User talk:Go Phightins!/Archive 8

DYK for Trey Watts
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Kudos
For your first DR/N, you are doing a pretty good job in my opinion.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate behavior
MarshalN20 sent me this offensive and weird message soon after the thread at the Dispute resolution noticeboard was asked to be closed. I would like to ask you tell him to stop. Regardless if he and I have different views he has no right to harass me in my talk page. --Lecen (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ at his talk. Go   Phightins  !  20:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I also wanted to let you know that I really appreciate your sincere effort to help settle the dispute. I'm aware that it took much of your free time. --Lecen (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem...good luck in resolving the dispute. Go   Phightins  !  20:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * My message was a direct response to: "almost cried now... so beautiful... not. I always feel dumber when I have to talk with MarshalN20" . I assume you did not see it, and Lecen conveniently makes no mention of it to pretend himself a victim.
 * In fact, my message at no point insulted Lecen. Aside from calling me dumb, he also mentioned he "almost cried"; so I offered him the handkerchief. Sarcasm? Yes, but not an "offense".
 * Lastly, the Poe image he wants to include is indeed quite ugly relative to the original image . My recommendation is honest.
 * What I next see is Lecen trying to take advantage of your ignorance of his actions to try to suck up to you...
 * Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 21:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Be any of that as it may, what you posted was unnecessary escalation that wasn't helpful. You two should just avoid each other outside of this discussion. Go   Phightins  !  21:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

And as to your allegation of sucking up to me, it apparently didn't work, because I advocated your position and refuted his, for the most part, in the DRN. Such allegations are not helpful in resolving this dispute, so can we please just drop them at this point and let the dispute be worked out in a formal mediation setting. Thank you. Go  Phightins  !  21:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I did note he "tried", but the success of it was never asserted. [;)]
 * And it's really not that I am trying to read between the lines, but I always watch my statements when dealing with matters related to Lecen (and Wikipedia as a whole). Your message in my talk page, though of good intention, inadvertently makes me look like the "bad guy" while Lecen gets away with his objective.
 * Regarding your last point: Yes, I agree that the mediation needs to be formal, but (again if you have not noticed) Lecen has this tendency to badger all mediators and commentators to the dispute (see:, , , and the recent comments in your talk page).
 * And it's not just in this discussion. Lecen has this magic that makes him superior to Wikiquette standards, and yet he cries out when someone does even the slightest joke on him.
 * Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 21:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

All right, I am heading out and will not be back online for >24 hours, so please don't kill each other in that time. Thanks. Go  Phightins  !  21:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've left a note for Lecen as well. Ryan Vesey 21:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
I am really confused as to what is going on over there. And as I am also quite sick (pneumonia) and my temper gets bad when I am, I am just gonna punt this to you.
 * 1) Apparently, nominations are in two different places.  I want this to go up and running quickly, too, but not if we haven't got our act together.
 * 2) All of a sudden, this issac fella has shown up and apparently taken over the whole thing.  I've nominated someone and he is not showing up at the nomination page that the discussion is taking place on.  I am also concerned about this comment, as we had specifically discussed experience NOT being any kind of prerequisite.
 * 3) Lastly, have we actually decided on a procedure to pick which of many nominations we will give the award to?  I have volunteered to serve in a clerical capacity, and I have no idea what if anything I should be doing.

