Hi Zwerg Nase. Thanks for adding all those photos to Formula One car articles. I have a question though: Is File:Honda 006.jpg a BAR 005 (from 2003) or a BAR 006 (from 2004)? The number '9' would suggest that it's a 006 from 2004 (when BAR carried numbers 9 and 10), although the coloured stripes near the front wheel look more like the 2003 livery than the 2004 livery. If it's a 006, then the image should be removed from the BAR 005 article. On the other hand, if it is a 005, then the filename should probably be changed, to avoid possible confusion. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Thanks for your comment. There are more great photos to come! You are absolutely right, it's confusing. When I found the pictures of the July 2004 presentation I figured they would be the 2004 cars. So I named the files here accordingly. But when I put them into the articles I found that some teams had run their 2003 cars, such as Honda. So I changed the description and put the photo into the right article. You are right, the filename should be changed, but I don't know how to do that. Do you? Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'll take care of it. Thanks for the reply. DH85868993 (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zwerg Nase, thanks for your message. We do seem to have some overlapping interests & it would be a good thing if there was a bit more friendly interaction to help improve Wiki pages. I feel this would be more productive. I've worked up some obscure drivers' pages as well as some more well known ones. Some people have been complimentary!!:P.

BTW I noted an entry on the BT7 page (Repco) by another editor, which I am not certain is correct so have brought it up on his page for clarification. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also read nowhere about the Repco naming. Let's see what he says.
I will be working on improving all the Lotus and Brabham car articles over the next few days, trying to add photos where they are missing (found some great ones for the Lotus 43 and got permission to use them, I will add them later tonight. Also I want to bring the 2012 Brazilian Grand Prix article up to Good Article standards. Maybe you could help me with that by copyreading it? Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I also found pictures for the 2012 Brazil race and got permission to use them. The author still needs to update the licences on Flickr though... Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK good stuff!! Good photos really help an article along I think. I might have to trawl through my photos to see if any are any use (after scanning!). I would be honoured to look at anything you'd like me to. So drop me a message if/when you need anything. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I've taken the liberty of tweaking up the bibliography on the Lotus 49 page and also added one item which I knew existed as I saw it in a bookshop towards the end of last year... Best Eagleash (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There you are you see. People make edits & chat about it & (I believe) the end product is improved. Whereas →→ the editor re BT7 has responded on my talk page... Eagleash (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I think it was worth querying though, just to make sure...

All the time though I had in the back of my mind these pictures I took at Crystal Palace circuit in 2010. (Bit disingenuous of me really :P) I can't identify the model...

I'll have a look at Brazilian GP 2012 article later today hopefully. Best, Eagleash (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky one.. maybe it's a F2 or F3 car? I'll try to put in the Brazilian GP pics asap! Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly F3. Eagleash (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said it on the nomination but I will also address you personally and thank you for your work; please don't let other users who feel few if any others meet their standards and knowledge get you down. I hope you continue to have a presence on ITN. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Best regards from Berlin :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muss fragen, hast du wirklich eine kleine Nase? Sca (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Es ist ironisch gemeint, ich habe eigentlich eine recht große ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also vielleicht, 'a nose for news.' Sca (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha Sehr gut! Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zwerg Nase :) taking a closer look at ITN today, I've seen you commenting underneath my Berlinale proposal. Your user page suggests that you're very interested in Germany and its history and that you're an expert in the field of music. That I think makes you perfectly fit to have a look at Music of Germany, a Sorgenkind since ages. What's your suggestions to improve the structure there? I think it's very cluttered and a sheer mess. I think something like Music of the United Kingdom could be an inspiration, to trim the German article down to the core topics and then have sub articles for more thorough details. What's your stance? (we could switch to Deutsch probably, but it's also fun exercising constantly, to me at least :) -- Danke und prost Mahlzeit, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Horst! Hmm, der Artikel ist sicher ein Sorgenkind, aber das lässt sich ja über die ganze deutsche Musik sagen. Ich sehe das Problem weniger bei der Struktur als dabei, dass der Artikel ausgemistet und neu geschrieben werden müsste. Sätze wie "he is seldom played on the radio." oder "Most Liedermacher artists also record special albums for children." gehen ja gar nicht. Leider habe ich dazu aktuell keine Zeit, schreibe mir aber mal auf die ToDo-Liste, drüber zu schauen. Alles in allem muss ich aber sagen, dass mein Augenmerk was Musik angeht nicht wirklich auf deutscher Musik liegt, sondern eher auf guter Musik ;) Beste Grüße! Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I'll do my best in these few remaining days to make the changes.lapsking (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to all the comments; I'm checking the references to Stuckism.com to see if any further refs are needed, but we're basically there now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll see that I get through it until tomorrow! Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Danke schön Lukas! :) '''tAD''' (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, are you still reviewing this article? The original nominator seems to have abandoned it, but if you don't mind I can take over fixing the issues. Cheers, Reyk _YO! 16:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Yes, I will do it, probably over the weekend. It's good that you can take over :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

I've had a go at the Brazil '12 GP page. Please take a look and see if you agree (or not!). Cheers, Eagleash (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff! Also added the photos now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, I'm afraid I've tweaked one of the captions.....please say if you disagree. Best Eagleash (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been tweaking again I'm afraid...one thing missing is the lap di Resta crashed out on. He completed 68 according to the results table, but did he actually crash on lap 68 or 69? It's these little things.... :P Eagleash (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just watched that part of the race again and I believe lap 68 is correct. Button was about to enter the final lap (71) when Di Resta, about 1 minute behind him crashed before the start/finish-straight. So Button had completed 69 laps and Di Resta behind him 68. Do I make sense? Good thing you double-checked though! Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um not quite; Button entering 71 but completed 69? And if I read you correctly di Resta had completed 68 & was on his 69th but did not quite complete it? So he binned it on his 69th lap. If you agree I'll put it in [or you can :)]. Eagleash (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Button had not yet entered lap 71, so he was ON lap 70, having completed 69. Di Resta, almost one lap down, had completed 68. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK with you now.... :P

