This is an archive of past discussions with User:Juliancolton. 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.
I wake up this morning and check my watchlist. Guess whos name pops up? Low and behold I see this guy lurking around and a tinkerin and flirtin' with these two ladies Elena and Becky. Personally I think Becky might be a bit old for you, but if ya like the older gals - why not? Now being the kinda person that can't walk past a newly washed window without adding my thumb print, ya didn't really expect me to walk past a clean slate without leaving a mark didja? <cackles menacingly> How ya doin' there JC? Good to see ya still around. You can go ahead and delete this once you read it - I'm just messin' with ya'all. :-) — Ched : ? 12:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Aye, Becky has some years behind her, but it's good to get experience with the older ones before you head to the beach in the summertime chasing the wild, more relevant ones. And I've been doing some research on hurricanes too! Liking the new username... it's one of those things I thought looked odd, but couldn't be sure until I checked. Juliancolton (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Find new roads...
OK, it might be Chevy's current add slogan, but it could be a mantra for getting back into the USRD swing of things too. Welcome back! Imzadi 1979→12:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Likewise. Brought a misty tear o' memory to my eye, remembering those simpler days when I was annoyed because Julian was nominating another damn hurricane article for FAC :) Welcome back. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)19:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Tis the season for new beginnings, and tis almost the season for hurricanes! I'll try not to make you guys too jealous, if it's of any solace... Juliancolton (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Julian, I need some advice. I am thinking about requesting adminship to be able to block users at WP:AIV, help out at WP:RPP, and do some work at WP:3RR. The problem is, I am not sure if any of the Wikipedia community will support my RFA. I am aware that I have a relatively low edit count, and have only been here for a few months. Notwithstanding, I understand all the policies behind administrator actions and I feel that I am capable of handling the responsibility. So my question is: should I give RFA a shot now, or should I wait? If I should wait, how long? Thanks — nerdfighter21:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
You're off to a good start I think, but I'll be a bit blunt and start off by recommending that you wait a while. First, let me remind you that adminship is boring and a little aggravating, and RfA isn't nearly as much fun as it looks. Most of the time it's where disgruntled editors with idealized views of the universe go to pick on the guy offering to help out. I see no reason not to trust you with the tools, but I'm not confident you would pass at this time. I don't think many people pass RfA with fewer than 5,000 edits, and most have well over 10k. But the main issue is that your edits seem somewhat bloated by userspace tinkering and vandal-whacking, which aren't inherent deal-breakers, but you need extensive participation in such things as meta-discussions and debate resolution. Additionally, some more substantial article work would be great to see. But don't do any of those things just for the sake of passing RfA. Let adminship come to you. Happy Easter if you celebrate. Juliancolton (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Juliancolton (if that is your real name). I am trying to re-create the web page for my father, Pete Cummins. As you deleted in in 2009 for notability reasons, I want to know if I can access the original article, or if you can send me the text so that I can either improve it, or use it to formulate a lawsuit against someone. (joke).
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pete_Cummins
You can contact me privately on alias@proalias.com.
Have a great Easter, hopefully nobody will delete anybody you care about.
p.s. this is my favourite Wikipedia article!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inigo_Montoya
(joke) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliasrob (talk • contribs) 02:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Morning Juliancolton! I'm going to make the reasonable assumption that your name is Julian Colton, please forgive me if this is overly familiar. So I'll address you as Julian from now, if that's ok.
As there was no discussion on the deletion of the article in question (at least none that I'm aware of - if I'm wrong, please point me towards the logs/talk pages?), I'd very much like to know what the proper process is for restoring the article. My feeling is that you are essentially in a somewhat Kafkaesque position of power in this particular instance, so I shall have to either continue asking you nicely, or appeal to other admins. I'd prefer not to get into that, so if you could just provide me with the last edit of the deleted article, I'll do a rewrite and ensure that it passes notability and general quality criteria.
Hi. As I'm sure you'll understand, the deletion of the relevant article is by no means a swipe at your father himself. What happens here on WP is that there are several channels by which to request deletion of an article, and not all of them require community discussion. One such process is the WP:PROD; a user judges an article to fail some criteria for inclusion on WP, and nominates the article to be deleted. If after a week (in 2009; I believe it's five days now) nobody objects, then an uninvolved administrator is tasked to delete the batch of articles burdened with the PROD tag for the prior week. Please know that under no circumstances will I ever delete an article because of its subject matter. Now, another editor has redirected "Pete Cummins" to Fleadh Cowboys. You then have a few options: 1) you could leave it redirected and write a mean article for the band, 2) I'm allowed to undelete the article, because PRODs can be contested successfully even after deletion, or 3) I could simply email you the deleted content and you can work on it on your own time. My apologies for the somewhat delayed response – I'm just now returning from vacation. Happy Easter to you and yours. Juliancolton (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate Miyagawa (submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's Casliber (submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.
Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr (Hawkeye7 (submissions)), on the European hare (Cwmhiraeth (submissions)), on the constellation Circinus (Keilana (submissions) and Casliber (submissions)) and on the Third Epistle of John (Cerebellum (submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.
Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.
A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Juliancolton! You're invited to our next meeting for Wikipedia Meetup NYC on Sunday April 14 -this weekend- at Symposium Greek Restaurant @ 544 W 113th St (in the back room), on the Upper West Side in the Columbia University area.
WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to {{infobox road}}. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.
Hi- I have no affiliation with any business or private organization. My name was chosen as a random compilation of words because I couldn't think of one.
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) 16:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm currently undergoing a few local renames and the only one that'd being held up in on Commons. The request is here. See my user talk page on en.wiki here for details. If you have a few mins it'd be greatly appreciated! :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉12:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Hallo, I am interested in hydronymy as it looks the language of prehistoric Europe is reflected therein. I left a message on the wikiproject rivers talkpage, just looking for editors with similar interests to exchange information. I have discovered the so called old european hydronymy is not limited to Europe but has many correspondences in Iran, India and furhter away so I think this disproves the current scholarly etymological interpretations. Presently I am trying to research Bengal and Burma. Thanks for reading.Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hi, I'm Leoesb1032 and one day I hope to be an administrator for the English Wikipedia. I noticed that all of your nominations in past year and 1/2 have been successful and you yourself are an admin. I have only been only Wikipedia for a little shorter than 2 months and obviously I need more time to get a successful nomination, but I wanted to ask you what the best thing is to do to show the community of Wikipedia that you are ready to be nominated for adminship. Thanks. Leoesb1032 (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I just happened to stop by to ask Julian a favor, and I spotted your query. Hope you two don't mind if I submit my 2 cents worth to this discussion thread: Acquire experience.
