User talk:J Milburn/archive38

You're welcome
This phenomenon has always struck me, as I've said elsewhere, as a sign that someone is spending entirely too much time editing Wikipedia. We have notability guidelines that are hard and fast for a good reason—the sort of filtering bias you encountered is an NPOV violation we always strive to avoid. "It meets the notability criteria, but it shouldn't have been allowed to"—that's not Wikipedia's problem, that's reality's. Go take it up with their customer-service desk.

I hope this wasn't what spurred your temporary absence.

I am thinking of writing some mainspace essay on this for the next time this happens. Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, there's now a wiktionary entry for throffer. Daniel Case (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Coercive offer
1. Tell me why it should be a redlink for a future article. I see no other uses of it on Wikipedia, nor on the web as a whole. Google gave me <300 hits, and similarly paltry results in Google Books. 2. Don't insult others in edit summaries. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You still haven't answered why coercive offer should be redlinked. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

What's going on here? Am I the only person not allowed to use the reviews section? Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say it was probably an accidental misclick on the rollback button (happens to everyone at one point or another, please AGF). Have you tried asking Hawkeye about it? Dana boomer (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Opinion
Hi there. Just to ask do you agree with this? If I understood you right, you oppose deletion, but accept merging only if all the sourced information are placed in the EP article (and it appears they are).--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:02, 28 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) 05:18, 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) 23:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Issues with non-free content on Stay Alive (album)
Hello, I see that you tagged Stay Alive (album) as having issues with non-free content, but you don't elaborate on the talk page. Did you mean the two non-free images, the three musical samples, or the three sidebar quotes? – Quadell (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. Same question for Renditions of the Soul and Nina (album). – Quadell (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You have a new message!
Mediran ( t  •  c ) 00:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

New viewer
Hi J: Could you please help peer review Fluorine. (Fixes even more appreciated than criticism. ;-))  -TCO 98.117.75.177 (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can find some time to take a look, but chemistry is way outside my comfort zone! J Milburn (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost
Regarding [this edit], I have no problem with you resolving cross-namespace redirects or self-references, but as the person changing the redirect, it is your responsibility to redirect it somewhere that makes sense. For example, if you choose to redirect "Wikipedia Signpost" to Hedgehog or to 1919 College Football All-America Team, claiming "but the redirect violated our guidelines on cross-namespace redirects and self-references!" would not justify your edit. The burden is upon you to either find a page that is in some way related to the actual Wikipedia Signpost or to nominate the redirect for deletion at WP:RFD.

In addition, your edit summary says "this redirect violates our guidelines on cross-namespace redirects and self-references." could you please direct me to our guidelines on cross-namespace redirects? Cross-namespace redirects is an essay, not a guideline, and in addition contains a section titled "Arguments for keeping CNRs"

You could argue that Redirect (#6) should be interpreted to include editing instead of just deleting, but then Redirect (#3 and #5) would have to be interpreted to include editing as well.

You could argue that Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid applies, but that guideline says "This guideline is about self-references and specifies which types of self-references should be avoided and which kinds are acceptable. Typically, self-references within Wikipedia articles to the Wikipedia project should be avoided." and indeed Manual of Style starts out with "The Manual of Style (often abbreviated MoS or MOS) is a style guide for all Wikipedia articles". You really cannot apply MOS to non-articles such as redirects.

We have another policy that applies here: WP:BUREAUCRACY, which says "While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." Your edit does not improve Wikipedia. Your edit makes Wikipedia worse by sending someone who is looking for the Wikipedia Signpost to an unrelated page.

Please redirect the page to somewhere that makes sense or self-revert your edit.--Guy Macon (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * (I Moved the comment below from my talk page. Please don't split a conversation across multiple talk pages. That's annoying. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC))


 * If I were to type BBC into Wikipedia, I would want to find an article about the BBC, not be redirected to the BBC itself. Therefore, if I were to type Wikipedia Signpost, I would want an article about the Signpost, not the Signpost itself. The closest we have is Wikipedia community, which has a line or two on the Signpost specifically- the redirect is therefore appropriate. We have a separate Wikipedia space for a reason; unless someone is searching in that Wikipedia space, they should not find themselves there. J Milburn (talk) 07:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If you cannot find a suitable place to redirect it, nominate it for deletion. Don't just send it to the wrong place.


 * Also, you completely ignored my explanation about policy, so let me be more blunt: You reverted my change based upon a "policy" that you made up. Either show me an actual policy that tells you to do what you are doing or self-revert. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have to be this grumpy? The page Wikipedia Signpost is reserved for an article about the Wikipedia Signpost; the fact that the Signpost is not notable does not mean that the page can be used for something else. If Wiktionary happened not to be notable, we wouldn't redirect readers searching for an encyclopedia entry on the project to the project. The page Josh Milburn is reserved for an article about someone called Josh Milburn. The fact that there is no Josh Milburn (so far as I know) that is notable doesn't mean I'm free to redirect the page to my userpage. The closest we have to an article about the Signpost is an article about the Wikipedia community which does talk about the Signpost. If you are really concerned about finding a policy, how about this: one purpose of a redirect, see Redirect, is for "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article." This is a good description of my preferred redirect. Further, one valid reason for deleting a redirect is that "[i]t is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace." There are exceptions, but this is not one. This sounds like a good description of your preferred redirect. Satisfied? J Milburn (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You keep explaining why the version that existed before you made your original change is problematic and I keep agreeing with your reasons for wanting to change it, only to hear them again. I keep asking you to justify your choice of where to send it, and the reasons I am hearing are: [1] you can't think of anything better, and [2] a claim that you are redirecting to a sub-topic within a wider article. Neither Wikipedia or Wikipedia community (your two choices) lead me to a sub-topic within a wider article that is about the Wikipedia Signpost. My best guess as to a suitable target is Wikipedia community -- at least it contains the words "Wikipedia Signpost" -- but it isn't really right either, because it still leads the reader to a place that does not describe what the Wikipedia Signpost is and where to find it, just a place that mentions that it exists. I am listing this at WP:RFD so we can get some other eyes on it and perhaps a better solution. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia Signpost. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia Signpost redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Guy Macon (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Commons help
Can you edit my Commons:User:Ypnypn/common.js to remove the code preventing me from staying on that wiki? Thanks. Ypnypn (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Never mind; I managed to remove it myself. -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Music samples
The samples File:04 City of Angels 1.ogg, File:Edge of the Earth - 30 Seconds to Mars.ogg, and File:Kings and Queens - 30 Seconds to Mars.ogg are 10% of the length of the original songs and are of reduced quality from the original. It's written nowhere that they must be of 64kbps.--Earthh (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That figure is usually sufficient, the guideline does not say that samples must be of 64kbps; they must be of reduced quality from the original.--Earthh (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, since you've got experience in dealing with music samples, can you cut 1:02 to 1:23 from here so I can place it on Cryptic Writings? Thanks in advance.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Reduction requests for non-free audio clips
Hi there. I notice that you've been requesting a lot of file reductions, and have been since at least February. Evidenced by that I'm finding the ones you've requested in February today, I'm going to guess that no one is doing manual reductions except for me (and I only do them about once a year).