Update I've gone with "after 68 laps" and have added it. Hope OK with you... Eagleash (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this again and figured that the wording now might be confusing as well. The race itself was not on lap 68 at the time of the crash. Maybe we can change it to "little over one lap to go". It should be clear that that means one lap for the race leader. What do you think? Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well my feeling is that di Resta, is classified at 68 laps, so it may also confuse the issue if the sentence deviates very far from that. How it reads now would be my preferred wording if I were to be editing a page in similar circumstances. But it's just a personal opinion, others may differ! I'll leave it up to you as you are doing the most work on this page. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll think it over and try to find a wording that makes both things clear. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about "on his 69th lap"...? Or.."towards/at the end of his 69th lap" leaving in "out of 71" or not according to how you feel. Think that would cover all. Eagleash (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Switched it to "shortly before the end of the race". It's vage, but at least it is not wrong ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Zwerg. I know the review has closed, but my suggestion would be to cut down on the overlinks. Typically, a specific link should only appear once per article, and at their first mention (regardless if it's written as Jenson Button or Button). Although, this usually just applies to the written text and repeated links may be used in image captions and tables. At a quick glance, I counted Button and McLaren linked 4 times, and Alonso and Vettel linked 11 times. Twirlypen (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My personal taste is that I like more links better (at least once every paragraph), since it annoys me if I have to search for the link in the article when I want to follow up on something. Let's see what the GA review says about the matter. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I personally tend to agree with you, it'll help your chances on a review to cut them down. More info is here. Good luck!! Twirlypen (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just wondering if you're going to be able to get a chance to review this sometime soon. I'm quite keen to write quite a few more similar articles and it would be good to get some feedback on one I've finished. Many thanks! Relentlessly (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry about the delay. A university paper is taking me longer than expected. I hope to get it done by wednesday. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really no need to apologise! Thanks for doing it. Relentlessly (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lukas, Good result on the Brazil 2012 article... I just wanted to let you know that on the car articles, where the heading (Complete results ... etc.) appears at the end of the text but then there's a bit of a gap before the table appears after the infobox... if you put ((-)) at the end of the text it will create a clear space and the heading appears immediately above the results table. You can see what I mean at the de Tomaso and Brabham BT7 articles, (where I've already done it). Best, Eagleash (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't know that.. thank you!! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 05:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment re Günter Grass. Sca (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been working on the article on Hakan Çalhanoğlu. I noticed at the bottom of the page that he was player of the year in the 3. Liga in 2013. Can you find a source for this? (I doubt there is sufficient coverage of this league in English sources) '''tAD''' (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: [1], [2], [3]. Glad to help :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Roberto Firmino, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. GiantSnowman 12:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but if you take a look into the source, one of the sources did not reference anything said in the sentence and the other one contained a quote that was misused. I am currently reviewing the article for GA status, so it would be very much appreciated if you would not interfere. Thank you. I will take both sources away again, because they are not useful in the context. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I invite you to try and have me blocked - and I also invite you to read WP:BOOMERANG in the meantime. There is no way this article could possibly pass GA with the poor quality of content. GiantSnowman 13:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Nevertheless, I as a reviewer am supposed to give the nominator seven days time. I highly doubt he will have it done by then, but I give him that time. Feel free to contribute to the discussion at the right place. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just for future reference, you might want to consider using level three subsections for your F1 race articles...I. E. Breaking up the free practice sessions so that they each stand out. Same thing with qualifying.--Nascar king 16:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Free practice 1

Lewis Hamilton was the fastest in free practice one yada yada yada...

Free practice 2

Yada yada yada

Free practice 3

More yada yada yada--Nascar king 16:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do prefer to keep the article free from too many unnecessary headings, especially when the paragraphs are that short. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but George was a boy! Sca (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to have a knowledge of motorsports, I was wondering if you'd review the three NASCAR race articles I have nominated for GA status?--Nascar king 17:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was already thinking about that, even though I have no knowledge whatoever of NASCAR... So I might not be the right person after all. I will do the four reviews I started today and then take a look at one, if no-one else has done it then. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I see you've completed a Good Article review of The Eraser. That's great, we always need good editors to help out with the backlog, so thanks for doing that :)

One thing to note is that the article contained a reference (#9) that was a dead link - the GA shouldn't really have been passed until that was fixed. (For info, an easy way to spot these is to click the "external links" thing in the 'GA toolbox' that appears on the right hand side of the GA review page.) Don't worry about it now, since I've left the nominator a note on their talk page and they will resolve the issue. You'll see that I also made a couple of other suggestions about the article there too.

One other thing to note is that you didn't change the "class" field values in the WikiProject templates on the article talk page to "GA" - I've done this now, so don't worry about that either, but it is mentioned clearly on the instructions page.

Keep up the great work - cheers! — sparklism ^hey! 08:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I was a bit sloppy there. Thanks for keeping an eye out! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) — sparklism ^hey! 09:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flowers and kisses to you both. Popcornduff (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your passing of GA for Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup), I worked a lot on that article over the last nine months, even though I didn't nominate it. Something tells me that you enjoyed that game more than the nominator! ;)

Here's a funny anecdote. My mother got Germany in the sweepstakes at her place of work, and even though it was the World Cup she only had a small interest and hadn't seen a match up to that point. She decided to watch the first half of said game to get a taste of the tournament – and it was enough for her to watch until the end! '''tAD''' (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can believe that :) It was really a weird game. When Kroos scored his second goal, I thought it was a replay of his first, I just couldn't believe what was happening. And the sight of that little boy crying still haunts me sometimes :D Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to providce some solace... Serten Talk 12:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit shocked that German WP listed Verne Gagne in its RD section. Sca (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize that, I am never on that page. Helpless cause... Zwerg Nase (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering: Are you active on German WP? Sca (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I gave that up quite a long time ago. It's a vicious circle really: The quality of the German WP is low, so people turn away from it, which naturally does not make it better... Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surprising, since it's one of the largest WPs. (I have noticed they have a lot of unreferenced articles.) Schade. Sca (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its a combination of the Hasselhoff effect (hairs on the chest and a strong and competent Wrestling portal on the de:WP. Serten Talk 13:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lukas,

I was looking at the 49 article yesterday after it was sent to me via suggest bot. I noticed that it refers to the earlier BRMs as being the first to use the engine as a stressed member, when in fact it was the Lancia D50 of 1954. (F1 trivia quizzes do have their uses!) I haven't got a ref or I'd change it myself... do you have anything? Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; found one. Eagleash (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure that the information about changes coming to Formula 1 belongs in the race article since none of the changes affect the race itself. It seems to detract from the race report itself.--Nascar king 11:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there will be more discussion about it once they arrive there and I'd say that is of interest to an article about the race. Let's see what's gonna happen :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another GA pass. May I ask if you have seen this film? As the franchise itself has been cited as evidence that comedy doesn't travel well. '''tAD''' (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well... He is right in a way, British English is often harder to understand also for us non-native speakers. But then again, I guess the main reason is that Americans (generally speaking) couldn't care less about what is produced anywhere else in the world. Also: I don't believe that TV show was ever popular outside the Commonwealth. And I don't believe a movie such as this would be that successful without the success of the TV show before it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know an Italian exchange student who was told by her host mother that all British teenage boys act like those seen in this series. I can confirm as a 19-year-old Englishman that this is 100% true. Also, the range of dialects in England alone is ridiculous compared to what would be found in a similar area in America or Australia. For example, where my grandparents came from, "how are you" would be "how bist". I wonder from which language that originates! ;)

Thank you and keep up your good work '''tAD''' (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Bist" is actually German for "you are". Glad to solve that riddle ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 and Simon Harley on the sinking of the Lusitania Timeline: This month in World War I

No realli! She was Karving her initials øn the møøse with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given her by Svenge – her brother-in-law – an Oslo dentist and star of many Norwegian møvies: "The Høt Hands of an Oslo Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge Mølars of Horst Nordfink"…