Experience as a Wikipedia article editor
Experience meta-editing (pages in help and project space).
Admin-relevant experience (hang out at WP:ANI. Lurk at first, and once you have become familiar with the issues, join the discussions).
Another good way to acquire the appropriate know-how is training. Therefore, I highly recommend that you ask Julian to be your WP:MENTOR. If he accepts, wait until he thinks you are ready, and allow him the honor of nominating you. Sincerely, The Transhumanist07:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
P.S.: If you spot any embedded outlines, please let me know. – TT
Pardon me, but I couldn't help but overhear as well, and I must say, that's the spirit, Leo, aim high! I can only think to add a couple of minor pointers that might be helpful – they're nits, really:
generally, you might avoid impersonating an admin – they're really humorless about that kinda stuff. Quirky, I know, but for some odd reason, they all seem to have that same personality flaw...
another good thing to try – and I know this is asking a lot – but try to avoid getting blocked twice within a three-week period...
failing that, I'd suggest making the most of your time off by actually reading a policy or two, so that when you return from 'vacation'... oh, I dunno, maybe you could try following one of them, without gaming the system? only if you're up for it... baby steps...
Julian, between you and me, I think he might need a day or two to re-acclimate after his month is up, but then he'll be ready for that nom. Have a great day! Grollτech (talk)23:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I've run across a number of these over the years. One example is the Outline of fencing, which used to be part of the fencing article.
If you know about or spot any structured general topics lists in articles, please let me know (on my talk page).
Another thing you might find are articles that are comprised mostly of lists (without "List of" in the title). If you come across any of these, please report them to me on my talk page. I'd sure like to take a look at them.
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) 10:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Participation: Out of 30 people who have signed up for this drive so far, 18 have participated. If you have signed up for the drive but have not yet participated, it isn't too late. If you haven't signed up for the drive, sign up now!
Progress report: Thus far we have reduced the number of May/June 2012 articles to just 124 articles, so we're on the right track. Unfortunately, for the first time in GOCE history, the number of articles in the backlog has actually gone up during this drive. While all participants are currently doing a fine job, we just don't have as many of them as we have had in the past. We have over 500 editors on our mailing list, but only 18 editors who have done a copy edit for the drive. If you're receiving this newsletter, it's because you have an interest in copy editing. Join the drive! Even if you only copy edit one article, it helps. Imagine how much progress we could make if everyone chipped in just one article.
Hi there. I would very much appreciate it if you could spend ~2 minutes and take a short survey - a project trying to understand why the most active Wikipedia contributors (such as yourself) may reduce their activity, or retire. I sent you an email with details, if you did not get it please send me a wikiemail, so that I can send you an email with the survey questions. I would very much appreciate your cooperation, as you are among the most active Wikipedia editors who show a pattern of reduced activity, and thus your response would be extremely valuable. Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here12:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Juliancolton. Please check your email; you've got mail! 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.
1858 and 1859 AHS
Hi,thanks for the heads-up on that; I'll wish you good luck with those and leave them to you.
Again, thanks.
In 2009 you deleted an article with this title. Was it about a search engine by a French commercial SME Linternweb? (and if so, is there a hidden archive of it somewhere?
You already know Wikiwix, the search engine run by the web company Linterweb that gives only results out of the databases of the Wikimedia Foundation's projects.
Today, Linterweb is pleased to introduce you to My Wikiwix. My Wikiwix, thanks to the use of technologies initially developed for the searches on the Wikimedia projects with Wikiwix, allows you to have your own search engine for your own website.
Hi Timpo, hope you don't mind me responding here. Yes, that's it. Please note that the article was deleted by the WP:PROD process, which means my only involvement was to click the delete button. Consequently you don't need my permission to try reinstating the page. That said, the subject is of shaky notability near as I can tell. If you'd like, I can email you a copy of the deleted content so you can conduct your own assessment. Let me know. – Juliancolton | Talk20:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Yours is a name I haven't seen much of in a long while
Hard to believe, too; seems like yesterday that your name was everywhere.
I wanted to say I still feel right at home, but it's hard to keep up when people go changing their usernames in my absence! Thanks for the cheerful message, though. :) I'm trying to get back into the swing of things, so hopefully we'll be seeing each other around again before too long! – Juliancolton | Talk20:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's Sasata (submissions) currently leads overall, while Pool B's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today, Miyagawa (submissions), with 274 points, would be the lowest-scoring participant to make it through. This indicates that participants will need a score comparable to last year's (573, the highest ever) to qualify for the final. The high scores this year are a testament both to the quality of participants and to the increased focus on significant content (eligible for bonus points) in this year's competition. So far this round, both Sasata and Cwmhiraeth (submissions) have made up over half of their score through bonus points, with, for example, high importance FA koala earning Sasata a total of 440 points (from a multiplier of 4.4) and high-importance GA sea earning Cwmhiraeth a total of 216 points (from a multiplier of 7.2). Other articles on important topics submitted this round include a featured article on the Norman conquest of England by Ealdgyth (submissions), and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the noted Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by Piotrus (submissions), Hawkeye7 (submissions) and Sturmvogel_66 respectively.
Other than that, there is not much to report! If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
DYK RfC
As a listed DYK participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should 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|Contributions00:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
DYK RfC
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|Contributions03:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for closing the RfA. Please don't revert my addendum that I posted just after the RfA was closed because I'd like for that clarification to stand (also, I didn't know you had closed it when I pressed the save button). Happy editing and thanks for your support, AutomaticStrikeout ? 15:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
That's fine. FWIW, I think some people were being pretty unfair to you, but I'm glad I got the chance to add my support when I did. Hoping you're not too discouraged! – Juliancolton | Talk15:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, As I have some spare time available over the next few days, I thought I'd ask if you have made any progress on creating these two pages or would you be happy for me to make a start on them ? No problem, either way. Hope all is well.