Sorry to dump this on you, but as this is the first actual thing WER has put forward to do, I just think we need to have our act together on it and not let it become one guy's "baby". Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, feel better man. I'm literally on my way out right now. Can I look at this in depth tomorrow evening? Go   Phightins  !  21:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (stalker) Don't worry Gfan. There are 6 active clerks that are ready and able to facilitate the EotW. No one editor is going to rule the roost. The other five won't let that happen. We are all on the same page and wavelength...maybe not in total agreement but close. If I'm not mistaken the first EotW will be Kelvinsong and he will get his award on Sunday night. Our choosing him had a twist but it actually worked out. BTW, I agree that time and experience are not the only measuring sticks. But...don't be concerned. New  "excited to be here" editors will be acknowledged...and soon. Best. ```Buster Seven   Talk  00:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * (e/c) My biggest concern is the two different locations for the nominations. I have no problem with the guy I put up being considered next week or 6 months down the road.  Next is that somehow it sounds like new editors are going to be excluded, and I remember the consensus was that they were NOT to excluded.  Thirdly. do we have yet a page detailing exactly what this award is, and where to go to nominate, and something in there about negativity?  If not, just let me know and I will be happy to write it. And is anyone working on getting the winners's publicized? Just let me know how I can help! Gtwfan52 (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a strong believer in consensus and so typically I make proposals on talk pages, let editors weigh in, and allow a general agreement to be reached. In this case, because a number of editors seemed eager to present a recipient on January 15, I wanted to establish a bit of a framework before then, so the recognition would have the additional credibility of a group of people reviewing it based on specific criteria. But I have no problem with revisiting any or all of it. Regarding your specific points:
 * I regret the confusion regarding the nominations being at WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations, and the discussion of the nominations being held on the corresponding talk page. I suggested this because I thought for those coming to look at the nominations, perhaps to nominate someone else, it would be distracting to have discussions interspersed within. However, if the interested parties would prefer, the discussions can be held directly on the nominations page.
 * In my mind, I still think of 4-month editors as new, so maybe it's just a matter of emphasis. If there is general agreement, the criteria can be extended to highlight editors who have had promising starts of shorter durations.
 * The WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week page describes what the award is and has a link to the nominations page. The "Additional guidelines" section provides guidance on how to conduct the discussion about the nominations in a positive manner, and the "Administrative procedures" section describes the procedures for clerking the nominations and presenting the award.
 * Lastly, I don't wish to take this over this initiative at all; I'd much rather that it be driven by others. If you're unhappy with any aspect of the current process, please bring it up on the project talk page, and get things moving in a direction that better suits you. I apologize for trying to put what tenuous agreements existed on the talk page into print prior to January 15; I'm happy to let things progress at whatever pace everyone feels comfortable with. isaacl (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks for your help too. Go   Phightins  !  12:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Very well done. ```Buster Seven   Talk  13:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
TransporterMan ( TALK ) 21:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

--Amadscientist (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code that was emailed to you.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

My first try at an essay/WikiProject -Tell me what you think
User:TheOriginalSoni/Rolling Ball.

Do leave your feedback on the talk page. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/John Butler (coach) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

American football GA
Hey, I wasn't sure if you noticed but I have responded to your concerns on the GAN page.  Toa   Nidhiki05  22:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been swamped. I'll try to get back to it tonight. Go   Phightins  !  22:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

DR/N
Sorry, that did fall through the cracks. Could you remind which DR/N you mediated so I may review it please?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. It was on Juan Manuel de Rosas. It was archived probably about three days ago. Go   Phightins  !  03:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you did an exceptional job. The only thing I would advise is the following comment: "I will not support the word "dictator" being used from the encyclopedia's voice under any circumstances in the article". I would have worded that differently. It was worded as "Your support" which can make the other party assume you have taken a side. In reality to were sticking to NPOV as well as many other guidelines and even gave a perfectly reasonable comparison of Joseph Stalin. I think I would also have elaborated further on "used from the encyclopedia's voice". Many editors simply do not understand the effect of the narrative using Wikipedia as the voice of authority and I have found that needs to be discussed at length with participants. Other than that (and even then it was not a true "mistake") I think you really are ready to take on more disputes.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks. Tomorrow afternoon is open for me for now. But tonight is not, as I'm tired. Good night (well it's probably not night in your neck of the woods, but good ___ (insert time of day here) to you. Go   Phightins  !  03:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Rolling Ball
Hello, The page is up and running. We also have a Rolling Ball/Hang Out Zone for everyone to discuss whatever they want. You are also requested to watchlist/keep and eye on the Hangout page so you can keep track of whatever everyone's talking about. Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Kenny Lofton
I put a note on the talk page of this article a week ago notifying my intention to remove superfluous publisher information, and describing the reasoning behind the change. There were no objections. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, well I do object. We always include as much information about the references as possible. Perhaps we should seek additional opinions. Go   Phightins  !  23:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Citing_sources doesn't recommend - or even suggest - including the publisher, because there's no value to it - it wouldn't be useful to anyone who's checking on a citation. The same applies to newspaper and magazine articles. Publisher information is available in the article about the source itself (e.g. MLB.com or ESPN) if anyone wants to know, but it's not useful in a citation. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * At Talk:Jim Thome/GA1 you can see that User:Zepppep felt that for an article to achieve GA status it needs to have publisher info. I think it's helpful; as for the guideline, it does mention that "other details may be added as necessary". I don't see what good it does to leave it out... Go  Phightins  !  16:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Zepppep appears to have thought that 'publisher' was necessary for GA, but the examples he linked to don't bear that out. Not one of them includes a publisher. It's only for book citations that 'publisher' is recommended. You say "I don't see what good it does to leave it out". More to the point, what good does it do to put it in? Why not also add, for example, the street address of the publisher? That's factual information too, but it has no value in a citation. Correct but useless information is just clutter. In this particular article the difference is small, but there are some that repeat this unnecessary publisher info many many times, making the article significantly more difficult to edit without providing any benefit to our readers. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, seeing that it's one of the "above the fold" (e.g., don't even have to click show/hide extra fields) parameters in the web cite template, I would think others think it has value. Go   Phightins  !  21:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

