User:Grandiose/archive7

UK Wikimedian of the Year 2013/Nominations
The Wikimedia UK AGM will be held in June, and nominations for the UK Wikimedian of the Year are currently open. If there is someone who you feel has made an important contribution to the UK Wikimedia movement in the last year please go ahead and nominate them here by 09:00 (BST) on Monday 20th May at the latest. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Canterbury City Walls...
Hi! I don't mean to chase, but I was wondering how your GA review of the article was progressing? Hchc2009 (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDTITLE
Hi. You participated in a previous discussion that led to changes in this policy. There is a current discussion at WT:LEAD further concerning that policy and its application, including the changes made. You may be interested in the new discussion, as the previous changes have been brought up there. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 04:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Oxford Meetup 5
Hi, I'm concerned about the low level of support for the fifth Oxford Meetup. Are you unable to attend, or is it that you haven't seen the geonotice? -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * for responding. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Oxford Meetup 6
Thank you for attending the fifth Oxford Meetup, and it was a pleasure meeting you. I intended to send this message on Monday, but I've been a bit busy, sorry.

Several of us would like to continue with the monthly plan, since trying to make a two-monthly cycle fit into the University terms doesn't work very well. A page has been created about the sixth Oxford Meetup; please sign up if you think that you are able to attend - if the date or venue are unsuitable, please comment at its discussion page.

Please spread the word to anybody else who you think might be interested. The next UK meetups are at: London, 16 June; Manchester, 22 June; and Coventry, 7 July. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, it was pointed out to me that 7 July 2013 collides with Coventry 8, who have a prior claim to the date. Since nobody has (yet) claimed 14 July for any UK meetups, I have decided that Oxford 6 should be held on 14 July 2013, and not 7 July as previously advertised. In this way, those who wish to attend both may do so. I hope the revised Oxford date is convenient for you; and if it isn't, why not give Coventry a try? -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

POTD notification


Hi Grandiose,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 26, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-06-26. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Your maps are well done
I saw your map on the front page and was wondering what if any automation you use to help you. I've always thought that most of the military maps of battles should be converted to svg, and as a software developer hoped to find a team working on an (semi)automated system to do so. Do you do all your conversions by hand or do you use some sort of tool? CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Request
Last year I nominated an article for FA, you commented extensively on it and I am hoping to get your feedback on it as it now stands. I should like to put it forward for FA once more but would rather not waste editors time if it will still fail. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 June newsletter
We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.

Round 3 saw a number of contributions of note. claimed the first featured topic points in this year's competition for her excellent work on topics related to Maya Angelou, the noted American author and poet. We have also continued to see high-importance articles improved as part of the competition: was awarded a thoroughly well-earned 560 points for her featured article Middle Ages and 102 points for her good article Battle of Hastings. Good articles James Chadwick and Stanislaw Ulam netted 102 and 72 points respectively, while 72 points were awarded to  for each of Władysław Sikorski and Emilia Plater, both recently promoted to good article status. Collaborative efforts between WikiCup participants have continued, with, for example, and  being awarded 180 points each for their featured article on Boletus luridus.

