Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	The Barnstar of Diplomacy is hereby awarded to Noleander for his Third Opinion in regard to the Juan Manuel de Rosas dispute. PhilKnight (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you very much. --Noleander (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader ( Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
• Buggie111 (submissions) was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
• Spencer (submissions) was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
• Status (submissions) was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:

• Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
• Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
• HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Brilliant Dadashova. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Transportation of the President of the United States. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For helping us by reviewing 6 GA nominations in the last November-December backlog drive. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 04:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2013 India–Pakistan border incident. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done .. seems to be resolved. --Noleander (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my understanding of the goals/objectives of Ipse dixit can be helped by a little bit of fine focus adjustment?

Three related points in your opinion about Ipse dixit were thought-provoking. Please help me explore your point-of-view in a little bit more depth.

A quite different point-of-view is suggested by a 2005 edit summary here, which explained changes as a shift away from a dictionary definition by usage to a definition by example.

In this context, please notice my diff here which removed dictionary definitions from the main text. Instead, dictionary definitions are only in the external links section.

Your opinion causes me to re-think how I approach editing this article and others like it.

I would have thought that this article and others like it were needed to fill the gaps that an OED-like strategy creates? --Ansei (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the WP article is an encyclopedia article, and therefore can have more historical (and other kinds) of information than a plain dictionary entry. The point I made in the talk page was: When we select quotes to demonstrate good uses of Ipse dixit, we should not use non-experts as sources. For instance, if a US judge says "Humpty Dumpty is using ipse dixit ...", that is just the judge's guess. He is not an expert in etymology. He might be wrong. But, we have lots of excellent sources for high quality examples if ipse dixit. Therefore the article should only use top-quality examples that come from lexicographers, etymologists, and language experts. I did not mean to imply that the entire article should be limited to what a dictionary would contain. For example, the WP article might contain uses of "ipse dixit" (verbatim) in popular culture, or by prominent celebrities. --Noleander (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've been recently working on the article "Deadalive", in the hopes that I could promote it to FA one of these days. It's currently a GA/A-class article, and it's undergone a peer-review and a copyedit, but—based on the difficulty I had with my last FA nomination—I was wondering if you could take a look at it. Your name was recommended to me due to your knowledge of prose compliance. I understand if you cannot do this, but I just thought I'd ask. Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd be happy to look at it. I'll get to it in the next day or two. --Noleander (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Feel free to take your time. Thanks so much!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a review. I'm putting my comments in Wikipedia:Peer review/Deadalive/archive1 ... which is an older, unused PR page. Let me know if you want them somewhere else. --Noleander (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. That works fine. Thank you very much for your help.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the extremely lengthy discussion it took to get us reach a consensus on such a minor issue of wording, I feel like this edit reverting part of the changes User:Rhonda.R.Shearer and I had agreed on, without even mentioning it on the talk page, was counter-productive. Would you mind dropping by Talk:Jared Diamond#Thoughts from an uninvolved editor (now not so uninvolved) and explaining your objection? Joe Roe (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very tired of all that madness at Juan Manuel de Rosas. I'm sorry if I'm not in the mood to discuss anymore. Anything I have to say can be seen here. Cambalachero and MarshalN20 are (again, again and again) turning another discussion into an unreadable mess. They reply to anything that anyone say even if not directed toward them, making impossible to anyone normal to understand what is going on. Thus, I'd like to make a request for you: please be kind and share your thoughts on what is being requested in the RfC. Either supporting my point of view or supporting Cambalachero's, it doesn't matter. Just do it, please. They won't back down and I won't back down either (because unlike them, all I want is to follow what sources say). Thus, the community has to put an end to it. I'd be really grateful if you could comment there. Lastly, I won't reply any message left to me there or anywhere about the dispute. Everything I had to say has been said. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way ... WP can get discouraging sometimes. As I recommended in the article's Talk page - I'd recommend that you start actually editing the article, rather than spend so much time in the Talk page. But, if you are burnt out, I can understand. --Noleander (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to do that[1] and I was immediately reverted.[2] I can't edut the article, but it seems that Cambalachero can do as many times as it pleases him.[3] Please, do share your thoughts about the content dispute in there. --Lecen (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That change to the arcticle was to replace the picture. That is an entirely different issue that the "dictator" issue, and the picture is not too important in the big scheme of things. I would ignore that picture issue for now. Instead, I suggest that you start editing the Criticism section, as I recommended in the article's Talk page, following those step-by-step instructions. If you do it that way, there should be no problems with reverts. I can assist, if a revert happens. --Noleander (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nub of the issue on the article has revolved around WP:WEIGHT. Gaba p insists that WP:WEIGHT is achieved by having a WP:RS for a fact. This means anything he claims anything he can source he must be allowed to include. He is now claiming that DRN has endorsed this position.

