Open main menu

WikiCup 2018 November newsletterEdit

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is   Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:

  1.   Courcelles (submissions)
  2.   Kosack (submissions)
  3.   Kees08 (submissions)
  4.   SounderBruce (submissions)
  5.   Cas Liber (submissions)
  6.   Nova Crystallis (submissions)
  7.   Iazyges (submissions)
  8.   Ceranthor (submissions)


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

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

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).

WikiCup 2019 March newsletterEdit

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

  •   L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
  •   Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
  •   MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
  •   Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
  •   Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
  •   Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. 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 keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

Billy BuddEdit

You might want to check on whether the nominating editor for Billy Budd is back from an extended Wikibreak for your review. He was doing the review for Herman Melville which is still incomplete, but he has been away for an extended Wikibreak. CodexJustin (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Try to let me know if he does not show up at Billy Budd in a reasonable amount of time. If you might like to switch over and do the assessment for Herman Melville which he already started, then I could offer to do one or two of your graphic novel nominations for you. CodexJustin (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@CodexJustin: I'd be happy to take a look. I just started another one this morning that I'd like to finish first, but it should be wrapped up in a day or two based on my previous experience with that nominator.
Do you plan to take over the Billy Bud nomination? Argento Surfer (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
He seems like a no-show on Billy Budd. Any possibility for closing Billy Budd as a no-show, and your switching over to the Melville biography in order to finish up there. Also, I am seconding your opinions and comments on Billy Budd not being ready for promotion in its current form. Is that possible for you to switch to the Melville biography? CodexJustin (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'll review the Melville article. I'm a bit behind at work, so it may be a day or two before I can take a good look at it. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll be away for much of the week-end after Saturday morning. There is no rush. Any chance that you might get to this sometime over the week-end or the coming week? CodexJustin (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@CodexJustin: Sorry for the delay. Work has unexpectedly picked up, and I haven't had time to give this the attention it needs. I still intend to do it, but I may not be able to start until Friday or next week. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Ready here to move forward to the next section of the Melville article when you are. It might be nice to make some further progress by mid-month if possible. CodexJustin (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@CodexJustin: Sorry, this has taken me much longer than I thought. If nothing else, I have a vacation coming up the third week of July, and I will commit as much time as needed to complete the review by the end of it. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Those were nice edits from you over the week-end on Melville; are things ready to restart and continue? CodexJustin (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm hoping so. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Congrats on the GA for your graphic novel nomination. I'm just checking in at mid-month to see if we are trying to get the Melville article possibly done by the end of summer. Its fine if you want to go into Autumn with an extra careful review if that's your preference and let me know if I can assist. CodexJustin (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience - I'm finally starting to climb out from under my mountain of work, and I hope to have real time to dedicate to this review soon. I feel especially bad since I'm your second flakey reviewer. :( Argento Surfer (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

HelloEdit

Thank you for the clarification. In fact, EVERY legitimate source cites Action Comics 23 as the first appearance of Luthor. Including Overstreet, CGC, CBCS, all captains of the industry, and of course DC comics itself. Nowhere and at no time do any of these mention Superman 4. The other individual attempting to edit was repeatedly attempting to add content without ANY citation. He cited something called mikesamazingworld, but even clicking through to that does not say anything near what the other individual was attempting to add to Wikipedia. In a note to me he told me to click the little magnifying glass on Mikesamazingworld which again, still did not say what he was attempting to add to Wikipedia. In fact, there is a disclaimer right there in the pop up that specifically says "publication dates are NOT release dates", in addition to release dates being "approximate". So again, the other individual is citing nothing valid, substantive, or definitive as a citation. There is not even a dispute here or confusion. If you are attempting to re-write 80 years of DC canon, and go against EVERY SINGLE AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE, you need to have something better than "Mike" and disclaimers from Mike that specifically state the OPPOSITE of what the other individual was attempting to add in.

Thanks again for taking the time to reach out to me.