14GTR (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey, sorry for leaving you hanging. I just returned from a week out-of-town. I have 1859 almost done (should be published by tonight), but by all means go ahead and start on '58. I don't have as much time for writing as I had anticipated, unfortunately. – Juliancolton | Talk15:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Juliancolton. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 13:58, 21 August 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.
Participation: Out of sixteen people who signed up for this blitz, nine copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
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) 06:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion ongoing regarding altering the naming conventions for tornado outbreak and tornado outbreak sequence articles. Please feel free to view and comment on the discussion here. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E) via User:Ks0awb22:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC) You are receiving this notice because you are listed as a member of WikiProject Severe Weather. If you would not like to receive future WikiProject Severe Weather notifications, please add your signature at User:Ks0stm/Notify list.
Please join the Wikimedia NYC Meetup on October 5, 2013! Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for education, museums, libraries and planning WikiConference USA. --Pharos (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
WikiCup 2013 September newsletter
In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice. Sasata (submissions), Hawkeye7 (submissions)—who has never participated in the competition before—and Casliber (submissions) follow. The majority of points in this round have come from a mix of good articles and bonus points. This final round is seeing contributions to a number of highly important topics; recent submissions include Phoenix (constellation) (FA by Casliber), Ernest Lawrence (GA by Hawkeye7), Pinniped, and red fox (both GAs by Sasata).
The did you know (DYK) eligibility criteria have recently changed, meaning that newly passed good articles are accepted as "new" for did you know purposes. However, in the interests of not changing the WikiCup rules mid-competition, please note that only articles eligible for DYK under the old system (that is, newly created articles or 5x expansions) will be eligible for points in this year's WikiCup. We do, however, have time to discuss how this new system will work for next year's competition; a discussion will be opened in due course. On that note, thoughts are welcome on changes you'd like to see for next year. What worked? What didn't work? What would you like to see more of? What would you like to see less of? All Wikipedians, new or old, are also warmly invited to sign up for the 2014 WikiCup.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Juliancolton. Please check your email; you've got mail! 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.— Rehman00:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I think you did a pretty poor job on closing that AFD, that should have been relisted for further discussion and I strongly believe that two of the editors there were sock puppets [[1]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The scope of AfD is to decide one of two things: whether the page in question should be deleted or maintained. It seemed unlikely that a relist would yield a consensus to delete the page outright, so otherwise it became an issue of editorial discretion. That I can't help with. – Juliancolton | Talk04:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that there is a consensus to merge these pages, but I see no clear consensus as to the merge target. Since this is still an open question being discussed on the article talk page, I would appreciate your close reflecting this state of affairs. Cheers! bd2412T04:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello there, I believe you deleted the page 4 years ago but I thought it would be a good idea to recreate the page since the company has grown in 4 years. I have also contacted Jayjg but he seems to be away for 10 days now. The more, the merrier :)
I found references that should comply with Wikipedia's notability and sources reliability guidelines. Let me know what you think :)
I'm still not seeing much in the way of significant coverage. Several of those links appear to have already been around when the article was last deleted (several of its last deletions, in fact). Other than that, things like "it had the best semester ever in the first half of 2013" say that the company seems to be doing well for itself, but that doesn't mean it's done anything groundbreaking in the field. It's not my call, obviously, but I wouldn't recreate the page if it were me. – Juliancolton | Talk17:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Juliancolton- I applied a more radical crop to bring the image into a landscape format (I agree, the square was not right). It may still not be right for FP... Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
About three or four days now. :) Not sure if I'll stay motivated to edit, but I am getting a bit sucked in again. Thanks for the message, good to see a familiar name! – Juliancolton | Talk23:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Could you undelete the page for the band Funkshone please, as I have more information to add to the article to show the band's significance? ClareGC (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Are you certain the information is both relevant and backed up by reliable, secondary sources? If so, I can either provide you with a copy of the deleted content for you to work on in your own time, or you can issue an appeal to deletion review. Articles deleted via AfD aren't usually undeleted on request. – Juliancolton | Talk23:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'm certain I have relevant further information, and yes, it's backed up by reliable sources. Funkshone are a well-known, well-documented and significant band. Would it be possible for you to look back at the page to decide whether it was reasonable for someone to add the speedy deletion tag in the first place? If the deletion can't be reversed, yes please can I have a copy of the data, while I appeal it. Thanks for the link and the information. ClareGC (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't speedy deleted (at least for its most recent deletion); it had a legitimate AfD, which, although a bit short on participation, was unanimous in deciding the band has very little real-world coverage. I've copied the deleted content to User:ClareGC/Sandbox. – Juliancolton | Talk15:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Funkshone. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ClareGC (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Deletion of World Bioenergy Association
Hi, I notice you have deleted the article World Bioenergy Association due to G11 and G12 (Copyright and Promotion) reasons. I am very new to Wikipedia and I really need some help adding this organisation as it is very important in the international bioenergy industry (It is a member of the REN Alliance and attends United Nations meetings. Can you give me some advice on how to ensure the page is not deleted when I add it again? Best {AndrewEPotter (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)}
Andrew, I think it's crucial that you understand Wikipedia almost always disallows editing of articles relating to organizations by people affiliated with the groups (in other words, a conflict of interest). Even if the World Bioenergy Association is a notable topic covered by plenty of reliable, independent sources, it still gives readers the wrong idea when they see the page was created by someone working for the group. That said, the article in its did not establish notability or provide any secondary sources. As a result, it failed numerous fundamental content policies. Further, the content seems to have been copied word-for-word from another website, which is blatant plagiarism (even if you wrote the original text, which is possible). Additionally—and I'm not trying to intimidate you—admins here are encouraged to block "single purpose accounts", created for the sole purpose of pushing an agenda. At the moment, it seems your contributions are exclusively related to your organization. I won't be the one to block you, but it's something to be mindful of.
