User talk:Grapple X/Archive 2

Featured Topics concern
So I was checking on topic retentions and noticed that two of the topics, Bloc Party albums and No Doubt albums, are incomplete as they are missing an album in their topic and their grace period has been long gone. Kinda makes me concerned about what other topics are like this. GamerPro64 14:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll have a scan now, but as a rule of thumb I'd say anything focussed on discographies, filmographies or currently-running tv series will often become incomplete without constant care. I'd say anything passed from now on which has the potential to grow—not just those which we know will grow—should be added to the retention list for periodic checks. Obviously if, say, a topic about Alfred Hitchcock came up, he's not making any new films, but one on David Cronenberg would have room to grow even before he announces anything new, and should be kept on hand to be checked conveniently. GRAPPLE   X  21:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking at WT:FT, I'm not convinced that several of those television season topics could be considered complete—the Smallville and Supernatural ones appear to have sidestepped the "no cherry-picking" idea by not having a full set of articles actually existing. I'm sure it wasn't done out of deliberate convenience but, for example, season one of Smallville is 21 episodes long, only 2 of which have articles; I wouldn't consider that a complete topic as there are 19 missing articles (having worked in this field I know it's entirely possible to put even some pretty obscure stuff through a full treatment) and there are several which would fall under that same umbrella. GRAPPLE   X  21:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So what should we do? We can't clog FTRC with nominations all at once? Do we just put some of them in a group and review them one at a time or something? GamerPro64  01:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say we start with the ones that have definitely lapsed (Bloc Party and No Doubt), and consider setting a brief-but-workable grace period for any that are incomplete due to missing-but-notable articles that lets us revisit them soon. They'll certainly need delisted as FTs but with maybe six weeks notice to the involved editors they could be salvaged as GTs. If they're not then they can be assessed in a group because they'd be being assessed on the exact same criteria. GRAPPLE   X  01:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Deadalive
I restarted the dead FA nomination for "Deadalive", do you have anything you might want to add/critique?--Gen. Quon (Talk)   15:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Bluerules edit
Thanks for the revert at The Dark Knight Rises. Bluerules has already been a major problem amongst several editors these past few weeks (more particularly his edits at Burt Wonderstone and his feud with Darkwarriorblake and BattleshipMan) and tries to turn things around his way against the tide. I find it so despicable like really, "Stop following me"? Can't blame stuff if that has been under watch for a long time, and his diatribes against admins are just stupid. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Trust me, I'm more than familiar. It's been going on since at least last year. GRAPPLE   X  16:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oddfellows (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Stanier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: 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 29/30 April, 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. 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) 15:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Gibraltar COI editng
Hi Grapple X. I am concerned about seeing one Gibraltar DYK per day. That's way, way, way too many for such a tiny land with a tiny population. We know there's been heavy, paid, COI editing on the topic. We should be a lot more careful. Where is the correct venue to discuss this. I hope you'll talk rather than reverting. Jehochman Talk 21:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, would you talk to me, rather than just reverting and making snyde remarks? Jehochman Talk 21:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * WT:DYK is the correct venue for this, and I'll thank you not to take a condescending tone about this. DYK frequently features many hooks on narrow subjects—hooks on racehorses, Indonesia, US television or mushrooms feature much more prominently than Gibraltar ever has, and your assertion of COI is baseless these days, that brief "paid" (read: contest with a prize, which is not unique) period having ended. If you feel that further punishment of volunteer editing is required over and above the topic being unduly singled out for restriction, you're free to propose it, but it's already been talked about ad nauseum and one editor attempting to overrule the correct procedure, which has come about due to community-wide consensus, is entirely wrong. I'll hope you'll see that rather than going off against consensus. GRAPPLE   X  21:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't like "one per day is allowed" as a formulation. I think "not excessively frequent" is much better.  Ambiguity actually helps here.  If people can remember the list Gibraltar hook, it's probably too soon to have another.  Jehochman Talk 21:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how your WP:IDONTLIKEIT approach is actually constructive here; surely your argument applies equally to any topic which may appear more than once, but I don't see you complaining about the frequency of any other topic. The restrictions have formed due to lengthy debate by both sides of this argument and arbitrarily changing them with zero discussion beforehand is poor form. If you want to see any change to the restrictions as they are at present, the burden is on you to propose a change to them and attempt to gather a consensus for it. Until then, I'd ask you to refrain from changing them any further as you are not above the will of the wider community. GRAPPLE   X  22:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not IDONTLIKEIT (and don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs), it's called L-O-G-I-C. A 2.6 square mile micronation with a hefty marketing budget targeting Wikipedia should not have its content featured on Wikipedia's home page once per day.  It's that simple.  Jehochman Talk 22:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * But it is a case of you personally not liking it, as you have once again failed to acknowledge that it features FAR less prominently than any number of subjects (I know I've put through as many hooks on one short-lived television series as I've ever read about Gibraltar). But you have no personal umbrage to bring to bear on that subject, so it's conveniently ignored. It's that simple. GRAPPLE   X  22:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for La morte risale a ieri sera
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Gender Bender
Congrats on the TFA!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  18:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sometimes I wonder why I bother nominating them though. :( GRAPPLE   X  18:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean, whether you create a small stub or write an FA, it never seems to really matter to many people on here. Often a site of silent appreciation. Email me. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  21:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree... wish people could show their love here. That was a good article though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