[We apologise for the fault in this message. Those responsible have been sacked.]--Cardinal Ximinez (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Senatus consultum ultimum 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! David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see new note on DYK nomination template. Yoninah (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for starting the review so fast! I would, however, highly appreciate you would wait a few hours before starting the review. You see, a good friend of mine intend to do some copyedits and I strongly believe it would make the article much better. Best, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 13:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'll probably do the review on Saturday :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, two of my friends have now finished their copyediting, you may review the article now. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your contributions to the 2015 Berlin ePrix! It's great to see such a good article about Formula E! Wild8oar (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! It's very motivating to see that the work is appreciated :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Senatus consultum ultimum, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that both Gracchi brothers were slain after a decree known as senatus consultum ultimum was passed against them? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Senatus consultum ultimum. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded and made edits according your points made in the GA-review. Vielen Dank, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a closer look tomorrow, I gotta go to bed now :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note proffered compromise on Turkish election. Sca (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The blurb as posted by TRM has the additional virtue of getting "Yangtze" without "River" off ITN. Sca (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Daytona 500, 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. Harrias ^talk 09:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2015 Monaco Grand Prix you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Techtri -- Techtri (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2015 Monaco Grand Prix you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2015 Monaco Grand Prix for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Techtri -- Techtri (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of 2015 Spanish Grand Prix 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) 20:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see new note on DYK nomination template. Yoninah (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zwerg, thanks for your comment on the ITN nomination. It's true there are some busy beavers writing cycling articles lately I just nominated the article on GA, but will take a few days easy Wikipedia-wise since the article took a lot of time and effort, I'm a bit wiki-exhausted :P So if you want to review it, which would be awesome, could you wait a couple of days? :) Looking forward to your answer. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 13:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 July, the GA Cup starts, in which I participate. Should the nomination not be taken over by someone else until then, I will gladly review it in the context of the cup :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome timing! That will give me ample time to do the final classifications top 10s tables (mountains, sprints, etc.) Mattsnow81 (Talk) 15:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2015 Spanish Grand Prix, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that with Nico Rosberg's victory at the 2015 Spanish Grand Prix, he became the ninth winner of the race in as many years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2015 Spanish Grand Prix. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the new technology of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Senatus consultum ultimum you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - June 2015 Welcome to the GA Cup! In less than 72 hours, the competition will begin! Before you all start reviewing nominations and reassessments we want to make sure you understand the following: This is a friendly competition so we don't want any cheating/breaking of the rules. However, if you do believe someone is going against the rules, notify the judges. All the rules are listed here. If you are a new editor or new to reviewing Good article nominations, it is imperative that you read the 4 essays/guides listed under FAQ #4. If you do not understand something, ask a judge for clarification ASAP! The competition is not entirely about who can review the most nominations. Per the "Scoring" page, there is different criteria in which you can earn more points. Theoretically, you could review 10 nominations and have 80 points but another user could have reviewed 5 nominations and have 100 points. Yes, we want you to review as many nominations as you can as this will greatly increase the number of points you earn, but you must also keep in mind that every single review will be looked over by a judge. If we find that you are "rubber-stamping" (in other words, the review is not complete but you still passed/failed the article) you may be disqualified without warning. The same applies with reassessments. If you just say that the article should be delisted or kept with no explanation, points will not be awarded. Remember, to submit Good article reviews and reassessments on your submissions page (Some of you have not created your submissions page yet. Only reviews/reassessments submitted on your submissions page can earn points. If you participated in the 2014-2015 GA Cup, you still need to re-create your submissions page.). Detailed instructions on how to submit reviews and reassessments can be found under the "Submissions" page. Ask a judge if you need clarification. Also, rather than creating a long list on what to remember, make sure you have read the "Scoring", "Submissions", and "FAQ" pages. Now some of you are probably wondering how on earth the rounds will work. The rounds will work in a similar fashion as the previous competition, with the exception of the first round. Round 1 will have everyone compete in one big pool. Depending on the final number of participants after sign-ups close, a to-be-determined number of participants will move on (highest scorers will move on) to Round 2. We guarantee that the top 15 will move on (this number may change), so make sure you aim for those top positions! Moving on to Round 2, participants will be split into pools. The pools will be determined by a computer program that places participants by random. More details regarding Round 2 will be sent out at the end of Round 1. It is important to note that the GA Cup will run on UTC time, so make sure you know what time that is for where you live! On that note, the GA Cup will start on July 1 at 0:00:01 UTC; Round 1 will end on July 29 at 23:59:59 UTC; Round 2 will commence on August 1 at 0:00:01 UTC. All reviews must be started after or on the start time of the round. If you qualify for Round 2 but do not complete a review before the end of Round 1, the review can be carried over to Round 2; however that review will not count for Round 1. Prior to the start of the the second round, participants who qualify to move on will be notified. Finally, if you know anyone else that might be interesting in participating, let them know! Sign-ups close on July 15 so there is still plenty of time to join in on the action! If you have any further questions, contact one of the judges or leave a message here. After sign-ups close, check the Pools page as we will post the exact number of participants that will move on to the next round. Because this number will be determined past the halfway mark of Round 1, we encourage you to aim to be in the top 15 as the top 15 at the end of the round are guaranteed to move on. Cheers from 3family6, Dom497, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Zwerg Nase, ich weiß, dass die HU Berlin sich gerne auf ihre gloreiche Geschichte bezieht (Hegel, Marx, Heine!) und auch heute wieder Eliteuni ist, aber das ist nur eine Sichtweise auf die Geschichte, sprich POV. Daher ist ein eigenständiger Artikel zur Frederick William University mit Hinweis auf die Neugründungen nach 1945 (FU Berlin und HU Berlin) imho durchaus hilfreich. --Kolja21 (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ich kann dem nicht folgen. Es ist die selbe Universität. Noch nichtmal eine Neugründung. Wenn Du mir einen Präzedenzfall in Wikipedia zeigen kannst, wo solche Fälle anders behandelt werden, wäre ich überrascht. Außerdem: Warum denn dann ein Artikel mit dem Titel Frederick William University und nicht Berlin University? Außerdem kommt der Artikel in die Quere mit der disambiguation page. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Die Uni erhielt 1828 den Namen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität und ist bis heute unter dieser Bezeichnung bekannt. Es ist nichts ungewöhnliches in Wikipedia, dass bei bedeutenden Einschnitten zwei Artikel angelegt werden. Die BKL "Frederick William University (disambiguation)" ist korrekt. Die Vermischung der beiden Unis bringt lexikalisch keinen Vorteil und führt zu der Absurdität, dass Personen des 19. Jhs. angeblich an der HU studiert und gelehrt haben. Gruß --Kolja21 (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tut mir leid, aber alles davon ist nicht korrekt. Weder ist die Uni heute noch unter diesem Namen bekannt, noch zieht irgendjemand in Zweifel, dass Personen wie Bismarck oder Marx als Alumni der HU zu zählen sind. Welcher Vorteil soll denn lexikalisch aus dem zwanghaften auseinander friemeln der Universitäten entstehen? Mal davon abgesehen müsstest Du ja Deiner Logik folgend sofort einen getrennten Artikel für die Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität in Breslau erstellen, damit er sich nicht mit der Universität Breslau überschneidet... Gruß, Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zudem ist, bei allem Respekt, Frederick William University kein Artikel, der den Anforderungen von Wikipedia gerecht wird. Ich finde es bemerkenswert, dass Du eine Seite aufrecht erhalten willst, die für den Zeitraum, den sie abdecken soll, nicht einmal detaillierter ist als der eigentliche Artikel. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O.k. ich sehe, du hast an der HU studiert. Das erklärt den Fanatismus (3 LAs in 24 Stunden). --Kolja21 (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Es erklärt lediglich, wie ich dazu komme, dass es mir auffällt und warum mir die Geschichte bewusst ist. Ich möchte doch für mich in Anspruch nehmen, hier einen ausreichend objektiven Standpunkt einnehmen zu können. Deutsche Studierende sind für eine Loyalität zu Ihren Hochschulen ohnehin nicht bekannt. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Und von allem bereits erwähnten abgesehen, sorgt ein einzelnen Artikel Frederick William University nur für Verwirrung, weil er so tut als sei die Berliner die einzige und wahre Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität gewesen. Der Artikelname sollte zur disambiguation page führen. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2015 Monaco Grand Prix you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2015 Monaco Grand Prix for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Techtri -- Techtri (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Will you come and see what has been done once in a while? I commented over there. Sorry I don't know the GA conventions, I'm slightly nervous. When I have completed something you ask, do I put the 'done' template myself? Thanks for your attention. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 19:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Matt, you can put a "done" on something when you have made changes, and then I will decide wether or not it solves the issues I raised. I will look at the article regularly and see what you are doing. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who is reviewing it? That drill sergeant or you? He removed referenced and pertinent info. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 14:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Matt, first of all, there is no reason to get abusive. I am the reviewer. I did not ask DiscWheel to participate in the review, but no one can stop him from doing so and I do agree with what he is writing. When it comes to him removing stuff from the article: Well, on the one hand it is the nature of Wikipedia that everyone can edit and every time. Then again, I would have preferred him to change as little as possible too during the review process, since the more un-arranged changes are made to the article, the harder it is for me to see through it. I will write him asking to refrain from making significant changes without debating them first while the review is in progress, but that is about as much as I can do. Right now, I am reading through the article again and will leave notes on it on the review page as soon as I'm done. Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! About your first point on the talk page of the article, does that mean that you deem steephill.tv unacceptable? Thanks. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 16:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forget this, I wrote something on the GA talk section :) Mattsnow81 (Talk) 19:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it all over but the shouting? Sca (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No clue... Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I only removed your post because the discussion had been closed; feel free to start a talk page section for it. I wanted to tell you that (while I personally believe Ongoing not appropriate for sports events in progress) the World Cup is a tournament composed of different matches, while the Tour is a single event held over three weeks. It also does not get the level of attention of the World Cup. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree in two points: 1) I believe that the Tour gets a bigger coverage, at least if you take a world-wide average. And 2) the Tour is also composed of different stages, I fail to see a difference there... Just as in a World Cup, where you might lose one match and still win the tournament, you might lose time at a Tour stage but still win the overall classification. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :) Did you get any feedback if it is a RS or not? It would be a shame if it isn't because it is quite comprehensive, but I don't want to reference anything further to it if it is not considered RS, be it races or info on cyclists' articles. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 22:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can follow the discussion here. It seems to be tricky... I would tend to accepting it, but I cannot make that decision myself. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I added my grain of salt. An IP writes the Tour de France stages, he is a very good writer, but lacks the reference fiber. I try to help him, but he is not talkative. Oh well. Are you watching the Tour a bit? Mattsnow81 (Talk) 17:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do, four spectecular stages so far, weren't they? And so deserved for Martin today! Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes! Although I like Sagan a lot, I was happy for Martin, what power to resist to the bunch like that! I hope Sagan wins a stage this year, but don't worry, if he does and I write it on his article, I'll be very encyclopedic. Have a great Tour and don't forget to ring my bell if there's anything, I edit everyday. I'm sorry I dropped out a bit of the TDS work, as I said I put too much pressure on myself. I put 3 edits on it this morning lol Mattsnow81 (Talk) 17:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was glad to see that :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just put a few small ones in. Is there any chances the article will be a GA? If too much reconstruction is still needed, I'll go to something else. Besides, I think the seventh day is today right? Mattsnow81 (Talk) 18:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still need to take a closer look at all the changes, but I believe it is not far from GA. With all the work being done, don't mind the seven days. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll hunt some time gaps at the end of the stages, those we'll never find a ref for and stamp them out. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 18:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New batch of pics taken today just came in from a French wikifriend, they are just awesome as you can see! Now onto categorizing all that stuff :P Mattsnow81 (Talk) 21:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a whole lotta photos! And a well deserved red number for Nibali, he really made the stage with his attacks. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclingquotes-wise, my remarks to them on Twitter seem to have touched the mark, as they now say: POSTED by Emil Axelgaard or identify some new writers. This Axelgaard is a great connoisseur I've been told in private messages, but also a pricky boss. Anyway, it would be useful to use them for the 2015 Tour. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 05:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is good news, the more sources the better :) So, Froome seems unbeatable this year doesn't he? Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see tomorrow, first mountaintop finish! Bummer for Basso though, he announced he has testicular cancer :( Mattsnow81 (Talk) 16:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that is not the Armstrong succession he had in mind in 2006... Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No :( This Tour has been pretty exciting so far, can't wait for the mountains. Look at Sagan's results! Pity he didn't take a victory. Maybe on one of those lumpy stages looming... Mattsnow81 (Talk) 17:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too much of a Degenkolb supporter to hope for Sagan victories ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL This is a declaration of war! Mattsnow81 (Talk) 18:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a historian, you sure that declaring war is the best idea when it's Slovakia against Germany ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the French part of Canada, Quebec hahaha. Well that is not much better lol Mattsnow81 (Talk) 20:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quebec? That's cute ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you get our only tank, we'll defend with war beavers and moose! Mattsnow81 (Talk) 20:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"What you are doing is searching for a good table for one article that technically suits not everyone but your preferred way of display, which is obviously mobile devices."

