User talk:Circeus/january-june2011

SCOTUS opinions
My point is that, where the Supreme Court's opinion has no content, such as a summary affirmance due to a divided Court or dismissal of cert. as improvidently granted, there is no point to giving it its own section, a section that will never be filled out because there's nothing to say about the opinion. And it isn't a question of whether the lower court itself is notable (it is), it's a question of whether that lower court's opinion is notable (it probably isn't). So that's why I've always treated such opinions in this manner, only noted for the sake of completeness, but not given any space due to the lack of content. postdlf (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I completely missed that the lower court case already had an article written about it. Sorry.  Do we agree though that if the lower court opinion wasn't notable (I'm still skeptical here, but meh), there wouldn't be a need for this opinion to have its own section?  postdlf (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to note here thanks for adding the prior history cites for recent SCOTUS cases I've started. :) Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the 30000 asteraceae....
...none of which are Featured. I was buffing Xerochrysum bracteatum but got a little wikibonked with it - Feel free to review, add any tehcnical stuff on daisies etc. whatever. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Painted turtle/archive1
Hello fellow Wiki editor! A little while ago, you left some commentary on the above FAC page. Would you look at what we've done and see if your concerns have been addressed? Thank you, NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"See also" at Yunia
I've amended the "see also" in the Yunia article (which you had removed) to explain its purpose. I think this is better; can you comment, please, before I do the same with other articles where the "see also" was for the same reason (viz. that I don't want to repeat parts of the cladogram in each article, because this creates redundancy and will cause problems when the cladogram needs updating based on new research, which it undoubtedly will). Peter coxhead (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok; I now know that "see that article" is a common phrase on Wikipedia immediately after a wikilink to an article. I have to say that it reads a bit oddly to me, and is surely unclear in a printed version when the wikilink is not in a different colour and thereby highlighted. But if that's how it's done, that's what I'll do. Thanks for the edit. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There is an alternative to what I'm trying to do; I'm not sure what is best and I'd be grateful for advice. The alternative is to create a template with the cladogram in it and then add the template to relevant articles instead of links back to the main diagram. The problem then is that the whole cladogram is obviously over-kill when it appears in articles about a group or species close to the top of the cladogram. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to, who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by , with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to, who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, , who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, 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 22:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Armillaria species
Hi Circeus, I'm thinking of trying my chances with this at FLC. I'd appreciate your opinion about any improvements that could be made. I don't see any other species lists articles as FL, so this is new ground, which I suppose will help set a standard for future lists of this type. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:V-mon.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:V-mon.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 06:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh noes, let's find an article for it...Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Very funny :p. I should probably delete it myself. It dates back from my first few months on the Wiki. Circéus (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Image has a home now, and is nice "taxobox" image...(I miss digimon...warmetalgreymon...)Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it sad that I can spot everything wrong with that Digimon name? XD One day I'll go back to the Digimon stuff and figure a way to trim it down to a proper encyclopedic level... Circéus (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, don't trim, just add loads of out-of-universe critique and commentary. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

MOS shortcuts
Was there a new consensus about the MOS: vs. WP:MOS shortcuts? I reverted this edit and saw that you've recently made others that promote the MOS: shortcut. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Entoloma sinuatum
Hi, would you mind having a look at Entoloma sinuatum and its FAC? This fungus had a rather complicated taxonomic history that I'm not sure we're summarizing correctly (see my remarks on the talk page, and some discussion on the FAC). Ucucha 03:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If I had actually checked the rest of the talk page, I'd have seen that you had already commented on the article. Still, your input will probably help, as you know a lot more French and botanical nomenclature than I do. Ucucha 03:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Xerochrysum bracteatum redux
Ok, I have finally started on improviing flower structure material - added it to this one first (and will try to get a diagram). Found some material to add to Adenanthos and banksia a bit later too. Let me know what you think of the structure material in Xerochrysum bracteatum - too detailed? okay? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yay for crossposting XD I'd spotted it on my watchlist and commented on the talk. Circéus (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of reference links at Battle of Towton
Hi, I am inquiring about this edit of Battle of Towton. I am curious why you removed several Google Book links but left others to remain. What was the criteria behind the removals? Furthermore, you have removed several journal links from the Oxford University Press. The project's DOI System cannot locate these documents, leaving the reader with a "Error - DOI Not Found" on trying to locate these documents. I believe those links should have been left untouched. Jappalang (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am putting back in the removed journal links; as stated above, the DOI does not work, and the direct links to Oxford's site should have been left untouched. Note that Google Book links (full/preview/snippet/no preview) are based on your location.  A US reader might have Full or preview access, while another in France or UK might only have snippet or nothing.  I am going to go through those other links and restore them based on access.  Jappalang (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Suillus salmonicolor
... will likely be my next FAC submission. I'd be grateful if you could spare the time to look through it. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for having a look... but I've removed several of the accessdates; I've been informed at FAC that they aren't needed for web versions of print-based documents, like PDFs, Google Books, Cyberliber holdings, etc. There's also the new jstor parameter installed in cite journal which I guess does the same thing that used to do. Sasata (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 February newsletter
So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to (first, with 487 points) and  (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.

Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, 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 23:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary discussion on jstor usage
You didn't finish your comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants or else the edit failed in some way. Can I encourage you to continue, because, as a relatively new editor, ids in citations is an area of practice I don't fully understand. I'm sure I've removed oclc parameters from book citations as I've edited pages if there was an isbn parameter, and I've also not copied over e.g. pmid parameters when re-formatting journal citations to use a template if there was a doi. This may have been contrary to policy! Peter coxhead (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

MOS outline form for lists and sublists
Thank you for your work on List of Manuals of Style. An issue has come up at Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). I am a botanist and mathematician. As such, I like outline and systematization style over prose style. MOS says - “Stability of articles - Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.” A group of SPA and COI editors were created to “make WP present their profession” in a more saleable light. As it is, TCM is basically a list of supernaturally powered parts of human, “animal, mineral, or vegetable”. The “list” in outline form, organized as it currently is, makes it easy to find content about each medicine. There is an attempt to change this, which has the effect of making what is really going on in TCM more obscured, i.e., pure POV. This group recruited others who only like prose style. Do you know which special MOS guideline would apply to this case? PPdd (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

"41" Grand Parade
Hi – thanks for spotting that so quickly! It was a typo for "40". As you may have guessed, I'm trying to finish this one so I can carry on with the next ones in the series. Unfortunately, I–L is going to be deadly boring, because most of the listed structures are lamp-posts! Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!)  08:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Figs
Now some time ago, and I got stuck into figs...amazing plants that they are (not that you'll see many in your neck of the woods ;) ) - and Ficus maxima got failed at GA for having too much general fig biology information in it and not enough species-specific info. Given our discussion at Xerochrysum bracteatum and various banksia pages etc. (I still have to add some floral architecture to the banksia ones I know I know...). I figured you might want to weigh in on the reproduction section as to whether it is too much genus-level info for a species level article, or is it a good amount to provide context? I am sorta planning on buffing Ficus obliqua, Ficus macrophylla, and/or Ficus rubiginosa from my neck of the woods at some stage for FA/GA but the last two in particular have the potential to be monster articles...I have described figs as living plasticine to folks...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Minor thing
No commas between the jurisdiction and year. Thanks. Savidan 15:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

New Pages and New Users
I've recently been doing some thinking (and a great deal of consultation with Philippe and James at the WMF's community department) on how to keep new users around and participating, particularly in light of Sue's March update. One of the things we'd like to test is whether the reception they get when they make their first article is key. In a lot of cases, people don't stay around; their article is deleted and that's that. By the time any contact is made, in other words, it's often too late.

What we're thinking of doing is running a project to gather data on if this occurs, how often it occurs, and so on, and in the mean time try to save as many pages (and new contributors) as possible. Basically, involved users would go through the deletion logs and through Special:NewPages looking for new articles which are at risk of being deleted, but could have something made of them - in other words, non-notable pages that are potentially notable, or spammy pages that could be rewritten in more neutral language. This would be entirely based on the judgment of the user reviewing pages - no finnicky CSD standards. These pages would be incubated instead of deleted, and the creator contacted and shepherded through how to turn the article into something useful. If they respond and it goes well, we have a decent article and maybe a new long-term editor. If they don't respond, the draft can be deleted after a certain period of time.