X-Files A-Class articles
Is there anyway you could drop by the A-class X-Files nomination and add suggestions/support/opposition to these articles: "Vienen", "The Gift", "Millennium", and "X-Cops". They've been waiting there forever, and I feel they may have been forgotten. I'd like to get them out of the limbo they're stuck in.--Gen. Quon (Talk)   16:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

List of songs recorded by Jason Newsted
Hey Grapple X, just wondered, if you have a moment, if you'd like to return to the FLC, there are more comments waiting for you! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Closing
Hey Grapple. If you can, could you close some of the nominations at FTC? Haven't been able to get around to do that myself. GamerPro64 18:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Its been a month since I asked before but can it be possible for you to close some of the nominations? GamerPro64  03:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Featured Topic Delegation
I'm really concerned about your duties for being a delegate for Featured Topics. When I ask you for to close nominations, you are unavailable to take care of them. Can you still able to to do this or should we get another delegate? GamerPro64 00:50, 1 July 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) 09:46, 1 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) 23:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK RfC

 * As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat&#124;Contributions 02:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR RFC
There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Oddfellows (album)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Oddfellows (album) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Niwi3 -- 20:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Oddfellows (album)
The article Oddfellows (album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Oddfellows (album) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Niwi3 -- 13:27, 22 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) 05:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Where in LEAD
You claim that LEAD tells us we are supposed to repeat a link if it's in the lead. Can you point me to that passage because I don't see it. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The relevant link to repeating what is linked in the lead is in WP:OVERLINK, which I also provided you. It's the last line of the section that link should anchor to. Please stop removing links which are there for a valid reason which complies with the MOS. GRAPPLE   X  03:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You cited two. I see nothing in WP:LEAD that says what you claim. So why did you cite it if now, when asked to be specific, you ignore the request? OVERLINK says a link may be repeated. It doesn't say it is required, which was your claim. So you cited a guideline that apparently doesn't say what you claim, then cited one that says "may" instead of the "requires" that you claim. Yet you now call me "disruptive"? And why does Dante Spinotti need linked again? He's linked in the infobox and the filming section. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:LEAD is an overview on the purpose of the lead; I linked it to show that it should be considered a summation of the article rather than a section within it. The reason I linked both is that the second contained the specific guideline on linking. It doesn't say anything is required--but it certainly does not back up needlessly removing links which serve a valid navigation purpose. Links used in the lead of a long article, and then not mentioned again for the first time in the article body until near the very end will of course be much easier to read and navigate if they are (correctly) linked on both of those occurrences. To remove links which follow the manual of style, exist for a valid reason, and serve a reader friendly purpose is disruptive, especially when done with absolutely no supporting rationale or guideline to it. As for why a link is useful in a reference--they should be able to be read in a vacuum. It is not, nor should it be, incumbent on a reader to chase down a link elsewhere in the article if they have followed a reflink to a citation and want to know more. At the end of the day, this site is meant for readers, and any edit which falls within the MOS and aids in reading comprehension should be considered a positive one--conversely, any edit which has no basis in the MOS and decreases readability is a negative one. The article in question underwent several peer reviews and copyedits before passing a featured article review--if any of the content was considered to have contravened either the spirit or the letter of the guidelines it would have been weeded out long ago. Your own opinions on how to interpret a guideline which is almost entirely practised the way I'm advocating is not sufficient rationale to overturn that kind of consensus. GRAPPLE   X  03:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Linking something twice really doesn't help "the reader". It just adds more blue type to a sea of blue type. You keep saying it follows the MOS, yet the MOS says "may" if it's helpful. May. While we can discuss what is or is not helpful, it will help greatly if you stop acting like your opinion is the only one and that this matter is black and white. It's not black and white. If there was not room for interpretation about what is helpful, the MOS would say "must" or "required" (as you falsely claimed it did). Claiming my edit has no basis in the MOS is a false claim, based on the notion that your opinion is the only correct one. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update
Hey Grapple. 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) (talk)   18:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm SummerPhD. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Manhunter (film) because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! ''You are engaged in an edit war about whether or not to Wikilink one name. You are not discussing it on the articles talk page. You should. You are discussing editors not content. You should not.

