Jump to content

User talk:Grondemar/Archives/2012

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user helped "2009 International Bowl" become a featured article.
This user helped "2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl" become a featured article.
This user helped "Huskies of Honor" become a featured list.
This user helped "List of Connecticut Huskies bowl games" become a featured list.
This user helped "List of Connecticut Huskies in the NFL Draft" become a featured list.
This user helped "List of Connecticut Huskies in the WNBA Draft" become a featured list.
This user has been editing Wikipedia for at least ten years.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup

Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially began at the start of 2012 (UTC), and so you are free to claim any content from after that time. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.

This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

TUSC Signup ee29eac2be2e04f19b4a0b9941b7e07a

–Grondemar 03:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Try again. –Grondemar 20:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Once more. –Grondemar 20:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Again. –Grondemar 21:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC) ee29eac2be2e04f19b4a0b9941b7e07a

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

Language and Tools

  • Regarding language, imagine that you're writing about a church. You're not going to use "customers," you're going to use "worshippers" or "attenders" or "adherents" or "believers". Imagine you're writing about a school. You're not going to use "customers," you're going to use "students" or "pupils." Imagine you're writing about an encyclopaedia... When you're next revising your paper, imagine you're writing about a volunteer encyclopaedia project. Similarly, you might want to make explicit some of your internal cost-accounting assumptions. Main Page does "pay" for FAs by... hosting FAs. Similarly with the motivation cycle of FA writers and reviewers.
  • Regarding tools. If we lived in a feudal society, a hammer would be used for war or displaying opulence. If we lived in a post-capitalist society, a hammer would be used for satisfying the need for work and the desire to build useful things. We live in a capitalist society: hammers are made to made profits. And hammers are made in a way that makes them predominantly useful for making profits. And even when hammers are constructed without reference for profit, in use they are corrupted so that they maximise profit rather than nail hammering. TQM has undergone a similar process. It is highly likely that TQM has fundamentally pro-capitalist assumptions inside it (so does Marxism, so does Anarchism... everything in capitalist society replicates these assumptions). However, when you're using TQM on a volunteer encyclopaedia with tetchy bastards like myself, I'd recommend looking through TQM, and avoiding duplicating assumptions that the subject of analysis works on a for profit basis (customers, dollar-price costs, output maximisation as a sole goal). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Just to finish the point. Tools are politicised: when you have a hammer problems start looking like nails. I think that there are some rather good elements of the analysis you're suggesting, such as a focus on output rather than profit; that users of outputs are considered important; that behaviour is described by bound tolerances rather than close management; and that process can be changed. I look forward to the conclusions, and the consensus discussion that will result. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for these comments; I appreciate them. This is very insightful. I will attempt to revise my essay to address your concerns over the next few days. –Grondemar 03:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I replaced "customer" with "end user" in the title of the essay and throughout the document except where a specific discussion of the business world was made. I hope the term "end user", common in the software development world and to my knowledge used on open-source software development projects without reservations, will be seen as non-controversial. –Grondemar 02:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

for unblocking me and giving this young man one last chance on Wikipedia. Mewtwowimmer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC).

No problem; I'm looking forward to seeing your positive contributions to the encyclopedia. If you ever need any help don't hesistate to ask. –Grondemar 01:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

User:Mewtwowimmer

Hi.

I left this message: User_talk:Mewtwowimmer#The_Beatles, and I thought you might like a courtesy note about it, as the recently unblocking admin.

Regards. Begoon talk 03:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation. 06:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter

WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is Conradh na Gaeilge Grapple X (submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by Minnesota Ruby2010 (submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is Mauritius Jivesh boodhun (submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.

  • Florida 12george1 (submissions) was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
  • Florida 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
  • Russia Sp33dyphil (submissions) was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
  • Russia Sp33dyphil (submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
  • Byzantine Empire Speciate (submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
  • Mauritius Jivesh boodhun (submissions) was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Good Article Reviewer's Medal of Merit
It is with great admiration that I award you this barnstar for completing Good Article reviews for the December 2011 Good Article Nomination backlog elimination drive Cheers,AstroCog (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

MSU Interview

Dear Grondemar,


My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:UCONN

Are you going to work on the assessment for WP:UCONN? Smartyllama (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Eventually... it's on my list of things to do, but I probably won't have a chance to dig into it until next month at the earliest. My primary focus right now is getting List of Connecticut Huskies in the WNBA Draft through FLC. –Grondemar 04:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

List_of_Connecticut_Huskies_in_the_WNBA_Draft

Finally got a chance to look at List_of_Connecticut_Huskies_in_the_WNBA_Draft and it looks quite good. When I first glanced at it, the entries in the Note column had just been started, but it looks like you've added all the notable entries.