GAN for 2013 Cotton Bowl Classic
Thanks for reviewing the American football GA - I've decided to review one of the articles you had for GA because that is a pretty significant game and would be a good GA if passed.  Toa   Nidhiki05  17:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All right. Thanks. Go   Phightins  !  17:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for answering questions at the Teahouse. I won't plan on answering any more at the moment, FYI. =) Biosthmors (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you too. I'm headed to bed, so feel free to answer any more. Anyway, there's no harm in multiple answers to the same question. I didn't see your responses before I did mine, but we both said roughly the same thing in different terms, maybe they'll understand one of us ;) ... anyway, thanks again. Go   Phightins  !  04:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Second Editor of the Week
Thanks. ```Buster Seven   Talk  13:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No problemo. Thanks for your help too. Go   Phightins  !  14:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit War
I assume, sir, that you have not simply sent this message to me alone? For, it takes two or more to "edit war", and while one of those individuals is an "Admin", he too is edit warring, and quite frankly behaving like an ass. I fully expect to be banned by him even thought it would be a CLEAR WP:COI, but one can not disagree with an “Admin” without being banned here at Wikipedia, where most are equal, but some are apperently MORE equal. Are you a gentleman? Or are you more equal too? =//= Johnny Squeaky
 * Johnny, what you're doing is editing against consensus, what Drmies is doing is restoring consensus. Abiding by consensus is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. If you would like me to find an impartial editor to come in, I would be more than happy to do so, but at the end of the day, I would be surprised if you'll find one who is going to go against the consensus. Go   Phightins  !  17:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As to the addendum that you posted after I typed my reply to which I edit-conflicted, no I'm not more equal than you. I'm saying that when five editors on the talk page of the article hold one opinion, you hold the opposite one and post it against consensus, that's a problem. Look, if you go deep into my talk page archives, you can find instances where I was not happy with consensus and was pretty clear about it, but eventually, I just dropped it and moved on. I would suggest you do the same. Thanks. Go   Phightins  !  18:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The opinions of TWO people does not make "consensus" and in fact the issues have not been completely discussed. Again, TWO people with the same opinion do not make a "consensus". Have you read the Talk? And, the aggressive and quite frankly nasty threats from an "Admin" really chap me. I bristle at that kind of behavior from someone who should be a paragon here. Sure, I'll drop it, but I'll not forget how I was treated by a so-called "Admin" who even though he has a clear COI, threatened me. It is apperently the way things work here, people with power abuse it. =//= Johnny Squeaky 18:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's five to one, Johnny. And you still haven't proven that ElKevbo is a sock master, that I have abused my admin tools, that you were correct in your accusations of conflicts of interest, et cetera. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your comments even here in "friendly" territory are aggressive, unfriendly, and threatening. This is behavior unfitting of an "Admin". You are clearly using your “power” to intimidate me. You shame you title, you abuse your privileges. =//= Johnny Squeaky 19:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Coolbb, Eustress, Madcoverboy, Drmies, and El Kevbo all disagree with you. How is that two editors? You're welcome to take this to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard if you'd like, but I can all but guarantee you that is not going to help your case. Go   Phightins  !  18:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * First, Drmies, and El Kevbo are essentially the same. But as I said, I give up, one can not fight the "club". However, Drmies' comments and behavior are clearly threatening and offensive, and not of a gentlemanly manner. I will say that it is a shame that "Admin" are allowed to behave in such a way, but yet I must also note that it is typical of Wikipedia these days and one of the reasons that many qualified editors flee. =//= Johnny Squeaky 19:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can all but guarantee you that Drmies and El Kevbo are not socks. Accusing them of that without evidence is reprehensible. Drmies is trying to enforce our policies, which are here because of community consensus. I advise you to re-read what Bwilkins said to you earlier, which hit the nail on the head. Go   Phightins  !  22:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hehe, you can never be 100% sure, of course! Thanks Go Phightins, Drmies (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, all I have to say is that if you and El Kevbo are socks, you have way too much time on your hands; almost 175,000 edits in five or six years?!?! Come on... No problem, by the way.  Go   Phightins  !  03:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was part of an SPI once. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 03:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello
Nice to meet you, Phillies fan. Please assume good faith. There is nothing wrong with new users voting in a RFA. Carcjoth1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to how a new user knows so much about AIV, the block user function, and assuming good faith? Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 18:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No surprises here. — Theopolisme   ( talk )  22:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Thanks
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Jim Thome, which has recently become a GA. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you be interested in an article I want to work on?
I suggest we kill the Batman!. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Zach Boren
KTC (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Congrats... You were an awesome Teahouse maître d!
Thanks for all you do in the Teahouse! Siko (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Go   Phightins  !  17:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Uploading image released under compatible creative commons licence
Hi, I am trying to upload a picture from this site:

http://www.thepimanifesto.com/

I want the circles with the green shaded pieces for a new article I am trying to write. At the bottom of the page, the site is released under a compatible licence for wikipedia (the same one actually). I know I cannot upload it to commons, because it is creative commons, not public domain. What I can't figure out is how to properly do this upload. Can you help? Tazerdadog (talk) 09:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I had to brush up on my copyright rules (which is good) to answer this question. In short, yes, since it is published under a cc-by-3.0 license, it can be uploaded to Wikipedia via the File Upload Wizard. There are directions there as to the logistics of how to do so. Good to see you're still around! Go   Phightins  !  15:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, since it's released under a free license, it can be uploaded to commons. Commons contains PD material and free material. Ryan Vesey 16:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Article I wrote
Hi! I wrote a (fairly substantial) article here. Because this article is going to be controversial (see Talk:Tau (2π) and Talk:Pi, possibly among others), I want your opinion on it. If you could pay particular attention to WP:SELFSOURCE, and WP:FRINGE, both of which this article toes the line of, I would appreciate it greatly. I am also thinking of submitting it for a DYK, do you have thoughts on that? Tazerdadog (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

uggh... Add WP:POVFORK to that...Tazerdadog (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Give me a few hours; real life is nuts at the moment. Go   Phightins  !  17:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Take all of the time you need, there is no deadline.Tazerdadog (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, Go Phightins!
I can see you're busy in real life. Concerned that I had not heard back from you on my last assignment as an adoptee (vandalism), I saw that page was deleted. Any chance we will resume this mentorship? Thank you for your help so far and sorry if our wires got crossed. Anne9853 (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, Anne. I just hadn't seen you in a while so I archived your materials. Not to worry, however, as I still have a copy of them. Give me until this afternoon or this evening to get them back onto your page. Glad to see you back! Go   Phightins  !  11:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

MANY THANKS!
Very much appreciate the EOTW award. Believe it or not, some of those remote places have folks who come to Wikipedia and like seeing their place, documented even in the smallest way. I am honoredCoal town guy (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the goal of the award! You earned it. Go   Phightins  !  22:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Just thought I'd let you know that I'm just a bit tied up with other things right now, but I'm still working! Jackson Peebles (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Congrats... You gave an awesome answer in the Teahouse!
Hi! You've been badged before but if you keep doing great work at the Teahouse it's inevitably going to keep happening ;) In this case, you went out of your way to assist a frustrated article writer who came to us from Articles for Creation. You really shepherded him through that process and helped turn a negative experience for our guest into a positive one.  How very Teahouse of you.  Thanks for being awesome!   Ocaasit &#124; c 03:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC) 
 * All in a day's work. Thanks for the recognition. Go   Phightins  !  03:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

CJ Cregg
Hello - I'm in South Jersey and also follow the Phils. I would prefer we not continually revert each others edits on the CJ Cregg article. I appreciate your previous thoughts on the matter, but, if there is no source for material it must be removed. This is not my opinion, it is policy. I added a section to the Cregg talk page as well.Catherinejarvis (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's partially true; WP:V says that "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged" need a source. As a long time fan of the TV show, I can personally corroborate everything that's in the article. I understand that that is considered original research, however. The material can be sourced, and simply is not. Again, I hope to get sources in there in the next few days, but there is no deadline for when Wikipedia needs to be finished. Go   Phightins  !  22:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate your thoughts hereCatherinejarvis (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter
Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:
 * was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
 * was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
 * was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
 * was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
 * was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:


 * was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
 * has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
 * claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of, who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

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) 00:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)