Please visit the article's talk page. Without so much as obliquely referring to any other editor, explain why you feel the link in question should or should not be there. (I don't know which of you wants what and don't have an opinion.) After sufficient time for anyone interested to comment, I'll give a third opinion (which is something else you might have considered to resolve this). My opinion is neither infallible nor final. After that, you may choose to provisionally accept what I think or you may seek broader input.

Or, you might choose to continue the edit war and see if an editing block helps clear up the issue.'' Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Manhunter (film). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * I have fully protected the article for 3 days. That should give you time to discuss differences (with others joining in, I hope) on the article talk page, and / or to draft an explanation of this fight for addition to WP:LAME, and in any event to read WP guidance on edit-warring (hint: don't).  Hope this helps. BencherliteTalk 01:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Squeeze (The X-Files)
This is a note to let the main editors of Squeeze (The X-Files) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on September 24, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/September 24, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

"Squeeze" is the third episode of the first season of the American science fiction television series The X-Files, premiering on September 24, 1993. It featured the first of two guest appearances by Doug Hutchison (pictured) as the mutant serial killer Eugene Victor Tooms. In this episode, FBI special agents Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) (who work on cases linked to the paranormal, called X-Files) investigate a series of ritualistic killings by somebody seemingly capable of squeezing his body through impossibly narrow gaps. The agents deduce that their suspect may be a genetic mutant who has been killing in sprees for ninety years. Production was problematic; creative differences led to the director being replaced, and some missing scenes needed to be shot after the initial filming. "Squeeze" received positive reviews from critics, mostly focusing on Hutchison's performance and the resonance of his character. Academics have examined "Squeeze" for its portrayal of the politics of law enforcement, highlighting the tension—evident throughout the series—between the agents' desire to find the truth and their duty to secure criminal convictions. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Congrats on TFA!!♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Manhunter (film). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for this Grapple, but I have no choice. That's three times you and Niteshift have gone to 3R at the same article, so protecting it is obviously not doing much. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Totally understandable; I don't mind sitting out for a while if it means the article isn't being trashed. GRAPPLE   X  00:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries about that. Niteshift managed to get 48 hours as this is nowhere near his/her first block for edit warring (I think I counted 8 or 9). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You can't count. According to this log it is 5 counting tonight's, and only one of those not counting tonight's took place in the last five years. A fifth block, for sockpuppetry, was placed accidentally and removed.
 * Hence why I said "I think". There are 8 or 9 entries, that much is clear. Now please keep discussion centred on one page. If Niteshift wants to appeal his/her block, let 'em. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You made the 8 or 9 entries remark here but entries as a block removal and a wrongly placed block plus its removal aren't something should be counted in the first place. You used 8 or 9 as grounds for the block being twice as long by your own admission and 8 or 9 is wrong and therefore your length of block is questionable especially when you can't fess up to not counting things things properly....William 11:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Neutral notice
This is a neutral notice that there is a discussion at Talk:Prometheus_(2012_film) that may be of interest to you. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Help test better mass message delivery
Hi. You're being contacted as you've previously used global message delivery (or its English Wikipedia counterpart). It doesn't feel so great to be spammed, does it? ;-)

For the past few months, Legoktm has built a replacement to the current message delivery system called MassMessage. MassMessage uses a proper user interface form (no more editing a /Spam subpage), works faster (it can complete a large delivery in minutes), and no longer requires being on an access list (any local administrator can use it). In addition, many tiny annoyances with the old system have been addressed. It's a real improvement! :-)

You can test out MassMessage here: testwiki:Special:MassMessage. The biggest difference you'll likely notice is that any input list must use a new  parser function. For example,  or. For detailed instructions, check out mw:Help:Extension:MassMessage.

