User talk:Blurpeace/Archive 4

Online Ambassador query
Normal 0          false  false  false    EN-US  X-NONE  X-NONE                                       MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Greetings. This is my second use of a Talk page. I’m still somewhat confused about what goes where, so please excuse me if I don’t initially follow the right protocol. I’m writing to ask if you’d be a mentor for my course (the first in Arizona according to Tom Cloyd). The course concerns children’s language development; it has 110 students and a teaching team of 11 (I’m the professor). If you agree to help me out, it’s important for you to know that from my perspective Wikipedia’s education arm has gone silent, so I have no CAs. Classes start next week, so I’m reducing this to a pilot (probably wise for other reasons too). I’ll use online materials to get a couple of my undergraduate preceptors into roughly CA-shape; one graduate student is interested in helping; and I myself am working to become more knowledgeable. But I’m impressively ignorant at this stage. I don’t even know how I’ll learn the answer to my question to you. – Cecile McKee or Cecilemckee (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

An award for you!

 * Tech glitch was bound to happen eventually. Thanks anyway, Blurpeace  02:30, 29 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 23:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Campus Ambassador
Hi there Blurpeace!

I am the current campus ambassador for Michael Mandiberg's Interactive Technology and Pedagogy class at CUNY Graduate center and Evan Hill-Ries' Copyright Commerce and Culture assignment at NYU. Would you mind if I provided my students with your username again, should they have any further questions?

I don't think my students used it last semester, but they were definitely comforted by the thought of having an additional resource!

(MalikaZ (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC))


 * Sure, that'd be fine. Do you have my email? If not, just message me, and I'll respond. Blurpeace  07:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Online Ambassador, Spring 2012
Hi, Blurpeace! As you may know, the Wikipedia Education Program has instilled a new set of standards that courses must meet to officially join the program for the semester. As you can see, one of the requirements is that at least one ambassador or professor is a Wikipedian, as this should give students more access to helpful information about contributing to Wikipedia and creating good content. I see from Malika's post above that you've agreed to help Michael Mandiberg's class this semester but wanted to reach out in case you're interested in helping any other courses in addition. Some of these classes will have to remove themselves from the program should they fail to meet these standards, but we would like to ensure that new students are receiving proper support during the editing process. Please let me know if you are interested in mentoring these students this semester and/or visit the Online Ambassador talk page to select a course that still needs an Online Ambassador. Thank you! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Blurpeace,

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) 15:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.
Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis, currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee.

I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward.

'''Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone!''' :-)

To take part in the survey please follow the link: tsikerdekis.wuwcorp.com/pr/survey/?user=74608486 (HTTPS).

Best Regards, --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal. As a thank you for your efforts and participation in Wikipedia Research you will receive a Research Participation Barnstar after the end of the study.

Userspace PRODs
Hi there, I'm not sure if BLPPROD should be used in userspace, so I removed it and listed it at WP:MFD. The-Pope (talk) 17:03, 26 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) 23:53, 29 February 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! , of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's, thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's, 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, whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to, who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on 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 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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:13, 31 March 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 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 was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's  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 and, 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, 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,  earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by  to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. 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 and, 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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SeaWorld San Diego sign.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:SeaWorld San Diego sign.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

TUSC token 1688d11d6174972ae9114a7ed08149f2
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Your perspective would be of value
Hi there. I would appreciate it if you could visit Talk:Muhammad. The article, Muhammad, has changed significantly since it originally passed WP:GA several years ago. It now states in the opening paragraph that Mohammad is the Founder of Islam and has relegated to a note at the end of the article that Muslims, themselves don't believe this. I have started a discussion on the talk page concerning this and would value your input. Thanks so much. Veritycheck (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks for the help!

