User talk:Spencer/Archive 16
 | This 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. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
The Signpost: 09 January 2012
- Technological roadmap: 2011's technological achievements in review, and what 2012 may hold
- News and notes: Fundraiser 2011 ends with a bang
- WikiProject report: From Traditional to Experimental: WikiProject Jazz
- Featured content: Contentious FAC debate: a week in review
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Betacommand 3
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
User oldman10000
Hi Spencer, I'd like to plead my case regarding your verdict on my edition of the page 'Vincent Kompany'. Your reasoning that my edit of Kompany's red card being the result of a 'foul' on Nani was not neutral whereas to write 'tackle' would be is something I find illogical. Both words are not neutral - the word 'foul' gives the impression that the editor believes it was worthy of the red card, however the word 'tackle' gives the impression that the editor believes it was a fair challenge and therefore not worthy of the punishment. As a red card was given by the referee (a 'neutral' figure during the proceedings and indeed the most important) it would therefore make more sense to use the word 'foul' in this instance despite it not being an entirely neutral stance. Thanks (Y), oldman10000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldman10000 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 January 2012
- Special report: English Wikipedia to go dark on January 18
- Sister projects: What are our sisters up to now?
- News and notes: WMF on the looming SOPA blackout, Wikipedia turns 11, and Commons passes 12 million files
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Beer
- Featured content: Lecen on systemic bias in featured content
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, Betacommand case deadlocked, Muhammad images close near
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Proposal to shut down WP Geographic Coordinates & ban coordinates on wikipedia articles
This means you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Community input required: lowering delist bar at FPC
You are receiving this because of your current or past association with the Featured Pictures project. Following on from several cases where closers did not observe the prescribed minimum votes required for a delisting, there is now a motion to entirely dismiss the requirement for a minimum. Please participate in the discussion as wide-ranging changes may arise.
Link: Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Delist procedure changes Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 January 2012
- News and notes: SOPA blackout, Orange partnership
- WikiProject report: The Golden Horseshoe: WikiProject Toronto
- Featured content: Interview with Muhammad Mahdi Karim and the best of the week
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Muhammad images, AUSC call for applications
- Technology report: Looking ahead to MediaWiki 1.19 and related issues
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
ITN
I know things are moving really slow at ITN right now, but I'd really hate to see this nomination get passed by until it's no longer relevant like Cyclone Funso did. Would you mind giving it a glance over? — C M B J 23:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
ITN
Can you explain this Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BPosted.5D_2012_European_Men.27s_Handball_Championship on ITN? its quiet clear there wasnt consensus for it despite the claim(Lihaas (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)).
The Signpost: 30 January 2012
- In the news: Zambian wiki-assassins, Foundation über alles, editor engagement and the innovation plateau
- Recent research: Language analyses examine power structure and political slant; Wikipedia compared to commercial databases
- WikiProject report: Digging Up WikiProject Palaeontology
- Featured content: Featured content soaring this week
- Arbitration report: Five open cases, voting on proposed decisions in two cases
- Technology report: Why "Lua" is on everybody's lips, and when to expect MediaWiki 1.19
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 January newsletter
WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is 
Grapple X (submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by 
Ruby2010 (submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is 
Jivesh boodhun (submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!
The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.
A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.
12george1 (submissions) was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.- 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
Sp33dyphil (submissions) was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.- Sp33dyphil (submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
Speciate (submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
Jivesh boodhun (submissions) was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.
We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.
A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Nordonia High School
I was just wondering why the Matt Lupica section was removed from the Wikipedia page? Yes, that is me, and I just published that book. What is not worthy or notable about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piratematt67 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
ITN updates
There's a couple more stories over at ITN that look ripe for posting. — C M B J 06:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 06 February 2012
- News and notes: The Foundation visits Tunisia, analyzes donors
- In the news: Leading scholar hails Wikipedia, historians urged to contribute while PR pros remain shunned
- Discussion report: Discussion swarms around Templates for deletion and returning editors of colourful pasts
- WikiProject report: The Eye of the Storm: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones
- Featured content: Talking architecture with MrPanyGoff
- Arbitration report: Four open cases, final decision in Muhammad images, Betacommand 3 near closure
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 February 2012
- Special report: Fundraising proposals spark a furore among the chapters
- News and notes: Foundation launches Legal and Community Advocacy department
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Stub Sorting
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
MSU Interview
Dear Spencer,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
- Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
- Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
- All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
- All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
- The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 February 2012
- Special report: The plight of the new page patrollers
- News and notes: Fundraiser row continues, new director of engineering
- Discussion report: Discussion on copyrighted files from non-US relation states
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Poland
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Barnstar?