If you find any bugs, have suggestions for additional features, or have any other feedback, drop a note at m:Talk:MassMessage. Thanks for spamming! --MZMcBride (talk) 05:17, 1 October 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) 22:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for The X-Files: The Album
The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for The X-Files: Unrestricted Access
The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey!
Long time no see! Have you gotten a chance to read the new X-Files Season 10 comics IDW has put out?--Gen. Quon (Talk)   05:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Haven't had the chance, man—finding single issues of comics here is pretty hit or miss, so I figured I'd wait for the trade to come out and pick the whole thing up. Is it decent at all? GRAPPLE   X  07:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's pretty comic book-y in terms of how the story unfolds, but its a lot of fun. I've really enjoyed them so far.--Gen. Quon (Talk)   20:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll definitely have to pick them up when it's all wrapped up then. GRAPPLE   X  20:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for The X-Files: Revelations
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

DYK for The Curse of Frank Black
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 31 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) 00:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The X-Files: The Album
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The X-Files: The Album you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Вик Ретлхед -- 09:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The X-Files: The Album
The article The X-Files: The Album you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:The X-Files: The Album for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Вик Ретлхед -- 13:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

X-Files FAN
I know that you're a main contributer to the project, but is there any way you could drop a comment/vote on either "The Unnatural" or "Home"? Last time, both were archived due to lack of comments, which was sad (but I guess better than being ripped apart for grammar!)--Gen. Quon (Talk)   15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think I've edited much of either so I should be able to contribute to them. It might be worth asking anyone who supported either the first time round if they're still happy to do so again, so you're not relying on finding a whole raft of new reviewers. GRAPPLE   X  22:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea! Will do. Thanks!--<font color="#B22222">Gen. Quon <font color="#708090">(Talk)   23:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Portal peer review
Hello,

I have just closed a portal peer review that you had started because the review had went unedited for several months. As I'm sure you can tell, the portal peer review process is rather understaffed, and I apologize if you didn't get what you were looking for. If you are still interested in working with portals, either the one that you brought to PPR or another one, and are looking for advice, please don't hesitate to reach out to me personally by leaving a message on my talk page. I would be happy to help.

 S ven M anguard  Wha?  21:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Curse of Frank Black
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Curse of Frank Black you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- 01:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Curse of Frank Black
The article The Curse of Frank Black you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Curse of Frank Black for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- 01:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The X-Files: The Album
The article The X-Files: The Album you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The X-Files: The Album for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Вик Ретлхед -- 08:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

X-files Gender Bender
OK, let's stick to the best practices. In this case, I would like to ask you to check my previous image additions and captions. I plan to fill in all the empty slots. I want to believe.

Best regards, Lamro (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

X-files images
Hi Grapple X,

OK with Gender Bender. Maybe you will help me with the image addition to this episode? I guess the great X-files series deserves to get full coverage in Wiki. I want all the episode articles to have nice and to-the-point screenshots and infoboxes. This is an obvious and noble goal, and it was a surprise for me to find out that it has not been fulfilled yet.

Cheers from an X-files fan from sunny Moscow, Russia! Lamro (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Beginning of MassMessage, end of EdwardsBot
Hi. You're being contacted as you're listed as an EdwardsBot user.

MassMessage has been deployed to all Wikimedia wikis. For help using the new tool, please check out its help page or drop a note on Meta-Wiki.

With over 400,000 edits to Wikimedia wikis, EdwardsBot has served us well; however EdwardsBot will no longer perform local or global message delivery after December 31, 2013.

A huge thanks to Legoktm, Reedy, Aaron Schulz and everyone else who helped to get MassMessage deployed. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive
{| |}

