User talk:Oddbodz/Archive 4

Nordic Woman

Hei Oddbodz, I am not done with the article yet, how many references should I add, there are too many out there. When I have added the required amount of references, can I remove the tag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Woman RegardsJogibaba (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. You just need to add enough which establish that the album has had a notable impact on society (eg: a review from a major either in Scandinavia or elsewhere in the world). These are particularity important on this article as the label does not have its own article and may not usually meet the notability guidelines. This would often be grounds for deletion. However I believe that due to the large number of notable artists involved, the article may be notable provided its imact can be shown. Thanks and let me know if you need any more help, Oddbodz (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I have added 3 references now, going to add 2 more, if those are enough, can add more if you ask. As far it goes for the Label, check this album

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listen_to_the_Banned this is the same Label, Grappa and the same producer Deeyah. Valley records merely distributed Listen to the Banned.

Yes, those references seem sufifient. I will ask another editor to have a look just to make sure (otherwise you could find it being removed at a later date) but I think it will be fine. As for the other album you mentioned, that is suitable because it has envolvment from a notable record label. Thanks and feel once I have checked with somebody else, I will remove the tags for you and notify you of the discussion on your talk page. Thanks, Oddbodz (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Canoe1967 also feels the article is notable so I will go and remove the relevent tags. Please note his sugestion to add it to the artists diography in their articles. Thanks, Oddbodz (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Oddbodz, can you please tell me what is "the artists diography", sorry, this word is new for me. RegardsJogibaba (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, should say discography. A discography is a collection of CDs/albums released by an artist (eg:see here for Mari Boine's discography). Oddbodz (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I will do it tomorrow, now it is 1.40AM here, going to sleep, but that would be done for sure by tomorrow. Regards Jogibaba (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Luminosity (scattering theory) article

Hi,

thanks for the feedback ! I actually just copied the section from the 'global' Luminosity article to this new article. But I take your comment as an invitation to try to make the article more readable to the non-expert soon. Andre.holzner (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thats great! Unfortunatly many science articles on wikipedia are written in a mannor that the non-expert wont be able to understand. Thanks for helping make it more understandable for them - Oddbodz (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

BLPPROD on Justice shivaraj patil

Just noticed you placed a BLPPROD on Justice shivaraj patil. NDTV is a reliable source and the article makes a verifiable claim to notability. Hack (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - my mistake. I have now removed the tag. Oddbodz (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem, it was a bit of a mess at the time. Hack (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read Talk Page of the article "Lost years of JesusView" section: "IP WP:OR"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I ask you to read the above section befor reverting my edits. User: History 2007 was perfectly informed why his references are wrong, too old, or this is just his private interpretations of the resources. You action was too quick and you should consider more than simple removing references by me.--207.112.105.233 (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I never actually reverted your edits. The page is protected so that edits by un-registered editors must be approved before going live and I decided not to approve your edit as I did not feel it made a positive contribution to the article. Instead, I would view it as a potential edit war (see WP:3RR). Secondly, simply informing him that, in your opinion, they are wrong does not make it so. As is policy, it should first be discussed on the talk page and only removed if there is concensus to do so. While you have mentioned it on the talk page, from what I can see there is no agreement in favour of its removal yet you have still removed it. This is why I did not allow the edit to become live. If you still have queries, don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks, Oddbodz (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Feeling is not the think which should direct you. You need to consider arguments, this is the reason I left you the message. You view about Edit War is not OK if you omit facts on Talk Page. If you would read the recommended section you would see he (History2007) perfectly knows why he can be/is wrong. He just chooses ignore argument and most clearly cooperation. Secondly there is no policy to stop editing without consensus (it is wrong interpretation of yours I am sure). The first issue is to provide correct and modern information - SOME EDITORS HOWEVER WILL CONTRADICT ANNY ATTEMPTS REMOVING THEIR POV OR TOUCHING THEIR SELFISHNESS. It is the higher rang editors (administrators should not play a rule of cops) to read the discussion argue himself and support truth instead kicking without thinking as simpleton cop. Sorry, it is not this time any personal offence, until now you offer me a consideration. Thanks.--207.112.105.233 (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I will give the whole situation a more detailed review during the week as/when I have enough time. In the meantime could you just clear up for me whether you are the same user as 65.95.176.24? This will make it easier to establish who has said what. Thanks, Oddbodz (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I have left a message at History2007's talk page and come across an edit war complaint that has been filed. From what I can see there and on the talk page, you have no support for the removal of the content you have taken out. I have therefore decided that I will not allow the edit to go through until History2007 has also made a coment. Once he has done so, I will make a desision as to whether a concensus has been made for the removal of this content but I don't want to make and desisions until I have heard both sides. Thanks, Oddbodz (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The issue has been discussed extensively. Several editors, including me, don;t agree with 207.112.105.233's changes. We've also explained why, but it looks like he doesn't get the point. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