Almuir24 (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC) 

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, whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader,, 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. leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by, 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,, 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 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) 23:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Commons images on the main page
Hello! Please remember to locally upload and protect Commons images before placing them on the main page. Following this edit, File:Ray Bradbury (1975) -cropped-.jpg remained unprotected (and subject to vandalism) until approximately 11 minutes later, when I noticed the problem and at Commons. Thank you! —David Levy 20:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that you're a Commons administrator as well. So obviously, you have the option of protecting an image there instead.  —David Levy 20:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, Dave. I rarely make changes to protected pages, especially the main one, and it slipped my memory. Thanks for sweeping up after my mistake, Blurpeace  20:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. :)  —David Levy 20:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia New York City Annual Meeting Sat Jun 30
Join us at Jefferson Market Library on Saturday starting at 1pm for our annual meeting and elections, details at Meetup/NYC!--Pharos (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

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, who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's, whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's, 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 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) 10:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanking you for help
Hey it was cool that you helped me at my problems .. I tell you man you are a real adminstrator :p — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clinton572 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. Just remember Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". You don't need an extra set of buttons to accomplish half of what really needs to get done around here. You just need skill. Luckily, it's really easy to build on that—all you have to do is stick around. Blurpeace  18:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, a good note to keep in mind is when you're signing any post, always remember to include at the end ~ . It appends your signature and the time, like so. Blurpeace  18:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Unblock requests
Hi. You really shouldn't decline unblock requests from editors you have blocked (such as User talk:216.81.94.68); the whole point of the unblock request is for another admin to review and decline if appropriate. You can, of course, accept such requests, but denying them is not generally done. --jpgordon:==( o ) 20:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Josh, while I realize that it's unorthodox for the blocking administrator to act on the request, my motivation was not primarily to deny their chance at appeal but explain at greater length why I'd performed the block in the first place. The unblock tag was readily there so I used what was on hand. I presumed they would ignore my response regardless of where it was placed; not a surprise, seeing as they're now up to their second appeal. I appreciate your looking out for me though. Best, Blurpeace  23:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic episodes
Hi blur, I've reverted edits to the article and left a message on the (new) IP user's talk page (User talk:69.204.44.240). Hope this is okay with you. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 13:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Callan, if you're on IRC in the near future, reach out to me about this. I'd like to chat. Best, Blurpeace  21:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hopefully at some point we'll be on there at the same time :). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

About Daydots Food Safety Solutions
We don't really require authors to "1) add wikilinks" before publication or "2) cite inline references". Just having notability and sensible English is more than enough for approval. Please try to go slower when you're reviewing articles; it's better to get less done well than to do a shabby job fast. Best, Blurpeace  14:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * SHABBY JOB!!! Way to encourage the newbie and to that I say... I have not, and DO NOT decline based on wikilinks and inline citations, so what are you talking about? If I made the comment on a declination, it was an ADDITIONAL SUGGESTION to whatever else was wrong with the article... so YOU SLOW DOWN and pay closer and better attention to comments. Better to offer encouragement than to run off a valuable team member by being a jerk. Have a wonderful weekend. Cheers! Stella BATPHONE GROOVES  18:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The user who submitted that article came into complaining that they didn't understand what "wikilinks" or "inline citations" were. Formatting is generally left to the "professionals" like us, so that we don't get cases of people having to learn all of the wiki syntax when they're only interested in submitting one article. While I appreciate the exclamations, I understand you might be discouraged by some pointed criticism. My intention is to have a better AfC process, not drive away editors. While I personally don't believe I came off as a "jerk," I apologize if you felt that way. In these cases, however, I still believe it's better to leave no "additional" suggestion if you're not going to bother explaining what it means or linking to a relevant help page. It's as good as nothing to a potential editor.  Blurpeace  19:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

''The user who submitted that article came into complaining that they didn't understand what "wikilinks" or "inline citations" were. ''
 * Explain it them and help them. Period. What was so difficult about that? Had they come to me directly, I would have helped and moved on.

Formatting is generally left to the "professionals" like us, so that we don't get cases of people having to learn all of the wiki syntax when they're only interested in submitting one article.'
 * I hadn't read that in the guidelines. That was sarcasm, by the way.

