This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion,
a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Just wondering if you have had any further thoughts since my comment above. It seems a pity to abandon it when we have done the work, and my only projects at present are a sit-and-wait FTC, and a bird article that I've only just started and is weeks from FAC candidacy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Nice intro, I hate FACs which start "I think this is FA standard", but don't give any indication of what it's actually about. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 April 2013
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
pulse of the earth
Thank you for quality articles to "your" featured portals fungi and sharks, such as Inocybe saliceticola, taking care of details as your own sketch of the spores, and for featured pictures and sounds, like Pulse of the Earth, all based on a background of philosophy, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (2 January 2010)!
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've read here that Recent Deaths are not eligible for ITN points. Have the rules changed since then? I'm enquiring about this because a fellow competitor has included an RD as part of their ITN points. If this is OK'd by you, then I myself will start including them as well, since I have left them off since the start of the comp. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion,
a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
J Milburn, I have a question as to whether I can be awarded points for Arlen Specter. I have long had this article on my watchlist and decided to nominate it for GA after doing a lot of work on its references. I didn't write much of the article, so I was wondering if I could still claim it for WikiCup points. Thanks. GoPhightins! 21:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Long-tailed Ground Roller FAC
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. I’d like to thank you for commenting on 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’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)
The Signpost: 22 April 2013
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion,
a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
It's much appreciated that you brought this particular review to my attention! I can download that from the site, but thank you for your kind offer of emailing it to me. I hereby award you a barnstar for going that extra mile! All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
A fellow Group A competitor's 3 DYKs were passed on April 25, three days before the second round ended. In spite of this, he still included this for Round 3 points. This isn't permissible, is it? —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I honestly thought it was! ._. I got the memo about 2012 stuff not being allowed for inclusion, but not this. I had yet to claim points for those three, so I thought it was not against the rules. What a waste. :( Thanks for the heads up though. Best, ☯ BonkersThe Clown\(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
And while we're at it... If you don't mind J, would you take a look at this GA, having been passed on April 27, being included for the Round 3 submissions list? I think we should standardize the rules for all. Can you explain a bit more to me? ☯ BonkersThe Clown\(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Per this, it looks like that article wasn't passed until the 29th, which would make it acceptable. Dana boomer (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah- seems it was passed between rounds, and between-round entries are accepted in the round after the interim. J Milburn (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Aw no fair! Should have claimed my fifteen marks earlier... Now it's too late. ☯ BonkersThe Clown\(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 15:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll update the archive page (when it's made) for posterity's sake. J Milburn (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, J Milburn. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 19:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion,
a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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) 16:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Issue with my bonus points continues
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've tried adding them manually but the bot removed them, so they're not showing. As I will be continuing to work with portals throughout the round, I would really like for this to be fixed. Sven ManguardWha? 18:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Martha Logan FAC
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi there. Thanks for weighing in on the FAC. Is it alright if you give me a few days to work on your concerns (and ask you any follow-up questions if I have any)? StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes! 00:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Please help me preserve the integrity of an article you contributed to
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Are the music video screenshots in Can't Speak French and Whole Lotta History NFCC violations and if so how does one have them deleted hastily. Till 14:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 May 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
While the author gave me permission to use image, Wikipedia does not accept FlickrMail correspondance as valid proof. I would like to delete this image but do not have the permissions to do so. Can you? Charger2 (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Question about points/editors
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
I've noticed that some users are on 500+ points already into this round, and one for example has 300 points for GAs. I've had some GAN's waiting for a very long time, and currently have 5 nominated. Are there some sections of Wikipedia which have high turn arounds of reviews? Because the Music articles are hard to get reviewed, no-one seems to be doing them atm, thus we take a lot longer to collect points. I was wondering if some people are asking others to do reviews for them. It's just something I've noticed recently. — AARON • TALK 10:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Maybe a rule could be that you can only review outside of the area in which you nominate. I have recently taken on a History article, the first time I have ever reviewed outside of Music, and it's taking a while because I have time constraints but it's actually really interesting and refreshing. I'd be fine with not being able to review music articles and only doing other topics. — AARON • TALK 11:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Or making sure that reviewers take a on a mix and not just one topic, because some topics definitely get reviewed more often and faster than others. — AARON • TALK 12:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You have missed a bunch of errors in the GA review, the two entries for "year-end charts" are sourced by Charts Plus which is listed at WP:BADCHARTS, meaning it should not be used in any article because it is not affiliated with the Official Charts company. Discogs (which is used twice) is not a reliable source either because the content is user-submitted. The lead is far too long and shouldn't be 3 paragraphs per the instructions at WP:LEADLENGTH. And the Youtube source is also poor considering the video is user-submitted. Till 15:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Problems with images
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, do you know anyone who is an Admin. in Commons (other than User:Infrogmation who hasn't replied to me yet)? I have a problem- a pro-photographer friend of mine who donated dozens of photos in use tried to upload some of The Atlantics, and Martin Cilia, only to have someone in Commons decide they were copyright violation and that someone just grabbed them from the web somewhere. Can you help, or know anyone who can? Her name is Mandy Hall- one of her photo is the one of Jeff Beck in the infobox here! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Martha Logan FAC