Personally, I wouldn't recommend trying to recreate the page in question. If you absolutely must get a second opinion, try starting over within the confines of articles for creation, where you can work in your own time and ask a more experienced editor to decide whether it meets our criteria for inclusion. Like I said, you need to prove that the group is notable by incorporating multiple credible sources. – Juliancolton | Talk19:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Julian for your explanation, you are correct that I signed up for the sole purpose of creating this article! However I have every intention of continuing to contribute after this page has been created. I created the original article by copying and pasting the 'About Us' page on our website, which I believed was impartial and factual. I have no agenda by creating this article I can assure you as the WBA is a non-profit NGO, as are all the other members of the Renewable Energy Alliance (all of whom have Wiki pages). We work at the highest levels of renewable energy policy including the IPCC, EU, COP, UN etc and our work is referenced by reputable institutions including Cambridge University. Here are some links which might help you understand who the WBA are.
http://www.un-ngls.org/spip.php?page=agsp&id_article=3326 (United Nations Non Governmental Liason Service)
http://www.bioenergy.cam.ac.uk/news/++contextportlets++plone.rightcolumn/bioenergy-news-around-the-world/full_feed (Cambridge University)
http://www.bioenergytrade.org/downloads/kent-wba-and-iea-side-event.pdf (Biotrade IEA event briefing)
http://ren-alliance.invotech.se/ (REN Alliance website with links to latest United Nations Press Briefing)
I think it is important that the WBA is easily found through Wikipedia as the work we do does have important implications on future energy policy. Best {AndrewEPotter (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)}
I don't doubt the validity of your group, I just need to make sure all new articles meet certain academic requirement. I obviously can't stop you from trying your luck at articles for creation (AFC)—the standard venue for editors with a potential COI—but the article is unlikely to be published I'm afraid. I do understand and empathize with your position, but unfortunately anybody who feels obligated to use "we" instead of "I" when posting is probably not going to concur with the aim of Wikipedia. – Juliancolton | Talk03:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
It's ok I understand, however it does suggest in the 'first article' section to be entirely honest about if you are affiliated with the organisation when submitting the article. I have nothing to hide by creating the page as the information contained will be facts regarding the WBA and nothing more. If I sent to you a draft of the page, would you be able to suggest a person who might be able to create it? Is this a possibility? Best {AndrewEPotter (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)}
I read your message left on my talk page. I understand that my reporting probably needs to be more relaxed and less harsh. Thank you for telling me that I needed to be less strict in my patrolling. It seems that my anti-vandal activities have been somewhat lacking as of late. I'll take a break from it and spend some time doing other duties (welcoming users, looking at some of the other noticeboards, RFCs, etc). Admiral Caius (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Sounds great, thanks for taking my advice to heart. I hate to criticize the folks doing tedious maintenance work, but it's important we don't scare off new users with even a chance of becoming productive contributors. Regards, – Juliancolton | Talk18:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I need the refs I found in order to merge some content
I unfortunately did not keep a copy of the four RS refs I found for Light Hawk Wings in order to merge at least some of the content into one or more other articles. Both because I don't read Japanese and because most English RS refs are hidden away only in Internet archival sites, those refs took effort to find (much more effort than if the refs were looked for ten years ago). Is there a way to get them back? VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The nature of the topic (and the name itself) isn't enough ground for protection. Well, there was persistent vandalism, but that was five years ago. Since then, I see such improvements, and we can give IPs a chance to edit constructively. If unprotection is too soon, perhaps either level-one or level-two PC instead? --George Ho (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
(Protection log); 14:30 . . Juliancolton (talk | contribs) removed protection from "Lolcat" (going on five years now. lolcats are no longer cool so things should be quieter)
In past Backlog Drives, the goal was to reduce the backlog of Good article nominations. In the upcoming drive, another goal will be added - raising as much money as we can for the Wikimedia Foundation. How will this work? Well, its pretty simple. Any user interested in donating can submit a pledge at the Backlog Drive page (linked above). The pledge should mention the amount of money the user is willing to donate per review. For example, if a user pledges 5 cents per review and 100 nominations are reviewed, the total donation amount is $5.00.
At the time this message was sent out, two users have submitted pledges for a total of 8 cents per review. All pledges, no matter how much money, are greatly appreciated. Also, in no way is this saying you must make a pledge.
Offensive user name have been, and should be, removed regardless of edits. I understand the requirement for promo names, and Twinkle even mentions that they need to edit to be reported. But it is untenable to suggest that be the case for such offensive names. I will take this up with another admins who typically does the UAA list. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
No, they're usually not, actually. I'm not particularly offended by your most recent reports, either. People will always be creating questionable usernames at all hours, and it's simply pointless to try catching each and every one of them. Again, I ask that you please limit your UAA reports to users actually creating problems. – Juliancolton | Talk22:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I am asking for a second opinion. I have seen accounts blocked without edits for offensive names quite a few times. Though there are accounts created at all hours, there are users monitoring the log at all hours too. I would be fine with a UAA|no or something and left it on the board if you felt it was not considered offensive as others have done many times in the past, but to remove it for lack of edits solely is nonsensical. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The noticeboard is almost perpetually backlogged, and was severely so at the time. Nothing "nonsensical" about trying to clear a backlog. I could have spammed the page with identical templates, sure, but I figured between my edit summary and my personal note, you would get the same information. – Juliancolton | Talk22:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Evergreen, now that I have a bit more time, I'd like to explain my thought process. If you're truly offended by a given username, and you believe others would be as well, then presumably you'd want to minimize the amount of "air time" the name is given. At its core, that's what blocking for username violations is: an attempt to contain the edits made by an account with an offensive, promotional, or confusing name. However, when somebody creates an account with a questionable name ("Gaypotatoes", for discussion's sake), and then never edits, the name is gone, buried under heaves of logs and likely never to be seen again. Nobody sees the name, so nobody has the chance to be offended by it (save perhaps a few patrollers, who, by their nature, are thick-skinned to start with). What you've done with a few names similar to Gaypotatoes is report them to UAA, which exposes the names to hundreds of watchlists and recent changes feeds. If an admin were to block it, the name would now be in several additional logs. Gaypotatoes would have gone unnoticed but for the fact it was reported, blocked, and notified, and the only thing different after being blocked is that the name has now been seen by dozens of people. The name is not "removed", it's simply technically oppressed. Do you see my concern? – Juliancolton | Talk23:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Juliancolton. You have new messages at Drm310's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi, I don't think we've interacted before and I'd like a direct appraisal of RfA adminship probability and where to improve if you have the time. You are listed on the RfA page as a willing nominator so I am requesting an evaluation at this point. I don't think my recent activity is long enough as I took time off when my twins were born. Here's the relevant tool box scores. I'd fix the templates if I had edit permission to templates as the rfplinks template has a better counter than the user templates (tparis vs xtools) which are off by a few weeks so ignore the "assign permissions" link. Not substantial difference though.