So to conferm, you also feel that I shouldn't have allowed the IP's edit to go live? Oddbodz (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly (sorry, not a native speaker): yes, you're were right not to agree with IP's edit(s). Joshua Jonathan (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Amazing waste of time by this IP. He has no opposing source whatsoever, and I am not going to waste time on this any more. Try this which is online All the People in the Bible by Richard R. Losch (May 1, 2008) ISBN 0802824544 page 209 ... says 18 years. Please add that as yet another source and end this dance. History2007 (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, since you seem to be offline, I added that source there anyway, so whoever has questions can just click on the link and the source is online. Per WP:V, there is no need to do personal arithmetic on this. History2007 (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I provided the modern resources which set the date of bird and date of death. It is also clear that the lost years are between the age 12 to the year(s) of ministry. I am going to introduce the time table of Jesus' live - and the reader can count himself. History2007 had been asked about the 15-18 digits - how they were counted. He however did not reveal if he counted it himself or the method used in the old sources 1989 and 1999. In that condition I feel only his stubbornness and self fluffiness only. Regarding Joshua Jonathan I will not comment very much, it is amusing that so many people assuming that number of votes NO means something in scientific work. Facts and logic are deciding – this is the rule of independent experienced editor to judge the facts and logic not the numbers of NO. I do not think the short entrance by Joshua Jonathan is factual, as well as others editors who do not provide detailed scientific info. Finally because Joshua Jonathan follows so callously History2007 I have filling the History2007 and Joshua Jonathan are the same person. Regarding the IP numbers in the discussion section all are mine enters. I do not register myself as an user since the miserable characters who make revenge on all you Wikipedia works wherever you go.--207.112.105.233 (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

207.112.105.233, I have had a look and while I'm no CheckUser, from following WP:DUCK, I do not believe History2007 and Joshua Jonathan are the same person. They are both involved here because I have notified them either through their talk pages or on other discussions they are involved it (although that's not a matter for this discussion anyway). After reviewing the matter, I can see no reason why the citation should not be allowed and I (along with History2007 and Joshua Jonathan) feel that it should remain along with the fact it is citing. You must understand I am no expert on the topic and only became involved because your edit came up at Special:PendingChanges and I happened to review it. The section which you removed breaks no policies and should not have been removed - hence why I did not allow your edit to go live. Thanks, Oddbodz (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. Administrator who play only a rule of cop is second worst after revengeists and narcissistic editors. It is not once when History2007 and Joshua Jonathan appeared at the same moment “conversing” with me. The conflict was put on the pinhead about the citation by History2007. The citation gives wrong number thus I removed digits (not authors) after he decided to remove description of counting with different resources. I was hoping that will end the conflict. I did not. I will live the citation and digit but I will introduce appropriate table for reader to count. If History2007 will oppose I will return to you. This is unreasonable from History2007 to block any newer approach, I hope that time you will be able judge also his character. --207.112.105.233 (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

What an amazing waste of time after all. It was the indef user:Serafin anyway. History2007 (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes it amusing waste of time considering that History2007 is wrong, block any way to display sourced facts he is wrong and goes to any possible and impossible administrator (Sheriff) to do so. I have a question where to go and write an opinion for the future if Histor2007 would ask to be administrator or something else in Wikipedia community. On his talk page he automatically remove notes which possibly can display his pretty character.--70.49.168.216 (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It is quite obvious (following WP:DUCK) that your are acting on behalf of 207.112.105.233. I am now closing this conversation - please go away. Oddbodz (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Your recent edit adding a list of Guns to Shanghai (2010 film)