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi there. I've addressed some of the comments you've made. Do you mind taking a look? StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes! 04:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Nietzsche and Asian Thought
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
How come the table hasn't updated for several days? My submissions have been assessed now since I updated two days ago but the table isn't updating for anyone. — AARON • TALK 09:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
My score isn't updating this time. — AARON • TALK 16:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
WikiCup table and points
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
What's happened to LivingBot? It hasn't updated the table or individual participant points in almost 3 days now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for the comments. I reduced the lenght of the track to meet the 10% requirement.--GDuwenTell me! 14:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Connie Talbot
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Thanks for your recent edit. I was sad to see what John had done and happy to see it undone.1archie99 (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I am sad again. Let me know if I can help.1archie99 (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I received a warning also. Considering the source it is a badge of honor. The only voice he listens to is his own. I notice that he removed all of your additions to his talk page.1archie99 (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
WikiCup points inclusion clarification
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi! A fellow Group A competitor included this article as part of his submissions. However, when I check back the history, all of his edits to the article consist of adding just two sentences. In total, 142 characters (with spaces) were added by him. Now I know he also added several refs, but the most important part of DYK is the prose portion; typically, anything less than a 5× expansion fails. Does writing 142 characters in a 4285 character-long article (3.3%) constitute "significant work" as per the rules of the WikiCup? I'm not trying to be picky; all I want is for the spirit of the rules to be followed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, J Milburn. You have new messages at Talk:Lovebird (song)/GA1. Message added 09:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey, sorry if I wasted some of your time there. It was a nice discussion with you and the other guys. I feel I should stop now. I've advertised the RfC in WP:CD. Mohamed CJ(talk) 16:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Madeline Montalban
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks J! My first ever Featured Article; I'm pretty chuffed. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
WikiCup
Latest comment: 10 years ago20 comments4 people in discussion
Hi there. Yes, why not? What is your definition of significant? The things I contributed, IMO, were substantial enough, and not just minor edits. I'd be happy if you specifically point out the "articles on question". Thank you. ☯ BonkersThe Clown\(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, most definitely. I add sources and I add information and I claim credit for them. I actually rarely just copy edit articles as that's boring. You see, I believe that it is not whether you made three thousand or three edits to a page, but whether the information was vital or just rubbish. I do understand that Wikifying alone is not counted. ☯ BonkersThe Clown\(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
7 characters of prose out of 2699 (0.25%) is certainly not significant, especially for a DYK (which counts prose only). I acknowledge that adding an infobox helps enhance an article, but not when it has to go through DYK process. I'm actually quite surprised that a DYK credit was awarded to this editor to begin with. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
(This is in reference to Brooks Mountain.) Bloom, it's not just seven characters- Bonkers also added the height of the mountain, along with a source for that fact. While I agree that this is a long way from the other extreme of writing the whole article, I'm afraid that I don't really buy your arguments about how DYK is just about prose. DYK is about recognising strong new articles, and strong new articles would typically feature infoboxes, key data and solid sourcing. It is clear that Bonkers alone did not bring the article to DYK, but what is in dispute is whether his contributions were "significant". J Milburn (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
For collaborations, it's really about the team effort, I find, and not so much of a solo gig. I know, it would be unreasonable for me to claim credit if I just added a pathetic comma or a pathetic cat, but this is creditable. ☯ BonkersThe Clown\(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
With all respect, J, you're the judge so you make the final call with some discretion. Thanks, ☯ BonkersThe Clown\(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
See also. @bloom, If you're surprised about me, you'd be also surprised about Blofeld being credited (not a prob with me though). ☯ BonkersThe Clown\(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to have a muse on this. I have a lot going on right now, but I'll try to get back to you both within a few days. J Milburn (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
"DYK is about recognising strong new articles, and strong new articles would typically feature infoboxes, key data and solid sourcing." That's not what the eligibility criteria 2a says — "Articles must have a minimum of 1,500 characters of prose (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables etc." I'm not nitpicking small DYKs here and there; I just don't want the WikiCup to award "cheap" and "free" points for minimal work. From what I ascertain, the WikiCup is here to recognize significant contributions to articles and is "won by skill of editing", not by how many DYKs one can churn out with the least amount of work. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
That's the normal DYK guidelines; have you considered the WikiCup DYK ones? Whether it's significant or not is up to the judges' discretion and it's the spirit that matters. Like I said, my contributions aren't exactly minute and they provide vital info to the article. It's not like if it's a collaboration between three, each has to do 5,000 characters of work. Doesn't work that way. ☯ BonkersThe Clown\(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Adds 7 characters to a DYK article. "My contributions aren't exactly minute." IMO, that quote is meme-worthy to say the least. :) —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
(cont.) To put things in a larger perspective, I actually indirectly turned down an offer to take a GA to an FA. I hadn't worked much on the article compared to others and it was already close to being FA-quality. I actually considered it at first; it was an easy way to get a free 100 points (and my first FA) with most of the work already done. I wouldn't have to put the same time and effort into it as I would by taking a non-GA to FA. Taking it to FA would certainly not be against the rules. However, it would be clear gamesmanship on my part – not illegal but unprincipled. Quoting the scoring page, the WikiCup is suppose to be "just a bit of fun — at the end of the day, we're all here to improve Wikipedia." This whole incident has left me wondering – has the purpose of the Cup changed to become a quest solely to accumulate the most amount of points at any cost? If this is indeed the case, I will reluctantly and respectfully request my withdrawal from the WikiCup. I think I can speak for most fellow WikiCup participants when saying I wouldn't like to be participating in such a toxic environment. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