Is this what you've stated? Wee Curry Monster talk 16:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WEIGHT generally only kicks in if an editor is adding too much detail about an issue .... detail that makes the text size for that issue too large in proportion to the rest of the article. The article's old version of the International Views had a modest amount of information about the EU/Latin American/France thoughts. Now the article has none. The article should have some brief, factual mention of the handful of govmt entities that have published a foreign policy position. So, yes, I agree that RS is the key policy in this point, to be used to insert a modest, reasonable amount of information about international views. See WP:NNC which points out that notability only applies to entire articles: that is, editors cannot exclude relevant facts from an article just because they seem unimportant. It is only when an editor adds several large paragraphs about International views that WEIGHT becomes an issue. That is not the case here. --Noleander (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[4] Was there something unclear about my opening statement?

If you had actually looked at the text I proposed, it is a modest amount of information about the EU/Latin American/France thoughts. A modest amount of information reflecting the weight attached in the literature presenting a balanced NPOV. I am not proposing to exclude content, merely to ensure the coverage is proportionate.

If you look at what Gaba p proposes, it is to simply state the International community only supports Argentina. The very problem is that he proposes to add a disproportionate amount of text to this effect and to remove anything that contradicts it as undue coverage. He claims that any recent information in media sources he must be allowed to include, older material should be ignored. And you have effectively said he is right at DRN, he now claims DRN endorses his approach. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wee: I'd ask you to please stop misrepresenting my comments around. I've never said DRN "endorses" me, I've simply commented on what other editors have said about the dispute. I can say without hesitation that your whole last paragraph above is entirely not true: 1- I do not want to state there is only support for a party, 2- I am not adding a "disproportionate amount of text" anywhere, 3- I do not claim that everything recent must be included and "older material should be ignored" and 4- I have never said either DRN or NPOVN "endorses" me.

I'm sorry for this Noleander, Wee has the habit of bullying anyone who dares disagree with him. You are not the first editor to explain these things to him but he just refuses to get the pint. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Derby sex gang. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Carmenelectra. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Peter Proctor, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Peter Proctor, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

Following your suggestions, I tried to start working on the article as you can see here.[5] I had finished the two first sections and had scanned and added several high quality pictures. I had even asked Astynax (who has copyedited several FAs) to help me.[6] Unfortunately, it was severely butchered (i.e.: everything was reverted) by both Cambalachero and Marshal N20. The reasons given were several, as you may see in the article's history log:[7] "There is no consensus for this change", "this part goes off-topic", "Redundant, he has already been described as authoritarian", "This image makes no sense", etc... I tried what I could, but there is a limit to how far I can go with the farce. Anyway, once the RfC is closed, I'll have to go to Arbitration and ask for measures against them both. If they truly wanted to resolve anything, they would have had accepted the formal mediation process. --Lecen (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I must point in my defense that Lecen's comments are a bit misleading. He says that everything he added was reverted, but if you skip the article history view and check the actual edits, you will notice that I only made minor localized changes here and there, not a mass revert. When I left the computer at midnight, most of the things he wrote were still there. The mass revert was done by himself, removing the content he had added and returning the article to the previous version. And a second and third time. Feel free to take your own conclusions. Cambalachero (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC/2. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Recently, a major change was made on the article Flag of Western Sahara, by merging it with Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic .

Since you participated to the RfC discussion on Talk:Flag_of_Western_Sahara, you might be interested by a related discussion on ANI or, at least, you might be interested in participating to the recently launched discussion on Talk:Flag of Western Sahara.

Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 08:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Noleander. You have new messages at Johnmoor's talk page.
Message added 15:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Sandbox[edit]

I came here as I saw your comments on drafting some clarfications about overcategorisation. Your draft states: "person P is notable for something else, they just happened to go to Harvard." Please remember that these categories are not just relevant to biographical editors, as they work both ways. Someone writing an article on the institution may well expect to reference this category, in order to be comprehensive and encyclopaedic. In other words, Harvard may be notable because "P" (amongst others) went there. People who patrol categories would do well to remember this, as it may not be overcategorisation from that standpoint. With best regards, Ephebi (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. --Noleander (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:United States National Health Care Act. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am not blocking the inclusion of anything but frankly getting heartily fed up with certain editors inability to desist from personalising matters. I have proposed a brief text based on what I proposed at DRN, its brief and to the point and includes all the points I raised there. Your comments would be appreciated. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll take a look. --Noleander (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noleander, thank you again for taking the time to help out over at that article. I've added the citations as you requested to the nearly consensual version you added into the article earlier. Please do tell me if there's anything else you need before inserting it into the article or if you find anything wrong with any of the sources and I'll get on it ASAP. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding those ... sources are essential, of course. That article may need an RfC soon. --Noleander (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Effects of global warming. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Noleander. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 02:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I hope my update comment is sufficiently directed to the question raised about deleting Dr. Proctor page. Basically if there is no way that the page can look into the efficacy of the "hair cult" product that has developed around him, then I will not dispute deletionInhouse expert (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I was wondering if you can take another look at the article before I submit at FAC. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 20:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Where do you want the comments? Are you going to open a new PR page #2? --Noleander (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do it on the talk page? Thanks! Best, Jona^{talk to me} 21:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished the review. Let me know if there is anything else I can help with. --Noleander (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a copyvio issue with using an excerpt of lyrics here? Thanks! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it is not allowed to present the lyrics of an entire song. I'm not a WP:COPYVIO expert, but I think articles are limited to excerpts of the lyrics/poems: they cannot reproduce the entire text (of a poem, song lyrics, etc). --Noleander (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry which says lyrics have to obey fair use rules ... and they point to Like a Rolling Stone as an example of the correct way to do it. Notice how in that article, the entire song is not presented as a block, but individual phrases are presented separately, accompanied by analysis & interpretation. The entire song may end up getting included, but in pieces. --Noleander (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. FTR, the three stanzas currently included in the article are about 1/3 of the total prose. Is it still okay to leave them blocked together? Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Yes, those stanzas could be included provided that there is a secondary source (critic, biographer, etc) who (1) analyzes those 3 stanzas in the context of Hendrix's death; and (2) the 2ndary source quotes those 3 stanzas. To make it rock-solid: I would add more text before (or after) the stanzas identifying the critic/analyst and citing some of their analysis. --Noleander (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great input. As always, you've been quite helpful. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mario Kart. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:

1. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
2. Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
3. Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:

• Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
• Sasata (submissions), whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
• Muboshgu (submissions) and Wizardman (submissions), who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
• Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noleander, There is a response to your message on my talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mama's Family. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Noleander, I am sorry to come to you again with this topic. Someone once again suggested Innovation Journalism is a neologism, using false claims that earlier rulings had not ruled out neologism. In legal systems it is a rule that each charge is tried once. Does this apply to Wikipedia? If so, how can it be made clear that neologism has been tried and found to not stand? Or is it the case that Wikipedia is political, i.e. if people aren't happy with a ruling, they will wait for a month and then repeat the exact same charge, continuing to do so until they reached their goals? If so, it seems I am doing the wrong thing. I should should start working under one or several aliases and team up with allies. I am not appealed by that, and I have not plans of doing it.

I am writing to you, because your judgement has always been factual, levelheaded and fair. People who have worked on innovation journalism have been asking me if there is someone out there carrying a grudge, I have answered that I frankly don't know, because it I am the only one in the discussion using my real name, the others are using pseudonyms. It seems very convenient to use an alias while accusing people of things.--dnordfors (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please look into the Proctor case again. Recall this case involved collusion between multiple sockpuppets and hyping of themes related to Peter Proctor. Over the past month, at least four editors have appeared out of the blue with complete focus on this case. In order of appearance:

• Feb 10: User talk:Inhouse expert. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive. No comment.
• Feb 28: User:Notsofastfellas appeared soon after completion of the sockpuppet investigation, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive. Apparently Proctor begging for mercy.
• yesterday: User:Akil muhamed to mutilate the proposed deletion of [Peter Proctor]], possibly just for effect.
• today: User:MrDave8888 whose single edit was to dispute and stop the 1-week delayed deletion of the page [Peter Proctor]]. It seems unwise that a new editor would appear on the day before the page would go down and could stop it, especially since there has been so much sockpuppetry in this case.

