User talk:AmritasyaPutra/Archive 2016

Copyright

It is acceptable to use copyrighted text in some limited circumstances - see Wikipedia:Non-free content. Quotations are part of this, and it is sometimes OK to use them. However there are restrictions - in particular they have to be brief and not used excessively. It certainly isn't true, as you were told on that article talk page, that if it is within quotemarks and the source is given it is not a copyrightsviolation (and I'm happy to say so on the article talk page if you want me to). Personally I think that the use of quotations from copyrighted sources in that article is excessive, as there are several sections comprised entirely of quotations. Hut 8.5 19:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It is of course true that you cannot site an entire book or large amounts of text and just put it within quotemarks. But when dealing with normal quotes it is a question of judgment whether they are too long. And it is not the case that if you think a quote is too long you can simply remove it quoting copyvio and bully people who put it back in with the copyrights policy. That is not how the copyrights policy works, or how it is implemented. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, AmritasyaPutra made a mistake in immediately removing the material as blatant copyvio, but that looks like a good faith mistake - s/he thought that copying text from copyrighted sources was always copyvio and didn't know about the exemptions allowing limited use of copyrighted content. If this material had been a blatant copyvio, then removing it immediately would have been the best course of action. On the other hand statements like if it is within quotemarks and the source is given it is not a copyrightsviolation or This thing is a quote, presented as a quote. There's no copyvio here are unhelpful because they ignore the fact that Wikipedia has hefty restrictions on the use of non-free content within articles. Yes, there is an element of judgement in deciding whether a quote is too long, but this article has entire sections consisting predominantly of paragraph-length quotations from copyrighted sources, which is excessive (the standard is a lot less than "an entire book"). The article needs work to replace these quotations with original text. Non-free content compliance is taken rather seriously here. Hut 8.5 17:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You should of course consider it a goodfaith mistake. I however am acquainted with AmritasyaPutra's editing over a longer period and can n longer assume good faith on their behalf. They are not here to improve the encyclopedia, but to enforce a particular way of looking at the world and removing anything that is critical of it. No one is claiming the article is good or that it doesnt rely too much on quotes - but fixing that does not work by inventing bogus reasons for selectively removing the parts of the article that a given editor with a pov happens not to like.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hut 8.5, perhaps I was a little abrupt in that statement of mine; if you had been acquainted with AmritasyaPutra's behavior, I think you would better understand what motivated that statement. Of course I understand that long quotes are unacceptable with or without attribution; in the 50 or so articles I have written or rewritten, I have not once used blockquotes, for that very reason. The quote as used in the page in question wasn't, IMO, long enough for that concern to be relevant. The quotations in that article are most certainly excessive. As Maunus says, what I was objecting to was an attempt at white-washing using copyvios as an excuse. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm not familiar with AmritasyaPutra's editing history or the subject matter of this article, and I don't have any desire to get sucked into contentious disputes over either, so I'll refrain from commenting on that. It sounds like everyone agrees that parts of the article use quotations excessively though, so I'd suggest that the best course of action is for all parties to work towards fixing that issue. Hut 8.5 20:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Hut 8.5, I posted on talk page. I waited. I edited. I was reverted immediately without talk page remark. I explained myself again. On my talk page too, instead of content, here is continued attack on me rather discussion on content and you can see that the content has yet again been reverted though Maunus also accepted it should not go back in without tweaks. I think I do understand what bullying means and I can see it happening here and would like intervention. Joshua Jonathan you also know it is extremely close paraphrasing and extremely long and the sources are primary. And the argument are revolving personal remarks about me and not the content. User:Hut 8.5, Would you mind checking my editing history and validate their accusations, please do consider their response in any interaction too, take my hard arguments in the light of continued personal remarks and accusation from them? --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I read the part, and I don't understand why you removed the whole section, and not just the quote, or summarised the quote. Also, accusations of copy-vio were a favorite instrument of OZ/Blades; I tend to think that (mis)using this argument should be reason for caution, if not sanctions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan then put back relevant part not whole section like you also admit? Don't you see the irony? I think we all agreed on talk page and here that there are problems with it - don't tell me there is no copy-vio and I am summarily wrong in raising it? Is that what you mean? User:Hut 8.5, could you make things a little clearer/easier here for discussion. I don't think my points are being considered, discussion is more or less about me, and I am unable to help it. There is this summary repetition of "there is no problem - your point is invalid" (at least I perceive it so, after continued remarks along that line). I am deeply disappointed JJ, for receiving more personal attacks; I am sad to note, my guess is, there will be more of it now from here. --AmritasyaPutra^T 07:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that, as long as you are trying to defend and insert specific POV's, meanwhile (mis)using Wiki-policies to remove whole sections diff diff, instead of taking a more objective stance, the "personal attacks" against you will continue. Self-pity is not going to help you here; on the contrary. And no, "raising concerns" is not the problem; deleting whole passages with the wrong arguments is the concern. I thnk you should just let it go now, and try to improve that section. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