We have fun if we don't stress over things like that... Leave it to the judges. I'm perfectly fine to removing entries. Don't fret, wait for their call. For now, happy editing. ☯ BonkersThe Clown\(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Happy editing to you too. And may the best man win. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Haha. You clearly beat me out hands down in that department – I've never been a best man (although I hope someday I will be). —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the other WikiCup judge. J asked me to take a look at this situation. I believe we've used "significant" for all this time because, despite its vagueness, it's perfect for the situations we're facing here. We can't say "added at least half of the prose characters" because that (a) begs serious gaming (b) is crying out for a wikilawyer to dispute and (c) is too hard to check for. Plus, I think we can all agree that adding 1500 words to a 9000-word article (just 25% of the total) is just as or more significant as writing 75% of a 1000 word article. So, that's how "significant" got involved. We've traditionally interpreted the word as "the content added was a significant factor in the article's promotion or DYK" because the WikiCup is a content competition. All points for edits were eliminated years ago. As such, I don't think that the edits to the two cited articles meet that standard, as adding two sentences or an infobox did not constitute the primary or significant minority push to improve the article. My apologies though—you are doing some great editing overall. If anything here does not make sense, please let me know. Kind regards, Ed[talk][majestic titan] 17:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your ruling. What will this mean for the DYK points in question? Will they be kept or removed? —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I've removed them now, thanks for the reminder. :-) Ed[talk][majestic titan] 22:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi there! First of all, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to review Christina Aguilera's "Can't Hold Us Down", I greatly appreciate your feedback. I've been working to correct several of the issues you highlighted in your review earlier today, you'd be surprised how much freetime I have! I still have a bit more to fix, but I'd love to have your opinion on the article's revised format thus far, so I can find ways to further improve the article. Thanks again, WikiRedactor (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
File:Adele Skyfall sample.ogg
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi JM, I noted your tag on the Skyfall (song) article earlier today (I didn't know the file had been tagged previously). I'm not an expert in these things, so could you let me know whether the sample is just too long, or if it's too high quality (or both). Could you let me know how long or what the quality should be and I'll try and get it sorted out (although I am no expert in these things!) Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Uploaded SVG files
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, I have a problem. I have uploaded the following SVG files:
center|100px, but they are in black and white and parts of the SVG files are messed up. So, I was wondering if you can delete those for me. Bigvoice313 (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Re: the deleted photos from Mandy Hall
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I noticed that you do not have email activated here, right? I really would like to find out how the ORTS permissions in Commons works-- not just for pro-photographer Mandy Hall but for me, too! Since my earlier message is now buried in your archives, this is what she had to say about the five photos she attempted to upload:
This is the comment on the deleted photos - "Looks like collection of promo photos, not own work."
File:Martin-Cilia-band-02-WEB.jpg
File:The-Atlantics-WEB-3987.jpg
File:2013-Martin-Cilia-WEB.jpg
File:2011-Martin-Cilia-WEB.jpg
File:The Atlantics 2013.jpg
I am a professional photographer - I was paid both by Martin Cilia & The Atlantics to take those photos and they requested that they go up onto Wikipedia to replace the outdated ones. I own the copyright. I guess it's kind of flattering that my photos appear too professional to be my own work :-) I'm happy to supply original files with EXIF info if needed. Should I put in a request, or just leave it for you to handle?
She went on to provide all these ways of contacting her and I do know her well enough-- she was the first photographer I contacted back in 2007 who was very generous with allowing the Wikipedia to display many of her recent photos. She lives in Australia.
Will you please help out so we can rectify this situation? I use Commons just to upload photos and don't really understand the rest of their work. Thank you so much for your kindness in crazy situations like this. I may copy this to my less busy talk page, if that helps? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you!! What a hard worker and righteous Admin.!
I can not wait to hear from Mandy Hall and see her reaction! You are the BEST!! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Think I've answered or dealt with all your concerns. Let me know if those don't meet your concerns or if you have more. Thank you for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not helped by the fact that Victorian and early 20th century historians often referred to the elder Roger as "Roger le Poer" also. The usual name now is "Roger of Salisbury". Thanks for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Social Media War being brought to Wikipedia
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There appears to be a Social Media War that has been brought here to Wikipedia, and negative info is being left on the Michelle Borth page that is not necessary. I see that you know ur way around Wikipedia a lot better than me. I feel that a Social Media war between this fan and celebrity is very stupid, so for it be brought to Wikipedia is very juvenile and immature, IMO. This particular Wikipedia user, though, is claiming I have no right to remove the negative info about Michelle, regardless of whether it is true or not, until it is discussed. I feel that if me and this user attempted to discuss, it will get very heated. I'm hoping that someone like you can help step in and help keep this drama off of here, I got into the middle of it on Twitter, I don't want to see it brought here, I'd appreciate it Taker22 (talk) 11:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Magic, Witchcraft, and the Otherworld
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Thanks J; much appreciated! I've checked and I also have access to The Australian Journal of Anthropology. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion
This is your only warning. Do not add or restore poorly sourced material onto a living person's article again. If you do, you will be blocked. If you have qualms about WP:BLPSOURCES, there are venues where you may discuss them. Reverting tabloid material onto a living person's biography is not the way forward here. I don't relish the idea of blocking you or the drama that would inevitably follow, but be in no doubt that I will follow through with my promise. Please find another way to deal with this matter rather than by restoring the material. The fact that the article concerns a child only makes the matter worse. Please think again about how you are approaching this. --John (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
John, you are involved by the fact you are taking a position on the page which happens to be conflict with J Milburns'. If you feel that anyone on that page does something blockable then I suggest you post a note on the appropriate noticeboard and I am sure it will be reviewed. If you take matters into your own hands and block someone yourself, then it is clear you are using admin tools while involved and the actions will need to be reviewed. Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
