<!-- Message sent by User:Evad37@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=784474262 -->
<!-- Message sent by User:Evad37@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=784474262 -->
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[File:Editor of the week barnstar.svg|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; color:#606570" |'''Editor of the Week'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid lightgray" |Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]] in recognition of your constructive approach to discussions. Thank you for the great contributions! <span style="color:#a0a2a5">(courtesy of the [[WP:WER|<span style="color:#80c0ff">Wikipedia Editor Retention Project</span>]])</span>
|}
[[User:JustBerry]] submitted the following nomination for [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]]:
:User Icebob99 has been a user for a little over a year now. In that short time, Icebob99 has taken strides to learn Wikipedia guidelines carefully, while demonstrating an open mind when responding to criticism. The talk page section [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Icebob99#05:11:49.2C_8_January_2017_review_of_submission_by_Alvinyong here] seems to demonstrate the editor's willingness to go to lengths to discuss issues with other editors. While the editor hasn't necessarily done significant content creation or contribute voluminous text in the way that other Hall of Fame editors may have, they have displayed a willingness and eagerness to learn which is a wonderful place to start as a Wikipedia editor.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
<pre>{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}</pre>
Thanks again for your efforts! [[User:Lepricavark|Lepricavark]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark|talk]]) 20:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Revision as of 20:39, 18 June 2017
Welcome!
Hello, Icebob99, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Hi Icebob99! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:
Hi. I reverted your edits at Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates. Please read WP:NOTVOTE. Wikipedia operates by consensus but admins that close discussions (RfA, AfD, etc.) weigh the arguments made and can decide that the correct consensus is more than just a matter of numbers. Although I'm sure you thought you were catching actual typos, I'd caution you against making any changes to content in the Wikipedia namespace. Policies, guidelines, and essays were written by editors with far more experience and their subtleties may elude you. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris troutman: Thanks for the clarification. I'll hold off on editing namespace articles for a while. Icebob99 (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the others were included in an AfD a while back. It was procedurally closed as keep for being too large and unworkable. So that's not the answer. I PRODed the other EuroBasket ones since they're basically the same and I or someone else can deal with the rest later. Smartyllama (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. Icebob99 (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The PRODs were contested by the page creator. I can try to put a combined AfD together later, or you can if you want. It will take a while since there are multiple EuroBasket (and women's EuroBasket) articles to nominate and they all have to go to the same AfD, so I'll need some more time than I have right now unless you want to. However, I would strongly advise against placing different sports in the same AfD. Men's and women's of the same sport is fine, but not different sports like hockey since that's what did the first AfD in. Smartyllama (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have never created an AfD before, so I think I'm going to leave this to you while I look for a regular article for a good first one. Let me know when you start it. Icebob99 (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reference errors on 4 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheMagnificentist was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Hello! Icebob99,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! - TheMagnificentist (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone, and welcome to the December 2016 GOCE newsletter. We had an October newsletter all set to go, but it looks like we never pushed the button to deliver it, so this one contains a few months of updates. We have been busy and successful!
Coordinator elections for the first half of 2017: Nominations are open for election of Coordinators for the first half of 2017. Please visit the election page to nominate yourself or another editor, and then return after December 15 to vote. Thanks for participating!
September Drive: The September drive was fruitful. We set out to remove July through October 2015 from our backlog (an ambitious 269 articles), and by the end of the month, we had cut that pile of oldest articles to just 83. We reduced our overall backlog by 97 articles, even with new copyedit tags being added to articles every day. We also handled 75% of the remaining Requests from August 2016. Overall, 19 editors recorded copy edits to 233 articles (over 378,000 words).
October Blitz: this one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 16 through 22 October; the theme was Requests, since the backlog was getting a bit long. Of the 16 editors who signed up, 10 editors completed 29 requests. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all editors who took part.
November Drive: The November drive was a record-breaker! We set out to remove September through December 2015 from our backlog (239 articles), and by the end of the month, we had cut that pile of old articles to just 66, eliminating the two oldest months! We reduced our overall backlog by 523 articles, to a new record low of 1,414 articles, even with new tags being added to articles every day, which means we removed copy-editing tags from over 800 articles. We also handled all of the remaining Requests from October 2016. Officially, 14 editors recorded copy edits to 200 articles (over 312,000 words), but over 600 articles, usually quick fixes and short articles, were not recorded on the drive page.
Housekeeping note: we do not send a newsletter before every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your Watchlist.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdslk.
