User talk:Danger/Archive 13

Please comment on Talk:Salmaan Taseer
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Salmaan Taseer. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Tassedethe
Hello...I appreciate your contributions to Hugh McDonald's (American Musician) wikipage. I recently added additional musicians that he has recorded for. I am a very good source of Hugh's recordings because I am his wife. Please do not erase Michael Buble and Bret Michael from his discography. I hope you receive this message because I am new to Wikipedia and I'm not sure I know how to navigate correctly. Thank you! Kelli McDonald saintlyedge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintlyedge (talk • contribs) 20:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ms. McDonald. I have no idea how you came to be here; my name is Danger and I have never edited that page. I will let Tassedethe know that you are looking for them. Danger High voltage! 20:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
Thanks for the welcome.--Trouveur de faits (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

help request
Many thanks. Your information led to the outcome I was trying to achieve. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Technical question
I hope you don't mind a quick question. How do you batch delete empty categories with Twinkle? I can't even seem to get the D-Batch function to work. I'm used to the deletion tools on Commons, which a trained monkey could easily use. INeverCry  20:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Went to the category page (the one that lists all the empty categories up for deletion) and I clicked the d-batch button. It didn't work unless I typed in a "reason" in the box offered. Beyond that, I have no idea how it works. I only just discovered it yesterday. Good luck! Danger High voltage! 21:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. I just figured out that D-batch works for me in Firefox perfectly, but not IE. P-batch and Deli-batch work perfectly in both browsers. Go figure.  INeverCry   21:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, well there you go. I'm using Firefox. Danger High voltage! 21:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Note
I thank you for taking your time and unblocking me. I'm currently trying to change my username due to personal reasons and have just requested it. Please note that I will not start to edit Wikipedia pages again using this name, so I'm hoping my name change will be accepted. --AimalCool (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you. Good luck with learning the policies! We didn't have so many when I was your (wiki)-age, alas. Danger High voltage! 03:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Ventom Group
Dear Danger, Please Help Or Tell Me How Can I List My company Info On Wikipedia...Any Source / Paid..What? Please Help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.181.79 (talk) 11:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The only way that your company can have an article on Wikipedia is for it to meet our inclusion guidelines for companies and either for someone not associated with the company to decide to write an article about it or for someone associated with the company to use the Articles for Creation process to submit a draft for review. You cannnot pay to have an article on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a business directory, so I suggest you look for alternative places for you to post this information. Danger High voltage! 15:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Nicholas-porter-earp.jpg
You said that this was kept because it was unpublished and anonymous. Where is your evidence that it is anonymous? The indicated source provides no information about where the image comes from, so how can you tell that it doesn't come from a source where the photographer is indicated? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anonymous, I said "unknown". I suppose we could ask the San Bernadino Historical Society to dig out the photo and see if there's a name written on the back. Danger High voltage! 22:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The law requires not only that it is unknown to us but that the name isn't available to the general public through some publicly available source (which may be hard to locate). For example, the 120 years since creation term doesn't apply if the original photo is available to the general public and the back of it contains the name of the photographer. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll email the historical society and mark the files as pending OTRS. Incidentally, I found another image of the Earps from the Kansas Historical Society where the photographer is unknown and would be listed if they were. Do you think it's in good enough shape to be worth uploading? Danger High voltage! 22:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that age, it's not that unlikely that the photographers have been dead for 70 years, so it's maybe better to just assume that both photos are in the public domain. If the photographers are known and the photos are unpublished, then the photographers would have had to live for more than 50 years after taking the photos for them to be copyrighted, which is usually not the case with a random photo. Let's just drop this. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The email to the San Bernadino Historical Society is already flying through the ether though. I'll be interested in what they have to say. Danger High voltage! 23:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, for photos of that age, there are three reasonable likely scenarios:
 * Photo was published before 1923: in that case it's PD
 * Photo wasn't published at all before 2003 and the photographer is anonymous: in that case it's PD (older than 120 years old)
 * Photo wasn't published at all before 2003 and the photographer isn't anonymous: in that case it's PD if and only if the photographer died before 1943, which is probably usually the case with a photo from that period
 * There is also the risk that it was first published at some point between 1923 and 2002 in which case other rules apply, but this should be unlikely in most situations and in my opinion we can disregard this unless we have information suggesting the opposite. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Request
This was User:GoShow, and yes by rights under people who had sockpuppet laws, I do have one more chance and I do wish to edit, but I did not use most accounts for sockpuppetry! Most of them were votes, however, I am glad the voting box is gone, I do wish reanalyze myself and think about all the shit I have made, but yes I would like to have one more chance reanalyze myself and maybe more watch on my part. If there is no choice, should I recreate a new account? And yes, this was a College IP address, as I stated! Otherwise, if nothing else just banned me, but I would like to edit, not with just two or three, but one.--216.124.141.231 (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not merely your account that is blocked. You are blocked from editing. You may not create a new account. There's a standard offer in this sort of situation. Try following that. Enjoy your vacation from Wikipedia. Danger High voltage! 18:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

UAA
Thanks for telling me about the username.