No, Casliber, you are as wrong on this as you are on us not needing reliable sources on a BLP. I am not involved by virtue of enforcing our most important rule, on an article I have never substantively edited before. My block threat very much still stands. It would be terribly sad if I had to block an established editor, but don't kid yourself that I wouldn't. I would. I would always ask for community review after making any controversial block of course. I very much hope none of this will be necessary here, as it is much better if we can come to a compromise without anybody getting blocked. Incidentally, in the future if you want to contact me it would be better to do so at my talk than another user's. It's sheer luck that I happened to notice this. Cheers, --John (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
You have no right to talk about compromise when you refuse to engage in discussion on the article talk page and threaten to block anyone who reverts your edits. No one is saying that reliable sources are not needed on BLPs, it's just that you have a ridiculous and unreasonable understanding of the phrase "reliable sources". J Milburn (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
It appears that you are giving John much more respect than is reasonable. His bullying should not be tolerated. Note that he said on your talk page he would block another editor and then ask for a community review. Can he actually do this? I am wondering at this point if he has extra super connections with the administrators. Your communications make sense to me while his make little sense to me.1archie99 (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The key issue is that an administrator has to be neutral and uninvolved if they use admin tools in any debate, whether they be blocking or fully protecting a page or whatever. It doesn't matter how "right" they think they are, if they have taken an editorial position, such as here, then that is the position they have taken, and are hence involved. If there is a question that an admin might have used tools while involved, then it can be reviewed - the arbitration committee has accepted cases to look at admin conduct. Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:BLPSOURCES is not an "editorial position" but a foundational principle of the project. If you don't understand that, you should stay well away from biographies of living people. --John (talk) 10:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
John, you took a position by removing content, it doesn't matter how right you think you are, you are still one party to a dispute (which J Milburn is trying to solve) - and even edit-warred about it. Wikipedia:Civility is a policy too, and if a person threw some expletive-laden post at you while in a dispute with you, it wouldn't be up to you to block them either. Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
That's really interesting that you've been on the project for this long without understanding WP:INVOLVED. Taking admin action does not make an admin involved! If it did, nothing would ever get done, vandals could not be blocked, articles could not be deleted etc. This is not a content dispute; it's an effort on my part to prevent tabloid sources being used to support information about the private life of a 12-year-old girl. I assume good faith regarding your and J Miburn's actions, but on this issue you are wrong. I am not seeing what WP:CIV has to do with it, unless you mean to chide J Milburn for calling me an idiot. If you or he get blocked it won't be for civility violations but for violating WP:BLP. --John (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Errr...the civility had nothing to do with J Milburn, it was just another example of a policy which can be violated. Remaining uninvolved would have been to mention it on the talk page, not edit war over it. Anyway, I have asked for a second/third/etc. opinion. We'll see what consensus is as it is clear that my broader and your narrower view of Involved are fixed and talking past each other here is not going to get anywhere. Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
John, you said you're willing to assume I'm acting in good faith. Are you unable to accept that, in good faith, I have a different understanding of the policy that you're citing? And I have this different position not as some newbie, but as someone who has been engaging with the project on various levels (writer, reviewer, administrator, OTRS volunteer, etc) for a number of years. J Milburn (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
To clarify what I'm saying here, we both agree that enforcing BLPSOURCES is not an "editorial position", but we each take different positions on what that entails. We could literally end up reverting back and forth, both citing the same policy. J Milburn (talk) 09:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC))
Please define DM in the context you used it.1archie99 (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi J, many thanks for your review of the pygmy marmoset article, unfortunately I'm working in Brazil at the moment and was unable to respond in a timely fashion (I only just spotted the review — wouldn't it be good if the new notification system incorporated this?). When I get back in a few months I'll renominate after making the changes, unless I have some downtime here and have time to work on it, which is unlikely. Anyway just wanted to say thanks and I wasn't ignoring you, just don't get the internet much in the field. Cheers, Jack (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Change Your Life (Little Mix song)
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hey there, I have noticed you have flagged the article as having non-free media. Could you be more specific perhaps so that I could fix the issue? Thanks! — LittleMixLove • these wings are made to fly! 22:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I have uploaded a new version of the cover art, please check if it is correct? It is the first time I have uploaded a file to WP. I also contacted the creators of the music sample and image for the music video with regard to your concerns. Thanks! — LittleMixLove • these wings are made to fly! 10:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
June 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
last2= Decock|first2= Cony|year= 2013|title= ''Phellinus castanopsidis'' sp. nov. Hymenochaetaceae) from southern China, with preliminary phylogeny based on rDNA sequences|journal=Mycological
Fomitiporia ellipsoidea is a species of polypore fungus in the family Hymenochaetaceae, a specimen of which produced the largest fungal fruit body ever recorded. Found in China, the fruit bodies produced by the species are brown, woody basidiocarps that feed on dead wood and can grow very large under favourable circumstances. They measure 30 centimetres (12 in) or more in length, though typically extending less than a centimetre from the surface of the wood. A number of chemical compounds have been isolated from the species, including several steroidal compounds. These may have pharmacological applications, but further research is needed. The species was first recorded in 2008 by Bao-Kai Cui and Yu-Cheng Dai in Fujian Province; it was revealed in 2011 that they had found a very large fruit body, measuring up to 1,085 cm (427 in) in length, on Hainan Island. The specimen (pictured), which was 20 years old, was estimated to weigh between 400 and 500 kilograms (880 and 1,100 lb). This was markedly larger than the previous record holder, a specimen of Rigidoporus ulmarius found in the United Kingdom, which had a circumference of 425 cm (167 in). (Full article...)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Now, some of you might be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with, the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.
A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)
This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Tern
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I think I've now addressed all your issues at the Tern FAC. Please let me know if I've missed anything, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 June 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Could you please semiblock this article. We have url editors constantly putting whatever strikes their fancy as the genre into the info box removing genre and the citations supporting same.1archie99 (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members).
So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.