To be frank, as apparently the only person that's willing to spend the time doing non-free audio reductions, I have to tell you that a lot of your requests are never going to be processed. I realize that Manual of Style/Music samples exists, but I find it (like much of the rest of the Manual of Style) to be rather out of touch with reality. Aside from that the length guidelines produce unhelpful outcomes (what good is a 12 second sample?), I really don't see a difference between 64kbits and 200kbits when you're dealing with a 30 second (or a 12 second) sample. We're already meeting NFCC 2 and NFCC 3 by cutting the length, and there's absolutely nothing in the NFCC that would compel a reduction in audio quality. I don't see where the Manual of Style got that restriction, but I am choosing to ignore it (which curiously, since what I'm doing isn't a blockable offense and in the absence of anyone else that's willing to step in and makes the edits, renders that portion of the manual of style functionally moot).

With only a limited amount of time that I am willing to spend doing non-free file reductions, I am choosing to focus exclusively on reducing the length of clips that are 32 seconds or longer (I ignore 31 seconds because of the way that Wikipedia handles rounding). I am (again) choosing to ignore the manual of style and do all of the reductions to 30 seconds (again rendering it functionally moot), and in the mean time have been removing your requests when they are asking for a reduction solely of audio quality. This isn't out of disrespect to you, but rather out of a reflection of the reality on the ground, which is that those requests are going to sit there untouched forever, and are grounded in a guideline that's really not grounded in any real sense of policy.

You are, of course, free to go and revert my removals. I won't remove them again (at least not until some time in mid-2014 when, having completely forgotten about this post, I decide to again do manual non-free audio length reductions and again have the same issues with those taggings as I'm having now). If you do restore them, however, I do recommend that you track someone down that's willing to do the reductions, because it simply isn't going to happen otherwise.

Respectfully (really, I promise),  S ven M anguard  Wha?  07:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * [Copying comment I made before seeing this reply] The non-free content guidelines explicitly link to WP:SAMPLE when talking about music samples, and that guideline says that 64kbps will normally be sufficient. The non-free-content policy itself, meanwhile, requires that "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used". If we have to use lower rather than higher, and 64kbps is normally sufficient, we should be reducing music samples to 64kbps (especially when the article in which they are used is nominated at GAC or FAC) unless we have a good reason not to. (And the burden of proof would lie on those believing it should not be reduced to demonstrate that we have a good reason.) This is just the same as the way that we reduce the size of album covers to 300 by 300 px. J Milburn (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've only just seen the comment you left on my talk page. If you're going to ignore that section of the policy when you're doing your reductions, so be it, but please leave the request for further reductions there. Frankly, I think it's awful that you're ignoring the policy; there'd be a coherent argument that it'd be better if you weren't doing these reductions at all. Part of what I do is attempting to change the behaviour of uploaders, article writers and GA reviewers; by focussing on candidates at GAC, I'm helping to ensure that our higher-quality articles do not excessively use NFC, which, hopefully, will trickle-down to other articles. If there's no one else who is willing to do the reductions, then that's fine, but the article will fail at GAC. In fact, you're not the only person doing these reductions, as the article nominators are often going to be unhappy to see their article fail, so you're wrong in that regard, and, as I quoted above, you're certainly wrong to suggest that the NFCC do not require low bitrates. J Milburn (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, you've put me in a rather difficult position, as I feel quite certain that many of the edits you have just made should be reverted. I reverted two more, but then stopped myself. How about this as a compromise; I retag samples as needing reduction when they still need to be reduced according to WP:SAMPLE, but, in order to reduce your concerns about the workload this causes, I also make an effort to engage other users to reduce them and/or make an effort to reduce them myself? J Milburn (talk) 07:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding your post to my talk page and your initial reply, where you quoted the NFCC's "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used", my problem is that from that sentence, which makes complete sense (assuming, at least, that you believe that Wikipedia should have non-free media), we somehow get '64kbps is the standard'. An audio CD has a bit rate of 1,400kbps. As far as I am concerned, (with the caveat that I have no training in a sound engineer-related field), if we are that far off of professional standards (most of what you've tagged is in the mid-hundreds kbps range, and the highest I saw was one in the mid 300s) we've met our NFCC 3 obligation. NFCC 3 is there to prevent people from taking non-free content from Wikipedia and using it in the creation of a professional quality work. We've already truncated the length, and the audio quality is anywhere between a ninth (most cases) and a fifth (some rarer cases) of what's needed to do a CD (which is my stand in for professional quality work). I think that a 30 second, 147kbps file is well within the NFCC, regardless of what WP:SAMPLE says.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  07:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the rest of your reply, which you were writing while I was writing the above, I don't consider what I'm doing "ignoring the policy" (NFCC). I am clearly and unabashedly ignoring the guideline (SAMPLE) though, because I think it misrepresents the policy to such a degree that it is unworkable.
 * As for the rest, while I admire your motivations, I don't think it's going to change the behavior of uploaders. Having spent years in the trenches working with files and non-free content, I am of the opinion that there's too much volume coming from too many people, being looked at by too few eyes, for any chance of any of the image policies and guidelines to be reliably implemented under the current system. My feeling is that the only solution is to essentially force users to upload all freely licensed files to Commons and transfer all of Wikipedia's freely licensed files to Commons, so that the only things that we're dealing with locally are non-free files and free-in-the-US-so-good-on-Wikipedia-but-not-on-Commons-because-of-weird-copyright-laws files. It's worth keeping in mind that the overlap between uploaders of audio and GA writers isn't particularly large, and there are a ton of GA reviewers that wouldn't have a clue what to check in the files namespace when doing reviews. I'm not saying 'don't do this', but I am saying 'don't expect noticeable results'. We have 815,000 files, of which 150,000 are non-free, and I don't think that the number of file workers on Wikipedia is ever more than 20 at the same time.
 * Finally, as to your 'difficult position' I believe that you need to figure out a 'soft line' of where you think it's so high that it's clearly a violation, versus where it's too high but isn't worth bothering with. Maybe that's 200kbps, maybe that's 150kbps (I root for 200, but again have no training to back that). Tell me what number you've picked and I'll undo all of the tag removals I've done over that number, and remove all the tags under that number. If you pick 64kbps though, I won't remove any more but I'm simply not going to bother reverting my taggings, because that will mean we're too far off for a compromise to work.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  07:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What you're saying about the sheer numbers is why I focus on articles at GAC/FAC. The number of music samples used on Wikipedia is relatively small, and if we can get it into heads that GAs have certain standards in NFCC terms, behaviour will change. Naturally, I've not done any kind of study, but I am finding that music samples are getting better and better in terms of compliance. There aren't actually that many people who upload music samples, and so getting those few to follow the policies/guidelines is comparatively not so difficult. I'm not convinced about your "GA nominators =/= uploaders" claim, and, as for your "GA reviewers don't know what they're doing" claim- well, yes, that's the point of the aggressive tagging. (Also, as a side point, even if I have some sympathy for your bitrate concern, I really don't have sympathy for your unhappiness with the 10% rule.) J Milburn (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Casliber/Stub contest
Given you're interested in contests, thought you may have some ideas about User:Casliber/Stub contest (discussion on talk page) - I'd be trying to get another microgrant. Mainly to see how it goes and also I did think that maybe the Core Contest was a bit too gruelling to run too frequently. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory
The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Lucy Hutchinson (actress)
I added the new photograph of User:Gary Hutchinson's daughter to her article at Lucy Hutchinson (actress). I am however concerned that on the talk page he says "I do not agree for the image to be used in any other respect, purpose or use." This is clearly not acceptable for any image on Commons with that license. He refuses to talk to me on the talk page and considers me an officious busy body for warning him of his conflict of interest. I don't know if you can smooth the waters a little? I assure you I am acting in good faith as my long standing edit history and contributions will show. All good wishes Theroadislong (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, nice to speak to you again. I have been unhappy with several of the cuts this editor/user has made to the page. When you originally set the page up you included a YouTube video of an advert that my daughter was featured in. On the basis of this entry I included a more recent YouTube video of another advert. Both videos were removed from the page by Theroadislong with a simple statement that 'YouTube was not a reliable source'. Unless there has been a change of Wikipedia policy since you started this page, and included the original YouTube video, I have been left very confused and slightly disgruntled by these actions. If policy has changed I will be happy to accept your word for this. If not I would like the videos reinstated. Theroadislong has also removed a piece of TV work that my daughter filmed last November, due for airing early next year, for no given reason. The piece has been on IMDB since last spring so I am beyond why it would have been removed this summer from Wikipedia. Again the entry by me was a one-line statement of fact offered without preference, prejudice or opinion. In respect of the 'quotation' stated above, Theroadislong has been selective in his portrayal of what was actually said. What I said was "Hello, I recently updated the image on my daughter's page as the image being used was taken some 3 years ago and is not a true representation of her anymore. Despite following the instructions given to me I see that the image has still not been updated. Why not? If the page image is not to be updated with the image I have supplied then I wish the supplied image to be deleted from your database. I only agreed to the terms of the upload so that it could be used for it's originally intended purpose, that is, to update her general profile images. I do not agree for the image to be used in any other respect, purpose or use." I am happy that the image is available for your useage so long as it was used on her page. If it were not to be used on her page I would have refused your usage terms. It really was that simple, I just couldn't understand why it had not been used. I can confirm that the photo was taken by me and remains my copyright. The same image has been used on her IMDB profile as well. I know when you set the page up initially we spoke on several occasions and you were polite and informative and always conveyed a sense of inclusion to me. I was happy with your communications and understood the Wikipedia rules from which I have constantly tried to maintain a distance from personal opinion. Since I'm sure you have a record of all updates I have made, with both identities, I'm sure you would agree with this. (I took on a second identity as I couldn't remember the password for the first). With respect to the communications with Theroadislong I felt that he was negative, doubtful and belittling in his dealings with me. He can argue the toss all he likes but that IS how he left me feeling. I have no desire to communicate with him again and I certainly do not want his judgements on any of my entries in the future. If I have to be judged by him I will not use Wikipedia again. I do apologise to you if this has caused you any unnecessary aggravation, that was clearly never my intention. My intention was purely to update Wikipedia so it was as current as possible. If that is not what is wanted then I will desist from any further entries. Thank you for your time. Gary Hutchinson (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for that, good to speak to you again. 213.104.45.104 (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