Fame at last ;) would have loved to see ont he main page but it swent too soon ;)Lihaas (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 February 2012
- News and notes: Finance meeting fallout, Gardner recommendations forthcoming
- Recent research: Gender gap and conflict aversion; collaboration on breaking news; effects of leadership on participation; legacy of Public Policy Initiative
- Discussion report: Focus on admin conduct and editor retention
- WikiProject report: Just don't call it "sci-fi": WikiProject Science Fiction
- Arbitration report: Final decision in TimidGuy ban appeal, one case remains open
- Technology report: 1.19 deployment stress, Meta debates whether to enforce SUL
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 February newsletter
Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was Grapple X (submissions), again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was 
Tigerboy1966 (submissions), thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were Ruby2010 (submissions), 
Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 
Miyagawa (submissions) and 
Casliber (submissions). February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from Ruby2010 (submissions). At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.
The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.
The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving 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) 00:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 March 2012
- News and notes: Chapter-selected Board seats, an invite to the Teahouse, patrol becomes triage, and this week in history
- In the news: Heights reached in search rankings, privacy and mental health info; clouds remain over content policing
- Discussion report: COI and NOTCENSORED: policies under discussion
- WikiProject report: We don't bite: WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles
- Featured content: Best of the week
- Arbitration report: AUSC appointments announced, one case remains open
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 March 2012
- Interview: Liaising with the Education Program
- Women and Wikipedia: Women's history, what we're missing, and why it matters
- Arbitration analysis: A look at new arbitrators
- Discussion report: Nothing changes as long discussions continue
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Women's History
- Featured content: Extinct humans, birds, and Birdman
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision in 'Article titles', only one open case
- Education report: Diverse approaches to Wikipedia in Education
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 March 2012
- News and notes: Chapters Council proposals take form as research applications invited for Wikipedia Academy and HighBeam accounts
- Discussion report: Article Rescue Squadron in need of rescue yet again
- WikiProject report: Lessons from another Wikipedia: Czech WikiProject Protected Areas
- Featured content: Featured content on the upswing!
- Arbitration report: Race and intelligence 'review' opened, Article titles at voting
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 March 2012
- News and notes: Controversial content saga continues, while the Foundation tries to engage editors with merchandising and restructuring
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Rock Music
- Featured content: Malfunctioning sharks, toothcombs and a famous mother: featured content for the week
- Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review at evidence, article titles closed
- Recent research: Predicting admin elections; studying flagged revision debates; classifying editor interactions; and collecting the Wikipedia literature
- Education report: Universities unite for GLAM; and High Schools get their due.
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Dylan (DBF)
I am VERY concerned about my page that YOU postes a 'speedy deletion' thingy on. Please remove that NOW!Beachdyl (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 March newsletter
We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! Grapple X (submissions), of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's Cwmhiraeth (submissions), thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's Casliber (submissions), who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.
Congratulations to 
Matthewedwards (submissions), whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to 
12george1 (submissions), who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Wikipedia:Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from Miyagawa (submissions) show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!
.svg){kind=link}
It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Help
The policy of wikipedia does not say anywhere, that I can't not put the flag of the countries in the music pages and Mr. Binksternet, clears the flag of the pages of Cuban music, I think that is not correct, Mr. Binksternet has something against Cuban music and Cubans in general. I let you know because I think it's not fair that Mr Binksternet clear the Cuban flag like he do.174.98.141.237 (talk)
Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons are visually distracting in infoboxes and lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used. Examples of acceptable exceptions would be military battle infoboxes templates and infoboxes that include international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games. The guidelines for a number of common infoboxes (e.g. Template:Infobox company, Template:Infobox film, Template:Infobox person, Template:Infobox football biography) explicitly prohibit the use of flag icons.
Says above that the Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. this phrase gave me the reason, I put the Cuban flag just one time in every page add information as years and places and Binksternet change it back at all. 174.98.141.237 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC).
Dear friend
The Spain bolero is really different from the Cuban bolero. In Spain they called with the name bolero in the late XVIII century, today, they called it fandango; Spain bolero used a pattern of 3/4 and Cuban bolero used the pattern 2/4, that means they are different genre with different musical structure. The person who wrote the bolero article, let it know very clear, that are two different type of bolero with the same name and different origin. The Cuban bolero is a popular genre in Latin America and the world. Which the Spain bolero is not.174.98.141.237 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC).
