User talk:Lampman/Archive 1
User:Lampman/DYK

Hello, Lampman. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lampman. I'm posting to let you know that your name has been mentioned on a list of potential candidates for adminship on the talk page for RfA's here. If you are interested in running, or if you would like to make any comments, feel free to join the discussion. decltype (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lampman. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have further information on Mary Plantagenet, a daughter of Edward I of England. I have asked the Reference Desk this question today and perhaps you could give some input there if you have more information on her as your name was brought up there. Maybe you could write an article on her. Can you find information on how close she was to her sisters and brothers, especially Margaret and Elizabeth. --97.83.106.45 (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Mary you can start by looking at Prestwich's biography of Edward I, which is actually partly available online on Amazon (look especially at page 128.) This will also direct you to a couple of other sources; Green's Lives of the princesses of England (on Google books, page 405) and Fairbank's YAJ article on the earl of Warenne. These can be hard to come by though, if you don't have access to a good research library. If you can find these, I think you should have enough to create an article. For how close she was to her sisters and brothers we can only make assumptions, since we have very little personal documents from the period. Since she left the household at five to become a nun, I would guess not very close, though she did apparently return quite often. It should be said though, that both Margaret and Elizabeth left the country to marry, in 1290 and 1297 respectively, and probably did not return often after this. Lampman (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Pornography in Hungary at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! RMHED 00:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 October 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Windows 7, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you began a GA reassessment in June at Talk:Johnny Appleseed/GA1. That review is still open, I was curious if you could review it and close it. Personally I agree the article does not currently meet the criteria in its present condition. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lampman! I've updated the article from your GA review suggestions. The only stumbling block I think will be how to title Hard Boiled/Hard-Boiled. Thanks for taking the time to write a review (and do some copy-editing) on the article! Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for delisting it and sorry not to have done more so far. Improving it is still on my to do list, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On November 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gabriel Scott, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That news story on the drunk in the recliner cracked me up when it came out. I moved the article to Motorized recliner incident without a redirect since "incidence" would have made it improbable. Thanks for the renewed chuckle.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! No prob, my friend. Glad to help! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't catch the 'new' article part- I figured a new fact, sourced and written by myself, would be sufficient. My mistake! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 03:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Oddball Barnstar
		For your work on Motorized recliner incident, an article that definitely would not appear in a normal enyclopedia, and whose story is made even more entertaining by its being written in a dry, encyclopedic tone, I hereby award you this oddstar. Keep up the odd work. Geraldk (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lampman, I just assumed that you had stuck the label there without reading the section. I fail to see why the section needs such as label when the first paragraph is about the United Nations, the fourth subsection is about the European Union and the fifth subsection is about multinational corporations and GATT and the final one is about outsourcing and specifically mentions the UK. Pyrotec (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get those as the coordinates seemed to point to a neighborhood? I removed them for now as a Google Earth search indicated that the street was a few miles northeast. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Someone also confirmed what I thought were the coordinates of the bar. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No permission, informal or formal, justifies copy/pasting information from an external side to wikipedia, thus copyvio was good enough reason to delete those pages, but. I did see the COI argument and your comment on that, thus the reasoning for deletion and blocking is manyfold (notability is also dubious). The editor may well be unblocked, as they did not intend any harm, but the created article content, at least in its form, may not stay. Materialscientist (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:In Excelsis Deo.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 08:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bartlet book shop.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've added a couple of articles on the 'Christmas Day' section at DYK. As no one seems to have looked at this section for some days I thought I'd better notify some one. Hope you don't mind. Jack1956 (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your article on the Obama Doctrine is an accomplishment, and I congratulate you on getting it in the DYK with a picture. I have also made a few comments on the User talk:Gavia immer page that are relevant. All best, JEN9841 (talk) 08:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know I reviewed your GAN at Talk:Pilot (Community)/GA1 a couple of days ago. I guess you haven't seen yet, but there are still a few days left on the hold period. —97198 (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lampman. Have you read this article from Time Magazine? I found the lead interesting. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, lol. God jul, btw. Manxruler (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I saw your comment here, posted on 31 December, and was trying to work out which "poor TFA" you were referring to. I think you mean Italian War of 1521–1526 and the 70-year-old source is the Hackett book. I was going to post at Talk:Italian War of 1521–1526, but came here first to suggest that you could post there suggesting that the Knecht source should have been used more. Carcharoth (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice about the article's status. I contributed to it a couple of years ago, but don't have time to work on it now. --Vbd (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lampman! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Michael Hicks - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Nanna Lüders Jensen - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Ernst Höfner - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Lampman (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lampman. Am I wrong that no notice was given when Jeannette Piccard was delisted? I don't want to start a reassessment unless it is necessary because that area has a huge backlog. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not give any notice on this particular article, because I found the problems to be too serious. If you are interested in revising it without going through GAR, however, I can deal with it directly. Lampman (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will reply on your talk page. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Yes I am interested in revising it. I replied on the GA review page. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WT:ACTOR#Bizarre guidelines for responses to your post and extensive discussion about your post. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lampman. Thank you so much for your review. I left you a note on Talk:Jeannette_Piccard/GA1, and tried to complete everything on your list in Talk:Jeannette_Piccard/GA2. Only about three questions for you there. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Lampman, Je t'ai réalisé les armoiries de William d'Ufford