Thank you, --Smokefoot (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Smokefoot, the first one was found by checkuser to be unrelated, and not a sock. The second has already been blocked as a sock. And I've reported the third and fourth as possible socks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Smokfoot: Ditto what Tryptofish says. If you (Smokefoot) ever see a suspected sockpuppet again, just go to the WP:SPI page, go down to the "open or re-open" field, and type in "Pproctor". That will present a page, and in that you enter the sock names, and then save it. Try to give some information also. Within a week or two, admins should take care of the rest. --Noleander (talk)`

But why was the deletion stopped? Because a one-time editor objected?--Smokefoot (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion was not stopped: the process just changed. There are two processes for deletion: WP:PROD and WP:AFD, the former is for trivial/obvious deletions, the latter for ones that should have some discussion. The Proctor article just shifted from PROD to AFD, that's all. You can comment on the Proctor AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Proctor. --Noleander (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:When Harry Met Sally.... Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Don't Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 10:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Frasier episodes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion you might be interested in at Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic#Move?. I'm telling you this because you were involved in Talk:Flag_of_Western_Sahara#Merger proposal and/or Talk:Flag_of_Western_Sahara#UNMERGING_ARTICLES. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dinna know why - but some of the editors from the DRN discussion about the Talk:United States appear to be "declaring war" about the consensus reached :(. Perhaps a word confirming that WP:CONSENSUS is a policy and not just a suggestion there might help? Collect (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sistar. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Resolving a dispute about resolving disputes. Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 04:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For your relevant contribution at Talk:Time dilation. Cheers! - DVdm (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yummy! --Noleander (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander, We've both responded now. Crtew (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll respond at the talk page. --Noleander (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Spelling. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear Noleander, could you please take a look on Mahmudur Rahman article? A new wikipedian User:Khazar2 just start removing sourced material without further discussion. I have added few references and statements there, but that was not finished yet. I think I need few days to put all my known info there. Can you help? --FreemesM ^(talk) 06:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commented at talk page. --Noleander (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A question for people who commented in the RfC at "Probationary Period" and "Not Unless". (Or feel free to reply on my talk page, if you prefer.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, at RfC talk page. --Noleander (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Limerick Pogrom. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a previous discussion you said I was obsessed with the connection between U.S. citizenship and being part of the U.S. I explained to you that there is no connection whatsoever and I have never said that. Can you please re-enter the discussion at Talk:United States. TFD (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I never said anyone was "obsessed" with anything ... perhaps you posted this inquiry on the wrong editors talk page? As for the US discussion, I'm pretty busy in real life, so I don't have time to help with the article at this point. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Charlize Theron. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lindsay Lohan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate Miyagawa (submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's Casliber (submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr ( Hawkeye7 (submissions)), on the European hare ( Cwmhiraeth (submissions)), on the constellation Circinus ( Keilana (submissions) and Casliber (submissions)) and on the Third Epistle of John ( Cerebellum (submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Syrian civil war. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pass on this one. --Noleander (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Watchmen. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have finally been able to go through all of your helpful points at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/archive2. You had mentioned that you might be able to go through the article again once I finished. If you could do that I'd be grateful. If you're busy, I can ask again at Peer review, so only if you are inclined to do so; you've already been a big help in bringing up the standard of the article. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit busy in real life ... so I probably cannot do another peer review at this time. I suggest you try another editor, or remind me in about 4 months. Regards, --Noleander (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the original review. It was a big help already. Peregrine981 (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Video and Interactive Tutorials. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the supporters of a related proposal in the 2013 RfC on RfA reform, you are invited to join the new WikiProject for RfA nominators. Please come and help shape this initiative. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Joseph (son of Jacob). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am just letting you know that I've made a proposal to create a rotating DRN organiser-style role that would help with the day-to-day running of DRN. As you are a listed volunteer at DRN, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, and the other open proposals at DRN. You can read more about it here. Thanks! Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Inactive WikiProject banner. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion. --Noleander (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox political post. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, since you reviewed the article back in February 2013, I would like to invite you to discuss here if "I Could Fall in Love" is FA ready. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 16:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could look over "all things", since you did an amazing job combing through "Deadalive". If not, no big deal, but if you would be willing, there is absolutely no rush at all. Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty busy in real life; but if I can find some time, I'll review it. --Noleander (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation concerning Peter Proctor, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Hello. I’d like to thank you for reviewing the Long-tailed Ground Roller’s FAC nearly a year ago, and apologize for having to step away from Wikipedia prior to the FAC’s completion to deal with my studies. I've gone through all of the old commentary and believe that I have resolved it. I don't think that the bird is overly prominent in general knowledge, but its unique appearance and endemism to Madagascar make it a good subject for a stamp. I’m confident I have the time to finish the FAC, and I have re-nominated the article here. I would greatly appreciate it if you could give the article another look. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commented at FA nomination #2. --Noleander (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. They archived the first discussion, so I put your 2012 commentary (with my comments) in the second nomination inside a collapsible box. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that I have replied to your most recent comments. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cracked.com. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you busy at the moment? jona^{talk to me} 15:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm pretty busy in real life; but if you have a specific question, just ask and maybe I can help. --Noleander (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you'd be willing to help copy-edit Freedom for the Thought That We Hate?