My main two questions at this time:

  1. How to decide which images ought to be added,
  2. Should there be an additional column to indicate current team (or retired), in addition to the original drafting team.

On the second question, arguably, the title indicates that the subject is the draft, which leans toward no, but a lot of the content is about the impact in the league (Champions, All star etc.) rather than just the draft, so perhaps the title should be "List of Connecticut Huskies in the WNBA", justifying the discussion of the impact in the WNBA, and supporting the addition of a column for current status.

This article highlights some omissions, I'll have to work on articles for Willnett, Paige and Rita.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. For images, I included the four No. 1 draft picks. There might be room for one more picture, but it's not obvious who the picture should be. Rebecca Lobo would work well (one of the WNBA's founding players) but I didn't see a free image in Commons. The best I could find on Flickr I just uploaded is File:Braxton and lobo.jpg, which shows her from the side and back and really wouldn't work here. I did find a better face picture of Sue Bird on Commons at File:Seattle Storm players at Westlake Center, 2002.jpg which might be usable with a crop.
My intent was that this list be a draft list rather than a "players in the WNBA list", similar to the List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NBA and WNBA Drafts. I added the column on achievements since the Oklahoma list had one; of course there are significantly more achievements to list on the UConn list! –Grondemar 04:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense. BTW, is that the best picture of Stacey Dales available? Yikes!--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Saw your message on my talk page. I'm signing off for the night after posting this and am unsure whether I will get a chance to respond tomorrow (college and all), but if not I'll surely get to it on the weekend, probably on Saturday. Meanwhile, the link I found to support the number of men's draft picks is here. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Hockey League players from the United Kingdom/archive1

Hi, I've replied to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Hockey League players from the United Kingdom/archive1, and would appreciate any further feedback you might have. Harrias talk 14:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I've replied in part there and will provide a more complete reply later. –Grondemar 04:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Have you had a chance to think further on this article? Harrias talk 10:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for List of Connecticut Huskies in the WNBA Draft

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Quick Fail

Quick fails don't count in the WikiCup. You are probably still going to make it to the next round, though. (PS: I replied to you on that page) BCS (Talk) 21:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that that review was a "quick fail" as I provided as full a review as I could considering the referencing issue. A quick fail would have objected to the references and left it at that. Either way, you are right in that it probably is not relevant to the WikiCup round. If it becomes an issue, I would be happy to let the judges review and decide. –Grondemar 21:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

Wikipedia:Userspace draft listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Userspace draft. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Userspace draft redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

March 2012 Move-to-Commons drive

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Images and Media at 07:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC).

WikiCup 2012 February newsletter

Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was Conradh na Gaeilge Grapple X (submissions), again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was United Kingdom Tigerboy1966 (submissions), thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were Minnesota Ruby2010 (submissions), Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), Wisconsin Miyagawa (submissions) and Scotland Casliber (submissions). February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from Minnesota Ruby2010 (submissions). At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.

The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.

The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

WP Connecticut in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Connecticut for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this; I will review and provide answers. How soon are you looking for responses? –Grondemar 03:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The article is scheduled to run March 12, so you have nearly a month. Just don't forget! -Mabeenot (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Reminder to myself: respond this weekend. –Grondemar 00:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