Savait-tu qu'un Thomas d'Ufford était nommé (commons:Folio 59r de l'Armorial de Gelre) dans l'Armorial de Gelre ?

Cordialement, Jimmy44. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.83.164.208 (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! --Jayron32 01:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lampman. Malleus and I have worked pretty hard on Jeannette Piccard. You did a great review. I wonder if you have time to revisit it? -SusanLesch (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The 100 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Congratulations for reaching (and surpassing) the milestone of 100 DYK creations and expansions. Excellent! Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for informing me about the good article sweeps project. I was going over the criteria, and would like to ask for your input about how best to edit the article along those lines. Perhaps you have concrete suggestions for things I can work on? Thanks! Rmcsamson (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you have to be sick of seeing these updates (as well as Sweeps itself) by now, so please do consider reviewing a few articles if you haven't reviewed in a while. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to inform you that I have requested for a community GA reassessment for the article Ateneo de Manila University. Lambanog (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I updated all of the dead links on this page. It is surprising how many their were. Let me know if anything else needs changing. PGPirate 20:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you removed this article from the sweeps list, but there is no review page or evidence of a review? Jezhotwells (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have already planned to include the details of the passes/fails and other stats. I'll try to sum them all up soon after we get all of the reviews in and all of the holds are over. I also appreciate you taking the time to review, I'm so glad this is almost done. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for taking the time to sweep through all the GAs, and find The Make-Up article, which was in pretty bad shape. I've done my best to fix things, and have replied on the page's talk page. Thanks again! Drewcifer (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone's amazing efforts in February, we have reviewed all of the articles and are now finished with Sweeps! There are still about 30 articles currently on hold, and once those reviews are completed, I will send you a final message about Sweeps process stats including the total number of articles that were passed and failed. If you have one of these open reviews, be sure to update your count when the review is completed so I can compile the stats. You can except to receive your award for reviewing within the next week or two. Although the majority of the editors did not start Sweeps at the beginning in August 2007 (myself included), over 50 editors have all come together to complete a monumental task and improve many articles in the process. I commend you for sticking with this often challenging task and strengthening the integrity of the GA WikiProject as well as the GAs themselves. I invite you to take a break from reviewing (don't want you to burn out!) and then consider returning/starting to review GANs and/or contribute to GAR reviews. With your assistance, we can help bring the backlog down to a manageable level and help inspire more editors to improve articles to higher classes and consider reviewing themselves. Again, thank you for putting up with difficult reviews, unhappy editors, numerous spam messages from me, and taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Krydder has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable magazine, no assertion of notability, unreferenced for almost four years