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

X-Files Pictures
User:Lamro added new images to almost all of The X-Files pages. I went through and removed the ones that are not needed or will probably be deleted (most of them were what had previously been in the articles before they were deleted a year or so ago). Just thought I'd give you a heads up.--<font face="Arial Black"><font color="#B22222">Gen. Quon <font color="#708090">(Talk)   18:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Aye, I saw. I've removed a few here and there that didn't meet WP:NFCC and explained on their talk page how non-free files need to meet those criteria. I think some more were nominated for deletion but I'll keep an eye on any further changes. GRAPPLE   X  23:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I feel kinda bad, and I've explained the situation, but I don't think they really understand, and I don't want to come across as "mean".--<font face="Arial Black"><font color="#B22222">Gen. Quon <font color="#708090">(Talk)   06:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand the situation, but here are my thoughts. You, guys, have left the nice and informative collection of articles screenshotless, vapid, and featureless, even though you are decorated contributors. Remember that you write articles not only for yourselves but for other readers too. Now the articles are OK for reading by robots and computers -- not by general humans. A perfect digital product with no soul or entertainment inside. I understand that you want to stick to the rules, but in this case these rules are a major pain. In many cases, it is just your opinion that added images are not critical. Respecting your previous contributions, I will not try to add images anymore. But remember -- in the future someone else will appear out of nowhere with a strong desire to add pictures. Because this desire is natural.

Best regards, Lamro (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand the value of illustrating articles, but the problem isn't that there are pictures, it's that the pictures you've been adding are under copyright and we can't use them simply because we want something decorative. A non-free image (for example, one that is copyrighted by the production companies responsible the The X-Files) has to meet a strict set of guidelines (WP:NFCC) in order to be justified under fair use. If the point is that an article could benefit from an image, free images illustrating something to do with the article would be the perfect way to solve this—for example, Gender Bender (The X-Files) or Ice (The X-Files) make use of images that fall under no copyright-related restrictions to illustrate aspects of the subject in a hassle-free manner. Wikimedia Commons is full of images that can be used freely, so there's often something that can be added to an article to illustrate it without using non-free files. GRAPPLE   X  15:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frank Black (character), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Beginning and the End and Polaroid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Frank Black (character)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Frank Black (character) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Taylor Trescott -- 16:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Frank Black (character)
The article Frank Black (character) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Frank Black (character) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Taylor Trescott -- 16:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The Lone Gunmen
I found the references from Fox and left you a response. 72.72.240.141 (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Talk:The_Lone_Gunmen_(TV_series)

File:Colony TXF.jpg
I am not even arguing that the image passes WP:NFCC, I am arguing that an image that wwas previously kept through a deletion discussion should not be speedily deleted either through the orphaning process or the disputed fair use process, but should be discussed again through a new deletion discussion. The way these screenshots have been deleted recently, you should have no problem getting the image deleted from Wikipedia, but should someone complain at least going through the proper channels of a new deletion discussion, you would be able to show that there is a new consensus to not have the image in the article. Aspects (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This just seems like a massive amount of red tape for the exact same outcome in all ways, but I'll go through it if it means we can finally get rid of some of these images. :( GRAPPLE   X  20:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.240.141 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, but please do not delete entire sections without giving a proper justification. There may certainly be good reasons to remove entire sections from articles, but doing so requires justification. Valid reasons for blanking sections include (but are not limited to):
 * Violations of the Biographies of living people policy
 * Violations of the Neutrality policy
 * Violations of the No Original Research policy
 * Information that does not rely on Reliable sources

Please note that I don't like it is NOT a valid reason for removing information from Wikipedia.

You may cite your reasons in the edit summary, or in the article's talk page if you need more room than the edit summary affords.

Thanks again,

72.72.240.141 (talk) 03:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.240.141 (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Frank Black (character)
The article Frank Black (character) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Frank Black (character) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Taylor Trescott -- 20:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy new year!
So, anything strange and unusual cooking? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey man. Hope you had a good year. Nothing overly unusual brewing on this end, everything's been pretty much the same as always. How about yourself? GRAPPLE   X  11:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relationship from hell, but then again a happy relationship would have been unusual. Glad to see you're back to editing (though I am worried that means your novel has been abandoned again...) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, no, I finished it! Still prepping it for submission though. Sorry to hear you've got some struggles, though. Have one of these: (>")> GRAPPLE   X  19:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ooh, cute Kirby. Well, if it gets published internationally I'll try and pick up a copy. Most of my English readings here have been fairly mainstream. I did read a Canadian book, Gil Adamson's The Outlander, but everything else is like Ender's Game or World War Z. Indonesian stuff, however, I'm well off the beaten track... in a class of sixty, I'm one of only two people who regularly reads Chinese Malay works from the 1900s through 1940s. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, at least you're not alone with it anyway. That reminds me of my uni days, trying to find time to put away some pulp detective fiction in between Pearl and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. I could email you a PDF if you want, should convert to an e-reader quite readily if you use one. GRAPPLE   X  19:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, have a go (still have my email address, right?). I've actually been going the other way, trying to learn photography. The results aren't bad so far, I guess (File:Kalasan Temple from the south-east, 23 November 2013.jpg is one). Mind you, I still enjoy writing prose when I have time. Speaking of which, got any GAs or FAs up for consideration? Roekiah (which you reviewed way back when) is up for FA if you want to revisit the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Working on another possible FL, but it might take a while to work through all the prose; might stick up something at FAC in the meantime (I think Ice (The X-Files) and Laborintus II are close enough to take a punt). I'll get combing over Roekiah for you during my day off tomorrow, see if I can help out any. And I'll fire you this email now, then. GRAPPLE   X  01:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, Laborintus II... I remember it well. Yeah, I think that's about ready. Will take a look at the novel later today. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:TV interview for WP:POST
Can you comment at Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk/Interviews6.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:56, 7 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)