Please use the talk page at the article to support your inclusion of a Gun list to a movie's article. Please add any references from reliable secondary sources as to why you feel that inclusion of a list of guns to a movie's article is notable. You are required to support your inclusions to the Encyclopedia, please do so. 12.144.158.7 (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The article is on a notable topic. The section on guns simply adds to the article about the movie. Not every single inch of an article needs to be notable in its own right. Actualy, you are required to support why you feel the section should be removed as there is currently a large concencuss to the section being removed (from what I can tell, you are the only user who feels it should be removed). If you would like to see it removed, please discuss this on the talk page before removing it. Thanks. Oddbodz (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? It's a list of guns. I doubt you've even opened the article or viewed the edit differences. I can think of no other film article that contains such a specious list of guns right down to a ridiculous internal link to double barreled shotgun. Have you any references as to why you believe any/all of these are in the least bit notable in regards our historical record of this never released in the US (its home market) film which returned less than 1/5 of its cost to make?12.144.158.7 (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I have reviewd the edit diferences and I still feel that the section could say. I ask you, why shouldn't it be in the article if it does not take away from it? The second part of your reply seems to be questioning the notability of the article itself. If you feel the article is not notiable, consider placing a request at WP:AfD. Thanks, Oddbodz (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in my responses can be mistaken for my questioning the notability of the article itself. I state, "Please add any references from reliable secondary sources as to why you feel that inclusion of a list of guns to a movie's article is notable." and follow later with, "Have you any references as to why you believe any/all of these are in the least bit notable in regards our historical record of this...?". My edits are clear, I ask what is so notable about the Guns that it requires an unsubstantiated list? I have seen few, if any, movie reviews or scholarly criticism that identifies or discusses prop handguns or rifles by name - I therefore question why it is notable for the encyclopedia if it is not found notable in those sources which purport to be the foundation for our edits here?12.144.158.7 (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, it seems as if we have reached an impass. I am therefore going to request a third opinion (WP:3) and we can see if somesort of agreement can be reached. Thanks, Oddbodz (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick note: The Third Opinion was given at the article talk page, where I'm also going to add a note. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

• Investigative report: Ship ahoy! New travel site finally afloat

• News and notes: Launch of annual picture competition, new grant scheme

• WikiProject report: Reach for the Stars: WikiProject Astronomy

• Discussion report: Flag Manual of Style; accessibility and equality

• Special report: Loss of an Internet genius

• Featured content: Featured articles: Quality of reviews, quality of writing in 2012

• Arbitration report: First arbitration case in almost six months

• Technology report: Intermittent outages planned, first Wikidata client deployment

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

• News and notes: Requests for adminship reform moves forward

• WikiProject report: Say What? — WikiProject Linguistics

• Featured content: Wazzup, G? Delegates and featured topics in review

• Arbitration report: Doncram case continues

• Technology report: Data centre switchover a tentative success

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of British television content rating system for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article British television content rating system is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British television content rating system until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. I'm giving YOU the message because I can't find the original creator, but I want to delete that untruthful article.It's-a me, Kiwikid! 18:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

• In the media: Hoaxes draw media attention

• Recent research: Lessons from the research literature on open collaboration; clicks on featured articles; credibility heuristics

• WikiProject report: Checkmate! — WikiProject Chess

• Discussion report: Administrator conduct and requests

• News and notes: Khan Academy's Smarthistory and Wikipedia collaborate

• Featured content: Listing off progress from 2012

• Arbitration report: Doncram continues

• Technology report: Developers get ready for FOSDEM amid caching problems

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

February 2013 Wikification Drive

Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's February Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

• Special report: Examining the popularity of Wikipedia articles

• News and notes: Article Feedback Tool faces community resistance

• WikiProject report: Land of the Midnight Sun

• Featured content: Portal people on potent potables and portable potholes

• In the media: Star Trek Into Pedantry

• Technology report: Wikidata team targets English Wikipedia deployment

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - February 2013

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume IV, No. 2 – February 2013 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Featured editorial: Time to make a Sweep by Hahc21. Project News: Several proposals are currently ongoin at the project, including two requests for comment. Good Articles of the Month: See which articles were picked this year of records: 282 articles passed in January! GA Task Forces: Some minor notes this month Member News: Member news Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot · 12 February 2012

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

• Op-ed: An article is a construct – hoaxes and Wikipedia

• Featured content: A lousy week

• WikiProject report: Just the Facts

• In the media: Wikipedia mirroring life in island ownership dispute

• News and notes: UK chapter governance review marks the end of a controversial year