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rhomb (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of Wikiproject Good Articles, I would like to express our gratitude to you for your contributions to the Sweeps process, for which you completed 130 reviews. Completion of this monstrous task has proven to be a significant accomplishment not only for our project, but for Wikipedia. As a token of our sincere appreciation, please accept this ribbon. Lara 00:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Krydder.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Norwegian Ninja at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im just posting to let you know that you recently triggered this new filter apparently because you have installed an extension for Firefox that has a bug in it. The filter will likely be going live soon, and this may cause problems for you. link to filter log —Soap— 16:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for the GA review of Jacob Svetoslav. I believe I have addressed your concerns, can you please assess the article's progress? Thanks! Best, Todor→Bozhinov 11:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Can you do another review of Homer Defined? I've made a lot of changes to the article. Theleftorium 18:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to apologize if I came across as rude at Talk:Homer Defined/GA1. That was not definitely not my intention, and I really appreciate your review. Theleftorium 20:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:GunnarSønsteby.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Maedin\talk 07:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lampman, I've added a note above to recognise your contribution to FPC. Thank you for closing the nomination, but generally you should avoid doing so on nominations in which you've had close involvement. As the nominator, it is a conflict of interest for you to have made the closure. Someone uninvolved would have come along in a day or so and closed it for you. No big deal in this case as the consensus was so clear, but please keep it in mind for the future, :) I've made a couple of corrections, too. Thanks! Maedin\^talk 07:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay! I realised, :) Maedin\^talk 07:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I think I've corrected all of the problems you listed with the article in its GA review, could you check the article to see if you have anymore concerns? Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 20:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

::I think I've fixed the remaining issues with the article now. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 15:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I think I've fixed the remaining issues with article. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 01:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review of Medicinal Fried Chicken! — Hunter Kahn 14:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you had noted on WP:GAN that the article Go Stewie Go is currently under review, despite the talk page notice saying otherwise. Could you please review the article, or remove your notice of review on WP:GAN if you have no plans on reviewing the article? Thanks. Gage (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your preliminary concerns have been addressed. Gage (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to keep the review going. If you could continue your review as soon as possible, I'd appreciate it greatly. Gage (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I nominated the article, and only recently became aware that a GA review of it was already in progress. I agree with you about the image, considering that I work primarily with articles that have few available free images, I also find copyright paranoia annoying. Unfortunately, there really isn't much that can be done about it, most of the anti-fair use image crew can't be reasoned with, and I've long since given up trying. I don't think the lack of an image should be the dealbreaker, since it does now meet the image policy (even if we disagree with it). I was wondering if you considered all of the concerns addressed? Currently the article is the one thing standing in the way of the Simpsons project finally achieving one of our earliest goals: getting every classic era article to GA or higher. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think that I have resolved all of the issues in your GA review. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, on behalf of myself and my co-coordinator Wizardman, I would like to thank you for the efforts that you have made so far in this GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a success, and that is thanks to you. See this Signpost article about what this drive has achieved so far. We're currently heading into the final week of the drive. At this time, if you have any GANs on review or on hold, you should be finishing off those reviews. Right now, we have more GANs on review or on hold than we do unreviewed. If you're going to start a GA review, please do so now so you can complete it by the end of the month and so that the nominator has a full 7-day window to address any concerns. See you at the finish!

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 16:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lampman, thank you very much for all the suggestions you gave on the page. I think by now we have dealt with all of them. Would you mind checking back to see that our article fits GA Criteria?

