User talk:Hylian Auree/Archive 2

2012 WikiCup
Hi! As you've previously expressed interest in the competition, I'm just letting you know that the 2012 WikiCup is due to start in less than 24 hours. Signups are open, and will remain so for a few weeks after the beginning of the competition. The competition itself will follow basically the same format as last year, with a few small tweaks to point costs to reflect the opinions of the community. If you're interested in taking part, you're more than welcome, and if you know anyone who might be, please let them know too- the more the merrier! To join, simply add your name to WikiCup/2012 signups, and we will be in touch. Please feel free to direct any questions to me, or leave a note on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! You are receiving this note as you are listed on WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Please feel free to add or remove yourself. J Milburn (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup
Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially began at the start of 2012 (UTC), and so you are free to claim any content from after that time. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.

This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Bananaquit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trellis (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) 11:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ahalya FAC
Thanks for commenting. Would changing some commas to - enhance readability? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 11:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. Replied. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for yor edits. Replied. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for yor edits. Replied.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your constructive edits. Have replied to most of your comments. Please strike out those resolved. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have addressed Nikkimaria's reference cleanup comments. Please check. Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick response. I think I have addressed the issue. Please forgive me if I missed a reference or two. I tend to do so. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Ahalya failed the FAC, but the process of improvement continues. If you would like to add any more suggestions for improvement, please do so at Peer review/Ahalya/archive2. Thanks. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hotel Polen fire
If you can help me correcting this article I would be much grateful. Kind regards, SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 21:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the issues addressed at the FAN. Could you have a look at it? SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 02:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I lenghtened the lede somewhat and removed the references from it to the main text. Can you have a look? It isn't that long but not too short either when compared to this FA. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 23:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping to improve the article. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 01:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The article was recently copy edited by Jack Greenmaven from WP:GOCE. Can you tell me if it now stands a chance in a FAR in your opinion? Thanks in advance. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 18:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The Monster (novella) FAC
Hi Auree, thanks for your great comments and suggestions at The Monster's FAC! Much appreciated. I've replied to your points, in case you'd like to take another look. BTW, I see your main interest is in hurricanes -- thanks for giving a little American lit. article a look. :) María ( yllo submarine ) 14:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, I'd be glad to take a look at Cindy's PR for you. A word of caution: although I live in Florida, I know nothing about hurricanes/tropical storms, and even less about writing quality articles about them.  I definitely owe you after your great review of The Monster, so I'll give it a go in a few days. María ( yllo  submarine ) 18:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

A big thanks!
Thanks for helping out with the Halloween storm! I'm a daft hand at copyediting, so I appreciate the help! Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Emily
Either I'm a total pushover, or the hurricane writing crew is just all around better at bringing articles to GA standard and efficiently fixing problems that appear in the reviews. This is too bloody easy. Oh, yeah, and I promoted Emily. Cheers, and enjoy the day off tomorrow.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  20:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sven! It's probably the latter, haha--I think you do a very good job at reviewing. Cheers,  Auree    ★  20:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Cindy FAC
Let's trade FAC reviews! My article about the Santa Maria de Ovila monastery could use a reader fluent in Spanish. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Invite
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Tropical Cyclones for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter
WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is, due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by, whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is, who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.
 * was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
 * was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
 * was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
 * is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
 * was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
 * was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Peer review limits changed
This is a notice to all users who currently have at least one open peer review at Peer review. Because of the large number of peer review requests and relatively low number of reviewers, the backlog of PRs has been at 20 or more almost continually for several months. The backlog is for PR requests which have gone at least four days without comments, and some of these have gone two weeks or longer waiting for a review.

While we have been able to eventually review all PRs that remain on the backlog, something had to change. As a result of the discussion here, the consensus was that all users are now limited to one (1) open peer review request.