Well, this isn't an in-depth analysis, but I do have a few initial impressions. First, you're right in that your activity the past few years has been slim (but increasing, which is a good sign). I'm not faulting you by any means, and in fact I commend you for taking time to focus on more important issues. That said, you did ask for an evaluation of your odds at RfA, so it's unlikely you'll pass within the next few months for the very fact that you've only made a few hundred edits in the past several years. You do clearly know your way around (lots of participation in AfD, both before and after your extended break), so I'm guessing you should already be up to speed with changes to policy since ~2008. I'm seeing good edit summary usage for the article space (it doesn't matter so much elsewhere), quick responses to users you've engaged in discussion, and good participation in several namespaces. I did come across this, which is a pretty clear misuse of the rollback feature, and it is concerning. I'm hoping it was a one-off mistake and you usually approach disputes more cautiously. Overall, I think if you keep doing what you're doing, you have a good shot. Realistically, I would suggest plugging away for another six or eight months—bringing your activity back up to consistent levels. I suspect you already knew that, though. Let me know if you'd like clarification on anything I said. Best, – Juliancolton | Talk05:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually I would be hard pressed to quantify the changes to policy since 2008. Biggest change around that time was BLP and that seems to still be the case. Tolerance of incivility of long-time content builders has increased quite a bit but that's more of a thick skin of the community developing. "Uninvolved" is still the same written policy but it's more strictly adhered for article protection and is used more frequently to end edit warring rather than 3RR blocks. Probably the biggest change is the first administrative "undo" is not a wheel-war action which has led to the tolerance of incivility as blocks can be undone once with no repercussions regarding wheel-war. The underlying principle that blocks are used to end disruption hasn't changed though. MoS vs. policy has evolved a bit. The rollbacker use was a response to the edit summary/revert by that editor which mislabeled my edit as vandalism. I think I left a talk page comment immediately explaining it wasn't vandalism after rollback here. I normally don't use it as it doesn't have edit summaries and probably have done a minor revert of that single edit with an explanation since rollbacker didn't provide anything more than a simple undo. In 6 months it will most likely still be one of my last use of rollback so it will probably still show up in logs but it's not a feature I use often except for obvious multi-edit vandalism by IPs. Sometimes misleading edit summaries that don't match the edit will trigger it but that was an established editor and rollbacker offered no advantage over an undo. "Restore this version" is usually just as easy as rollbacker since I have to a multi-edit diff anyway. I'll keep plugging for a few months or so and ping again. Thanks for your feedback! --DHeyward (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
AFD Closure - Good call
Here's pat on the back for closing the Reich AFD. It was a lengthy discussion and strong, passionate arguments were offered on both sides. I appreciate that you did more than just count heads. You looked at the reasoning and came to a very sound conclusion. Good job! JodyBtalk23:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! It was actually a pretty easy decision, but longer AfDs are naturally more daunting to close. I'm a bit surprised (pleasantly so!) that nobody has objected to how it ended. Thanks for the message, and enjoy the rest of your Thanksgiving if you're celebrating. – Juliancolton | Talk02:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I noticed your closing rationale expresses a statement about the discussion being hijacked, and that you feel that the article may not benefit WIkipedia. Surely that means you should have opined in the discussion rather than close it? May I please request that you revisit the closure? FiddleFaddle21:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure you understand that everything is done on a volunteer basis here. I've closed thousands of AfDs but rarely vote in them, as I consider myself better at gauging consensus than facilitating it. The discussion had been open for two weeks with very little legitimate participation, but at least two long-term users opposed deletion, even if "weak"ly. I don't know how it could have been closed any other way. – Juliancolton | Talk22:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Of course everything is done on a volunteer basis. Were I an administrator analysing such a discussion I would see my duties to inspect the consensus and to inspect the article for both consistency with any consensus and for compliance with our policies. Where a discussion has been hijacked and packed then we know it is not a ballot and thus I expect those opinions to be compressed. I also believe that the administrator has the duty to interpret policies and to decide accordingly.
