I'm looking at it now, though I'm travelling at the moment so it might take me longer than usual to fix. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 20:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh wow, I think there was a recent change to the API that I didn't know about. I might not be able to fix this for a couple days, but I'll prioritize it. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 20:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for whatever you did: it ran about an hour ago at the usually scheduled 01:00 UTC. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jordan Peterson. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 4 GA Cup competitors and observers: Happy Fall! Get ready, we're about to move into the finals of the second-ever GA Cup! Monday saw the end of Round 3. Out of the 8 contestants in the semi-finals, 5 have moved to the finals. The semi-finals were competitive. Our semi-finalists reviewed a total of 61 articles, or a grand total of 1,151 points. If you were to lump the top winners from each of the three pools together, it'd be a close horse race; they were within 35 points of each other, which can only mean that the finals will be an exciting race. Tomandjerry211, our top scorer in Round 2, again earned the most points in the semi-finals, with 288 points and 16 articles reviewed. Johanna came in second overall, with 251 points and 13 articles reviewed; Sturmvogel 66 came in third overall, with 221 points and 16 articles. Rounding out our wildcard slots are Zwerg Nase and The Rambling Man. These contestants were very strategic in how they reviewed articles. Like every other round in the history of the GA Cup, success depended upon reviewing oldest-nominated articles. For example, Johanna reviewed 5 articles that were worth the highest possible points. Congrats to all our finalists, and good luck! Stay tuned to this space for more information about the 2nd GA Cup, including overall statistics and how this competition has affected Wikipedia. We regret to inform you that Dom497, one of our original judges and co-creator of the GA Cup, has stepped down as a judge. Dom, a longtime member of WP:WikiProject Good articles, is responsible for the look of the GA Cup and has been instrumental in its upkeep. We wish him the best as he starts his university education, and are certain that he'll make an impact there as he has in Wikipedia. The finals started on October 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and will end on Ocober 29 at 23:59:59 UTC with a winner being crowned. Information about the Final can be found here. Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. 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.

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Wrap Up Hello, GA Cup competitors! Saturday, April 1 concluded the 2016-2017 GA Cup. 64 reviews were completed by our finalists. Although the backlog increased by 42 over the reviewing period instead of declining, the increase suggests that the contest is encouraging editors to nominate articles for review. Congratulations to Shearonink, who is the winner of the Cup, finishing with 672 points! Once again, just as in last round, this is more than the point totals for all the other competitors combined! It was a close race for second place between Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, who achieved 164 points, and Sturmvogel_66, who earned 150. Though Sturmvogel_66 reviewed one more article than Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga managed to earn 14 points more due to reviewing older articles. Our two wildcard competitors, Kees08 and Chris troutman, came in fourth and fifth, respectively. There were some bumps in the competition this time: The sign-up deadline and the first round were both extended due to fewer competitors signing up then was planned for. And there were delays in tallying points and getting out the newsletter. The judges apologize for this latter difficulty. Lastly, mid-way through the competition we bid farewell to Zwerg Nase, who stepped down from their position as judge due to other commitments. Information about the Final can be found here. Thank you to all of our competitors, and congrats to our winners! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. 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.

The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:

• Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
• Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
• Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
• Other contestants who qualified for the final round were Nova Crystallis, Iazyges, SounderBruce, Kosack and Ceranthor.

During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cleveland, Texas. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israel. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hamas. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Regional power. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Sociophonetics, Wugapodes!

Wikipedia editor Newslinger just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for contributing this article to Wikipedia!

To reply, leave a comment on Newslinger's talk page.

Learn more about

— Newslinger talk 11:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Norsemen. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, -dlj. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Lloyd-Jones (talk • contribs) 03:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jimmy Page. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

On 1 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sociophonetics, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a sociophonetic study found that young boys lower the pitch of their voice even before puberty to seem more masculine? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sociophonetics. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sociophonetics), 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.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wugapodes. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Minor user rights can now be accorded on a time limited or probationary period, do check back at

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Alex Shih (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

On 7 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Phonetics, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Sanskrit grammarian Pāṇini provided a phonetic theory of voicing around 350 BCE? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Phonetics. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Phonetics), 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.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Wugapodes,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

• Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Wugapodes. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Wugapodes. I have emailed you.

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: I tried to reply to your email but it didn't go through for some reason? I got a reply back from the mail system saying it couldn't be delivered. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 23:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Wugapodes,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.

Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.

Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)