WPUC

Heya... any movement on this? Sorry I've been quiet of late, if you've seen my talk page lately (well, archived now), I've been in another kerfluffle with Kumioko over WPUS being tag-happy. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Not yet, sadly. It's another thing on a long list of things I have to work on. I've noticed that in Wikipedia, as in life in general, there is an infinite amount of "work" that can be done. All you can do is what you can.
I saw the dispute with Kumioko. I don't understand why he has WikiProject US trying to absorb every WikiProject and article related to the US under one banner. It seems very unwieldly. –Grondemar 00:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I can relate to that! Oh well, whenever you get to it is fine of course -- I'm certainly not taking it on! :-)
I figured you might've, I know "not a few" folks lurk my talk page, and/or watch ANI. I actually didn't do all that much -- he pretty much shot himself in the foot IMO.
It's actually the 3rd or 4th time we've hashed that out, and he's hashed it out with other editors, too. I agree, I didn't see the point either. There's a few reasons, but the main one comes back to an idea that everything that ever was, is, will be, is called, happened (etc) (within the) US was a WPUS issue no matter how tangental. (So since everything was going to be tagged WPUS anyway, why not pull them all in?) Some projects voted to be assimilated, others (like Massachusettes) were just borg'd after a couple of weeks of no one commenting on the talk page. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

List of National Hockey League players from the United Kingdom

Hello Grondemar, you said on 14 Feb that you'd get back to Harrias on comments you made at this FLC. Would you be kind enough, if you have the time, to do that? Many thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to get back to this. I'll wrap up my comments tomorrow. –Grondemar 04:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Grondemar. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Ohio class submarines/archive1.
Message added 03:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Notification

Can you explain to me why I was one of the few conference season template authors that you notified? Is this something personal or do you intend to notify the others later? Have you notified WP:CFB?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, for whatever reason I thought you had authored more of the templates than you did. All of the authors should not be notified. See WT:WikiProject College Football#Conference season navboxes for the notification to WP:CFB. –Grondemar 05:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
How many did you notify? P.S. notification is a bit unfair now that the bolder has so much downhill momentum.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

Advice requested

I'm interested in improving the presentation of the membership timelines for the various DI conferences.

I started a draft writeup at User:Sphilbrick/sandbox for latest project

I'd love to hear your feedback on whether this idea has merit, but I'm especially interested in thoughts on where I should present this. I was originally thinking the Wikiproject basketball page, but it has broader impact than just basketball. I tentatively plan to pick one location, then either write up a an RfC, or add notices to various obvious places. However, I am not sure how best to reach out to everyone who might care, so I'm looking for your advice.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I may regret being impatient, but I went ahead and posted at Talk page of Project College football--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Ugh. I don't think I'll be happy thinking about this topic until UConn finds a stable conference home (i.e. not the new Big East). I'm still wrapping my head about what you're trying to do here; I'll read through and leave comments at the talk page discussion in a few days. Cleanup in this area is a good idea; however, this might be a case where we can only be as clear as the conferences let us. –Grondemar 03:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
It's turning out to be much less controversial than I thought it would be; about the only issue worth discussing is whether the graphics should show the count of teams. I was in favor, but agree it looks a little nice without, so I think I'm going ahead and posting the new versions tomorrow.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

Gaston Allaire

Thanks for the post. I looked at WP:BDP nowhere does it say what you've apparently quoted me. In fact, you may want to pass the same message to User:Judd per his edit here. This user added the apparent death of Mr. Allaire. I was merely highlighting the fact there was a problem with this original edit. Further, you may want to change the WP:DATA. Argolin (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks again. It was the first time I'd come across an article with an unsourced date of death. I tried looking myself for a source with no luck. In the future, I just remove it and done? Argolin (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comments: Team infobox practices

Grondemar, your comments regarding team infobox practices are solicited: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#Request for Comments: NCAA Sweet Sixteen phantom appearances. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

Hey, thanks!

Have a drink on me!

I noticed what you did on my talk page, thanks! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem! –Grondemar 21:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

Help us develop better software!

Thanks to all of you for commenting on the NOINDEX RfC :). It's always great to be able to field questions like these to the community; it's genuinely the highlight of my work! The NOINDEX idea sprung from our New Page Triage discussion; we're developing a new patrolling interface for new articles, and we want your input like never before :). So if you haven't already seen it, please go there, take a look at the screenshots and mockups and ideas, and add any comments or suggestions you might have to the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 March newsletter

We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! Conradh na Gaeilge Grapple X (submissions), of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's Scotland Casliber (submissions), who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.

Congratulations to Vanuatu Matthewedwards (submissions), whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to Florida 12george1 (submissions), who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Wikipedia:Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from Wisconsin Miyagawa (submissions) show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!

It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

A barnstar for you!

