User:The ed17/Archives/62

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
 * , primarily for an array of warship GAs.
 * , primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
 * , due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with, this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:
 * , whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
 * , whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
 * and, who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
 * , who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by : did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. 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. 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) J Milburn (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Army News Service
Hey Ed--can you make something out of this? (I got there by way of Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse), itself in terrible shape.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit, but that's a rather obscure topic. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure they really exist anymore: see this, and this and this on the Army site. The name is nowhere to be found, nor did I find a history, or something of an editorial nature. Thanks Ed, Drmies (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I dunno. They still have a Facebook page and this was updated in August 2012 ... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Signpost
Deferring the tech report until Monday (next week) is probably best so we don't hold things up. I have some idea of what to include but am a bit busy. --Aude (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. :-) Thank you anyway for your help. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Pony!
  Pony!

Congratulations! For your support of the William Robinson Brown FAC, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, cuddly, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC) To send a pony or a treat to other wonderful and responsible editors, click here.


 * Thanks, Montana. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: February 2013
Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 14:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Signpost II
Yup, should be fine too, though contributions always appreciated :) - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 20:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Op-ed
Thanks for asking. Maybe in a few months, though I am not committing. I am way too busy now, and probably so until the end of May. Others can feel free to copy my stuff at will, without credit. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Newcastle
They are lovely, indeed! I haven't had any direct dealings with Newcastle Library but Daria at WMUK has been talking to their neighbours at Tyne & Wear Archives - I suspect someone there may be able to point us in the right direction for a contact. I'll drop her an email.

(It may also be that the Archives themselves have copies of the same images - I know they've a good shipbuilding collection - & we could steer them into putting some up. Their flickr sets are definitely much more open than the Library.) Andrew Gray (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Gray (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from February 2013
Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for February 2013, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement About &middot; Subscribe/unsubscribe &middot; Distributed via Global message delivery, 21:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikimedia Foundation highlights
 * Legal victory for Wikivoyage and free knowledge
 * Mobile watchlist available
 * Language Engineering team attends open source conferences in India
 * Data and Trends
 * Financials
 * Other movement highlights
 * Commons Picture of the Year 2012 contest results announced
 * New ombudsman commission
 * Open database of public art in Sweden

Article Feedback deployment
Hey The ed17; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments on Signpost News and notes
Please see Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-03-11/News and notes. Thanks. --Pine✉ 03:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Replied there. --Pine✉ 18:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Replied again there. --<b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 02:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hahc21
has retired... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You have an email. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Signpost Featured Content report
I'll be happy to work on this if you'd like some help. I'll boldly start working on this today. It may not look as pretty as some of the previous reports but it will be a lot better than nothing. Anyone else who wants to help would be welcome too. (: --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 18:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Hahc is still doing FC while taking time off (I'll upload it for him), but I'm sure he'll appreciate the help. :-) Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Since I wrote to you Hahc emailed me the off-wiki link where he started drafting. I'm working on it now. So this week's FC report will be a collaboration. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 22:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, excellent. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's ready to be copied over and have a review of the formatting for Wikipedia in addition to a copyedit. Do you do that? --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 00:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done! Normally I'll copy it in just before publishing (for news value and all that), but if you want to copy it in sooner in the future, go ahead. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I've marked this week's report as "done" in the Newsroom. I think that the collaboration worked well. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 03:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good, I'm glad! I hope we will see you around in the future. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Last minute signpost request
Hey Ed, sorry for the last minute request (I posted it here so it doesn't get lost in other pages), but would you mind adding a brief comment about our current backlog at ACC and a call for new members to tomorrow's/today's edition? Thanks, -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  00:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's no problem. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Libraries op-ed
Hey, Ed, sorry this is late, but I've got a near final draft for an op-ed together. I've left a proposal here: Wikipedia Signpost/Boneyard/Newsroom/Submissions. Feedback welcome, The Interior  (Talk) 20:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not married to the title, btw. The Interior  (Talk) 20:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, made my final copyedits. I asked my girlfriend to help me come up with a new title, and she told me to get off wikipedia and go to work. So I'm going to work.  Best,  The Interior  (Talk) 16:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hahah, it's typically best to listen to the girlfriend. ;-) Thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Ping
When you've got a chance, can you find me on IRC? --Jorm (WMF) (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried, but you were most likely asleep. I'll get on again tomorrow, or feel free to email me if it's urgent. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Minor Humans in Shannara


The article Minor Humans in Shannara has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * no notability for these characters; content now at Wikia

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Talking to yourself... first sign of madness, that. Chamal T •C 08:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We will TAKE the preciou ... wait, what? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Eretria (Shannara)


The article Eretria (Shannara) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * no indication of notability; content moved to Wikia

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Assuming good faith in article improvement discussions
Hello, I'm N2e. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:N2e that didn't seem very civil; I've not removed it, but you may want to do so. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. I invite more discussion, but think we need to get the whole civility thing worked out first. Thank you.