As I've said, I have no desire to get sucked into a content dispute about a subject I know nothing about and have no interest in. You need to follow the dispute resolution process, if you need external input to help you resolve the dispute then consider filing a request for comment or notifying a relevant Wikiproject. Hut 8.5 11:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

To AP's credit, he has raised an objection on the talk page [1] and waited for roughly a day before deleting the section [2]. But I don't think he noticed the additional sources that were added in the interim. The only objection of his that has some merit is the COPYVIO issue. The way to cure it is to paraphrase the content that has been quoted verbatim. A copyedit tag has been on the article for several months. AP is an expert copyeditor and a member of GOCE. There is no reason why he could not have done what was needed. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thousands of books smoulder in a huge bonfire as Germans give the Nazi salute during the wave of book-burnings that spread throughout Germany - NARA - 535791

File:Kristallnacht example of physical damage.jpg shows Kristallnacht, an example of physical damage.(Note: I have hid this non-free image per WP:NFCC#9, WP:UP#Non-free images and WP:TPG#Hiding or resizing images: Non-free images may be linked to when the subject of discussion on user talk pages, but may only be displayed in the article namespace. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC))

Syrian refugees and migrants pass through Slovenia on their way to Germany, 23 October 2015

"...The personal attacks against you will continue" -- Okay! Previously, on this article, I had completed two doctored quotes and I was blindly reverted twice! And there was silence when I asked for an explanation (there on article talk page). Kautilya3 The additional source "Partridge Publishing India" is a self-publishing company. The memoir did not have editorial oversight, I had checked, do you know the editor or editorial team's name? I know you insist on history compliant sources each time.. but not here. Look at the kind of caustic edit summaries and commentaries. Where was the discussion to begin except reverts and personal commentary? Joshua Jonathan with Maunus, Hut, Kautilya, all admitting close paraphrasing and excessive use of quote I hope you see my point and won't repeat the side remark again elsewhere. That has the potential to take any discussion to the dogs. I had impassively put my view on the sources too before editing. Yes, I see your point about content. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

AP, I've already taken a look at the page, to see if I could paraphrase it. But it's not my topic, I know too little about it. Stop complaining, just try to improve it. And reflect a little bit: how does a pogrom help in the development of a nation? Does it? Or is it a recipe for trouble? Just think about it. At the left and the right side are some starters. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan. I did not understand your question: "how does a pogrom help in the development of a nation? Does it? Or is it a recipe for trouble?" It does not, it is clearly a recipe for trouble. We completely agree here, don't we? --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi AP. I think that Maunus is right that the section as it is is undue; yet, it does not mean that this info should not be mentioned. It's a very painfull episode, putting M. S. Golwalkar in a vey unfavorable light. But if he really did plan to execute a pogrom, then this unfavorable light is completely due to his own efforts, isn't it? And it is worth mentioning. When you remove the whole section, you raise suspicions of POV, COI, etc; it looks like you don't want Golwakar to be exposed.

I think that most editors here are truly and honestly disgusted by such things as pogroms, and are very cautioness about these things happening again. I provided the examples of the 1930s in Europe, and the present stream of refugees. For India, it's of course the Partition. People shouldn't mess with etnic and religious differences; the world is on fire, and it's only getting worse. So, removing this info looks like censorship, and it's alarming.

Wikipedia is not just some digital words on a computer-screen; it's also about the real world. And that real world should be informed about that real world, instead of presenting idealised pictures. Please be worried. And take all those responses serious.