Thank you. --Chris Weber (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have finally dealt with the last of the concerns on the page. Thank you very much for all your time and help, you have been truly invaluable. --Chris Weber (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you made a suggestion of couple of writers: 'Morrill, Russell, Sharpe etc'. Do you have any more details anbout them or their texts? Thanks! --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GAN backlog elimination drives chart up to 1 May On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, I'd like to especially thank you for your efforts over this past month's GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a complete success, which hopefully results in more expedient good article reviews, increasing users' confidence in the good article nomination processes. Even if you made just a small contribution, it still helped contribute to the success of this drive. Here is what we have accomplished this last month in this drive. 661 total nominations were reviewed. 541 of them passed (~81.8%), 97 (~14.7%) failed, and 23 (~3.5%) ended on hold. The WP:GAN page started at 110,126 bytes length on 1 April and ended at 43,387 bytes length at the end of 30 April (a 66,739 byte reduction in the page, about 60.6% less). Excluding extremes, the longest wait for someone's GAN to be review was about 11.5 weeks at the beginning. (I mistook the figure when I reported to the Signpost that it was 13.) At the end, with the exception of one that was relisted, the longest wait is now at 10 days. 63 different users participated, each having completed at least one GAN, with others also having helped out behind-the-scenes in making the drive a success. The drive started with 463 GA nominations remaining and 388 unreviewed. At the end of the month, we ended with 89 remaining (374 or about 80.8% less) and 47 unreviewed (341 or about 87.9% less). For those who have accomplished certain objectives in the drive, awards will be coming shortly. Again, thank you for your help in the drive, and I hope you continue to help review GA nominations and overall improve the quality of articles here on Wikipedia.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your suggestions, I appreciate your comments. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Reviewer's Medal of Merit
		For reviewing 21 good article nominations during the April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive, I hereby present you The Good Article Reviewer's Medal of Merit. Congratulations! Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Edmund FitzAlan, 9th Earl of Arundel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BelovedFreak 21:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you moved the talk page of star wars kid, but you didn't move the article page. I have moved the talk page back and left a notice so people know where the text of the article came from. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Obama Doctrine, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. (Lihaas (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you can certainly learn to be WP:Civil, particuraly on a public forum, which doesnt seem to have changed since this edit summary [1]. That is liable for a block should an admin get wind of it.Lihaas (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Good luck with Pilot (Community). I was impressed while reading through it. I made a few minor improvements by removing what appeared to be a couple of typos. You may also want to check out WP:DASH, as I noticed that some dashes were longer than others throughout (even when both dashes seemed to be used for the same purpose). Examples are in the "Cast and characters" section and the one that follows. Also, there were other cases, like the lead, where simple commas seemed like they'd be good enough. Anyway, good luck again. -- James26 (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your name was on the 2nd dramaout signup and the organizer of the 2nd one suggested notifying those who signed up the last time. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd#Participating_Wikipedians