• Discussion report: WebCite proposal

• Technology report: Wikidata client rollout stutters

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

• WikiProject report: Thank you for flying WikiProject Airlines

• Technology report: Better templates and 3D buildings

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation declares 'victory' in Wikivoyage lawsuit

• In the media: Sue Gardner interviewed by the Australian press

• Featured content: Featured content gets schooled

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

• In the media: Ex-WMF trustee creates "Wikipedia Corporate Index" for PR agency

• Recent research: Wikipedia not so novel after all, except to UK university lecturers

• News and notes: "Very lucky" Picture of the Year

• Discussion report: Wikivoyage links; overcategorization

• Featured content: Blue birds be bouncin'

• WikiProject report: How to measure a WikiProject's workload

• Technology report: Wikidata development to be continued indefinitely

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

• Op-ed: We must do more to turn readers into editors

• News and notes: Outing of editor causes firestorm

• Featured content: Slow week for featured content

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Television Stations

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

• From the editor: Signpost–Wikizine merger

• News and notes: Finance committee updates

• Featured content: Batman, three birds and a Mercedes

• Arbitration report: Doncram case closes; arbitrator resigns

• WikiProject report: Setting a precedent

• Technology report: Article Feedback reversal

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Nominations Request For Comment

A 'Request For Comment' for Good Article Nominations is currently being held. We are asking that you please take five to ten minutes to review all seven proposals that will affect Good Article Nominations if approved. Full details of each proposal can be found here. Please comment on each proposal (or as many as you can) here. At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support. If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread. Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal.

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

• News and notes: Resigning arbitrator slams Committee

• WikiProject report: Making music

• Interview: Meeting in the middle: Wikipedia and libraries

• Featured content: Wikipedia stays warm

• Arbitration report: Richard case closes

• Technology report: Visual Editor "on schedule"

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

TRS-80 and dab page style

Hi there,

I notice you altered my opening line on TRS-80 (disambiguation). However, as TRS-80 is the primary topic, this *is* the standard form of style for a disambiguation page, or at least as close as I can get it while keeping the page useful.

I appreciate that the opening line is a bit long, but it needs clarification (it's a disambiguation page) and TRS-80 is used as both the name of the original model and a brand for many unrelated models(!)

FWIW, I'd rather have split the TRS-80 page, but there was no consensus in favour, so I left it. I'm trying to clarify the existing setup "as is". Ubcule (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

A diambiguation page is simply a list of things with the same name. To have a primary subject, it is an article not a disambiguation page. Could I sugest perhaps moving the article to List of TRS-80 models (or similar) and removing the other things, or reverting to simply providing links to pages about something with the name TRS-80.

Thanks, Oddbodz (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you mean by "To have a primary subject, it is an article not a disambiguation page"? As for the proposed move/name change, perhaps you could mention that at the split discussion, as it's still related to the organisation of the article(s).

FWIW, I think it's necessary to have some sort of clarification/disambiguation that lets people get the the model they're looking for *without* having to wade all the way through the main TRS-80 page (which only covers the Model I in its opening section and is thus even more misleading and opaque for dab purposes). Ubcule (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Systems development life-cycle

It is not vandalism to indicate that a page has a huge problem with it by inserting sections into the page that are indicated in the diagram for the page but do not yet exist in the page. The diagram shows a categorization scheme that is not reflected on the page. Either the diagram needs to be changed, or the sections need to be written. I don't know enough to write them personally, but I would like to have them written so that I can read them. In other words, I want to have the diagram explained on the page that shows it. 108.210.238.69 (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, of course if there is an issue with articles you cannot solve, this should be pointed out to editors who can. However, this should be mentioned on the article's talk page, not just inserted into the article. Discussion on the talk page is encouraged but just putting it in the article in vandalism. If you wish to make this more obvious, consider placing a tag at the top of the article (see a list of article tags here). Thanks, Oddbodz (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I have made a request for a new cleanup tag on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/Cleanup#Diagram_Does_not_Match_Text to handle situations where the diagram and the text of an article do not match. 108.210.238.69 (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Cool - that is probably a much better way to go about it. I have also moved your comment about name discrepancies between sections and the diagram to the article's talk page. However, on second inspection, it seems that the case is more the fact that the article has missed Implementation altogether rather than changing its name. If you feel you can write a section on implementation, feel free to do so. If not, place a note on the talk page and see if someone else can. Thanks, Oddbodz (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. In retrospect, the page probably needs a lot more cleanup than just the text/diagram mismatch, but solving that problem would be a good start 108.210.238.69 (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

• WikiProject report: The 'Burgh: WikiProject Pittsburgh

• Featured content: One and a half soursops

• Arbitration report: Two open cases

• News and notes: Sue Gardner to leave WMF; German Wikipedians spearhead another effort to close Wikinews

• Technology report: The Visual Editor: Where are we now, and where are we headed?