FAC
I hope this won't be seen as canvassing, just wondered if there were still outstanding issues with the Storm Petrel FAC, cheers  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking for admin input
Hey J Milburn,

I happened across your profile and have been trying to figure out what to do. I feel as if the page Symbol Technologies should be deleted under guideline A7 (bad info), as I believe it is not notable...it was bought in 2007 by Motorola as the Motorola page notes in the company's history.

I opened up a discussion on the appropriate talk page, but it didn't really go anywhere. Thus, I'm looking for advice on what the next logical step would be - I didn't want to just hop in and nominate it for deletion, because upon reading I wasn't sure if I'd done everything that could be done before resorted to such a step.

Thanks for any help/advice you can offer! GRUcrule (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup newsletter problem
You're going to need to revise the newsletter. At the very last minute I beat Hawkeye's FT with one with 33 articles to which I contributed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:37, 1 November 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) 01:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Featured pictures on the Wikicup
. I did a 20-image restored set that took nearly all of September, and would have done more had my scanner not died; I was somewhat hoping that I could attract people into valuing other content types, through examples of images that greatly improve articles, but never a peep in any newsletter beyond mentioning that it existed, never highlighting a single example, ever. Somewhat disappointed, as promoting pictures on Wikipedia was the primary reason I joined the Wikicup. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's review:

January

FP "Adam Cuerden (submissions) was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg."

Meanwhile, everything actually featured got at least a couple sentences describing it:

Non FP:
 * 1) Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
 * 2) HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.
 * 3) Also, a quick mention of British Empire The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

As can be seen, while the existence of FPs was mentioned, unlike other content, they were not described in any way.

August

FP: He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing. [...] . Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone.

Non FP:
 * 1) 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.
 * 2) 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.

Again, the other content mentioned has actual descriptions of what was done.

October

FP: Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the FP prize, for 23 featured pictures in round 5, worth 805 point.

So, no. In the entire Wikicup, you never wrote a single word describing anything about any featured picture, ever, and didn't even link to a single one outside of the first one promoted.

I'm sorry, but seriously? Reading what you actually wrote about Featured pictures - trivial mentions, only in a single case linking to any example, do you really think you've acted fairly?

I'm not complaining that you didn't mention them more often, I'm complaining that you never described a single featured picture at all. Never. Not once.

Seriously, if you really want the Wikicup to not be article-only, you need to make an effort to actually describe the content being produced outside of article space. Simply saying that a type of content exists, then moving on to lengthy, enthusiastic descriptions of content of other types is hardly helpful.

However, I will agree with you on one point: You also utterly failed with Lists and ITN. You should have tried harder with them too.

Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Seth MacFarlane
The photo has been changed, so if you would like to vote on that one, please do. Sincerely,  Blurred   Lines   15:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible nomination of a GA article for FA review.
Hi J Milburn. Your user page seems to indicate a strong philosophy background which may provide good editing experience for related articles. I am thinking of recommending a page upgrade for a GA article to FA article status which may involve the reading of one or two book reviews if this might be possible for you. The book is on philosophical theodicy and is the popularly received "Evil and the God of Love". Any possible interest? AutoJellinek (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi J Milburn. In receipt of your note on my Talk page. The essay under discussion currently exists and is a GA-essay in good shape, and a strong review should be able to get it within an FA nomination. There is this ten page Introduction to the book by John Hick, Evil and the God of Love, on Amazon Books by this url (just single click on the page cover image):

http://www.amazon.com/Evil-God-Love-John-Hick/dp/0230252796

Also, the complete book review is available on the following url by a single click:

http://www.sewanee.edu/philosophy/interlocutor/archives/2009/Climenhaga.pdf

Between the two of these links it should be sufficient for the review upgrade purposes if the material looks like it is of interest to you. Possibly you could let me know what you think of them? AutoJellinek (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi J Milburn. The essay is the GA wikipage for "Irenaean theodicy" which is two-thirds about the John Hick book at present. Let me know if the links above are all working. AutoJellinek (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi J Milburn. In answer to your comment, User:ItsZ has not really been very active for the last year in seeking an upgrade for the page. My thought was that if you could do an FA evaluation for the page with your previous John Hick experience that i would then offer to bring the page up to the level of your review comments. Its quite close to an FA and it seems that going through this process could put it into the FA category. After you have a chance to look at the links to the book review included above, possibly you could let me know if your FA review of this wikipage is possible to assist in getting the page upgrade! AutoJellinek (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi J Milburn. Thanks for the quick response. Next week is election week in the U.S. and maybe it would be better to put things off for a possible FA review until later next week. Either way let me know if putting it off one week works for you, or if some other time frame works better on your schedule. I hope the book review from sewanee above is interesting to you! AutoJellinek (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi J Milburn: Only a short update from last week. If timing looks better for you this week then i guess it is a choice of whether to go straight to nominate it for FA status. If you'd prefer to do a "formal" peer review first, WP:PR is the place to go and i can go there. Do you have a preference? AutoJellinek (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi J Milburn: Thanks for the quick response, it seems you were on-line when i posted talk page. It is all researched and ready to go here, and 'yes' to university library here. Did you like reading the Climenhaga link above, was it useful? No problem with getting all original authors involved and they are free to jump in as the evaluation gets underway. The original authors have not really done much since getting the GA rating and it is pretty much open to others to improve it. User:Shii (a religion major) also seems to be on board with getting started. Either option one or option two sounds good to me, and you can let me know which one you would prefer as the better option. I hope the Climenhaga link above is interesting! AutoJellinek (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi J Milburn: Message received. Sometime tomorrow i shall try to first number your list of items on the Talk page, and then incorporate some of the preliminary responses directly into the Page text. The progress i should then mark on the Talk page as being addressed on an item-by-item basis identified by sequence number. One quick note is that Origen was only twenty-years-old when Ireneaus died, therefore no influence by Origen on Ireneaus. Regarding your inquiry into the Griffin position, here is a useful url http://www.anthonyflood.com/griffincritiquehicktheodicy.htm AutoJellinek (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi J Milburn: Earlier today i was able to add some edits directly to the Ireneaus Page, is this what you had in mind. It looked better to document each edit in the edit comment field for convience of access. There is another version of defining "theodicy" which i thought to offer here as an alternative: "Theodicy in general refers to the issue of the philosophical or theological attempt to justify the existence of that which is metaphysically or philosophically good in a world which contains so much apparent and manifest evil." Any thoughts if this would improve the Lede? AutoJellinek (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Activy Rate
Hey J, Just to let you know that my inactivity online isn't a perminent thing - I'm just taking a bit of a Wiki-break for a couple of weeks following this year's cup (but logging on and checking my Watchlists and the talk pages still). I'll be back on Wiki full time from the 25th Nov onwards as I'll be here working on Christmas DYKs as it seems that otherwise they just don't get done. But if there's anything I need to know, just email me - and I still log onto Wiki at least once a day even if I don't make any edits. Miyagawa (talk) 13:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Ode to the Bouncer
Hi. Just wanted to let you know that I've responded to your GA review comments about Ode to the Bouncer. In case you didn't know, Studio Killers are actually a really awesome electropop virtual band, and nobody knows who the real members are. You should take a listen. Anyway, thanks for the review! 和DITOR E tails 23:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:41, 16 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) 02:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Belfast meetup
Hi J, this is just a reminder about the meetup in Belfast on Saturday. I hope you'll still be able to make it. Can you please just confirm whether you'll be coming to the museum in the morning, the pub in the afternoon, or both parts? Hope to see you there, Bazonka (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Josh, you might have noticed that almost everyone has now pulled out of the Belfast meetup, which is a real shame. But it's still going ahead. So I really hope you can make it to the pub on Saturday, or it might just be me there. It will be good to meet you, and hopefully some other folk will turn up too. Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Jiosh, I got your message. Yesterday really didn't go as planned, so it would be good to meet you today instead. I'm going back to the Bridge House for breakfast soon, and to meet one of my old uni friends, so maybe you can join me there? If that's too early for you then I can go back again later this morning. I have to be on a bus at 12.30 though, so I can't meet you this afternoon. Give me a call if you can (you've got my number) or leave me a message on my talk page, which I'll check periodically. Hope to meet you soon, --Bazonka (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

FP nomination
Is there any way that I can put a Featured Photo nomination on hold, because I didn't notice the note on the description.  Blurred   Lines  19:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Help shrinking my audio files
Hi J Milburn, I'm new to the idea of the audio files on my articles needing to be smaller than 64 kbps. I have no idea how to change that for the clips on Mahaleo or any of my other music articles. I'm using a free version of Audacity to make the clips and other than cutting them short and fading in/out I have no idea how to reduce the quality further. They are already lower quality than the album version as they lost some quality being transferred to digital format. Can you help me figure out how to do this? Or is there a page in WP where I can request that somebody do it for me who knows how? Thank you! - Lemurbaby (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Delisting feature picture
You have voted on the delisting of US Postal Currency 5 cent 1862 1863. Some new information has been presented. Would you consider reviewing your vote?

The deletion request was started because it was assumed that File:US-Fractional (1st Issue)-$0.05-Fr.1231.jpg was the same currency as File:US Postal Currency 5 cent 1862 1863.jpg. The Fr.1231 currency was in better condition so it should replace "US Postal Currency 5 cent 1862 1863" as the featured image. They are not the same. The older file is of type Fr.1230 because it has an ABC monogram on the back. As a security measure, the US Post Office had the front and back of the bills printed by two companies. The back of the Fr.1230 was printed by the American Banknote Company and their ABC monogram appears in the lower right corner. The Fractional currency (United States) article explains the difference but does not show an example. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Delisting feature picture
You have voted on the delisting of US Postal Currency 5 cent 1862 1863. Some new information has been presented. Would you consider reviewing your vote?