''While I appreciate the exclamations, I understand you might be discouraged by some pointed criticism. ''
 * Criticism I can manage if it is constructive and helpful. Your comment was that I had declined articles based on this point... shabby work... etc. How is that constructive or helpful?

''While I personally don't believe I came off as a "jerk," I apologize if you felt that way. ''
 * Jerkoliciousness evident in purposeful avoidance of admitting being wrong about declinations. You don't see that calling a fellow reviewer's work "shabby" was offensive but you came to the defense of an author with 3 declinations for the same reason? At least I was attempting to help.

''In these cases, however, I still believe it's better to leave no "additional" suggestion if you're not going to bother explaining what it means or linking to a relevant help page. It's as good as nothing to a potential editor.''
 * Key phrase here is "I still believe". It's not in the guidelines or Jim Crow laws. However, I will take this into consideration when leaving comments in the future and leave more thorough, helpful comments.

Of all the comments I have left on (hundreds of) articles, to have a few people come away puzzled does not justify not leaving comments. Being an alarmist because one person, who cannot seem to get their article approved for non-related reasons, left a comment for help is not productive. I can see your passion for wanting to help, but in the future, coaching works better than arbitrary criticism.

Now that we're done dancing, let's make nice and have drinks on me! It's always happy hour in New Orleans. Laissez les bon temps rouler! ''Cheers! Stella'' BATPHONE GROOVES  19:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

thanks for creating Robin Holcomb
I was starting to go insane. Having done small edits for about two years (without registering), I thought it would be easy to create an article. There needs to be some trainning for admins who approve/reject articles. Minorview (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's no problem; happy I could help. Best, Blurpeace  21:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks from theone20
Hello blur,

thank you so much for your help. I have never seen somebody beeing so nice like you are. Thank you so much, God bless you!

Best wishes to you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theone20 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I much appreciate it, theone20. :) If you ever have extra questions, you know where to find us on . Best, Blurpeace  01:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 Blue Rasberry   (talk)   12:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 July newsletter
We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees  in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's  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 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) 22:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Fall 2012 Online Ambassador Program
Hi, Blurpeace!

If you're still planning to work with a class in the US and Canada Education Program this Fall, please add your name to this census. Once the new class list is available, I will notify you guys so you can sign up for a class (or two) that interests you. I hope you're still interested in supporting these students for the coming term. Thanks! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

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) 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) 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) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
 * 4) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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:, , , , , , and. 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 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) 00:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!
Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation. If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page. Happy reviewing!  TheSpecialUser TSU
 * Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

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. currently leads, followed by, and. 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 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) 19:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Mudd Library Edit-a-thon
Good afternoon!

I am reaching out to you as you participated in on of our past edit a thons here at Mudd Manuscript Library at Princeton University.

We are hosting another one later this month and we wanted to invite you to join! [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccleeton (talk • contribs) 16:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Casa Dragones logo2.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Casa Dragones logo2.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

New medical organization
Hi I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page. Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders. Hope to see you there! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

greets ++
Hi there -- it was nice to meet you yesterday at the portland meetup. Hope to see you around again, keep up the good work ! :) &there4; here&hellip;&spades; 22:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. To the best of my knowledge, I wasn't at that meetup. Best, Blurpeace  00:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Aha, it wasn't you. See you next time!  &there4; here&hellip;&spades; 04:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 October newsletter
The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to, our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: (2007),  (2008),  (2009),  (2010) and  (2011). Our 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 goes to, for four featured articles in the final round.
 * The good article award also goes to, for 19 good articles in the second round.
 * The list award goes to, for three featured lists in the final round.
 * The topic award goes to, for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
 * The did you know award goes to, for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
 * The news award goes to, for 10 in the news items in round 3.
 * The picture award goes to, for two featured pictures in round 2.
 * The reviewer award goes to both (14 reviews in round 1) and  (14 reviews in round 3).
 * Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to.

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) 00:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC this Saturday Dec 1
You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!--Pharos (talk) 06:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

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 19:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)