Mat ty. 007 17:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * De nada. Danger High voltage! 17:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hunting for embedded outlines
I'm looking for outlines embedded in articles.

I've run across a number of these over the years. One example is the Outline of fencing, which used to be part of the fencing article.

If you know about or spot any structured general topics lists in articles, please let me know (on my talk page).

Another thing you might find are articles that are comprised mostly of lists (without "Outline of" or "List of" being in the article's title). If you come across any of these, please report them to me on my talk page. I'd sure like to take a look at them.

Happy hunting.

I look forward to "hearing" from you (on my talk page). Sincerely, The Transhumanist 07:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Can't think of any off the top of my head. I'll give it a think and if I see any I'll let you know. Danger High voltage! 07:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Foundation Beyond Belief deletion
Hi there,

I saw you deleted the first page I created for the 501(c)3 Foundation Beyond Belief, citing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:G11#G11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:A7#A7

I'm unclear as to how you reached this conclusion and wish to fix whatever was the issue so that FBB can have a useful entry. The non-profit currently shows up in multiple other wikis and, as such, should at least be defined I'd think. Can you please give me guidance on this front? I'd greatly appreciate it.

Airanw (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)airanw
 * Certainly. I came to the conclusion that the article fell under the A7 criterion because the article was about an organization and did not make a claim of importance. Merely existing is not such a claim, nor is being a non-profit. I thought it fell under G11 because it was written like a website for the organization and not an encyclopedia, although this is admittedly a borderline case for G11. I also trust the judgement of, who evaluated the article before I did.
 * I would suggest collecting any independent articles about FBB that you can find and determining if, from them, there is enough material to write an article. It's possible that FBB is not notable enough yet for an article here; the organization is young, after all. If there is material, but not enough to write an article, a bit of information about FBB may be appropriate in another article describing secular charity or atheist culture or something similar. You may wish to ask for help on WikiProject Atheism, although it's not particularly active right now. Best of luck. Danger High voltage! 16:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe there is enough significant material to merit a page for Foundation Beyond Belief. I don't know a lot about the organization, but I'm hearing their name come up fairly often, and they've shown up quite a bit since the Oklahoma tornadoes. I understand there was also some sort of dust-up over the American Cancer Society or some such refusing to accept money from FBB. That speaks to the changing voice of secular charity work. If you don't have an objection, I'd like to take a stab at creating a page for them. I've already created a subpage in my sandbox for the topic, not realizing that a page had already been created/deleted. I don't want to waste my time or yours, so if you think they're just not noteworthy enough yet, I won't argue with you. Valis55 (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no objection whatever. Danger High voltage! 21:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request
I made this redirect page in error. Please delete it: AutoWikiBrowser/Source code .The Transhumanist 00:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The Transhumanist 04:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. Danger High voltage! 05:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Request
Sorry for so many requests, but once again about name privacy, I need this article to be renamed/removed: Sockpuppet investigations/AimalCool - it contains my former name and is clearly resulted in the search engine. Thanks. --NGSF (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable doing this unless you can give a more specific reason. You may email me if you wish, or ask a different admin. Danger High voltage! 22:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Margaret Mutu
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Margaret Mutu. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Black Ops 2
There are Five Strike Force Missions, Not Four... needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmartin 85 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what to do about that. You're welcome to edit the incorrect page yourself. Danger High voltage! 01:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't, I don't have 10 edits yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmartin 85 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You can use the Edit semi-protected template. Just copy that and put it above your request. Danger High voltage! 03:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Good job
Haha. Thanks for tagging User:ImagingMRSolutions for deletion. I was about to tag it myself, but you beat me by seconds Good job. WorldTraveller101BreaksFixes 12:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Mitochondrial Eve
I wonder why the subsection "The technique was not flawed nor the concept dead" which I wrote was removed and considered not the NPOV. I clearly mentioned the limitations of the research and how it has been improved and affirmed with later works; hence both sides of the story. This is important to its scientific and historical development (check the references). Chhandama (talk) 03:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The references are really irrelevant. The passage was written in a profoundly unencyclopedic tone (eg propagandists, duped, irate critics, etc). That is not neutral point of view. Danger High voltage! 18:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 09:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bishop Bell School
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bishop Bell School. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Barack Obama
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Barack Obama. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Other than that, there is not much to report! If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pricasso
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pricasso. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know ...
... that I have opened a sockpuppet investigation relating to a user you indeffed at Sockpuppet investigations/Taylor.monki, and that I mentioned you there. Sorry about that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Yuilop
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Yuilop. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 August newsletter
This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:
 * , a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
 * , another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
 * , 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
 * , a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
 * , the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
 * , who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
 * , a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
 * 1) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final:, , , , , , ,. Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 05:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update
Hey Danger. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 September newsletter
In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion. currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice. , —who has never participated in the competition before—and follow. The majority of points in this round have come from a mix of good articles and bonus points. This final round is seeing contributions to a number of highly important topics; recent submissions include Phoenix (constellation) (FA by Casliber), Ernest Lawrence (GA by Hawkeye7), Pinniped, and red fox (both GAs by Sasata).