While it's true that I work to accommodate mobile users, when have any of my edits ever prioritised mobile users over desktop users to the point where the desktop version is rendered unusable or broken?

Never. There is a long-standing consensus that, where possible, mobile, desktop and tablet users should be equally accommodated. If this is not possible, desktop users get priority, but for the most part, it is usually pretty easy to make both work. Given that I always check the functionality of my edits on the desktop site after making them and have never had a problem, I fail to understand how my edits prioritise mobiles over desktops.

I understand that you have troubles when using Firefox. I would suggest that you go to VPT; when I can use a desktop, Firefox is my browser of choice, and I have never had a problem with it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, you were the driving force behind the change in tables for this season, is that correct? The fact is: They do not accommodate mobile and desktop equally. The new ones don't work with Firefox while the old ones did work in mobile browsers, with the slight problem that the borders are quite light. I did go to VPT and they told me that the decision to move away from wikitables in the first place was not smart. I agree with that. If anything, we should switch back to the old wikitables and have them fixed at VPT for mobile view. That way, everyone would be happy. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Die immerwährende Krise? Sca (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abwarten und Tee trinken. ich bin da recht entspannt... Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you Germans with your €23 billion (milliarden) trade surplus shouldn't mind paying Greek pensioners to sit in the Aegean sun and play dominoes. Someone has to do it. Sca (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better use to money to have me sit in the sun! (Only there's no sun to be seen in Berlin...) Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Vielleicht scheint Morgen die Sonne wieder. ( – Werner Stelly). Sca (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sca: Funny, you were practically looking at me through that webcam Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, you work at ... GHI? Sca (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's that? :D No, I work at Humboldt University of Berlin. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a ... Dozent? Sca (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, I wish. I am a student assistant in the administration ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trotzdem bin ich neidisch. Give my regards to Unter den Linden – or whatever Lokal you frequent. Sca (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2015 Austrian Grand Prix you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Senatus consultum ultimum you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Senatus consultum ultimum for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2015 Austrian Grand Prix you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2015 Austrian Grand Prix for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on sourcing articles about bombing a battleship Op-ed: TomStar81 on the role of nursing in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Just letting you know that I've just nominated 2015 Tour de France for GA. Me and Matt, along with others, have been working on it over the duration of the race. Of course I don't expect you to take it on, but since you have done the last few cycling GANs I thought I'd give you the heads up. BaldBoris 01:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! I will try to include it in my second GA Cup round :) Will you also nominate the two stage articles? Those were quite good as well as far as I could see. Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK good. It was featured ITN yesterday and is second at the moment. No they won't be nominated by me, the first is nearly there though. The second only has preview text, which is still helpful. BaldBoris 20:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2015 Austrian Grand Prix you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2015 Austrian Grand Prix for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 July 2015, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Operation Martyr Yalçın, which you recently nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