The deletion request was started because it was assumed that File:US-Fractional (1st Issue)-$0.05-Fr.1231.jpg was the same currency as File:US Postal Currency 5 cent 1862 1863.jpg. The Fr.1231 currency was in better condition so it should replace "US Postal Currency 5 cent 1862 1863" as the featured image. They are not the same. The older file is of type Fr.1230 because it has an ABC monogram on the back. As a security measure, the US Post Office had the front and back of the bills printed by two companies. The back of the Fr.1230 was printed by the American Banknote Company and their ABC monogram appears in the lower right corner. The Fractional currency (United States) article explains the difference but does not show an example. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Hope now may support the picture.. Herald talk with me 13:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive
{| |}

Your GA nomination of An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory 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 SlimVirgin -- 00:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 December 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Glastonbury Tor/GA1
Thanks for your comments on Talk:Glastonbury Tor/GA1. I think I have addressed some of them (and User:Eric Corbett has dealt with some of the grammar errors), however there are a few of your comments which I didn't quite understand what you were asking for. I've put notes on the review pages if you'd be kind enough to take another look.&mdash; Rod talk 21:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the audio files
Hello, and regarding to the three audio files I recently added (File:Architects - Truth Be Told.ogg, File:Architects - Devil's Island.ogg, File:Rolo Tomassi - Ex Luna Scientia.ogg). I thought I followed Wikipedia's guidelines of audio files where 30 seconds long is sufficient? Please correct me if I am wrong. Jonjonjohny (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 December 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory
The article An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SlimVirgin -- 00:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:California sheephead/GA2
I have begun reviewing the article California sheephead for GA status, the one you did not promote at the first review. Please add any suggestions you have at the review page. Thanks, Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 15:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your GAR
I just want to say a big thank you for overseeing the GAR for Wilfred Talbot Smith, J! I hope to bring Jack Parsons (rocket propulsion engineer) to GAR in the coming weeks, so if you are interested in the history of Thelema, you might want to keep an eye out for that, but no pressure – I know how time consuming PhD work can be ! Have a nice Christmas/Yuletide/Winter break! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

What did
this mean? It's important when there are differing views to show all of them. Academics often disagree. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Mail
Godot13 (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

 Pr at yya  (Hello!) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.  Pr at yya  (Hello!) 04:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad Tidings and all that ...
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 December 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Not urgent, but should be looked at before the CUP begins.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  21:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

16:52, 17 March 2009 J Milburn (talk | contribs) deleted page Corsydd Llangloffan (Copyvio)
I note that you deleted an article 'Corsydd Llangloffan' stating the reason as "copyvio". Can you expand, please, as this is the official name of the SSSI as registered by Natural Resource Wales. No English name exists for these swamps other than Corsydd Llangloffan. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup
Hey J! It's me, iMatthew! I haven't had the chance to speak to you since returning to this place (and re-naming). Just dropping by to wish you luck with this year's WikiCup. I can't believe years later and that thing is still going strong. Looks like you've been doing a great job keeping it all together!  Gloss •  talk 17:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Can't say I've been following along much, so this is all news to me. I'm back on Wikipedia for the time being, though my availability will likely be reduced around March. So it's probably best I sit back and watch as much of the cup unfold as I can rather than taking part. Glad to see there's a good turnout for competitors this year!  Gloss •  talk 18:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: WikiCup 2014
Hi JM. Yes, it should be all ready for 2014, with the stress on the "should", aha. The /log page should be automatically created as well. Otherwise, a fair bit has changed on my end (migration to Labs, that sort of thing) so I do think it would be wise to be cautious. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 20:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's definitely a bug; not entirely sure if it's temporary or not. We shall see if it persists. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 23:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarification
For next year, is this sort of thing eligible for wikicup points?-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 12:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah ok thank you, my surprise was that the author seemed to have written over 5000 characters in less than 5 minutes of 2014.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 12:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year, J Milburn
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:gold; background-color:lightblue; font color:gray; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> Jhenderson 7 7 7  — is wishing you a  Happy New Year ! Welcome the <font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:green 0em 0em 0.8em,red -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,blue 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#000000"> 2014 . Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

Jhenderson 7 7 7  17:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Reworked Rene Auberjonois image
Hi, I have reworked File:Rene-Auberjonois-by-kyle-cassidy-DSC 8245.jpg and File:Rene Auberjonois, by Kyle Cassidy (Cropped).jpg, hopefully they are now more like what you were looking for at the Photography Workshop. (<font color="Green">Hohum <font color="Red">@ ) 17:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Glastonbury Tor GA review
Thanks for all the time and effort you have put into the exhaustive and comprehensive GA review for Glastonbury Tor. It has definitely improved the article. I will take on board your comments - but I don't think this one will be going near FA in the foreseeable future. Perhaps with the time it has taken (and the number of interwiki links) I should have kept this one till the wikicup.&mdash; Rod talk 20:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Help with reducing audio sample
Hey there, I have a quick favor to ask you. I recently conducted a GA review for the song "No Love Allowed". All of the issues I asked to be corrected were addressed, although we temporarily left an audio sample that was a little larger than normal in the article, with the agreement that we would find an editor who could reduce the clip for us (because neither of us know how to do it.) I remember that you mentioned this same issue when you reviewed my GAN for "Can't Hold Us Down", and I was wondering if you would be able to reduce the sample given in the article for us. (No worries if you can't!) WikiRedactor (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Review
Why did you remove my review of The Power of Four from the WikiCup? It is over and finished, done during the cup.-- Will C  19:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, I saw you had removed it on the log I guess. I had it watchlisted after my last review was removed for odd reasons. I just wanted to know what was going on. I was confused by it all.-- Will C  22:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the only ones I'm concerned about right now is Genesis (2005). I did half of it last year then finished the second half this year. Nominated it the other day.-- Will C  22:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I started all of those 4 years ago really. I work on various articles at once. They all work off each other. If you get one done, you have half of another pretty much done. By getting BFG done, I had to finish Genesis. To get Genesis finished I had to do Turning Point. I did the Production and Event on Genesis in 2013. I did the Reception and Aftermath of it in 2014, roughly half of the article. Turning Point I've done entirely during 2014. In previous years, as long as the nomination was done during the tournament pretty much it didn't matter when you worked on the article, at least that is the way it seem. I haven't been in the cup since 2012. Apparently there appears to be a rule now, which is nice because it always bugged me how people got 200 or 300 points in the first week in previous years. I don't plan to game the system. Now that I've been updated on the rules the only ones I plan to get credit for now are Turning Point which I'm still working on unless Genesis is cleared as having enough work done.-- Will C  23:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 January 2014
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
GregJackP  Boomer!   16:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
GregJackP  Boomer!   18:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
GregJackP  Boomer!   19:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarification needed
Hi, J Milburn. You said at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, quote: "The reviewer (..) closed the review for reasons which are potentially perfectly reasonable." The reasons were (quote): "Auto-failing... WP:CITEVAR, etc." To that, said (quote), "You can't make up, or imply requirements." To that, the first-time reviewer replied: "You're wrong." — Please confirm your position on the explanation given by SlimVirgin at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Because if you agree with what he said about invalid request, than the 'failed' mark is also invalid. I would like you to remove it from the talk page of War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II, and replace it with my own further request: that the nomination is withdraw by the nominator for the need of further editing. However, if you also think that SlimVirgin was wrong than of course you don't need to do anything. Thanks in advance, <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> <span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk  22:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Gymnopilus maritimus
This is a note to let the main editors of Gymnopilus maritimus know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 22, 2014. 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/January 22, 2014. 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:

Gymnopilus maritimus is a species of Cortinariaceae fungus first collected in northern Sardinia, Italy, in 2006. The species produces moderately sized, sturdy mushrooms of a reddish-orange colour. The cap, which can measure up to 70 mm across, is covered in orange fibrils, and sometimes has small scales. The yellowish stem measures up to 110 mm in length by 8 mm in width, and sometimes shows remnants of the partial veil. The mushrooms have thick gills of a variable colour, ranging from yellow to rust but staining darker, and the yellow flesh has a mild taste. The mushrooms leave a rusty-brown spore print, while the spores themselves measure from 7.5 to 11.5 micrometres in length. The species is most similar in appearance to G. arenophilus and G. fulgens, but is not closely related to either and is not particularly similar to any of its closest relatives. The species has been found only on coastal sand dunes near Olbia, Sardinia, where it was observed growing at the base of Juncus maritimus (the sea rush), between the winter months of October and January. However, there is speculation that it may also grow elsewhere in Europe. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikicup bot error
I believe there is an error with the Wikicup bot. I nominated Luke Baldwin which is on 5 wikipedias for Dyk points but I haven't received the bonus multiplier.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 20:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If there was a problem with my Scots, wouldn't it have either been noticed or changed when it gets reviewed?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 20:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as i'm aware, the Scots Wikipedia has the same policies as the English Wikipedia and most others in that new articles get reviewed by another user or admin to ensure it is notable and is in the language. Since there was no objections or comments made, I honestly do not believe there is a problem with my scots.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 21:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, why did you remove the multiplier for The Power of Four? The multiple wikis were done last year so it is entitled to the multiplier.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 11:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The rules don't say anything about that. it just says "For every 5 Wikipedias (including the English Wikipedia) on which an article or portal appears as of 31 December 2013, the article or portal is awarded an extra 0.2 times as many points if it appears on did you know, or is promoted to good article, featured article, featured list or featured portal." Just because I did take it upon myself to spread the article to other wikipedias because I wanted a wider range of people to see it, I don't see how it is fair that I lose the multiplier I am entitled to because others haven't assisted.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 11:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not the loss of points, it's the fact that that isn't made clear in the rules and it comes as a surprise to one when it arises when the comp has started.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 11:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it seemed obvious to us that this would be thought of as "gaming" the system; exhaustively listing everything competitors can't do would make the rules ridiculously long and unwieldy. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of that. You don't need to leave a message on my talk page I have my submissions page watchlisted.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 19:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup question
Hello J Milburn, I've submitted a lot of articles that became GA's in my WikiCup submissions page, and I've got a lot of points right now. Though, users have questioned their notability in music and are considering deleting them. If they do get deleted, will the points referring to those articles be deleted from my page? Thank you in advance prism   △  20:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There are no formal discussions now, but check User talk:BlueMoonset. prism   △  22:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Your Pre-FA comments on IT/AT pages
Hi User:J Milburn and thanks for your comments on the AT Talk page post. When I saw your cogent yet unattended comments on one of these pages, it looked like about half of them (a little less than half of them) could be readily adapted to the other page. In any event it looks like you know what you are doing, and possibly you can explain what your larger plans are there (it looks like the AT talk comments adapted there were not directly in sync with your plans)? FelixRosch (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In receipt of your comments on my Talk page about the history of this. Your list of update topics was quite fine and looks like it must have taken an hour or two for you to put together. My own background in this is in Platinga studies and I thought to offer to divide things up if it is remotely interesting. Addressing your listed items could easily make this a featured article which would be a nice "star" on your user page. I could offer to do half of the edits dealing with Alvin P. and "freedom"-related edits, if you could do the other half. It would be nice to see the most made of your fine list before turning the lights off. FelixRosch (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, your update suggestion sounds good. The central Plantinga material for theodicy is in his very popular and very short book "God, Freedom and Evil" and I'll leave a short quote for you below to add to the Plantinga subsection on IT if you end up with some time over the week-end as you mentioned in your note to me. If you are inclined to numbering the items in your fine list of update topics, I would try to be receptive to doing the follow-up edits to support at least some forward progress on your list. No problem if you want to shorten or alter this Plantinga edit if you find the spare time over the week-end;
 * "Plantinga's well-received book God, Freedom and Evil written in 1974 gave his response to what he saw as the incomplete and uncritical view of theism's criticism of theodicy. Plantinga's contribution stated that when the issue of a comprehensive doctrine of freedom is added to the discussion of the omnibenevolence of God and the omnipotence of God then it is not possible to exclude the presence of evil in the world after introducing the doctrine of freedom into the discussion. Plantinga's own summary occurs in his discussion titled "Could God Have Created a World Containing Moral Good but No Moral Evil," where he states his conclusion that, "...the price for creating a world in which they produce moral good is creating one in which they also produce moral evil." " FelixRosch (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Belfast event
Hi Josh. Now Christmas and new year are well out of the way, I was wondering whether you've been able to speak to anyone at the university about holding some sort of a Wiki event? Cheers, Bazonka (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi J. Milburn,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Velodona togata.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 4, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-02-04. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Help
I just recently added myself as one of the competitors in the WikiCup, and how can I make a subpage for my submissions? FairyTailRocks (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikicup name page
Hey J Milburn,

Do you mind if you can change my flag at the Wikicup mainpage? This is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiCup

Thanks! Let me know if you have any questions on THIS talkpage.