and also a mention on WP:ANI. I would love to have you participate! Remember July 5th, the starting date! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are such an experienced GAN and GAR reviewer, and were so kind as to pass Amy Robsart, I wondered if I could ask you to have a look at John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland. Perhaps you could give a 3rd opinion at Talk:John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland/GA1, whether the prose is tolerable for a GA or not. The reviewer thought it was too "unencyclopedic" (without specifying), and the 2nd opinion thinks the prose "needs work" in other ways, and that someone uninvolved should fix it. I made changes, but I generally don't understand what is so wrong about it. Anyway, if you want, I'd appreciate your input although I can't tell it will change anything about the deadlock. Thanks. Buchraeumer (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is good hope that the issue is resolved now. I found an editor who was interested and happy to give the article a copy edit. Please pardon my intrusion but I was not aware of this possibility before. Happy editing. Buchraeumer (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On hold for GA status, pending your thoughts about a few points I've raised on review. Nothing major, you'll be pleased to hear! Bencherlite^Talk 18:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, passed. It may be that one or two of the changes you or I made could usefully be applied to the other two in the series. I probably won't have time to review them this side of the weekend anyway, but on the assumption that nobody else gets there first, I'll review them early next week. Bencherlite^Talk 08:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the great work!! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. Best regards. -- James26 (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-07-05/In the news, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Attack pages will not be tolerated Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answered your question on user talk:Shirik, by the way. Bencherlite^Talk 16:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I placed the article on hold pending some rather minor clarifications and fixes. Renata (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, did you see the comments? Do you plan addressing the issues? If so, when should I expect the changes? Renata (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been exactly a week. I see you have not made edits for a few days. I am willing to give an extension for another week as I would hate to fail the article for a couple nitpicks. But please do address the issues within the next week. Renata (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed and passed (after minor copyedits) Symphonies 2 and 3. A pleasant little set of Whistlers. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 11:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Gave me something to do while waiting for my GA noms to be noticed, as well as helping to redress somewhat the balance between my number of GAs received and my number of GANs reviewed. (9–7 at the moment, I think...) Bencherlite^Talk 15:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun reviewing Pilot (Community) and left some comments. -- James26 (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Take care. -- James26 (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've reviewed Pilot (Friday Night Lights) and placed the article on hold with just a few issues to address (and some other suggestions.) Regards, --BelovedFreak 22:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the changes. It's passed, so congratulations! --BelovedFreak 15:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've reviewed the article, and left some notes here. When its convenient, please let me know what you think. Parrot of Doom 13:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the page is old, the article is new to the mainspace of wikipedia. I created and maintained it with my own original work in userspace (check history). I did not nominate it before becuase I felt it failed project guidlelines for notability. I would hate to think that I may not recieve credit for my hard work based on this, which is the opposite of goal of DYK.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added some comments to the nomination concerning this, thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the consideration. I moved the nomination to July 27, when I myself moved the contents of the sandox.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you possibly remove the No symbol from your first comment, so nomination appears to be still open for disccusion?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— raekyT 00:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a look at your GA nom article, reviewed it and have only fairly minor requests for clarification. I'll keep an eye on it. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Fourth Kind.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 03:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can you do me a favor and review Love Blactually and The Splendid Source. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 13:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in participating in improvements to Progress Party (Norway), based on the latest GA review that I have commenced here: Talk:Progress Party (Norway)/GA2. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw that you created Template:Infobox Peer. A few weeks ago someone felt they must replace it out of the blue with Template:Infobox Nobility, which I found dreadful, so I reverted and a discussion ensued at Template talk:Infobox Peer. Now it has flared up again; perhaps you would like to give your opinion there (the word deletion is in the air). Best wishes! Buchraeumer (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Thanks for your efforts, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the GA review and posted comments here. A very enjoyable article, and I apologise as I realise I've left a lot of comments! However, they are all minor and should be no problem. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with time. Let me know if you need more than a week (and take the week to be from today).--Sarastro1 (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passed it now. Really good article, and can't be far short of FA. The only minor things I would suggest for that are a quick copy-edit and a little more on homosexuality. And possible a check for MoS, which isn't my strongest point. But really enjoyed it and let me know if you do put it up for FAC. For what it's worth, Mark Ormrod was one of my lecturers back in the days when I was a student! --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lampman. I was the editor of the New York Giants history series and took a long break from WIkipedia (over three years) but am now back. I saw that you rightfully delisted the main article from GA status due to the erosion of quality over time. I worked on it and think I addressed your concerns. I renominated it for GA, if you could look at it that would be great. Quadzilla99 (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I fixed those two. Whenever you have time is great. Thanks. Quadzilla99 (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, split. Quadzilla99 (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danke. Quadzilla99 (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lampman, I just wanted to thank you for your time, thanks for reviewing, copy-editing, and passing the article. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mad Men season 4.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way the script currently works to update WP:GA subpages, the edit summary provides a running count of listed articles as the script processes the various pages. Therefore, the total count of listed articels will appear in the last page updated, which will currently be the /Arts page. The main foreseeable issue will be if there is nothing to update on the /Arts page at the end of the month. I added a couple pages to /Arts without putting them in alphabetical order, so there is something to update this month. I'm not sure of the best solution in general if /Arts has nothing to update; I could try to remember to post a total count to the talk page of WP:GAS, but I might forget. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lampman. I was a little miffed at your use of a quote from me in your post on the DYK talk. That was a very extreme case of copyvio, whereby the author had contributed an article that consisted of plagiarized text buffered with block quotes. I would not have been so stern if it was minor, but the author really needs to know that this is a problem before contributing anything else to the encyclopedia. Perhaps it was a harsh "welcome" to wikipedia, but this is a major issue. If you wish to quote me to strengthen a point you are making, please examine the context before doing so. Have a good one, The Interior(Talk) 23:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, no worries. Full disclosure: I was in a crap mood this morning. The Interior(Talk) 23:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evening! You've added Harris 1975 volume to the bibliography of Economy of England in the Middle Ages; its a good volume, but its not actually cited in the article at the moment! Were you going to add a reference to it, or could I move it to a "further reading" section? I didn't want to just undo it, because it is a good book on the subject, albeit not one I've personally read. Many thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the bibliography's purely driven by the volumes referenced at the moment, although some are articles in books, of course, which inflates the list fractionally! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be delighted if you did! Hchc2009 (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Glad you enjoyed the article! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--BorgQueen (talk) 11:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lampman,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:GunnarSønsteby.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 11, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-01-11. howcheng {chat} 19:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The_Master_of_Game.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Garion96 (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but regretfully, I have failed your WP:FP nomination portion of the award, without considering other portions. See WT:GOLDENW for my commentary on this portion of the criteria.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Master of Game.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lampman, thanks for the heads up. I have re-generated the graphs. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey what is your opinion on the following issue: Should the word "ceremonies" be centralized on calendars, such as the 2010 winter olympics calendar? I am having a dispute and would like to hear you opinion on here [2]. You created the calendar for the 2010 Games and left the word centralized can you expalin your reasoning there as well. I am for centralizing the word, because ceremonies are not a medal event, and therefore should be centralized and distinguished from medal events. Thank you. Intoronto1125 (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lampman,