It's an FAC candidate at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom for the Thought That We Hate/archive1 and it seems there are some that feel it could use some polishing of prose a bit more.

I consulted 'How to find good copy-editors and you seem to know the topic of freedom of speech quite well.

Thanks for your consideration, — Cirt (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd be happy to help out. Let me check out the article and I'll see what I can do. --Noleander (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for even the smallest copyedits at Freedom for the Thought That We Hate. I really appreciate it. A lot. Any help is appreciated. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with Sven Manguard (submissions) claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and Cwmhiraeth (submissions) claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place Casliber (submissions) and second place Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 15:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Freedom for the Thought That We Hate

Update: I agreed with all of your helpful suggestions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom for the Thought That We Hate/archive1, so I've implemented all of your recommendations directly into the article.

I responded back at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom for the Thought That We Hate/archive1.

Perhaps you could take another look and maybe reevaluate your position on the article's quality?

Also, if it is alright with you, and your comments are addressed to your satisfaction, would it be alright to move the addressed comments to the talk page of the FAC?

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding moving comments to Talk page: Im a bit busy now, but you have my permission to move my comments. --Noleander (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom for the Thought That We Hate/archive1

Per a suggestion from Ian Rose (talk · contribs), just checking with you first to see if it's alright to move your addressed comments from the FAC page to its talk page?

Thanks again for your helpful recommendations, — Cirt (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding moving comments to Talk page: Im a bit busy now, but you have my permission to move my comments. --Noleander (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thanks very much for all of your help with successfully getting Freedom for the Thought That We Hate to Featured Article quality. I really appreciate the assistance in getting this article about freedom of speech to FA. — Cirt (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It was my pleasure. --Noleander (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:United Bates of America. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Noleander (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!  :) You previously commented on the talk page for my Articles for Review proposal. I recently discovered that we have a project on Wikipedia called Today's articles for improvement, which actually covers quite a bit of what my proposal was intended to do. I have started a new discussion there to gauge whether the rest of my proposal (creating a process strictly concerned with finding sources for existing articles which don't yet meet the WP:GNG, potentially salvageable articles which have been deleted, articles which have been merged or just redirected due to notability concerns, failed Articles for Creation submissions, user space drafts, article incubator pages, or even articles that have yet to be started) could be made into something workable. Please have a look at that discussion, and add your input there. :) BOZ (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:University of New Haven. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the current discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tau_article, I linked to some of your posts on the Pi Talk page. (Don't worry. I'm not trying to get you in any trouble.) --Joseph Lindenberg (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! ÓCorcráin (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

As one of the participants in the original discussion, you are invited to participate in the follow-up discussion to a Mass removal of indefinite rangeblocks under controlled conditions. Your views will be appreciated.

Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've noticed it's been a while since you've been active at DRN, and we could really use your help! DRN is going to undergo some changes soon, so it'd really be great if our backlog is cleared before the start of August and we have as many people on board to help with the changes (they include a move to subpages and the creation of a rotating "co-ordinator" role to help manage things day-to-day. Hope to see you soon! Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Freedom of Speech for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -buffbills7701

constant
Thank you for getting attention for a math constant, Pi, on the Main page, and for your quality activity in articles, reviews and proposals with a sense for teamwork, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 190th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Four years ago, you were recipient no. 190 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for today's W. E. B. Du Bois, "a man who – despite of enormous obstacles – never gave up"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seven years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's Sasata (submissions) currently leads overall, while Pool B's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today, Miyagawa (submissions), with 274 points, would be the lowest-scoring participant to make it through. This indicates that participants will need a score comparable to last year's (573, the highest ever) to qualify for the final. The high scores this year are a testament both to the quality of participants and to the increased focus on significant content (eligible for bonus points) in this year's competition. So far this round, both Sasata and Cwmhiraeth (submissions) have made up over half of their score through bonus points, with, for example, high importance FA koala earning Sasata a total of 440 points (from a multiplier of 4.4) and high-importance GA sea earning Cwmhiraeth a total of 216 points (from a multiplier of 7.2). Other articles on important topics submitted this round include a featured article on the Norman conquest of England by Ealdgyth (submissions), and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the noted Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by Piotrus (submissions), Hawkeye7 (submissions) and Sturmvogel_66 respectively.