The did you know (DYK) eligibility criteria have recently changed, meaning that newly passed good articles are accepted as "new" for did you know purposes. However, in the interests of not changing the WikiCup rules mid-competition, please note that only articles eligible for DYK under the old system (that is, newly created articles or 5x expansions) will be eligible for points in this year's WikiCup. We do, however, have time to discuss how this new system will work for next year's competition; a discussion will be opened in due course. On that note, thoughts are welcome on changes you'd like to see for next year. What worked? What didn't work? What would you like to see more of? What would you like to see less of? All Wikipedians, new or old, are also warmly invited to sign up for the 2014 WikiCup.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 October newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our champion, for the second year running, is. Our final nine were as follows:

All those who reached the final win prizes, and prizes will also be going to the following participants:


 * wins the FA prize, for four featured articles in round 4, worth 400 points.
 * wins the GA prize, for 20 good articles in round 3, worth 600 points.
 * wins the FL prize, for four featured lists in round 2, worth 180 points.
 * wins the FP prize, for 23 featured pictures in round 5, worth 805 point.
 * wins the FPo prize, for 2 featured portals in round 3, worth 70 points.
 * wins the topic prize, for a 23-article featured topic in round 5, worth 230 points.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 79 did you know articles in round 5, worth 570 points.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 23 in the news articles in round 4, worth 270 points.
 * wins the GAR prize, for 24 good article reviews in round 1, worth 96 points.
 * The judges are awarding the Oddball Barnstar to, for some curious contributions in earlier rounds.
 * Finally, the judges are awarding the Geography Barnstar for her work on sea, now a featured article. This top-importance article was the highest-scoring this year; when it was promoted to FA status, Cwmhiraeth could claim 720 points.

Prizes will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition. While it has been an excellent year, errors have opened up the judges' eyes to the need for a third judge, and it is with pleasure that we announce that experienced WikiCup participant Miyagawa will be acting as a judge from now on. We hope you will all join us in welcoming him to the team.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. Brainstorming and discussion remains open for how next year's competition will work, and straw polls will be opened by the judges soon. Those interested in friendly competition may also like to keep an eye on the stub contest, being organised by Casliber. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! 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) 00:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on an RfC about Living members of deposed royal families and the titles attributed to them on WP
Hello - I have opened an RfC about suggested guidelines in the Manual of Style for articles about living members of families whose ancestors were deposed as monarchs of various countries and the titles and "styles" attributed to these living people, at the moment often in a misleading and inaccurate way in my opinion. Please join in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies "Use of royal "Titles and styles" and honorific prefixes in articles and templates referring to pretenders to abolished royal titles and their families"Regards,Smeat75 (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

help/advice?
We are trying to create a page (I suppose a disambiguation)for the author of the book for which we just obtained film rights. His name is Gary Green, but he is none of the "Gary Green 's" that are currently listed. Since it is a holiday we can't get ahold of him or his agent; can you tell us how to create this disambiguation of that name? We have lots of references to verify him. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borsalino Films (talk • contribs) 21:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Claude Monet
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Claude Monet. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Smoke testing
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Smoke testing. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 January newsletter
The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer, whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:


 * and were the first people to score, for the good article Tropical Storm Bret (1981) and its good article review respectively. 12george1 was also the first person to score in 2012 and 2013.
 * scored the first ITN points for 2014 North American polar vortex.
 * scored points for an early good topic, finishing off Featured topics/She Wolf.
 * scored the first bonus points of the competition, for his work on Typhoon Vera.
 * has scored the highest number of bonus points for a single article, for the high-importance Jurassic Park (film).

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cannabis (drug)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cannabis (drug). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 February newsletter
And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:


 * , a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
 * , a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
 * , another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:


 * , who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
 * , who claimed the first featured list of the competition with Natalia Kills discography.
 * , who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dallas Buyers Club
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dallas Buyers Club. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter
A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. , who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 April newsletter
Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's, whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included, who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and , who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from, tiger from and The Lion King from. We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to and  for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 June newsletter
After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's, whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from, a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of.

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. and 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)