• Recent research: "Ignore all rules" in deletions; anonymity and groupthink; how readers react when shown talk pages

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify April Drive

Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's April Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

-- Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify.

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2013

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2013
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2013, the project has:

• 154 Featured Articles
• 53 Featured Lists
• 7 Featured Topics
• 5 Featured Pictures

• 43 A-Class Articles
• 589 Good Articles
• 9 Good Topics

---

Content

• Changes to Featured and Good content
• News items and announcements

• Feature: "A-class: Is It Worth It?"
• Interview: Teancum

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

• Special report: Who reads which Wikipedia?

• WikiProject report: Special: FAQs

• Featured content: What the ?

• News and notes: Grants given for Wikipedia Library, six others; April Fool's Day ructions

• Arbitration report: Three open cases

• Technology report: Wikidata phase 2 deployment timetable in doubt

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

• Wikizine: WMF scales back feature after outcry

• WikiProject report: Earthshattering WikiProject Earthquakes

• News and notes: French intelligence agents threaten Wikimedia volunteer

• Arbitration report: Subject experts needed for Argentine History

• Featured content: Wikipedia loves poetry

• Technology report: Testing week

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 Boston bombings

Thank you for your creation of 2013 Boston bombings. However, there was already an existing article at Boston Marathon explosions that has already received significant edits. I would advise to leave off your creation and adopt the existing article. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

• Op-ed: How do we fix RfA inactivity?

• WikiProject report: Unity in Diversity: South Africa

• News and notes: Another admin reform attempt flops

• Featured content: The featured process swings into high gear

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

• In the media: Wikipedia inaccurate, says Florence; New Wikipedia app for breaking news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Editor Retention

• News and notes: Milan conference a mixed bag

• Featured content: Batfish in the Red Sea

• Arbitration report: Sexology case nears closure after stalling over topic ban

• Technology report: A flurry of deployments

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

• News and notes: Chapter furore over FDC knockbacks; First DC GLAM boot-camp

• In the media: Wikipedia's sexism; Yuri Gadyukin hoax

• Featured content: Wiki loves video games

• WikiProject report: Japanese WikiProject Baseball

• Traffic report: Most popular Wikipedia articles

• Arbitration report: Sexology closed; two open cases

• Recent research: Sentiment monitoring; UNESCO and systemic bias; and more

• Technology report: New notifications system deployed across Wikipedia

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Kelly Sutherland

My suggestion is: When in doubt, ignore it. (Side note: The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines) --Onorem♠Dil 16:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

• News and notes: Candidates nominating for Foundation elections; Looking ahead to Wikimania 2014

• Technology report: Foundation successful in bid for larger Google subsidy

• Featured content: WikiCup update: full speed ahead!

• In the media: New Wikipedia for Schools edition; Anders Behring Breivik's Wikipedia contributions

• WikiProject report: Earn $100 in cash... and a button!

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 19:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

• News and notes: WMF–community ruckus on Wikimedia mailing list

• WikiProject report: Knock Out: WikiProject Mixed Martial Arts

• Featured content: A mushroom, a motorway, a Munich gallery, and a map

• In the media: PR firm accused of editing Wikipedia for government clients; can Wikipedia predict the stock market?

• Arbitration report: Race and politics opened; three open cases

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

• Foundation elections: Trustee candidates speak about Board structure, China, gender, global south, endowment

• WikiProject report: Classical Greece and Rome

• News and notes: Spanish Wikipedia leaps past one million articles

• In the media: Qworty incident continues

• Featured content: Up in the air

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

• News and notes: First-ever community election for FDC positions

• In the media: Pagans complain about Qworty's anti-Pagan editing

• Foundation elections: Candidates talk about the Meta problem, the nation-based chapter model, world languages, and value for money

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Geographical Coordinates

• Featured content: Life of 2π

• Recent research: Motivations on the Persian Wikipedia; is science eight times more popular on the Spanish Wikipedia than the English Wikipedia?