Regards,

-jaydubp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydubp (talkcontribs) 18:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes that magnifying glass did have a first appearance of both Action Comics #23 and Superman #4 in sales date. Maybe Mike isn’t reliable but it cites Library of Congress either way. Quit claiming I am lying please. Also Grand Comics Database says the same thing the note too. Also my edits say that both are an original appearance in the same years date. I don’t have any agenda.Jhenderson 777 19:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

It also cited the Library of Congress but the most proper date is the newsstand date I feel. @Argento Surfer:. Can you confirm that those appearances are their newsstand dates. Jhenderson 777 19:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

"Mikesamazingworld.com", when you click on that magnifying glass, specifically states that DC did not report on sale dates to the Library of Congress prior to 1958, and that publication dates are NOT on sale dates, so nothing there supports your attempted edits either. "Mike" is using only "approximate" dates (translation: "guesswork"), which is why it is not a legitimate source for anything. Fact of the matter is, NO ONE KNOWS this info, which is why you have not and will not be able to reference a citation that says what you want it to say. Given that Overstreet, CGC, CBCS, and DC Comics itself are all united in Action Comics 23, and only Action Comics 23 as the first appearance, and you are attempting to edit Wikipedia to say things that are in direct opposition to all these comic book authorities and the company that created the character, you need something more than one guy's website with disclaimers all over it (which itself does not even say what you were trying to edit in) to try to rewrite 80 years of comic book canon. Regards,

-jaydubp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydubp (talkcontribs) 00:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Personally I want you be right. Lol I don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to me having an agenda. 😂Jhenderson 777 00:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Jaydubp (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Based on the magnitude of the edit that was attempting to be made with such little and unsupported citation, I may have jumped to an incorrect conclusion about your motives. So I apologize for the "agenda" comment. Regards- jaydubp

Please comment on Talk:Andy NgoEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Andy Ngo. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Once Upon a Time in HollywoodEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Michael JacksonEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Michael Jackson. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

New message from DBigXrayEdit

Hello, Argento Surfer. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Bradv.
Message added 07:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DBigXray 07:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for FAC helpEdit

Hello again. Apologies for the random message, but I was wondering if you could help with my current FAC? I understand if you do not have the time or interest, but I thought that I might as well ask as I greatly appreciated your feedback for my previous FACs. Either way, have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd really like to help, but I'm currently swamped with work (and I've been trying to complete a GA review since mid May!). If I don't get to this one before it's promoted/archived, please keep me in mind for future FACs. I'd like to start participating in those more often. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the response, and I completely understand. Good luck with your work and your current GA review. It is pretty awesome that you are doing a GA on such a well-known author so hats off to you for that. I will definitely keep you in mind for future FACs as I value your feedback. Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Revolver (DC Comics)Edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Revolver (DC Comics) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Haukurth -- Haukurth (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Revolver (DC Comics)Edit

The article Revolver (DC Comics) you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Revolver (DC Comics) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Haukurth -- Haukurth (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

UnfilmableEdit

I created a little stub on unfilmability. Haukur (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kodomo no JikanEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kodomo no Jikan. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

HelloEdit

This isn't my GAN, but I've noticed that you haven't commented on the Herman Melville GA review in two months. Just a heads up. Jerry (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi @JerrySa1:, I've been working on that one slowly, but not that slowly. I added a new comment July 30, and I've been tweaking it as I read as recently as August 6. I got unexpectedly busy IRL after taking this on, but the nominator and I have been communicating about it - see the section titled Billy Budd above. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Panic! at the DiscoEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Panic! at the Disco. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Ashcan copy scheduled for TFAEdit

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 22, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 22, 2019. Thanks!—Wehwalt (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Manifest (TV series)#About the Guest sectionEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Manifest (TV series)#About the Guest section. — YoungForever(talk) 17:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe filmsEdit

Please comment on Talk:ZendayaEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Zendaya. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 September newsletterEdit

The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A god SomewhereEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A god Somewhere you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Haukurth -- Haukurth (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A god SomewhereEdit

The article A god Somewhere you nominated as a good article has failed  ; see Talk:A god Somewhere for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Haukurth -- Haukurth (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I have not failed the nomination. Apparently the bot is upset that the page was moved. Haukur (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Those crazy bots. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Desmond NapolesEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Desmond Napoles. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lion Forge company logo.pngEdit

 

Thanks for uploading File:Lion Forge company logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019Edit

Hello Argento Surfer,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

Thanks for taking the time to support me at my RfA. I try hard to be constantly learning and improving as an editor and I appreciated that you share an anecdote about those qualities. Now it's just a matter of learning about a whole range of new things. I hope our wiki paths cross again soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:KornEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Korn. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Argento Surfer".