Millennium Help
Ahh man, I'm sorry. I only copied the pages that had The X-Files reviews on them. :( Sorry I can't be of help.--<font face="Arial Black"><font color="#B22222">Gen. Quon <font color="#708090">(Talk)   05:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Man, that was quick. Don't sweat it, just figured I'd take a punt before giving in. Ah well. GRAPPLE   X  05:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Fourth Horseman (Millennium)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Fourth Horseman (Millennium) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- 19:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for The Fourth Horseman (Millennium)
Thank you Victuallers (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Fourth Horseman (Millennium)
The article The Fourth Horseman (Millennium) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Fourth Horseman (Millennium) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- 22:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive
It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:


 * This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
 * Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
 * The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
 * An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.

Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.

More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.

I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!

--Dom497

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Millennium Group
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Millennium Group you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- 02:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Millennium Group
The article Millennium Group you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Millennium Group for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- 23:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for ...Thirteen Years Later
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 27 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)

GAN March 2014 Backlog Drive
The March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! Sent by Dom497 on behalf of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Concern
Hello colleague. I was curious to know is there an official reviewing process for an article to reach A-class status? I've searched all over Wikipedia, but could not find anything related to this, so if you can provide some links regarding A-class nomination/reviewing, I'll be very thankful. Bye.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * A-Class is an optional step some wikiprojects offer, so there are not many hard-and-fast rules about it (I don't think there's an official policy on the class). I think it requires a minimum of two editors (other than the author of the article) to agree on promotion to A-Class, and the criteria are basically the same as those seen at WP:FAC, although not quite as sternly applied. It's probably safer to look at it as a rating for articles that are close to FA-Class, rather than as being a step above GA-Class. WP:MILHIST has the biggest A-Class review process on wikipedia, o it's worth having a look at their reviews to get an idea of it. GRAPPLE   X  16:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, if interested, can you volunteer for promoting Megadeth to A-class once the GA review is done?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I can give it a look if you want (great band, but their recent stuff is getting political to the point of farce for me). I'm no good at reviewing prose though so maybe you could put it up for a codyedit at WP:GOCE, which might help you more in the long run if you want to go to FAC with it. GRAPPLE   X  13:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Source/paraphrase review
Hi. I was wondering if you could do a check for close paraphrasing for Of Human Feelings, currently a good article? My last attempts at its FAC were impeded by different users (including one with whom I was having a content dispute with all the while) either telling me the paraphrase was too close or not worded to their liking (which led in some examples to me revising it in a way too close to the source). Simply put, it was derailed, and my offer to transcribe whatever hard-to-access print sources for reviewers hardly helped (even though I did one----to show I could). In the last FAC for this article, an editor suggested I should have an independent reviewer do a source review, and I saw your name at the FAC talk page. Would you be interested? Dan56 (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't mind doing it but it might be tuesday before I'll have time to sit down to it properly; if you need it done sooner I'll not be much use. GRAPPLE   X  17:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I absolutely don't mind. take your time. Really appreciate it! Dan56 (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe not the most thorough check, but I ran each heading individually through this plagiarism tool and the only match that was brought up was to the article itself. That's only checking online sources, though, and a lot of the article is sourced through print works that I don't believe are being included in that search. If you'd like to me check it against any particular print source, and are able to scan the book(s), email me any relevant pages and I'll manually check some of those to be a bit more thorough. GRAPPLE   X  01:37, 26 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)

GOCE March drive wrapup
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)