A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)
This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Tern cladogram
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I've had a go at doing a cladogram at the Tern FAC. It's not a thing of beauty, but it's probably the best I can do. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, done. I hadn't noticed Procelsterna was missing until you said, thought I counted the genera Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Magic, Witchcraft, and the Otherworld
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I just want to say a big thank you J, for undertaking such a thorough GA review. If I can ever return the favour, just let me know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 June 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey J, just to let you know a new version of the image at the artificial skull deformation nom has been added with a plain black background if you'd like to update your vote. Cowtowner (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, J Milburn. You have new messages at Surfer43's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Natalus
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I'm putting the non-free image thing behind me. I didn't realize there was so much information on the species and so many sources. I think I'll be working a lot on the Natalus genus now with the info and sources provided at http://www.jstor.org/stable/1375114. I wasn't lying when I said there was only one picture of it on the internet, I was simply mistaken. Thanks, Surfer43 (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, J Milburn. You have new messages at Surfer43's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sorry for flooding your talk page with talkback. =D Surfer43 (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!
If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.
This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi J Milburn. I was about to ask you, Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded passed on FAC, however, we didn't get any bonus points, why's that? We did the DYK and also GAN in this WikiCup, aren't we getting some multiplied points? Cheers. — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I misunderstood obviously. Thanks anyway :) ! — Tomíca(T2ME) 23:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 June 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Can you check my GACs are alright for the Wikicup? I've not really been using them before. Adam Cuerden(talk) 08:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Is length of review really a good guide for this? I mean, I diligently checked the whole article, but I wasn't particularly wordy about describing it, since GAR doesn't really encourage wordiness. Hell, they have whole templates to encourage brevity and organization. Adam Cuerden(talk) 09:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, anyway, I've tried my hand at a few more. While a few had blockers (e.g. one I was working on had some very awkward prose, to the point I wasn't quite sure what the article was trying to say - hopefully, that'll get sorted out in the next couple days) - I think the new ones I did are pretty good? Can you recheck the new ones? Adam Cuerden(talk) 11:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
POTD notification
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi J Milburn. A recent discussion at DYK appears to come to the consensus that the Crime in <country> articles – submitted by this same WikiCup competitor who previously submitted DYKs w/o significant work – only skim the surface of the topic and thus, violate DYKAR rule D7 (specifically, "Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected"). He's had Crime in Burmapromoted and submitted for WC points, before the discussion began. In addition to DYK rules, this also seems to fall under "intentionally submitting subpar articles with the aim of getting more WikiCup points" – what do you think? He's also addedthis GAR, even though he hasn't completed the review – a clear contravention of the rules. I've notified Ed about this too, but he seems to be busy. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikicup
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
One of my restorations is only due to be closed on the morning of the 28th. Is this a problem? Adam Cuerden(talk) 23:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey, had a quick run through Throffer, quite enjoyed it, but you're right, it does get technical quite quickly. I've placed it on hold for GAN as a result of a few picky MOS issues (and some other bits and pieces) that I've noted at the GAN itself. Let me know when you're ready to rock and roll. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. The bot isn't starting because you removed the </source> tag. There's a big note saying not to do that. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
WikiCup 2013 June newsletter
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.
A rules reminder: 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 the 29/30 June, 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. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- 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) 10:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Suggestion for next year's Wikicup
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I realise it is way too late to put it into this competition, but some of the images I found high-resolution copies of and restored had the bad copies in use in dozens of Wikipedias. It might be good to extend the bonus points away from just articles, though one would, of course, need to have that reported to you. Adam Cuerden(talk) 12:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Certainly, using similar rules that the articles use makes it a lot easier. I'd suggest reduced points, though,a s there's ptentially bonuses from multiple articles, and the bonus points should be removed if the image is moved down the page. Adam Cuerden(talk) 13:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
This one won't count, right? Adam Cuerden(talk) 00:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
There was a glitch in the scan - a vertical section area of about 26 pixels in height was repeated, which was a glaring flaw. The fix was fairly easy to fix if you knew what you were doing - just had to basically delete a large rectangular section by raising up the bottom bit. In ASCII:
It's one of those things that's very little work if you know what you're doing, but you need experience to identify the type of error as a readily fixable one and thus know it's possible to do it in the first place.
Adam Cuerden(talk) 11:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Seems fair. It was only about 15 minutes work. Adam Cuerden(talk) 11:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikicup
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I did NOT expect to get through this round with as busy as I was in May. I'll have to work extra hard in July; this time, I only slipped through by working my arse off in the tail end of the month. =) Adam Cuerden(talk) 13:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikicup
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Last night it looked like I'd be the last person through this round. Now the tool says I've been bumped. This claim pushed me off. Technically, the article wasn't passed until 3am on the 29th, so it was after the round ended. Let me know if you decide to count it or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 03 July 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I can't believe I did that. Thanks for fixing it. Adam Cuerden(talk) 18:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Sesame Street GA review
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Milburn,
Wanted you to know that I was finally able to get to addressing the concerns you brought up in this GAC. [3] Hope that it satisfies your issues. Thanks so much for your patience! And enjoy your time "out of town". ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi J. Milburn. You wrote:
"I'm not keen on the idea that we may automatically allow a screenshot for a film- we certainly don't automatically allow a screenshot for a television episode. I'd have no objection to a film poster or DVD/VHS cover, which are more standard for illustrating articles on films, as I'm sure you realise. There seem to be a few to choose from- a poster, a blue/yellow cover or a red cover."