Hello, The ed17''. Not sure if you meant to do it or not, but the comment you left on my Talk page includes one part that appears to me to be rather uncivil, and not assume good faith on my part. Specifically, that is your statement about me that my behavior as a Wikipedia editor "is reprehensible."

I would much prefer to talk about article content, and not talk about the editors of article content, but I will leave the content discussion between us until after we determine if we can have a civil conversation between us. So let us discuss civil dialogue first, before we discuss my attempts at improving Wikipedia, which may not be your preferred approach.

If you would like to rectify the situation, please simply edit your comment on my Talk page, and suggest what you meant while sticking to article content discussion and not editor behavior discussion, especially discussion of my editing that assumes a bad motive on my part.

Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)'' N2e (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for coming over to my Talk page and leaving your opinion. While I don't agree with your defense of your behavior, I did read, and do understand your argument.  Also, while we obviously do not agree on the civility of your action here, I get that the (very briefly open) ANI incident and the very few editors that weighed in, have developed a (small group) working consensus that referring to another editor's behavior as "reprehensible" is not WP:UNCIVIL.  That is news to me.  But then I guess social and cultural norms vary rather widely.  I will accept that as the WP consensus at this point in time, and read that as a working community standard that accusations of reprehensible behavior are not considered uncivil.
 * However, at a personal level, I consider your behavior uncivil, so will politely ask you to make no more comments on my Talk page. I'm not an expert on this matter, as I've never done that before in many years of Wikipedia editing, but it is (as I understand it) a behavioral request that should be honored per WP policy.  I expect we will continue to dialogue on article content on various article Talk pages from time to time.  But if you have an editor behavioral concern about my actions as a Wikipedia editor, please take it up with the Administrators and lodge a formal behavioral complaint against me, rather than come to my Talk page and leave uncivil comments.  Best to continuing to make the encyclopedia better, and better sourced.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your view of my civility, I do hope you take my (and Crisco's) concerns into consideration/ While I don't like the practice of fact-tag-bombing, that's a legitimate thing to do (and you may even want to consider using Citation needed span); but I do please ask that you refrain from removing uncontentious content simply because it isn't sourced. I will, of course, honor your request except in formal notifications, i.e. "a discussion involving you has been started at WT:Editing policy", etc. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

requesting outside review
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. N2e (talk) 04:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Asking nicely
Would you please reverse your out of policy action? I've asked nicely. The Worm threatening to exceed his authority by making policy by fiat does not justify you making policy by fiat. Jehochman Talk 11:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. The action I've taken is fully within policy: WP:IAR. I'm reasonable, though, and I don't expect the protection to remain for long, given the amount of time Arbcom has already had to deliberate on it. Would it satisfy you to place an expiry on the protection of, say, three days? I doubt that many FARs and GARs are going to come up in that time. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There are a variety of content processes and bots who place notices on user talk pages. It's a shame to disrupt activity related to article making.  Three days would be an improvement, or you could unprotect it immediately and leave  a stern note to please (1) direct any discussion about Cla68's block to a better venue (ArbCom noticeboard talk page?), and (2) feel free to leave posts at User talk:Cla68 about content-related business.  Jehochman Talk 13:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a shame, but the let's keep in mind that the likelihood of that happening is low; he's written something like one article in the past year (nothing against him personally&mdash;he's helped on at least one of my articles in the past, and I have had nothing but positive conversations with him). I will reset the time limit to three days. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, that seems reasonable. He has worked on a large number of articles previously and might be interested to receive notices about them so he'd be able to act if and when his block is lifted.  Also, feel free to remove my comments that were made through the protection.  They are there to sort the problem; once sorted they could be blanked or moved elsewhere. Jehochman Talk 13:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed, I'm leaning towards agreeing with Black Kite and Jehochman (though I can't really condone their editing through full protection in this case). Still, I think my "warning" and an edit notice should be sufficient. Do you have any problems with me enacting that? I've no idea how long the committee is likely to take over the unblock discussion, we seem to work slightly slower than tectonic drift, so I don't know how long this protection should last. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT(<font color='#060'>talk ) 13:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh, such is life&mdash;I wouldn't want anyone thinking my decisions are infallible and discussion of a full protection of mine is outlawed. :-) Your solution is fine by me. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Photo of Front Street
Hi Ed. I noticed that you briefly posted about a picture of Front Street in Marquette available on the LOC website, and I wanted to let you know that I uploaded a higher res copy than even the LOC has to File:Marquette, MI - Front Street 1909.jpg. (amusingly, I did this last night before you posted to WT:FPC) If you want to take it to FP, there is a watermark that would need to be dealt with. Chris857 (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, those TIFFs at the LOC are actually higher res. Chris857 (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the LOC tiffs are what I was referring to. :-) They are all 150+mb. I only found it thanks to the photo you uploaded, though, so thank you! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