My belief is that the article does not comply with our policies, and thus should be deleted, the more so since it is a mishmash of primary sources, COI and self promotion. I'd appreciate your further thoughts, please, the more so since your words in the closure imply that you feel that the article has no place here. FiddleFaddle22:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure you feel that way, seeing as you were the nominator. :) You're free to take it to DRV, but I have every reason to believe they would uphold my decision. It's not so much the closing admin's job to inspect the article as it is to scrutinize the arguments presented. Using your best judgement is one thing, but it is another altogether to find consensus where there is none. I have no strong opinion as to the article's fate, and you'll notice that I didn't claim to have one in my closing statement either. Failing DRV, let the professor and his students get bored with it, and initiate another discussion in a few weeks. – Juliancolton | Talk22:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
DRV is a pain in the fundament for all concerned. I prefer the latter course. It is also a possibility, albeit remote, that they will find some notability for it. The entire thing was a coatrack for one of their published papers. FiddleFaddle22:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Admins get AWB automatically
Hello Julian. Regarding this edit, you don't need to put your name in the list. As an admin you have access anyway. There is a bot which takes out admin names. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand, but I was having some trouble running AWB and figured maybe that would help kick-start it (it didn't). Thanks for the note. – Juliancolton | Talk05:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cyclone Sose 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 12george1 -- 12george1(talk)14:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if I'm describing this correctly, but for me, if I get into the search results (not the results appearing below the search box) for "file:tilde" (no file extension), the first result is File:Anus.jpg. George8211what did I break now?09:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean. I honestly have no idea what causes that. If I had to guess, I'd say the software interprets tilde as the actual ~ and somehow mucks up the search results, but I have no idea. I would advise not to search that anymore. :) Sorry I can't be of more help. – Juliancolton | Talk15:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Vedontakal Vrop. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Whpq (talk) 11:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
AFD for Vedontakal Vrop
I'm a bit confused by this closure. While on a purely vote-counting stance there appears to be no consensus, the arguments advanced by the deletion side are so clearly superior that it seems impossible to conclude that the article should remain in place. How much less notable does a subject have to be to get deleted than the existence of no sources beyond a single student paper from India? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
The arguments may have been stronger, I agree, but consensus is hardly dictated by which arguments I've decided happen to be my favorite. If your side was truly "clearly superior"—to the point where any idiot could see that—I'd be more inclined to take some liberties. For better or worse, though, there was simply no consensus for deletion, and although merging was brought up as a viable option, there was no widespread agreement for that either. It was relisted once, and the discussion didn't take any particular turns. I hate to be blunt, as I understand how frustrating it can be to cut through the bureaucracy in the interest of refining content, but I'm not sure I have much else to say. With respect, – Juliancolton | Talk22:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Which ones were not valid, for very strict interpretations of validity? My reasoning is very simply that I felt consensus was not strong enough in favor of deletion for me to close the discussion as such. Was it borderline? Probably, but it's up to the closing admin to use their best judgement. I'm sorry you disagree with the end result, but I don't see how it could have been closed any other way. – Juliancolton | Talk02:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I see two other editors have already made a visit here. I think this needs additional eyes. I am listing this for deletion review. -- Whpq (talk) 11:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
It's probably worth pointing out that both of those editors voiced their opinions in the AfD, so it's no surprise they disagree with a decision contrary to their desired outcome. – Juliancolton | Talk13:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed that they disagree with the decision, but I'm the third editor that is questioning the outcome. That strikes me as a little out ordinary. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Just noticed something called "socks". This guy seems to own 5 accounts illegally, all of which have been filed under a category but no action has been taken. Ethically(Yours)16:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cyclone Lua 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 Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink(talk)22:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Reich (2nd nomination)
I was watching this with interest but got sideswiped with other stuff and didn't have time to participate, but I just wanted to say it was a superb close. I don't get to see that level of measure, logic and adherence to policies very often in difficult AFDs, especially negative BLPs. And I know you guys are almost always unappreciated and maligned as it is because someone invariably is always not happy with the results Cheers! §FreeRangeFrogcroak20:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! I appreciate the acknowledgement and endorsement. :) It's weird how these things work. Sometimes people give me grief for what should have been the most mundane and straightforward decisions, but a few of the more passionate debates (this one included) go unquestioned. Such is the internet! Best, – Juliancolton | Talk20:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm reaching out to you as the admin who relisted the debate. I have already tried talking to the nominating editor, but he appears busy. I am concerned because the article text is a verbatim copy of his entry in the Grove Dictionary of Art, a copyrighted book/scholarly website. I thought about bringing it to WP:CP, but doing so during an AfD listing seemed counterproductive. What is your recommendation? Thanks. --Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)17:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
If you can prove the text is similar enough (any links available?), it should be speedily deleted. The content of the article is identical to when it was created, but it has been wikified beyond recognition to look legitimate. Thanks for bringing this up. – Juliancolton | Talk20:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The Grove online is an EBSCOhost database so it is always behind paywalls. I can quote a short section, I suppose:
Notable later restorations include the 17th-century monastery church (1943-4) at Iasi, the church (1963-70) at Cetatea Neamtului, and the monasteries at Moldovita (1966-70) and Horezu (1961-75). He also undertook extensive works at the ancient city of Alba Iulia, restoring the Assembly Hall (1967-8) at the Babilon Barracks, the Orthodox Cathedral (1967-71) and the 13th-century Roman Catholic Cathedral (1967-75).
Hi. I'm wondering if your issues with the nomination have been fixed. Its been at GTC for over three months and has still not gained a consensus yet. GamerPro6400:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Using an editor’s absence of Featured Article activity in an attempt to disparage their contribution in a discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with content but which has much to do with Administrator’s failing to do the job they were selected for (upholding policy) was inappropriate. Leaky Caldron17:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I figured you'd be around here. Your combative behavior toward "the current admins" was far less appropriate than my illustration of relevant facts. I have no obligation to block anybody I don't want to block. Fortunately, admins are humans selected for their supposedly sound judgement, and not machines tasked with blindly carrying out logged actions. I explained why I didn't think blocking Eric is a viable option (just look at his block log if you want further proof), and also why I think he is, in spite of his sharp tongue, a valuable contributor. For some reason you've taken it upon yourself to hold the participating admins accountable for the issues at hand. I'm not going to tolerate being made to look weak or wavering by someone who doesn't wish to even hear out my opinion. – Juliancolton | Talk17:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