• Technology report: Amsterdam hackathon: continuity, change, and stroopwafels

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with, the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

• From the editor: Signpost developments

• Featured content: A week of portraits

• Discussion report: Return of the Discussion report

• News and notes: "Cease and desist", World Trade Organization says to Wikivoyage; Could WikiLang be the next WMF project?

• In the media: China blocks secure version of Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: Operation Normandy

• Technology report: Developers accused of making Toolserver fight 'pointless'

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roar (from Monsters University), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digital download (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Roar Artwork.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Roar Artwork.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

• News and notes: How Wikimedia affiliates are spending $8.4 million; PRISM scandal

• Featured content: Mixing Bowl Interchange

• In the media: VisualEditor will "change world history"

• Op-ed: The tragedy of Wikipedia's commons

• Discussion report: VisualEditor, elections, bots, and more

• Traffic report: Who holds the throne?

• Arbitration report: Two cases suspended; proposed decision posted in Argentine History

• WikiProject report: Processing WikiProject Computing

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

• Op-ed: Two responses to the 'Tragedy of Wikipedia's Commons'

• Traffic report: Most popular Wikipedia articles of the last week

• In the media: South African learners want Wikipedia; Editing of Israel topics

• WikiProject report: The Volunteer State: WikiProject Tennessee

• News and notes: Swedish Wikipedia's millionth article leads to protests; WMF elections—where are all the voters?

• Featured content: Cheaper by the dozen

• Discussion report: Citations, non-free content, and a MediaWiki meeting

• Technology report: May engineering report published

• Arbitration report: The Farmbrough amendment request—automation and arbitration enforcement

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

• Traffic report: Most-viewed articles of the week

• In the media: Daily Dot on Commons and porn; Jimmy Wales accused of breaking Wikipedia rules in hunt for Snowden

• Recent research: Most controversial Wikipedia topics, automatic detection of sockpuppets

• News and notes: Election results released

• Discussion report: Privacy policy, X!'s edit counter, old rangeblocks, and the Article Incubator

• Featured content: Wikipedia in black + Adam Cuerden

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Fashion

• Arbitration report: Argentine History closed; two cases remain suspended

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

• In the media: Jimmy Wales is not an Internet billionaire; a mass shooter's alleged Wikipedia editing

• Featured content: Queen of France

• WikiProject report: Puppies!

• News and notes: Wikipedia's medical collaborations gathering pace

• Discussion report: Snuggle, mainpage link to Wikinews, 3RR, and more

• Technology report: VisualEditor in midst of game-changing deployment series

• Traffic report: Yahoo! crushes the competition ... in Wikipedia views

• Arbitration report: Tea Party movement reopened, new AUSC appointments

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for looking after my talk page. I blocked the troll, not because of his fake legal threat, but because he wasn't here to be productive. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

• Op-ed: It's time to stop pretending the English-language Wikinews is a viable project

• WikiProject report: Not Jimbo: WikiProject Wales

• Traffic report: Inflated view counts here, there, and everywhere

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation Board appoints world expert in women's issues, global south

• Dispatches: Infoboxes: time for a fresh look?

• Featured content: The week of the birds

• Discussion report: Featured article process governance, signature templates, and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Square Enix

• Traffic report: Most-viewed articles of the week

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation's new plans announced

• Featured content: Documents and sports

• Arbitration report: Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case opens; July 22 deadline for checkuser and oversight applications

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Royal styles precedent

Precedent is precedent, not certainty. Until we have a satisfactorily authoritative source for the child's style, we cannot include one. DBD 22:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I included a citation official Royal Family Facebook page and is written by the staff at Buckingham Palace on behalf of the Queen. Not sure how you can get much more authoritative you can get! And it says 'he is', not he should be. Therefore, that is the child's official title. Oddbodz (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I can see your meaning, but I'm afraid it's a case of once bitten, twice shy – we have used the official royal website before only to discover factual mistakes (i.e. not matching primary sources). In my experience the official site (and therefore, presumably, the official facebook and twitter) are not wholly reliable (for one thing, we can't guarantee they don't use us for reference!), so it really is best to wait for the press release regarding the infant's name. DBD 08:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

• In the media: Wikipedia flamewars

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Religion

• Discussion report: Partially disambiguated page names, page protection policy, and more