I just wanted to congratulate you for the excellent work on Andrew Harclay, 1st Earl of Carlisle and inform you that it has passed Good Article review. - Philippe 12:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on May 9, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 9, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied over at WP:ERRORS. If you've got specific changes that you want made can you leave them there and I'll copy it over. Thanks, Woody (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was perfect, I've copied it over now. In terms of the images, it is quite rare to have the image on the Main Page but not in the article but certainly not unprecedented. Is there no place for it in the article? If not, no worries. Woody (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article The Rocky Mountains, Lander's Peak you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Viriditas (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've made a few minor changes. Feel free to revert any you feel strongly about, but make a note on the talk page. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Rocky Mountains, Lander's Peak you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Rocky Mountains, Lander's Peak for comments about the article. Well done! Viriditas (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...I think all the points have now been fixed. See what you think! Hchc2009 (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise the direct formulation of my edit summary on Burud's page.

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but when those authorities have said that there is no hope of finding the person alive, that seems like a declaration of death to me. Thanks for the copyedit by the way. Lampman (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the result of this accident is unfortunately obvious. Formally correct, a disappeared person is not declared as dead until the official authorities/the police have issued a certificate of some kind. (It might be safest.)

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. The best I could find on the matter was this document:[3] Even if it's just a proposed law, it gives an idea of the process. Lampman (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, this has already been brought to my attention. I had made a request for the approval in the beleif that it was indeed a bot. However I was told that it was not. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 14:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Krydder.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought I'd let you know that I say your article Ektemann alene in the New Articles list--It would be great if you could also clean-up the related article List of Norwegian films.

Jipinghe (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lampman, I hope you're well. My name is Aaron and I'm one of the Storytellers working on the 2011 fundraiser here at the Wikimedia Foundation. For this year's campaign we're seeking out and interviewing active Wikipedians like yourself, in order to produce a broader and more representative range of "personal appeals" to run come November. If you'd like to participate in this project, please email me at amuszalskiwikimedia.org. Interviews are typically conducted by phone or Skype and take between 30-90 minutes. Thanks! Aaron (WMF) (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Lampman! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Thanks for uploading File:Mad Men season 4.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Fredrik William Henriksen‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mentoz86 (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lampman. Thank you for starting the GA review of Ely, an article I have been helping to improve. I hope to be able to respond expediently to all the issues that you raise. You may have noted that I have been carrying out, what I hope is, a thorough copy-edit of the article recently. This was triggered by an academic friend of mine who reviewed the article off-wiki; I have simply been working through the issues he noted. I have finished working on the article for now, although who ever completes one of these articles? Let me know if you need access to off-line sources as I have a few journals and about 12 books. I can scan and send you the odd page if it helps you in any way.