I know you've got the feeling you're being hounded; please let go of that feeling, and try to take serious those concerns. Forget yourself, and aim for the better good. Also if that may mean to let go some of your hopes and dreams, and some of your certainties. Ypu know, after 28 years of Buddhism, I tend to think more and more "it's not about me; it's about this world and this humankind. My personal salvation is irrelevant; it's the world that needs tobe saved." Not by Truths and certainties, but just by being a good man, even if this means that there's nothing to be certain baout, and facing this messed-up world in all its cruelty. Be a good man, and do the right thing. Let your hear speak, not ideologies and group-concerns. The Muslom that's in need of safety and protection is as human as your Hindu neigbour who's so much more familiair. Take care, and all the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate it. I only wish to address a certain bias that I perceive. Advancing unconfirmed allegations on people who sacrificed their entire life for the welfare of all is serious. We should certainly not censor any info. You will see tons of positive books, personal experiences, my neighbors father had met him too... there are countless human beings remembering him fondly and none in bad light, unfortunately most of the info is in regional languages. Someone even as credible as S. Gurumurthy, B B Lal, will be shot down immediately with stray comments. (I read three different biography of his in Marathi, Kanadda and English couple of years ago.) But some author with no track record and some self-published book is also hailed as reliable when it is negative. I finished reading some (earlier) censored books in the Government Library that were released after due time... they confirm my suspicion, it was systematic then and that is continuing its effects now. (I am still more of pencil-paper than e-book.) Say, this quite revert, was it necessary? That is a blog, don't we already have better reference? At least a simple note instead of remark on my motivation in edit summary would have helped build a good environment. I have not done that. I have duly put forward my perception, and I am pretty confident they all are not figments of my imagination. While I need to introspect, I am not convinced I am a summary of negativity, and do others not need introspection? This place is for collaborative editing and is recreational in nature, it is not our (holds for me at least) primary obsession or activity. The censored books... Nehru treated him as political rival and used the entire government machinery in his power to malign him, for decades. --AmritasyaPutra^T 09:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sanskrit

The article Sanskrit you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Sanskrit for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Maunus -- Maunus (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 3rd GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been two GA Cups; both were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 500 nominations listed and about 450 articles waiting to be reviewed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 3rd GA Cup will begin on March 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on July 31, 2016), but this may change based on participant numbers. There will be slight changes to the scoring system, based upon feedback we've received in the months since GA Cup #2. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same. We're also looking to spice up the competition a bit by running parallel competitions. Finally, there's a possibility of assisting a WikiProject Good Articles backlog drive in the last three weeks of February, before our competition. Please stay tuned for more information as we get it. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on February 20, 2015. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, AmritasyaPutra. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Planning_a_few_initiatives.
Message added 23:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito Dutta (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sanskrit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sanskrit 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 Maunus -- Maunus (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Ironic. --AmritasyaPutra^T 09:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Third Party Opinion Sought

Would you please be so kind as to render your opinion on Draft:Sorcha Faal after reading article and Draft talk:Sorcha Faal?

Please start a new section on Draft talk:Sorcha Faal to leave your comments at, if possible.

Thank youPicomtn (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 1

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 1 Greetings, all. The 3rd Annual GA Cup has officially begun, and you can start reviewing your articles/reassessments now! However, sign-ups will not close til March 15th if anybody (who wishes to sign up) has not signed up yet. We currently have 1 group of 33 contestants in Round 1, and we will have 16 Wikipedians left in Round 2. Please be sure to review this information and the FAQ if you haven't already, If you have any questions, please ask us here where all of the judges (including our newest one, Zwerg Nase!) will be answering any questions you may have. You can also feel free to ask us on our talk pages/send an email to us (information is here). Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 2

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 1 Greetings, GA Cup competitors! Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. Sainsf took out Round 1 with an amazing score of 765. In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 742 points, and in third place, FunkMonk received 610 points. In Round 1, 206 reviews were completed, more than any other year! At the beginning of March, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 490. We continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 2 so we can lower the backlog as much as possible. To qualify for the second round, you needed to make it into the top 16 of participants. Users were placed in 4 random pools of 4. To qualify for Round 3, the top 2 in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 9th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 2 will start on April 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on April 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here Also, remember that a major rule change will go into effect starting on April 1, which marks the beginning of Round Two. Round 1 had an issue brought up in the rules, which we are correcting with this clarification. We believe that this change will make the competition more inherently fair. The new rule is: All reviews must give the nominator (or anyone else willing to improve the article) time to address the issues at hand, even if the article would qualify for what is usually called a "quick fail" in GA terms. To avoid further confusion, we have updated the scoring page, replacing the term "quick fail" with the term "fail without granting time for improvements". We expect all reviewers to put a review on hold for seven days in cases such as these as well, in order to apply the same standards to every competitor. The judges will strictly enforce this new rule. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 3