I know this isn't necessarily your standard fare, but with your involvement in WP:NEWT I thought it might be up your alley. If you're interested, read Wiki Guides/New pages, sign up and get involved; questions can be dropped on the talkpage or directed at me. Ironholds (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 March newsletter
We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is with 231 points, who leads Pool H.  (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see WikiCup/Scoring.

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, 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 00:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

ISBN-13
Why shouldn't pre-2007 books ? Since the conversion is trivial, it seems better to me to consistently use the new standard. Ucucha 04:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Happened to see this. See WP:ISBN. This recommends 13 digit with dashes "if available", which they always are via the ISBN converter. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

ISBN
I notice that you hyphenated the isbns in a couple of recent bird FAs. I don't have a problem with that, I just wondered what the reason was, and whether there a standard pattern of hyphenation that should be used? I've tended to remove hyphens because I don't know why they are there, and that's been ignored at FAC until now, thanks  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Our ISBN article explains what the four part of the ISBN are (5 in the case of ISBN-13s). Hyphenated is the normal form found in print, only electronic database (including UIPC codes, of which the ISBN-13 is a special case) systematically remove hyphens AFAICT, and only because it's easier to manipulate in that form. Usually ISBNs are printed on books with hyphens, sometimes spaces, in the cataloging information or on the backcover. I use this page that shows where to put the middle hyphen to hyphenate or convert them from -13 to -10 for pre-2007 books (though I'm not particularly regular about the conversion, admittedly). Circéus (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yale Classical Studies
Regarding your last edit to Egyptian temple: Yale Classical Studies 17 is, at least physically, a book. Does it count as a journal if it comes in a book volume? A. Parrot (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 April newsletter
Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. , who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.

This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to and  who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!

Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, 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 19:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit
Thank you very much for the copyedit of Taxonomy of lemurs. The changes all look very good. It will help a lot as I prepare for a FAC run. Anyway, I plan to work on the GAN comments, so I hope we won't have any edit conflicts today. It seems like you've stopped editing for now... –  VisionHolder « talk » 00:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Federation of Stoke on Trent
Thanks for the referenc conversion. NtheP (talk) 08:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 May newsletter
We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. , of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by, and  respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.

A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, 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 23:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

FutureTimeline.net
Hi there. Thanks for your help and editing on 2011 in Science. If you're interested in science & technology then I think you'll enjoy my personal website - http://www.futuretimeline.net/ Let me know what you think :-) Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Outline of Quebec
I noticed you are a participant of the WikiProject Quebec.

The Outline of Quebec was created a few days ago and is under vigorous development. It fills a gap in Wikipedia's set of outlines. It is the 3rd outline to date about a Canadian province/territory.


 * Wikipedia Contents
 * Outlines
 * Outline of geography
 * Outline of North America
 * Outline of Canada
 * Outline of Alberta
 * Outline of British Columbia
 * Outline of Manitoba
 * Outline of New Brunswick
 * Outline of Newfoundland and Labrador
 * Outline of Nova Scotia
 * Outline of Ontario
 * Outline of Quebec
 * Outline of Prince Edward Island
 * Outline of Saskatchewan
 * Outline of the Northwest Territories
 * Outline of Nunavut
 * Outline of Yukon

Outlines form one of the subsystems of Wikipedia's contents navigation system. For more information on outlines, see Outlines and WikiProject Outlines.

The goals for the Outline of Quebec is to complete it to as high a standard of quality as possible, and to make it even better than the Outline of Saskatchewan and the Outline of British Columbia.

Once the Outline of Quebec is completed, it will provide an important example to others creating outlines for the remaining provinces and territories of Canada.

Please take a look at the outline to see if you can notice (and fill in) any missing topics. Pictures would also be nice (the rarer and the more interesting, the better).

Thank you.

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 10:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 June newsletter
We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by, claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by , who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by, who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.

No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.

We would again like to thank and  for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.

Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. 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 23:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)