A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 10:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Somme map
Brilliant map Grandiose. Keith-264 (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Advice re 'attempted wounding' etc?
Thanks for properly incorporating the point I added to Non-fatal offences against the person in English law. It doesn't refer specifically to the offence of 'attempted wounding' now but I followed the wikilink you added to Attempt, where it would perhaps best be covered? (or is that just be one of loads of possible attempted offences? Confusing article & tagged as such since 2008!). I was wanting to wikilink to attempted wounding from Albert Laszlo Haines (incidentally you might be interested in the deletion debate there, including would the legal precedent properly be referenced as AH vs the Tribunal, or vs the NHS?). Sighola (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Ok realised I needed to just split attempted wounding wikilink into attempt & non-fatal offences. I've added a hopefully clearer intro to Attempt (think title might be clearer to nonexperts if was Attempt (law)?). Sighola (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment Grandiose and pointer to Criminal Attempts Act 1981; it does seem that since it applies to so many things as you say, the Attempt article must be a jumping off point. In terms of Non-fatal offences against the person in English law, I'm still a bit confused because it lists under section 18 only "wounding with intent" rather than "wounding" - so then I think well the latter must be section 20, but then on that CPS page I referenced it says "It is not possible to attempt to commit a section 20 GBH offence. An attempt to cause grievous bodily harm should be charged as an attempt section 18" So I still don't see where Wounding, of the sort that would have an associated Attempted Wounding charge, goes?
 * In terms of context as a curious aside, re. Albert Haines's case, although he pleaded guilty to attempted wounding (with a machete), he has a long history of escalating confrontations due to mental disorder but not actually inflicting violence, in fact ending up being assaulted himself apparently, so unless his index offence was different and was physically prevented while swinging or something, I do wonder how they could have established a clear and specific intent to wound rather than to intimidate or whatever (guess that would be classed as assault without battery, or GBH without ABH, or something?). Sighola (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the further comment - so it sounds then like 'attempted wounding' is probably used as shorthand for 'attempted wounding with intent'. Found one article using the full phrase so.... "A 60-year-old woman was remanded in custody by Furness Magistrates following what police believe was an alleged road rage incident...has been charged with: attempted wounding with intent and attempt to cause grievous bodily harm with intent"! Cheers Sighola (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

She Has a Name
Hi Grandiose,

Thank you for expressing an interest in the She Has a Name articles. I thought that, as the good article reviewer for the Critical response to She Has a Name article, you should be notified of this merger proposal. Any comments you are willing to provide there, whether in support or opposition, would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

POTD notification


Hi Grandiose,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on July 21, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-07-21. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Torchwood
Hello, I noticed that you reviewed The "Torchwood" article for a Good Article and since then I have went over your review and I think I have covered the points your raised. If you are not busy would you mind taking a look. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Heraldry and Vexillology project
Greetings! I have requested commentary from members of the heraldry and vexillology project at WT:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. Please comment there. Thank you! Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 18:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

GA RfC
Hi, would you like to elaborate your rationale in the General Discussion section?-- Gilderien Converse&#124;List of good deeds 09:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 July newsletter
We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's currently leads overall, while Pool B's  is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today,, with 274 points, would be the lowest-scoring participant to make it through. This indicates that participants will need a score comparable to last year's (573, the highest ever) to qualify for the final. The high scores this year are a testament both to the quality of participants and to the increased focus on significant content (eligible for bonus points) in this year's competition. So far this round, both Sasata and have made up over half of their score through bonus points, with, for example, high importance FA koala earning Sasata a total of 440 points (from a multiplier of 4.4) and high-importance GA sea earning Cwmhiraeth a total of 216 points (from a multiplier of 7.2). Other articles on important topics submitted this round include a featured article on the Norman conquest of England by, and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the noted Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by, and Sturmvogel_66 respectively.

Other than that, there is not much to report! If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Disappearance of Charlene Downes
Alex Shih(talk) 08:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Non-free content
Greetings, Grandiose. I noticed that you're running for adminship, and not to jinx it or anything, but barring something completely unforeseen it certainly appears that you will soon possess a shiny new mop. You'd mentioned an interest in helping with non-free content, and it would be a boon to have more admins involved in this area. You don't seem to have contributed all that frequently to Media copyright questions or Non-free content review, and you seem to have almost never commented at Files for deletion, but the comments you have made on these forums seem thoughtful, well-reasoned, and polite. This is certainly promising. The Venn diagram overlapping those who understand non-free content issues and those who are unfailingly helpful and polite is a pretty small sliver.

International copyright law issues can be opaque and frustrating, and our own non-free content policy is not always intuitive either. I'd be glad to help with any questions you might have in those arenas. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

RFA Q20
Hi. In your answer to Q20 of your RFA, you used the term "White Photographer". Did you mean "White House Photographer"? Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Good answer
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I'm still worried enough about WP:INVOLVED and your answers to Q1 and Q8 to want to stay neutral. But your answer about your brother was quite reassuring--things looked a bit "hinky" in a way I wasn't comfortable with but your answer put those worries to rest. In all cases, best of luck, Hobit (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR RFC
There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)