• News and notes: Wikivoyage turns ten, but where to now?; Wikipedia Zero expands into India

• Traffic report: Gleeless

• Featured content: Engineering and the arts

• Arbitration report: Infoboxes case opens

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK RfC

• As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat|Contributions03:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

• Op-ed: The VisualEditor Beta and the path to change

• Recent research: Napoleon, Michael Jackson and Srebrenica across cultures, 90% of Wikipedia better than Britannica, WikiSym preview

• Traffic report: Bouncing Baby Brouhaha

• WikiProject report: Babel Series: Politics on the Turkish Wikipedia

• News and notes: Gearing up for Wikimania 2013

• Arbitration report: Race and politics case closes

• Featured content: Caterpillars, warblers, and frogs—oh my!

• Discussion report: Defining consensus; VisualEditor default state; expert and layperson terms in article titles

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

• Arbitration report: Fourteen editors proposed for ban in Tea Party movement case

• Traffic report: Greetings from the graveyard

• News and notes: Chapters Association self-destructs

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Freedom of Speech

• Featured content: Mysterious case of the grand duchess

• Discussion report: CheckUser and Oversighter candidates, and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

• News and notes: "Beautifully smooth" Wikimania with few hitches

• In the media: Chinese censorship

• Featured content: Wikipedia takes the cities

• Special report: Jimmy Wales: media favors entertainment over raising public awareness

• Discussion report: Wikivoyage, reliable sources, music bands, account creators, and OTRS

• WikiProject report: For the love of stamps

• Arbitration report: Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case closes

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Vango.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Vango.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

• In the media: Chelsea Manning, Box-office predictors, and 'Storming Wikipedia'

• Recent research: WikiSym 2013 retrospective

• WikiProject report: Loop-the-loop: Amusement Parks

• Traffic report: Reddit creep

• Featured content: WikiCup update, and the gardens of Finland

• News and notes: Looking ahead to Wiki Loves Monuments

• Technology report: Gallery improvements launch on Wikipedia

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

• In the media: Chelsea Manning, Box-office predictors, and 'Storming Wikipedia'

• Recent research: WikiSym 2013 retrospective

• WikiProject report: Loop-the-loop: Amusement Parks

• Traffic report: Reddit creep

• Featured content: WikiCup update, and the gardens of Finland

• News and notes: Looking ahead to Wiki Loves Monuments

• Technology report: Gallery improvements launch on Wikipedia

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

• In the media: Manning "put back in the closet"; State involvement in Azerbaijani Wikipedia

• News and notes: Privacy policy debate gears up

• Traffic report: No accounting for the wisdom of crowds

• Discussion report: Arbcom election procedures, Wiki Loves Monuments, Privacy policy, FDC, and more

• Featured content: Bridging the way to a Peasants' Revolt

• WikiProject report: Writing on the frontier: Psychology on Wikipedia

• Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute case opens; Tea Party case closes ; Infoboxes nears completion

• Technology report: Making Wikipedia more accessible

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

• In the media: Lawyer goes to court to discover Wikipedian's identity; Storming Wikipedia; Wikimedia UK Secretary in conflict-of-interest controversy; Does Wikipedia need a "right to reply" box?

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Indonesia

• Featured content: Tintin goes featured

• News and notes: As deadline approaches, Individual Engagement Grants looks for ideas

• Traffic report: Syria, celebrities, and association football: oh my!

• Arbitration report: Workshop phase opens in Manning naming dispute ; Infoboxes case closes

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

• News and notes: Third time's the charm: the FDC's newest round of funding requests

• WikiProject report: 18,464 Good Articles on the wall

• Featured content: Hurricane Diane and Van Gogh

• Technology report: What can Wikidata do for Wikipedia?

• Traffic report: Twerking, tragedy and TV

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

• Op-ed: Q&A on Public Relations and Wikipedia

• Traffic report: Look on Walter's works

• In the media: Fox News: Wikipedia abandons efforts to purge porn from online encyclopedia

• News and notes: Last call for Wiki Loves Monuments; Community–WMF tension over VisualEditor

• WikiProject report: Babel Series: GOOOOOOAAAAAAALLLLLLL!!!!!