Order of the sword (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Order of the sword
 * I'll change it. What flag would you like to use? J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK points for Mangrove Robin
Hey J Milburn. For my latest DYK Mangrove Robin, the bot only awarded me with the 1.2× multiplier and not the 5 bonus points. According to the revision history, the article was created back in 2007. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , I've fixed this one, but could you take a look at why the bot missed it? Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks for the report. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 11:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles December 2013 Backlog Drive
Hi everyone, I've noticed that a few of you haven't updated your totals as several reviews have passed but on the backlog page, it still says that the article is under review or on hold.

Please update your totals and continue to do so until February 1. If the status of a review is under review or on hold according to the backlog page, even though the article may have passed/failed, it will not count towards your final total.

For those that made pledges during the drive, the final donation amount will be determined sometime in February.

Thank-you. Sent by Dom497 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 January 2014
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Bodø affair
Hi, I contribute mostly to Wikipedia in Bokmål/Riksmål (Norwegian), but I also try to have various articles I have written translated in full into English, like Moss Jernverk.

My next translation is an article about the Bodø affair, it is currently very short but I plan to translate the Bokmål/Riksmål version in full. As my English is not that good I could however need help with checking it after I have translated it, so any help in that would be nice. Best wishes, Ulflarsen (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Constance Peel
Hello! Your submission of Constance Peel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Green Giant (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup
Hi J Milburn, I wanted to touch base with you about the WikiCup. I signed up, but I see that the table hasn't yet reflected my completed work to date. Did I sign up incorrectly? WikiCup/History/2014/Submissions/Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for getting me up to speed Josh! Your guidance is much appreciated! -- Caponer (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Input request
There is discussion taking place regarding the use of non-free files. Your input there would be appreciated. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  18:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Image Policy
"Finally, as a procedural point, this image should be kept in the article only if there is a a clear consensus that it should be kept. The NFCC make clear that the burden of proof lies with those wishing to keep non-free images; a lack of consensus, then, must default to removing the image." Consensus to keep is the same as consensus to delete, site-wide. Can you please show me where it says that we must default to delete an image when there is no consensus to do so? Doc  talk  05:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Blue's Clues Wikicup
J, I get why you removed some of my points thus far in the Wikicup, but not with the FAC of this article. Yes, the majority of the work on it has been done before this year, but there has been significant work done on it this year; see this diff. The FAC occurred this year as well. I'm not trying to game or abuse the system, but I sincerely wonder about this. Thanks for the consideration. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Noel Coward Allan warren edit 1.jpg
I found a problem with this; could you please review and see if you A. agree there's an error, and B. if you do agree, if you find the edit sufficient to fix it? Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, as it's you, I'll mention I do not intend to claim this in the Wikicup, for obvious reasons: The edit took about 1 minute. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Brachymeles bonitae
Orlady (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Extension of signup for the WikiCup
Hi there J-- I'm currently writing an article for the Signpost about contests on WIkipedia. I discuss the WikiCup in it :) At the bottom of the article I mention contests that the user could join, and I would mention the WikiCup but signups for it may end by the time people see the article. I'm wondering if you could allow for signups to end on February fifth, as this would give users who read the article moar time to signup. If not it's totally ok and I understand :)

Thanks! -Newyorkadam (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
 * I'll quickly discuss this with the other judges and someone will reply here. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We're happy to keep signups open until the fifth. J Milburn (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks J! I've seen you've gotten three new signups since the newsletter, maybe it's because of the article :) -Newyorkadam (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

The Signpost: 29 January 2014
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Voltairine de Cleyre
I've done a restoration, as requested. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sardines (Inside No. 9)
Hello! Your submission of Sardines (Inside No. 9) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sardines (Inside No. 9)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sardines (Inside No. 9) 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 -- 14:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sardines (Inside No. 9)
The article Sardines (Inside No. 9) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sardines (Inside No. 9) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- 18:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Sardines (Inside No. 9)
The DYK project (nominate) 15:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 February 2014
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Histoctopus
The DYK project (nominate) 23:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of A Quiet Night In
Hello! Your submission of A Quiet Night In at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Samwalton9 (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thrive
How is the bitrate still above 64 - I thought I dropped down on Audacity. My apologies. How exactly do you drop the kpbs down? <font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa  <font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki05  23:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for A Quiet Night In
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A Quiet Night In
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A Quiet Night In 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 Grapple X -- 04:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:CUP
Hello! I appreciate that I've missed the deadline for joining the WikiCup. However, I have only just discovered it and I'd very much like to participate, if at all possible. Would you bend the rules, with Round 1 still being open? FunkyCanute (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Anti-Vivisection Coalition
Thanks from me and the DYK project for your contribution Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 February 2014
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Faryl
This is a note to let the main editors of Faryl know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 9, 2014. 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/March 9, 2014. 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:

Faryl is the debut album by British mezzo-soprano Faryl Smith (pictured), who rose to fame on the second series of Britain's Got Talent. Released on 9 March 2009, it became the fastest-selling classical solo album in British chart history, selling 29,200 copies in the first week, higher than any other debut album of a classical singer. It was produced by Jon Cohen, and the backing music was provided by a 60-piece orchestra. As part of the album's promotion, Smith made numerous television and radio appearances and filmed a music video for "River of Light", a song set to The Blue Danube. Faryl reached number 4 in the UK Albums Chart, becoming the third album by a Britain's Got Talent contestant to reach the top ten in Britain. Smith subsequently embarked on a promotional tour in the US, where the album reached number 6 on the classical chart. Faryl was fairly well received by critics, who praised Smith's performances and Cohen's production, although there was criticism for the use of the orchestra and the song choices. As one of the ten best-selling classical albums in the UK in 2009, Faryl was nominated for a Classical BRIT Award in the album of the year category. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 21 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)

WikiCup awarding system.
Greetings, J Milburn. I'm just here to inquire about the awards given at the end of the WikiCup - specifically the participant awards. In my case you see, I had submitted two GA reviews which were both considered too short for submission. I haven't really had time to do more, so I doubt my progression to the next round is imminent. In order to receive a participant award, do you need to actually have points by the end of a round where you're eliminated, or is having made submissions at all enough? Okay folks, say it with me: 1 for the money, 2 for the - the - okay, just let me read the script again first... (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, very much! :) Okay folks, say it with me: 1 for the money, 2 for the - the - okay, just let me read the script again first... (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A Quiet Night In
The article A Quiet Night In you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:A Quiet Night In for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Grapple X -- 21:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikicup table
I don't think it's working? I updated my GT two days ago and the table isn't updating. — ₳aron  10:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tom & Gerri
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tom & Gerri 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 -- 12:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup dates question
Hi J, I probably should know this but I'd just like to ask for clarification. If an article is run on DYK/GA etc between the 26th (end of R1) and the 1st, when can it be submitted for points? Would one be able to claim points in R2 for something that runs on the 28th for example?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 07:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Tom & Gerri
The DYK project (nominate) 18:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tom & Gerri
The article Tom & Gerri you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tom & Gerri for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- 23:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikicup newsletter
As both the #1 and #2 slot are featured picture people, I do hope FPS feature heavily - As I said last year, my primary reason for joining is to promote FPs. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup strategy
You wrote on the WikiCup talk page "Not updating in a timely fashion when you don't have a good reason is generally considered extremely bad form;". This was a strategy I used in the final round of the Cup in 2012. I reckoned that delaying adding some of my scores by a week or ten days might discourage my nearest rivals from excessive effort. It seemed a legitimate strategy to me although I did find it rather embarrassing finally adding the points. Sasata, who was in the lead at the time and to whom I afterwards apologised, has felt aggrieved ever since. Sasata mentioned it on the WikiCup talk page but you did not express a view at the time. I still feel the strategy was legitimate as monitoring your rivals activities in the competition seems sensible to me. I have not delayed claiming points since then.