Thanks for the message. I don't see why the screenshot would be a problem under the NFCC. It's certainly not a problem under U.S. copyright law, of course. But if you think the poster would be better, I would not mind your putting in the poster and, at the same time, deleting the screenshot. I really think it's a terrible thing to delete the only image from an article and leave it bare. When I speak to people in the real world about Wikipedia, the biggest complaint I get is that articles fail to be illustrated. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree that's better, and I like your FU Summary very much, except that I would identify, in the summary, the format (VHS or DVD?) and issue date of the video used. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Participant barnstars?
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi,
I participated in WikiCup in 2011, 2012 and 2013. WikiCup Participant has been awarded to me for 2011 but not for 2012 and 2013 (which is still unfinished). Is this practice of awarding participants still alive?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification. Don't worry, its not a big deal anyway.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
GA review
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Many thanks for your review of Edward Graham Paley; not only was I pleased with the result, but also with the helpful comments and ideas you gave - for example, about Abbot's Wood, which now is an article. As a local person, I guess you have seen Sharpe, Paley and Austin, Edmund Sharpe, and List of works by Sharpe and Paley; and there's plenty more to do about the practice. I first became interested in it when John Hughes, who produced the CD on Sharpe (after 10 year's research), contacted me. He had been responsible for getting listing for a redundant church in my home town (Runcorn), which had been designed by Sharpe, and thus saved it from demolition. He informed me about the Brandwood book, to which he contributed, before it was published. This all led me to do more work on the SP&A practice, which IMO is under-recognised. OK it's not of the stature of the Scotts and Waterhouse, but their designs, and especially their churches, form an important part of the architectural infrastructure of the Northwest. Best wishes (and if you wish to respond, I shall be watching this page, to keep any discussion in one place). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Really interesting stuff- I can see the Lancaster cathedral from my bedroom window, and I used to regularly walk in Abbot's Wood (as the area's still known) with my (now) fiancé. I suspect I'll end up in Abbot's Wood over the next few months at some point, so I'll be sure to take some pictures of the surviving buildings if I do. Also, I don't know if you've visited, but there are some walls of a large demolished building in the woodland. Presumably, that's the remains of the house itself. There's also an old air-raid shelter in there, presumably from when the house was used by the military. Really nice area- views over the Abbey and the surrounding valley, if you've not visited. A moderate amount of wildlife, too. 16:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Also, are you not nominating the article for DYK? It deserves some views! J Milburn (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Couldn't think of a decent hook. But I've made a nomination with a not-very-exciting hook. Thanks for the suggestion. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
So it made it to DYK - and had over 2,000 hits! More than I expected. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
All Hands on the Bad One
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi Milburn, I just wanted to let you know that I think I've addressed the concerns you brought up in this GAN. If there are more issues, please let me know. Thanks so much for your review. Cheers :) --Niwi3 (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I've addressed some issues you brought up at the end of your review. I might someday try to bring it to FA status if possible. Thank you for your comments and interest. --Niwi3 (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 10 July 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I was reviewing the G&S opera articles (which I have worked heavily on in the past) for potential work to push them to GA. Several of them seemed to already be there. I will not be claiming the points on these, of course; only the ones that actually need more work. Adam Cuerden(talk) 16:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Re: Uploaded SBG logo gone wrong
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This may sound crazy, so here goes: Like I said, I uploaded an SVG version of the Sinclair Broadcast Group logo on Wikipedia. When I did, the blue box below the letters SBG covers up the text where the words "SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP" would be in that space between the SBG letters and the blue box. I know, I do sound crazy when I explained it. Bigvoice313 (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Am I being too hard on Status here?
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. I'm slowly going through your suggestions and continuing to make improvements to Kantian ethics. I'm currently looking at Strawson and am struggling to find sources about his relationship with Kant's ethics. I've found a lot about his response to Kant's metaphysics, but nothing that directly deals with ethics. Are there any sources you know of that you could direct me to? Thanks, ItsZippy(talk • contributions) 11:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hey J Milburn, was wondering if you had any thoughts about getting this up and running soon? I, and probably quite a few others at WP:GAN would be quite willing to help out. Thoughts? ★★RetroLord★★ 09:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I whipped up a quick draft earlier today and posted it at WT:GAN. What'dya think? And as a side note, if the idea was accepted we would need a few judges, and since you already have experience judging the Wikicup, would you be happy to take on this role too? Thanks, ★★King•Retrolord★★ 11:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
GANs at Wikicup
Could you possibly review my GANs? I'm not sure how you're counting size on them, so feel free to remove any not suitable. Adam Cuerden(talk) 15:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
WikiCup update
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Would you be willing to write an update about the WikiCup contest for the 31 July Signpost Featured content report? --Pine✉ 05:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Replied on my talk page. --Pine✉ 06:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 July 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion
I think I should maybe get 10 points for this in the Wikicup: I got it over 5000 bytes readable prose before it main paged (albeit barely before). Adam Cuerden(talk) 08:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried removing the bot tag, which I think got it to reevaluate. I put it on when it was marked as promoted (it was at something like 4980 readable prose characters at that point, but there's a long gap between that and main page, during which I got some references I was waiting for, and expanded it by about 50% readable prose size while using them to make the background section. Think it mainpaged around 7500
Anyway, first DYK in about 4 years, so I wasn't quite sure what I was doing, frankly =) Adam Cuerden(talk) 18:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Heh. interesting story there: I found the image, liked it, but there was no way I was willing to do an FPC without a decent article on it. I checked around, it was notable, so... well... I think Fatinitza as it is is about the minimum I'd be willing to leave an article at. You may have noticed I've nominated it for GAN, and I think it's likely to pass (if you havve any suggestions for it, though, I'd love to hear them) Adam Cuerden(talk) 18:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
You want to know what's worse? My next big FPC nomination will likely be Puck of Pook's Hill. There were 20 illustrations to that in the original, so I'm basically going to need to get it to FA level. Adam Cuerden(talk) 18:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I hate to ask, but I've always been terrible at acronymns. "PR"? Adam Cuerden(talk) 21:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The Hills
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks so much for taking on this GAN! I believe I've addressed all your suggestions thus far, and hopefully the fact-check from your fiancée goes just as smoothly. Is she Team Lauren or Team Heidi? WikiRedactor (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
WikiCup 2013 July newsletter
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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) 00:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Request for review
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. You may remember me when you were doing the GA review for My Moment. I was wondering if you do a GA review for The Age of Plastic, as the nomination hasn't been getting any attention. I'll be going to bed since its late. However, feel free to let me know on my talk page when you've started doing the review. Thanks, a have a great night. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 03:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
DYK RfC
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. GilderienChat|Contributions03:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikicup newsletter
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Y'know, I hate to complain about this, as it feels petty, but... how come the newsletter never mentions featured pictures? I mean, I know most people are doing other content, but it'd kinda be nice to have your field of work at least noted as existing.... Adam Cuerden(talk) 03:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Aye. I wouldn't mention it, except June had a very similar focus to July, so...