You illustrated nothing but your own hypocrisy (your words) and contempt for editors who do not contribute content to your level. I did "hear out" your opinion. I expressed my opinion on it. You didn't like it and challenged it like a school bully; by superiority, demeaning and drawing wholly inappropriate comparisons. Leaky Caldron17:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I have no contempt for people who don't contribute content to my level, as this comment from just under two days ago shows quite clearly. My issue is with you calling me out for no apparent reason other than my failure to endorse your crusade. I think we concur on quite a bit with regard to that ANI thread, actually, but you've taken the militant route. – Juliancolton | Talk17:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
This, aimed at me: " I don't see your name anywhere on WP:WBFAN, so I guess it makes sense that you have no experience working with our content contributors." a blatant attempt to prove a point by drawing attention to a perceived weakness or lack of comparable ability. It is a classic fallacy based on presumption and amounts to a gross violation of WP:AGF as well as being Ad hominem. Of course, as an Admin. you would know that when you stated it and it should be removed. I have no idea what "crusade" you believe I am seeking endorsement for and even less, what common ground you think we have in that discussion. Leaky Caldron18:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I have no reason to argue over the minutiae of our respective comments. I've nothing more to say. Sorry you feel so strongly that I acted inappropriately, but I think you ought to reconsider your own position as well. – Juliancolton | Talk18:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
This [2] says more than I could. Again, you openly ridicule an editor over his minor spelling error, ignoring you own incoherent opening sentence, "What all did I admit to being confused about?. Are WP:FA standards as bad as this? Seriously, you need to get a grip. Leaky Caldron19:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Your obsession with me is growing a bit unnerving. I wish you well, and ask you to please leave me alone, unless you have something constructive you'd like to discuss; I'd be more than happy to work with you for the betterment of the project. – Juliancolton | Talk19:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Can I recommend you read WP:PA - a policy? "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." is a personal attack - WP:WIAPA. Never accuse me of being obsessed with you without unambiguous evidence when all I am doing is seeking an apology and retraction of your original PA. It is not funny and any attempt at sarcasm misses the mark. Repeat your silly accusation and I will take the matter to WP:ANI. Seriously. Leaky Caldron19:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seraphine maternity as delete. Indeed the vote count favors delete, but I'm confused in that the delete votes almost entirely rested on WP:ONEEVENT and its counterparts which I showed to be inaccurate given coverage for other reasons from the previous year. Puzzlingly, people didn't seem to read that part and continued to claim one event. I was hoping whoever closed it would determine based on the merits of the arguments that it was at least worth a no consensus. --— Rhododendritestalk | 02:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Unfortunately I did not arrive at that same conclusion. Consensus is first and foremost about agreement amongst users, and if enough people agree that the article fails to meet certain guidelines—regardless of whether it is technically true—the closing admin has no option but to follow the community's advice. You'll note that only the nominator invoked the ONEEVENT allcaps link; the rest of the editors supporting deletion claimed that the article did not meet broad notability requirements. I have no opinion on the article personally, but there was simply no other way to close that discussion. Regards, – Juliancolton | Talk02:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Only one person linked to it, but the only delete vote that didn't present it that way limited their input to "Delete on second look." The four others (quoting only part): "Not everyone who makes an item of clothing worbn by the Royal family is notable", "I do not think we normally accept being a royal warrant holder as conferring notability", "I personally am not of the opinion that being worn by The Duchess of Cambridge and having press surround it makes a particular brand notable," and "article sources do not meet the requirement at WP:CORPDEPTH and has a one event type feel to it." (And for the last we can probably assume the "one event type feel" (and corresponding skip over the other sources) influenced corpdepth failure). So they didn't link to it, but it was the dominant, and frequently only argument.
I guess my understanding of consensus is a little unnuanced, taking at face value this line from the wp:consensus article: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."
Is this a more appropriate subject for deletion review? I don't want to misuse your talk page by moving a closed deletion discussion here if it's not appropriate to do so. --— Rhododendritestalk | 03:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
You could always bring it to WP:DRV, but I have no reason to believe the decision would be overturned. For better or worse, the closing admin does not have the authority to cherry-pick arguments based on which ones he or she agrees with. Consensus, by every sense of the word, was clear; the arguments for deletion may be imperfect, but they do seem to prevail. – Juliancolton | Talk04:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that you tagged the above name as possibly inappropriate. Obviously, as an admin, you could have just blocked. I'm guessing that you tagged to see what they'd say before making a decision. So, if they never reply, what's the plan? I'm asking this to get feedback so I know how to handle these when they sit for a week or so.
Also, on ones that seem okay, when removing the category, I'm thinking of dropping a note to let the tagger and the user know that it's resolved. Please feel free to comment or modify: User:Anna Frodesiak/White sandbox
I think what happened there was that I was trying to clear a UAA backlog, and got two different reports mixed up. Another admin already placed the {{UAA|wait}}, but mistakenly I thought the user had already edited, and templatespammed them as a result. I quickly realized my error, but figured it wasn't worth going back and removing the template. It gets a bit muddy when you're dealing with borderline-ish names tied to accounts with no edits (the one in question is most likely vulgar, but there are other possibilities). Normally I would have gone along with the decision to wait for any activity before blocking. More generally, I'm of the opinion that if a potentially problematic name that isn't really hurting anyone goes a week or more without starting to edit, it does more harm than good to block it at that point, and it's best to let it fall through the cracks. As for your notification draft, I think it's a great idea overall. The fourth option seems worded most clearly to me, if that's of any help. Thanks for the message, sorry for the confusion, and keep up the good work. – Juliancolton | Talk14:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Julian,
The tagging of that particular account isn't really a concern to me. I just used it as an example. I have no objections.
I'm grateful for your feedback on what to do with possibly inappropriate names. That's really been on my mind. When you say "let it fall through the cracks", do you mean not block and remove the category as well? If so, and if no note is posted saying the category is removed, then won't it really, really fall through the cracks? I mean, will objectors notice the category gone? Won't they see the notice, and think that we're keeping an eye on it? With the accountholder carrying on, fellow editors who visit the talk page seeing the notice and thinking we are aware of it, won't the accountholder be able to just edit indefinitely? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey. I don't think it's particularly pressing, but you're right, it is probably a good idea. Blanking is still within the realm of a closing admin's authority (in my opinion, at least), so I'll get on that now. – Juliancolton | Talk15:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cyclone Bonita 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 Cloudchased -- Cloudchased(talk)03:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The December blitz ran from December 8–14. The theme for this blitz was articles tied in some way to religion. Seven editors knocked out 20 articles over the course of the week. Our next blitz will be in February, with a theme to be determined. Feel free to make theme suggestions at the Guild talk page!
The January 2014 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on January 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on January 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in October and November 2012 and complete all requests placed before the end of 2013. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in October and November 2012", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there!
Coordinator election: Voting is open for candidates to serve as GOCE coordinators from 1 January through 30 June 2014. Voting will run until the end of December. For complete information, please have a look at the election page.