--Spencer^T♦C 18:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2015 Canadian Grand Prix you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Relentlessly -- Relentlessly (talk) 08:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 2 Greetings, GA Cup competitors! Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. The Rambling Man, who was eliminated during the first round in our last competition, earned an impressive 513 points, reviewed twice as many articles (26) as any other competitor. It was a tight race for second for first-time competitors BenLinus1214 and Tomandjerry211, who finished second and third with 243 and 224 points, respectively. Close behind was Wugapodes, who earned 205 points. The change in our points system had an impact on scoring. It was easier to earn higher points, although the key to success didn't change from last time, which was choosing articles with older nomination dates. For example, most of the articles The Rambling Man reviewed were worth 18 points in the nomination date category, and he benefited from it. BenLinus1214 reviewed the longest article, A Simple Plan (at 26,536 characters, or 4,477 words), the 1994 film starring Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, and Bridget Fonda and directed by Sam Raimi, and earned all possible 5 points in that category. After feedback from our participants, the judges slightly changed the rule about review length this time out. Shorter reviews are now allowed, as long as reviewers give nominators an opportunity to address their feedback. Shorter reviews are subject to the judges' discretion; the judges will continue their diligence as we continue the competition. Despite having fewer contestants at the beginning of Round 1 than last time, 132 articles were reviewed, far more than the 117 articles that were reviewed in Round 1 of the inaugural GA Cup. All of us involved should be very proud of what we've accomplished thus far. The judges are certain that Round 2 will be just as successful. 16 contestants have moved onto Round 2 and have been randomly placed in 4 groups of 4, with the top 2 in each pool progressing to Round 3, as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 has already begun and will end on August 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here. Good luck and remember to have fun! Cheers from Dom497, Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Nase, maybe you could work something out with this FP nominee. Hübsch, nicht? Sca (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I imagine Cleopatra's nose to have looked like ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would Elizabeth Taylor say? Sca (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Jūs turite gana nosį!" Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ar jūs kalbate Lietuviškai? Sca (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, unfortunately not :D Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ich auch wirklich nicht – nur einige Wörter und Sätze. Sca (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2015 Canadian Grand Prix you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2015 Canadian Grand Prix for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Relentlessly -- Relentlessly (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ZN. Just to let you know that I have responded to your edits on the review page and we're very nearly there! Relentlessly (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2015 Canadian Grand Prix you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2015 Canadian Grand Prix for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Relentlessly -- Relentlessly (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Senatus consultum ultimum you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Senatus consultum ultimum for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The day time stood still – in Pyongyang. Sca (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was really surprised they didn't do that sooner! Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2015 British Grand Prix you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2015 British Grand Prix for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Degenkolb, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tony Martin. 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) 09:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2015 Berlin ePrix you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2015 Berlin ePrix you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2015 Berlin ePrix for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Second Schleswig War Interview: Featured picture participants Op-ed: TomStar81 on Indian nationalism during World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Humboldt University of Berlin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * Faculty of [[Humanities]] and [[Social Sciences]] ((Social Sciences, [[Cultural Studies]]/Arts, Asian/African Studies (includes [[Archeology]]), [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2015 Berlin ePrix you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2015 Berlin ePrix for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Good888 -- Good888 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Thanks for taking on the Ted Kennedy GA I put forward. I've been terribly busy lately and haven't gotten around to improving it with your recommendations. I may miss the deadline, so though unlikely, I may need an extension. Thanks. I'll try getting it done on the 26th though! Spilia4 (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Spilia4: No problem, take your time! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks once again for reviewing the John Clarke article. I believe I have answered your concerns, so please take a look at Talk:John Clarke (Baptist minister)/GA1, and let me know if you have any additional comments. Cheers.Sarnold17 (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you were confused by me pinging you. We were looking for references of each individual goal that Klose had scored. I imagined that because his career went back to 2001 and some were in obscure friendlies on the other side of the world, not all of them would have written reports in English. However, I was wrong, and they are now all sourced. Sorry for the hassle. '''tAD''' (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, good to know :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sorry if you find this hassling, but your suggestions on the Kane GA reminded me that I have Hakan Çalhanoğlu in the queue, with no personal life section at all. The English-language sources on such trivia would likely be from blogs on German/Turkish football, and thus be unreliable. I have no fluency in German (nor Turkish!), so if you have time, could you do as simple a search as you did for Kane, and send the links to me with a basic summary of what is being said in each one? '''tAD''' (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, I'll send you some tomorrow and also finish the Kane review :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is withdrawing a nomination as simple as taking the tag off the talk page? I made a big mistake putting it up, I clearly know better. See Saido Berahino and Martin Ødegaard for occasions when I painted a fuller picture of a footballer. '''tAD''' (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue if that is possible. Of course I could open the review and quick fail it? Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That unfortunately looks the only possibility. You don't even need any comment on why you're quick failing it, that is documented here if any admin wants to know. Well, I will certainly not rush to such nominations again! '''tAD''' (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas, you might like to keep an eye on the 49 article, there's a 'new' IP editor adding stuff to many F1 articles. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JESUS CHRIST! I have already been fighting with this sh*t in the Matra articles yesterday... Thanks for the note! Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the same editor? The IP contribs show only edits today (I think). They have also drafted an article by creating a/the talk page Talk:Hill GH2. Must be a relative of Therius!! Eagleash (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is the same thing both IPs do... but of course I cannot be sure. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have been chasing this guy all afternoon! He's run through a couple of dozen F1 articles and started another by creating a draft in the talk page again. I'm loathe to actually report him...it's not vandalism as such...but if we hadn't picked up on it, it would have been quite disruptive. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	I Z105space, hereby award Zwerg Nase this Barnstar to award him for his efforts on getting the first nine 2015 Formula One race articles to Good Article status. Keep up the great work and all the best for the remaining eight race articles! Z105space (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! It is nice to be appreciated :) The last two are not GA yet, but I have a good feeling ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, My mistake. I've corrected the barnstar to say nine. Z105space (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tyrrell 001, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pedro Rodríguez. 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) 09:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Senatus consultum ultimum you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Senatus consultum ultimum for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please may you correct the translations I put for the references on this article? (yes, 3. Liga players pass notability, if you think that's stretching the purpose of an encyclopedia, you get the FOURTH tier of English football here too!)

On a secondary note, this player was, as you see, accused very tenuously of a very serious charge which should be taken more seriously and not reported at the drop of a hat. I can remember the same ridiculous accusations being made against Laurent Koscielny, you're a smart man, I don't need to tell you why such accusations are offensive towards both Łukowicz and Koscielny. '''tAD''' (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sorry, I didn't have much time today. i'll look into it tomorrow! Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the title of the Bild reference, I used a lower headline because I couldn't make sense of the big headline (my wonderful translation machine doesn't like the German verb order). Would it be better to have the big headline rather than the lower one? As well, I do not know German media very well, but the little I have read equates Bild to The Sun, should a better reference be found for a legal incident involving a living person? Danke '''tAD''' (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Almightey Drill: I changed the header. As for Bild as a source: Yes, it is the most notorious yellow press paper in Germany. But then again, they are quite reliable when it comes to football news. But if you want to be on the safe side, you can use this source instead. The header reads: Alleged Hitler salute: Charges against Lukowicz dismissed. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to the GA review, please let me know how I can help with the process. Thanks for your help! Darknipples (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 3 Greetings, all! We hope that everyone had a nice summer. Saturday saw the end of Round 2. Things went relatively smoothly this month. The top 2 from 4 pools, plus the top participant (the wildcard, or "9th place") of all remaining competitors, moved onto Round 3. We had one withdrawal early in Round 2, so he was replaced by the next-highest scorer from Round 1. Round 2's highest scorer was Pool D's Tomandjerry211, who earned an impressive 366 points; he also reviewed the most articles (19). Close behind was Zwerg Nase, also in Pool D, at 297 points and 16 articles. The wildcard slot went to Good888. Congrats to all! Round 3 will have 9 competitors in 3 pools. The key to moving forward was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates, as it has been in every round up to now. For example, 2 competitors only needed to review 2 articles each to win in their pools, and each article were either from the pink nomination box (20 points) or had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup continues to be a success in many ways, even with fewer competitors this time. For some reason, the competitors in the 2015 GA Cup have reviewed fewer articles in Round 2, which has made the judges scratch their head in confusion. We've speculated many reasons for that: the summer months and vacations, our competitors are saving their strength for the final rounds, or they all live in the Pacific Northwest and the heavy wildfire smoke has affected their thinking. Whatever the reason, Round 2 competitors reviewed almost 100 articles, which is a significant impact in the task of reviewing articles for GA status. We've considered that the lower participation this competition is due to timing, so we intend to discuss the best time frame for future GA Cups. For Round 3, participants have been placed randomly in 3 pools of 3 contestants each; the top editor in each pool will progress, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on September 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on September 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. Good luck to the remaining contestants, and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Good articles by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Senatus consultum ultimum you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Senatus consultum ultimum for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 Vattenfall Cyclassics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Martin Mortensen. 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) 11:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there mate. Hope you didn't forget you started the review? :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 00:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't, my real has just caught me out a little this week. I'll be in the library over the weekend and do the review then. Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 13:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors, coordinator elections have begun Articles: Abbasids to a Yugoslav monitor Book reviews: Economics of warfare, Japan, and light horse Op-ed: We can (not) advance Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello, Zwerg Nase. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