Honestly, it's more for encouraging content types. If you only focus on high-importance GAs and FAs, it's basically saying that's all the Wikicup cares about. For that matter, Featured lists haven't been mentioned since January either, though, to be fair, that one has been much more erratic. Last big score on FL was Another Believer back in Round 2. Adam Cuerden(talk) 09:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 July 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am guessing that name changes may be an issue where FOUR does not have the current article name. Is that the case?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 14:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi! Thanks for pointing out the non free issue at the article Fever's talk page. I have removed two samples from the page and provided more detailed "Purpose in article" entries in their rationales for the remaining two. As for the two I removed, I'll provide better descps. soon because I'm kinda running out of time and my main focus is on this article and a maintenance tag will quickfail it. Hopefully you can check it now and remove the tag if it's allright. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Special Barnstar
Thanks for the fantastic GA review for The Hills! I greatly appreciate your feedback and patience with me during the process, and will continue to incorporate your comments into the article! What did your girlfriend think of the alternate finale? :-) WikiRedactor (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 07 August 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Hey, I'm just confused about the Forget Forever GA. He has made no effort to review nor pass it. Is there a set time limit afterwards where he can no longer review it? I just want it done and over with.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'm all done the edits!--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Alright the rest of the corrections were made.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Have You Seen This Snail? GA Review
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Now what? I've already responded in the review page. I hope it's all OK now. If you want to add some more reviews or corrections, please do so. Thanks and have a nice day! Cheers! :) Mediran (t • c) 10:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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) 06:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
POTD notification
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi J! Hope all is well. Thanks for all you do for Wikicup. The team I'm on at the Wikimedia Foundation is doing a survey about the evaluation of programs like Wikicup. I'd like you to take the survey. Can you email me with a preferred off-wiki contact for you? I'd love to send it to you. Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, again
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hope things are doing well. I don't know if you remember but I just want to see if you're still remember to do that The Age of Plastic GA review i request to you 23 days ago. Its been more like a month, but I could see why. You are an admin and you have a lot of crap going on in your Wikipedia, so I'll still give you time, but just wanted to make sure you remembered. Have a great night. 和DITOREtails 01:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Re: Sanity check
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
That's correct. I've been around since about early 2006, if that matters. I presume the mention is relevant, so, carry on. Adam Cuerden(talk) 15:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
That said, if the mention isn't particularly relevant, I'd rather it be left out. Adam Cuerden(talk) 21:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Sorry J, but please do not hide my comments which directly relate to the merits of a FPC as you did here. Note that I stated that "agree with [...] critique about limited EV" does directly relate to the FPC criteria, and is not related to what you consider a contentious copyright issue. Also note that the copyright issue you raised about images of sculptures is quite distinct from copyright issues of images of architecture, as the US copyright law which Wikipedia has to comply with makes a clear distinction. Your concern of copyright limitations has merit even if we might disagree, but does not belong to the discussion about a particular architecture FPC, but rather the FPC talk page. Nevertheless note that it was not my choice to collapse the discussion about copyright of sculptures. Hope we can discuss this in a constructive manner. Cheers, --ELEKHHT 11:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Regarding your question about copyright of sculptures under FOP (which is different from architecture and the above mentioned FPC), you might wish to read this. Also in the future please direct your concerns regarding policy to the appropriate forums. --ELEKHHT 21:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for all your work on "Yo-Yo", I didn't think it would get processed so quickly. I was moving at the time and didn't even realize but thanks again for all your help. I know I'm not the greatest writer :) -FeuDeJoie (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Piotrus
Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Any chance he can go to the finals? He's very close to me, and about the only reason I'm not failing out of the Wikicup is because he got unlucky with review timing.
Hell, had I been able to get my head around complicated Polish history while doing GANs, I'd have never beat him, as my work would've given him sufficient points to beat me. For which I feel rather bad, to be honest - yes, his work would have been a lot more difficult for me to review than what I did review, but still... Adam Cuerden(talk) 23:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Never mind. I've sorted it out. You can't force me to claim points, after all ;) Adam Cuerden(talk) 00:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a major misinterpretation. I realised I could set my score to TIE with Piotrus. I did not mean to withdraw. The reason I did not change my score to tie with him is because you're ignoring your schedule which says there's still another day in the round, as I realised when I looked at it. Adam Cuerden(talk) 05:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Being discussed on WT:CUP. Also I do hope you enjoy reading this when you're back online. The one time you give me the keys... Ed[talk][majestic titan] 05:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, I kind of hate to bring it up now, but didn't you say you'd try to feature non-article content a bit in this report? There have been three Featured Lists, fourteen featured pictures, and eighty GARs. At least the good topics were mentioned in some detail, which was better than the last three rounds article only, and pictures were acknowledged to exist, but... at the time they were merely acknowledged to exist, with no examples, you also thought I was being eliminated from the competition, which means that's the last anyone would ever hear of the matter; Whilst I really respect article writers, as I talked to you about last time, I do wish non-article work would be properly noted, particularly as any chance to note other non-article content, like FPOs, went by unmentioned ages ago.