Hi Icebob99! I know you're not quite new here any longer, but I've noticed you added yourself to WikiProject Microbiology and that you've been editing lots of microbiology articles. I just wanted to pop over here and say hello and welcome aboard! It's great to see another editor interested in microbiology!! There are fairly few of us around, and so much to be done! Anyway, if you have any questions about anything at all, feel free to leave a message at my talk page. Also if you're ever looking for something to do, consider looking at this list of micro articles tagged with some concern (just over 600 more to go!). WP Classical music might have one too. Anyway, I hope you decide to stick around and help improve the encyclopedia here. We need all the hands we can get! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajpolino: thanks for the welcome! I don't really edit the Classical music WikiProject, I just put it on there as I was looking around for WikiProjects. I'll make the concerns next on my to-do list (I'm assessing all the articles with unknown quality and importance levels, only 800 left :P). Looking forward to making Wikipedia just as detailed on microbiology as anything else! Icebob99 (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reference errors on 14 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
See section User_talk:Knowledgebattle#LinuxInsider where multiple people expressed the same concern. This is not the way to be bold at Wikipedia. (I don't understand where such confidence comes from) Thank you for asking an obvious "what's going on?" Shenme (talk) 06:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that perhaps the user saw somewhere that the source was unreliable, but apparently that somewhere was in error. Being bold on Wikipedia is of course quite easy when one thinks they are doing the right thing. Thanks for pointing this to me. Icebob99 (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A cookie for you
I hereby award this WikiCookie for your tireless work classifying the WP Micro articles. It's great to have you here. We need more editors like you. I hope you have a great holiday season! Ajpolino (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I greatly appreciate it! Definitely a unique award. CookieMonster cropped here's the proud recipient. Thanks! Icebob99 (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Elsevier Access to Health and Life Sciences Resources
Hello Icebob99, I wanted to introduce myself as Wikipedia's account coordinator for Elsevier per the discussion on Nikkimaria's talk page. I saw that you filled out the request-for-access form again on 12/22/16, as you were not sure whether or not your 12/11/16 form submission went through. I just wanted to let you know that we received both form submissions. Nikkimaria seems to have already alluded to this, but to reiterate, Elsevier has already been contacted from our end regarding giving you login credentials, but we are still waiting to hear back from them. Thanks for your patience thus far, and feel free to ping me or reach out to me on my talk page if you have any more questions, comments, or concerns. Have a great day. --JustBerry (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @JustBerry:, I appreciate the thought to reach out to my talk page! I'm in no rush (PubMed Commons is a good stopgap measure) and I'll be ready whenever the credentials are ready. Good luck with coordinating, and happy holidays! Icebob99 (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your patience, and happy holidays to you too! --JustBerry (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From your contribution history it seems to me you might be interested in this tool for WikiProject-assessing: User:Kephir/gadgets/rater. I find it very useful and it has saved me countless hours of time already. Just wanted to let you know about it.
Hi! I'm curious why you rated The Concrete Herald as C-class, rather than B-class. I'd welcome your suggestions for improvement. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @凰兰时罗:, I rated it as C-class because I was too lazy to check it against the B-class criteria. C-class articles are usually evident upon a glance and require only a few spot-checks to make sure it hits the mark on verifiability and neutrality, whereas I check articles for B-class thoroughly against the six criteria listed in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, so it's more work. Since you asked, I'll go through and check everything off since I'm curious now if it actually is B-class. Thanks for stopping by! Icebob99 (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the possible second ping, I copied your username incorrectly in the re template. Icebob99 (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking time to review this -- I appreciate it :). (I received only one ping.) 凰兰时罗 (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the necessary citation to the statement in the body of the Merrick Garland article, but did not add it in lead per the MoS. I jumped the gun on the expiration statement last night since I had to change 60+ Judicial nominee articles to reflect the expiration of all those nominations at noon today. In any event, the article is now properly cited. Safiel (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Safiel, you probably know more about when they expire more than me, so thanks for taking care of it! I had placed my citation needed tag in an abundance of caution. Everything looks good now. Have a good day, Icebob99 (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thank you. Icebob99 (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikibirthday
You're too kind, thanks. I'm not sure the world's ready for two of me, much less Wikipedia, but still...I do what I can to make this a more navigable place. Keeps me busy and out of trouble...mostly. :-)
i have added a few extra reference from the star and other daily newspapers.
Approximately 60% reference are from Daily newspapers (dealing with issues relating to subject matter)
- thestar, nst(news staits times) & thesundaily - top three english newspapers in Malaysia
- bernama - news organization that source for materials supplied to the media
- malaysiakini & freemalaysiatoday (2 leading online news portals in Malaysia)
- sinarharian & utusan - top two newspapers in the Malay language
Approximately 10% references are government websites (mainly dealing with Acts and other legal issues)
Another 30% references are from websites (dealing with details of the cooperative loans)
such as (1) cooperatives official websites, (2) consumer organization website and (3) third party cooperative loan websites that provides details on the cooperative loans.