The Signpost: 02 April 2012
- Interview: An introduction to movement roles
- Arbitration analysis: Case review: TimidGuy ban appeal
- News and notes: Berlin reforms to movement structures, Wikidata launches with fanfare, and Wikipedia's day of mischief
- WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Signpost
- Featured content: Snakes, misnamed chapels, and emptiness: featured content this week
- Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review in third week, one open case
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Vandal warnings and block
I don't know if you noticed but you were warning this user about edits to pages that s/he had first done page move vandalism on. I just moved the pages back and reverted one of the articles (CompUSA) back to its original text. I would have blocked for longer than 24 hours for that. I don't know if all those Cartoon Network edits today need to be rolled back but it might be worth taking a look. Please remember to look more carefully at an editors' contribs, thanks! Valfontis (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 09 April 2012
- News and notes: Projects launched in Brazil and the Middle East as advisors sought for funds committee
- WikiProject report: The Land of Steady Habits: WikiProject Connecticut
- Featured content: Assassination, genocide, internment, murder, and crucifixion: the bloodiest of the week
- Arbitration report: Arbitration evidence-limit motions, two open cases
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 April 2012
- Arbitration analysis: Inside the Arbitration Committee Mailing List
- Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Facilitator: Silver seren
- Discussion report: The future of pending changes
- WikiProject report: The Butterflies and Moths of WikiProject Lepidoptera
- Featured content: A few good sports: association football, rugby league, and the Olympics vie for medals
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 April 2012
- Investigative report: Spin doctors spin Jimmy's "bright line"
- WikiProject report: Skeptics and Believers: WikiProject The X-Files
- Featured content: A mirror (or seventeen) on this week's featured content
- Arbitration report: Evidence submissions close in Rich Farmbrough case, vote on proposed decision in R&I Review
- Technology report: Wikimedia Labs: soon to be at the cutting edge of MediaWiki development?
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Ichthus: May 2012
 |
ICHTHUS |
| May 2012 |
From the Editor
This month marks the observation of Pentecost, one of the most important feast of the Christian liturgical year. It is our hope here that all of you, regardless of your religious affiliation (if any), find that the holiday, and its accompanying activities, an enjoyable and beneficial experience. We also hope that this "Birthday of the Church" is one which gives you the same joy as the birthday of yourself or your loved ones.
Ichthus is the successor to the long running WikiProject Christianity newsletter, run under the WikiProject Christianity’s Outreach department. As such, you will continue to see information about our latest featured and good articles, DYKs, as well as new members who have joined our project. You might also see links to Christianity related news from the mainstream media!
With that, I wish you all happy reading!
John Carter, Asst. Editor
P.S. Please click here to add the new Christianity-related topics Noticeboard to your watchlist to follow the latest discussions relevant to WikiProject Christianity and subprojects.
Help Bring Wikipe-tan "into the fold"
As many of you may know, our unofficial mascot, dear Wikipe-tan, hasn't yet indicated any particular beliefs. However, yes, as we all know, ahem, some people might object to our beloved mascot running around in a French maid outfit. People do talk, you know. ;) If anyone might be able to develop an image of the dear lady in a image more, well, "Christian," I would like to see perhaps a vote for next month as to which, if any, image of the dear girl we might make our own unofficial mascot. Please post your images here.
By John Carter
Christianity in other wikis
By John Carter
Spotlight on the Outreach department
.jpeg)
Ichthus will spotlight a different subproject or workgroup of WikiProject Christianity. This edition will spotlight on our vital Outreach department. This comparatively small, but vital, project unit is dedicated to welcoming new editors to Wikipedia and the Christianity related content, and to providing information to the various project members, in forms like this newsletter.
The scope of articles with which this group deals is truly enormous, and, given the wide variety of material with which we deal, we would very much welcome the input of more individuals, particularly individuals who are particularly knowledgeable of the less well-known and less frequently monitored articles related to Christianity.
Speaking personally, I would be very, very gratified if we were to have this become a very, very large and active unit, with members from the broad spectrum of Christian beliefs, practices, and groups. The broader the spectrum and areas of expertise of members we have, the better we will be able to help manage the content. Please consider whether you believe you might be able to contribute in this vital area.
By John Carter
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
EdwardsBot (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 April newsletter
Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's Grapple X (submissions) remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's Casliber (submissions) was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's 
Muboshgu (submissions) coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.
65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of both Matthewedwards (submissions) and Grandiose (submissions), the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, 
Ealdgyth (submissions) earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article, 
Dana Boomer (submissions) earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by 
Stone (submissions) to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. Jarry1250 (submissions) managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.
An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions), for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)