If you already have more than one open PR, that is OK in this transition period, but you cannot open any more until all your active PR requests have been closed. If you would like someone to close a PR for you, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Peer review. If you want to help with the backlog, please review an article whoe PR request is listed at Peer review/backlog/items. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

FAC
Hi there! Just a friendly note: In reference to this edit, it is preferable to strike items from your comments rather than deleting them. Even if they have been addressed or you change your mind about making the comment, it is easier for the FAC delegates to track comments when they don't have to check for things being removed. -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jivesh Here
Greeting Auree. My name is Jivesh. I have been editing since late 2009. I normally stick to articles related to music. I wanted to ask you whether you take copy-edit requests. Please reply. Take care. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 04:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for replying. Well, the article I wanted you to have a look at is this one. Hmm, since you said you enjoy reviewing, may I suggest you leave comments on the talk-page of the article rather than copy-editing? Of course, I have no problem if you want to copy-edit instead. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 05:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks. You are very nice. No, you can take your time. But please do it before the end of May 2012. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 05:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. how are you? Don't worry. I will comment very soon. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 04:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Aaron  &bull; You Da   One 12:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi
Hello. My name is Tomica, and I generally edit Rihanna related articles. I want to nominate "Unfaithful" for FA, however, before that I am aware that the prose needs some improvement. Could you possibly give me some comments what can I improve on the article's talk page? Thanks — Tomica   (talk)  21:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not hurrying up with the nomination. Take your time and thank you :) — Tomica   (talk)  22:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 February newsletter
Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was, again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was, thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were, , and. February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from. At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.

The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.

The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

BHG
Auree, you can ask anyone you want. I am not like that. But I cannot get along that user. Sorry. We have had serious discussions in the past. And most of his comments are absurd and based on his preferences ALWAYS especially when I am concerned. I avoid him ALWAYS though he does not. I am not willing to collaborate with him. I don't forgive people easily. I may across as rude right now but God knows and those who are close to me know that I am not. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 16:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Auree. And don't worry. Nikki and Sandy know about him. He was very famous in my SL FAC. He claimed his opinion is more reliable than an established filmmaker's one. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 16:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Auree. I'm sure you are giving me the benefit of the doubt, but I thought I'd chime in to reply to Jivesh's charge. The cited sentence that I questioned was this: "Beyoncé’s video for ‘All The Single Ladies,’ for example, broke out on the internet and made people consciously look for music videos because of its art." I doubted the author would know this for a fact. It seemed more like projection or a rhetorical flourish to me. Anyway, I can't figure out what Jivesh has against me except my oppose vote on that FAC.  Two Hearted River  ( paddle /  fish ) 20:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan FAC
Hi, I was advised by one of the reviewers to ask active FAC editors to review the Pakistan article's FAC at Featured article candidates/Pakistan/archive1‎. It has been out for nine days, the problems mentioned in the start were fixed but there have been no further comments. There was a question about a dispute that occurred after the nomination, I've explained about it on the FAC page that there's been no consensus for it on the talk page and the current version is as of consensus. Please take a look at the article and drop your review comments and/or vote. Thanks. -- lTopGunl (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Delisting File:Taylor, Elizabeth posed.jpg as Featured Picture of Spanish Wiki
I need a Spanish-language translator to delist File:Taylor, Elizabeth posed.jpg as Featured Picture of Spanish Wikipedia, which is discussed in. I found your name in WP:Translators available, so I wonder if you can be available. --George Ho (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit?
Hi Hylian Auree, hope things are going well with you. I was wondering if you'd be interested/available to help copyedit an article I've been working on getting to featured status (William S. Sadler)? Any help would be appreciated. Also, I've been helping Redtigerxyz a bit with some work on Ahalya and that's moving along well, it will hopefully be back at FAC soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of the 1990 Atlantic hurricane season at WP:FLC
Hello. Please, if you have the time, revisit this FLC which you currently oppose. I believe that most/all of your comments have at least been responded to so an update on your position would be gratefully received. Many thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 March newsletter
We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! , of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's, thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's, who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.

Congratulations to, whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to, who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!

It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)