--Senra (Talk) 16:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Take your time. I did not want you to review a moving target, which is why I informed you of the above --Senra (Talk) 20:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did do dones. One diverse done defied doing. Deferred --Senra (Talk) 13:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lampman, I'm happy to help in this GA nom. Do I just post a note in Talk:Glenn Gould/GA1? I don't know all the ins/outs of the GA process or all the citation/footnote rules. I fixed the first two on your list. I inserted the two fixes under the Reflist template. Shouldn't all citations go within this template? Argolin (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lampman I haven't heard from you. I am moving citations to the Reflist template. I've dealt with most of the external links. I've added some content and put his Juno and Grammys into a wikitable. Are you closing this GA? If/when you do, I'll request a copy edit (the last one seems to be a year ago) and resubmit it as a GA nom. Please advise. Argolin (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lampman. You have new messages at Talk:Glenn Gould/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for your extended review. I posted an ok to close at the GA (that's if it's up to me). It took me quite a while to consistently organise the citations and most recently the notes. After delving into the article, I was doubtful it would pass. You didn't mention the picture of the statue of Gould. It is just there in the article, no context, not mentioned! lol... One question, I added a References section for DVD's/Films and possibly recordings that were mentioned in the Notes section. Should I combine the Refereces section with the Bibliography section? Thanks again Argolin (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The pilot page had been improved and I think it is GA ready so I was wondering if, when you get a chance, take a look at it. Thanks. Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★* Merry Christmas And Happy New Year 2012 *★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★
		I Wish You And Your Family A Merry Christmas And A Happy New Year 2012. May The New Year Bring Much Happiness, Prosperity, Peace, And Success In Your Life. Please Keep Up Your Good Work on Wikipedia. Cheers. - From A Big Fan of ----> Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	With great appreciation, I award you this barnstar for completing Good Article reviews for the December 2011 Good Article Nomination backlog elimination drive Cheers,AstroCog (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been spending a lot of time lately creating and modifying templates for critically acclaimed episode articles. You have already created "Public Relations (Mad Men)", "Christmas Comes But Once a Year (Mad Men)", "The Good News (Mad Men)", "The Rejected (Mad Men)", and "Waldorf Stories". It has come to my attention that one of the most critically acclaimed episodes in television history is the Mad Men episode entitled "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes (Mad Men) that needs to be created. It appears on {{DirectorsGuildofAmericaOutstandingDirectingDramaSeries 1990–2009}} and {{EmmyAward DramaWriting 2001–2025}}. You may also note several other critically acclaimed Mad Men episodes at Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Directing for a Drama Series, Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Writing for a Drama Series, Writers Guild of America Award for Best Screenplay – Episodic Drama and Directors Guild of America Award for Outstanding Directing – Drama Series that were either nominees or winners. You may want to consider creating some of those as well.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes you start a topic and end up doing it by yourself. I see you have created 5 of the 7 Mad Men episodes. You are getting some help. Some episodes are more important than others. There are a lot of Mad Men episodes that have recieved critical acclaim. IMO, those are the ones to do first.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Robert Gallant requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sionk (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed with your expansion of Edmund of Woodstock, 1st Earl of Kent. Keep up the good work! Ruby 2010/2013 03:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I should be able to get to it this weekend (assuming no one else starts the review first). Ruby 2010/2013 03:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just dropping a note that I have reviewed the article and left some comments. Cheers, Ruby 2010/2013 04:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Edmund of Woodstock, 1st Earl of Kent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maria of Brabant (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) 11:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Richard II of England know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 8, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 8, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Richard II (1367–1400) was King of England, a member of the House of Plantagenet and the last of its main-line kings. He ruled from 1377 until he was deposed in 1399. Richard was a son of Edward, the Black Prince, and was born during the reign of his grandfather, Edward III. Richard was tall, good-looking and intelligent. Although probably not insane, as earlier historians believed, he may have suffered from one or several personality disorders that may have become more apparent toward the end of his reign. Less of a warrior than either his father or grandfather, he sought to bring an end to the Hundred Years' War that Edward III had started. He was a firm believer in the royal prerogative, something which led him to restrain the power of his nobility and rely on a private retinue for military protection instead. He also cultivated a courtly atmosphere where the king was an elevated figure, and art and culture were at the centre, in contrast to the fraternal, martial court of his grandfather. Richard's posthumous reputation has to a large extent been shaped by Shakespeare, whose play Richard II portrays Richard's misrule and Bolingbroke's deposition as responsible for the 15th-century Wars of the Roses. Most authorities agree that the way in which he carried his policies out was unacceptable to the political establishment, and this led to his downfall. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:O' Horten.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mad Men - Christmas.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mad Men The Suitcase.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Good News - Mad Men.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Waldorf Stories.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Rejected - Mad Men.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mad Men The Suitcase.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Can You Hear Me (Enrique Iglesias song) alternative cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, went throgh the history of the article Phantom of Heilbronn. A reference, you added there some years ago seems to be gone, or no more access for free. Mentioned it here, but I think it's best to write a short message to you also. -- CaffeineCyclist (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the review and placed it on hold pending attention to a few minor issues; you can find the review here. I really enjoyed reading the article, and it saves me from having to read the book. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.

JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swallingwikimedia.org) with...

• the subject line "JSTOR"
• your English Wikipedia username
• your preferred email address for a JSTOR account

The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.

Thank you! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Vegar Landaas has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails WP:NFOOTY as he never played a match in a fully pro league

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of discussions occurring at Wikipedia:Vital articles and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded that may be of interest to you pbp 19:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (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 (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), 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) 14:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox peer has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:C.J. and Big Bird.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Toby shuttle.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Wikipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!

It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:

SURVEY

Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Keith Edward Abbott has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Alans1977 (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lampman! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 16:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—History (journal) —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Memory Thief sc.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An Khe (The West Wing), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 19:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The West Wing - Taylor Reid.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Manchester Part I2.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ways and Means2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:On the Day Before2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Jean Ugolin.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

historic politicians in England and Norway

Thank you for quality articles such as Edward III of England, Richard II of England and Adam de Stratton, for Government ministers of Norway, for images and for your frequent "a start", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! I'm also an inactive Wikipedian, but who knows, maybe I'll get back in the saddle one day... Lampman (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you are not so active now, therefore didn't rush to make it on TFA day (when I was traveling) ;) - Precious is for contributions past and present, and your past it very impressive! You could look at a FAC for me if you don't want to get back in the saddle of article writing right away ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for today's Richard II of England! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1658 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By pure happenstance, today I had occasion to have a look at Richard II of England. To my great surprise, coming from the Shakespeare side, I found its coverage of the relevant aspects excellent, and the overall article to be a well deserved FA. Sufficiently so for me to go have a look at its FAC page to find out who we have to thank for that. In any case: I very much second Gerda's sentiment above, including an encouragement to "get back in the saddle" if in any way it can bring you joy! --Xover (talk) 06:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the Richard II of England article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 16 August 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 16, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lampman. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Community Pilot cast.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- Radiphus 16:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am going through some old Good Articles with cleanup tags and thought I would draw your attention to Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick. Old tags are asking for citations and expansions. I am unsure myself the requirements for sources in those sections so they may not even be necessary. I know and trust your judgement in these matters so thought I would leave it to you. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 07:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notting Hill (film), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: https://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_7OFnTsNkGuBuZeJ&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lampman. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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)[reply]

The article Jaleo Films has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Christian Sulheim requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://nbl.snl.no/Christian_Sulheim. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Orville1974 (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Modular Buildings, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. FredModulars (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lampman. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Christian Sulheim".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox peer has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox noble. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pia Borgli 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/Pia Borgli until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article 37 1/2 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Page was created in 2010 and has no information on it except for links to IMDB and Filmweb.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bakertheacre ^Chat/_{What I Baked} 20:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ways and Means1.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Bilorv (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eppur Si Muove (The West Wing), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timeline of the 2011 Norway attacks 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/Timeline of the 2011 Norway attacks until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article.

Clarityfiend (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	"For God’s sake let us sit upon the ground / And tell sad stories of the death of kings". For Richard II of England, a fine piece of work. Hope you see this, Lampman. SN54129 14:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thanks for your work on Symphony in White, No. 1: The White Girl. I was exploring the relationship between the early impressionists and James Abbott McNeill Whistler when I came across your work. Hopefully, you are still around on this site in some form or another. Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Howell Estes.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, can be recropped from File:Estes howell m jr.jpg if needed.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 08:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Drømmen om kaptein Sabeltanns rike has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NFILM. No reviews found in a BEFORE

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2010 Winter Olympics Calendar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Suicide, it's a suicide 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/Suicide, it's a suicide until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Edward I of England for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Jim Killock (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

East Carolina University has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]