HazelAB (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Suharto page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lukas, admin are aware of the probs we've been having with the IP editor. Overall, the admin I spoke to, Bretonbanquet & I feel that as he's shown more willingness to co-operate recently, it would be most beneficial if we trod fairly gently when trying to keep things under control. 'Softly softly' and all that... Goodness knows how much damage he might do if he was provoked. Anyways, up to you how you proceed if you come across anything further. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that seems like the smart way. Zwerg Nase (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the admin I spoke to a couple of weeks ago said to list the IPs and diffs. I've got a list of IPs but diffs would be impossible... I really don't know how to approach an ANI. Eagleash (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I also have no experience with this... Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Richard von Weizsäcker you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomandjerry211 (alt) -- Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was hoping to get back to you before you went on holiday, but are you satisfied with the article now in terms of passing for GA? Let me know. Happy holidays! :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am on a wikibreak till 14. We have the Durga Puja now, which for us the Bengali Hindus, the equivalent of the Christmas of Christians. Hope you will wait. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, take your time! Happy holidays :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Richard von Weizsäcker you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Richard von Weizsäcker for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tomandjerry211 (alt) -- Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Anotherclown and Sturmvogel 66 on war in the air and at sea Review essay: Auntieruth55 on the French Revolutionary Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the entry of Bulgaria in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello, Zwerg Nase. DakshinaChitra, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated  to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 00:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Me and Obenritter made some comments. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 14:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jonas Vinther, I've seen them. I have been pretty busy over the weekend and spent the past days working through my backlog, starting with the easiest things. Since the ideology review is the toughest spot, it was last on my list, but you can expect a reply tomorrow! Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds perfect, vielen dank mein freund. :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 21:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time, input and GA review as to this article. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A final thanks for your work on Ideology of the SS and for your final edits in correcting my citation dates...I wrote that at 0300 AM local time so I was getting sleepy. :-) Your superlative attention to detail is most appreciated. Hochachtungsvoll...--Obenritter (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Obenritter: Thanks for your message, it was a lot of fun to work on the article :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 October 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article DakshinaChitra, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that exhibits in the DakshinaChitra museum highlight cultural aspects of the Brahminical people, and the craft traditions of heritage homes (examples pictured) of South India? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/DakshinaChitra. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you undone what i done ,basically you took names of states of the map what yhy were apose to be on ,i know it wasnt perfect ,im new to this ,so pease if you want to make that place better just use edit source , if you read it ,tankk you and i hope you have a nice day/night — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parshdarsh57 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Parshdarsh57: No, that is not what I did. I removed your butchering of the other map, no names of states were reverted. Will revert again now. Also, please learn to sign your edits with ~~~~. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

reply to Zwerg Nase i kow hat you mean ,i dint butcher it ,i want to put he names back n the top by trying to put it on top bu the map didnt show up so i keept trying to fix that but i counld but i did put something asking someone to fix it on the german empire talk .and you did o it not entencial but by undoing my thing can you please try and put both things correctly and dont use that aggresion ,im done here with it its upto other people to try and put things right </nowiki>.12:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)~

I still don't understand what you were trying to do so I cannot try to do it myself. What names were supposed to be on top where? Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am really sorry for the mess in the article. I really appreciate your approach for the article. This actually was one of my initial efforts for a Good Article. The problem is, being a student, I can't give it the time it requires. But still I would try my best to make it reach the criteria. I also appreciate your corrections in the article. Once again thanks and sorry. Mike:Golu · ^{[ Confidential message ]} 04:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Golu7276: Thanks for your message, your work is appreciated! Let me know if you should nominate it again, then I'll take another look at it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever get bored with your own "wiki-todo list", you might be so kind as to take a look at this.

Of course, you're more than welcome to sign up as a project member, and add your own suggested "article for translation" candidates. But don't feel you have to do that in order to jump in on one of the ones suggested by ... well, me for instance.

Long shot? Yup. Do long shots sometimes come good. Yes. And thanks for thinking about it. Regards Charles01 (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Charles01: Thanks for your message! I gotta say though that I usually prefer writing my own articles, since I enjoy all the research that goes into it :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Günter Schabowski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wende. 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) 10:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The GA Cup Winner Barnstar
		We, the judges from the 2nd Annual GA Cup, would like to congratulate you for getting the most amount of points and winning the GA Cup! You are a clear representation of what we need more in the GA process and we would like to commend your efforts by giving you this trophy in the form of a barnstar. Thank you very much for participating, and we hope to see you next year! MrWooHoo (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6: @Jaguar: @Figureskatingfan: @MrWooHoo: Thank you to all the judges for their good work! Zwerg Nase (talk) 07:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 4 GA Cup competitors and observers: Happy Fall! Get ready, we're about to move into the finals of the second-ever GA Cup! Monday saw the end of Round 3. Out of the 8 contestants in the semi-finals, 5 have moved to the finals. The semi-finals were competitive. Our semi-finalists reviewed a total of 61 articles, or a grand total of 1,151 points. If you were to lump the top winners from each of the three pools together, it'd be a close horse race; they were within 35 points of each other, which can only mean that the finals will be an exciting race. Tomandjerry211, our top scorer in Round 2, again earned the most points in the semi-finals, with 288 points and 16 articles reviewed. Johanna came in second overall, with 251 points and 13 articles reviewed; Sturmvogel 66 came in third overall, with 221 points and 16 articles. Rounding out our wildcard slots are Zwerg Nase and The Rambling Man. These contestants were very strategic in how they reviewed articles. Like every other round in the history of the GA Cup, success depended upon reviewing oldest-nominated articles. For example, Johanna reviewed 5 articles that were worth the highest possible points. Congrats to all our finalists, and good luck! Stay tuned to this space for more information about the 2nd GA Cup, including overall statistics and how this competition has affected Wikipedia. We regret to inform you that Dom497, one of our original judges and co-creator of the GA Cup, has stepped down as a judge. Dom, a longtime member of WP:WikiProject Good articles, is responsible for the look of the GA Cup and has been instrumental in its upkeep. We wish him the best as he starts his university education, and are certain that he'll make an impact there as he has in Wikipedia. The finals started on October 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and will end on Ocober 29 at 23:59:59 UTC with a winner being crowned. Information about the Final can be found here. Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2015 Hungarian Grand Prix you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 11:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2015 Hungarian Grand Prix you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2015 Hungarian Grand Prix for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 12:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you added some refs to 2014 Russian Grand Prix. May I kindly request you to archive those links? This will prevent link rot in the future. Regards, Tvx1 13:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1: I just realized that by archiving the links, you can circumvent the access restrictions on autosport.com articles... Nice! Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I guess the web archive has a basic registration with them. You still can't access the paid content though. Tvx1 23:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should have received an email containing a link to a Google form for Newspaperarchive.com access - could you please either complete that form or email me if you did not receive it? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I sent you an email that I did not get the email from you. Seems like both ways don't work... Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I've re-sent, can you check both inbox and spam folder again? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Yup, spam folder it was. I filled out the form now! Thank you :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about a blurb for Schmidt? Sca (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky. At the moment, I am so worried about the state of the article that I cannot really think about that option. Considering that he was 96 and died naturally, it might not be warrented. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He was very old, but he kept on making political comments and popped up in the news hin und wieder. (Kept on smoking, too. Amazing he lived so long being a heavy smoker all his adult life.) Sca (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few refs to the Personal Life section Sca (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're good to go on refs. Sca (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endlich geblurbt! Sca (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Schmidt article got 48,000 views on Tuesday. Wow.

