Jump to content

User:The ed17/Archives/93

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Benjamin

Hi, I'm trying to clean up from the TFA. Could you perhaps come back later to avoid edit conflicts? Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I was gruff.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: Not a problem. Sorry for not getting back to the page; my day was eaten up by this. I hope I didn't cause too many issues with the cleanup! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 September newsletter

The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Scotland Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Philadelphia Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

  1. Belarus Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
  2. Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
  3. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
  4. Somerset Harrias (submissions), second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
  5. Washington, D.C. West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
  6. Somerset Rodw (submissions), from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
  7. United States Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
  8. England Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

South American dreadnought race lead image size

Hi, I noticed that your reverted my edit to that article. (You did this manually instead of via "Undo", which means I did not get a notification…) Images should rarely, if ever, use a custom size. The article looks tidier, and the user preference is there for a reason. This image, while powerful, does not need to be blown up that much; it does not have any fine details that would justify doubling the regular thumbnail size. It looks like the whole article has increased size of images, to various degrees; if you think thumbnails are generally too small, I'd recommend pushing phab:T69709 forward rather than breaking the consistency of Wikipedia in your articles. Thanks. Matma Rex talk 09:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was comparing the differences in revision view and reverted with the old school way. First, user preferences are available to only a small percentage of overall readers, as most people do not have an account. Second, even among the account-holding population, an even smaller percentage actually choose to change them. Third, of that subset of people, not all people choose the 400px option. At this time, I don't think it's a major concern to have a 400px image in the lead. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I went shopping for some policies to back me up ;) and found that Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size says that "Lead images should usually be no wider than upright=1.35 (which is the default equivalent of 300px).". Same thing appears in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Size, with an addition of "An image should generally be no more than "upright=1.8" (defaults to 400 pixels) wide; an image can be wider if it uses the "center" or "none" options to stand alone.". I agree that the default size of the thumbs if too small (which is why I set mine to 400px, duh), but the right way to fix this issue is to change the default size, and not add customizations everywhere. Matma Rex talk 23:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
You say that there are no fine details, but with its current poor quality it needs to be larger to understand what is going on in the image. :-) I'd also like to show the detail in the other images. The issue of MoS and IUP have been discussed on the article's talk page. Until Wikipedia moves into 2015 and increases the default size, this solution is the only one that works for 99% of readers. I do apologize for what I'm sure was a surprise when you went to the page. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
It saddens me somewhat that you're unwilling to even entertain the idea of trying to get the default size changed. I guess you can stay in 1995 (or whatever year it is) :(. Matma Rex talk 14:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
@Matma Rex: I have neither the time nor wherewithal to spearhead that effort. If someone else starts it, I'd gladly support. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

People Excluded From the British Throne listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect People Excluded From the British Throne. Since you had some involvement with the People Excluded From the British Throne redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from August 2015

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in August 2015.
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 00:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

This Month in GLAM: August 2015



Headlines


  • UK report: QRpedia AWOL; RSC holds another edit-a-thon
  • Special story: New toolkit on Photo Events documents best practices, strategies and more
  • Open Access report: Wikipedia as an amplyfier; horse face recognition, rhythm perception, fossil rodent teeth
  • Wikidata report: Wikidata this month
  • Calendar: September's GLAM events



Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 15:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from August 2015

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in August 2015.
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 21:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

Beyond My Ken

I am being harassed by User: Beyond My Ken. I made a simple edit to relocate a refimprove template at Sutro Baths. BMK has not only edit warred over it,[1] but has come on my talk page to lecture me[2] and accuse me of of improperly editing.[3] He is demanding answers from me about my editing history as if he is a Wikipedia police officer. So, can you please help me with two things. First, to get this guy to stop harassing me. And, second, to please clarify if I'm incorrect when I say that the refimprove template belongs at the top of the article, and not at the bottom of the references section. I looked at the editing history of the Sutro Baths article and the template was originally added in March 2014.[4] BMK moved it in March 2015.[5] I moved it back to the top yesterday.[6] Then, the edit warring began today, with BMK insisting that the template should go in the references section, not at the top of the page. Czoal (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Czoal: Please read WP:HARASSMENT for a definition of what is meant by that term on Wikipedia. Also, you have time to complain to an admin, yet no time to respond to my argument on Talk:Sutro Baths#Template placement? That seems odd, especially after you deleted my comment on your talk page and directed me to post on the article talk page.
As for your previous editing experience, sockpuppetry by previously blocked or banned editors is a serious problem on Wikipedia. The edit summaries of your first edits ([7], [8], [9],[10],[11], [12]) indicate that you are very familiar with Wikipedia's vocabulary and processes, as does your deleting my comment from your talk page and sending me to the article talk page (something that a newbie with 15 days and 60 edits would be unlikely to know about), so asking if you had a previous account and if it was blocked or banned seems perfectly reasonable. The easiest thing would be to simply answer the question, rather than running to an admin. BMK (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't have the time to look into this, sorry. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_ed17/Archives/93&oldid=687072256"