List of Shannara artifacts
Hi Ed. I have removed a small amount of unsourced text in an article you have previously edited: List of Shannara artifacts; all of the text removed had been challenged for at least a couple of months. Of course, much more of that article has problems relative to the Wikipedia article guidelines of 2013, vs. 2005-2008 when it was mostly written.

I would be happy to have a civil discussion of the subject on the article Talk page if you are so inclined. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, that's on my list of articles that need to be transwikied to Wikia and deleted, so I don't mind all that much aside from I'd like to be given the chance to move the text before you continue to delete them... unfortunately I have little time, and most of that is devoted to the Signpost. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 March 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikinews article
Hi Ed; although the Signpost article regarding the Wikinews discussion I started on Meta first came as a pleasant surprise, I'm now worrying that it makes people think that the discussion is already a "real" proposal, as evidenced by this edit. Maybe you could make it more clear that it's at this state only a really noncommittal asking for opinions? There's also already an outright hostile response, which saddens me. I had hoped for reasonable discussion. Gestumblindi (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way, some nitpicking... although I edit mostly in the German-language Wikipedia and (Swiss) German is my first language, I'm not a "German Wikipedian" - I'm Swiss :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I fixed that by changing it to the word "movement", and I'm sorry that I implied you were German&mdash;I meant it to apply to the German language, which I've now clarified in the article. Thank you for the note! :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 12, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ  21  22:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC) —  ΛΧΣ  21  22:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Autochecked
Why was it necessary to add autochecked to Malleus? All editors who have the reviewer permission are automatically considered autochecked. Just curious, since it doesn't make a difference. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  05:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, it looks like I misunderstood what autochecked fully is, apologies. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

User:J Milburn/Notes
Anything to add? And I promise to be extra careful about who it's sent to! J Milburn (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have nothing&mdash;that looks really good this month! Be very, very careful ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sent a couple of hours earlier than usual; really need to get to bed... Hopefully everything's in order... J Milburn (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye on it. Sleep well! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Would like to express a slight error - User:12george1, who is in second place with 618 points as of this edit, was not listed in the letter's listing of top 3 participants.  TheAustinMan (Talk·Works) 23:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like George has brought this up on J's talk page already, thanks! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry. Not sure how I missed that one. I'll put a note on the next newsletter. J Milburn (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. 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. 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) J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Your signpost topic choice
Per the comments, you said, "Actually, I'm the one who decided to cover and write about it [Wikinews], and the topic idea was sent to me by by a different person."

May I hint to that the issue was escalated to Meta needlessly and closing the discussion in earliest possible stage would benefit everyone, and doing otherwise — and especially escalating the inquiry to signpost — imposes a time waste on Wikinews, WMF, and Meta community? Resolving those issues locally might be more constructive. As little as Wikimedia support for Wikinews is (per odder on the proposal page), I would ideally like to not see the Signpost encourage needless drama. --Gryllida 23:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there is no local place for a question about Wikinews in general. A discussion on the English Wikinews, for instance, is not the place to talk about it and every other language Wikinews. Regardless, I do think it was a legitimate topic to cover in the Signpost. An issue that wide, i.e. affecting an entire sister project, is clearly significant, and a significant number of people have concerns about its viability. We don't encourage or discourage drama in topic choice; if we did, we wouldn't have covered the outing controversy a few weeks ago. [natit citsejam] [klat] dE 05:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)