In the WikiCup 2013 competition I used another strategy that Snowmanradio, not a competitor, thought was illegitimate, although he received little support for this view on the WikiCup talk page. In this instance I prepared a number of new articles before the final round and stored them in my user space, releasing them into mainspace later so that they would qualify for DYK during the final round. I see nothing unfair about this strategy because any competitor could do some advance preparation in this way, and arranging the timing of nominations for GAs and FAs is another obvious tactic. I don't plan to adopt either of the strategies I have mentioned in the 2014 competition. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't see a problem with either strategy as the key is getting reviews, IMO. DYK is so much easier to get reviews because of QPQ than GAN or FAC that I can't see anybody using the latter strategy winning against a flood of DYKs with bonuses. My strategy of FAs, GAs and massive FTCs certainly couldn't compete, not least because they have so many fewer bonus points on average than your biological and natural science DYKs. If you exclude bonuses I did quite well last year, but I'm _not_ sure that I want to exclude them in future years.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh. Oh, aye, so hard for ye. FPs get no bonus points at all, ever. I can update something used on dozens of Wikipedias (and often do) but it won't matter. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , ; the reason the "not updating the scoring page" strategy is not desirable is that it means that we, the judges, can't really keep an eye on the submissions; these last couple of days are busy for us as is, and if we have an extra mountain of submissions to vet... All the worse. The "userspace then move" strategy isn't ideal, but isn't as bad. If you were storing up things written in the first round in order to submit them in the final round, that wouldn't be great (and, in any case, you may struggle at DYK), but if it's something written in the weeks leading up to the final round, that's probably not too bad. If you're putting the finishing touches to an article in the final round and then moving them to the mainspace, this seems completely OK to me. I appreciate that strategic editing is going to happen, that's inevitable in a competition, so better it's transparent. The thing to remember is this: All this kind of strategic editing is producing high quality content for Wikipedia, which is our primary goal. J Milburn (talk) 11:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest, during that last round it's fairly evident to see what is going on. At that stage of the competition I wasn't just checking the scores on the tables but also what had been nominated by the other competitors. Since it doesn't require a great deal of effort (since you're only dealing with seven other competitors and technically you should be nominating through the same pages anyway to score points) there isn't a huge benefit. Mind you - I've never been close enough to winning for it to actually matter anyhow! As for the user space argument - it isn't as bad for us judges as the other because it doesn't cause that big build up. Pretty much the only major no-no is promoting in an earlier round and then trying to claim those points later. Miyagawa (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
— ₳aron  20:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Quick question
Hello J Milburn, when will the Wikicup Round 1 officially end? Prism  △  21:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Re:
I disagree on whether the reviews have been completed. I've reviewed the articles completely and the only issues are very small. In fact I could have have been bold and completed them myself since they are so small but I left them up to the author so it didn't seem as if I didn't actually review the article. I feel the closing part is a bit semantic since it is obvious that my part of the process is pretty much complete, I just have to wait on the authors so I can shift the template. Judging from the standings at 12 last night, without either review I'll be at 65th so I won't be able to earn points for them in the next round.-- Will C  22:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. I just feel it is out of my control. One of the authors of the article has a retired stamp on his page, which means it could be upwards of 2 weeks before it is actually closed. I'm just explaining my point of view on issues with the system. However, I do have a question. In previous tournaments (this being my first one in a year or two) there was a waiting list for articles people wanted counted during a certain round if they passed or something between rounds. I may be mistaken, it has been a while. I just had two articles pass today for GA. I was wondering if they could count toward this round or the next? Maybe you could clear this up for me. The help in appreciated.-- Will C  22:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Alrighty, I understand where you are coming from, I'll just wait and see if I get by to the next round.-- Will C  23:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well it appears I have passed on to round two by the tip of my hair. I have entered two GA articles that passed recently into my submissions. I did not include Sacrifice (2005) in there since I worked on it significantly last year and nominated it then. However, since I figure this will come up I did include Genesis (2005). I worked on half of it last year and the second half I did this year. To show significant contribution this year, I created the Reception and Aftermath sections, added 10 additional references, and various other edits over the entire article this year. I hope this appears to be significant contribution in the judges eyes.-- Will C  14:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 February 2014
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Mentoz (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Second-round pools
Hi there, I stopped by the WikiCup page a little while ago, and by chance I noticed that my username was entered into two pools. Since it appears that no other user is entered into multiple categories, I figured that this was done on error, so I thought that I would bring it to your attention so you or the other judges could handle it. Thanks, WikiRedactor (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for the note, copy-paste error on my part! J Milburn (talk) 00:22, 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)

A candidate for FA
Hello J Milburn,

I was thinking about nominating the House of Hasan-Jalalyan article for FA. I'm concerned that it may be too short. What do you think? Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this fine for this years?
Will the just-passed Roman Dmowski classify for this year's CUP efforts? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawal from WikiCup
Good day to you, J Milburn,

In order to focus more on schoolwork, I have decided to withdraw from the WikiCup. Not sure if there is much more for me to elaborate on, but thanks in advance for closing my participatory status in the cup.  TheAustinMan (Talk·Works) 00:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Second round
Hello! Oh, yes, I am thrilled to continue on! The only reason I didn't have more points is that in late February, I had a lot of law school business and early relationship stuff. But yes, count me in! D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 00:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Last Gasp (Inside No. 9)
Hello! Your submission of Last Gasp (Inside No. 9) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cloudchased (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Last Gasp (Inside No. 9)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Last Gasp (Inside No. 9) 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 Lemonade51 -- 17:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Last Gasp (Inside No. 9)
The article Last Gasp (Inside No. 9) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Last Gasp (Inside No. 9) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lemonade51 -- 19:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Last Gasp (Inside No. 9)
The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Bolshoy Ice Dome
Can I get your opinion on whether you think this article is sufficiently complete for GA? It's far better than most other Wikipedias, but it's shorter than I'd generally expect. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)