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! Thursday saw the end of Round 2. Sainsf once again took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 996 (a higher score then he received in Round 1!). In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 541 points, and in third place, Carbrera received 419 points. In Round 2, 142 reviews were completed! At the beginning of April, there were 486 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 384. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [3]; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months.[4] It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 3 so we can keep lowering the backlog as much as possible. To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. We had an unusual occurrence happen in Round 2: because only one contestant submitted reviews in one pool, we selected the contestant with the next highest score to move forward to Round 3. (There will be a rule change for future competitions in case something like this happens again.) For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 will start on May 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on May 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup-Round 3 Clarification

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! It has been brought to our attention that we made a mistake in the last newsletter. In the last newsletter, we said that the "4th place" overall would make the Final along with the top user from each pool. However, the users who will advance will be the top user from each pool along with "4th and 5th place" overall. We apologize for any inconvenience or confusion that we caused. Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Finals

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! Tuesday saw the end of Round 3. Sainsf, for the third time, won with a sizable 487 points and a shocking 29 articles reviewed. In second, MPJ-DK had 168 points and 7 reviewed articles. In second place, MPJ-DK earned 168 points with just 7 articles, and in third place, Carbrera received 137 points with just 9 articles. Our two wildcard slots went to J Milburn with 122 points and Sturmvogel 66 with 101 points. In Round 3, 65 reviews were completed! At the beginning of the GA Cup, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 3, there were 394. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of the GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [5]; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months [6]—nothing before 2016. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Finals for the GA Cup so that are successes continue. To qualify for the Finals, contestants had to earn the highest scores in each of the three pools in Round 3; plus, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users in all of the pools. For the Finals, users were placed in one pool of the remaining five users. To win the GA Cup, you must have the most points. The Finals started on June 1 at 0:00:01 UTC' and end on June 30 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about the Finals and the pools can be found here. A clarification: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round. We wish all the contestants the best of luck! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Wrap Up

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Final/Wrap-Up Hello to our truly awesome GA Cup competitors! Thursday, June 30 saw the end of the 2016 GA Cup. It was a huge success. In the final, our five competitors reviewed an astonishing 207 articles, the most in any GA Cup final thus far. We continue to reach our goals and make a substantial impact in how quickly articles are reviewed for GA status. On March 1, the start of this competition, the article longest in the queue had languished there since June 26, 2015 [7]; in the July 1, 2016 list, the average wait length is just four months [8]. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for their enthusiasm, and for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success. Remember that most articles can't even be considered for FA status unless it's been passed to GA first, so our efforts have created hundreds of potentials FAs. That is, as they say, a big deal. The final this time represented a real horse race between our 1st and 2nd place winners. First-time competitor (who had won all previous rounds) Sainsf earned an impressive 1456 points with 91 articles reviewed during the final. Close behind, in second place was Carbrera, also a first-time competitor, reviewed the most articles (94). Their enthusiasm was a treat to witness. Congrats to you both! The competition went relatively smoothly, with very little drama this time. We had to clarify one rule: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round. We were strict about adhering to this clarification, especially at the end of the final. We intend on stressing it in the stated rules for our next competition, which will be announced soon, so watch out for it. We also intend on applying for a grant through Wikimedia to include gift certificates for our winners, to further incentivize the GA Cup. MrWooHoo should receive special recognition for acting as our main judge, and for stepping in for the rest of the judges when real-life busyness took over. He reviewed the majority of the submissions during our final round. Thanks for your hard work, and for the hard work of all our judges. We look forward to the next competition. Again, thanks to all our competitors, and congrats to our winners. Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup Announcement

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on October 31, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, AmritasyaPutra. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

4th Annual GA Cup - Round 1

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, GA Cup competitors! November 28, 2016 was supposed to mark the end of the first round. However, we needed 16 competitors to move on, and currently only 10 have completed articles. Thus, the judges have come together to let the participants decide what we shall do. Please complete this quick survey to let us know whether you would like a holiday break. There will be two options for what we will do next in terms of Round 2 depending on the results of this poll. If the survey indicates that the competitors want a break, we will have a 2nd round after the break ends with just the 10 competitors who have reviewed articles, starting in January (with a specific date TBA). If the survey does not indicate that participants want a break, we will extend Round 1 until the end of December. We apologize for sending out this newsletter late. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase! To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)