• Featured content: Wikipedia takes the stage

• Recent research: Automatic detection of "infiltrating" Wikipedia admins; Wiki, or 'pedia?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Breaking Bad title card.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Breaking Bad title card.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013 Wikification Drive

This message was delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To stop receiving messages from WikiProject Wikify, remove your name from the recipients page. -- EdwardsBot (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

• Op-ed: Commons medical diagnostic images under threat from unresolved ownership

• Discussion report: References to individuals and groups, merging wikiprojects, portals on the Main page, and more

• News and notes: WMF signals new grantmaking priorities

• Featured content: Bobby, Ben, Roger and a fantasia

• Arbitration report: Infoboxes: After the war

• WikiProject report: U2 Too

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

• Traffic report: Shutdown shenanigans

• WikiProject report: Australian Roads

• Featured content: Under the sea

• News and notes: Extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed

• In the media: College credit for editing Wikipedia

• Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute and Ebionites 3 cases continue; third arbitrator resigns

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

For being fast on Huggle & anti-vandalism work! ///EuroCarGT 21:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Field marshall Roberts

Dear friend, I had inserted the photo seemed more suitable, being an image of Lord Roberts of the period of the late nineteenth century, the period (1895) he received the title of Field Marshal. The picture currently present instead portrays the general during the march on Kandahar (1880).--79.55.238.109 (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

My apologies - I accidentally reverted your edit, not realising that it was a useful contribution. However, on further inspection, I can see it was a useful edit and I have restored your version of the article with your image. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Oddbodz (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

• News and notes: Vice on Wiki-PR's paid advocacy; Featured list elections begin

• Traffic report: Peaceful potpourri

• WikiProject report: Heraldry and Vexillology

• Featured content: That's a lot of pictures

• Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute case closes

• Discussion report: Ada Lovelace Day, paid advocacy on Wikipedia, sidebar update, and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Howard Squadron notability

A huge obit in the Times makes him unnotable?--38.105.132.130 (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Narrow Gauge Down Under

In Narrow Gauge Down Under where is "Click here to challange deletion" button? Tabletop (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For putting up with the best of humanity. Jamesx12345 13:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, its appreciated. Oddbodz (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Example : The Hydrogen atom: Spin-orbit Interaction included

If the spin orbit interaction is taken into account, we have to add an extra term in Hamiltonian which represents the magnetic dipole interaction energy.

$\Delta H_{\text{SO}}=-{\boldsymbol {\mu }}\cdot {\boldsymbol {B}}.$

Now, the new Hamiltonian with this new $\Delta H_{\text{SO}}$ term doesn't commute with ${\boldsymbol {L}}$ and ${\boldsymbol {S}}$; but it does commute with L², S² and ${\boldsymbol {J}}$ , which is the total angular momentum. In other words, $l,j,m_{\text{l}},m_{s}$ are no longer good quantum numbers, but $l,j,m_{\text{j}}$ are.

And since, good quantum numbers are used to label the eigenstates, the relevant formulae of interest are expressed in terms of them. For example, the spin-orbit interaction energy is given by

$\Delta H_{\text{SO}}={\beta \over 2}(j(j+1)-l(l+1)-s(s+1))$

where

$\beta =\beta (n,l)=Z^{4}{\mu _{0} \over 4{\pi }^{4}}g_{\text{s}}\mu _{\text{B}}^{2}{1 \over n^{3}a_{0}^{3}l(l+1/2)(l+1)}$

As we can see, the above expressions contain the good quantum numbers, namely $l,s,j$ Sashwattanay (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

My apologies - I accidentally identified your edit as vandalism. Thank you for bringing this to my attention - I have restored your edit to the article and will remove the warning from your talk page. Oddbodz (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Liberty City Recent Edits

Thanks for your message, Oddbodz. I agree, it was indeed unconstructive. I just thought it would be more consistent to have an article on Liberty City, since Los Santos, another frequent location in the GTA series, also has an article, and it could also be a path for other sources on the fictional location, as well as the GTA Wiki.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.220.213.141 (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, if you feel that the article should be created, perhaps you could suggest it on the GTA talk page. Also, note that the page Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto) currently redirect to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Thanks, Oddbodz (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! Actually, I was refering to this page on Los Santos. Apparently, there are two of them. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.220.213.141 (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that one to my attention. Turns out that it should have been a redirect too (as per this AfD. Oddbodz (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Saw you were patrolling some of the vandalized articles I was patrolling as well. Nice work! Bailmoney27 talk 22:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)