Other than that, there is not much to report! If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recently the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard underwent some changes in how it operates. Part of the change involved a new list of volunteers with a bit of information about the people behind the names.

You are listed as a volunteer at DRN currently, to update your profile is simple, just click here. Thanks, Cabe6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk: Smith act trials of Communist Party leaders - Start of the trial. --M. David Hughes (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:

1. Hawkeye7 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
2. Casliber (submissions), another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
3. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
4. Sasata (submissions), a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
5. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
6. Ealdgyth (submissions), who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
7. Miyagawa (submissions), a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
8. Adam Cuerden (submissions) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final: Piotrus (submissions), Figureskatingfan (submissions), ThaddeusB (submissions), Dana boomer (submissions), Status (submissions), Ed! (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), Calvin999 (submissions). Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 05:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Noleander. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 22:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I noticed that you haven't been as active at DRN as you was before. DRN has been a bit backlogged lately and we could use some extra hands. We have updated our volunteer list to a new format, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers (your name is still there under the old format if you haven't updated it) and are looking into ways to make DRN more effective and more rewarding for volunteers (your input is appreciated!). If you don't have much time to volunteer at the moment, that's fine too, just move your name to the inactive list (you're free to add yourself back to active at any time). Hope to see you again soon :) Steven Zhang (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice. Sasata (submissions), Hawkeye7 (submissions)—who has never participated in the competition before—and Casliber (submissions) follow. The majority of points in this round have come from a mix of good articles and bonus points. This final round is seeing contributions to a number of highly important topics; recent submissions include Phoenix (constellation) (FA by Casliber), Ernest Lawrence (GA by Hawkeye7), Pinniped, and red fox (both GAs by Sasata).

The did you know (DYK) eligibility criteria have recently changed, meaning that newly passed good articles are accepted as "new" for did you know purposes. However, in the interests of not changing the WikiCup rules mid-competition, please note that only articles eligible for DYK under the old system (that is, newly created articles or 5x expansions) will be eligible for points in this year's WikiCup. We do, however, have time to discuss how this new system will work for next year's competition; a discussion will be opened in due course. On that note, thoughts are welcome on changes you'd like to see for next year. What worked? What didn't work? What would you like to see more of? What would you like to see less of? All Wikipedians, new or old, are also warmly invited to sign up for the 2014 WikiCup.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 02:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our champion, for the second year running, is Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Our final nine were as follows:

1. Cwmhiraeth (submissions)
2. Hawkeye7 (submissions)
3. Sasata (submissions)
4. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions)
5. Casliber (submissions)
6. Adam Cuerden (submissions)
7. Miyagawa (submissions)
8. Piotrus (submissions)
9. Ealdgyth (submissions)

All those who reached the final win prizes, and prizes will also be going to the following participants:

• Casliber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for four featured articles in round 4, worth 400 points.
• Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 20 good articles in round 3, worth 600 points.
• Another Believer (submissions) wins the FL prize, for four featured lists in round 2, worth 180 points.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the FP prize, for 23 featured pictures in round 5, worth 805 point.
• Sven Manguard (submissions) wins the FPo prize, for 2 featured portals in round 3, worth 70 points.
• Hawkeye7 (submissions) wins the topic prize, for a 23-article featured topic in round 5, worth 230 points.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 79 did you know articles in round 5, worth 570 points.
• ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 23 in the news articles in round 4, worth 270 points.
• Ed! (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 24 good article reviews in round 1, worth 96 points.
• The judges are awarding the Oddball Barnstar to The C of E (submissions), for some curious contributions in earlier rounds.
• Finally, the judges are awarding Cwmhiraeth (submissions) the Geography Barnstar for her work on sea, now a featured article. This top-importance article was the highest-scoring this year; when it was promoted to FA status, Cwmhiraeth could claim 720 points.

