User talk:Jakob.scholbach/Archives/2012/May

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

• Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Consultant: Pete Forsyth

• News and notes: Showdown as featured article writer openly solicits commercial opportunities

• Recent research: Barnstars work; Wiktionary assessed; cleanup tags counted; finding expert admins; discussion peaks; Wikipedia citations in academic publications; and more

• Discussion report: 'ReferenceTooltips' by default

• WikiProject report: The Cartographers of WikiProject Maps

• Featured content: Featured content spreads its wings

• Arbitration report: R&I Review remains in voting, two open cases

• Technology report: What Git means for end users, design controversies and pertinent poll results

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

• Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Communicator: Phil Gomes

• News and notes: Hong Kong to host Wikimania 2013

• In the news: What does Wikipedia call an expert; and untruths in biographies ... again.

• WikiProject report: Say What?: WikiProject Languages

• Featured content: This week at featured content: How much wood would a Wood Duck chuck if a Wood Duck could chuck wood?

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision in Rich Farmbrough, two open cases

• Technology report: Search gets faster, GSoC gets more detail and 1.20wmf2 gets deployed

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

pi nominated for FA

FYI, the pi article is nominated for FA status at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pi/archive1. Since you got logarithm and group (mathematics) to FA status, any comments from you would be especially important. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'll comment soon. Also, do post the FA nomination at WT:WPM. Math editors are often a bit slow in responding to math FA nominations, so in the past I asked individual editors for feedback, too (but maybe a bit later). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, in the introduction to the FAC for the π article,, I mention that you are one of the peer reviewers, and reference your work on getting logarithm to FA status (suggesting that you, of all editors, are in a good position to pass judgement). If you think that is improper, or would cause confusion, let me know, and I can remove that reference. --Noleander (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)