User talk:12george1/Archive 7

WikiCup 2011 October newsletter
The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is, who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: (2007),  (2008),  (2009) and  (2010). The final standings were as follows:



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.


 * The Featured Article Award:, for his performance in round 2. matched the score, but Casliber won the tiebreaker.
 * The Good Article Award:, for his performance in round 4.
 * The Featured List Award:, for his performance in round 4. matched the score, but Miyagawa won the tiebreaker.
 * The Recognised Topic Award (for good and featured topics):, for his performance in round 3.
 * The Did You Know Award:, for his performance in round 1.
 * The In the News Award:, for his performance in round 1.
 * The Reviewer Award (for good article reviews):, for his performance in round 3.

No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.

Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

1986 Pacific hurricane season Good Article
I appreciate you work at WP:GAN, but noticed you quick failed 1986 Pacific hurricane season. Failing for twenty three issues all minor and all that were fixed within three hours seems extreme. I hope you are not racing through reviews just to win the Wikicup. AIR corn (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above, but as author of the article, I have been told that it is nowhere near GA status. BTW, 12g1 is not a wikicup participant. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  22:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Only glanced at the article, but it does looks like it needs a bit of work. Not concerned about the fail per se, it just looked like a rushed review. Sorry about the wikicup accusation, I assumed because of the notice above. It is not a process I am enamored of. AIR corn (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Timeline of the 2011 Atlantic hurricane season, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Halifax, Nova Scotia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Hurricane Cleo (1958), you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Newfoundland and St. John's (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of the 1990 Pacific hurricane season
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Timeline of the 1990 Pacific hurricane season, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Timeline of the 1992 Pacific hurricane season. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


 HurricaneFan 25  —  is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.  HurricaneFan 25  —  13:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You're invited!
WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Cup - come join the Hurricane Cup! --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup
Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially begins at the start of 2012 (UTC) after which time you may begin to claim points. 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 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) 17:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Suggestions for Illinois v. McArthur
Hey 12george1 -- I have made your suggested edits to Illinois v. McArthur, as noted in the GA review. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you may have been a little hasty to promote this- the article is sourced entirely to the transcripts, when, ideally, it should be based on secondary sources discussing the case. J Milburn (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Some secondary sources have been added, and I don't personally have time to go through the article myself to check your work. Please be careful; hasty GARs make a mockery of the GAN system and the Cup; we will be watching them closely, and we won't be scared to remove points. I'm sorry to seem so patronising, but there were concerns raised when good article reviews were introduced that it would lead to poor reviews. J Milburn (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Debby
I've reviewed Debby here. Hope you're enjoying this first day of the new year,  HurricaneFan 25  —  17:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

RE
Thanks for the review, I have replied to the concerns at the subpage. I hope I have solved the issues and gave appropriate explanations.-- Will C  01:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Hurricane Agnes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Okeechobee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Your GA review of Group Representation Constituency
Did you place the nomination on hold or have you yet to complete your review? All the issues you brought up at Talk:Group Representation Constituency/GA1 have been addressed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hyderabad, India ( GA review)
Hi, Thanks for your review at Hyderabad, India. All of your remarks had been done, except for one, for which we need your advice. Kindly have a look at at Hyderabad, India GA review and do the needful. Regards :)---Omer123hussain (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, now all the requirements are done. Hope this will works fine to reach GA.--Omer123hussain (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that was some impressive work put up by the editors. And, to think it was this bad a few months back, seems really way off. Thanks for the review and wish you the best of luck!  X.One   SOS  15:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * very thanks for your review, its really very nice to see Hyderabad, India with GA tag, hope you will guide us to make it a FA in future. Regards.:)- --Omer123hussain (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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, 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, 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, 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.
 * was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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!
 * 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!
 * 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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Affected by hurricane effects
Hi. I noticed you've made lots of useful edits to many hurricane articles. Good job. I've been making a scan of articles to fix misusages of the words affect and effect and their related forms, like affected, and noticed many hurricane articles have problems with the usages of both words. I checked several of these and saw that you had added some, but not all, of the text involved.

Since you're still an active editor (good!), I'm here to encourage you to get these two difficult words straight when editing. The thing to know is that, except in rare cases, affect is a verb and effect is a noun. Maybe this phrase will be a memory aid: ''"An Arrow Affects an AArdvark; it has an Eyepopping Effect." Thanks. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 21:59, 12 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, again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was, thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were, , and. February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from. 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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)