Kohl will be next, I suppose. His article seems very well referenced. Sca (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have already done quite a lot of work on Kohl since I expected him to die first. Tough luck I guess. His time as chancellor needs expanding, but it should be easy to bring his article to ITN Main Page level. Maybe I'll get him to GA even beforehand, but it's probably not gonna be too long. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. As you may know, news org's routinely pre-write detailed stories about big-name figures, especially those getting on in years, so when one dies they don't have to scramble.

I have to admit the "Nazi Gold Train" story does seem fascinating, if dubious. Alas, hardly any of the news stories explain that when it purportedly happened, Wałbrzych was German and was called Waldenburg. I've tried to make that clear at Wałbrzych. – Sca (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Op. cit. – Added plans for Schmidt's state funeral. Since Spiegel today said in zwei Wochen, I said planned for Nov. 25. Sca (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sca: Other sources say 2-3 weeks. So I changed it slightly. Will try to add some reactions to his passing tomorrow. Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, is it nighttime in Berlin? Sca (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it was ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should refer to the VW Abgasskandal as a "wirtschaftsblunder" – Ha. Sca (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha :D Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"overbearing consensus" – overwhelming. Overbearing connotes coercion. Sca (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

@Sca: Sorry about that. In the end, I am simply not a native speaker... Zwerg Nase (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your English is much better than my German. Just thought you'd like to know. Sca (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sca, thank you for your kind words! No blame to you though, German is so much harder than English! Damn, it's almost 4 in the morning, and I am still awake, still pondering about what happened today... It is troubleling me to the greatest extent.... I am a person who is politically active. What do we do? How do we react? What might have we done wrong? It seems like there is no answer.... Zwerg Nase (talk) 02:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zwerg, sent you an email reply. Let me know if you received it. Danke. Sca (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Merkel's statement was a good one. Sca (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 November 2015, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Günter Schabowski, which you recently nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

331dot (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zwerg, good work on Günter Schabowski.

I think of Schabowski as the Little Dutch Boy in reverse, except that he was an accidental hero. Sca (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sca: A nice thought :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Bornholmer Straße was a pretty good flick about those events. Sca (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually watched that movie a couple of weeks back as well, quite entertaining! Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have some personal experience of die Mauer. Sca (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sca: Wow, exciting! Unfortunately, I'm too young to have experienced any of that. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen Berlin both ways, with and without the Wall. Apparently it was part of the training of the DDR Grenztruppen never to smile or engage in smalltalk.

Speaking of Berlin, what do you think of the Stadtschloss reconstruction? Seems like a waste of money. The Hohenzollerns weren't exactly role models for human development. Even the 'great' one, Friedrich II, was an ambivalent figure – known mainly for his wars, not his philosophical bent (much less his Francophilia). Anyway, he preferred Potsdam. Sca (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sca: I might be one of the few people actually supporting the reconstruction. The Palast der Republik was a disgrace and I just feel that the center of Berlin was so much nicer before the war. Speaking of the war, I just found this awesome footage a couple of days ago: Youtube. Made me notice once again what a barrier is created between us and the past when we only have low-res b/w pictures of something. There was an amazing exhibition last year in Berlin about color photography before 1914. Breathtaking! Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've seen that footage before – those are great images, both in terms of human interest and history. The death of a great empire. The first time I visited Berlin, in '71, you could still see traces of that in East Berlin. There's a lot of interesting WWII imagery on YouTube.

Once in the '90s I was briefly inside the Palast der (sogenannte) Republik. A weird structure. The Commies were stupid to tear down the Stadtschloss – just as they were stupid to tear down many other historic buildings – and I can see why Germans wanted to replace the Palast with a replica of the Schloss. Better that than another modernist monstrosity.

Perhaps the worst example of Communist architectural obtuseness was their decision to tear down the Königsberg Castle and replace it with the hideous (and never used) House of Soviets. I've seen it – it's depressing just to look at.

Probably the most impressive postwar reconstruction is Warsaw's painstakingly recreated Old Town (Stare Miasto). And they did it during the Communist era, too. The Poles also did a nice job on Danzig/Gdańsk – after the Soviets idiotically burned it down, after they conquered it.

Well, as you can see, this is a topic that fascinates me. Sca (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rightly so :) I've not been to Königsberg yet, but it sure interests me to see it. Have you ever been to Dresden? It's a good job at reconstruction, though one might argue that it turned to look like kind of a baroque puppet house... Anyway, all those examples are harsh reminders of what toll war takes not just on humans in terms of loss of lives, but on loss of culture as well. Just look at Syria right now. It's depressing! Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was in Dresden briefly in 1971. It was still a wreck then.

WWII was tragic for all Europe.

PS: I see the Poles have finally restored the Johanneskirche in Gdańsk/Danzig. It was still a massive ruin when I was there in '96. Sca (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wish the Russians would do the same with Kant's house in Königsberg. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd that they don't. They make a big point of honoring his Grabstätte. And from what I've seen online, they've cleaned up and refurbished quite a few other monuments from German times. Sca (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an interesting war film, which I just watched. Sca (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a gallery of pre-WWI 'color' photos. Sca (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have opened a sockpuppet investigation on the impersonators that have haunted me, you and a few other WP:F1 members lately. You can find it here. I've done that because I'd like the actual sock master to be identified and stopped. Regards, Tvx1 23:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1: Thank you! I'm interested to see what comes out of that. Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Auseinandersetzung. Leider typisch bei ITN. Sca (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sca: Komisch, oder? Ich glaube, mir wurde eine alte Version des Artikels angezeigt, die sehr kurz war, aber ich finde ihn immer noch nicht ausreichend. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Habe den Artikel nicht gelesen, und habe keine Lust ihm eben durchzuschauen. Müll. Sca (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emailed you a review (deutsch) of Dylan's Basel performance. Hey, nun habe ich deinen Geburtstagsdatum bemerkt – ein Tag (und 41 Jahre) nach meinen! Sca (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, mine is fairly easy to remember ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of the Bulge Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the collapse of the Serbian Army in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Just letting you know I've finished the 2015 Critérium du Dauphiné if you want to review it. Took a bit longer than I had expect, but got there in the end. BaldBoris 20:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BaldBoris: Great news! Will review it as soon as possible! Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... von [4] dir? Sca (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. The name is surprisingly common. I would have liked the von though... Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could change your username to Zwerg von Nase, or maybe von und zu der Nase. (But perhaps you have der Nase voll of my lame jokes.) Sca (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, immer der Nase nach! Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was bedeutet das? Sca (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, something along the lines of "Follow your instincts" Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it had to mean more than gerade aus! It's a bit like the English phrase, Follow your bliss. (Which is what I'm trying to do on Wiki.) Sca (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added description of state funeral for Schmidt, based on this. Sca (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zwerg, now I see there's an AP story that quotes Kissinger more extensively (who it says spoke in German!). Could you take a look and see if my addition needs modifying? Danke. Sca (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sca: Already pretty good. Will look into what more I can add. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm re-reading, after many years, A.J.P. Taylor's biography of Bismarck, and found this interesting:

At Friedrichsruh and Varzin he wore glasses so as to observe nature. When asked why he did not wear them in Berlin, he answered that he found nothing to interest him there.