The Commons Ambassador Barnstar
Thank you for participating in the January 2012 MTC Drive. The drive was a big success. As a result of the drive thousands of files was transferred and many files was nominated for deletion because of copyright issues or because they were not usable. For your big work transferring files to Commons you are hereby awarded this barnstar. Cloudbound (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For your efforts in deleting transferred files, you are also awarded the Admin's Barnstar. Cloudbound (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Leaderboard award

Transfer to Commons Drive Leaderboard Barnstar
And finally... as you finished on the leaderboard for the January 2012 MTC Drive with 280 transfers, you have well and truly earned the Transfer to Commons Drive Leaderboard Barnstar. Thank you for all your efforts. With luck backlog drives will become a thing of the past. Cloudbound (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 April newsletter

Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's Conradh na Gaeilge Grapple X (submissions) remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's Scotland Casliber (submissions) was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's New York City Muboshgu (submissions) coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.

65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of both Vanuatu Matthewedwards (submissions) and United Kingdom Grandiose (submissions), the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, England Ealdgyth (submissions) earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article, Michigan Dana Boomer (submissions) earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by Bavaria Stone (submissions) to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. United Kingdom Jarry1250 (submissions) managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.

An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank United Kingdom Jarry1250 (submissions) and Bavaria Stone (submissions), for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

WikiCup 2012 May newsletter

We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader, Conradh na Gaeilge Grapple X (submissions), is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. Wisconsin Miyagawa (submissions) leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by Scotland Casliber (submissions), our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.

This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user, New York City Muboshgu (submissions), claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, 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) 23:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

WikiCup 2012 June newsletter

Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's Minas Gerais igordebraga (submissions), who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's Conradh na Gaeilge Grapple X (submissions), whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's New York City Muboshgu (submissions), with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.

A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. As ever, 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) 10:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

WikiCup 2012 July newsletter

We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees Conradh na Gaeilge Grapple X (submissions) in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees New York City Muboshgu (submissions) in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's Minnesota Ruby2010 (submissions) follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.

Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! As ever, 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) 22:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

Editing maps in Commons

I'm attempting to update some maps in Commons, but can't quite figure out how to do so. Someone else told me to download the image, edit it, then re-upload using the button "upload new version of this file" at the bottom of the image, except that button apparently doesn't exist on Commons. The maps I want to update are found on List of NAIA conferences. They should all be public domain or creative commons, as they are just maps of the US with different states colored in. In fact, the updates I want to do involve coloring in the correct states (many NAIA schools changed conferences back in July). Any help on this would be appreciated, thanks! Dafoeberezin3494 (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

WikiCup 2012 August newsletter

The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

  1. Conradh na Gaeilge Grapple X (submissions) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
  2. Wisconsin Miyagawa (submissions) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
  3. Minnesota Ruby2010 (submissions) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
  4. Scotland Casliber (submissions) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
  5. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
  6. New York City Muboshgu (submissions) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
  7. Michigan Dana Boomer (submissions) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
  8. Canada Sasata (submissions) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.

However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle: Russia GreatOrangePumpkin (submissions), England Ealdgyth (submissions), England Calvin999 (submissions), Poland Piotrus (submissions), North Carolina Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), Florida 12george1 (submissions), Cherokee Nation The Bushranger (submissions) and North Macedonia 1111tomica (submissions). We hope to see you all next year.

On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, 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) 00:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

WikiCup 2012 September newsletter

We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. Conradh na Gaeilge Grapple X (submissions) currently leads, followed by Canada Sasata (submissions), Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Scotland Casliber (submissions). However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.

It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!

The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, 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) 19:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

WikiCup 2012 October newsletter

The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009), Sturmvogel 66 (2010) and Hurricanehink (2011). Our final standings were as follows:

  1. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions)
  2. Canada Sasata (submissions)
  3. Conradh na Gaeilge Grapple X (submissions)
  4. Scotland Casliber (submissions)
  5. New York City Muboshgu (submissions)
  6. Wisconsin Miyagawa (submissions)
  7. Minnesota Ruby2010 (submissions)
  8. Michigan Dana Boomer (submissions)

Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.

Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.

Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

WikiCup 2013 starting soon

Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn 19:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grondemar/Archives/2012&oldid=1086445144"