Prizes will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition. While it has been an excellent year, errors have opened up the judges' eyes to the need for a third judge, and it is with pleasure that we announce that experienced WikiCup participant Miyagawa will be acting as a judge from now on. We hope you will all join us in welcoming him to the team.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. Brainstorming and discussion remains open for how next year's competition will work, and straw polls will be opened by the judges soon. Those interested in friendly competition may also like to keep an eye on the stub contest, being organised by Casliber. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I invite you to a new discussion on the matter: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Next matchday scenarios. Ivan Volodin (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:Atheism word picture.PNG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer Godot13 (submissions), whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

• 12george1 (submissions) and TropicalAnalystwx13 (submissions) were the first people to score, for the good article Tropical Storm Bret (1981) and its good article review respectively. 12george1 was also the first person to score in 2012 and 2013.
• Sven Manguard (submissions) scored the first ITN points for 2014 North American polar vortex.
• WonderBoy1998 (submissions) scored points for an early good topic, finishing off Wikipedia:Featured topics/She Wolf.
• TheAustinMan (submissions) scored the first bonus points of the competition, for his work on Typhoon Vera.
• Igordebraga (submissions) has scored the highest number of bonus points for a single article, for the high-importance Jurassic Park (film).

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:

1. Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
2. Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
3. WikiRedactor (submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:

• Hahc21 (submissions), who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
• Prism (submissions), who claimed the first featured list of the competition with Natalia Kills discography.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions), who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

SURVEY

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

Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's Godot13 (submissions), whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's ChrisGualtieri (submissions) who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included Cliftonian (submissions), who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and Caponer (submissions), who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from Reid,iain james (submissions), tiger from Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and The Lion King from Igordebraga (submissions). We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to Czar (submissions) and Red Phoenix (submissions) for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with Sven Manguard (submissions) taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to 12george1 (submissions) and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from Figureskatingfan (submissions), a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from Cloudz679 (submissions) and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of Sven Manguard (submissions).

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The final of the 2014 WikiCup begins in a few short minutes! Our eight finalists are listed below, along with their placement in Round 4:

1. Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer, finished top of Pool A and was the round's highest scorer. Godot is a featured picture specialist, claiming large numbers of points due to high-quality scans of historical documents, especially banknotes.
2. Casliber (submissions) is a WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist every year since 2010. In the semi-final, he was Pool B's highest scorer. Cas's points primarily come from articles on the natural sciences.
3. Czar (submissions) was Pool A's runner-up. Czar's points come mostly from content related to independent video games, including both articles and topics.
4. Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Pool B's runner-up. Another featured picture specialist, many of Adam's points come from the restoration of historical media. He has been a WikiCup finalist twice before.
5. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) won the WikiCup in 2012 and 2013, and enters this final as the first wildcard. She focuses on biology-related articles, and has worked on several high-importance articles.
6. 12george1 (submissions) is the second wildcard. George's points come primarily from meteorology-related articles. This year and last year, George was the first person in the competition to score.
7. Sturmvogel 66 (submissions), the third wildcard, was the 2010 champion and a finalist last year. His writes mostly on military history, especially naval history.
8. Bloom6132 (submissions), the fourth and final wildcard, has participated in previous WikiCups, but not reached any finals. Bloom's points are mostly thanks to did you knows, featured lists and good articles related to sport and national symbols.

We say goodbye to this year's semi-finalists. Matty.007 (submissions), ThaddeusB (submissions), WikiRedactor (submissions), Figureskatingfan (submissions), Yellow Evan (submissions), Prism (submissions) and Cloudz679 (submissions) have all performed well to reach this stage of the competition, and we hope they will all be joining us again next year.

There are two upcoming competitions unrelated to the WikiCup which may be of interest to those who receive this newsletter. The Stub Contest will run through September, and revolves around expanding stub articles, especially high-importance or old stubs. In addition, a proposal has been made for a new competition, the GA Cup, which the organisers plan to run next year. This competition is based on the WikiCup and aims to reduce the good article review backlog.

There is now a thread for brainstorming on how next year's WikiCup competition should work. Please come along and share your thoughts- What works? What doesn't work? What needs changing? Signups for next year's competition will be open soon; we will be in touch. If, at this stage of the competition, you are keen to help the with the WikiCup, please do what you can to participate in review processes. Our finalists will find things much easier if the backlogs at good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured picture candidates and the rest are kept at a minimum. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]