Ha. Sca (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sca: Ahh, Bismarck quotations. Have I already told you my favorite one? Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Die einfachen Leute sollten besser nicht wissen, wie Leberwurst oder große Politik gemacht wird. Thats my favorite. Long no see! Polentarion (Serten renamed) Talk 23:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Famous in English, too. Sca (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the quote is Gesetze sind wie Würste, man sollte besser nicht dabei sein, wenn sie gemacht werden. But it is a misquote. My favorite one is Ich konnte nicht schlafen, ich habe die ganze Nacht gehasst. Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just read that one in A.J.P. Taylor, too. Probably quite genuine. Poor Otto. Sca (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stille Post at its best. If you need a little bit more occult night cap, go for User:Polentarion/Anton, Parapsychological topics in the GDR has not yet been translated completely. Polentarion Talk 00:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an interesting, though rather slow-paced, interview with Schmidt talking about Kissinger. Sca (talk) 13:47, 24 November 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) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grüß Gott Zwerg - Schau mal an bitte: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Obenritter. Wir versuchen, die endgültigen Mitgliedschaft-Zahlen der SS zu finden. Wir haben dem Thema gründlich recherchiert, aber kein Glück gehabt. Kannst Du offizielle Information irgendwo finden? Wir wären Dir sehr verbunden, falls es möglich ist.--Obenritter (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Obenritter: Also die Zahlen im April/Mai 1945? Oder die höchste Mitgliedszahl? Ich vermute mal, beides ist sehr schwer zu sagen, da es sich natürlich, v.a. im Krieg, ständig ändert. Vermutlich ist es am besten, im Artikel tatsächlich die Zahlen von verschiedenen Zeitpunkten in einer Tabelle zu zeigen. Meine Bücher habe ich inzwischen in die Bibliothek zurückgebracht, aber wenn ich das nächste Mal da bin, kann ich nochmal reinschauen. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ausgezeichnet. Ja, wir hatten die Absicht, jahrliche Zahlen in dem Wiki-artikel (Schutzstaffeln) in einer Tabelle zeigen, aber begegneten wir widersprüchliche Zahlen. Ich hoffte zumindest, dass es gab offizielle Ergebnisse aus einer deutschen Quelle...deine Hilfe darüber wird unverzichtbar sein.--Obenritter (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Obenritter: Ich habe es leider bisher nicht in die Bibliothek geschafft, denke aber beim nächsten Mal dort daran! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zwerg Nase: Kein Prob. Wir haben zur Zeit Information mit Quellen gepostet. Bis dann....--Obenritter (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... that there's an obersorbische Wikipedia? Sca (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Things people spend their time with ... :D Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just an intellectual effort to preserve the language, of which German WP says, Nach Hochrechnungen sprechen ... etwa 13.000 Obersorbisch? Perhaps it's similar to such efforts on behalf of Gaelic? Well, the Irish have their own country, but the Sorbs never will. What's the point? I can't see a political objective. Sca (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they want to preserve their language, they could just teach it to their children ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2015 Italian Grand Prix you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Z105space -- Z105space (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Vinkander is an actress and I just thought that format was better! I put an hour into that! A lot of actors have that format, Michael Fassbender, Octavia Spencer, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesse urbancsik777 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jesse urbancsik777: several things here. First and foremost, do not think that your work is not appreciated. It appears that the WikiProject Film does not have a clear consensus on how to do this but looking at the best (featured) articles, it appears to me that the way it is dealt with now is the preferred one. Secondly, once more, please stop edit-warring over this. Behaviour like that can get you blocked from editing and it would be a shame if that would happen so early in your Wikipedia career. Third, if you post on my talk page, please do not do so in the middle of any section, but start a new one with the "New Section" button. And lastly, do not forgot to sign every post you make on a discussion page with four tildes (~~~~). Regards, Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polish article (in English). Sca (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you following this? Sca (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sca: No, I do not usually follow these things. It seems to be over anyway? Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jedenfalls hab ich der Sache nicht wirklich verstanden. Sca (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year to you and your loved ones, you really seem like a good person :) As for me, I'm coming back as soon as they hit the road. Probably I'll be rusty lol. :) Mattsnow81 (Talk) 22:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattsnow81: Thank you so much for this, it is really appreciated! :) I hope you have a great year as well! Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been a little out of editing mode recently. Which bits of the article do you require looking at? Otherwise I'm kind of searching for things and probably not finding them! On another note, do you mind terribly if I fiddle with the MSport archive links a bit? Eagleash (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagleash: If there is anything wrong with the Motor Sport links, feel free to fix it :) I am concerned about the fact that both films have more than 20 citations to them. So I believe it would be good if some of them could be replaced with one from the book? Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll see what I can do... :) Eagleash (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagleash: Thank you! :) You can use the sfn-template for the Henry references. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No; I can't cos I've no idea what that's all about!! Eagleash (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagleash: OK, just do it as you are right now, and I'll go over them afterwards! Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a few; it's harder than I thought... finding the ref'd bits and then searching the book: and the book and films are probably looking at it from different perspectives, so although neither are wrong or inaccurate, they don't precisely coincide very often. Bit pushed for time now. Try to have another look tomorrow if I can. Sorry. Eagleash (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagleash: Thank you for your work! I saw that you changed some of the Motor Sport Magazine references but not all. Is there a specific reason? Does a certain convention on how they have to look like exist? Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran out of time. I don't think there's any convention; the way I do them developed over a period of time & it's really just the way I found best/my preference. & in this case we are citing the website, not the hard copy (where the page Nos. are very different). As an aside, there seems to be a bot going around changing 'journal' (which is used for academic publications) to 'magazine' which seems to be quite a new thing, and also displays the small 'p' in front of the page Nos. The MS refs can can be changed back if you wish :) Eagleash (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's Winkelmann, without the 'C'. That's what I meant to remove... the 'l..e..' was a typo... Eagleash (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagleash: You're right! Thanks :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
67		Rear mid-engine, rear-wheel-drive layout (talk)						Add sources
88		Dragon Ball Z: Bojack Unbound (talk)						Add sources
16		Red Bull RB2 (talk)						Add sources
535		Carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (talk)						Add sources
18		Red Bull RB1 (talk)						Add sources
8		Sauber C7 (talk)						Add sources
38		Algarve International Circuit (talk)						Cleanup
28		Rays Engineering (talk)						Cleanup
609		Wookiee (talk)						Cleanup
47		McLaren MP4/13 (talk)						Expand
169		Romain Grosjean (talk)						Expand
120		History of Formula One (talk)						Expand
169		Austin Metro (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
125		Ronnie Peterson (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
161		Chicken Dance (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
47		Peaceful Revolution (talk)						Merge
151		Team Lotus (talk)						Merge
39		Team Lotus (2010–11) (talk)						Merge
1,801		Chewbacca (talk)						Wikify
695		West Berlin (talk)						Wikify
222		Busy beaver (talk)						Wikify
11		Siege of Mytilene (talk)						Orphan
8		Jürgen Luh (talk)						Orphan
1		Abhinav Kamal (talk)						Orphan
38		Dani Hatakka (talk)						Stub
41		Frédéric Antonetti (talk)						Stub
21		Peter Prodromou (talk)						Stub
11		Mutua Madrileña (talk)						Stub
12		Franz Tost (talk)						Stub
625		Ramiro Funes Mori (talk)						Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.