Had this not been sorted out, Featured pictures wouldn't have even had a chance to ever get anything but the slightest mention in the Wikicup. Adam Cuerden(talk) 05:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
That's mighty nice of you, Adam, but I am fine. I never expected to make it to the Top 8; I am not a native English speaker, and with the raising standards of quality despite having help of several copyeditors I have not been able to get a single FA since like 2010. Plus, the GA reviewer lottery wasn't that friendly... oh well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that's a bit unfair on yourself. You do really good work. Adam Cuerden(talk) 03:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
WikiCup 2013 August newsletter
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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) 06:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for the mention in the newsletter for "S&M". It meant a lot to me when I saw it. It's nice to have received a bit of recognition of its promotion after having worked on it for long. — ₳aron 08:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
POTD notification
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Milburn, you can't move me out of the competition after the round's already started. This is turning what was meant to be a friendly, fun competition into the most stressful thing I've had on Wikipedia all year. Adam Cuerden(talk) 02:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Mascarene Parrot for FA?
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I got Mascarene Parrot to GA, and was wondering whether it was up to snuff as a FAC. No hurry, just wanted to see what you think. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
It just got a really nice copyedit, so I'm pretty sure I'll FAC it next. FunkMonk (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
On this note, the GA I have left that I feel has the most "meat" on it is the Newton's Parakeet article, but you said it wasn't quite there yet during your GA review, so if you have any further suggestions, I'm listening! I've listed it for copyedit. And again, no hurry, will take long before I'll do anything with it. FunkMonk (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Unarchiving this. I'm sorry, I will get to this (and get back to your current FAC) eventually. J Milburn (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Goosebumps
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In your review of the Goosebumps books, you said that "there seems to be shifts between referring to the original series as Goosebumps and the other series as spin-offs and referring to them all together as Goosebumps." I must be blind, since you're the second person that's listed this as an issue with the article, but I don't see the problem anywhere. Could you give some examples? Thanks, Fearstreetsaga (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 04 September 2013
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Since this has been at "Unused" for ages, just a little more commentary: I figured that since Godwin is no longer a WMF staffer (and hasn't been for three years) and he is individually notable, it's not a problem to run the image now. Howcheng seems to agree (User_talk:Howcheng#Mike_Godwin) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Four Award
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for your excellent work on Andrew Johnston (singer). I recently discovered him, and it was great to find a very well written (featured) article to learn about him. RyanVesey 01:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This is a note to let the main editors of throffer know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on September 23, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk·contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 23, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:
A throffer, in political philosophy, is a proposal that mixes an offer with a threat which will be carried out if the offer is not accepted. The term was first used in print by political philosopher Hillel Steiner, and while other writers followed, it has not been universally adopted. An example is "Kill this man and receive £100—fail to kill him and I'll kill you." Steiner differentiated offers, threats and throffers based on the preferability of compliance and non-compliance for the subject compared to the normal course of events that would have come about were no intervention made, although this approach has been criticised. Throffers form part of the wider moral and political considerations of coercion, and form part of the question of the possibility of coercive offers. The theoretical concerns surrounding throffers have been practically applied concerning workfare programmes, where individuals receiving social welfare have their aid decreased if they refuse the offer of work or education. Several writers have also observed that throffers presented to people convicted of crimes, particularly sex offenders, can result in more lenient sentences if they accept medical treatment. (Full article...)
Great to see this on the main page!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Getting article to 'good article'
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi J Milburn,
We are three students working together from Washington University this semester and we are in charge of fixing up articles that were submitted in previous years as one of our assignment. We were assigned 'Leptothorax acervorum' which you were a good article reviewer for. Unfortunately, the student last year did not return to complete the changes and we were wondering if you could possibly give us things the article needs touching up on to be able to become a good article.
Some of the things we have read from the talk page that need to be added includes: Morphology section, Taxonomy section - including history of naming, Distribution section, Introduction and More photos. Is there any other subsections that should be included?
Could you respond to the talk page of Leptothorax acervorum? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
mrpocketkings, Gschalet, LibbyWard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pocketkings (talk • contribs) 06:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
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.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fomitiporia ellipsoidea may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Figureskatingfan (submissions) claimed the first featured topic points in this year's competition for her excellent work on topics related to Maya Angelou, the noted American author and poet. We have also continued to see high-importance articles improved as part of the competition: 
Ealdgyth (submissions) was awarded a thoroughly well-earned 560 points for her featured article Middle Ages and 102 points for her good article Battle of Hastings. Good articles James Chadwick and Stanislaw Ulam netted 
Hawkeye7 (submissions) 102 and 72 points respectively, while 72 points were awarded to 
Piotrus (submissions) for each of Władysław Sikorski and Emilia Plater, both recently promoted to good article status. Collaborative efforts between WikiCup participants have continued, with, for example, 
Sasata (submissions) being awarded 180 points each for their featured article on Boletus luridus.
; see Talk:Throffer for comments about the article. Well done! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
WikiRedactor (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
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 
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