Hello Juliancolton, and welcome to the 2014 WikiCup! Your submission page can be found here. The competition will begin at midnight tonight (UTC). There have been a few small changes from last year; the rules can be read in full at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, and the page also includes a summary of changes. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work, and nominated, in 2014 is eligible for points in the competition- the judges will be checking! As ever, this year's competition includes some younger editors. If you are a younger editor, you are certainly welcome, but we have written an advice page at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Advice for younger editors for you. Please do take a look. Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! J Milburn (talk·contribs), The ed17 (talk·contribs) and Miyagawa (talk·contribs) 17:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello Juliancolton: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BusterD (talk) 06:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
As closer of AfD one
I just want to notify you of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SORCER (2nd nomination) since you were the closer of the first discussion. I invite you to comment or not at your sole discretion. You will wish to make a judgment on whether things have changed since you were kind enough to make the initial closure. The second nomination is by no means a criticism of your closure, and nothing in it should be read as such. FiddleFaddle19:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I was allowed 40 minutes' notice. When I logged in, it was over. The apparent canvasser should have notified me early enough in the process to discuss it. A PROD normally is for 7 days.
Speedy G10 appears not to even come close to applying to the deceased or where rape is itself an important policy issue and people coming forward to discuss their own experiences is an important part of prioritizing the public policy debate.
The nominator said there were no criteria, but there were, stated in a comment visible in the edit mode. It contained an error I should have seen before (the second "still living" should have been "not living"), but that error produced an internal contradiction that could have raised a question and could have been corrected without deletion.
BLP does not apply to the deceased. The risk of adding people who are alive was addressed in the comment with "Do NOT include rape survivors or victims who are still living". It was also addressed on the talk page.
Some rape survivors have come forward specifically because they want people to know of it, such as to educate the public about why rape is important or that rape takes different forms or has different motives not always recognized.
Notability was established in each case with the linked-to article already existing for each person, whether the rape was alone the reason for notability or many other reasons applied, and the comment in edit mode also addressed that with additional caution.
All were sourceable, since each one was linked to an article that cited one or more sources. I had planned to copy those citations in response to a concern on that point, although no one knew of my plan, the concern having been recently raised.
Exhaustiveness is not necessary or likely. More than 7 names would have been a good idea but we're unlikely to list even all those who are so described in Wikipedia. Reasonable criteria would have been fine, and some were already present.
The fictional rapes are already reported in Wikipedia and some of them also raise important public policy questions, such as when, by my understanding, one video game gave rape as a reward and that became a subject for public debate some years ago. The fictional rapes listed were in a separate section and I think we trust readers to understand that sectioning is a separation.
One vote gave no reason.
Academic integrity is generally advanced by publishing even if what is published is awful. If there have been improvements in societal responses to rape in recent decades, it is because of publication that, in the U.S., included some names. Not everyone can make that choice without risking their lives, such as where an accusation of rape is interpreted as an admission of adultery followed by a sentence of death or where a mother accusing a father of raping their child can lead to her being judicially declared unfit to be a mother and the child moved into the father's custody, but this list was not about the living.
You read the consensus correctly except for my not being given reasonable time to respond in a nonspeedy case and therefore to attempt to persuade participants and even possibly to widen the discussion group beyond the range of the apparent initiating canvass. Thus, the result could well have been quite the opposite.
I'm interested in knowing of additional editorial criteria that would help to resolve the issue of including some modern nonliving people who should not be included.
The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer Godot13 (submissions), whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:
Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.
Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The March 2014 backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles in need of copyediting. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copyedit all articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and to complete all requests placed in January 2014. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copyedits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: number of articles, number of words, number of articles over 5,000 words, number of articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and the longest article. We hope to see you there!
It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:
This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.
Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.
More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.
I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!
hurricanes
Thank you for quality articles on hurricanes, writing, collaborating, copy-editing, such as 1910 Cuba hurricane1941 Florida hurricane, Typhoon Chataan ..., and for "your efforts to extend and improve the communication levels of Wikipedia", - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (4 February 2009, 23 March 2009, 1 April 2009)!
And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:
Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
Hahc21 (submissions), who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions), who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.
After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.
If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
This may be a silly question, but why not just edit from your main account which already has all those rights? Usually people create secondary accounts for mobile editing when they want to avoid accidentally hitting rollback/admin buttons and such. I could well be missing something, though, seeing as I've been out of the loop for a while. – Juliancolton | Talk22:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Mainly cause it's probably better then IP editing from a mobile device. I hadn't considered the otherside of that and I DO have fat fingers. I'll think about it a little more cause that is a good point ! Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.
With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Participation: Thanks to all who participated in the drive and helped out behind the scenes. 42 people signed up for this drive and 28 of these completed at least one article. Final results are available here.
Progress report: Articles tagged during the target months of December 2012 and January 2013 were reduced from 177 to 33, and the overall backlog was reduced by 13 articles. The total backlog was 2,902 articles at the end of March. On the Requests page during March, 26 copy edit requests were completed, all requests from January 2014 were completed, and the length of the queue was reduced by 11 articles.
Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Wikipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!
It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:
Participation: Out of 17 people who signed up for this blitz, eight copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
It's certainly an interesting theory, but near as I can tell no credible hurricane experts were involved in the study, so I think it's best to wait before incorporating it into our articles (especially since the TC naming article is relevant worldwide, where the female/male name thing only pertains to the Atlantic). I could see discussing it briefly in a potential page along the lines of Public response to hurricane warnings, which might touch on the various reasons people ignore evacuation orders. Thanks for understanding, and I'd love to hear your thoughts regarding that redlink. – Juliancolton | Talk20:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Participation: Thanks to all who participated! Out of 51 people who signed up this drive, 33 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
Progress report: We reduced our article backlog from 2,987 articles to 2,236 articles in May, the lowest backlog total since we began keeping records in 2009! Since at least 300 new articles were tagged during May, that means we copy edited over 1,000 articles in a single month. Amazing work, everyone!
Blitz: The June blitz will run from June 15–21. This blitz's theme is Politics. Sign up here.
Election: You can nominate yourself or others for the role of Coordinator for the second half of 2014 here. Nominations will be accepted until June 14. Voting will begin on June 15 and will conclude on June 28.
_by_Ron.jpg)
.jpg)
