User talk:Tomcat7/2011/September
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Tomcat7. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:
Casliber (submissions), Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
PresN (submissions), Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
Hurricanehink (submissions), Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
Wizardman (submissions), Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
Miyagawa (submissions), the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
Resolute (submissions), the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
Yellow Evan (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
Sp33dyphil (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.
We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists, 
Another Believer (submissions), 
Piotrus (submissions), 
Grandiose (submissions), 
Stone (submissions), 
Eisfbnore (submissions), 
Canada Hky (submissions) and 
MuZemike (submissions). Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.
In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate Ucucha (talk · contribs). The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.
A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. 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 00:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Request for Move
Hi! I would like to join these discussions about Request for Move: Talk:Natasa Janics, Talk:Christina Vukicevic, Talk:Milos Raonic, Talk:Kristina Mladenovic, Talk:Alex Bogdanovic, Talk:Irena Pavlovic. Greetings and thanks! :) --Aca Srbin (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2011 (CEST)
Thank you for noticing they received wildcard exemptions for U.S. open women's doubles. They were granted a wildcard on Monday, the 30th, after I had put a PROD on the articles. Very good job of spotting that. Bgwhite (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Per your !vote here
Please see here Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 September 2011
- News and notes: 24,000 votes later and community position on image filter still unclear; first index of editor satisfaction appears positive
- WikiProject report: Riding with WikiProject London Transport
- Sister projects: Wiki Loves Monuments 2011
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Opinion essay: The copyright crisis, and why we should care
- Arbitration report: BLP case closed; Cirt-Jayen466 nearly there; AUSC reshuffle
The Signpost: 12 September 2011
- News and notes: Foundation reports on research, Kenya trip, Mumbai Wikiconference; Canada, Hungary and Estonia; English Wikinews forked
- WikiProject report: Politics in the Pacific: WikiProject Australian Politics
- Featured content: Wikipedians explain two new featured pictures
- Arbitration report: Ohconfucius sanctions removed, Cirt desysopped 6:5 and a call for CU/OS applications
- Technology report: What is: agile development? and new mobile site goes live
- Opinion essay: The Walrus and the Carpenter
In future, kindly respect WP's policies and guidelines, in particular: edit summaries are not for making disparaging remarks; assume good faith. You say “This is your personal point of view; WP:ALBUMS doesn't say anything that it should be removed”; under "Critical reception", it says that such lists “may not be included”. I'm at a loss to comment further. Uniplex (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- So, first you proclaim on the guideline without having even read it. Now that you've read it, it appears you fail to understand it (the parenthetical clause exemplifies, not restricts the definition of ‘lists’) but dismiss it anyway because your personal POV is somehow better. If you don't like what's written at the WP:ALBUM, I suggest you take up your grievances there. Uniplex (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Before you go off and make your argument there, probably the reason 'best' lists are legislated against is that Rolling Stone's 'best' list is no more authoritative than 'Q' magazines 'best' list etc. and that these lists can be published and republished at any time, and the 'best' criteria can change each time. By all means, the reviews of the albums in each list can be drawn upon for the critical reception section; it's only the fact an album is on someone's list that is seen as having little encyclopedic value. Note, this is not my POV; I have no POV. Uniplex (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Validity of WP article content is not determined by whether or not an editor thinks that "it is still important"; it's judged by WP policy. Common ways of working that adhere to WP policy are recorded in guidelines. Guidelines should be followed unless there is consensus that the guideline is not applicable in a specific instance. Here we have a guideline WP:ALBUM that instructs not to use such best/greatest lists and no obvious reason for exemption. As I said above, if you don't like WP:ALBUM, take up your grievances there; alternatively seek exemption on the article talk page. WP:REVTALK is pertinent at this time. Uniplex (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Before you go off and make your argument there, probably the reason 'best' lists are legislated against is that Rolling Stone's 'best' list is no more authoritative than 'Q' magazines 'best' list etc. and that these lists can be published and republished at any time, and the 'best' criteria can change each time. By all means, the reviews of the albums in each list can be drawn upon for the critical reception section; it's only the fact an album is on someone's list that is seen as having little encyclopedic value. Note, this is not my POV; I have no POV. Uniplex (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Miles Davis
Wikipedia:WikiProject Miles Davis, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Miles Davis and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Miles Davis during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 13:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Help
I would ask you to do the necessary changes in the size of the tables on Nightwish discography, because I already tried and failed to hit. Rodrigo18 (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 September 2011
- From the editor: Changes to The Signpost
- News and notes: Ushahidi research tool announced, Citizendium five years on: success or failure?, and Wikimedia DC officially recognised
- Sister projects: On the Wikinews fork
- WikiProject report: Back to school
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: ArbCom narrowly rejects application to open new case
- Technology report: MediaWiki 1.18 deployment begins, the alleged "injustice" of WMF engineering policy, and Wikimedians warned of imminent fix to magic word
- Popular pages: Article stats for the English Wikipedia in the last year
Thanks again!
If you feel Valentina Matviyenko is ready for posting, you could mark it [Ready] on WP:ITN/C. GreyHood Talk 15:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 September 2011
- Recent research: Top female Wikipedians, reverted newbies, link spam, social influence on admin votes, Wikipedians' weekends, WikiSym previews
- News and notes: WMF strikes down enwiki consensus, academic journal partnerships, and eyebrows raised over minors editing porn-related content
- In the news: Sockpuppeting journalist recants, search dominance threatened, new novels replete with Wikipedia references
- WikiProject report: A project in overdrive: WikiProject Automobiles
- Featured content: The best of the week
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low 
to High 
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)