Hi @Alvinyong: the referencing looks good now. Before I approve it, the article has to meet one other criterion (see the flowchart to the right): the neutral point of view criterion. I'll fix the issue myself, since it's very minor, but for example: the section title "Easy to Approve" sounds like something I'd hear on a television ad rather than in an encyclopedia. Whether or not your writing is to get people to take out cooperative loans, the phrase "Easy to approve" implies that this loan is somehow better than other loans in a way that is not cited (note that the reference in that section cannot be used to justify wording like "easy to approve" because it is a bank and therefore has a conflict of interest with that wording. Facts from it are fine, but we can't use that kind of website to draw conclusions for the reader). I'll fix that myself, however, since the article is just about ready to go into mainspace.
AfC criteria flowchart
A quick question that the article doesn't clarify: is "Cooperative Loan in Malaysia" the title of a specific credit organization or just credit organizations in general in Malaysia? If it is a specific title, is the title exactly "Cooperative Loan in Malaysia" or is it something simpler like "Cooperative Loan"? The reason I ask is because the article title should read "Cooperative Loan (Malaysia)" if it is about a specific organization, or "Cooperative loans in Malaysia" if the article is about the general practice. I'll change the title of the page to read "Cooperative loans in Malaysia" for now (thus covering the practice and not a specific organization) based on what I read in the article. Please let me know if I changed it incorrectly.
I'll fix the neutral wording issue, rename the article, and approve it to the namespace. Thanks for the great work! Icebob99 (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
Hello. I noticed you added a script that I had made to your common.js page. It seems you have added more than the required part of the script. I would suggest undoing that edit. To install the page curation script, simply copy the following into your common.js page.
mw.util.addPortletLink(
'p-personal',
mw.util.wikiGetlink('Special:NewPagesFeed'),
'Page Curation',
'pt-pagecuration',
'View Special:New Pages using the Page Curation tool',
null,
'#pt-preferences'
);
});
*/
It's under the comment tags /* */, does it still matter if it's on my common.js page? Or would it be cleaner to just remove it? Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Yes. I meant that code. It would be cleaner if you simply remove it and use just the line that I've mentioned. Thanks. Lourdes 14:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! Thanks. Icebob99 (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
December blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 11 through 17 December; the themes were Requests and eliminating the November 2015 backlog. Of the 14 editors who signed up, nine editors completed 29 articles. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all who took part.
January drive: The January drive was a great success. We set out to remove December 2015 and January and February 2016 from our backlog (195 articles), and by 22 January we had cleared those and had to add a third month (March 2016). At the end of the month we had almost cleared out that last month as well, for a total of 180 old articles removed from the backlog! We reduced our overall backlog by 337 articles, to a low of 1,465 articles, our second-lowest month-end total ever. We also handled all of the remaining requests from December 2016. Officially, 19 editors recorded 337 copy edits (over 679,000 words).
February blitz: The one-week February blitz, focusing on the remaining March 2016 backlog and January 2017 requests, ran from 12 to 18 February. Seven editors reduced the total in those two backlog segments from 32 to 10 articles, leaving us in good shape going in to the March drive.
Coordinator elections for the first half of 2017: In December, coordinators for the first half of 2017 were elected. Jonesey95 stepped aside as lead coordinator, remaining as coordinator and allowing Miniapolis to be the lead, and Tdslk and Corinne returned as coordinators. Thanks to all who participated!
Speaking of coordinators, congratulations to Jonesey95 on their well-deserved induction into the Guild of Copy Editors Hall of Fame. The plaque reads: "For dedicated service as lead coordinator (2014, 1 July – 31 December 2015 and all of 2016) and coordinator (1 January – 30 June 2015 and 1 January – 30 June 2017); exceptional template-creation work (considerably streamlining project administration), and their emphasis on keeping the GOCE a drama-free zone."
Housekeeping note: We do not send a newsletter before every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your watchlist.
Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdslk.
And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:
Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.
The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.
So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hephaestus Books
You used Hephaestus Books as a source last year, but unfortunately those books copy from Wikipedia so can't be used. I've removed the reference and tagged the article - it still needs reliable secondary sources. Fences&Windows 18:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fences and windows, thanks for letting me know. I'll watch out for that source in the future. Icebob99 (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
May 2017 WikiCup newsletter
The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:
Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.
Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.
So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your constructive approach to discussions. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)
User Icebob99 has been a user for a little over a year now. In that short time, Icebob99 has taken strides to learn Wikipedia guidelines carefully, while demonstrating an open mind when responding to criticism. The talk page section here seems to demonstrate the editor's willingness to go to lengths to discuss issues with other editors. While the editor hasn't necessarily done significant content creation or contribute voluminous text in the way that other Hall of Fame editors may have, they have displayed a willingness and eagerness to learn which is a wonderful place to start as a Wikipedia editor.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}
Thanks again for your efforts! Lepricavark (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:
Hello! Your submission of Women in classical music at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.
